tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19645080952151214292024-03-14T00:09:15.938-07:00The Physics PoliceBad boys, bad boys. Whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do, when they come for you?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-90561500985734450172018-03-29T17:29:00.001-07:002018-03-29T17:33:49.588-07:00Shine back at the starsToday's post is just a fun calculation. Sadly, that means no polemics.<br />
<br />
So I was walking home last night, looking up at the stars shining. I wondered how much I'm shining back?<br />
<br />
I started by assuming I'm a black body radiating at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_body_temperature">human body temperature</a>.<br />
<br />
<div class="math">
T = 37 °C</div>
<br />
I considered just my head i.e. a sphere with circumference of an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_head">average male human head</a>.<br />
<br />
<div class="math">
C = 57 cm</div>
<br />
I found the surface area of the idealized sphere representing my head.<br />
<br />
<div class="math">
A = 4πr<sup>2</sup> = 0.103418882 m<sup>2</sup></div>
<br />
I plugged these into the <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.3822.pdf">Stefan-Boltzmann law</a> to find the photon flux from my head.<br />
<br />
<div class="math">
N = (1.5205 * 10<sup>15</sup> m<sup>-2</sup> s<sup>-1</sup> K<sup>-3</sup>) * T<sup>3</sup> * A = 4.691 * 10<sup>21</sup> photons per second</div>
<br />
I looked up a number I'm comfortable with for the distance to the <a href="http://astrobob.areavoices.com/2010/10/02/how-to-see-the-farthest-thing-you-can-see/">furthest naked-eye visible star</a>.<br />
<br />
<div class="math">
D = 16308 light-years</div>
<br />
And I assumed these stars have on average a similar diameter to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun">our Sun</a>. <br />
<br />
<div class="math">
d = 1.3914 billion meters</div>
<br />
I found the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter">angular diameter</a> of this idealized far-away star.<br />
<br />
<div class="math">
𝛿 = (206265) * (d / D) = 3.03362676 * 10<sup>-7</sup> arcseconds = 5.167 * 10<sup>-10</sup> degrees</div>
<br />
And converted this angle into <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_degree">square degrees</a>.<br />
<br />
<div class="math">
Ω = πr<sup>2</sup> = π * (𝛿/2)<sup>2</sup> = 5.5771095 * 10<sup>-21</sup></div>
<br />
Finally I used this solid angle to find the average rate of photons intercepted by the idealized star.<br />
<br />
<div class="math">
N / (41253 / Ω) = 0.0238439 photons/s = one photon every 42 seconds</div>
<br />
So spend a about a minute looking at the stars, and you're shining back at them. At least a little bit.
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-48967028282717439802017-05-21T16:33:00.000-07:002017-05-21T16:41:02.107-07:00You contain more protons than neutronsI just recently read this book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06X1BHG1W">The Greatest Story Ever Told</a> by Lawrence Krauss. And I loved it! Normally I keep detailed book notes, especially on non-fiction books. This book was so interesting that I was paying close attention to its contents and neglected my notes. But I did write one thing down to research later on.<br />
<br />
In chapter 10 Krauss says that neutrons<br />
<blockquote>
... make up most of the mass of heavier nuclei and thus most of the mass in our bodies.</blockquote>
This struck me as odd, because hydrogen has no neutrons and most of our body is made of water i.e. most of the atoms in our bodies are hydrogen. Sure, all other elements in our bodies have a ratio neutrons to protons is greater than one. But I wondered, which effect is larger? The extra neutrons from heavier, rarer elements, or the lack of neutrons from the most abundant element?<br />
<br />
I won't keep you in suspense: he got it wrong. Protons win the popular vote for king of the nucleons. But it's a close race!<br />
<br />
<style type="text/css">th, td { padding: 2px 10px; }</style>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;"><b>Element</b></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><b>Abundance</b></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><b>Z</b></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><b>Average N</b></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><b>N:Z Ratio</b></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><b>Protons</b></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><b>Neutrons</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Oxygen</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">65.0%</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">8</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">8.00440</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">1.00055</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">5.200</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">5.202860</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Carbon</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">18.5%</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">6</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">6.01100</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">1.00183</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">1.110</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">1.112035</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Hydrogen</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">9.5%</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">1</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.00020</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.00020</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.095</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.000019</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Nitrogen</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">3.2%</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">7</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">7.00400</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">1.00057</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.224</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.224128</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Calcium</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">1.5%</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">20</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">20.11563</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">1.00578</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.300</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.301734</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Phosphorus</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">1.0%</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">15</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">16.00000</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">1.06667</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.150</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.160000</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Potassium</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.4%</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">19</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">20.13472</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">1.05972</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.076</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.080539</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Sulfur</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.3%</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">16</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">16.09290</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">1.00581</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.048</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.048279</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Sodium</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.2%</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">11</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">12.00000</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">1.09091</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.022</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.024000</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Chlorine</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.2%</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">17</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">18.48000</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">1.08706</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.034</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.036960</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Magnesium</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.1%</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">12</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">12.32000</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">1.02667</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.012</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.012320</span></td>
</tr>
<tr class="xl65">
<td>Trace</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.1%</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">82</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">126.00000</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">1.53659</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.082</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">0.126000</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>Total</b></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">100%</span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>7.353</b></span></span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">7.328874</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
I started by finding the relative abundance by weight of different <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body">elements in the human body</a>. Here you can see why the race is so close. Most of the atoms in your body are hydrogen but these atoms are so light that by weight they constitute less than 10% of your body mass.<br />
<br />
Also, while every other element has an N:Z (neutron-to-proton) ratio greater than one, thy are all pretty darn close to one so the effect size is small. I was as generous as possible and assumed trace elements were all Lead-208, which has the highest N:Z ratio of stable isotope.<br />
<br />
I think the moral of the story is to remember that nature can get complicated. We don't want to jump to a conclusion given one reasonable-sounding argument. Sometimes we have to work the problem all the way out to find the answer.<br />
<br />
Or maybe Lawrence Krauss is prejudice against hydrogen?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-30676873177020219552016-05-16T18:25:00.005-07:002016-05-19T12:41:14.596-07:00Minute Physics hasn't solved the grandfather paradoxI like the channel Minute Physics a lot. Their videos tend to contain quick physics lessons which are fun and
accessible to a lay audience. However, I was greatly disappointed by their latest video called <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XayNKY944lY">Solution to the Grandfather Paradox</a> which unfortunately contains pure pseudoscience in place of the advertised solution.<br />
<br />
The video starts off with a great description of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_paradox">Grandfather Paradox</a>. In short, this paradox arises if you go back in time to kill your grandfather. Being quite dead, he never has grandchildren and so you were never born. This leads to a logical contradiction: if you were never born, who killed your grandfather?<br />
<br />
The video goes on to propose a solution whereby you kill your grandfather in an alternate timeline, so he wasn't really <i><u>your</u> </i>grandfather to begin with. But this solution is summarily dismissed.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"But that's boring because it just avoids the paradox." (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XayNKY944lY&t=34">0:34</a>)</blockquote>
Fair enough. There's plenty of published work in the scientific literature on this topic that doesn't involve alternate timelines. Surely they're going to get to that science stuff, right? Wrong. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I'm showing this as a linear series of events but really it’s two entangled histories happening in parallel." (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XayNKY944lY&t=1m2s">1:02</a>)</blockquote>
I don't know what it means for two histories to be "entangled" or to happen in "parallel". Here the video shows a Mobius strip with a timeline drawn on it, following the plight of our time traveler.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVWFZuVDzlIzTi822PC6Tpo9SnsXGstHdvB1_KjVeCV3FkpA7_thYMyThmsjj3QNWF4suuYEg4r9pImdDkFBlrEUh3ZQnfx1dNWoNaFd8_HMfgkfbsCBfEC2NPMXEKdcVFjvtEp2DNW4o/s1600/Capture.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="198" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVWFZuVDzlIzTi822PC6Tpo9SnsXGstHdvB1_KjVeCV3FkpA7_thYMyThmsjj3QNWF4suuYEg4r9pImdDkFBlrEUh3ZQnfx1dNWoNaFd8_HMfgkfbsCBfEC2NPMXEKdcVFjvtEp2DNW4o/s320/Capture.PNG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Mobius strip following actions to their logical consequences.</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
This shows a chain of causality which loops back on itself. This is a clever way of depicting the paradox but it doesn't "resolve" anything. It merely shows the circular reasoning which caused us to call this a paradox in the first place. This particular type of circular reasoning is called an <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Infinite_regress">infinite regress</a>, and is generally considered illogical in science and philosophy.<br />
<br />
This mistake is able to slip by due to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo">selective inattention</a>. Viewers are easily distracted by the pleasant visual stimulation (myself included, on first watching). As we try to follow along the Mobius strip with our eyes, we don't notice the false conclusion. This "argument from cool shapes" is something I'd expect from Spirit Science, but not from Minute Physics, which I've always taken as a serious science channel.<br />
<br />
Next, to make this glaring fallacy more palatable, we're served a steaming pile of quantum woo-woo. Would you like physics jargon on the word salad? Just say when...<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Subatomic particles
regularly do multiple different things in parallel – it’s called quantum
superposition ... if the universe were to exist in a superposition of two states – your grandfather is alive and your grandfather is dead – then the natural result is a superposition of two states: you’re born and able to go back in time to kill your grandfather, and you’re not born. And the natural result of these is a superposition of two states – your grandfather is dead and your grandfather is alive – and so, at least from a logical perspective, this looping timeline is entirely consistent and there’s no paradox." (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XayNKY944lY&t=1m11s">1:11</a>)</blockquote>
When! When!<br />
<br />
Let's notice the equivocation between the "parallel" lengths of paper in the Mobius strip and the use of the word with regard to subatomic particles being in different states at the same time. The implication is that what's true about the quantum world applies to our time traveler. This does not logically follow because people are macroscopic objects relatively unaffected by quantum effects like superposition due to decoherence.<br />
<br />
Don't get me wrong. I'm cool with describing the quantum state of large objects, even the entire universe as in the <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/">Many Worlds</a> interpretation of quantum mechanics. The problem is the superposition shown in the video makes no sense at all and doesn't show what it's claimed to show.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhn0bAlFZbGsUuldyePZZnT5F4XL0GX31Tdsa8SSAO7x-q2oAlAH3TVLMQy9HLdI1QLs2jLKKxFlupSS621I6q1pBMxO6PNR4up0qQuSGaG2ofUsAB57pBZpoYFmE8hpeYJt2lQcaBlkuE/s1600/Capture2.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="173" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhn0bAlFZbGsUuldyePZZnT5F4XL0GX31Tdsa8SSAO7x-q2oAlAH3TVLMQy9HLdI1QLs2jLKKxFlupSS621I6q1pBMxO6PNR4up0qQuSGaG2ofUsAB57pBZpoYFmE8hpeYJt2lQcaBlkuE/s320/Capture2.PNG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Sure it's science, see the math symbols? That makes it science!</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
