Is it possible that we might one day live in a world without malaria? Nobody knows but we’re now a step closer.
Last week it was announced that following an 18-month clinical trial involving 15,000 African children an experimental vaccine appears to reduce the risk of contracting malaria by half. That’s not a cure but it’s an excellent start.
The potential benefit is enormous. Every year perhaps a million people around the world die from malaria, most of them African children. Anything we can do to reduce that death toll must be worth the effort. Even if we only halve the number of victims that’s half a million survivors.
This vaccine works by stopping the spread and multiplication of the malaria parasite after the victim has been bitten, by stimulating the body’s immune response and preventing it from getting a foothold in the liver.
The vaccine was based on a quarter of a century’s research by a GlaxoSmithKline team led by a research scientist called Joe Cohen. This is the stuff that Nobel Prizes are made of. A career’s research devoted to something that is so overwhelmingly good, that has such potential benefit for humanity and that can possibly save millions of lives.
I can’t help but wonder how certain people are going to react when they learn that this research was undertaken by a drug company. Not a high-brow academic in a university but an employee of GlaxoSmithKline, a company that some people will have you believe is the corporate Anti-Christ. I’m no defender of the pharmaceutical industry, they’ve certainly got a stained record but that doesn’t mean everything they do is wrong. This is a great example of how an absolute and uncomplicated good thing can come from an industry we’re free to criticise and condemn. Every so often though we have to give them some serious gratitude.
It’s happened before of course. One of the least known but most important statements ever made in human history was when the World Health Organisation declared in 1980 that “the world and its peoples have won freedom from smallpox”. A massive, worldwide campaign of vaccination and infection control over several decades eventually removed smallpox from the face of the planet. This disease killed hundreds of millions of people and it’s eradication is perhaps the greatest, practical contributions to humanity that science has ever offered. If you ever encounter one of those deluded scaremongers who say that vaccination is dangerous you need only say the word “Smallpox” and you’ve won.
One of the most disappointing things I’ve seen over the last few decades is the anti-vaccination movement. I have no hesitation in calling them either deluded or liars and some of them are both. Children have DIED because of the drops in vaccination rates around the world. Not just in the Western World where measles reappeared but here in Botswana where certain groups took what is politely referred to as a “faith position” against vaccinations. It’s not just their children we should feel sorry for it’s the rest of the community as well. One of the key objectives in fighting communicable disease is “herd” or “community immunity”. A disease like measles can’t spread as easily if most of the population are immune to it. “Chains of infection” can’t form if there are only very few people with no immunity. The more people there are who haven’t developed, or been given, immunity by vaccination the more likely the few who haven’t are to get the disease.
Malaria is different though, it’s not passed from human to human and eradicating malaria will require a different approach. However, a vaccination to give people immunity would be such an amazing step forward. The vaccine isn’t going to be with us very soon either. Scientists have earned the hard way that these things can’t be rushed. However the researchers hope that it’ll hopefully be available by 2015. Then we can really celebrate.
Sources
For a summary of the research see the Reuters story here. There's a comprehensive description of malaria from the Center for Disease Control here.
For some background on smallpox and why it's eradication is a reason for celebration see the Wikipedia page and the various links it offers. Anti-vaccination campaigners should be forced to look at the pictures of smallpox victims and imagine they show their children. For a scathing description of the loathsome anti-vaccination movement see the Skeptics Dictionary article here.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Weekend Post - Science is critical
Please forgive the wordplay but science really IS “critical”. I believe it’s critical, in the sense that it’s vitally important, because it saves, prolongs and improves our lives. If it hadn’t been for science we’d still live to our 30s if we were lucky and most of us over the age of 40 would be in constant pain and probably wishing we were dead. We have the benefit of modern technology that allows us to communicate better than ever before, educate ourselves and entertain ourselves in a way that our grandparents could never have imagined. Actually, let me correct that. My grandmother CAN imagine it, she’s still alive and kicking at the age of 93, thanks to the benefits of science and medicine.
Science is also critical in another sense. It’s critical because it criticises. Not in a negative, whining sense, but in the best sense of the word. Criticism is about weighing the good and the bad aspects of something and science is best at that.
Unfortunately there are just too many areas of falsehood where science is needed to dispel lies and deceit.
Homeopathy is a good example. Despite there being absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it does anything, many people still swear by it. Can they all be wrong? Yes, they most certainly can. To begin with it’s simply not plausible. Homeopathic remedies are based on two simple ideas. Firstly there’s the idea that a dose of something that causes similar symptoms to a disease will cure that disease. This makes no sense whatsoever and is simply not true. Then there’s the second, even less plausible idea, that by repeatedly diluting the “remedy” the effect of the remedy actually becomes stronger.
The biggest problem homeopaths face is explaining quite how much they dilute the remedy. They typically begin by diluting the original remedy to one hundredth of it’s strength in water. Then that diluted amount will again be diluted to one hundredth so that only one ten thousandth of the original strength remains. Then again and again it will be diluted to one hundredth of each diluted strength, sometimes up to 60 times. Please don’t try to do the maths, your calculator can’t cope with numbers that big but others have worked out that many homeopathic remedies are so diluted that not a single atom of the original substance remains in the “remedy” you buy. Not one.
The homeopathic industry, when these facts became clear, suggested instead that somehow the water has a “memory” of the substance it originally contained. In 1997 a French researcher, Jean Benveniste actually published a paper in the respected science journal Nature, suggesting that water could indeed do this. That would have been fine if his research hadn’t later been shown to be fatally flawed, used biased researchers and having discarded the results that weren’t what they wanted to see. So we can forget that.
In fact, and this bit IS science, there are circumstances in which liquid water can retain certain structures and forms. Water molecules can form temporary bonds but these last no more than (take a deep breath) fifty femtoseconds which is fifty quadrillionths of a second. That’s a millionth of a billionth of a second. Even if there was any truth to this silliness no “memory” of a useless homeopathic remedy would last until the pills are in the store’s shelves.
Because of all this catastrophic implausibility homeopathy remedies don’t even need to be tested to say that they’re worthless but the scientific method isn’t as careless as that. Homeopathic “remedies” HAVE been tested many, many times and guess what? Not one of them works. Of course people THINK they work but what’s working is the placebo effect, the slight feeling of being better you get by doing something, perhaps anything.
The problem with homeopathic or any other so-called complimentary remedies isn’t that they do nothing. The problem is that they are often taken instead of medicines that DO actually do something. In the UK recently there was a major scandal because some homeopaths were recommending their silly products as preventing malaria to travellers to places like Botswana. Someone could have died. Who knows, perhaps someone did.
Science has two main roles. To give the world new ideas based on evidence and research but also to help us cast aside those ideas that don’t work any more, and probably never did. We’ve given up the belief that the Earth is the center of the universe and that your star sign predicts your future. It’s the same for homeopathy. It’s long past the time when that sort of superstition should be put aside and replaced with something that does actually work.
Sources
For a summary of homeopathy you should start with the Wikipedia entry here.
If you want a good summary of it's logical, scientific and common sense failings see the Skeptic's Dictionary entry here. There's also an excellent summary of the whole "memory of water" claptrap by Steven Novella here.
Science is also critical in another sense. It’s critical because it criticises. Not in a negative, whining sense, but in the best sense of the word. Criticism is about weighing the good and the bad aspects of something and science is best at that.
Unfortunately there are just too many areas of falsehood where science is needed to dispel lies and deceit.
Homeopathy is a good example. Despite there being absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it does anything, many people still swear by it. Can they all be wrong? Yes, they most certainly can. To begin with it’s simply not plausible. Homeopathic remedies are based on two simple ideas. Firstly there’s the idea that a dose of something that causes similar symptoms to a disease will cure that disease. This makes no sense whatsoever and is simply not true. Then there’s the second, even less plausible idea, that by repeatedly diluting the “remedy” the effect of the remedy actually becomes stronger.
