First. Yes, it had been a very, very long time since my last post. But there is a very good reason for this.
I moved. And I started a new job.
Actually I started two new jobs. And I moved to a completely new city. So I have been a bit distracted. Life changes and all.
I may get into that later. Or maybe not. Any way. I want to mention Darcy Cowan on Sciblogs. He has filed a complaint against the IAS. YAY!
I have talked about the IAS before here. And I was reading their blogs and leaving comments for awhile. Until I was overwhelmed by their spectacular ability to deny reality. Darcy has made a complaint to the New Zealand Charities Commission in the hope of getting the IAS deregistered as a charity. This is a good move. Charitable status should be reserved for organisations that are doing good for the community. The IAS is certainly not doing good. They in fact cause harm. And due to the tax exceptions they enjoy as a charity, we the tax payers, are indirectly supporting their efforts!
That's nuts! Crazy! Batshit insane! How can an organisation that advances dangerous misinformation and bald face lies to the public be a charity. The IAS is a danger and should be ignored and shunned until they eventually wither and disappear under the crushing mass of the forces set against them. Reason, science and proper public education that will eventually render such organisations impotent and helpless. At least that's what I'd like to see happen.
Darcy is quite clear that he doesn't want the IAS shut down. Just that they not be allowed to mascaraed as a charity. And, well I agree. I also think that such dangerous people need to be opposed. They need to be shown up as the enemies of reason and public health that they are.
You can read Darcy's post on the complaint here.
Also details of the actual submission here, here, here and here.
It's good shit. Do read it.
It makes me happy that there are people in NZ with the drive, time and expertise to do things like this.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Germany Exits on Nuclear Power
Germany's decided that they will shut down all their nuclear reactors by 2022. There are currently 17 nuclear power stations in operation in Germany and they will be progressively phased out over the next 11 years.
This is not a surprising decision, given the direction this issue has been going in Germany since the incident at Fukushima. But is it a bad choice, or a inspired vision? At first glance it would seem that Germany has simply fallen victim to unjustified fears and the agenda of environmentalists. However the issue of atomic energy production in Germany is actually more complex.
There has always been a strong environmental movement in Germany. And it seems there has been a more or less continuous opposition to nuclear reactors. Both of these movements have grown stronger in the last decade or so and it may just have been the case that Fukushima was the proverbial final straw. It does seem to be that a large section of German society is opposed to the continuation of nuclear power production. And that they have finally managed to make themselves heard.
It is not mine or anyone else's place to tell the Germans what they should or shouldn't do. But It would be nice if their decisions were based on the science and the evidence. And not on a knee jerk reaction or misguided ideology. I'm not saying that this latest development is either. But let's take a quick look at it.
The global media has certainly made a big deal of the incident at Fukushima. But it really doesn't warrant all the attention it's been getting. And it certainly isn't the striking blow against nuclear safety that many think it is. The Fukushima plant was old. It was not equipped with the same safety features that define more modern reactors. It was hit by a massive earthquake. Which it survived, intact and functioning. Then it was struck by a massive tsunami. This caused extensive damage and rendered some of the necessary backup systems non operational. After all this. There was no large scale release of radioactive material and no full meltdown. And perhaps most importantly. No one has yet died as a result of the incident.
For Germany, a country at little risk of earthquakes and tsunamis, to take Fukushima as a warning about reactor safety seems bizarre. If anything it shows how such incidents can be managed to mitigate the risks. And stands in start contrasts to incidents involving other forms of power generation in which many lives have been lost. Or the estimated tens of thousands that die every year due to the pollution released form fossil fuel power generation.
What will Germany use to replace the lost capacity. There will probably have to be some increase in their quantity of fossil fuel consumption. But it seems that they mostly plan to use renewable sources of power to cover the replacement. Can they do it?
The general consensus seems to be that the technology is not yet viable or cost effective to achieve such a goal. There would need to be a significant investment in things like solar, wind and hydro. And each of these has it's not inconsiderable problems to be overcome. Particularly hydro power with it's large environmental impact. And solar and wind power have the problem of not being able to generate on demand. But there is also the potential for Germany to get this right and become a world leader and pinup for sustainable energy. This is what German Chancellor Angela Merkel thinks. And it is possible that they will succeed.
The bottom line: If Germany is able replace the lost generation capacity with sustainable and Eco friendly power it will be giant step forward. If they are unable to do it in a cost effective way. Or if they have to fall back on fossil fuels. It will be a giant step backwards.
This is not a surprising decision, given the direction this issue has been going in Germany since the incident at Fukushima. But is it a bad choice, or a inspired vision? At first glance it would seem that Germany has simply fallen victim to unjustified fears and the agenda of environmentalists. However the issue of atomic energy production in Germany is actually more complex.
There has always been a strong environmental movement in Germany. And it seems there has been a more or less continuous opposition to nuclear reactors. Both of these movements have grown stronger in the last decade or so and it may just have been the case that Fukushima was the proverbial final straw. It does seem to be that a large section of German society is opposed to the continuation of nuclear power production. And that they have finally managed to make themselves heard.
It is not mine or anyone else's place to tell the Germans what they should or shouldn't do. But It would be nice if their decisions were based on the science and the evidence. And not on a knee jerk reaction or misguided ideology. I'm not saying that this latest development is either. But let's take a quick look at it.
The global media has certainly made a big deal of the incident at Fukushima. But it really doesn't warrant all the attention it's been getting. And it certainly isn't the striking blow against nuclear safety that many think it is. The Fukushima plant was old. It was not equipped with the same safety features that define more modern reactors. It was hit by a massive earthquake. Which it survived, intact and functioning. Then it was struck by a massive tsunami. This caused extensive damage and rendered some of the necessary backup systems non operational. After all this. There was no large scale release of radioactive material and no full meltdown. And perhaps most importantly. No one has yet died as a result of the incident.
For Germany, a country at little risk of earthquakes and tsunamis, to take Fukushima as a warning about reactor safety seems bizarre. If anything it shows how such incidents can be managed to mitigate the risks. And stands in start contrasts to incidents involving other forms of power generation in which many lives have been lost. Or the estimated tens of thousands that die every year due to the pollution released form fossil fuel power generation.
What will Germany use to replace the lost capacity. There will probably have to be some increase in their quantity of fossil fuel consumption. But it seems that they mostly plan to use renewable sources of power to cover the replacement. Can they do it?
The general consensus seems to be that the technology is not yet viable or cost effective to achieve such a goal. There would need to be a significant investment in things like solar, wind and hydro. And each of these has it's not inconsiderable problems to be overcome. Particularly hydro power with it's large environmental impact. And solar and wind power have the problem of not being able to generate on demand. But there is also the potential for Germany to get this right and become a world leader and pinup for sustainable energy. This is what German Chancellor Angela Merkel thinks. And it is possible that they will succeed.
The bottom line: If Germany is able replace the lost generation capacity with sustainable and Eco friendly power it will be giant step forward. If they are unable to do it in a cost effective way. Or if they have to fall back on fossil fuels. It will be a giant step backwards.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
The End is Comming
Yet another prediction of the end of the world is due to pass this Saturday. This latest one is brought to us by Harold Camping. A bible thumping nut job from the USA. Camping owns the family radio network. A large non profit(?) that is reportedly worth around $100 million. And Camping has done this before. With at least one previous prediction of the end times failing to come true.
Should you be afraid? I don't think so. Many, Many people and groups have predicted the end before. The end of what? In the case of the religious types. It usually involves some form of judgement followed by death for the wicked and salvation for the devout. And there are some UFO cults that have similar salvation and/or judgement/death scenarios. There are also plenty of secular apocalyptic type events that have been predicted. Things like the collapse of the world economy due to any number of factors. Or being destroyed by a meteor, or other space related event.
Most such predictions are of course nonsense. We know this because the dates have come and gone and the world is still here. And while a catastrophic event like an impact from a giant space rock is all but inevitable I'm not particularly worried about it. (Interestingly, you are more likely to be killed by an asteroid impact in your life time than win the lottery or die from an act of terrorism). The chance that the world will end in some kind of supernatural rapture is as close to zero as it is possible to get. In fact I think the odds that the entire earth will suddenly stop spinning tomorrow are better.
Camping is basing his prediction on the bible of course. He's done some selective reading an interpretation along with a bit of math (adding two numbers). I won't put forth the details here (as I feel my pages may not be able to fully contain his stupid). I always find this sort of attempt to gain real information from ancient texts to be so laughably ridiculous. It's a wonder that these people expect to be taken seriously. But they are! Camping has thousands sucked into his delusion and there is a long history of such ideas taking hold and spreading.
And what do you suppose will happen when the world keeps on keeping on after Saturday? Well of course the excuses and rationalisations will flow. These will be no admission that they were wrong. Here are three of the often supplied excuses that they may use.
*The date was off. It's actually still coming.
*The prayers of the devoted changed the mind of god and he decided to cancel/postpone the rapture.
*The prophecy was actually fulfilled but not in the way anyone expected.
And so on and so forth.
I'm not really afraid that the world will end. On my scale of things I'm concerned about. I'm actually far more worried that one of my flatmates will illegally import a deadly snake and hide it in my bed as a joke. But then I don't see the snake and it bites me. And despite living just down the road from the Hospital. They won't be able to save me because there are no snakes in NZ so they have no anti venom. And I die a horrible and painful death.
And I'm not really very worried about that at all.
Should you be afraid? I don't think so. Many, Many people and groups have predicted the end before. The end of what? In the case of the religious types. It usually involves some form of judgement followed by death for the wicked and salvation for the devout. And there are some UFO cults that have similar salvation and/or judgement/death scenarios. There are also plenty of secular apocalyptic type events that have been predicted. Things like the collapse of the world economy due to any number of factors. Or being destroyed by a meteor, or other space related event.
Most such predictions are of course nonsense. We know this because the dates have come and gone and the world is still here. And while a catastrophic event like an impact from a giant space rock is all but inevitable I'm not particularly worried about it. (Interestingly, you are more likely to be killed by an asteroid impact in your life time than win the lottery or die from an act of terrorism). The chance that the world will end in some kind of supernatural rapture is as close to zero as it is possible to get. In fact I think the odds that the entire earth will suddenly stop spinning tomorrow are better.
