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.
Friday, April 29, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)