The biggest problem homeopaths face is explaining quite how much they dilute the remedy. They typically begin by diluting the original remedy to one hundredth of it’s strength in water. Then that diluted amount will again be diluted to one hundredth so that only one ten thousandth of the original strength remains. Then again and again it will be diluted to one hundredth of each diluted strength, sometimes up to 60 times. Please don’t try to do the maths, your calculator can’t cope with numbers that big but others have worked out that many homeopathic remedies are so diluted that not a single atom of the original substance remains in the “remedy” you buy. Not one.
The homeopathic industry, when these facts became clear, suggested instead that somehow the water has a “memory” of the substance it originally contained. In 1997 a French researcher, Jean Benveniste actually published a paper in the respected science journal Nature, suggesting that water could indeed do this. That would have been fine if his research hadn’t later been shown to be fatally flawed, used biased researchers and having discarded the results that weren’t what they wanted to see. So we can forget that.
In fact, and this bit IS science, there are circumstances in which liquid water can retain certain structures and forms. Water molecules can form temporary bonds but these last no more than (take a deep breath) fifty femtoseconds which is fifty quadrillionths of a second. That’s a millionth of a billionth of a second. Even if there was any truth to this silliness no “memory” of a useless homeopathic remedy would last until the pills are in the store’s shelves.
Because of all this catastrophic implausibility homeopathy remedies don’t even need to be tested to say that they’re worthless but the scientific method isn’t as careless as that. Homeopathic “remedies” HAVE been tested many, many times and guess what? Not one of them works. Of course people THINK they work but what’s working is the placebo effect, the slight feeling of being better you get by doing something, perhaps anything.
The problem with homeopathic or any other so-called complimentary remedies isn’t that they do nothing. The problem is that they are often taken instead of medicines that DO actually do something. In the UK recently there was a major scandal because some homeopaths were recommending their silly products as preventing malaria to travellers to places like Botswana. Someone could have died. Who knows, perhaps someone did.
Science has two main roles. To give the world new ideas based on evidence and research but also to help us cast aside those ideas that don’t work any more, and probably never did. We’ve given up the belief that the Earth is the center of the universe and that your star sign predicts your future. It’s the same for homeopathy. It’s long past the time when that sort of superstition should be put aside and replaced with something that does actually work.
Sources
For a summary of homeopathy you should start with the Wikipedia entry here.
If you want a good summary of it's logical, scientific and common sense failings see the Skeptic's Dictionary entry here. There's also an excellent summary of the whole "memory of water" claptrap by Steven Novella here.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Faster than light? No.
It looks like the the scientists in Italy who thought they found neutrinos travelling faster than light might have made a mistake. The irony is that the theory they thought they might have undermined actually explains the effect they saw.
Speedy neutrino mystery likely solved, relativity safe after all
Speedy neutrino mystery likely solved, relativity safe after all
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Weekend Post - Healthier than ever
A few months I was parking my car at my kid’s school. A young guy approached me as I left the car and asked if he could talk with me. I had a few minutes to spare and he seemed polite. I didn’t think he was going to mug me, I suspected he was trying to sell something.
He asked whether I was worried about my children’s diet. I told him that I wasn’t particularly worried which seemed to surprise him. I told him that I thought my kids have a fairly healthy diet. They probably get through a few too many chips but they’re just as likely to be found munching an apple. Ignoring this he started a lecture on the evils of “processed” and “convenience” food. His claim was that the chemicals, additives and junk in all this evil food was causing global ill-health and premature death. He suggested that if we eat organic, healthier food (and buy his pointless herbal concoctions) these problems would go away. He asked me why I think people lived longer in the past than they do now?
For a moment my brain stopped working and I stood there speechless. Was he serious? Did he really believe that in the past people were healthier than we are today?
He was, of course, comprehensively, completely and utterly wrong. We are the most fortunate group of people that has ever lived. No population is as lucky as we are today. No population in the history of the world has lived as long as we do or been as healthy.
Yes, I mean even in Botswana. I’m not just talking about places like Japan, Iceland and Australia where people seem to go on and on, I mean here too. Despite what we heard a few years ago, when the impact of HIV and AIDS was the centre of our attention, as a nation we have achieved a staggering amount.
Look at the facts. According to the figures, a baby born in Botswana in 2004 was expected to live, on average and if the mortality rate stayed the same as that in 2004 throughout his or her life, to the age of 31. Babies born now can be expected, if our much reduced mortality rate remains the same as it is now, almost to 60. And that’s the life expectancy at birth. If a kid survives the first few years of it’s life it can be expected to last a lot longer than 60.
Of course I’m not denying that HIV will continue to have an impact. However the success of anti-retroviral drugs is plain to see. We probably all know someone who we’ve seen close to the end but who is now thriving and enjoying life to the full because of the medication they’ve taking.
Perhaps my favourite statistic about the benefits of medicine involves our success with the Prevention of Mother-To-Child Transmission program. Normally a HIV+ pregnant mother has roughly a 40% risk of passing HIV to her child during childbirth. After PMTCT the risk dropped to lower than 4% and it’s dropped even further subsequently. Science and medicine did that.
So ARVs are extending the lifespan of our HIV+ siblings but what about diet? Wasn’t my car park friend right about the poisons and toxins in our food? No, he was wrong about that as well.
There is, sit down before you read this, no scientific evidence that food produced in traditional ways is any better for you than food produced using “artificial” fertilisers and pesticides. None whatsoever. In fact there is a lot of evidence that conventional fertilisers pose a very significant risk to human health. That’s not surprising when you think about it. Do you really want traces of raw cow poo on your fruit and vegetables?
There isn’t much evidence that the reverse is true either. Food produced using modern techniques is no better or worse for you than the traditional methods but one thing HAS changed massively. Food is now produced much more efficiently. The world’s population has almost reached 7 billion and we’re still producing food to feed everyone. Of course there are problems with getting it to the right people at the right time but that’s always been the case.
So here’s my suggestion for the week. Rather than pretending there was a distant age when things were better let’s look back and remember the massive proportion of children that never made it to their 5th birthday, the number of people who died of horrible diseases in their 20s and 30s and the endless sequence of famines. Let’s remember that in ancient Rome life expectancy was less than 30 and it didn’t get much better until the beginning of the 20th century.
Let’s also remember what helped us achieve all of. Science and medicine.
Sources
For a comparison of life expectancy data from around the world Wikipedia is a good starting point. It's also worth understanding what "life expectancy" actually means as well.
For details of Botswana's current life expectancy figures see here for data from the CIA World Factbook. Take a look also at the graph for death rate.
For a story on the impact of PMTCT see here.
A starting point for thinking about organic food is the Skeptoid podcast, in particular the episode on organic food here. This is where I found this piece from the American Council on Science and Health. Not worried about poo on your food? The US Food and Drug Administration are.
And that figure of 7 billion people? We'll get there later this month.
He asked whether I was worried about my children’s diet. I told him that I wasn’t particularly worried which seemed to surprise him. I told him that I thought my kids have a fairly healthy diet. They probably get through a few too many chips but they’re just as likely to be found munching an apple. Ignoring this he started a lecture on the evils of “processed” and “convenience” food. His claim was that the chemicals, additives and junk in all this evil food was causing global ill-health and premature death. He suggested that if we eat organic, healthier food (and buy his pointless herbal concoctions) these problems would go away. He asked me why I think people lived longer in the past than they do now?
For a moment my brain stopped working and I stood there speechless. Was he serious? Did he really believe that in the past people were healthier than we are today?