Camping is basing his prediction on the bible of course. He's done some selective reading an interpretation along with a bit of math (adding two numbers). I won't put forth the details here (as I feel my pages may not be able to fully contain his stupid). I always find this sort of attempt to gain real information from ancient texts to be so laughably ridiculous. It's a wonder that these people expect to be taken seriously. But they are! Camping has thousands sucked into his delusion and there is a long history of such ideas taking hold and spreading.
And what do you suppose will happen when the world keeps on keeping on after Saturday? Well of course the excuses and rationalisations will flow. These will be no admission that they were wrong. Here are three of the often supplied excuses that they may use.
*The date was off. It's actually still coming.
*The prayers of the devoted changed the mind of god and he decided to cancel/postpone the rapture.
*The prophecy was actually fulfilled but not in the way anyone expected.
And so on and so forth.
I'm not really afraid that the world will end. On my scale of things I'm concerned about. I'm actually far more worried that one of my flatmates will illegally import a deadly snake and hide it in my bed as a joke. But then I don't see the snake and it bites me. And despite living just down the road from the Hospital. They won't be able to save me because there are no snakes in NZ so they have no anti venom. And I die a horrible and painful death.
And I'm not really very worried about that at all.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Money Trouble at SETI
SETI has been forced to temporarily (I hope) shut down it's Allan Telescope Array in California due to a lack of funds. This makes me sad.
There have always been people who have argued against funding for SETI. They think it is too expensive, and is never likely to provide us with significant returns. Some people criticize the program as not being real science. They say no matter how long we look. We will never be able to make a conclusive statement about the existence of other technological civilisations.
I think that both these points are true. SETI may never give us any real return on our investment. And it may never reach an end point where they can say we are alone. And yet I still feel strongly that SETI is worth doing. And worth funding. Why?
I find it incredibly hard to believe that we live on the only planet capable of supporting life. And I find it difficult to believe that life will not arise where conditions are right. I also find it equally difficult to believe that we are the only intelligent species to emerge in our galaxy. Everywhere we look on our own plant we find life. And I think that it's likely that we will find life on other bodies in our solar system. Like on Europa. It's my bet that life will exist wherever it is possible for life to exist. And that intelligent societies will develop wherever it is possible for that development to take place. If these things are true. It could mean our galaxy is populated with hundreds of intelligent forms of life.
It might be that it isn't true. Maybe life is extremely rare. Maybe the development of technological civilisations is rare. Maybe technological civilisations have a habit of destroying themselves rather quickly once they arise. All these things are unknowns. But SETI has the potential to at least shine a tiny light into the vast darkness of our ignorance and maybe answer one critical question. Are we alone?
In my mind. The potential answer to that one question is worth all the money and all the effort of a program like SETI. The search for that answer may be the greatest pursuit Humanity ever engages in. And even though we may never find an answer. If we did. The consequences are far beyond my imagination. I'll let the great Carl Sagan have the last word.
There have always been people who have argued against funding for SETI. They think it is too expensive, and is never likely to provide us with significant returns. Some people criticize the program as not being real science. They say no matter how long we look. We will never be able to make a conclusive statement about the existence of other technological civilisations.
I think that both these points are true. SETI may never give us any real return on our investment. And it may never reach an end point where they can say we are alone. And yet I still feel strongly that SETI is worth doing. And worth funding. Why?
I find it incredibly hard to believe that we live on the only planet capable of supporting life. And I find it difficult to believe that life will not arise where conditions are right. I also find it equally difficult to believe that we are the only intelligent species to emerge in our galaxy. Everywhere we look on our own plant we find life. And I think that it's likely that we will find life on other bodies in our solar system. Like on Europa. It's my bet that life will exist wherever it is possible for life to exist. And that intelligent societies will develop wherever it is possible for that development to take place. If these things are true. It could mean our galaxy is populated with hundreds of intelligent forms of life.
It might be that it isn't true. Maybe life is extremely rare. Maybe the development of technological civilisations is rare. Maybe technological civilisations have a habit of destroying themselves rather quickly once they arise. All these things are unknowns. But SETI has the potential to at least shine a tiny light into the vast darkness of our ignorance and maybe answer one critical question. Are we alone?
In my mind. The potential answer to that one question is worth all the money and all the effort of a program like SETI. The search for that answer may be the greatest pursuit Humanity ever engages in. And even though we may never find an answer. If we did. The consequences are far beyond my imagination. I'll let the great Carl Sagan have the last word.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Do you need Real Water?
Did you know that the water you drink has been damaged by it's journey through pipes and filters. The water has been stripped of it's electrons and is acidic, positively ionized and clumpy.
These are the claims made by the company Affinity on their site selling Real Water. But not only do they know all this terrible stuff about our water. They will sell you the solution. Red flag!
"Is the water you drink slowly killing you?"
That's the scare mongering they open with. They then launch into a spiel of nonsense and scientific sounding crap. There really is far too much rubbish here to deal with, or I shall be typing away for hours. So I'll just pick out a few of the good(?) ones.
Affinity claims that the water we drink is stripped of electrons and clumps up to form larger molecules that then cannot get into our cells.
The water we drink is not stripped of electrons. There really is not other way to say it. It's a meaningless claim that has no evidence and goes against all know chemistry. Water does not form permanent "clumps". Water is bound together by very weak van der Waals forces. The Brownian motion of the water molecules (the random movement they experience in a still liquid) is more than enough to ensure all the molecules are always in motion relative to each other.
Affinity claims that many of the processed foods we eat are acidic. While the fresh fruits and vegetables are alkaline.
Um.. Have they never heard of citric acid? Many fruits are extremely acidic. The fact is that the acidity or alkalinity of any food is entirely determined by its composition. And there is no evidence to suggest that eating processed food as opposed to fresh food has any of the effects they claim.
Affinity claims that many nutritionists believe that most diseases flourish and grow rapidly in an acidic environment and not in a alkaline environment.
Who are these many nutritionists? Where is the evidence for this? Is there any evidence that drinking water of a higher pH will lead to "more alkaline environment" (whatever that means) within the body?
Affinity claims that the ionized water acts as free radicals that steal electrons from our cells.
Well we already saw that the claim of missing electrons is false. But in addition to that. Free radicals are not found in water. They are short lived molecules that result as a byproduct of normal body functioning.
The water we drink will vary in pH depending on it's source. Pure water is pH neutral (pH of 7) but most water will be slightly acidic due to carbon dioxide that dissolves out of the atmosphere. Carbonated water can have a pH as low as 5. Where as ground water with a lot of calcium carbonate (Lime) dissolved in it can have a pH as high as 12. Though you probably would not drink that. There is no evidence that variations of pH in the water we drink has any affect on our health.
This is just another of those scams that throws in plenty of misconceptions along with misstatements of fact and out right lies. Puts it all together with scary warnings all couched in scientific sounding language. Then they give it the trappings of legitimate technology by throwing in trademark symbols and words like proprietary. And all this is done in the hope that they will fleece some stupid people out of their money. They probably won't go away quickly. Their bullshit "eastern" counterpart, Kangen Water, which they actually reference on their site, have been selling their magical water machines for years. And those things aren't cheap.
These are the claims made by the company Affinity on their site selling Real Water. But not only do they know all this terrible stuff about our water. They will sell you the solution. Red flag!
"Is the water you drink slowly killing you?"
That's the scare mongering they open with. They then launch into a spiel of nonsense and scientific sounding crap. There really is far too much rubbish here to deal with, or I shall be typing away for hours. So I'll just pick out a few of the good(?) ones.
Affinity claims that the water we drink is stripped of electrons and clumps up to form larger molecules that then cannot get into our cells.
The water we drink is not stripped of electrons. There really is not other way to say it. It's a meaningless claim that has no evidence and goes against all know chemistry. Water does not form permanent "clumps". Water is bound together by very weak van der Waals forces. The Brownian motion of the water molecules (the random movement they experience in a still liquid) is more than enough to ensure all the molecules are always in motion relative to each other.
Affinity claims that many of the processed foods we eat are acidic. While the fresh fruits and vegetables are alkaline.
Um.. Have they never heard of citric acid? Many fruits are extremely acidic. The fact is that the acidity or alkalinity of any food is entirely determined by its composition. And there is no evidence to suggest that eating processed food as opposed to fresh food has any of the effects they claim.
Affinity claims that many nutritionists believe that most diseases flourish and grow rapidly in an acidic environment and not in a alkaline environment.
Who are these many nutritionists? Where is the evidence for this? Is there any evidence that drinking water of a higher pH will lead to "more alkaline environment" (whatever that means) within the body?
Affinity claims that the ionized water acts as free radicals that steal electrons from our cells.
Well we already saw that the claim of missing electrons is false. But in addition to that. Free radicals are not found in water. They are short lived molecules that result as a byproduct of normal body functioning.
The water we drink will vary in pH depending on it's source. Pure water is pH neutral (pH of 7) but most water will be slightly acidic due to carbon dioxide that dissolves out of the atmosphere. Carbonated water can have a pH as low as 5. Where as ground water with a lot of calcium carbonate (Lime) dissolved in it can have a pH as high as 12. Though you probably would not drink that. There is no evidence that variations of pH in the water we drink has any affect on our health.
This is just another of those scams that throws in plenty of misconceptions along with misstatements of fact and out right lies. Puts it all together with scary warnings all couched in scientific sounding language. Then they give it the trappings of legitimate technology by throwing in trademark symbols and words like proprietary. And all this is done in the hope that they will fleece some stupid people out of their money. They probably won't go away quickly. Their bullshit "eastern" counterpart, Kangen Water, which they actually reference on their site, have been selling their magical water machines for years. And those things aren't cheap.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Homeopathy Truth in the Australian Media
It's nice and refreshing to see the main stream media actually come together with a story that presents the truth as it really is. It's more often the case that so called "sensitive" or "controversial topics are treated with white gloves. One usually assumes this is an attempt to appear fair and balanced. So that they aren't seen to be taking sides and pissing off some of their viewers. And they do it all in the name of objective reporting. But more often than not this just leads to false balance.
So it's really nice to see Australian show Today Tonight airing a story with the truth about Homeopathy.