We're told these states represent a model of the entire universe. I'll call this left-most state where your grandfather is alive |A>. We know this state has some representation of your grandfather being born. We can evolve it into the future to see him grow up, put on a bowler hat, marry, have son or daughter, etc. Keep evolving the model forward and eventually our time traveler is born, puts on a red hat, travels through a wormhole or whatever, and emerges on the other side to kill his own grandfather.<br />
<br />
See the problem? We can't fully describe |A> without also including |B> in there, too. Because they aren't different possible states of the universe. They're all events in one and the same history! A history that's self-contradictory. Using math symbols from quantum mechanics doesn't make this problem go away.<br />
<br />
Now, there's nothing wrong with trying to use the idea of superposition to solve the Grandfather Paradox. But to prematurely claim victory having done no work and having explained nothing is inexcusably poor physics. Which is sad, because many fascinating papers have been published on this topic. The three million Minute Physics subscribers could have learned about the foundational work done by <a href="http://thelifeofpsi.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Deutsch-1991.pdf">David Deutsch</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-vDTovsY48">Seth Lloyd</a>, and <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.05014">others</a>.<br />
<br />
Next the viewer is presented with a very telling tease.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"And a similar paradox-free solution can be obtained by viewing the problem as a steady-state solution to a Markov chain ..." (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XayNKY944lY&t=1m48s">1:48</a>)</blockquote>
When! When! Aside from the obvious attempt to stupefy the audience with big words, Minute Physics seems to have misinterpreted a quantum computing exercise for theoretical physics. In the comments section they cite a <a href="http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec19.html">lecture</a> and <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0502072">paper</a> by Scott Aaronson. The lecture includes discussion of the Grandfather Paradox "in a computational form" which indeed uses a Markov chain.<br />
<br />
This is not a resolution of the paradox per se, but a computer model which satisfies some of its properties. It's not part of any an actual scientific theory. It's just a toy model to teach computer science. Aaronson imposes upon this model the requirement that Deutsch calls "causal consistency".<i></i> But that's boring because it just avoids the paradox! And it has nothing to do with quantum superposition. Because, as we've seen, quantum superposition can't solve the paradox.<br />
<br />
So, having mentioned real science only once, teasingly, the video concludes with this moral lesson.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The main point is sometimes we think a situation creates a paradox when it doesn’t, and really the only paradox is how our thinking can be twisted enough to dream up time-traveling murderous grandsons, but not twisted enough to think about twisting time." (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XayNKY944lY&t=2m09s">2:09</a>)</blockquote>
That's ironic because the only paradox is how such a terrible script got on Minute Physics.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-10819479656689408402016-03-07T15:09:00.000-08:002016-03-07T17:14:14.577-08:00Star Trek transporters aren't suicide machinesI really like the YouTube channel <a class="yt-uix-sessionlink g-hovercard spf-link " data-sessionlink="itct=CDEQ4TkiEwiFi4jNy6_LAhUWlX4KHebUD7Uo-B0" data-ytid="UC2C_jShtL725hvbm1arSV9w" href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2C_jShtL725hvbm1arSV9w">CGP Grey</a>. But his latest video <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQHBAdShgYI">The Trouble with Transporters</a> contains some rather serious philosophical and metaphysical mistakes.<br />
<br />
The thesis of the video is that the Star Trek transporter technology is a silent holocaust (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQHBAdShgYI&t=1m45s">1:45</a>).<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"...your experience of stepping into the transporter will be a funny sound, a bright light, then nothingness eternal, while down on the planet a brand new life complete with all your memories up to the moment before your death popped into existence..." (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQHBAdShgYI&t=1m20s">1:20</a>)</blockquote>
This description is some combination of scientifically false and philosophically bankrupt.<br />
<br />
The video seems to be asking us to accept metaphysical Dualism in which consciousness cannot be fully explained as the result of processes in the body and in particular the brain. There is not one shred
of scientific evidence to support metaphysical Dualism. There is a mountain
of evidence to the contrary. That mountain is called "neurology".<br />
<br />
Dualism comes from a pre-scientific time and originates in the religious idea of an immortal soul. It's falsehood is the consensus view in all relevant sciences (neurology, psychology, philosophy, etc.). It is a supernatural proposition and so by definition irreconcilable with the scientific method.<br />
<br />
The video grants that the transported body experiences no discontinuity in biological activity. Not in any tissue or organ. Since the brain is
an organ, it too experiences no discontinuity in its function. Since consciousness is nothing more than a description of part of the the function of the human brain, the transported person experiences no discontinuity in consciousness.<br />
<br />
It's really that simple.<br />
<br />
And we don't even need fictional technology to see this in action. Our body is made of cells, which in turn are made of atoms, and on down until you get to the particles from the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model">Standard Model</a>. In particular, the matter particles i.e. quarks and leptons. (Yes, here comes the requisite physics.)<br />
<br />
Even these fundamental particles aren't permanent objects.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="background-color: black; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEit5xvd0qSsGqM6Pk-f60-Zz_RpYUDG46swpM2FD3LVxYY_5V_s3W3DVM-g5DqTqJcQ4vSHTP-sMKzeELox8mlw1yZPJJQf9DtcceH8nKvvPvKfv2OsZQBiEkfSaxRug2J62mkSRwCPx3I/s1600/electron.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="162" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEit5xvd0qSsGqM6Pk-f60-Zz_RpYUDG46swpM2FD3LVxYY_5V_s3W3DVM-g5DqTqJcQ4vSHTP-sMKzeELox8mlw1yZPJJQf9DtcceH8nKvvPvKfv2OsZQBiEkfSaxRug2J62mkSRwCPx3I/s320/electron.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Matter is not made of permanent objects having unique identities.</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
For example, there's no unique history of a particular electron. Electrons are fungible excitation in the electron field. In Quantum Mechanics, we predict the behavior of particles according to laws which include consideration for an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle">infinite number of interactions</a> which would create and destroy the particle in question from one moment to the next.<br />
<br />
There is quite simply no philosophical justification for the absolute persistence of any physical object given appreciation for this lesson from the study of matter at the smallest scale. So there is no justification to say that I am absolutely persistent as a physical entity, just sitting in my chair.<br />
<br />
The Star Trek transporter is an unnecessary addition to the thought experiment because modern physics already forces us to confront the exact problem this video raises.<br />
<br />
But the video brings up the "problem of consciousness" and insists there's something "unmeasurably different"
between the pre-transport and post-transport copies of a person (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQHBAdShgYI&t=3m46s">3:46</a>). Now, there is something importantly different. Location in space! But that's entirely
measurable. And it suffices to describe everything different about the histories of the pre-transport and post-transport person as physical objects. The problem of consciousness never
enters into it.<br />
<br />
The video even goes so far as to call the transporter a "suicide box" (<a class="yt-uix-sessionlink " data-sessionlink="itct=CMEBELZ1IhMIlojC6sWvywIV6BZ-Ch1_pgOg" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQHBAdShgYI&t=3m33s">3:33</a>) which it obviously is not. Suicide is the act of intentionally causing one's own
death. Death is the end of the life of a person. The life of
someone who goes through the transporter does not end. Sure, transporter
errors can cause their life to end. So can car rides.<br />
<br />
Star Trek transporter errors
can also apparently duplicate a person. This raises interesting questions, like which is the "real"
person, but even then nobody dies. So no one committed suicide. So
it's not a suicide box. <a href="http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Thomas_Riker">Tom Riker</a> wasn't forced to commit
suicide.<br />
<br />
Finally, and most ridiculously, the video claims it's "impossible to know" whether you are the same
person as the person who you were when you went to bed least night (<a class="yt-uix-sessionlink " data-sessionlink="itct=CAEQtnUiEwja0NTUzK_LAhUBJH4KHd4ZCME" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQHBAdShgYI&t=5m00s">5:00</a>). This is some combination of false and bullshit because all
healthy people act as if they are the same person day to day, and treat
others the same way. Any definition of personhood that claims
otherwise is inconsistent with reality and therefore a complete and total <a href="http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf">bullshit</a>.<br />
<br />
Redefining words to fit an otherwise comically false narrative is classic pseudophilosophy. I never expected such poor content from this otherwise great channel.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-24693031999528973102016-02-04T12:11:00.003-08:002016-02-04T12:39:45.204-08:00No, Zika wasn't patented by the Rockefeller Foundation<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody"><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody">Conspiracy theorists have been buzzing </span></span>since a possible link between the mosquito-spread Zika virus and </span></span><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody">microcephaly became big news.</span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody"><br /></span></span>
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody">One particularly <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/zika-outbreak-caused-release-genetically-7281671">laughable conspiracy theory</a> is that the virus has spread in Brazil due to GM mosquito testing in the same area.</span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody"><br /></span></span>
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody"><span data-offset-key="e2ps4-0-0"><span data-text="true">First of all, there's no plausible mechanism by which GM mosquito experiments could have
caused the Zika outbreak. On the contrary, both GM mosquito testing and
mosquito-borne viral outbreak probably share the same underlying cause: the plague
of mosquitoes endemic to the general region! The whole point of the GM
mosquito program is to combat mosquito-borne contagious
diseases like <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/genetically-engineered-mosquitos-fight-malaria">malaria</a>, <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/brazil-tests-gm-mosquitoes-to-fight-dengue-1.10426">dengue</a>, and now also <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/world/2016/02/03/79741300/">Zika</a>. To accuse it of spreading the virus is a particularly dangerous and ugly irony.</span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
Second, the claim that Zika spread from the area where GM mosquitoes had been tested is false. True, both events happened in Brazil, but it's <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/science-sushi/2016/01/31/genetically-modified-mosquitoes-didnt-start-zika-ourbreak">untrue to say they share an epicenter</a>.<br />
<br />
Another <a href="http://donotlinkfb.com/7fj6">vicious conspiracy theory</a> is that the virus was patented by The Rockefeller Foundation. This is, if you'll pardon the pun, patently false.<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody"> Instead of the actual patent application readers are shown a screenshot from <a href="http://www.atcc.org/products/all/VR-84.aspx">a website that sells research samples</a> of the isolated virus online.</span></span> Under the product's history, we see:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody">"Name of Depositor: J. Casals, Rockefeller Foundation"</span></span></blockquote>
<span data-offset-key="lm8e-0-0"><span data-text="true">All this means is that the sample was provided by the famous virologist Jordi Casals-Ariet. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/21/nyregion/jordi-casals-ariet-who-found-lassa-virus-dies-at-92.htm">He discovered the Lassa vir<span id="goog_1631511328"></span><span id="goog_1631511329"></span>us</a>. And he's exactly the person we'd expect to be studying the Zika virus, which is known as an "arboviruses" because it's spread by mosquitoes. Here is a quote from <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8eCeYc0vpk&t=7m52s">an interview</a>.</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span data-offset-key="lm8e-0-0"><span data-text="true">"So by the mid 40s you had applied the compliment fixation test to arboviruses, and you had applied the suckling mouse to replication of arboviruses. So you were preparing really, without knowing it, to do a large amount of work in terms of growing viruses, making antigens, and preparing viruses."</span></span></blockquote>
<span data-offset-key="lm8e-0-0"><span data-text="true">The man's a hero. Thanks to work by people like him we have vaccines for many deadly viruses.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-offset-key="lm8e-0-0"><span data-text="true">What about the </span></span><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody">Rockefeller Foundation? In 1952 </span></span><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody">Casals joined the Rockefeller Foundation and worked in a lab where he helped identify viruses sent in from research stations all around the world. Here's another clip from the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLqKU9v7w1g&t=16">same interview</a> with </span></span><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody"><span data-offset-key="lm8e-0-0"><span data-text="true">Casals</span></span>.</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span data-offset-key="lm8e-0-0"><span data-text="true">"We were in New York at the time, at the Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research where our laboratories, the Rockefeller Foundation, was located. We were the reference, or the clearing house, for all the field laboratories. We were supposed to help them, both by doing tests for them, and at the same time, developing better procedures if necessary, so they could use them."</span></span></blockquote>
<div data-contents="true">
<div class="_45m_ _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="57em4-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="57em4-0-0">The "Rockefeller Foundation" is <i>literally </i>the name he called the lab where he worked! The only conspiracy here is doctors and researchers around the world conspiring to learn about deadly viruses in order to better treat human epidemics.</span><br />
<span data-offset-key="57em4-0-0"></span></div>
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span data-text="true">Two of the authors on <a href="http://trstmh.oxfordjournals.org/content/46/5/509.short">the paper reporting discovery of the Zika virus</a> have "</span></span><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span data-text="true">The Rockefeller Foundation" as their author affiliation. Private funding of basic science has played a vital role in human health. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody">But why are Zika virus samples sold online? It's common practice for medical research supplies to be sold online. Importantly, the sale is <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/biosafety/publications/bmbl5/BMBL5_sect_IV.pdf">regulated by the CDC</a>. Zika, for example, is <a href="https://www.atcc.org/~/ps/VR-84.ashx">Biosafety level 2</a>. Unless you work for a lab that meets these regulations, you won't be able to complete your purchase of Zika. </span></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-80504120904583320952015-12-04T13:00:00.002-08:002015-12-09T10:26:39.806-08:00Agricultural Soil Loss<a href="http://thephysicspolice.blogspot.com/2015/12/arable-land-loss.html">Yesterday I posted</a> about a demonstrably false claim is currently circulating in the news media.<br />