He was, of course, comprehensively, completely and utterly wrong. We are the most fortunate group of people that has ever lived. No population is as lucky as we are today. No population in the history of the world has lived as long as we do or been as healthy.
Yes, I mean even in Botswana. I’m not just talking about places like Japan, Iceland and Australia where people seem to go on and on, I mean here too. Despite what we heard a few years ago, when the impact of HIV and AIDS was the centre of our attention, as a nation we have achieved a staggering amount.
Look at the facts. According to the figures, a baby born in Botswana in 2004 was expected to live, on average and if the mortality rate stayed the same as that in 2004 throughout his or her life, to the age of 31. Babies born now can be expected, if our much reduced mortality rate remains the same as it is now, almost to 60. And that’s the life expectancy at birth. If a kid survives the first few years of it’s life it can be expected to last a lot longer than 60.
Of course I’m not denying that HIV will continue to have an impact. However the success of anti-retroviral drugs is plain to see. We probably all know someone who we’ve seen close to the end but who is now thriving and enjoying life to the full because of the medication they’ve taking.
Perhaps my favourite statistic about the benefits of medicine involves our success with the Prevention of Mother-To-Child Transmission program. Normally a HIV+ pregnant mother has roughly a 40% risk of passing HIV to her child during childbirth. After PMTCT the risk dropped to lower than 4% and it’s dropped even further subsequently. Science and medicine did that.
So ARVs are extending the lifespan of our HIV+ siblings but what about diet? Wasn’t my car park friend right about the poisons and toxins in our food? No, he was wrong about that as well.
There is, sit down before you read this, no scientific evidence that food produced in traditional ways is any better for you than food produced using “artificial” fertilisers and pesticides. None whatsoever. In fact there is a lot of evidence that conventional fertilisers pose a very significant risk to human health. That’s not surprising when you think about it. Do you really want traces of raw cow poo on your fruit and vegetables?
There isn’t much evidence that the reverse is true either. Food produced using modern techniques is no better or worse for you than the traditional methods but one thing HAS changed massively. Food is now produced much more efficiently. The world’s population has almost reached 7 billion and we’re still producing food to feed everyone. Of course there are problems with getting it to the right people at the right time but that’s always been the case.
So here’s my suggestion for the week. Rather than pretending there was a distant age when things were better let’s look back and remember the massive proportion of children that never made it to their 5th birthday, the number of people who died of horrible diseases in their 20s and 30s and the endless sequence of famines. Let’s remember that in ancient Rome life expectancy was less than 30 and it didn’t get much better until the beginning of the 20th century.
Let’s also remember what helped us achieve all of. Science and medicine.
Sources
For a comparison of life expectancy data from around the world Wikipedia is a good starting point. It's also worth understanding what "life expectancy" actually means as well.
For details of Botswana's current life expectancy figures see here for data from the CIA World Factbook. Take a look also at the graph for death rate.
For a story on the impact of PMTCT see here.
A starting point for thinking about organic food is the Skeptoid podcast, in particular the episode on organic food here. This is where I found this piece from the American Council on Science and Health. Not worried about poo on your food? The US Food and Drug Administration are.
And that figure of 7 billion people? We'll get there later this month.
Saturday, October 08, 2011
Weekend Post - Faster than light?
There might be a revolution in science any moment now. Or maybe not.
A few weeks ago Italian scientists said that they thought they’d broken one of the fundamental laws of nature. They claimed that they had managed to force a beam of particles to travel faster than the speed of light. Admittedly only very slightly faster than light, but even a little bit would have been enough. Their beam of neutrinos had travelled all the way from the CERN laboratory in Geneva, a trip of 730km, across the border into Italy and they arrived 60 billionths of a second earlier than light would have covered the same distance. If this is true, if something really can travel faster than light, faster than 300,000 kilometers per second, then our understanding of the universe has been incomplete. After the results were announced the international media was full of headlines asking "Was Einstein wrong?"
If true, this won’t be the first time that a revolution like this has occurred in science. When Einstein first proposed his laws of relativity there was an enormous backlash against them because they contradicted the theories of Isaac Newton and the scientific establishment of the time couldn’t accept that. However, a few experiments later it was found that Einstein was right and that Newton was out-dated. Of course that doesn’t mean Newton’s theories and equations aren’t relevant, they still are in almost all circumstances. Engineers building bridges, scientists launching spacecraft, even soldiers firing guns all use Newton’s laws and they work just fine for them. It’s only in extreme circumstances that Newton’s laws stop working and Einstein’s have to be used instead.
What might have happened in Italy is something similar. Nobody is actually saying that Einstein’s theories were wrong, it’s just that they might have been only 99% correct, they might not explain everything, there might be things that his theories don’t predict or explain.
Or, and this is much more likely, the results from Italy might just be wrong. To their credit the Italian scientists have published their results and have given the international scientific community the opportunity to tear them to pieces. That’s the way the scientific process works. You have an idea, you test it, you publish your results and your colleagues do their best to find a flaw in what you’ve done. It’s not a competition, it’s just a rigorous way of testing ideas. Unlike supernatural belief systems, criticism and testing are welcomed as ways to get closer to the truth.
One of the least well understood aspects of the scientific method is that there’s a difference between facts and explanations. Gravity, for instance, is a fact. If you’re unsure, feel free to lean too far out of a top floor window and in the next few seconds you’ll be convinced. Similarly evolution is a fact. It’s been seen in a variety of quickly reproducing animals over several generations. It can be seen in fruit flies, moths and fish. These aren’t denied by anyone who has seen the facts. They don’t need any more proof. Things fall to the ground, planets are attracted to stars, animals gradually change their form to adapt to their environment over time.
What’s differs are the possible explanations. With gravity, Newton just proposed that there was an attraction between bodies but he couldn’t explain how that might happen, he just came up with rather wonderful equations to explain and predict it. But those ideas later turned out to be very slightly imperfect. That’s when Einstein came along with the idea that the structure of space and time was curved by matter. That was a better explanation of everything and filled the gaps in Newton’s explanation. A step forward. Likewise with evolution. Initially we were told that species didn’t naturally change, they were static. Then biologists began to notice what they called “speciation”, that what once identical species seemed to have changed their form to adapt to different environments. Everyone who’s seen the evidence agrees that species adapt over time, the evidence for that is clear. Then Darwin came along with his explanation, natural selection. So far, that’s the best explanation we have for the variety and adaptation of species, humans included. Maybe one day another scientist will come up with an improved explanation. So far there doesn’t seem to be a need, Darwin’s theory appears to be holding out perfectly well, just like Einstein’s.
That’s the wonderful thing about science. Whether the Italian results are right or wrong, scientists will be happy. If Einstein’s ideas continue to adequately explain things then we’re happy. If however, there’s something his theories can’t explain? Fantastic, the universe is even more marvelous and complex than we thought already.
Sources
There's a good summary of the experiment in Nature. You can see the reaction to this story by doing a Google search like this.
You can see a summary of Newton and his theories here and of Einstein here. The experiments by Sir Arthur Eddington that provided the first experimental support are discussed in Eddington's biography here.
For a summary of the scientific method see here. If you're feeling a bit more adventurous read this on Karl Popper and "empirical falsification" as the basis of science. Learn that and you understand it all.
For background on Darwin and natural selection as his explanation for evolution see here.
A few weeks ago Italian scientists said that they thought they’d broken one of the fundamental laws of nature. They claimed that they had managed to force a beam of particles to travel faster than the speed of light. Admittedly only very slightly faster than light, but even a little bit would have been enough. Their beam of neutrinos had travelled all the way from the CERN laboratory in Geneva, a trip of 730km, across the border into Italy and they arrived 60 billionths of a second earlier than light would have covered the same distance. If this is true, if something really can travel faster than light, faster than 300,000 kilometers per second, then our understanding of the universe has been incomplete. After the results were announced the international media was full of headlines asking "Was Einstein wrong?"