Here tis'
This is a good story. Featuring notable skeptics Simon Singh, James Randi and Richard Saunders of the Skeptic Zone podcast. It's also good that they didn't allow a Homeopath equal time to spout mountains of garbage as is the usual treatment.
The President of the Australian Homeopathy Association, Michelle Hookham, was featured though. And predictably. She spouted garbage. Let's have a looksee at what she said.
At 4:20:
"People think that one day Quantum Physics will be able to explain just how such ultra dilutions of substances can still have a medicinal effect."
lol. What's wrong with this? She throws out the old appeal to Quantum Physics. Brian Dunning has (jokingly?) suggested that this should be it's own logical fallacy. And sometimes I'm inclined to agree. This is a classic response of the pseudo scientist and alt med proponent. And it's complete and utter rubbish. It's almost always said by people who don't have the slightest idea what Quantum Physics is or even how science works.
Iv'e had it argued to me that we don't know everything. And that one day we may discover new Quantum Physics or "anther layer" that will enable us to understand Homeopathy. This is flawed reasoning. Science is cumulative and builds on itself. It's also internally and logically consistent. As is the universe (If it wasn't, we would not be able to study it with science). This means that any new science we discover must agree with the science we already have. If it didn't. It would mean that the laws of physics and chemistry are changing all the time. And in such a universe. Doing science becomes impossible. All or experience indicates that the universal laws are static. Therefore. The laws that rule out Homeopathy as an impossibility now. Also rule out the discovery of a mechanism for it.
At 5:02:
"It's very hard to measure Homeopathy using the benchmark of the randomized clinical trial. And the reason for that is because of the individualised nature of the treatment itself."
What's that I hear? It's the sound of special pleading. Special pleading is a logical fallacy where by one effectively makes convenient excuses for why the result is not the one you want. If Homeopathy worked, as she claims it does, then it must have an effect in the real world. If it has an effect then it can be tested. End of story. And it has been tested. And it fails every time.
Her point about the individualised nature of the treatment is just bullocks. Homeopathy is a billion dollar industry where sugar pills and bottles of water are massed produced in enormous quantities. There is nothing individualised about it.
The patient in Michelle Hookham's office also throws out a couple of the standard replies in defense of alt med.
"It's worked for 250 years."
Well leaving aside the fact that it actually has never worked. The fact that something is old gives it no more validity then anything else. Homeopathy was invented (not discovered) at a time when almost nothing useful or correct was known about the human body. This argument is a logical fallacy know as the argument from antiquity.
"...millions of people use it."
Ah yes. We couldn't have a defense of alt med with out the fallacious argument from popularity. Does it really need to be explained that just because a lot of people do something doesn't mean that it is effective or even a good idea. Billions of people prey to invisible deities and it has no effect. Millions of people smoke tobacco. Does that mean that smoking is good for you?
The scary thing is that the reports of people using Homeopathy to immunize children in place of vaccines is true. And the case of the Homeopath and his wife sent to jail for the manslaughter of their baby is so tragic. But these things are the result of this kind of nonsense and broken thinking making its way into our society. It's not just a harmless issue of peoples freedom to so what they want with their own bodies. it's an issue of education. So that the venerable are protected from not only those that would prey on them. But also those that would do harm while honestly believing they are helping.
Good on Today Tonight for reporting things as they really are. Like it or not many people rely on the information they receive form the mainstream media. And these kinds of stories are just too rare.
So it's really nice to see Australian show Today Tonight airing a story with the truth about Homeopathy.
Here tis'
This is a good story. Featuring notable skeptics Simon Singh, James Randi and Richard Saunders of the Skeptic Zone podcast. It's also good that they didn't allow a Homeopath equal time to spout mountains of garbage as is the usual treatment.
The President of the Australian Homeopathy Association, Michelle Hookham, was featured though. And predictably. She spouted garbage. Let's have a looksee at what she said.
At 4:20:
"People think that one day Quantum Physics will be able to explain just how such ultra dilutions of substances can still have a medicinal effect."
lol. What's wrong with this? She throws out the old appeal to Quantum Physics. Brian Dunning has (jokingly?) suggested that this should be it's own logical fallacy. And sometimes I'm inclined to agree. This is a classic response of the pseudo scientist and alt med proponent. And it's complete and utter rubbish. It's almost always said by people who don't have the slightest idea what Quantum Physics is or even how science works.
Iv'e had it argued to me that we don't know everything. And that one day we may discover new Quantum Physics or "anther layer" that will enable us to understand Homeopathy. This is flawed reasoning. Science is cumulative and builds on itself. It's also internally and logically consistent. As is the universe (If it wasn't, we would not be able to study it with science). This means that any new science we discover must agree with the science we already have. If it didn't. It would mean that the laws of physics and chemistry are changing all the time. And in such a universe. Doing science becomes impossible. All or experience indicates that the universal laws are static. Therefore. The laws that rule out Homeopathy as an impossibility now. Also rule out the discovery of a mechanism for it.
At 5:02:
"It's very hard to measure Homeopathy using the benchmark of the randomized clinical trial. And the reason for that is because of the individualised nature of the treatment itself."
What's that I hear? It's the sound of special pleading. Special pleading is a logical fallacy where by one effectively makes convenient excuses for why the result is not the one you want. If Homeopathy worked, as she claims it does, then it must have an effect in the real world. If it has an effect then it can be tested. End of story. And it has been tested. And it fails every time.
Her point about the individualised nature of the treatment is just bullocks. Homeopathy is a billion dollar industry where sugar pills and bottles of water are massed produced in enormous quantities. There is nothing individualised about it.
The patient in Michelle Hookham's office also throws out a couple of the standard replies in defense of alt med.
"It's worked for 250 years."
Well leaving aside the fact that it actually has never worked. The fact that something is old gives it no more validity then anything else. Homeopathy was invented (not discovered) at a time when almost nothing useful or correct was known about the human body. This argument is a logical fallacy know as the argument from antiquity.
"...millions of people use it."
Ah yes. We couldn't have a defense of alt med with out the fallacious argument from popularity. Does it really need to be explained that just because a lot of people do something doesn't mean that it is effective or even a good idea. Billions of people prey to invisible deities and it has no effect. Millions of people smoke tobacco. Does that mean that smoking is good for you?
The scary thing is that the reports of people using Homeopathy to immunize children in place of vaccines is true. And the case of the Homeopath and his wife sent to jail for the manslaughter of their baby is so tragic. But these things are the result of this kind of nonsense and broken thinking making its way into our society. It's not just a harmless issue of peoples freedom to so what they want with their own bodies. it's an issue of education. So that the venerable are protected from not only those that would prey on them. But also those that would do harm while honestly believing they are helping.
Good on Today Tonight for reporting things as they really are. Like it or not many people rely on the information they receive form the mainstream media. And these kinds of stories are just too rare.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
CAM in Modern Medical Care
When it comes to the integration of CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) into modern medical care two questions immediately come to mind. Is it safe? And does it work?
Contrary to the beliefs of most CAM proponents. There are not two types of medicine. There is only medicine that has been tested and found to be safe and effective. And everything else. The everything else is things that either have not been proven to be safe and effective. Or things that have been tested and found to be either not safe or not effective.
A few examples if I may. Aspirin: Tested and found to be both safe and effective. Antibiotics: Tested and found to be both safe and effective. The smallpox vaccine: Tested and found to be both safe and effective. Homeopathy: Tested and found to be safe yet ineffective. Acupuncture: Tested and found to be safe (provided sterile technique is used) and no more effective than sticking random needles in anywhere.
If a modality is proven to be both safe and effective it then becomes medicine.
So what about modalities that are safe but ineffective? If this is what the patient wants, should the medical profession offer these treatments to patients?
The first question is whether or not it is ethically responsible to offer a patient a treatment that provides no actual benefit? In effect should a doctor administer a placebo? This is a tricky issue and one that I'm not in the least bit capable of doing justice to. But it is my opinion that it isn't right for doctors to offer treatments they know have no benefit other then placebo when an effective treatment exists. Full disclosure requires, in my opinion, that the doctor explain that the treatment being sought is in fact proven ineffective. And I think all efforts should be made to convince the patient that a proven, effective treatment would be in their interest. Even in the case where no known effective treatment exists. It is still wrong to offer an ineffective treatment that may create false hope in the patient.
The second question is should such modalities even have a presence in modern medical care? My preference is no. Modern medicine should be science based. Training and practice should be limited to treatments and care that has backing and basis for proven safety and efficacy. However. If quacks, the deluded and the general con artists insist on promoting and practicing unsafe and ineffective modalities. And the public continues to see these as acceptable forms of treatment. And even sometimes viable and equal alternatives to real medicine! Would it not be better to at least being them into the supervision of qualified medical professionals. So that when the inevitable intervention is required. It can be administered quickly and competently? On this issue I am tempted to say yes. But I have strong objections on two grounds.
First. I feel that this would severely weaken the scientific base upon which modern medicine stands. And would be an enormous waste of health care resources.
Second. Such a move would seem to legitimise CAM as an acceptable medical option. This would have a severe negative impact on the public understanding of science and the role it plays in medicine.
The danger of CAM when practiced outside of legitimate medical supervision, (if it needs to be stated) is that it both delays, or entirely prevents, real and effective medical intervention. Which has the possibility of causing severe injury or death. And it contributes greatly to the public misunderstanding of science and it's role in society. Which in turn leads to a public that is less scientifically literate as a whole.
So what is the solution? I think that the only answer is to raise the public understanding of science and the role it plays in our modern medical system. There needs to be a better general understanding of why CAM persists and why it isn't the legitimate competitor to medicine that some believe it to be. This can only be done through positive public education on the subject.
Proponents of CAM often site the broken medical system that we have now as justification for pushing their alternatives. In reality, the actual medical system has nothing to do with the science. If the science is solid then it speaks for itself. Those same people will often grossly underestimate the profits involved in CAM. Homeopathy is itself a billion dollar industry. There is enormous profit in selling water to the deceived. The supplement industry makes billions selling pills that will have no effect. Other than causing you to produce expensive urine. CAM is not an alternative to big business. It is big business. The largest producers of CAM "medicine" are the same companies that produce the science based medicine.