<br />
This started when the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures put out a <a href="http://grantham.sheffield.ac.uk/soil-loss-an-unfolding-global-disaster/">press release</a> saying:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"...nearly 33 per cent of the world’s arable land has been lost to erosion or pollution in the last 40 years ..."</blockquote>
So I contacted Mark Sinclair, the author of the press release asking how they reached this conclusion.<br />
<br />
He let me know the intention here was to highlight soil loss, rather than land loss per se as I addressed in my post yesterday. He acknowledged that this distinction has "perhaps been lost in the drafting". I'll say.<br />
<br />
He also shared with me the conclusion above comes from a book called <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=D2im0qYGG2YC&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=%22So+far+in+the+agricultural+era,+nearly+a+third+of+the+world%27s+potentially+farmable+land+has+been+lost+to+erosion,+most+of+it+in+the+past+forty+years.%22&source=bl&ots=txNlcML2je&sig=s_SlE0YjQXAdW1a-OXaGzeWfYUk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjxpMvvrs_JAhUHyGMKHfkmCHYQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=%22So%20far%20in%20the%20agricultural%20era%2C%20nearly%20a%20third%20of%20the%20world%27s%20potentially%20farmable%20land%20has%20been%20lost%20to%20erosion%2C%20most%20of%20it%20in%20the%20past%20forty%20years.%22&f=false">Dirt</a><span class="addmd"> by David Montgomery.</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="addmd">"So far in the agricultural era, nearly a third of the world's potentially farmable land has been lost to erosion, most of it in the past forty years."</span></blockquote>
As we shall see this is a fantastical exaggeration!<br />
<br />
The book cites something call the <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/089030699263212">GLASOD project</a> which in 1991 surveyed <a href="http://www.isric.org/isric/webdocs/docs/26867final.pdf">250 scientists</a> across the world and found that about <a href="http://www.isric.org/isric/webdocs/docs/Report%202008_01_GLADA%20international_REV_Nov%202008.pdf">15% of agricultural land was degraded</a>. This was a map of subjective perceptions, not an objective measure of land degradation. It's now out-of-date and its qualitative judgments have proven inconsistent and hardly reproducible.<br />
<br />
Since this was a snapshot in time it can't be used to assess the rate of
soil degradation. So how did Montgomery come up with 40 years? In
reference to a <a href="http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/119/1-2/140.abstract">paper</a> (<a href="http://srv2.lemig.umontreal.ca/donnees/geo3162/Articles_examen/Wilkinson,%20McElroy_2007_The%20impact%20of%20humans%20on%20continental%20erosion%20and%20sedimentation.pdf">full text</a>) by Bruce Wilkinson which again reports only the rate of loss.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"...mean soil losses are therefore equal to 885 m/m.y. in the areas under cultivation ..."</blockquote>
That indeed equals about <a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28885+meters%29+%2F+%281+million+years%29+*+%2840+years%29+in+inches">1.39 inches per 40 years</a>. But that's a rate of erosion today. Not an historical account of the past 40 years. <br />
<br />
Even if we ignore this, GLASOD reports <a href="http://www.isric.org/sites/default/files/ExplanNote_1.pdf">1.96 billion hectares</a> or 15% agricultural land was degraded which is not "nearly a third".<br />
<br />
But agricultural land is a small subset of arable land. So only <a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1964+million+hectares+%2F+8000+million+km^2">0.246%</a> of arable land was degraded.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, most of the land classified by GLASOD as degraded was only degraded by amounts "light" to "moderate". The book claims land was "lost" as in "could no longer support crops" which corresponds only to the most severe categories "strong" and "extreme".<br />
<br />
This brings the total down to <a href="http://www.isric.org/sites/default/files/ExplanNote_1.pdf">305 million hectares</a> or 0.0381% of worldwide arable land.<br />
<br />
That's 866 lower than reported by <span class="addmd">Montgomery and thereby the </span>Grantham Centre press release!<br />
<br />
Soil erosion is a real problem. To address it and make positive change we start with the truth.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-53567011159940073512015-12-03T13:41:00.003-08:002015-12-04T13:09:58.379-08:00Arable Land LossSoil degradation is a serious problem. I care very much about environmental protection and the long-term sustainability of agriculture around the world.<br />
<br />
This is why it upsets me that a demonstrably false claim is currently circulating in the news media.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"...nearly 33 per cent of the world's arable land has been lost to erosion or pollution in the last 40 years ..." (<a href="http://phys.org/news/2015-12-soil-lossan-unfolding-global-disaster.html">phys.org</a>, <a href="http://www.sciencealert.com/the-world-has-lost-a-third-of-its-farmable-land-in-the-last-40-years">sciencealert.com</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"... nearly 33% of the world’s adequate or high-quality food-producing land has been lost ..." (<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/arable-land-soil-food-security-shortage">theguardian.come</a>, <a href="https://www.rt.com/news/324516-soil-erosion-study-catastrophic/">rt.com</a>)</blockquote>
<div style="left: -99999px; position: absolute;">
experts from the
University of Sheffield's Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures
revealed that nearly 33 per cent of the world's arable land has been
lost to erosion or pollution in the last 40 years<br />
<br />
Read more at: <a href="http://phys.org/news/2015-12-soil-lossan-unfolding-global-disaster.html#jCp">http://phys.org/news/2015-12-soil-lossan-unfolding-global-disaster.html#jCp</a></div>
This claim was delivered to the news media by the <a href="http://grantham.sheffield.ac.uk/about/">The University of Sheffield's Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures</a> which is a political research and advocacy organization. They've circulated a <a href="http://grantham.sheffield.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/A4-sustainable-model-intensive-agriculture-spread.pdf">pamphlet</a> and <a href="http://grantham.sheffield.ac.uk/soil-loss-an-unfolding-global-disaster/">press release</a> which both repeat the "33%" statistic without any indication how the number was calculated.<br />
<br />
I suspect they got the number from the <a href="http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/News/2006/1000448/index.html">FAO website</a> which says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"... 33 percent of the global arable land used to producing feed for livestock ..."</blockquote>
Or perhaps they misunderstood <a href="http://gutenberg.us/articles/agricultural_land">this description</a> of FAO data:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Agricultural land covers 33% of the world's land area, with arable land
representing less than one-third of agricultural land (9.3% of the
world's land area)."</blockquote>
Whatever their mistake, we can use the FAO data to find out for ourselves how world-wide arable land area has changed over time. By multiplying the fraction of <a href="http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.ARBL.ZS/countries">arable land</a> by the total <a href="http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.TOTL.K2/countries">land area</a> of each country we get the graph below.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpBSIQXKJMu7TRBctCV3QATwc_gn5CO-WnCr5hVhJ6NJoNwKpE5eA6LbukxS2FSOXebbn9WseZSnO4cG16UFq3ak6bGU1uwSj6Z1185rhs1gnfG4YiAscSGwh7nut8wrWU8rHpmqynxww/s1600/arable-land.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpBSIQXKJMu7TRBctCV3QATwc_gn5CO-WnCr5hVhJ6NJoNwKpE5eA6LbukxS2FSOXebbn9WseZSnO4cG16UFq3ak6bGU1uwSj6Z1185rhs1gnfG4YiAscSGwh7nut8wrWU8rHpmqynxww/s640/arable-land.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Arable land is not being lost. <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/wflrvmuk1acw5ck/Arable%20Test.xml">Click here</a> for the raw data.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
But changes in "arable land" over time isn't even useful for measuring soil erosion and degradation. At least, not according to the <a href="http://faostat3.fao.org/mes/glossary/E">FAO</a>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Data for <i>Arable land </i>are not meant to indicate the amount of land that is potentially cultivable."</blockquote>
The three main causes of soil degradation are<a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/u8480e/u8480e0d.htm"> overgrazing, deforestation, and mismanagement of arable land</a>. We can do something about all three. Spreading demonstrably false claims about about catastrophic loss of arable land does nothing help. By spreading misinformation, the Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures only fosters distrust by people who aren't fooled by their doomsday warnings.<br />
<br />
If we want people to listen, a good place to start is with the truth. Not demonstrably false claims.<br />
<br />
UPDATE: <a href="http://thephysicspolice.blogspot.com/2015/12/agricultural-soil-loss.html">I heard back from a representative of the Grantham Centre</a>, but I still have no idea where the number "33%" comes from.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-14414380877726728262015-12-03T12:27:00.004-08:002015-12-03T12:32:03.892-08:00Power your home with only 150 Indurains!Today I saw an hilarious news article (more like covert advertisement, but whatever) with the fantastically bullshit headline <a href="http://myscienceacademy.org/2015/11/14/pedaling-for-a-hour-can-power-your-home-for-twenty-four-hours/">Pedaling For A Hour Can Power Your Home For Twenty-Four Hours</a>. This may be true if your home has only one dim light bulb. But for modern homes in the USA, it's demonstrably false.<br />
<br />
The article advertises a bicycle that's hooked up to generator and battery. You can store charge from exercise and run your home on this power. Well, partially run your home on this power. Don't get me wrong. It's an awesome bike! I want one!<br />
<br />
But the average American rural household consumes <a href="http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/index.cfm?view=consumption#summary">93.6 million Btu</a> of electric energy per year.<br />
<br />
<div class="math">
(93.6 million Btu per year) / (365 days) = 75 kWh per day</div>
<br />
The most bad-ass professional cyclists in the world can output at most <a href="http://sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-de-france-2009-power-estimates/">0.5 kWh per hour</a>.<br />
<br />
So how many Miguel Indurains would you need to invite over to your American rural household each morning to spend an hour peddling in order to supply the average day's power consumption?<br />
<br />
<div class="math">
(75 kWh) / (0.5 kWh) = 150 Indurains</div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFaOi7k-I1gfJKIxRU5CGtVULo3E9Gsz57YeVnrtHRDuR8U1LkPUxKpTTYEMqXHVv0fWu6cDAPpRQ3mS5RCTM56rR3lfkwyQ_bgAY6kUhMvRIB3AByc2HK5lWV4qzD0DOPlNJEXWQMorw/s1600/150-indurians.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFaOi7k-I1gfJKIxRU5CGtVULo3E9Gsz57YeVnrtHRDuR8U1LkPUxKpTTYEMqXHVv0fWu6cDAPpRQ3mS5RCTM56rR3lfkwyQ_bgAY6kUhMvRIB3AByc2HK5lWV4qzD0DOPlNJEXWQMorw/s640/150-indurians.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">"We're here to power your home. Don't worry, this will only take an hour. Got any food, by the way...?"</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-71463214706189989162015-08-25T13:33:00.004-07:002015-08-25T13:46:16.767-07:00Environmental costs are important so stop lying about themMany people don't read past the headline of a news story. Headline writers have immense and in my opinion unearned power to influence public opinion. Their objective is to capture attention. To this end they often exaggerate or misrepresent to the point of abject falsehood the contents of the article. When the subject is important the results of poor headline writing can be disastrous.<br />
<br />
Here's an example.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.exposingtruth.com/new-un-report-finds-almost-no-industry-profitable-if-environmental-costs-were-included">New UN report finds almost no industry profitable if environmental costs were included</a><br />
<br />
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="6b34i-0-0" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972447785008:0.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$6b34i">
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="18ttj-0-0" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972447785008:0.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$18ttj">
<span data-offset-key="18ttj-0-0" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972447785008:0.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$18ttj.0:$18ttj-0-0"><span data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972447785008:0.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$18ttj.0:$18ttj-0-0.0">This is a doubly false headline.</span></span><br />
<span data-offset-key="18ttj-0-0" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972447785008:0.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$18ttj.0:$18ttj-0-0"><span data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972447785008:0.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$18ttj.0:$18ttj-0-0.0"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="18ttj-0-0" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972447785008:0.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$18ttj">
</div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="18ttj-0-0" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972447785008:0.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$18ttj">
<span data-offset-key="18ttj-0-0" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972447785008:0.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$18ttj.0:$18ttj-0-0"><span data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972447785008:0.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$18ttj.0:$18ttj-0-0.0">First of all, this isn't a "UN report" but a report</span></span> conducted on behalf of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economics_of_Ecosystems_and_Biodiversity">TEEB</a>, a group which aims to draw attention to the global economic benefits of biodiversity. The TEEB is "hosted by" United Nations Environmental Program. This is one of the dirty tricks of headline writers. They fictionalize authority to artificially inflate the headline's credibility.<br />
<br />
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="18ttj-0-0" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972447785008:0.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$18ttj">
<span data-offset-key="18ttj-0-0" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972447785008:0.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$18ttj.0:$18ttj-0-0"><span data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972447785008:0.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$18ttj.0:$18ttj-0-0.0"> </span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="18ttj-0-0" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972447785008:0.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$18ttj">
<span data-offset-key="18ttj-0-0" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972447785008:0.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$18ttj.0:$18ttj-0-0"><span data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972447785008:0.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$18ttj.0:$18ttj-0-0.0">The big lie is about environmental costs. On page 28 of <a href="http://www.trucost.com/_uploads/publishedResearch/TEEB%20Final%20Report%20-%20web%20SPv2.pdf">the report</a> Table 5 shows 62 of the top 100 "greatest impact" region-sectors are still "profitable" when you subtract the natural capital costs from their revenue. That's a majority, even after cherry-picking the most polluting sectors from the NAICS list (page 63) and world regions (page 77).</span></span><br />