If true, this won’t be the first time that a revolution like this has occurred in science. When Einstein first proposed his laws of relativity there was an enormous backlash against them because they contradicted the theories of Isaac Newton and the scientific establishment of the time couldn’t accept that. However, a few experiments later it was found that Einstein was right and that Newton was out-dated. Of course that doesn’t mean Newton’s theories and equations aren’t relevant, they still are in almost all circumstances. Engineers building bridges, scientists launching spacecraft, even soldiers firing guns all use Newton’s laws and they work just fine for them. It’s only in extreme circumstances that Newton’s laws stop working and Einstein’s have to be used instead.
What might have happened in Italy is something similar. Nobody is actually saying that Einstein’s theories were wrong, it’s just that they might have been only 99% correct, they might not explain everything, there might be things that his theories don’t predict or explain.
Or, and this is much more likely, the results from Italy might just be wrong. To their credit the Italian scientists have published their results and have given the international scientific community the opportunity to tear them to pieces. That’s the way the scientific process works. You have an idea, you test it, you publish your results and your colleagues do their best to find a flaw in what you’ve done. It’s not a competition, it’s just a rigorous way of testing ideas. Unlike supernatural belief systems, criticism and testing are welcomed as ways to get closer to the truth.
One of the least well understood aspects of the scientific method is that there’s a difference between facts and explanations. Gravity, for instance, is a fact. If you’re unsure, feel free to lean too far out of a top floor window and in the next few seconds you’ll be convinced. Similarly evolution is a fact. It’s been seen in a variety of quickly reproducing animals over several generations. It can be seen in fruit flies, moths and fish. These aren’t denied by anyone who has seen the facts. They don’t need any more proof. Things fall to the ground, planets are attracted to stars, animals gradually change their form to adapt to their environment over time.
What’s differs are the possible explanations. With gravity, Newton just proposed that there was an attraction between bodies but he couldn’t explain how that might happen, he just came up with rather wonderful equations to explain and predict it. But those ideas later turned out to be very slightly imperfect. That’s when Einstein came along with the idea that the structure of space and time was curved by matter. That was a better explanation of everything and filled the gaps in Newton’s explanation. A step forward. Likewise with evolution. Initially we were told that species didn’t naturally change, they were static. Then biologists began to notice what they called “speciation”, that what once identical species seemed to have changed their form to adapt to different environments. Everyone who’s seen the evidence agrees that species adapt over time, the evidence for that is clear. Then Darwin came along with his explanation, natural selection. So far, that’s the best explanation we have for the variety and adaptation of species, humans included. Maybe one day another scientist will come up with an improved explanation. So far there doesn’t seem to be a need, Darwin’s theory appears to be holding out perfectly well, just like Einstein’s.
That’s the wonderful thing about science. Whether the Italian results are right or wrong, scientists will be happy. If Einstein’s ideas continue to adequately explain things then we’re happy. If however, there’s something his theories can’t explain? Fantastic, the universe is even more marvelous and complex than we thought already.
Sources
There's a good summary of the experiment in Nature. You can see the reaction to this story by doing a Google search like this.
You can see a summary of Newton and his theories here and of Einstein here. The experiments by Sir Arthur Eddington that provided the first experimental support are discussed in Eddington's biography here.
For a summary of the scientific method see here. If you're feeling a bit more adventurous read this on Karl Popper and "empirical falsification" as the basis of science. Learn that and you understand it all.
For background on Darwin and natural selection as his explanation for evolution see here.
Saturday, October 01, 2011
Weekend Post - Radiation
“Radiation”
It’s a horrible word, isn’t it? It conjures up images of the burnt victims of Hiroshima, their skin peeling, waiting for radiation sickness to kill them. More recently the nuclear disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima in Japan brought back those images. But how dangerous were these disasters? How many people actually died as a result of both these accidents?
This is where things get difficult. It’s impossible to say with certainty with any cancer victim that a particular thing caused their cancer. However you can look at the number of deaths that’s more than might be expected. In the initial explosion at Chernobyl 25 years ago, 57 people were killed but subsequently the only noticeable effect has been a dramatic increase in the numbers of children with thyroid cancer. The good news is that thyroid cancer is easily and successfully treatable and so far only 15 people have died from thyroid cancer in the area. While that’s 15 tragic deaths too many it’s not much more than would be expected anyway. Similarly there appears to have been no increase in birth defects or other cancers. Nobody is going to say that the radiation leak was a good thing but the effect is much, much lower than everyone feared.
Regarding Fukushima it’s really too early to say but the initial number of deaths was minimal and those few deaths were nothing to do with radiation. It’s impossible to predict future deaths but the news is not nearly as bad as was suggested by the press at the time.
On the subject of the danger of nuclear power production you also have to consider the dangers of other ways of producing power. According to the American Cancer Society between 50,000 and 100,000 Americans might die each year from the pollution caused by conventional, mainly coal-based, power stations. That’s a risk we should all be worrying about.
But what about other types of radiation? Are they dangerous? Well, that depends. “Radiation” covers a number of things. Ask a scientist and you’ll discover that radiation is divided into two main categories: ionizing and non-ionizing. Ionizing radiation has enough energy to ionize, or break down atoms. It’s ionizing radiation that causes radiation burns by breaking down the atoms in skin cells. Ionizing radiation can also break down the atoms in DNA that might result in cancer. It’s this type of radiation that is often released by radioactive sources like those found in nuclear power stations. However, as we’ve found from the experience at Chernobyl the risk isn’t nearly as high as we all fear.
The other type of radiation, the non-ionizing type, typically has much less energy, not enough to actually damage any atoms it might meet. That doesn’t mean that it can’t cause damage but the types you and I are likely to encounter are almost all perfectly safe because the energy levels and frequencies are so incredibly low.
The best example of non-ionizing radiation is the one we see every day, just by opening our eyes. Visible light is all around us all the time, even at night, it’s what we use to see things. Visible light is not ionizing. It doesn’t have enough energy to break atoms. A common misunderstanding is about sunburn which people often believe is caused by the light of the sun. In fact it’s the ultra-violet light from the sun that is ionizing, that causes the burns.
What about the most controversial of all the non-ionizing radiations: the radio waves that are used to transmit cellphone calls? Let’s start with a simple fact. The radio waves used by cellphones and cellphone masts use a frequency that is 10 million times lower than the level required to ionize. Unless radiation can ionize atoms it simply can’t cause cancer. This isn’t an assumption, it’s just physics. The radio waves used by your cellphone are as safe as the radio waves used by your chosen radio station.
But what about that World Health Organization report that was published earlier this year that everyone read, the one that said there WAS a risk from cellphones and that they might cause cancer? Unfortunately their report was selectively quoted. They reported just one study that suggested such a link but the papers neglected to report the vast number of other studies that showed there was no relationship between cellphone use and cancers of the brain or central nervous system. Perhaps the most telling fact is that the global levels of such cancers hasn’t changed a bit since the world started using cellphones. In fact the only widely accepted risk from cellphone use is falling in a fountain while texting. Do a search on YouTube for “fountain texting” and see if you can stop laughing.
The lesson is not to believe what you read in newspapers. Do some research, be skeptical and just because someone says it, that doesn’t mean it’s true. And yes, that DOES go for me as well.
-----
Sources:
My initial source for this was an excellent episode entitled of the Skeptoid podcast by Brian Dunning called "Rethinking Nuclear Power" [transcript here]. It was there that I found the report from the American Cancer Society which suggests the number of deaths from fossil-fuel energy production.
For a general overview of radiation see the Wikipedia page on radiation, in particular the distinction between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.