Magic and superstition may have served us in the past. But there is a better alternative now. One that has been proven to work and been more successful than any other method of investigation in human history.
Science is the best tool we have for investigating the world and distinguishing what is real from what we want to be real. This is why we base our medicine in science. This is why our average life span in the developed world has doubled. And it's why things like malaria, AIDS and Cancer no longer mean automatic death. To disregard all this in favor of magic is to reject reason itself.
Contrary to the beliefs of most CAM proponents. There are not two types of medicine. There is only medicine that has been tested and found to be safe and effective. And everything else. The everything else is things that either have not been proven to be safe and effective. Or things that have been tested and found to be either not safe or not effective.
A few examples if I may. Aspirin: Tested and found to be both safe and effective. Antibiotics: Tested and found to be both safe and effective. The smallpox vaccine: Tested and found to be both safe and effective. Homeopathy: Tested and found to be safe yet ineffective. Acupuncture: Tested and found to be safe (provided sterile technique is used) and no more effective than sticking random needles in anywhere.
If a modality is proven to be both safe and effective it then becomes medicine.
So what about modalities that are safe but ineffective? If this is what the patient wants, should the medical profession offer these treatments to patients?
The first question is whether or not it is ethically responsible to offer a patient a treatment that provides no actual benefit? In effect should a doctor administer a placebo? This is a tricky issue and one that I'm not in the least bit capable of doing justice to. But it is my opinion that it isn't right for doctors to offer treatments they know have no benefit other then placebo when an effective treatment exists. Full disclosure requires, in my opinion, that the doctor explain that the treatment being sought is in fact proven ineffective. And I think all efforts should be made to convince the patient that a proven, effective treatment would be in their interest. Even in the case where no known effective treatment exists. It is still wrong to offer an ineffective treatment that may create false hope in the patient.
The second question is should such modalities even have a presence in modern medical care? My preference is no. Modern medicine should be science based. Training and practice should be limited to treatments and care that has backing and basis for proven safety and efficacy. However. If quacks, the deluded and the general con artists insist on promoting and practicing unsafe and ineffective modalities. And the public continues to see these as acceptable forms of treatment. And even sometimes viable and equal alternatives to real medicine! Would it not be better to at least being them into the supervision of qualified medical professionals. So that when the inevitable intervention is required. It can be administered quickly and competently? On this issue I am tempted to say yes. But I have strong objections on two grounds.
First. I feel that this would severely weaken the scientific base upon which modern medicine stands. And would be an enormous waste of health care resources.
Second. Such a move would seem to legitimise CAM as an acceptable medical option. This would have a severe negative impact on the public understanding of science and the role it plays in medicine.
The danger of CAM when practiced outside of legitimate medical supervision, (if it needs to be stated) is that it both delays, or entirely prevents, real and effective medical intervention. Which has the possibility of causing severe injury or death. And it contributes greatly to the public misunderstanding of science and it's role in society. Which in turn leads to a public that is less scientifically literate as a whole.
So what is the solution? I think that the only answer is to raise the public understanding of science and the role it plays in our modern medical system. There needs to be a better general understanding of why CAM persists and why it isn't the legitimate competitor to medicine that some believe it to be. This can only be done through positive public education on the subject.
Proponents of CAM often site the broken medical system that we have now as justification for pushing their alternatives. In reality, the actual medical system has nothing to do with the science. If the science is solid then it speaks for itself. Those same people will often grossly underestimate the profits involved in CAM. Homeopathy is itself a billion dollar industry. There is enormous profit in selling water to the deceived. The supplement industry makes billions selling pills that will have no effect. Other than causing you to produce expensive urine. CAM is not an alternative to big business. It is big business. The largest producers of CAM "medicine" are the same companies that produce the science based medicine.
Magic and superstition may have served us in the past. But there is a better alternative now. One that has been proven to work and been more successful than any other method of investigation in human history.
Science is the best tool we have for investigating the world and distinguishing what is real from what we want to be real. This is why we base our medicine in science. This is why our average life span in the developed world has doubled. And it's why things like malaria, AIDS and Cancer no longer mean automatic death. To disregard all this in favor of magic is to reject reason itself.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Measles in Hastings
Six cases of English Measles have been confirmed in Hastings in the past week. Measles outbreak in Hastings.
Measles is an entirely preventable affliction. All it takes is two doses of vaccine. If roughly 95% of the population were vaccinated then measles would disappear. These stories, and similar accounts, should simply not be happening. The fear and misinformation spread by anti vaccination proponents is directly to blame for the suffering of these children. It is sad that it may take a full scale epidemic of a deadly condition like Pertussis in our children for people to once again realise the wisdom of vaccination.
Living in a modern society as we do comes with certain responsibilities. In exchange for all the benefits that the society provides. Certain things are expected of us. One of those things, in my opinion, is to ensure that one is not unnecessarily contributing to the suffering of other members in the society. And in particular to ensure that the children of the society are safe, and guarded against undue suffering and preventable death. This means that we should be ensuring that our population is fully vaccinated. In this way we can prevent the suffering and death caused by vaccine preventable illness. It is the responsibility of every member of our community, in a position to do so, to unsure that this is done.
Humans are terrible at risk assessment. It is true that vaccines are not guaranteed to be 100% safe. Because nothing is. And nothing can be when it comes to medical science. But the evidence is overwhelming that the benefit form vaccination far out weights any possible negative consequences. That being the case. Many parents still opt not to vaccinate their children. They make the assessment that the risk is too high. Although I will suggest many of them take their child for a drive in the car. The child is thousands of times more likely to be seriously injured or killed in a car accident than injured by a vaccine. Yet their chance of contracting a vaccine preventable illness (at present immunisation rates) is roughly comparable to death or permanent disability by motor vehicle accident.
We could reduce the accident rate on our roads dramatically if we made the speed limit 20 Km/hr. But we don't. Because we accept the risk. If you accept the risk of driving a car then it makes no sense to reject vaccination as too risky.
The inability of people to properly assess risk is a fascinating topic that I won't go into further. I think my point is made.
Vaccinations save lives and prevent suffering. The science is clear and has been tested over and over again. Who are any of us to deny this protection to our youngest and most vulnerable citizens?
Measles is an entirely preventable affliction. All it takes is two doses of vaccine. If roughly 95% of the population were vaccinated then measles would disappear. These stories, and similar accounts, should simply not be happening. The fear and misinformation spread by anti vaccination proponents is directly to blame for the suffering of these children. It is sad that it may take a full scale epidemic of a deadly condition like Pertussis in our children for people to once again realise the wisdom of vaccination.
Living in a modern society as we do comes with certain responsibilities. In exchange for all the benefits that the society provides. Certain things are expected of us. One of those things, in my opinion, is to ensure that one is not unnecessarily contributing to the suffering of other members in the society. And in particular to ensure that the children of the society are safe, and guarded against undue suffering and preventable death. This means that we should be ensuring that our population is fully vaccinated. In this way we can prevent the suffering and death caused by vaccine preventable illness. It is the responsibility of every member of our community, in a position to do so, to unsure that this is done.
Humans are terrible at risk assessment. It is true that vaccines are not guaranteed to be 100% safe. Because nothing is. And nothing can be when it comes to medical science. But the evidence is overwhelming that the benefit form vaccination far out weights any possible negative consequences. That being the case. Many parents still opt not to vaccinate their children. They make the assessment that the risk is too high. Although I will suggest many of them take their child for a drive in the car. The child is thousands of times more likely to be seriously injured or killed in a car accident than injured by a vaccine. Yet their chance of contracting a vaccine preventable illness (at present immunisation rates) is roughly comparable to death or permanent disability by motor vehicle accident.
We could reduce the accident rate on our roads dramatically if we made the speed limit 20 Km/hr. But we don't. Because we accept the risk. If you accept the risk of driving a car then it makes no sense to reject vaccination as too risky.
The inability of people to properly assess risk is a fascinating topic that I won't go into further. I think my point is made.
Vaccinations save lives and prevent suffering. The science is clear and has been tested over and over again. Who are any of us to deny this protection to our youngest and most vulnerable citizens?
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
EKEN Power Bands = Another Crappy Scam
Check it out. These EKEN Power Bands are using the same nonsense as the Power Balance range of crappy products that I wrote about in one of my first posts.
What are they? Well they are just pieces of silicon fashioned into a bracelet that you can wear around your wrist. That's all. I'm sad to see that the Hurricanes are endorsing such rubbish. But perhaps thats why they are playing so shit this season. Coincidence?
It's all total a total scam. EKEN claims to use nano Frequency Infusion Technology (wtf?) to ensure that each product receives a highly concentrated dose of the required frequencies (their words). I'm not making this up. Really look. This is a classic example of taking scientific sounding words and mashing them together to make it sound high tech and fancy.
So perhaps it is worth going through this a little. Especially since scamers seem to be using this word frequency a lot now. It's almost up there with quantum and energy in it's frequency (haha) of use in the pseudo-science scam marketplace. What is a frequency exactly? Frequency refers to the period of oscillation of an oscillating system. If there is nothing oscillating then there can be no frequency.
for example. The second hand on an analogue watch ticks with a frequency of 1 Hz. That means it moves once every second. The Rock radio station has a frequency of 96.5 kHz. That means that the electro magnetic radiation carrying the signal has a peak every 0.0000103 seconds. And that the electrons in the broadcast antenna producing that signal are oscillating at half that period.
The word frequency has no meaning unless it is applied to something oscillating. People do not have frequencies. Nature does not have a frequency and neither do holograms.
These crappy bands coat $90 if you buy them off the site. And they are sold in a lot of stores. Including Rebel Sport. If you really need a magical rubber bracelet to improve your whatever. Go buy, and wear, a rubber band. Or better yet get one of these! They are made in the same factory. Using the same process as the Power Balance bracelets (and maybe the EKEN bands too. I don't know).
Whenever some product is using the word frequency as part of it's marketing. Be Skeptical. This should raise a red flag. And then you can ask the right questions. What frequency? What's oscillating? What's the power source? ect. ect.