<span data-offset-key="18ttj-0-0" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972447785008:0.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$18ttj.0:$18ttj-0-0"><span data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972447785008:0.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$18ttj.0:$18ttj-0-0.0"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="18ttj-0-0" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972447785008:0.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$18ttj">
</div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="18ttj-0-0" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972447785008:0.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$18ttj">
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="6b34i-0-0" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972447785008:0.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$6b34i">
<span data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1"><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.$end:0:$text0:0">This
report does illustrate that some industries can't afford to pay for
their external costs. Many of these industries like water supply and
cereal farming are crucial to human survival and we all must share the
cost. Nobody is suggesting all industries incorporate all externalities.</span></span></span></span><br />
<span data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1"><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.$end:0:$text0:0"><br /></span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="6b34i-0-0" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972447785008:0.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$6b34i">
</div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="6b34i-0-0" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972447785008:0.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$6b34i">
<span data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1"><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.$end:0:$text0:0">Other industries, notably cattle ranching and coal power generation should probably be reduced. Eating less meat and building solar panels will help the environment. Neither of those lessons are news to me. I find this report supports what we already know. If you take the time to read it.</span></span></span></span><br />
<span data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1"><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.$end:0:$text0:0"><br /></span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="6b34i-0-0" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972447785008:0.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$6b34i">
<span data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1"><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.$end:0:$text0:0"></span></span></span></span></div>
</div>
<span data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1"><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.$end:0:$text0:0">External
costs are real and represent a terrible price paid by the environment. Exaggerating them doesn't help protect biodiversity. It only serves to alienate would-be allies.</span></span></span></span><br />
<span data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1"><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.$end:0:$text0:0"><br /></span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="6b34i-0-0" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972447785008:0.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$6b34i">
</div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="6b34i-0-0" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972447785008:0.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$6b34i">
<span data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1"><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".2h.1:5:1:$comment10155972078355008_10155972449560008:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.$end:0:$text0:0">I would like to see more regulation put in place to factor in external costs. These regulations can force industry to mitigate and repair damage to the environment.</span></span></span></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-40274693166159705012015-07-14T13:47:00.001-07:002015-07-15T15:27:51.228-07:00Planned Parenthood doesn't sell fetal tissueFirst, a warning. This is not a typical lighthearted post exposing innumeracy in the media. This is the debunking of a shock-video about abortions.<br />
<br />
A group of citizen journalists who call themselves "The Center for Medical Progress" have put out a video in which they claim <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjxwVuozMnU">Planned Parenthood uses partial-birth abortions to sell baby parts</a>.<br />
<br />
The video shows undercover footage of Deborah Nucatola, the Senior Director of Medical Services for Planned Parenthood, discussing how fetal tissue is procured and donated for research. There's nothing unethical or illegal about that.<br />
<br />
Mothers give informed consent for this use just as some people donate their bodies to science in the event of death. Some people put organ donor stickers on their driver's license. Some people visit the blood bank regularly.<br />
<br />
The video uses out-of-context editing to imply Planned Parenthood is making money from donated fetal tissue. In the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4UjIM9B9KQ&t=6m30s">full video</a> Deborah Nucatola explains how Planned Parenthood receive compensation for the extra cost of handling and shipping samples. She <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4UjIM9B9KQ&t=1h27m30s">later explains</a> how this compensation allows them to give patients the option without impacting the bottom line.<br />
<br />
The video attempts to confuse illegal "<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1531">partial-birth abortions</a>" with breech (feet-first) abortion which are in no way illegal. She clearly says the calvarium (head) is evacuated (removed) intact, which is not the case for partial-birth abortions. In the full video she <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4UjIM9B9KQ&t=1h41m10s">explains</a> how fetal demise is chemically induced before delivery.<br />
<br />
The video claims the sale or purchase of human fetal tissue
is a federal felony citing <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/289g-2">42 U.S.C. 289g-2</a> which only applies to fetal tissue used "for the purpose of transplantation".<br />
<br />
The video claims buying or selling human body parts is a federal felony citing <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/274e">42 U.S. Code § 274e</a> which also applies only to human organs used "for use in human
transplantation".<br />
<br />
This blatant misinterpretation of the law shows gross negligence on the
part of the filmmakers and suggests intentional deception.<br />
<br />
Planned Parenthood respects mothers who make the difficult decision to abort a pregnancy. Once the decision is made, one can only hope some good may come of it. If not for oneself, then for others. For some, knowing that the cell lines derived from their aborted fetal tissue may help cure disease, even if this possibility is remote, provides a small but desperate comfort. They should not be denied this comfort.<br />
<br />
Abortions are horrible. This thinly-veiled pro-life slander of Planned Parenthood is even more so for its callous disregard for the suffering of would-be mothers.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-36945544891823318002015-06-12T17:55:00.003-07:002015-06-12T18:27:20.843-07:00Jurassic Park and the Half-Life of DNAWith the release of the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFinNxS5KN4">Jurassic World</a> I am reminded of the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMsJe3TymqY">fictional science</a> behind the cloning technique in the original movie.<br />
<br />
<span data-offset-key="7ri2d-0-0" data-reactid=".dh.1:3.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.1.0.0.$7ri2d.0:$7ri2d-0-0"><span data-reactid=".dh.1:3.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.1.0.0.$7ri2d.0:$7ri2d-0-0.0">I
see nothing implausible about extracting DNA from blood cells found in a
mosquito's gut. Although mammalian red blood cells and platelets both <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_blood_cell#Nucleus">lack nuclei</a>, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3686644/">bird blood cells have nuclear DNA</a> one could theoretically recover.</span></span><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibRKEWYMHpTzOiAFHTOrY2k-g286C2Qhy_3iH91uk38qcV7Ag-5OpONjzeqVIPHIoGOmaVGnxrrlqPO2yB9orKxpG7UPMzIe2jq6TFaZKvASal-178Lr9I_0OdCHOu0lbulahfXdArkRY/s1600/thumbnailImage.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="188" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibRKEWYMHpTzOiAFHTOrY2k-g286C2Qhy_3iH91uk38qcV7Ag-5OpONjzeqVIPHIoGOmaVGnxrrlqPO2yB9orKxpG7UPMzIe2jq6TFaZKvASal-178Lr9I_0OdCHOu0lbulahfXdArkRY/s320/thumbnailImage.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Mr. DNA comes from non-mammalian blood</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div data-contents="true" data-reactid=".dh.1:3.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.1.0.0">
<span data-offset-key="9674m-0-0" data-reactid=".dh.1:3.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.1.0.0.$9674m.0:$9674m-0-0">Unfortunately, the </span>half-life of DNA is only about <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555" rel="nofollow">521 years</a> even under ideal conditions. The quantity of any substance with this half-life left over since the extinction of the dinosaurs during the KT extinction event is pretty easy to calculate.</div>
<br />
<div class="math">
(1/2)^(66 million / 521) = 4.81*10<sup>-38135</sup></div>
<br />
Though it's hard to make sense of a number this small.<br />
<br />
I think we can all agree there were fewer base pairs of dinosaur DNA on the Earth 65 million years ago than there are atoms in the universe. Since there are only about 10<sup>80</sup> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Matter_content_.E2.80.94_number_of_atoms">atoms in the observable universe</a> we can immediately conclude that the expected number of base pairs of dinosaur DNA remaining intact today is zero.<br />
<br />
So the the fictional cloning technique in Jurassic Park can't work.<br />
<br />
Looks like we're stuck with the <a href="https://xkcd.com/1211/">dinosaurs we've got</a>.<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-17922691156749807192015-03-04T13:11:00.001-08:002015-03-04T13:12:07.970-08:00A soda jetpack is physically impossibleToday I saw this funny viral video.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://ytimg.googleusercontent.com/vi/JrZHCwccS9E/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JrZHCwccS9E?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
We see a young man appear to lift off the ground propelled by 6 1-liter name brand soda bottles strapped to his feet. We are presumed to believe the carbon dioxide pressure in the bottle produces sufficient thrust to lift an adult human. Most people will intuitively decide the video is fake. After all, he's probably being lifted by a hidden wire.<br />
<br />
I'll use some <a href="http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rockth.html">rocket science</a> to show it must be a fake, not just to debunk this silly video, but to provide an example application of physics.<br />
<br />
The force to lift a person off the ground must exceed the force of gravity pulling them toward the ground. If we assume the fit young man is 70kg we can calculate this force.<br />
<br />
<div class="math">
F = m * a = (70kg) * (9.8m/s^2) = 686 newtons</div>
<br />
The six 1-liter bottles mass 1 kilogram each for a total of 6 kilograms. You can see on the second attempt they empty in about 3 seconds. Using the ideal <a href="http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rockth.html">thrust equation</a> we can find the minimum exit velocity needed to lift the person.<br />
<br />
<div class="math">
V = F / ṁ = (686 N) / (6 kg / 3 s) = 343 m/s</div>
<br />
That's faster than the speed of sound (340 m/s)!<br />
<br />
Since soda bottles don't make sonic booms upon opening, we can conclude this video is fake.<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-63899685324326298562015-02-21T04:58:00.001-08:002015-02-21T05:03:07.689-08:00Himalayan salt is a poor source of magnesiumI've seen claims that you should cook with Himalayan salt because, among many other dubious claims, it's a good dietary source of trace minerals like magnesium. Let's put this claim to the test.<br />
<br />
An often-repeated claim by the promoters of Himalayan salt is that it contains <a href="http://www.saltnews.com/chemical-analysis-natural-himalayan-pink-salt/">0.16 g/kg</a> magnesium. The dietary recommendation is not to exceed <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/pass-the-salt-but-not-that-pink-himalayan-stuff/">3750 mg</a> of salt per day. The daily recommended intake of magnesium is <a href="http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Magnesium-HealthProfessional/">400 mg</a> for adults.<br />
<br />
To get your dietary intake of magnesium from Himalayan salt, you'd need to consume <a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28400mg%29+%2F+%283750+mg%29+%2F+%280.16+g%2Fkg%29">667 times</a> the safe amount of sodium! This is not advised.<br />
<br />
Instead, you could eat the following foods. All have a higher concentration of magnesium than Himalayan salt. Even better, you can eat enough of these foods to easily achieve the recommended daily value of magnesium.<br />
<br />
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Food</th>
<th>Magnesium (g/kg)</th>
<th>Times more magnesium than Himalayan salt</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Almonds</td>
<td>2.821919258</td>
<td>17.63699536</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Spinach</td>
<td>0.687842819</td>
<td>4.299017619</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Cashews</td>
<td>2.610275313</td>
<td>16.31422071</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Peanuts</td>
<td>1.111130708</td>
<td>6.944566924</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Soy milk</td>
<td>0.268964179</td>
<td>1.68102612</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Black
beans</td>
<td>0.529109861</td>
<td>3.30693663</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Edamame</td>
<td>0.440924884</td>
<td>2.755780525</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Peanut
butter</td>
<td>1.731448763</td>
<td>10.82155477</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Bread</td>
<td>0.821428571</td>
<td>5.133928571</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Avocado</td>
<td>0.194006949</td>
<td>1.212543431</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Potato</td>
<td>0.433365953</td>
<td>2.708537208</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Rice</td>
<td>0.370376903</td>
<td>2.314855641</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Yogurt</td>
<td>0.185188451</td>
<td>1.157427821</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Oatmeal</td>
<td>1.285714286</td>
<td>8.035714286</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Kidney
beans</td>
<td>0.308647419</td>
<td>1.929046368</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Banana</td>
<td>0.271186441</td>
<td>1.694915254</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Salmon</td>
<td>0.30570756</td>
<td>1.910672251</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Raisins</td>
<td>0.202825447</td>
<td>1.267659042</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Chicken</td>
<td>0.258675628</td>
<td>1.616722674</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Beef</td>
<td>0.235159662</td>
<td>1.469747885</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-77340569884104815932015-01-17T13:23:00.003-08:002015-01-17T13:34:41.254-08:00Red Wine Is Not ExerciseSome online rag called the Elite Daily, which claims to be the <a href="http://elitedaily.com/about/">premier online news platform for and by millennials</a>, has this article titled <a href="http://elitedaily.com/news/world/glass-wine-equivalent-going-gym/770635/">A Glass Of Red Wine May Be Equivalent To An Hour At The Gym</a>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