The WHO report on cell phone radiation effects is here and includes the following paragraph:
Regarding the coverage of the cell phone mast in Mochudi that was destroyed by an outbreak of mass hysteria see the Mmegi story here. See also the appearance of the charlatan called Barrie Trower here. Barrie Trower is not all that he seems.
To see what can happen when you text while walking click here but remember that if you laugh at someone else's misfortune you're a bad person.
Corrections:
In the printed version of this article I referred to the American Cancer "Association", not Society.
It’s a horrible word, isn’t it? It conjures up images of the burnt victims of Hiroshima, their skin peeling, waiting for radiation sickness to kill them. More recently the nuclear disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima in Japan brought back those images. But how dangerous were these disasters? How many people actually died as a result of both these accidents?
This is where things get difficult. It’s impossible to say with certainty with any cancer victim that a particular thing caused their cancer. However you can look at the number of deaths that’s more than might be expected. In the initial explosion at Chernobyl 25 years ago, 57 people were killed but subsequently the only noticeable effect has been a dramatic increase in the numbers of children with thyroid cancer. The good news is that thyroid cancer is easily and successfully treatable and so far only 15 people have died from thyroid cancer in the area. While that’s 15 tragic deaths too many it’s not much more than would be expected anyway. Similarly there appears to have been no increase in birth defects or other cancers. Nobody is going to say that the radiation leak was a good thing but the effect is much, much lower than everyone feared.
Regarding Fukushima it’s really too early to say but the initial number of deaths was minimal and those few deaths were nothing to do with radiation. It’s impossible to predict future deaths but the news is not nearly as bad as was suggested by the press at the time.
On the subject of the danger of nuclear power production you also have to consider the dangers of other ways of producing power. According to the American Cancer Society between 50,000 and 100,000 Americans might die each year from the pollution caused by conventional, mainly coal-based, power stations. That’s a risk we should all be worrying about.
But what about other types of radiation? Are they dangerous? Well, that depends. “Radiation” covers a number of things. Ask a scientist and you’ll discover that radiation is divided into two main categories: ionizing and non-ionizing. Ionizing radiation has enough energy to ionize, or break down atoms. It’s ionizing radiation that causes radiation burns by breaking down the atoms in skin cells. Ionizing radiation can also break down the atoms in DNA that might result in cancer. It’s this type of radiation that is often released by radioactive sources like those found in nuclear power stations. However, as we’ve found from the experience at Chernobyl the risk isn’t nearly as high as we all fear.
The other type of radiation, the non-ionizing type, typically has much less energy, not enough to actually damage any atoms it might meet. That doesn’t mean that it can’t cause damage but the types you and I are likely to encounter are almost all perfectly safe because the energy levels and frequencies are so incredibly low.
The best example of non-ionizing radiation is the one we see every day, just by opening our eyes. Visible light is all around us all the time, even at night, it’s what we use to see things. Visible light is not ionizing. It doesn’t have enough energy to break atoms. A common misunderstanding is about sunburn which people often believe is caused by the light of the sun. In fact it’s the ultra-violet light from the sun that is ionizing, that causes the burns.
What about the most controversial of all the non-ionizing radiations: the radio waves that are used to transmit cellphone calls? Let’s start with a simple fact. The radio waves used by cellphones and cellphone masts use a frequency that is 10 million times lower than the level required to ionize. Unless radiation can ionize atoms it simply can’t cause cancer. This isn’t an assumption, it’s just physics. The radio waves used by your cellphone are as safe as the radio waves used by your chosen radio station.
But what about that World Health Organization report that was published earlier this year that everyone read, the one that said there WAS a risk from cellphones and that they might cause cancer? Unfortunately their report was selectively quoted. They reported just one study that suggested such a link but the papers neglected to report the vast number of other studies that showed there was no relationship between cellphone use and cancers of the brain or central nervous system. Perhaps the most telling fact is that the global levels of such cancers hasn’t changed a bit since the world started using cellphones. In fact the only widely accepted risk from cellphone use is falling in a fountain while texting. Do a search on YouTube for “fountain texting” and see if you can stop laughing.
The lesson is not to believe what you read in newspapers. Do some research, be skeptical and just because someone says it, that doesn’t mean it’s true. And yes, that DOES go for me as well.
-----
Sources:
My initial source for this was an excellent episode entitled of the Skeptoid podcast by Brian Dunning called "Rethinking Nuclear Power" [transcript here]. It was there that I found the report from the American Cancer Society which suggests the number of deaths from fossil-fuel energy production.
For a general overview of radiation see the Wikipedia page on radiation, in particular the distinction between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.
The WHO report on cell phone radiation effects is here and includes the following paragraph:
"A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use."There's also a good summary of the facts on the Cancer Research UK site here. Read carefully the section on Category 2B risks (which currently includes cellphones). They describe this group as:
"a bit of a catch-all category, and includes everything from carpentry to chloroform."For a good overview see the always useful Skeptics Dictionary. In particular see the page on electro-magnetic fields and radiation here and comments on the WHO story here.
Regarding the coverage of the cell phone mast in Mochudi that was destroyed by an outbreak of mass hysteria see the Mmegi story here. See also the appearance of the charlatan called Barrie Trower here. Barrie Trower is not all that he seems.
To see what can happen when you text while walking click here but remember that if you laugh at someone else's misfortune you're a bad person.
Corrections:
In the printed version of this article I referred to the American Cancer "Association", not Society.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
The critical consumer
Are you critical?
It’s one of my favourite words because it has two important meanings. Critical can mean “crucial” and “essential” and we all know that consumer are both of those things to a business. Well, WE know that but not all businesses seem to have realised this.
An example. We had a complaint recently from a small start-up company that engaged a web design company to construct their web site. P3,000 later no usable site existed, they were making silly excuses about their failures and then they went silent. Clearly they don’t want to make a success of their business. They seem to have forgotten the critical thing, their customer.
Another company was engaged to repair a consumer’s stereo system in July 2009, two full years ago. During this, probably the world’s longest repair period, the store confessed that they lost some of the components and weren’t capable of fixing it. They offered to replace the device at their cost and then offered cash instead. Since then it’s just been excuses. Another critical consumer ignored.
I’m sure I don’t need to remind you that the biggest culprits in the Forget What’s Critical League of Infamy are the monopolistic parastatals. Our power provider seems, despite the efforts of some of their staff, to have absolutely no idea that consumers matter. Despite their manifest and scandalous failures in ensuring power supply they still seem to operate as if we’re the ones who should apologise to them when things go wrong.
The only one of the parastatals that I think have shown any improvement in recent years is BTC but that’s only because they’ve had to confront some competition from Mascom and Orange. They’ve been forced to get off their backsides and do something to keep us making phone calls with BTC phones.
Meanwhile I still think it’s disgraceful that we pay a small fortune for unbelievably slow internet connections in Botswana, most of which are controlled by BTC in one way or another. My mother, who has the misfortune to live in the UK, has an internet connection at home that is 32 times faster than mine here. I pay P399 a month for mine, hers is entirely free, provided by her telecoms supplier with her phone line. If we, as a nation, really want to attract companies to work from our business parks and innovation hubs then we need to provide them with power and internet connections that don’t make us look like a third-world nation. Which, in case you’ve forgotten, we’re not.
My dictionary says that the word “critical” can also mean “involving an analysis of the merits and faults” of something. That’s the bit that’s important to you and me. I know it’s boring but until all consumers analyse the merits of the things we want to buy then we’re asking for trouble.
You can start by being extremely skeptical about any advertisement that uses the words “natural” or “organic”. Neither of these words actually mean anything useful. Cow manure is both natural and organic but that doesn’t mean you want to eat it in a pie. Just because a health product says it’s natural, that doesn’t mean it will actually DO anything for you. Just like homeopathic remedies, which are perfectly “natural” because they’re no more than water. They have precisely no active ingredients. Just like there’s no evidence that they work at all. In fact, the only thing there IS evidence about with homeopathy is that they simply don’t work. Any effect they have is no more than a placebo effect.