What are they? Well they are just pieces of silicon fashioned into a bracelet that you can wear around your wrist. That's all. I'm sad to see that the Hurricanes are endorsing such rubbish. But perhaps thats why they are playing so shit this season. Coincidence?
It's all total a total scam. EKEN claims to use nano Frequency Infusion Technology (wtf?) to ensure that each product receives a highly concentrated dose of the required frequencies (their words). I'm not making this up. Really look. This is a classic example of taking scientific sounding words and mashing them together to make it sound high tech and fancy.
So perhaps it is worth going through this a little. Especially since scamers seem to be using this word frequency a lot now. It's almost up there with quantum and energy in it's frequency (haha) of use in the pseudo-science scam marketplace. What is a frequency exactly? Frequency refers to the period of oscillation of an oscillating system. If there is nothing oscillating then there can be no frequency.
for example. The second hand on an analogue watch ticks with a frequency of 1 Hz. That means it moves once every second. The Rock radio station has a frequency of 96.5 kHz. That means that the electro magnetic radiation carrying the signal has a peak every 0.0000103 seconds. And that the electrons in the broadcast antenna producing that signal are oscillating at half that period.
The word frequency has no meaning unless it is applied to something oscillating. People do not have frequencies. Nature does not have a frequency and neither do holograms.
These crappy bands coat $90 if you buy them off the site. And they are sold in a lot of stores. Including Rebel Sport. If you really need a magical rubber bracelet to improve your whatever. Go buy, and wear, a rubber band. Or better yet get one of these! They are made in the same factory. Using the same process as the Power Balance bracelets (and maybe the EKEN bands too. I don't know).
Whenever some product is using the word frequency as part of it's marketing. Be Skeptical. This should raise a red flag. And then you can ask the right questions. What frequency? What's oscillating? What's the power source? ect. ect.
Space X Heavy Lift Vehicle Coming
Space X has unveiled plans for a heavy lift rocket capable of carrying a 53,000 kg payload into low earth orbit. The Falcon Heavy will be the most powerful launch vehicle in current use when it is complete. Capable of carrying almost twice the payload of the space shuttle (Soon to be extinct) into low earth orbit. And able to carry reasonably weighty payloads out past escape velocity.
The entry of commercial operators into the space flight business is a good step forward. And Space X is a good candidate with a proven record. They have shown that they can be reliable and flexible to the changing needs of this developing industry. They have also demonstrated a good ability to learn from past errors and failures. And make the required adjustments with remarkable speed and efficiency. Something government based agencies are notoriously bad at.
If we want to continue to explore space (and I think that we do). And if we want to someday return to the Moon, and then travel on to Mars. We must encourage the commercial space industry to continue to grow. And the best way to do this is for government based space agencies to contract with these companies to provide launch vehicle capacity. At least until space tourism is viable business.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Natural Disasters and God
With all the recent focus on natural disasters and the terrible toll in human lives. I have an interesting question on my mind. That is how the do the devout masses reconcile their faith and belief in an interventionist deity with the toll in human lives and suffering?
Now in one sense this is an uninteresting question that can be simply dismissed with at few pithy words. Something along the lines of: "God works in mysterious ways". "His ways are not our ways". "We cannot know the mind or the plans of God". Et cetera, et cetera blah blah blah. But I think that these attempts at dismissing the question raise considerable problems of their own. And that there are yet other, more interesting insights that can be gained by addressing this idea.
(Also, I will use God/Deity in the following to refer to all interventionist deities. Not just the Judeo-Christian God.)
The first thing I want to look into is whether or not god is causing or allowing natural disasters to occur. On the one hand God may be actually causing natural disasters to happen. If this is the case then why? It could be that God is simply using natural disasters to kill people. Why would God do that? Because of some offence given? Then why kill indiscriminately? There are many other far more precise and targeted ways of killing people you don't like. Especially when you're omnipotent. If god is killing in such an indiscriminate fashion then surely God is not benevolent. One of the key properties of such deities.
Maybe God is not actually causing the natural disasters but simply allowing them to occur and not intervening. But then we have the same problem as above. If God is supposed to care. Why allow people of all kinds to die it such large numbers. If God can intervene and save us why does he not?
Perhaps he does not intervene because to do so would have consequences that could prove to be worse? No. That just doesn't make sense if God is omnipotent.
What if God is not causing the disasters but simply unable to prevent them from occurring. If this is the case then God is not omnipotent. Thus loosing another one of those key properties it is said to have.
So in essence. Either your God is a mean evil fucker who enjoys the inflicted suffering of his creations, or refuses to prevent it. Or it is a weak, impotent nothing that is unable to prevent the suffering.
Now I don't buy any of the rationalisations that attempt to resolve these problems while still maintaining an omnipotent and/or benevolent God. To wave the question away by saying that the mind of god it not to be known by us (or some equivalent). Is ridiculous and dishonest. These explanations are given by people who make it their lives work to understand and interpret the mind of God. Not only that but they have been doing it for a long, long time. Do they mean to tell us that a few thousand years (in some cases) of this pursuit has yielded nothing of any value? How can they say that God is this, that and the other and wants x, y and z from us. Then turn around and say we cannot understand what God wants or how God thinks?
To my mind, this kind of blatant dishonesty and upfront nonsense is an insult to any intelligent, thinking person.
Another thought I have is that any God that demands so much in the way of worship and obedience. And at the same time casually decides to exterminate hundreds of thousands of people in a single random stroke. Some of whom were no doubt devout followers. Is an irrational lunatic not deserving of a even the smallest amount of my energy or time.
There is no God. Natural disasters and the devastation they bring are the result of physical forces naturally operating on and within our earth. Is it really so hard to believe that the universe in which we live is completely unconcerned about our existence. All the evidence points to this conclusion. I am perfectly happy with the reality of our situation. We are insignificant. Basically nothing in an unimaginably large expanse of nothing. It isn't necessary to derive meaning or purpose by the invention of a supernatural parental figure.
Now in one sense this is an uninteresting question that can be simply dismissed with at few pithy words. Something along the lines of: "God works in mysterious ways". "His ways are not our ways". "We cannot know the mind or the plans of God". Et cetera, et cetera blah blah blah. But I think that these attempts at dismissing the question raise considerable problems of their own. And that there are yet other, more interesting insights that can be gained by addressing this idea.
(Also, I will use God/Deity in the following to refer to all interventionist deities. Not just the Judeo-Christian God.)
The first thing I want to look into is whether or not god is causing or allowing natural disasters to occur. On the one hand God may be actually causing natural disasters to happen. If this is the case then why? It could be that God is simply using natural disasters to kill people. Why would God do that? Because of some offence given? Then why kill indiscriminately? There are many other far more precise and targeted ways of killing people you don't like. Especially when you're omnipotent. If god is killing in such an indiscriminate fashion then surely God is not benevolent. One of the key properties of such deities.
Maybe God is not actually causing the natural disasters but simply allowing them to occur and not intervening. But then we have the same problem as above. If God is supposed to care. Why allow people of all kinds to die it such large numbers. If God can intervene and save us why does he not?
Perhaps he does not intervene because to do so would have consequences that could prove to be worse? No. That just doesn't make sense if God is omnipotent.
What if God is not causing the disasters but simply unable to prevent them from occurring. If this is the case then God is not omnipotent. Thus loosing another one of those key properties it is said to have.
So in essence. Either your God is a mean evil fucker who enjoys the inflicted suffering of his creations, or refuses to prevent it. Or it is a weak, impotent nothing that is unable to prevent the suffering.
Now I don't buy any of the rationalisations that attempt to resolve these problems while still maintaining an omnipotent and/or benevolent God. To wave the question away by saying that the mind of god it not to be known by us (or some equivalent). Is ridiculous and dishonest. These explanations are given by people who make it their lives work to understand and interpret the mind of God. Not only that but they have been doing it for a long, long time. Do they mean to tell us that a few thousand years (in some cases) of this pursuit has yielded nothing of any value? How can they say that God is this, that and the other and wants x, y and z from us. Then turn around and say we cannot understand what God wants or how God thinks?
To my mind, this kind of blatant dishonesty and upfront nonsense is an insult to any intelligent, thinking person.
Another thought I have is that any God that demands so much in the way of worship and obedience. And at the same time casually decides to exterminate hundreds of thousands of people in a single random stroke. Some of whom were no doubt devout followers. Is an irrational lunatic not deserving of a even the smallest amount of my energy or time.
There is no God. Natural disasters and the devastation they bring are the result of physical forces naturally operating on and within our earth. Is it really so hard to believe that the universe in which we live is completely unconcerned about our existence. All the evidence points to this conclusion. I am perfectly happy with the reality of our situation. We are insignificant. Basically nothing in an unimaginably large expanse of nothing. It isn't necessary to derive meaning or purpose by the invention of a supernatural parental figure.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Jury Service.
I've just got back from the district court after attending a jury selection process. And I thought I would get down how it went, what was involved and my thoughts on the whole thing and jury service in general. All this while it's still nice and fresh in my mind (for whatever that's worth).
The Selection Process
I think I'll begin by describing the selection process as it went. So it starts with a letter summoning you to attend at the district court for jury service. At this stage you are invited to attempt to provide an excuse if you feel that you cannot attend for any reason. Acceptable reasons are things like; Work, family commitments, disability ect. If you cannot supply an excuse, or if your excuse is not accepted. Then you are required to attend the selection process.
The selection process begins with all those who turned up collecting in a large room. I would estimate there were probably somewhere between 150-200 of us present at this point. Then there is a video. The video was about how jury service is important and blah blah blah. And some things we needed to know about the process.
After the video there was the house keeping. This is the evacuation procedure, these people can help your out and so on. That was followed by an explanation of the process we were about to follow for the selection. And another video explaining that process in detail. Then it went as follows.
There was a ballot drawn for each of the two trials starting that morning. The ballots were drawn one after the other. The first for court room 9. The second for court room 4. As each persons name was drawn from the wooden box, they had to acknowledge by saying yes. My name was drawn for court room 9. There were 50 names drawn for each room.
At the conclusion of the draw. Those whose names had not bee drawn were dismissed for the day with instructions to check with the court after 6 pm that evening to see if they would be needed again.