According to a <span class="s1">study on the health benefits of</span> <span class="s2">resveratrol</span>, a compound found in red wine, your body could receive some of the benefits of hitting the gym without sweat-inducing exercise.</blockquote>
The <a href="http://jp.physoc.org/content/590/11/2783">two-year-old paper</a> they're referencing studied the effects of high doses of resveratrol on rats. They found that rats built more muscle on a 12-weeks progressive treadmill running program when 4 g/kg of resveratrol was added to their diet.<br />
<br />
It's important to understand that this study did not compare resveratrol against exercise. It compared resveratrol plus exercise against exercise alone. In other words, says nothing about taking resveratrol instead of sweat-inducing exercise. It should be obvious that resveratrol is no substitute for exercise. Exercise has many benefits. Increasing skeletal muscle is only one of them.<br />
<br />
Despite not being comparable to an hour at the gym, just how much red wine would you have to drink to achieve the studied dose of resveratrol?<br />
<br />
Red wine can contain as much as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resveratrol#Wine_and_grape_juice">12.59 mg/L</a> resveratrol. Assuming a person eats about 5 lbs of food per day, we can calculate the volume of wine you'd need to drink.<br />
<br />
<div class="math">
(5 lbs) * (4 g/kg) / (12.59 mg/L) = 720.56 L</div>
<br />
That's 4,873 glasses of red wine. Per day.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiy7r4SnMtr5PrWR173EYaP0TBsPWT2uUiR7d0CZDCACWN9o8ZWzpEuSroK8t8pCR2V5bejC1bkhEssmyX3cSiSwnuVhfF-ZZ0xps-rxIa956wtdGqsZzceudxXZP_Pi8x3AKKi7GNAJt0/s1600/conanwine.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiy7r4SnMtr5PrWR173EYaP0TBsPWT2uUiR7d0CZDCACWN9o8ZWzpEuSroK8t8pCR2V5bejC1bkhEssmyX3cSiSwnuVhfF-ZZ0xps-rxIa956wtdGqsZzceudxXZP_Pi8x3AKKi7GNAJt0/s1600/conanwine.jpg" height="177" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Drink up!</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Of course, no human can drink that much in one day. Since wine contains at least <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_by_volume">9% alcohol</a> by volume, all that drinking earns you a daily dose of <a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=weight+of+64.26+liters+of+ethanol">50.7 kg</a> alcohol. The LD50 of alcohol is <a href="http://www.rcpi.ie/content/docs/000001/914_5_media.pdf">5 g/kg</a>. Assuming an 80 kg human, we can calculate how many times the lethal dose you'd receive on the Elite Daily's red wine diet.<br />
<br />
<div class="math">
(50.7 kg / 80 kg) / (5 g/kg) = 126.75</div>
<br />
Not doctor recommended.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-22553604469946498822014-12-07T07:30:00.004-08:002014-12-07T07:35:50.168-08:00Michael Greger on Flavonoids<br />
Michael Greger posted a YouTube video titled <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAfMJ6cHJ34">Cancer, Interrupted: Garlic & Flavonoids</a> in which he offers a dubious summary of a paper from 2012 on <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21907754">the protective effect of the flavonoids</a>. <br />
<br />
This paper studied two phytochemicals, quercetin and rutin, at doses from 100μM. Greger presents the results as if they're relevant for humans eating diets rich in these chemicals. While the study is interesting, it's preliminary and the dosages studied are not in the least environmentally relevant.<br />
<br />
We can use the molar mass of the two flavonoids studied to understand this dose in parts per million:<br />
<br />
(302.236 g/mol) * (100μM) = 30 ppm <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quercetin">quercetin</a><br />
(610.520 g/mol) * (100μM) = 61 ppm <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutin">rutin</a><br />
<br />
Notice these concentrations are similar to the doses found in the foods high in these phytonutrients.<br />
Red onions contain 32 ppm quercetin and buckwheat contains 100 ppm rutin.<br />
<br />
How much of each food would a 70kg human need to consume to match the doses in this study?<br />
<br />
(70 kg) * (30 ppm) / (32 ppm) = 144 pounds of red onions<br />
(70 kg) * (61 ppm) / (100 ppm) = 94 pounds buckwheat<br />
<br />
That's a lot of red onions and buckwheat! It's clear that these doses aren't achievable through diet. <br />
<br />
The lesson here is not to mistake food for medicine. Eating a varied diet containing lots of fruits and vegetables is a good idea for many reasons. The effects of high doses of phytochemicals are not among those reasons.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-49506476873298165052014-11-26T13:04:00.003-08:002014-11-27T13:43:31.658-08:00Chugging Triclosan SoapA paper was published last week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences demonstrating that <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25404284">the commonly used antimicrobial additive triclosan is a liver tumor promoter</a>. That's actually the title of the paper! Hilda Bastian at Scientific American wrote a <a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/absolutely-maybe/2014/11/20/in-a-lather-over-triclosan-thumbs-down-to-fear-mongering-soap-operas/">good article on the study</a>, calling out its authors on their hype and fear-mongering. She also points out the study's small sample size and that the positive results came at very high dosages.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="st">... mice received less than 28.6 mg/kg TCS daily through water </span><span class="st">... [1]</span></blockquote>
So, how much triclosan liquid soap would I have to drink daily in order to achieve this dose?<br />
<br />
First, we need to know the concentration of triclosan in your average bottle of hand soap: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
... most of the popular
liquid hand soap brands contain between 0.1% and 0.45% weight/volume ... [2]</blockquote>
I'll be generous and assume that all of the 0.45% triclosan in our liquid soap is absorbed.<br />
<br />
For your average 70 kg human the daily dose can now be calculated!<br />
<br />
<div class="math">
(70 kg) * (28.6 mg/kg) / (0.45%) = 445 g</div>
<br />
Just shy of 16 oz. That's a lot of hand soap to use, much less drink. Daily.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSRkIZI2Nlb9Gsczv09MgFA_lbUJZM8CtEnfiVuXiYmCmG-3jLxaWIoW8GlB1cJ10uiiNXxyEJl_LfUZhGhGipAbCNL1N4UiwMyQoyLIFT5_j2q-83u78_DtVFCCfXbY5fGjC_L1m-QEw/s1600/16oz.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSRkIZI2Nlb9Gsczv09MgFA_lbUJZM8CtEnfiVuXiYmCmG-3jLxaWIoW8GlB1cJ10uiiNXxyEJl_LfUZhGhGipAbCNL1N4UiwMyQoyLIFT5_j2q-83u78_DtVFCCfXbY5fGjC_L1m-QEw/s1600/16oz.JPG" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>You can't even bring that much
on an airplane!</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Unless you're actually drinking the stuff (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qaef5QM8qkA">don't</a>), environmentally relevant doses from normal are measured in parts per billion [3, page 13], i.e. orders of magnitude lower concentrations than in this mouse liver study. In particular, absorption through the skin is very low, maybe 6.3% [3, page 11]. It's biological half-life is measured in hours [3, page 13].<br />
<br />
Preventing antibacterial resistance is reason enough to avoid products with triclosan.<br />
<br />
Argument from chemophobia isn't how we get people to use antimicrobial products responsibly. <br />
<br />
1. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25404284">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25404284</a><br />
2. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17683018">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17683018</a><br />
3. <a href="http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/chem_background/exsumpdf/triclosan_508.pdf">http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/chem_background/exsumpdf/triclosan_508.pdf</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-29725939977220848842014-09-27T20:14:00.000-07:002014-10-10T23:34:23.308-07:00Measles Vaccine Efficacy in ChinaFor whatever sick reasons, anti-vaccine activists try to use fear to dissuade parents from vaccinating their children. Make no mistake. This is an act of pure evil. Not only does it leave unvaccinated children at a higher risk of catching serious, sometimes fatal contagious diseases, but it puts everyone around them at increased risk of catching these diseases too. This is what drives many people to fight against the misinformation, myself included.<br />
<br />
The name of the game is science denial for the anti-vaccine activist. They have their work cut out for them. Concocting a worldview where a health measure that <a href="http://www.who.int/immunization/newsroom/events/immunization_week/2012/further_information/en/">prevents between 2 and 3 million deaths every year</a> is a bad thing takes a lot of work.<br />
<br />
Thankfully, sometimes all we need to do is give them enough metaphorical rope to hang themselves.<br />
<br />
Here's an example!<br />
<br />
Earlier this year, a study was published to the Bulletin of the World Health Organization on the <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4007128/">progress towards the elimination of measles in China</a>.<br />
<br />
Sayer Ji, infamous for misrepresentation of scientific articles, in a <a href="http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/why-china-having-measles-outbreaks-when-99-are-vaccinated-2">blog post</a> about the study, says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
China has one of the most vaccination compliant populations in the world. In fact, measles vaccine is mandatory. So why have they had over 700 measles outbreaks from 2009 and 2012 alone? The obvious answer is the the measles vaccines are simply NOT effective.</blockquote>
While the study's conclusion states unequivocally that:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In 2013, most of the resurgence seen in measles cases was the result of the susceptibility of unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated children...</blockquote>
Which directly contradicts the central claim of Ji's blog post. This is typical of Ji. He consistently references scientific studies in an attempt to lend credibility to his argument despite the fact that the contents utterly refute his argument. He relies on the laziness and lack of education among his readers. If any of them simply read the study, they'd notice that it says the opposite of what he claims.<br />
<br />
His biggest mistake was using the word "effective" which, in the study of vaccines, has a rigorous mathematical meaning. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_efficacy">efficacy of a vaccine</a> is defined as:<br />
<br />
<div class="math">
E = 1 - (V / U)</div>
<br />
Where U and V are the "attack rates" in the unvaccinated and vaccinated population, respectively. We calculate these <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_rate">attack rates</a> by dividing the number of sick people divided by the population size. So the first question is, who got sick? The cited study shows 53% of measles sufferers were unvaccinated, while 47% were fully vaccinated.<br />
<br />
The anti-vaccine activist might say, "but those percentages are almost the same! It looks like the vaccine hardly made a difference. You've got almost a 50% chance of getting sick either way, right?"<br />
<br />
Wrong. And we just need one more piece of information to prove it.<br />
<br />
According to the title of Ji's own blog post, "99% are vaccinated." Now we can calculate attack rates:<br />
<br />
<div class="math">
V = 0.47 / 0.99 = <span class="cwcot" id="cwos">0.475</span><br />
U = 0.53 / 0.01 = 53<br />
<span class="cwcot" id="cwos"></span></div>
<br />
Which means the efficacy of the measles vaccine in China is:<br />
<br />
<div class="math">
E = 1 - <span class="cwcot" id="cwos"><span class="cwcot" id="cwos">(0.475</span> / </span>53) = 0.991</div>
<br />
Or, 99.1% effective, consistent with efficacy noted on the <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/meas.html">CDC website</a>.<br />
<br />
So why is the anti-vaccine activist wrong to suppose you've got a 50% chance of getting sick either way? I like to think of it from the point of view of the measles virus. If I spread randomly from person to person, it will be hard for me to find that one unvaccinated person in a crowd of 100 people. If I do manage to find that person more than 1% of the time, I've done better than chance. That means it was easier for me to infect this person than the other 99 vaccinated people.<br />
<br />
It only takes grade school math to expose the likes of Sayer Ji. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-84264622745977627272014-09-12T18:00:00.000-07:002014-09-14T14:21:18.175-07:00Solar Power and Birds<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".3u.1:3:1:$comment10204120505468927_10204125749000012:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".3u.1:3:1:$comment10204120505468927_10204125749000012:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".3u.1:3:1:$comment10204120505468927_10204125749000012:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.0"><span data-reactid=".3u.1:3:1:$comment10204120505468927_10204125749000012:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.0.$end:0:$0:0">The Ivanpah Solar Power Facility is a "thermal tower" solar plat in the Mojave Desert, California. Rather than converting sunlight directly into electricity as do photovoltaic solar panels, thousands of mirrors reflect sunlight at a central tower. Water in the tower is heated to <a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/x-91577483/">1,000 </a></span></span></span></span><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".3u.1:3:1:$comment10204120505468927_10204125749000012:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".3u.1:3:1:$comment10204120505468927_10204125749000012:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".3u.1:3:1:$comment10204120505468927_10204125749000012:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.0"><span data-reactid=".3u.1:3:1:$comment10204120505468927_10204125749000012:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.0.$end:0:$0:0"><a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/x-91577483/"><span class="st">degrees</span> Fahrenheit</a>. The resulting steam runs an electric turbine. Storing solar energy in the form of heat allows the plant to generate electricity 24 hours a day. Latent heat used overnight is replenishing the next day.</span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".3u.1:3:1:$comment10204120505468927_10204125749000012:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".3u.1:3:1:$comment10204120505468927_10204125749000012:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".3u.1:3:1:$comment10204120505468927_10204125749000012:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.0"><span data-reactid=".3u.1:3:1:$comment10204120505468927_10204125749000012:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.0.$end:0:$0:0">This feature allows the plant to avoid the major drawback of other renewable energy production systems, like wind farms and photovoltaic arrays, which only output energy when the wind is blowing, and the Sun is shining, respectively.</span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/pdgb11dmu4rili6/Ivanpah-Solar.jpg?dl=1" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://www.dropbox.com/s/pdgb11dmu4rili6/Ivanpah-Solar.jpg?dl=1" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".3u.1:3:1:$comment10204120505468927_10204125749000012:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".3u.1:3:1:$comment10204120505468927_10204125749000012:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".3u.1:3:1:$comment10204120505468927_10204125749000012:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.0"><span data-reactid=".3u.1:3:1:$comment10204120505468927_10204125749000012:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.0.$end:0:$0:0">Ivanpah Solar Power Facility (No, it's not Burning Man.)</span></span></span></span></b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".3u.1:3:1:$comment10204120505468927_10204125749000012:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".3u.1:3:1:$comment10204120505468927_10204125749000012:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".3u.1:3:1:$comment10204120505468927_10204125749000012:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.0"><span data-reactid=".3u.1:3:1:$comment10204120505468927_10204125749000012:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.0.$end:0:$0:0">Criticisms of this pilot plant include the cost, and environmental impact. As for the cost, pilot plants are always expensive. Huge savings are typically seen when a technology is scaled up. The facility cost about </span></span></span></span>$5,561 per kW, only one and a half times the cost of building a new coal facility which runs about $3,500 per kW. Anyway, cost is a concern for the economists. I'm interested in the environmental impact, because I'm an environmentalist.<br />