You should also be careful when dealing with the people inside stores who are trying to sell you things. Remember that almost certainly they’ve been trained how to sell things. You haven’t been trained how to resist them.
Some salespeople, particularly those selling used cars will have been trained, weird though it sounds, to keep you waiting as long as possible. Once they discover you’re interested in a particular vehicle they’ll sit you down in the office and disappear. They might say they’re off to see their manager to negotiate a special discount but in reality they’re doing nothing of the sort. They’re relying on what psychologists call “self-justification”. The longer you wait, the more you will subconsciously explain to yourself that there’s a reason for it. You must really want the car.
Many furniture stores as well as car dealers will create a sense of urgency by letting you know that there’s a time limit on a special offer. “The offer is only for this weekend and will never be repeated!” Of course you do know that the offer will be there next weekend and every other weekend as well, don’t you?
One of my favourite sales tricks is when the salesperson, particularly when you’ve been a bit challenging, will ask you “What’s the one thing stopping you from buying?” Of course there isn’t ONE thing stopping you buying, there are several but the moment you answer the question you’ve played into his hands, allowing him to focus on just one objection rather than several. You’ve made the sale a bit easier for him.
Needless to say the weapons you should take when buying something expensive is are skepticism and knowledge. And assertiveness.
If the salesman asks you to wait in his office while he negotiates for you, politely say no, you’d rather come back later. When they say there’s a time-limit, call their bluff and point out that the same offer existed last weekend. Are they really going to call you a liar? If they ask what’s the one objection you have, tell them that you have five and which one do they want first?
Above all, remember that the salesperson’s nightmare is seeing you from behind. The moment you can’t get what you want, politely remark that in that case you’ll give it a miss and turn your back on them and walk out. If a good deal really exists they’ll chase you and offer it to you. If they don’t you know you didn’t want to buy from them anyway.
It’s one of my favourite words because it has two important meanings. Critical can mean “crucial” and “essential” and we all know that consumer are both of those things to a business. Well, WE know that but not all businesses seem to have realised this.
An example. We had a complaint recently from a small start-up company that engaged a web design company to construct their web site. P3,000 later no usable site existed, they were making silly excuses about their failures and then they went silent. Clearly they don’t want to make a success of their business. They seem to have forgotten the critical thing, their customer.
Another company was engaged to repair a consumer’s stereo system in July 2009, two full years ago. During this, probably the world’s longest repair period, the store confessed that they lost some of the components and weren’t capable of fixing it. They offered to replace the device at their cost and then offered cash instead. Since then it’s just been excuses. Another critical consumer ignored.
I’m sure I don’t need to remind you that the biggest culprits in the Forget What’s Critical League of Infamy are the monopolistic parastatals. Our power provider seems, despite the efforts of some of their staff, to have absolutely no idea that consumers matter. Despite their manifest and scandalous failures in ensuring power supply they still seem to operate as if we’re the ones who should apologise to them when things go wrong.
The only one of the parastatals that I think have shown any improvement in recent years is BTC but that’s only because they’ve had to confront some competition from Mascom and Orange. They’ve been forced to get off their backsides and do something to keep us making phone calls with BTC phones.
Meanwhile I still think it’s disgraceful that we pay a small fortune for unbelievably slow internet connections in Botswana, most of which are controlled by BTC in one way or another. My mother, who has the misfortune to live in the UK, has an internet connection at home that is 32 times faster than mine here. I pay P399 a month for mine, hers is entirely free, provided by her telecoms supplier with her phone line. If we, as a nation, really want to attract companies to work from our business parks and innovation hubs then we need to provide them with power and internet connections that don’t make us look like a third-world nation. Which, in case you’ve forgotten, we’re not.
My dictionary says that the word “critical” can also mean “involving an analysis of the merits and faults” of something. That’s the bit that’s important to you and me. I know it’s boring but until all consumers analyse the merits of the things we want to buy then we’re asking for trouble.
You can start by being extremely skeptical about any advertisement that uses the words “natural” or “organic”. Neither of these words actually mean anything useful. Cow manure is both natural and organic but that doesn’t mean you want to eat it in a pie. Just because a health product says it’s natural, that doesn’t mean it will actually DO anything for you. Just like homeopathic remedies, which are perfectly “natural” because they’re no more than water. They have precisely no active ingredients. Just like there’s no evidence that they work at all. In fact, the only thing there IS evidence about with homeopathy is that they simply don’t work. Any effect they have is no more than a placebo effect.
You should also be careful when dealing with the people inside stores who are trying to sell you things. Remember that almost certainly they’ve been trained how to sell things. You haven’t been trained how to resist them.
Some salespeople, particularly those selling used cars will have been trained, weird though it sounds, to keep you waiting as long as possible. Once they discover you’re interested in a particular vehicle they’ll sit you down in the office and disappear. They might say they’re off to see their manager to negotiate a special discount but in reality they’re doing nothing of the sort. They’re relying on what psychologists call “self-justification”. The longer you wait, the more you will subconsciously explain to yourself that there’s a reason for it. You must really want the car.
Many furniture stores as well as car dealers will create a sense of urgency by letting you know that there’s a time limit on a special offer. “The offer is only for this weekend and will never be repeated!” Of course you do know that the offer will be there next weekend and every other weekend as well, don’t you?
One of my favourite sales tricks is when the salesperson, particularly when you’ve been a bit challenging, will ask you “What’s the one thing stopping you from buying?” Of course there isn’t ONE thing stopping you buying, there are several but the moment you answer the question you’ve played into his hands, allowing him to focus on just one objection rather than several. You’ve made the sale a bit easier for him.
Needless to say the weapons you should take when buying something expensive is are skepticism and knowledge. And assertiveness.
If the salesman asks you to wait in his office while he negotiates for you, politely say no, you’d rather come back later. When they say there’s a time-limit, call their bluff and point out that the same offer existed last weekend. Are they really going to call you a liar? If they ask what’s the one objection you have, tell them that you have five and which one do they want first?
Above all, remember that the salesperson’s nightmare is seeing you from behind. The moment you can’t get what you want, politely remark that in that case you’ll give it a miss and turn your back on them and walk out. If a good deal really exists they’ll chase you and offer it to you. If they don’t you know you didn’t want to buy from them anyway.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
"Pastor Irene is in town". I hope she's leaving soon.
A story in Mmegi recently announced that "Pastor Irene is in town" and that "The devil is in serious trouble". The story went on to "report", as if it was a fact, that "Botswana welcomes a woman of God" "as she casts out demons from people of all ages including young children afflicted by demons and witchcraft spells". Am I the only one that objects to these fairy tales being presented as news?
The glowing report, that was written even before she had performed these so-called miracles seemed not to consider, even for a moment, if any of this silliness was actually true. Rather than deal with the details of the claims made about her abilities I'll just ask two things. Firstly, please give me the name and phone number of anyone, just one person who experienced a miracle that can be medically proven. Just one will do.
Secondly, perhaps someone can tell me what happened to Pastor Irene's prediction, made on a previous visit to Botswana in 2007 when she predicted that on 20th November 2007 God started to roll out his big plan for ending HIV and AIDS and that very soon “All children born of HIV positive mothers will be free of HIV”.
Let's get our facts straight. There genuinely HAS been a reduction in the proportion of children of HIV positive mothers who were born with HIV and that’s tremendous news. But it wasn’t religion or Irene's charlatan version of religion that did that, it was our Prevention of Mother to Child Transmission program. It was PMTCT that took the proportion of HIV positive children born to HIV positive mothers down from 40% to virtually zero. It was PMTCT backed up by rationalism, logic and medical science that did it, not Pastor Irene's supernatural money-making schemes.
