Investi-Gator.com

Your parcel is being seized by USPIS

noreply@blogger.com (The Gator) — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 15:01:00 +0000

The Short Version: It's a scam.

Gator Note: Thanks to Ehappytalk for sending in this question.

An e-mail scam is going around that claims you have a DHL package from Europe that has been flagged by the U.S. Postal Inspectors. The jist of the scam is that someone sent you a package, and the Postal Inspectors have flagged it as suspiscious. They've checked it and found it has an ATM card with $1.5 million loaded onto it. Supposedly they have verified it with the treasury department and it is "authentic".

The trick comes in the next part. "To continue with the delivery of this parcel you are oblige to obtain from Spain, a duly sworn affidavit from Spanish High court which will back up the origin of Fund. This is in line with the Anti-Terrorist campaign which the USA government has embarked on recently to protect territories from future attacks." Of course, this affidavit will cost you 89 euros (~$130). When the money is sent you will get your ATM card...

Not quite.

First of all, any time you receive an e-mail stating you are going to receive money you have no reason to be getting, be suspiscious. Million dollar ATM cards do not randomly get mailed to people from someone in Spain.

Second, according to the United States Postal Inspection Service, "Congress empowered the Postal Service "to investigate postal offenses and civil matters relating to the Postal Service." In the e-mail, a DHL package has been flagged by the USPIS. Since DHL is not part of USPS, a DHL package would not be flagged by them.

The third thing to note is true for any suspect message. You should always check whether the domain of the e-mail makes sense. In at least one version of the scam, the e-mail came from uspostal@noreply.com. An e-mail from USPS would come from their own domain (usps.com), not noreply.com.

Finally, for possibly the best confirmation that this is a scam, USPIS has a link on their homepage to a crime alert, confirming what was already suspected.

* Photo by Peter Griffin

Your Social Security

noreply@blogger.com (The Gator) — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:55:00 +0000

The Short Version: Pretty much all lies.

An e-mail has been circulating which supposedly lists several little known facts about the social security program. However, upon further investigation, most don't appear to be true.

"Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program [true]. He promised:

1.) That participation in the program would be completely voluntary.

Section 801 of Title VIII (Social Security Act of 1935) says, "there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the income of every individual..."

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program.

Section 804 of Title VIII sets the initial rate at 1%, but lays out an increase to 3% over the first 11 years. For 2010, the rate is 6.2% of the first $106,800.

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year.

Section 803 of Title VIII specifically states that it is not tax deductible.

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and, under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent.

Not exactly. The money still goes into the Trust Fund, but other agencies are allowed to "borrow" money from the fund, promising to pay it back, which effectively means the money is all in the same fund.

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed.

Originally, the annuity payments were not taxed, but this was pursuant to an administrative ruling from the Treasury Department. It was not part of the original bill and was in no way permanent. This was later changed by congress with a series of amendments that included the authorization of taxing social security benefits. However, these amendments were in 1983, nine years before Clinton and Gore.

Perhaps the worst part of the e-mail is the admonition against being an "uninformed citizen" who believes the lies people spread. Of course, this entire e-mail is spreading more of those same lies.

Did Best Buy wish Muslims Merry Christmas on their Thanksgiving ad?

noreply@blogger.com (The Gator) — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:35:00 +0000

The Short Version: No, they wished Muslims a happy Eid al-Adha.

Gator Note: Thanks to JRThr for sending in this question.

This year, the Muslim holiday Eid al-Adha fell on the extended Thanksgiving weekend. In Best Buy's Black Friday ad, they include a small note wishing everyone a "Happy Eid al-Adha".

This has caused much controversy in the ensuing weeks as people feel that certain holidays are being recognized and not others (i.e. Christmas).

On Best Buy's community manager's blog, they state:

This year, as we did in 2007 and 2008, Best Buy will be wishing people a Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah and other holiday greetings. With stores in the United States, Canada, Mexico, China and Europe, Best Buy recognizes that our customers and employees celebrate a variety of holidays. It is one of Best Buy’s core values to show respect to our customers and employees. It is by doing this that we are able to meet our customers’ unique needs and honor their differences.

It remains to be seen if Christmas and Hanukkah will be recognized in the next few weeks.

Ben Stein's Christmas confession

noreply@blogger.com (The Gator) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:01:00 +0000

Every year around Christmas time, the Ben Stein Confession e-mail starts making the rounds again. According to the e-mail, the lawyer/writer/actor/game show host supposedly wrote and recited a commentary on CBS Sunday Morning, which talks about the secularization of Christmas and his opinion that "people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around."

So, is the e-mail true?

Mostly. Depending on which version you look at, the first half of the e-mail is indeed from a commentary by Ben Stein that he read on CBS Sunday Morning on December 18, 2005. Somewhere along the way, some versions of the e-mail had extra paragraphs added on at the end containing some (mis)quotes from Anne Graham Lotz and another (false) urban legend about Dr. Benjamin Spock.

Below is the piece as it was actually written by Ben Stein (from Ben's House):

Herewith at this happy time of year, a few confessions from my beating heart:

I have no freaking clue who Nick and Jessica are. I see them on the cover of People and Us constantly when I am buying my dog biscuits and kitty litter. I often ask the checkers at the grocery stores. They never know who Nick and Jessica are either. Who are they? Will it change my life if I know who they are and why they have broken up? Why are they so important? I don't know who Lindsay Lohan is, either, and I do not care at all about Tom Cruise's wife.