After a brief break of about ten minutes or so. The group for court room 9 was ushered out of the jury selection room and up one level into court room 9. There we were all seated in the public gallery at the back of the court room. The Judge, counsel and court personnel had already taken their seats but the accused was absent.
The court was called to session and the accused was brought in. The charge was read and the accused was asked if they were guilty or not guilty. They pleaded not guilty. The judge then explained to us that the prosecution would read the names of the witnesses to be called and that we were to indicate if we knew any of them. We were also asked to indicate if we thought we could not be impartial, now that we knew the identity of the accused, the counsel and the nature of the charge. No one excused them self.
Then the draw for the jury began. Again names were drawn out of a wooden ballot box. As each name was drawn. That person was required to go and take a seat in the jury box. At this point the counsel for each side (defense or prosecution) could challenge the selection before the person took their seat. This simply involved them saying "challenge". At which point the unwanted juror would simply turn around and return to their seat.
So the draw started. Names were read out and people took their seats. The first challenge came from the defense and it was one I expected (more on that later). The second challenge also came from the defense but was not one I expected. The third and last challenge came from the prosecution and was against my selection (again, more later).
After the selection was complete the jurors were asked to take and oath or swear an affirmation (more later) that they would do their job properly. Then they retired to choose a foreman. The judge explained that some of the jury could still drop out at this point and so we were not yet dismissed. When the jury returned. We were dismissed with instructions to check back if we would be needed tomorrow.
My Thoughts on the Selection
So the first thing I have to say is that I was actually rather impressed with the speed and efficiency of the whole thing. I really did expect it to be far more time consuming. The room was perhaps a bit too small for the number of people and it became a little stuffy despite the air conditioning. This was bearable though as we were not in there for too long a time.
Any way thats just noise.
The two points I really want to get to are the challenges to the jury selection and the oath/affirmation required by the jurors.
The oath/affirmation.
As each juror goes to take their seat in the jury box they are offered a bible by the court attendant. This can be declined, as was explained to us in the video, by a shake of the head or a gesture of the hand. It is weird that this is stilled practiced. I cannot understand the association between the christen religion and our justice system. New Zealand is a secular state and our laws should have absolutely no connection with religion. No matter how slight.
This connection is reinforced by the oath that is administered to the jurors. It reads:
"Members of the jury: Do each of you swear by Almighty God (or solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm) that you will try the case before you to the best of your ability and give your verdict according to the evidence?"
Almighty god? What the hell? Even if you want to argue that this exists purely as a historical artifact and has no real connection to Christianity. I still think it's complete bullocks. Of the 12 jurors that I saw take the oath today only 6 took the offered bible. And the history argument just doesn't hold water. We don't maintain links to other areas of our law that we no longer accept as right. This is holding up Christianity as something special in our society. And that is simply not a reflection of who we are as New Zealanders. How about this.
"Members of the jury: Do each of you solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm, that you will try the case before you to the best of your ability and give your verdict according to the evidence?"
What's wrong with that? The jury promises to hear the evidence and base their decision accordingly. Not just good rules for a jury but a pretty good strategy for life!
The challenge to selection.
So as I mentioned above. The final selection for the jury involves a ballot and then these can be challenged by the counsel for either side. This is called peremptory challenge. The information video we had been shown earlier explained that counsel can challenge for any reason they like. They just say. "Challenge". And that person doesn't sit on the jury. What is the point of this? The video suggested that it may be done to get a better balance on the jury. Balance of what I ask? Gender, Age, Socioeconomic status? From the challenges I saw today this did not seem to be the case.
The only thing that makes sense to me is that the challenge affords the counsel an opportunity to exclude jurors that they think may not look favorably on their case. And by so doing. Give themselves a better opportunity to be successful.
The reason peremptory challenge exists is so that counsel can exclude people who they believe may have a bias in some direction. And this is supposed to ensure a decision that is more fair and acceptable to all involved.
I disagree with this. First. How can you tell from someones name and appearance(the only information the counsel has) that they have any kind of bias? Correction:They also have access to your age, address and whatever your occupation is as listed on the electoral roll. But the point still stands. You can't. At best your can make a rough probabilistic guess based on your experience. But this is going to clouded by your own biases.
Second. The challenges can be used to move the jury away from a representative cross section of society. This could be done for any number of purposes. For example. A counsel may know that a mostly female jury is more likely to convict for rape. And so they may use their challenges to exclude men. Random selection would result in a more or less even and balanced representation most of the time.
The challenges during todays session certainly contributed to the second of these two and highlighted the first.
The first challenge was against young pacific island man. I had been sitting near him earlier in the day and heard him talking to another person. He was in second year at university and studying business. But he was dressed like he was on his way to work at a construction site. His name was called and I immediately expected a challenge form the defense (of whom I had made my own judgement). Sure enough. The second the defense lawyer looked up and saw him the challenge was made. So the defense lawyer immediately judged this lad as someone unfavorable just on appearance.
The second challenge was a middle aged man. I did't expect this one and I don't know why the defense lawyer challenged him.
The third challenge was me. My name was called and I got up to take my seat. Right before I sat down I was challenged by the prosecution and I returned to my chair. I of course have no idea why my selection was challenged. The best I can come up with is because I'm young and male (The accused was young, female and not unattractive).
The jury ended up being mostly older with 8 women and 4 men. There was one person under 30. A young woman who I would guess to be early twenties. One guy I would guess is in his mid thirties. And the rest would be 50 or over I think. O. And all of European descent (aka white). Is this an accurate representation of our society? You would have a hard time convincing me of that.
Jury Service and the Jury System.
I'm not opposed to the jury system and jury service. Although I am happy that I'm sitting at home blogging and not in a court room. But I think better results can be obtained from a system where the decision on guilt or innocence is made by professionals with the correct knowledge and training.
For example. As a skeptic. I am always amazed by the fallibility of the human memory and our capacity to reason and rationalise. The fact that eyewitness accounts make up the majority of the evidence in criminal cases is scary when you know just how bad our memories are. Memory is not a camera. It is faulty and does change overtime. A person trained in, and familiar with, the problems of human memory will have a much better chance of determining truth out of often conflicting accounts.
Where trials involve complicated forensic evidence. It can devolve into a case of which expert do you believe more. What is needed in these cases is an understanding of the scientific process in order to evaluate the relevance and strength of the evidence presented.
I think that a panel of judges, trained in the intricacies of evidence and law. Have a far better chance of coming to the correct conclusions of a persons guilt or innocence.
I know that the trial by jury is of huge historical importance. And that it is considered by many to be a fundamental right of any citizen in a free democracy. You only have to look at the example of Mikhail Khodorkovsky (among many, many others) to see what happens when the justice system loses it's transparency, accountability and independence. But we can have these things and still have a system that provides for the best possible way of determining the truth.
I'm suggest that we follow the evidence. Does trial by jury give the best possible success rate for convicting the guilty and setting the innocent free?
The Selection Process
I think I'll begin by describing the selection process as it went. So it starts with a letter summoning you to attend at the district court for jury service. At this stage you are invited to attempt to provide an excuse if you feel that you cannot attend for any reason. Acceptable reasons are things like; Work, family commitments, disability ect. If you cannot supply an excuse, or if your excuse is not accepted. Then you are required to attend the selection process.
The selection process begins with all those who turned up collecting in a large room. I would estimate there were probably somewhere between 150-200 of us present at this point. Then there is a video. The video was about how jury service is important and blah blah blah. And some things we needed to know about the process.
After the video there was the house keeping. This is the evacuation procedure, these people can help your out and so on. That was followed by an explanation of the process we were about to follow for the selection. And another video explaining that process in detail. Then it went as follows.
There was a ballot drawn for each of the two trials starting that morning. The ballots were drawn one after the other. The first for court room 9. The second for court room 4. As each persons name was drawn from the wooden box, they had to acknowledge by saying yes. My name was drawn for court room 9. There were 50 names drawn for each room.
At the conclusion of the draw. Those whose names had not bee drawn were dismissed for the day with instructions to check with the court after 6 pm that evening to see if they would be needed again.
After a brief break of about ten minutes or so. The group for court room 9 was ushered out of the jury selection room and up one level into court room 9. There we were all seated in the public gallery at the back of the court room. The Judge, counsel and court personnel had already taken their seats but the accused was absent.
The court was called to session and the accused was brought in. The charge was read and the accused was asked if they were guilty or not guilty. They pleaded not guilty. The judge then explained to us that the prosecution would read the names of the witnesses to be called and that we were to indicate if we knew any of them. We were also asked to indicate if we thought we could not be impartial, now that we knew the identity of the accused, the counsel and the nature of the charge. No one excused them self.
Then the draw for the jury began. Again names were drawn out of a wooden ballot box. As each name was drawn. That person was required to go and take a seat in the jury box. At this point the counsel for each side (defense or prosecution) could challenge the selection before the person took their seat. This simply involved them saying "challenge". At which point the unwanted juror would simply turn around and return to their seat.
So the draw started. Names were read out and people took their seats. The first challenge came from the defense and it was one I expected (more on that later). The second challenge also came from the defense but was not one I expected. The third and last challenge came from the prosecution and was against my selection (again, more later).
After the selection was complete the jurors were asked to take and oath or swear an affirmation (more later) that they would do their job properly. Then they retired to choose a foreman. The judge explained that some of the jury could still drop out at this point and so we were not yet dismissed. When the jury returned. We were dismissed with instructions to check back if we would be needed tomorrow.
My Thoughts on the Selection
So the first thing I have to say is that I was actually rather impressed with the speed and efficiency of the whole thing. I really did expect it to be far more time consuming. The room was perhaps a bit too small for the number of people and it became a little stuffy despite the air conditioning. This was bearable though as we were not in there for too long a time.
Any way thats just noise.
The two points I really want to get to are the challenges to the jury selection and the oath/affirmation required by the jurors.
The oath/affirmation.
As each juror goes to take their seat in the jury box they are offered a bible by the court attendant. This can be declined, as was explained to us in the video, by a shake of the head or a gesture of the hand. It is weird that this is stilled practiced. I cannot understand the association between the christen religion and our justice system. New Zealand is a secular state and our laws should have absolutely no connection with religion. No matter how slight.