<br />
Unforeseen in the <a href="http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/needles/lands_solar.Par.19048.File.dat/1-CDCA-Ivanpah-Final-EIS.pdf">Environmental Impact Statement</a> and prior to construction, some birds were found to have been burnt by when they flew into the area of focused sunlight. US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) began an investigation in July, 2012.<br />
<br />
Shortly after the plant formally opened in February, 2014 the Wall Street Journal ran an <a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304703804579379230641329484?cb=logged0.955762299368866">attack piece</a> by Cassandra Sweet with accompanying <a href="http://www.wsj.com/video/wildlife-worries-cause-solar-project-reassessment/CD1F2735-6EE2-4B51-8DB2-7327783BD3B2.html">correspondent interview</a>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A giant solar-power project officially opening this week in the
California desert is the first of its kind, and may be among the last,
in part because of growing evidence that the technology it uses is
killing birds.</blockquote>
This WSJ article leaves out the fact that all buildings with windows kill some birds, and that all methods of generating power harm the environment. The question is, how many birds are killed by this facility due to heat damage from fling into the focal range? And, how does the environmental impact of this facility compare to other types of facilities?<br />
<br />
By the time the FWS published a <a href="http://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/avian-mortality.pdf">preliminary report</a> of their investigation in April, 2014, the news story was long forgotten. The report got little attention until August, when Ellen Knickmeyer and John Locher published an <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/emerging-solar-plants-scorch-birds-mid-air">egregiously misleading article</a> in the Associated Press.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Federal wildlife investigators who visited the BrightSource Energy plant
last year and watched as birds burned and fell, reporting an average of
one "streamer" every two minutes, are urging California officials to
halt the operator's application to build a still-bigger version. </blockquote>
Here's what report actually says about the "streamers":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
... these events represent the combustion of loose debris, or insects. </blockquote>
In reality, the report investigation found only 47 birds injured by solar flux in the 1-year study period. So, at least 47 of the "streamers" might have, in fact, been birds. But not all of them. The article attempts to fool its readers by knowingly conflating the streamers with bird deaths. I trust my readers know better than to fall for such an obvious syllogistic fallacy.<br />
<br />
Credulous readers of the AP article would walk away thinking that the report showed <a class="short-url" href="http://bit.ly/1m1fq54">5,591 times</a> more bird fatalities than were actually reported. That's misleading by 3.7 orders of magnitude!<br />
<br />
How does this compare to some other <a href="http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/09-AFC-07C/TN202506_20140623T163654_Ex1157__Anthropogenic_Sources_of_Avian_Mortality.pdf">anthropogenic sources of avian mortality</a>?<br />
<ul>
<li>An estimated 1.4-3.7 billion birds are killed each year by cats.</li>
<li>As many as 980 million birds crash into buildings annually.</li>
<li>174 million birds die from power lines every year.</li>
<li>Up to 340 million birds perish from vehicles/roads.</li>
<li>Approximately 6.8 million birds die flying into communications towers.</li>
</ul>
<br />
And how does this compare to other types of power generation?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/s9rgoww3i7rymih/avian-mortality-energy.jpg?dl=1" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="148" src="https://www.dropbox.com/s/s9rgoww3i7rymih/avian-mortality-energy.jpg?dl=1" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Avian Mortality from different types of power generation.</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2198024">One study</a> compares estimates of the number of avian fatalities per GWh by energy sector.<br />
<ul>
<li>0.27 for Wind</li>
<li>0.60 for Nuclear </li>
<li>9.40 for Fossil Fuel</li>
</ul>
Whereas I calculate the total (solar flux + other causes) fatalities per Gigawatt-hour:<br />
<ul>
<li>(141 birds per year) / (1000 Gigawatt-hours per year) = <b>0.141 for Ivanpah</b></li>
</ul>
<br />
That's right. The Ivanpah plant costs the least number of bird's lives per Gigawatt-hour. It's terrible to measure electric power in terms of dead birds. But if you really care about protecting birds, you must question whether the benefits outweigh the risks, not to your own political ideology or world-view, but to the birds.<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".1r.1:3:1:$comment10204127809371520_10204130249632525:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".1r.1:3:1:$comment10204127809371520_10204130249632525:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".1r.1:3:1:$comment10204127809371520_10204130249632525:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.0"><span data-reactid=".1r.1:3:1:$comment10204127809371520_10204130249632525:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.0.$end:0:$0:0"><br /></span></span></span></span>
Moral and environmental consideration of a technology must include the <b>cost of the alternatives!</b><br />
<br />
Solar thermal towers help protect birds by replacing more hazardous means to generate power. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-52598544128534139372014-08-10T21:55:00.003-07:002014-08-10T22:05:56.333-07:00Sugar in a Caesarean SectionLast Week Tonight with John Oliver is plagued by the same problem as other comedy news shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. They sometimes get things wrong because the writers are comedians trying to be funny, not skeptics trying to think critically.<br />
<br />
In this week's episode, while discussing our broken prison system, John brought up the story of Regan Clarine. While an inmate in Perryville State Prison inmate underwent a C-section operation. Her mother Lori was interviewed for <a href="http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/america-tonight-blog/2013/12/2/arizona-s-privatizedprisonhealthcareunderfireafterdeaths.html">Al Jazeera</a>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Lori said the medical staff didn't stitch the wound shut. Instead, they dressed it with butterfly bandages.</blockquote>
It sounds like Clarine was treated with <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10124360/C-section-scars-banished-with-welding-torch.html">BioWeld</a>, a new way to seal wounds without staples or stitches. The machine uses plasma to bind skin to a biological film based on a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvcigIJCDaM">naturally occurring sugar</a>.<br />
<br />
Clarine developed an infection in the wound site, and sent to the prison hospital. According to Lori:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
... they decided that the best
thing to do for this would be to pack it with kitchen sugar … we're
talking sugar that you get from, because they donate it from McDonald's
from Burger King, you know? They're standing there ripping open these
little packs of sugar and filling that wound.</blockquote>
It sounds like Clarine was treated with <a href="http://www.woundsource.com/product/multidex-gel-or-powder">Multidex</a> powder, a moist wound filler useful for reducing purulent exudate (or "oozing" as described in the Al Jazeera article). Some of these powder packets do sort of resemble McDonald's sugar packets in shape and size. The mistake is easy to make, especially for an anesthetized person, but they aren't from a fast food joint. They're medicine.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://images.wisdomking.com/images/size/1/6/photo_7.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://images.wisdomking.com/images/size/1/6/photo_7.jpg" height="320" width="239" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Multidex powder packets.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
This medicine approved for use in <a href="http://www.biomedsearch.com/nih/Multidex-Gel-use-in-wound/9173104.html">1997</a>. It's main ingredient isn't "kitchen sugar" (sucrose) but a different polysaccharide called maltodextrin.<br />
<br />
Even Lori's brother, who's a doctor, said:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It's probably just a nickname of something. Nobody would pour sugar in a wound. So don't worry about it.</blockquote>
But the article says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Sugar was used to treat wounds before the advent of antibiotics in the
early 1900s, but it's no longer accepted medical practice.</blockquote>
Which is false! As we've seen, sugar is used in modern medicine to both seal and pack wounds.<br />
<br />
I don't question that this poor inmate was mistreated. It seems likely she developed these complications as a result of inadequate care. Neither do I blame anyone for misunderstanding their doctors bedside explanation of the treatment they receive.<br />
<br />
I blame Abigail Leonard and Adam May, authors of the article, for not checking their facts, and for printing the opinion of the mother of an inmate as fact despite all common sense, and without the least bit of skepticism. America Tonight is not supposed to be a comedy show, right?<br />
<br />
The claim that privatization of the penal system leads to poor inmate treatment is a serious one, and needs to be backed up with evidence. In this case, the sugar is not evidence. The wound re-opening and subsequent infection is evidence.<br />
<br />
Another issue is that a 18-year-old woman was sentenced to 2.5 years for intent to sell prescription painkillers. We can argue for reform of drug laws without exaggerating the problems that face inmates. We already knew prison is terrible before this story. Drug offenders belong in rehab, not prison.<br />
<br />
I think John Oliver (and his writers) really care about the topics they talk about on the show. I want them to know that they can better serve their audience with the truth than with half-truths and lies. This can only be accomplished by checking facts and applying critical thinking, which is hard work.<br />
<br />
I leave you with this quote by John Oliver from 2009:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
... Someone came up to me and asked me a question about a news story, and I didn't know anything about it so I just lied and they listened to me and believed me. The feeling of power that I got from that lie infecting their head made me think, "Yes, this is what I want to do for a living." (<a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/oa59bz/ask-a-correspondent---childhood-dreams">1:40</a>)</blockquote>
I know this was said with irony. Let's not make it double-irony.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-41095931655545311202014-06-15T02:59:00.001-07:002014-06-15T03:14:05.077-07:00Fukushima's Children are Safe<span class="author" itemprop="author">Anti-nuclear activist Harvey Wasserman</span> posted an op-ed on EcoWatch with the outrageous title <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2014/06/14/fukushima-children-dying/">Fukushima's Children are Dying</a> wherein he claims: <br />
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="sep"></span>More than 48 percent of some 375,000 young people—nearly 200,000
kids—tested by the Fukushima Medical University near the smoldering
reactors now suffer from pre-cancerous thyroid abnormalities, primarily nodules and cysts. </blockquote>
</div>
<div>
These blatantly misrepresented and severely up-rounded numbers come from a <a href="http://www.fmu.ac.jp/radiationhealth/results/20140519.html">recent health survey</a> conducted by the Japanese government. In the survey, kids from the Fukushima area underwent ultrasound thyroid screening.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Only 2,070 of the 295,511 participants had significant thyroid
nodules. This is consistent with the worldwide average prevalence of such nodules in children, <a href="http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/853737-overview">between 0.2% and 5%</a>.<br />
<br />
These poor kids had a follow-up screening. Those that still had nodules underwent biopsy. In the end, only 91 cases were found to be malignant or suspicious.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
This rate is very low when you consider upwards of 50% of children with symptomatic nodular thyroid enlargement end up diagnosed with thyroid
carcinoma. In this Japanese health survey, the ratio was 4.4%, ten times lower.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
Why was the false positive rate so high in this screening? Because of something called selection bias.<br />
<br />
Whenever a healthy population is screened for disease you get a higher rate of false positives than for an unscreened population, who aren't tested unless they come to their doctor with symptoms. This is because the rate of disease is higher among patients with symptoms than it is for the entire screened population. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If we screened everyone as thoroughly as the Japanese government screened these kids from Fukushima, we'd expect to find the same high rate of false-positive nodules, and the same low rate of true-positive carcinomas. Luckily, childhood thyroid cancer is very rare and has a long-term survival rates <a href="http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/853737-overview">greater than 95%</a>.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
The Japanese government is
screening kids for safety. They have NOT found an elevated rate of precancerous thyroid abnormalities. Many of Fukushima's children have
been displaced from their homes to keep them safe.<br />
<br />
They're safe. Not dying.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-10690648633286386512014-05-28T01:47:00.000-07:002014-05-28T01:52:26.812-07:00The Universe Is Not MathMax Tegmark has this crazy theory called the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. He first published a <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646">paper</a> on the topic in 2007. It made very little impact in the physics community, for reasons we shall see later on in this post. Then in 2008 he managed to get a piece published in <a href="http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jul/16-is-the-universe-actually-made-of-math">Discover Magazine</a>. Shortly thereafter he began work on a book finally published in 2013 titled <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/19395553-our-mathematical-universe">Our Mathematical Universe</a> which he managed to plug on <a href="http://physicsworld.implere.com/GetHtml/?article_ref_enc=UEhZU1dvZGUzMDAvMjAxNC8wMi8wMS9BcjAyNDAw">Physics World</a>, <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-universe-made-of-math-excerpt/">Scientific American</a> and <a href="http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/01/17/2014/is-the-universe-built-on-math.html">Science Friday</a>.<br />
<br />
He's even a guest on a this week's episode of Minute Physics in which he asked the leading question <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGG4HmlotJE">Is the Universe Entirely Mathematical?</a><br />
<br />
The answer, of course, is a resounding and obvious <b>NO</b>!<br />
<br />
His Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) states that the External Physical Reality (EPR) is a mathematical structure if it can be described by a Theory of Everything (ToE). He's not only saying that a ToE perfectly describes how the EPR works, he's saying that they are one in the same thing! He<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".5d.1:3:1:$replies649449891778535_5889638:0.1:2:$comment649449891778535_5904795:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body"><span data-reactid=".5d.1:3:1:$replies649449891778535_5889638:0.1:2:$comment649449891778535_5904795:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".5d.1:3:1:$replies649449891778535_5889638:0.1:2:$comment649449891778535_5904795:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$4:0"> makes this unambiguously clear on page 280 of his book.</span></span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".5d.1:3:1:$replies649449891778535_5889638:0.1:2:$comment649449891778535_5904795:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body"><span data-reactid=".5d.1:3:1:$replies649449891778535_5889638:0.1:2:$comment649449891778535_5904795:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".5d.1:3:1:$replies649449891778535_5889638:0.1:2:$comment649449891778535_5904795:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$4:0">Whereas most of my physics colleagues would say that our external physical reality is (at least approximately) <u><b>described</b></u> by mathematics, I'm arguing that it <u><b>is</b></u> mathematics (more specifically, a mathematical structure).</span></span></span></blockquote>
Well, Max, your <span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".5d.1:3:1:$replies649449891778535_5889638:0.1:2:$comment649449891778535_5904795:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body"><span data-reactid=".5d.1:3:1:$replies649449891778535_5889638:0.1:2:$comment649449891778535_5904795:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".5d.1:3:1:$replies649449891778535_5889638:0.1:2:$comment649449891778535_5904795:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$4:0">most of your <a href="http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6551">physics colleagues</a> would be right. One of the first things they teach you in grade school science is that theories are models of the universe, not to be mistaken for the real thing. The MUH might remind some of my readers of a strong version of <a href="http://blog.darkbuzz.com/2014/01/tegmark-book-pushes-math-universe.html">Platonism</a>.</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".k.1:3:1:$replies647750075281850_1988299:0.1:2:$comment647750075281850_1993675:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body"><span data-reactid=".k.1:3:1:$replies647750075281850_1988299:0.1:2:$comment647750075281850_1993675:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".k.1:3:1:$replies647750075281850_1988299:0.1:2:$comment647750075281850_1993675:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$4:0">In other words, the MUH is one giant exercise in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation">equivocation</a>, which can be demonstrated by analogy. Maps correspond to, but aren't the same as the territory they represent. Even a perfect scale-model replica of some territory must be built at some location other than the territory in question, and so is a distinct entity unto its self. Mistaking this replica for the real thing is demonstrably false, and not simply because you can walk right off its edge.</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".k.1:3:1:$replies647750075281850_1988299:0.1:2:$comment647750075281850_1993675:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body"><span data-reactid=".k.1:3:1:$replies647750075281850_1988299:0.1:2:$comment647750075281850_1993675:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".k.1:3:1:$replies647750075281850_1988299:0.1:2:$comment647750075281850_1993675:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$4:0">For example, imagine if Max were to claim that, since the design of the Eiffel Tower in Las Vegas is identical to the design of the Eiffel Tower in Paris, they are one in the same tower.</span></span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".5d.1:3:1:$replies649449891778535_5889638:0.1:2:$comment649449891778535_5904795:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body"><span data-reactid=".5d.1:3:1:$replies649449891778535_5889638:0.1:2:$comment649449891778535_5904795:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".5d.1:3:1:$replies649449891778535_5889638:0.1:2:$comment649449891778535_5904795:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$4:0">Whereas most of my architecture colleagues would say that the Eiffel Tower in Las Vegas is (at least approximately) <u><b>described</b></u> by the Eiffel Tower in Paris, I'm arguing that it <u><b>is</b></u> the Eiffel Tower in Paris...</span></span></span></blockquote>
Taking the fancy physics jargon out of the argument exposes it as <span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".k.1:3:1:$comment647750075281850_1993695:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body"><span data-reactid=".k.1:3:1:$comment647750075281850_1993695:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".k.1:3:1:$comment647750075281850_1993695:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$12:0">semantic doggerel.</span></span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".5d.1:3:1:$replies649449891778535_5889638:0.1:2:$comment649449891778535_5904795:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body"><span data-reactid=".5d.1:3:1:$replies649449891778535_5889638:0.1:2:$comment649449891778535_5904795:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".5d.1:3:1:$replies649449891778535_5889638:0.1:2:$comment649449891778535_5904795:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$4:0">On
the same page 280, in a footnote no less, Max tries to justify this argument from<b><i>
isomorphism</i></b>.</span></span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".5d.1:3:1:$replies649449891778535_5889638:0.1:2:$comment649449891778535_5904795:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body"><span data-reactid=".5d.1:3:1:$replies649449891778535_5889638:0.1:2:$comment649449891778535_5904795:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".5d.1:3:1:$replies649449891778535_5889638:0.1:2:$comment649449891778535_5904795:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$4:0">From the definition of a mathematical structure, it follows that if there's an isomorphism between a mathematical structure and another structure (a one-to-one correspondence between the two that respects the relations), then they're one and the same. If our external physical reality is isomorphic to a mathematical structure, it therefore fits the definition of being a mathematical structure.</span></span></span></blockquote>
Did you notice the <b>GIANT CIRCULAR ARGUMENT</b>?!<br />
<br />
Isomorphism is a tool that can only be applied to two mathematical <span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".5d.1:3:1:$replies649449891778535_5889638:0.1:2:$comment649449891778535_5904795:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body"><span data-reactid=".5d.1:3:1:$replies649449891778535_5889638:0.1:2:$comment649449891778535_5904795:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".5d.1:3:1:$replies649449891778535_5889638:0.1:2:$comment649449891778535_5904795:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.0:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$4:0">structures</span></span></span>. Max expects us to believe that we can use this tool on the ToE and EPR. But this begs the question of whether the EPR is a mathematical structure in the first place!<br />
<br />
I find it astounding that buried in a footnote at the bottom of a single page in a 397 page book is one feeble attempt to use circular reasoning and fancy math words to sell abject nonsense to the reader.<br />
<br />
I can't for the life of me understand why anyone takes Mad Max seriously.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-39761600387074331252014-04-25T19:12:00.004-07:002014-04-25T19:51:36.108-07:00The Electrolytes Plants Crave<div class="mbs _5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">
Phosphate is a bad-ass little molecule. It plays <b><i>the</i> </b>central role in plant and animal metabolism.<br />
<br />
For example, plants use the sun's energy to stick a third phosphate onto ADP to form <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate">ATP</a>, rightfully called the "molecular unit of currency". In animals, muscle contraction consumes a ton of ATP. All aerobic organisms, including humans, form ATP using chemical energy from caloric sources such as fat, protein, and sugar. Even <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_respiration">anaerobic respiration</a>, thought to happen in the most ancient bacteria, is just a different way to turn ADP into ATP by adding one more phosphate.<br />
<br />
I would go so far as to define life on Earth as a very complex mechanism for making ATP by somehow gluing a phosphate molecule to the end of ADP!<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQJDGTZTHJ_S_YXdtxM6Ta7I0we3GVCqOw3y8t-2xxx7FWiSD2wwRm2TzMr-SOejG2vfUAq4uAJNSRxj0xP-WET1QQAZVO9EX2fD47XhHl-NaO38QTXJfWnrFttSKOB8hR-wJlZevTbmU/s1600/phosphate.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQJDGTZTHJ_S_YXdtxM6Ta7I0we3GVCqOw3y8t-2xxx7FWiSD2wwRm2TzMr-SOejG2vfUAq4uAJNSRxj0xP-WET1QQAZVO9EX2fD47XhHl-NaO38QTXJfWnrFttSKOB8hR-wJlZevTbmU/s1600/phosphate.png" height="189" width="220" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Phosphate, the metabolism molecule.</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div class="mbs _5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">
Sodium phosphates are formed by sticking sodium atoms on those dangling oxygen atoms. When you have all three oxygen atoms paired up with sodium in this manner, it's called trisodium phosphate (TSP) which is used as a food additive (acidity regulator and emulsifier), cleaning agent, and was in the past an ingredient in some soaps and detergents.<br />
<br />
That may sound like a scary chemical, but it's just the salt of phosphate, the metabolism molecule. Biologically, it's harmless. <a href="http://www.rocklin.k12.ca.us/staff/lbrun/chemweb/Unit_10/Lethal_Dose_Table.pdf">Table salt</a> is more toxic than <a href="http://greenhouse.ucdavis.edu/pest/fmsds/Trisodium%20phosphate.pdf">trisodium phosphate</a>, presumably because it has higher molecular density of sodium!<br />
<br />
In addition to having <a href="http://www.riogrande.com/Product/335255">the electrolytes plants crave</a>, TSP has been studied as a <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23114686">sports supplement</a>.<br />
<br />
TSP has the electrolytes algae crave, too. Prolific algal blooms can
deplete the water of oxygen, killing fish and other animals. In an
effort to reduce the risk of algal blooms, <a href="http://www.npr.org/2010/12/15/132072122/it-s-not-your-fault-your-dishes-are-still-dirty">TSP was taken out of dish soap</a> because it was thought the electrolytes might be causing too much algal growth by <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11325053">raising the biological supportive capacity</a>.<br />
<br />
People crave electrolytes, too. TSP is approved as a food additive by the <a href="http://www.ingredientswizard.com/e-numbers-overview/320-e300e399-antioxidants-acidity-regulators-">EU</a>, and is generally recognized as safe by just about everyone who passed High School biology.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="mbs _5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">
Nick Brannigan and Vicky LePage of <a href="http://www.donotlink.com/gUo">Health Conspiracy Radio</a> seem to disagree. I'm not saying these two didn't pass High School biology, but such news wouldn't come as a big surprise.</div>
<div class="mbs _5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">
<br />
They posted a man-on-the-street video shot on the Las Vegas strip where they hassled passers by about the (imaginary) dangers of this food additive.</div>
<div class="mbs _5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/TCW5Nc9fyWg?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
This popular children's cereal also has an ingredient that is the main ingredient in degreasing paint, trisodium phosphate. We wanna know how many people know that this toxic chemical is in their favorite children's cereal... (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCW5Nc9fyWg&t=8s">0:08</a>)<br />
<br />
... it says "warning, harmful if swallowed." Does that look okay to eat? (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCW5Nc9fyWg&t=1m57s">1:57</a>)</blockquote>
If you watch the video, you can see them liberally sprinkling crystalline TSP over a bowl of cereal. It's a white powder that resembles sugar. Mixed with water (i.e. when swallowed) high concentrations of TSP form an alkaline solution. Alkaline means high pH, whereas acidic means low pH. In other words, concentrated TSP can give you a chemical burn, not due to toxicity, but due to alkalinity.<br />
<br />
I don't have to tell you that the concentrations of TSP found in cereal are small. Does cereal cause chemical burns? Does it bubble when you dump it into lemon juice? No, I didn't think so. The acidity of food is seldom of dietary concern. Lemons are highly acidic with a pH of <a href="http://www.food-info.net/uk/qa/qa-fp65.htm">2.4</a>, where a pH of 7 is neutral, and the pH of your typical TSP-based cleaning agent is <a href="http://www.ask.com/explore/what-tsp-cleaner">12</a>.</div>
<div class="mbs _5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">
</div>
<div class="mbs _5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">
</div>
<div class="mbs _5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">
<br />
Let's forgive the conflation of alkaline with toxic. The amount of TSP in cereal doesn't significantly change the pH of the food. Therefore, a tall glass of lemonade, being very acidic, poses a greater threat to your stomach lining than does TSP in cereal. Baking soda is also alkaline, with a pH of <a href="http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/Chem_AcidsBasespHScale.shtml">9</a>. Do you know what they use baking soda for...?<br />
<br />
The alkalinity of TSP is an ironic complaint coming from Nick Brannigan who did an <a href="http://www.donotlink.com/gUp">hour long show</a> on the "alkaline diet" with some quack doctor! Aside from deceit, the only only explanation I can think of for Branniga's duel hatred and love for alkaline foods is that he doesn't know what alkaline means or how it matters to human health.<br />
<br />
Anyway, here's the appeal to nature fallacy in all it's glory.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If you look on the ingredients in this, you can understand all the ingredients, you know what you're eating... It's a lot healthier for you, it's got no chemicals in it... These have all ingredients you can read... (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCW5Nc9fyWg&t=2m36s">2:36</a>)</blockquote>
So long as airheads like Vicky LePage keep using the word "chemicals" as a synonym for "bad", I'm going to keep reminding people that everything is made of chemicals. Also, this idea that chemicals which you don't know how to pronounce are bad for you is one of the most blatantly ignorant things I've ever heard.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
People have been asking us if we work for Nature's Path. We don't. (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCW5Nc9fyWg&t=3m51s">3:51</a>)</blockquote>
No, but you work for NaturalNews, which is <a href="http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4283">the worst anti-science website</a> and <a href="http://www.donotlink.com/gUq">supports Nature's Path</a> because of their dedication to GMO labeling, all-organic ingredients.<br />
<br />
Let's put on our Health Conspiracy glasses and take a closer look at these "healthier" ingredients in Nature's Path Leapin Lemurs Cereal:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Organic corn meal, organic whole grain corn meal, organic evaporated
cane juice, organic <b>peanut butter</b>, organic <b>molasses</b>, organic <b>cocoa</b>, sea
salt, organic <b>soy oil</b>, natural flavor, tocopherols. (<a href="http://shop.naturespath.com/Leapin-Lemurs-Cereal/p/NPA-860075&c=NaturesPath@EnviroKidz">Source</a>)</blockquote>
</div>
All <b>peanut butter</b>, even certified organic, contains traces of aflatoxin, produced by the fungus Aspergillus flavus. It's LD50 (a measure of toxicity) is <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6424269">1.2 mg/kg</a>, which is 6,167 times more toxic than TSP!<br />
<br />
Whether it's certified organic or not, <b>molasses</b> can contain sulfur dioxide, which <a href="http://www.donotlink.com/gUr">according to NaturalNews</a> is not so good for most human consumption. Even worse,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
When fed in large amounts, and incorrectly, molasses may be toxic... The remedy is to immediately give them a solution that is rich in phosphorus and sodium. (<a href="http://www.fao.org/ag/aga/AGAP/FRG/ECONF95/PDF/MOLASSES.PDF">Source</a>)</blockquote>