The glowing report, that was written even before she had performed these so-called miracles seemed not to consider, even for a moment, if any of this silliness was actually true. Rather than deal with the details of the claims made about her abilities I'll just ask two things. Firstly, please give me the name and phone number of anyone, just one person who experienced a miracle that can be medically proven. Just one will do.
Secondly, perhaps someone can tell me what happened to Pastor Irene's prediction, made on a previous visit to Botswana in 2007 when she predicted that on 20th November 2007 God started to roll out his big plan for ending HIV and AIDS and that very soon “All children born of HIV positive mothers will be free of HIV”.
Let's get our facts straight. There genuinely HAS been a reduction in the proportion of children of HIV positive mothers who were born with HIV and that’s tremendous news. But it wasn’t religion or Irene's charlatan version of religion that did that, it was our Prevention of Mother to Child Transmission program. It was PMTCT that took the proportion of HIV positive children born to HIV positive mothers down from 40% to virtually zero. It was PMTCT backed up by rationalism, logic and medical science that did it, not Pastor Irene's supernatural money-making schemes.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Mmegi - End of the world or just sanity?
I enjoyed your article in Mmegi on 28th March entitled "Is May 21 judgement day?"
I appreciated it because unlike most religious proclamations this one can actually be tested. The prediction from Harold Camping's bizarre church group is that the world will end in the period "from May 21 to October 21 2011". They state that we will "experience great torment, which will begin with a great earthquake that opens all the graves and brings normal daily earthly life to a halt".
That shouldn't be too difficult to test.
I'm not worried though. Harold Camping is famous for having previously predicted that the end of the world would occur in 1994. Maybe I missed it? He's just one of many doomsday predictors who have persuaded their gullible followers that they have some mathematical formula for predicting the end. Charles Wesley, who founded the Methodists, predicted it would occur in 1794, 1874 was one of the many predictions made by the Jehovah's Witnesses, 1988, '98 and '99 were very popular years for various groups, even Isaac Newton predicted that 2000 would be the end. It seems that no year passes without some fringe group predicting the end of the world.
All of them have been wrong so far. Why should we think he will be right this time?
The drinks are on me in November when we can all ask Camping how he got it wrong yet again
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
Evolution is as true as gravity
In response to a very uninformed letter to Mmegi, entitled "We have never been gorillas".
-----
Your correspondent, Shine Namane, who wrote a letter last Friday entitled "We have never been gorillas" doesn't seem to understand anything about evolution.
To begin with he suggests that evolution has taught us that human beings were "originally a gorilla or a chimpanzee". This is simply not true. Our current understanding of humanity's origins is that both humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor, another species that is now extinct. Nobody in the world believes we're descended from chimps or gorillas.
He also suggests that "christians believe that evolution is a lie". Again untrue. The Roman Catholic church accepts evolution. So do the Anglicans and Methodists. It's actually a fairly small set of fundamental biblical literalists who believe that the Bible accurately describes the origins of either the universe or life.
He also seems to overlook, or perhaps he simply hasn't seen, the vast amount of evidence for evolution. Museums around the world are stocked with transitional fossils, the DNA evidence is overwhelming and evolution can even be seen to happen in certain species that conveniently reproduce very quickly.
Mmegi readers shouldn't infer from Mr Namane's letter that there is any real intellectual and academic opposition to evolution. Darwin's theory of natural selection is as respected as Newton's theory of gravity or Einstein's theories of relativity.
Finally, far from being "degrading", "ridiculous" and "a lie", a truthful understanding of our origins can only give us a better sense of our place in nature, something that the enlightened see as magnificent, awesome and uplifting.
-----
Your correspondent, Shine Namane, who wrote a letter last Friday entitled "We have never been gorillas" doesn't seem to understand anything about evolution.
To begin with he suggests that evolution has taught us that human beings were "originally a gorilla or a chimpanzee". This is simply not true. Our current understanding of humanity's origins is that both humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor, another species that is now extinct. Nobody in the world believes we're descended from chimps or gorillas.
He also suggests that "christians believe that evolution is a lie". Again untrue. The Roman Catholic church accepts evolution. So do the Anglicans and Methodists. It's actually a fairly small set of fundamental biblical literalists who believe that the Bible accurately describes the origins of either the universe or life.
He also seems to overlook, or perhaps he simply hasn't seen, the vast amount of evidence for evolution. Museums around the world are stocked with transitional fossils, the DNA evidence is overwhelming and evolution can even be seen to happen in certain species that conveniently reproduce very quickly.
Mmegi readers shouldn't infer from Mr Namane's letter that there is any real intellectual and academic opposition to evolution. Darwin's theory of natural selection is as respected as Newton's theory of gravity or Einstein's theories of relativity.
Finally, far from being "degrading", "ridiculous" and "a lie", a truthful understanding of our origins can only give us a better sense of our place in nature, something that the enlightened see as magnificent, awesome and uplifting.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
BBC - Alternative remedies 'dangerous' for kids says report
A BBC story about the dangers of so-called "alternative remedies" which are, in fact, not remedies at all.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
I get an email about "EFT"
See here for my earlier warning about EFT.
An email arrived regarding my rather dismissive comments as follows. The email is in red.
Peter's own web site include the following, remarkable statement:
An email arrived regarding my rather dismissive comments as follows. The email is in red.
Hi It's a shame people are so skeptical without giving something a chance.I haven't given shooting myself in the head a chance either, but that doesn't mean I should try it.
I've been using EFT for 7 years on myself, as a practitioner and trainer and I can honestly say that many of the claims for it are broadly true based on my experience and the shifts I see in others. I see some amazing things happening on a regular basis."broadly true based on my experience"? Is that meant to seem like evidence?
My background is in IT and I'm totally uninterested in fake or airy-fairy techniques that are not really delivering the goods.I'm not sure that qualifies you as an expert. I would rather have decently constructed double-blinded scientific studies investigating the claims made by a treatment but perhaps I'm just old-fashioned?
This is the real mackoy and delivers well above placibo. So give it a chance and try it out. There are free manuals on the web. Thanks, PeterThe word is "placebo". Forgive me if I don't try something that is based on pseudoscience, was invented by a charlatan and makes extraordinary claims but without any extraordinary evidence.
Peter's own web site include the following, remarkable statement:
"EFT is based on a revolutionary new discovery that violates most of the beliefs within conventional psychology. It contends that the cause of all negative emotions is a disruption in the body's energy system. With remarkable consistency, EFT relieves symptoms by an unusual (but scientific) routine of tapping with the fingertips on a short series of points on the body that correspond to acupuncture points on the energy meridians. Where there is an imbalance, there is a corresponding blockage in the flow of energy through the meridian system.Note: any particularly attractive people are welcome to come over to my place for a glass of wine and a vigorous "tapping" from either me or the wife!
The tapping serves to release the blockages that are created when a person thinks about or becomes involved in an emotionally disturbing circumstance. When this blockage is released, the emotions come into balance. Once balanced, the person cannot get upset about the circumstance no matter how hard they try. The memory remains but the charge is gone."
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
Christopher Maloney is a quack
For Maloney's own laughable "medical" site, see here.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Baiting a "traditional doctor"
OK, not a scammer, a traditional healer this time but a liar and a charlatan nevertheless. This is his advertisement:
I SMSed a number of "doctors" who placed advertisements in local papers yesterday and today as follows:
His response and our subsequent conversation went like this:
He is "Dr" Kachule and his cellphone number is 75916409. I'm sure he'd love to hear from you!
Thursday, October 28, 2010
A real man
Courtesy of Pharyngula. As the father of three young sons I find this a very useful example of what a "real man" might be. Morally strong, courageous and protective of his loved ones in a crisis. In fact just like a "real woman".