This connection is reinforced by the oath that is administered to the jurors. It reads:
"Members of the jury: Do each of you swear by Almighty God (or solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm) that you will try the case before you to the best of your ability and give your verdict according to the evidence?"
Almighty god? What the hell? Even if you want to argue that this exists purely as a historical artifact and has no real connection to Christianity. I still think it's complete bullocks. Of the 12 jurors that I saw take the oath today only 6 took the offered bible. And the history argument just doesn't hold water. We don't maintain links to other areas of our law that we no longer accept as right. This is holding up Christianity as something special in our society. And that is simply not a reflection of who we are as New Zealanders. How about this.
"Members of the jury: Do each of you solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm, that you will try the case before you to the best of your ability and give your verdict according to the evidence?"
What's wrong with that? The jury promises to hear the evidence and base their decision accordingly. Not just good rules for a jury but a pretty good strategy for life!
The challenge to selection.
So as I mentioned above. The final selection for the jury involves a ballot and then these can be challenged by the counsel for either side. This is called peremptory challenge. The information video we had been shown earlier explained that counsel can challenge for any reason they like. They just say. "Challenge". And that person doesn't sit on the jury. What is the point of this? The video suggested that it may be done to get a better balance on the jury. Balance of what I ask? Gender, Age, Socioeconomic status? From the challenges I saw today this did not seem to be the case.
The only thing that makes sense to me is that the challenge affords the counsel an opportunity to exclude jurors that they think may not look favorably on their case. And by so doing. Give themselves a better opportunity to be successful.
The reason peremptory challenge exists is so that counsel can exclude people who they believe may have a bias in some direction. And this is supposed to ensure a decision that is more fair and acceptable to all involved.
I disagree with this. First. How can you tell from someones name and appearance
Second. The challenges can be used to move the jury away from a representative cross section of society. This could be done for any number of purposes. For example. A counsel may know that a mostly female jury is more likely to convict for rape. And so they may use their challenges to exclude men. Random selection would result in a more or less even and balanced representation most of the time.
The challenges during todays session certainly contributed to the second of these two and highlighted the first.
The first challenge was against young pacific island man. I had been sitting near him earlier in the day and heard him talking to another person. He was in second year at university and studying business. But he was dressed like he was on his way to work at a construction site. His name was called and I immediately expected a challenge form the defense (of whom I had made my own judgement). Sure enough. The second the defense lawyer looked up and saw him the challenge was made. So the defense lawyer immediately judged this lad as someone unfavorable just on appearance.
The second challenge was a middle aged man. I did't expect this one and I don't know why the defense lawyer challenged him.
The third challenge was me. My name was called and I got up to take my seat. Right before I sat down I was challenged by the prosecution and I returned to my chair. I of course have no idea why my selection was challenged. The best I can come up with is because I'm young and male (The accused was young, female and not unattractive).
The jury ended up being mostly older with 8 women and 4 men. There was one person under 30. A young woman who I would guess to be early twenties. One guy I would guess is in his mid thirties. And the rest would be 50 or over I think. O. And all of European descent (aka white). Is this an accurate representation of our society? You would have a hard time convincing me of that.
Jury Service and the Jury System.
I'm not opposed to the jury system and jury service. Although I am happy that I'm sitting at home blogging and not in a court room. But I think better results can be obtained from a system where the decision on guilt or innocence is made by professionals with the correct knowledge and training.
For example. As a skeptic. I am always amazed by the fallibility of the human memory and our capacity to reason and rationalise. The fact that eyewitness accounts make up the majority of the evidence in criminal cases is scary when you know just how bad our memories are. Memory is not a camera. It is faulty and does change overtime. A person trained in, and familiar with, the problems of human memory will have a much better chance of determining truth out of often conflicting accounts.
Where trials involve complicated forensic evidence. It can devolve into a case of which expert do you believe more. What is needed in these cases is an understanding of the scientific process in order to evaluate the relevance and strength of the evidence presented.
I think that a panel of judges, trained in the intricacies of evidence and law. Have a far better chance of coming to the correct conclusions of a persons guilt or innocence.
I know that the trial by jury is of huge historical importance. And that it is considered by many to be a fundamental right of any citizen in a free democracy. You only have to look at the example of Mikhail Khodorkovsky (among many, many others) to see what happens when the justice system loses it's transparency, accountability and independence. But we can have these things and still have a system that provides for the best possible way of determining the truth.
I'm suggest that we follow the evidence. Does trial by jury give the best possible success rate for convicting the guilty and setting the innocent free?
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Sniffer Dogs Led Astray By Their Handlers
It's a familiar site at any international Airport. Working dogs and their handlers busy about the place sniffing this and that in a constant search for prohibited substances. But a new study by researches at the University of California at Davis has found evidence that these dogs may be influenced by their handlers. When it comes to sniffing out the goods. The behavior of the handler, conscious or otherwise, may be having an effect on the dogs detection rates.
In this study. 18 dog/handler teams were studied under test conditions. Decoy scents were planted to test the influence of these distractions on the dogs. And the handlers were told that a paper marker would show the location of a target scent. There was no target scent present in the testing. So any alert on the part of the dog/handler team was a false positive.
What they found was that there were more alerts in the test scenarios where the handler was told of the location of a target scent. And that in fact the handler reported more alerts around the location indicated by the marker. So it was clear that the handlers expectation that a scent was present had an influence on the dog.
What I find interesting is the number of alerts in total. 225. This seems like an awful lot of false positives.
Also the tests were not recorded on video. So the effect of the handlers bias, leading them to incorrectly interpret the dogs actions as an alert, cannot be fully ruled out.
I would really like to see this experiment repeated with a larger sample size, closer scrutiny of the participants and the introduction of actual target scents. It would then be interesting to see if the handlers, or dogs, could be fooled into missing the target scents and giving a false alert. For example the handler may be told of the false location of the target scent and see if the dog can identify the correct location.
Though maybe that would be a bit hard on the poor subject team. Interesting tho.
In this study. 18 dog/handler teams were studied under test conditions. Decoy scents were planted to test the influence of these distractions on the dogs. And the handlers were told that a paper marker would show the location of a target scent. There was no target scent present in the testing. So any alert on the part of the dog/handler team was a false positive.
What they found was that there were more alerts in the test scenarios where the handler was told of the location of a target scent. And that in fact the handler reported more alerts around the location indicated by the marker. So it was clear that the handlers expectation that a scent was present had an influence on the dog.
What I find interesting is the number of alerts in total. 225. This seems like an awful lot of false positives.
Also the tests were not recorded on video. So the effect of the handlers bias, leading them to incorrectly interpret the dogs actions as an alert, cannot be fully ruled out.
I would really like to see this experiment repeated with a larger sample size, closer scrutiny of the participants and the introduction of actual target scents. It would then be interesting to see if the handlers, or dogs, could be fooled into missing the target scents and giving a false alert. For example the handler may be told of the false location of the target scent and see if the dog can identify the correct location.
Though maybe that would be a bit hard on the poor subject team. Interesting tho.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Maori Elder "Sees" the Destruction of Wellington
Maori Elder, Keri Tia Toa, has used a speech this morning at the Waitangi treaty grounds to share his vision of the destruction of Wellington by devastating earthquake.
You can listen to his tale here.
This is bizarre to say the least. I mean consider the context. A morning prayer session during what is a reflection on the singing of New Zealand's founding document. It's a time when we as kiwis are to remember how or nation came about.
And then we have an old crank stand up and declare that our capital will be destroyed. That our seat of government will be thrown down and that there will be soldiers and bodies in the streets.
Amazing.
Here are the possibilities as I see them:
1) Keri Tia Toa is just a whack job. I mean it's entirely possible that he is simply loosing his marbles and decided to tell a fantastical story for what ever end he had in mind.
2) He had a weird experience some time ago. A bad dream or something. And his obsessing over it combined with what ever influence his particular spirituality or belief system has had. Has twisted his memory of this experience into the strange "vision" that he now reports.
3) He is just plain making shit up. This seems the most unlikely to my mind. Tho people have been known to do stranger things.
As predictions go this is a rather lame one. I mean yes it is spectacular and would have enormous consequences for Wellington and the country as a whole. But it's so vague and rather a given.
This is what we skeptics refer to as the low hanging fruit. It's a prediction that is very likely to come true. There will be a large earthquake in Wellington some time in the future. That is a certainty. By not giving a specific date he leaves the possibility open that no matter when it happens it can still count as a successful prediction. Keri Tia Toa does say that it will be in the month of June. This is surprising because it cuts down his chances of being right to 1 in 12. Although if it's close to June or even in the middle of the year some time it will probably be considered a hit by some.
I don't think I'll even bother why the idea of predicting the future is complete and total rubbish. suffice to say that in the entire history of our species there has never been any convincing evidence that humans are able to predict future events without using some form of inductive reasoning or theoretical structure. No person has ever demonstrated the ability to have an accurate "vision" of events to come.
I find this whole thing rather embarrassing really. A supposedly respected individual given a forum of national importance and he uses it to put forward an absurd vision of death and destruction. I mean come on.
What do you think?
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Is This Brain Washing?
Here is "note able" creationist and general all around jackass Ken Ham indoctrinating a room full of kids.
This has a very cult like feel to it don't you think. The brain washing of young children in this way I find absolutely appalling and abhorrent. Filling their young minds with nonsense and denying them the chance to discover the truth is a form of abuse.
I have real issue with the indoctrination of the young by religions of all stripes. But it seems all the more repugnant when it takes the form of anti-science, anti-reason, nonsense. These children will grow up and enter society with a warped and inaccurate knowledge of how the world works. This will surely hurt their prospects for higher learning and hold back their understanding of just how truly amazing things really are.
Note to Mr Ham: I notice you're using a microphone. And a Projector. And you're in a Building. Probably in a modern city. No doubt you're wearing manufactured clothing. And you probably arrived at your brainwashing event in a car, train or bus.
All of these things would not be possible without the science that you are so eager to deny (Science in general, not specifically evolution of course). Science works! The evidence is all around us in our lives. Evolution is a fact. The earth is older then 6000 years. Much Much older! Your holy book is an interesting piece of historical literature. It is not literal truth.
O and also.
You suck.