You read that right. Molasses is toxic sludge, and trisodium phosphate is the only cure!<br />
<br />
Did you know that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine">caffeine is a natural pesticide</a>? It's LD50 is <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/698326">265 mg/kg</a>, which is 30 times more toxic than TSP. Do you still want to eat that cereal which has organic <b>cocoa</b> that's loaded with toxic pesticides?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.donotlink.com/gUs">According to NaturalNews</a>, <b>soy oil</b>, even certified organic soy oil, contains traces of <a href="http://www.cornucopia.org/2010/11/hexane-soy/">hexane</a>, a constituent of gasoline! Eww!<br />
<br />
Even the cinnamon in Cinnamon Toast Crunch contains the chemical coumarin, which has an LD50 of <a href="http://www.silverhydra.com/2011/02/cinnamon-the-food-drug/">275mg/kg</a>, which is 27 times more toxic than TSP. Coumarin have been used as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coumarin#Use_as_pesticides">rodenticides</a>, too! Ever heard of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warfarin">Warfarin</a>?<br />
<br />
See how easy it is to play this <span data-dobid="hdw">trite little </span>game? Notice also how many contradictions pop up once you decide to vilify something against all reason?<br />
<br />
TSP is an extremely safe food additive. Health Conspiracy Radio is aptly named, because Nick Brannigan and Vicky LePage have conspired to mislead people about TSP using fear tactics and the appeal to nature fallacy.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-393482913889228402014-04-03T18:44:00.002-07:002014-04-06T21:54:09.677-07:00STAP In The Name Of LoveBack in January, Nature magazine published what is now an <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24476887">infamous paper</a> claiming discovery of:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
... a unique cellular reprogramming phenomenon, called stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency (STAP) ... In STAP, strong external stimuli such as a transient low-pH stressor
reprogrammed mammalian somatic cells, resulting in the generation of
pluripotent cells.</blockquote>
If true, this would herald a revolution in stem cell research. Potential medical applications of a technique for transforming somatic cells into stem cells cannot be overstated. Sound too good to be true? Well, that's likely the case.<br />
<br />
The paper, and in particular its lead author Haruko Obokata, have come under scrutiny due to <a href="http://stapcell.blogspot.com/">alleged image manipulation</a> and what has so far been a <a href="http://www.ipscell.com/stap-new-data">lack of reproducibility</a>.<br />
<br />
This week, <a href="http://www.riken.jp/en/about/">Riken</a> published the results of their internal <a href="http://www.riken.jp/en/pr/press/2014/20140401_2">investigation</a> which found two instances of research misconduct by Obokata:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In manipulating the image data of two different gels and using data from two different experiments, Dr. Obokata acted in a manner that can by no means be permitted. This cannot be explained solely by her immaturity as a researcher.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
... Dr. Obokata had used images in Paper 1 that very closely resembled images in her doctoral thesis. Yet the experimental criteria for the two papers were different ... this data was extremely important in showing the pluripotency of the STAP cells, and the actions taken by Dr. Obokata completely undermine the credibility of the data. There is no doubt that she was fully aware of this danger, and we therefore conclude that this was an act of research misconduct involving fabrication.</blockquote>
The report goes on to disclaim that verification of the STAP phenomena can only be done through scientific inquiry by third parties. This is true, but STAP is an extraordinary claim which, now that the paper's credibility is completely undermined, is supported by no credible evidence. I think Paul Knoepfler put it best:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There's still a chance that STAP is real, but if I were in Vegas or at
the race track I'd put the odds in the single digits at this point. (<a href="http://www.ipscell.com/2014/03/clues-as-to-the-real-stap-cell-scoop-a-trio-of-biosci-traps/">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEOt3LBQK30CvdkiPqCa9GmE1L4z8HgnzGWQ4HVxXQhBmvuhd-EngepYufovlpcv4oj84PmSL3Ze4tJxcApSVMyjtlcr4-S-W4YlRbv0yQnqsEm8fr3qVGHokxaCZ9Vnvl2oMXA-RbRtQ/s1600/STAP.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEOt3LBQK30CvdkiPqCa9GmE1L4z8HgnzGWQ4HVxXQhBmvuhd-EngepYufovlpcv4oj84PmSL3Ze4tJxcApSVMyjtlcr4-S-W4YlRbv0yQnqsEm8fr3qVGHokxaCZ9Vnvl2oMXA-RbRtQ/s1600/STAP.png" height="240" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>A STAP cell begs Obokata-san to STAHP falsifying images.</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
One bizarre outcome of this fiasco has been a tide of allegations (by know-nothing Internet trolls) that the Riken investigation was motivated by sexism or other such prejudice.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
My feeling is that this woman is taking the brunt of this because of her
age and gender, and less because she (probably) needs work on her
research skills ... From the very beginning of this whole thing they focused on her age and
gender and what color her lab was rather than the science. (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=othS25JliIQ">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A panel of Riken males, who could have several motives for defaming this
young woman, have ALLEGED that in their opinion she did something
improper. (<a href="http://www.newsweek.com/haruko-obokata-who-claimed-stem-cell-breakthrough-found-guilty-scientific-239000#comment-1313816111">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<div class="post-message " data-role="message" dir="auto">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I think it is more that Japanese
culture agains women. (<a href="http://www.newsweek.com/haruko-obokata-who-claimed-stem-cell-breakthrough-found-guilty-scientific-239000#comment-1313601885">Source</a>)</blockquote>
</div>
This is ridiculous, because concerns over the images and results originally came from the worldwide community. True, the media, especially in Japan, showed a lack of professionalism by obsessing over age, gender, and what color her lab was. Lack of professionalism in science journalism should hardly surprise anyone, least of all those familiar with my blog.<br />
<br />
Ironically, those know-nothings crying sexism are the ones guilty of prejudice. By assuming the Riken committee members are motivated by sexism they are buying into the stereotype of Japanese male chauvinism.<br />
<br />
In reality, maintaining the institution's reputation is the obvious motivation for the investigation. The threat this paper poses to their reputation is due both to the extraordinary claims, and also the media circus. Recall that the latter is arguably due to some sexism, but on the part of the media who flocked to cover this story of a young female scientist.<br />
<br />
I might also point out that panel of committee members is <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIxJVI8tPXU&t=1h9m">not all male</a>. Bizarre conspiracy theories like this are only able to exist when rooted in poorly researched assumptions.<br />
<br />
Misconduct aside, the thing I find the most fishy about STAP is the inconstant protocol. The original paper in the January edition of Nature laid out a protocol for creating STAP cells. Labs used this protocol, but failed to replicate the results. Early in March, Obokata published a <a href="http://www.nature.com/protocolexchange/protocols/3013">more detailed protocol</a> which seems to indicate that STAP cells are difficult to make. The new protocol also contains steps that look like after-the-fact manipulation and back-peddling.<br />
<br />
Later in March, Charles Vacanti independently published a <a href="https://research.bwhanesthesia.org/research-groups/cterm/stap-cell-protocol">still-different protocol</a>. Vacanti is co-author on the original paper, and namesake for that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacanti_mouse">mouse with an ear growing on it's back</a>. Despite his claims that this new protocol of his is able to create STAP cells <a href="http://www.ipscell.com/2014/03/reactions-to-new-on-line-vacanti-lab-stap-cell-protocol">easily and in just 2 days</a>, no labs have yet claimed replication. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-38746903669987193902014-03-27T19:05:00.005-07:002014-03-27T19:12:12.733-07:00Thomas Bøhn BiasedThomas Bøhn is an anti-GMO activist. He's calls himself the "Senior Scientist", which is to say program coordinator, for a Norwegian non-commercial foundation called <a href="http://genok.com/about-genok/">GenØk</a>. They claim their vision is of the <b><i>safer use</i></b> of biotechnology. This reads to me as the <b><i>disuse</i></b> of biotechnology.<br />
<br />
Bøhn is the lead author on a <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814613019201">paper</a> to be published in Food Chemistry which claims to
reject the hypothesis that GM soybeans are "substantially equivalent" to non-GM
soybeans. This conclusion is based on miniscule nutritional
differences they consider statistically significant.<br />
<br />
Their analysis is incorrect because it misuses a statistical test
called one-way ANOVA. This test requires that the responses for a given
group are independent and identically distributed normal random
variables. In other words, this test requires the only difference between the GM and non-GM soybeans is their <i><b><span class="text_exposed_show">management practice</span></b></i>. This assumption is incorrect.<br />
<br />
<span class="text_exposed_show">Farmers do not <i><b>randomly</b></i> adopt one management practice
over another! They do so with careful consideration. </span>As a result, many important <i><b>confounding variables</b></i> are unaccounted for in the Bøhn paper,
including soil quality, available water, local whether, and all other
conditions a farmer might deem important to selecting a management
practice.<br />
<br />
The small variations in nutritive content between the samples is easily explained by variations in farm conditions, and cannot be attributed to any one <span class="text_exposed_show">management practice.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="text_exposed_show">You can read about many other systemic and emblematic flaws in this paper in an extensive <a href="http://www.skeptiforum.org/a-critical-review-of-compositional-differences-in-soybeans-on-the-market-glyphosate-accumulates-in-roundup-ready-gm-soybeans-bohn-t-et-al-2013/">review </a></span><span class="text_exposed_show"><a href="http://www.skeptiforum.org/a-critical-review-of-compositional-differences-in-soybeans-on-the-market-glyphosate-accumulates-in-roundup-ready-gm-soybeans-bohn-t-et-al-2013/"><span class="text_exposed_show">by </span><span class="text_exposed_show"><span class="text_exposed_show">Amelia Jordan </span></span>on Skepti-Forum</a></span><span class="text_exposed_show"><span class="text_exposed_show"></span>. </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-42846739764449981602014-03-27T14:29:00.004-07:002014-03-30T03:54:05.863-07:00Tetanus Vaccine in KenyaNeonatal tetanus is a preventable and often fatal infection among infants in Kenya.
Vaccinating women of child-bearing age is effective at preventing this
disease. Antibodies pass from the mother through the placenta to the fetus. This protects both mother and child from tetanus infection as a result of injury during childbirth. Sadly, this results in <a href="http://www.afro.who.int/en/kenya/kenya-publications/1934-maternal-and-neonatal-tetanus-elimination.html">110,000</a> deaths per year in Africa.<br />
<br />
<div>
A vaccination campaign lead by the Kenyan Ministry of Health in collaboration with the World Health Organization was undertaken last week. This program aimed to vaccinate <a href="http://www.nation.co.ke/news/-Njue-not-against-tetanus-vaccine/-/1056/2259028/-/4ayxoy/-/index.html">two million</a> women of reproductive age in sixty
high-risk Kenyan districts. </div>
<br />
Meanwhile, head of the Catholic Church in Kenya John Cardinal Njue was busy sewing deadly paranoia. During his xenophobic rant to news reporters, he had this caution for his congragation.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Let us be very careful, and weight very carefully the agendas -- I mean the proposals -- that come or be sent by people from elsewhere. (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwlpbiwX6oo&t=4m">Source</a>)</blockquote>
Nice Freudian slip, there, Cardinal. Seemingly unbeknownst to this feckless monster, that agenda had by people from elsewhere is to save babies from dying. <br />
<br />
This media circus seems to have started when Catholic Health Commission of Kenya Chairman Paul Kariuki Njiru sent a letter to Kenyan newsrooms asking these frantic, leading questions.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Is there a tetanus crisis on women of child-bearing age in Kenya? If this is so, why has it not been declared? Why does the campaign target women of 14 - 49 years? Why has the campaign left out young girls, boys and men even if they are all prone to tetanus? In the midst of so many life-threatening diseases in Kenya, why has tetanus been prioritized? (<a href="http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/health/article/2000107916/catholic-church-questions-tetanus-vaccine-targeting-women">Source</a>)</blockquote>
My readers should already know the banal answer to all these foolish questions. Cabinet Secretary for Health Mr James Macharia <a href="http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/health/article/2000107961/minister-meets-church-leaders-over-tetanus-vaccine-fears">met church leaders</a> to explain, you know, why all those babies have been dying, and how the vaccination campaign is designed to stop all those babies from dying.<br />
<br />
Njue has since <a href="http://www.nation.co.ke/news/-Njue-not-against-tetanus-vaccine/-/1056/2259028/-/4ayxoy/-/index.html">expressed</a> he is not opposed to the tetanus vaccine program, he just wanted a clarification on why it was taking place. I don't believe this excuse for a damn second. He sent his letter to Kenyan newsrooms, not the ministry of health! The questions he asked in that letter were dripping with distrust and ignorance on a topic that, if he was truly curious, could be resolved by five minutes searching on the Internet.<br />
<br />
Not only that, but check out this excerpt from the same letter.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Information in the public domain indicates that Tetanus Toxoid vaccine (TT) laced with Beta human chorionic gonadotropin (b-HCG) sub unit has been used in Philippines, Nicaragua and Mexico to vaccinate women against future pregnancy. Beta HCG sub unit is a hormone necessary for pregnancy ... The ongoing tetanus vaccination campaign bears the hallmarks of the programmes that were carried out in Philippines, Mexico and Nicaragua. We are not certain that the vaccines being administered in Kenya are free of this hormone.</blockquote>
This pernicious myth about forced-sterilization was dreamed up by pro-lifers back in 1995 and was <a href="http://www.who.int/immunization/monitoring_surveillance/resources/milstien.pdf">roundly refuted</a> at the time. No HCG vaccine was ever tested on humans without their consent.<br />
<br />
The idea that HCG is being secretly tested in Kenya is easily dispelled by Professor Gursaran Prasad Talwar of the Indian National Science Academy. In 1992 he worked to develop an HCG-based family planning
vaccine, and flatly rejects the despicable conflation of his work with the WHO tetanus vaccination program.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It had some sort of similarity with
the tetanus vaccine. The birth control vaccine I developed was the beta
sub-unit of hCG that generated anti-bodies that prevented pregnancy in women, but also, protected them against tetanus...<br />
<br />
In our
new vaccine, we have replaced tetanus toxoid by another carrier LTB,
which would avoid the misinformation that has been associated with the
valuable tetanus vaccination. (<a href="http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/health/article/2000107961/minister-meets-church-leaders-over-tetanus-vaccine-fears">Source</a>)</blockquote>
Clearly, some "information in the public domain" should not be blindly trusted.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2