Saturday, September 25, 2010
BBC News - Alert issued on danger supplement
BBC News - Alert issued on danger supplement
"Food watchdogs have issued an alert after finding that a chemical marketed online as a health supplement was similar to industrial-strength bleach.
'Miracle Mineral Supplement' is 28% sodium chlorite - which becomes bleach when mixed with citric acid.
Even taken as instructed, experts say it can cause severe vomiting and diarrhoea - and mixing it wrongly could lead to respiratory failure."
"Food watchdogs have issued an alert after finding that a chemical marketed online as a health supplement was similar to industrial-strength bleach.
'Miracle Mineral Supplement' is 28% sodium chlorite - which becomes bleach when mixed with citric acid.
Even taken as instructed, experts say it can cause severe vomiting and diarrhoea - and mixing it wrongly could lead to respiratory failure."
419ers take council for £100k • The Register
419ers take council for £100k • The Register
"A Scottish local authority lost £102,000 to an African gang after being duped by a targeted letter scam.
The letter, received at the end of July, purported to come from one of South Lanarkshire Council's legitimate suppliers, and requested that payments be made into a different account."
"A Scottish local authority lost £102,000 to an African gang after being duped by a targeted letter scam.
The letter, received at the end of July, purported to come from one of South Lanarkshire Council's legitimate suppliers, and requested that payments be made into a different account."
Monday, August 30, 2010
Warning - "Emotional Freedom Techniques"
An email came in from a consumer asking our opinion on a workshop to be held in Phakalane next month entitled “Relax And Repair With EFT” or “Emotional Freedom Techniques”.
This utter nonsense was made up by someone called Gary Craig. His profile says:
In fact EFT is based on what they very scientifically call “tapping”. The EFT people say that:
So they just tap you? On your non-existent “meridian points”? So it’s like acupuncture, which all the evidence suggests is pseudo-mystical, pseudo-scientific claptrap, but without the one thing that might plausibly do anything?
These charlatans claim that EFT can be used to treat asthma, high blood pressure, depression, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, cyctic fibrosis and even sexual abuse trauma.
Based on these extraordinary claims I say we should run these extraordinary charlatans out of town!
This utter nonsense was made up by someone called Gary Craig. His profile says:
“Gary Craig is neither a psychologist nor a licensed therapist. He is an ordained minister through the Universal Church of God in Southern California, which is non-denominational and embraces all religions. He is a dedicated student of A Course in Miracles, and approaches his work with a decidedly spiritual perspective. However, there is no specific spiritual teaching connected to EFT or its Practitioners.”In other words he’s not a scientist and it’s not scientific, he’s spiritual because he’s been ordained by a silly made-up church in the home state of silliness, but his ridiculous EFT isn’t spiritual.
“although based on acupuncture, EFT has simplified the realignment process by gently tapping on key meridian points on the head, torso and hands.”
So they just tap you? On your non-existent “meridian points”? So it’s like acupuncture, which all the evidence suggests is pseudo-mystical, pseudo-scientific claptrap, but without the one thing that might plausibly do anything?
These charlatans claim that EFT can be used to treat asthma, high blood pressure, depression, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, cyctic fibrosis and even sexual abuse trauma.
Based on these extraordinary claims I say we should run these extraordinary charlatans out of town!
Friday, July 02, 2010
Who deserves respect? Botswana Guardian
In the Botswana Guardian last week Abdullah Moahi wrote a letter in response to another written by the very reasonable Ali Haider. This correspondence began when Moahi’s fellow Muslim, al-Hasan, wrote a letter complaining about recent cartoons featuring images of the Prophet Muhammad. I later responded by suggesting that if Muslims want to restrain themselves from portraying their prophet then that was fine but I felt that the rule didn’t apply to non-Muslims like me.
Well, al-Hasan and Moahi clearly disagree with me. They feel that people of another faith or those like me who have put superstition in the same place we put Father Christmas, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy must live by their rules whether we like it or not.
Obviously I disagree. My point was simple. I obey the law, do my best to be a good neighbour and I pay my taxes. So don’t tell me what I can and can’t do, OK?
Moahi and al-Hasan are confusing two different things. I believe that they, as individuals, deserve some basic respect. I won’t email them pictures of the prophet, I won’t invite them to eat pork and I will do my very best to leave them alone. I will offer them some basic respect. I expect them to offer me the same courtesy.
However I don’t think I am under any obligation to respect their belief system and they shouldn’t feel obliged to respect mine. I don’t think belief systems, whether they are religious or political, themselves deserve respect. It’s people who deserve some basic respect. If they want more they can earn it.
I also don’t think that anyone looks respectable if they write letters to The Botswana Guardian that are full of anti-Semitism and hatred like al-Hasan did a couple of weeks ago. Again I think he is confusing two different things. His letter is full of insults aimed at Jews, blaming them all for everything that is wrong in the Middle East. His target should obviously be the despicable Israeli Government, not every member of Israel’s main religious belief system. Jews and Israel are like Muslims and Iran. Not the same thing. Both the Israeli and Iranian governments frequently behave despicably but that doesn’t mean all Jews or Muslims are psychopaths. It’s not too hard to see the difference between a nation, a religion and people, is it?
Yes, I know I’m an atheist, according to al-Hasan a devil worshipper (he doesn’t exist, how could I be?) and an infidel. I have enormous respect for my friends who are believers in whatever faith they have but I don’t respect them because of their religion. I respect them because they are decent, hard-working and charitable people. Unlike some people the worst excesses of religion hasn’t corrupted them.
Moahi ended his letter with the words “silence is consent”. In that one thought we agree. I do not consent to my freedoms being constrained by any religion. I will not remain silent. Nor should anyone else who values their freedom to express themselves.
Well, al-Hasan and Moahi clearly disagree with me. They feel that people of another faith or those like me who have put superstition in the same place we put Father Christmas, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy must live by their rules whether we like it or not.
Obviously I disagree. My point was simple. I obey the law, do my best to be a good neighbour and I pay my taxes. So don’t tell me what I can and can’t do, OK?
Moahi and al-Hasan are confusing two different things. I believe that they, as individuals, deserve some basic respect. I won’t email them pictures of the prophet, I won’t invite them to eat pork and I will do my very best to leave them alone. I will offer them some basic respect. I expect them to offer me the same courtesy.
However I don’t think I am under any obligation to respect their belief system and they shouldn’t feel obliged to respect mine. I don’t think belief systems, whether they are religious or political, themselves deserve respect. It’s people who deserve some basic respect. If they want more they can earn it.
I also don’t think that anyone looks respectable if they write letters to The Botswana Guardian that are full of anti-Semitism and hatred like al-Hasan did a couple of weeks ago. Again I think he is confusing two different things. His letter is full of insults aimed at Jews, blaming them all for everything that is wrong in the Middle East. His target should obviously be the despicable Israeli Government, not every member of Israel’s main religious belief system. Jews and Israel are like Muslims and Iran. Not the same thing. Both the Israeli and Iranian governments frequently behave despicably but that doesn’t mean all Jews or Muslims are psychopaths. It’s not too hard to see the difference between a nation, a religion and people, is it?
Yes, I know I’m an atheist, according to al-Hasan a devil worshipper (he doesn’t exist, how could I be?) and an infidel. I have enormous respect for my friends who are believers in whatever faith they have but I don’t respect them because of their religion. I respect them because they are decent, hard-working and charitable people. Unlike some people the worst excesses of religion hasn’t corrupted them.
Moahi ended his letter with the words “silence is consent”. In that one thought we agree. I do not consent to my freedoms being constrained by any religion. I will not remain silent. Nor should anyone else who values their freedom to express themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)