The above is not an argument in favor of my position. Merely something I felt like saying. Full and complete demolitions of the ridiculous Creationist/Intelligent Design ideas have been done to death by many, many people much smarter and more well informed than I. They can be found all over the interweb.
I really, really, really hate the indoctrination of the young and impressionable by the idiotic and the foolish. Teach children to think critically and to reason for themselves. Then let them loose with the evidence and see what conclusions they reach.
I suspect that if this were done right. Many more people in our society would have a more accurate and informed view of the world.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Andrew Wakefield, Shill, Fraud and Just Plain Wrong
So that which we have known or suspected for a while now has finally been laid out in exquisite and mind blowing detail with 3 articles in the British Medical Journal. The articles by Brian deer completely expose Wakefield as a ruthless conman that perpetrated a conscious, and incredibly harmful, fraud on the world in order to enrich himself.
Article one tells the story of Wakefield's study. Not only was this study woefully undersized for it's purpose. Containing just 12 subjects. Not only was it a breach of the ethical and legal responsibilities one has when conducting such research. As it now turns out it was also complete and utter bullshit. Crap. Worthless. Wakefield falsified the data and just plain lied in order to get the result he wanted. But why?
Money! Article two tells about how Wakefield planned to make tens of millions of dollars from the ideas supported in his fraudulent study.
Money making scheme number one. Wakefield was paid a substantial amount of money (more than 435,000 pounds in fact) from lawyers representing some anti vaccine groups. These were trying to sue vaccine manufactures for allegedly giving their children Autism.
Money making scheme number two. Wakefield had a patent pending on a single dose measles vaccine. Since his study alleged that it was the triple dose Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine that was the cause of the problems. He stood to make millions from the licencing and use of his single dose vaccine.
Money making scheme number three. Wakefield created a kit that was designed to detect the symptoms of the new syndrome he had invented. Sales of this product were expected to net Wakefield another few tens of millions.
Article three is the final installment and tells of the fallout from all these revelations coming to light. The accusations. The denials. And the complete down fall of Wakefield in respected medical circles.
There should be no doubt. This man shares a great amount of responsibility for the creation of the modern anti-vaccination movement. There is real blood on his hands. Children have suffered and died because of his selfish fraud.
The terrible (or delicious) irony in all this is that Dr Andrew Wakefield, the trumpeted hero and darling of the anti-vaccination movement, is the very thing they purport to despise. Whenever a Doctor, scientist or skeptic speaks out in defense of vaccines. The anti-vaxers accuse them of being on the pay roll of "big pharma". They accuse us of profiteering. Of defending the status quo because it is making us all rich. While the reality is that we are just following the science and trying to improve the health of children and the community. Wakefield was doing exactly what they accuse us of! He took money to falsify the science in order to make himself rich. He put the lives of children at risk for his own benefit. He accepted money in the form of travel, accommodation and speakers fees form pharmaceutical companies. Wakefield was a lying, cheating big pharma shill! Amazing.
The response from the anti-vax community has been typical rationalizing and conspiracy mongering. They allege that Brian Deer is a "big pharma" assassin. Brought in to discredit Wakefield and the science behind the vaccine autism link. Brian Deer is an award winning investigative journalist that, among other things, was heavily involved in exposing the vioxx scandal. In the pocket of "big pharma"? Please. Try something else for a change a. As for the science behind the vaccine Autism link. There isn't any. None at all. All the science we have says there is no link between vaccination and autism. A great summary of the evidence can be found on Science Based Medicine here.
Wakefield still stands by his study and the findings. I think he does so now because his mind has become so distorted over time that he could never bring himself to accept and admit the truth. Perhaps he has even managed to convince himself that his fraud is true. We know that he knew of his fraud at the time because he was offered the chance to repeat his study in a controlled and sanctioned environment with 150 children. He did not take this offer up because he knew that he would not be able to falsify such a large and heavily scrutinized study. As it would surely have been. And that such a study would indeed prove all his ideas and earlier findings to be wrong.
We must always be on the lookout for more Wakefields. The good thing about science is that it is self correcting. Bad science and fraud are always weeded out in the fullness of time. The bad news is that the effects of these things can linger on long after the science has thrown them out. And people can be, and are, adversely affected. In the worst cases, such as this one, children can die.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Does not follow Rodger
One of the mindless foot soldiers of CAM has put forward another attempt to justify his dangerous quackery by attacking "BIG PHARMA" (oooooooo). I'm talking about the Rodger. The jackass who promotes MMS in NZ. We remember MMS right. From here and here.
Well I got an email (I'm on his mailing list, Yay!) from Rodger attacking "big pharma" for apparently suppressing the miraculous benefits of vitamin C mega dosing. It's a short email. So here it is.
I'm just going to talk about why the "Big Phrama" bad so buy Rodger's stuff, argument is moronic.
This one is a favorite of the CAM crowd. They point to the Pharmaceutical industry and say look at how much money they are making. They must be evil and all their products must be equally evil. But our products and methods aren't making us rich. Therefore our stuff must work.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it says absolutely nothing about the products and methods the CAM practitioners and promoters are pushing. An equivalent argument could go like this.
Look at all those big breakfast cereal companies making lots of money from selling their cereal. The cereal must be bad for you. What about this mold I found under the floor. It's all natural, unprocessed and I paid nothing for it. It must be way better for us than the commercial cereals.
A bit of an over exaggeration perhaps, but not by much. This is an argument style where you attempt to make your own side stronger by promoting a negative attribute of the other side. It says nothing about the actual strength of your position and does not address any of the actual issues that may be under debate.
Roger claims that "Big Pharma" is ruthlessly suppressing anything that they are unable to profit from. Even when it is a proven cure for a known ailment. Therefore, the unstated premise, you should consume the bleach he is selling.
Sorry. But I din't buy it.
Well I got an email (I'm on his mailing list, Yay!) from Rodger attacking "big pharma" for apparently suppressing the miraculous benefits of vitamin C mega dosing. It's a short email. So here it is.
Dear MMS customers,
The lengths that Big Pharma will go to:
Remember the recent stir caused when intravenous vitamin C cured a man from the King Country here in NZ.
Such cures (by an unpatientable natural product), are not good for Big Pharma business. Best that Big Pharma pull a few strings and just have intravenous vitamin C outlawed....
Kind regards,
Roger
I'm not going to go to lengths explaining why this is stupid. Or expand on why natural news is possibly the single biggest repository of crap on the whole of the interweb. Though do check it out if you like. It's funny stuff.
This one is a favorite of the CAM crowd. They point to the Pharmaceutical industry and say look at how much money they are making. They must be evil and all their products must be equally evil. But our products and methods aren't making us rich. Therefore our stuff must work.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it says absolutely nothing about the products and methods the CAM practitioners and promoters are pushing. An equivalent argument could go like this.
Look at all those big breakfast cereal companies making lots of money from selling their cereal. The cereal must be bad for you. What about this mold I found under the floor. It's all natural, unprocessed and I paid nothing for it. It must be way better for us than the commercial cereals.
A bit of an over exaggeration perhaps, but not by much. This is an argument style where you attempt to make your own side stronger by promoting a negative attribute of the other side. It says nothing about the actual strength of your position and does not address any of the actual issues that may be under debate.
Roger claims that "Big Pharma" is ruthlessly suppressing anything that they are unable to profit from. Even when it is a proven cure for a known ailment. Therefore, the unstated premise, you should consume the bleach he is selling.
Sorry. But I din't buy it.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
1st of 2011
For my first entry of 2011 I'm gonna do something a little different. Here are some awesome pictures I took while flying in the Tararua Ranges yesterday morning.
Sweet yeah?
So what's going on here?
Well the tops of the clouds you can see on the other side of the ridge are at about 4,000 feet. The clouded in side is to the east and the clear side is west. Whats happening is the moist air forming the clouds is blowing ever so slowly over the ridges and falling down the sides. Once that happens it disappears. Why?
Well it all has to do with cloud formation. Very briefly. Clouds are formed when the air becomes saturated with water vapor. This means that the air cannot hold any more water in it than it has already. The level at which the air saturates is dependent on the moisture content and is given as a temperature. This saturation temperature is known as the dew point. The warmer the air the more water it can hold. So if air is at the same temperature as it's dew point cools down, it will no longer be able to hold the water vapor it contains.
And thats when clouds form.
So back to the question. Why do the clouds disappear when they flow over the ridge? The reason is two fold. 1st) the air containing the clouds is colder than the surrounding air. It's colder because the clouds reflect the suns energy and also because saturated air has a higher specific heat capacity than dry air (This means that it takes more energy to heat it up by the same amount). Because the clouds are colder they are more dense than the surrounding air and so they sink.
2nd) As they sink they warm up. This happens because the sinking air increases in pressure and when the pressure of a gas increases, it's temperature also increases. As they warm up, the temperature of the air pases it's due point and the clouds evaporate.
Neat yes?
Sweet yeah?
So what's going on here?
Well the tops of the clouds you can see on the other side of the ridge are at about 4,000 feet. The clouded in side is to the east and the clear side is west. Whats happening is the moist air forming the clouds is blowing ever so slowly over the ridges and falling down the sides. Once that happens it disappears. Why?
Well it all has to do with cloud formation. Very briefly. Clouds are formed when the air becomes saturated with water vapor. This means that the air cannot hold any more water in it than it has already. The level at which the air saturates is dependent on the moisture content and is given as a temperature. This saturation temperature is known as the dew point. The warmer the air the more water it can hold. So if air is at the same temperature as it's dew point cools down, it will no longer be able to hold the water vapor it contains.
And thats when clouds form.
So back to the question. Why do the clouds disappear when they flow over the ridge? The reason is two fold. 1st) the air containing the clouds is colder than the surrounding air. It's colder because the clouds reflect the suns energy and also because saturated air has a higher specific heat capacity than dry air (This means that it takes more energy to heat it up by the same amount). Because the clouds are colder they are more dense than the surrounding air and so they sink.
2nd) As they sink they warm up. This happens because the sinking air increases in pressure and when the pressure of a gas increases, it's temperature also increases. As they warm up, the temperature of the air pases it's due point and the clouds evaporate.
Neat yes?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)