Am I going to be called before a Senate committee and asked if I am a subversive? Maybe, but I just have no clue who Nick and Jessica are. Is this what it means to be no longer young. It's not so bad.

Next confession: I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees. It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, "Merry Christmas" to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him?

I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to.

The origin of the candy cane

noreply@blogger.com (The Gator) — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:20:00 +0000

The Short Version: Originally the candy cane was not meant as a symbol of Jesus.

The Legend of the Candy Cane has been making the rounds on the e-mail circuit every Christmas for several years now. It claims that candy canes were invented by a candy maker who "wanted to invent candy that was a witness to Christ." Among the symbolism he supposedly intended, the candy was formed in the shape of a J (for Jesus), and the red stripes were added to symbolize the blood he shed for mankind.

These claims are not supported by history, however. As Candy Cane Facts explains, "our modern candy cane appeared . . . in the seventeenth century. These were straight, white sticks of sugar candy." InventHelp agrees, adding that "in 1670, the choirmaster of Germany's Cologne Cathedral introduced a new twist to the sweet sugar sticks. He intended to hand the candy out to children to keep them quiet during the church's lengthy Christmas ceremony, and to commemorate the occasion he had the sticks bent at one end to resemble shepherds' crooks."

Although the original candy cane was not intended as a religious symbol, it has evolved into a representation, for many people, of the true meaning of Christmas.

* Photo by Mike Reichold

How many American battleships were sunk during the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941?

noreply@blogger.com (The Gator) — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 01:09:00 +0000

The Short Version: Officially three.

On December 7, 1941, Japanese carriers in the Pacific launched 353 aircraft in a surprise attack on the U.S. Navy's fleet docked in Pearl Harbor, causing massive casualties. There are many myths and stories surrounding this "date which will live in infamy."

One commonly misquoted fact is the number of U.S. battleships sunk in the attack. Many people claim that all eight battleships stationed in Pearl Harbor were sunk, however that is stretching the truth quite a bit.

Even sources that seem like they should be reliable can't agree. According to PearlHarbor.org, three were sunk, Naval History & Heritage claims four, National Geographic lists two as "half sunk", and eSSORTMENT says five.

So, what is the truth?

All of the listed sources agree that the Arizona and the West Virginia were sunk during the attack. The Oklahoma, the Utah, and the California are also cited.

According to the official site of the USS Arizona, "The blast that destroyed ARIZONA and sank her at her berth alongside of Ford Island consumed the lives of 1,177 of the 1,400 on board at the time."

While not specifically using the word 'sink', the official USS West Virginia site notes that "West Virginia was abandoned, settling to the harbor bottom on an even keel."

Part of the disagreement seems to be in the definition of "sunk". Pearl Harbor was shallow, so it was impossible for a ship to fall completely below the water level. Several were put out of commission during the attack, but all except the Arizona and the Utah were repaired and returned to seaworthiness.

Officially (according to the Navy) there were 3 battleships who were sunk that day - the Arizona, the Utah, and the Oklahoma.

Fact checking a Veteran's Day photograph of President Obama

noreply@blogger.com (The Gator) — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:01:00 +0000

The Short Version: The picture is actually from Memorial Day and Obama was acting appropriately.

A picture of President Obama has been circulating that purports to show him not following proper respect to his country. The image includes the President on stage with several other people (including 3 in military uniforms). Everyone on stage is saluting or has their hand on their heart, except Obama who is standing with his hands folded in his lap.

The e-mail states: "I don't know whether the national anthem is being played, or the flag is going by, or what..."

Actually, neither of those were happening. The truth is that "Hail to the Chief" was being played and President Obama was doing exactly what he should be doing-standing graciously while everyone else saluted. Also, the incident in question is from Memorial Day at Arlington National Cemetery, not Fort Hood on Veterans' Day as the e-mail claims. The video below clearly shows the scene from the image in the e-mail. The picture was probably taken around 0:46.

According to Department of Defense Instructions for protocol during performance by service bands, as signed by Lawrence J. Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense in 1981:

3.2.1. During all renditions of "Hail to the Chief" by military musical organizations, military personnel in uniform, other than band personnel, shall accord it the same honor as they would the rendition of "The Star-Spangled Banner" or "To the Color."

Will you go blind from staring at the sun?

noreply@blogger.com (The Gator) — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:36:00 +0000

The Short Version: Yes, you can.

Everyone has heard the admonition against staring at the sun when they were kids. It seems logical; the sun is extremely bright. But can you really go blind?

The Sight and Hearing Association explains that "invisible UV light is the component of sunlight most responsible for eye damage. Excessive exposure to UV light from light reflected off sand, snow or pavement can produce a burn on the surface of the eye." According to How Stuff Works, "UV rays in sunlight cause irreparable damage and the cells die. Unfortunately for your eyes, there isn’t a way to replace damaged cells in the retina, so when someone stares at the sun, the cells in the retina die. And they they are dead for good."

Astronomy Blog decided to test this myth by holding a grape at the focus of a small telescope. After a few seconds the grape began to sizzle and then the outer layer gave way and hot grape juice squirted out. They posted a video of the damage occurring on their website.

DNA India reported in 2008 that:

At least 50 people have reportedly lost their vision after gazing at the sun looking for an image of Virgin Mary. St Joseph's ENT and Eye Hospital in Kanjirappally alone has recorded 48 cases of vision loss due to photochemical burns on the retina. "All our patients have similar history and symptoms. The damage is to the macula, the most sensitive part of retina. They have developed photochemical, not thermal, burns after continuously gazing at the sun," Dr Annamma James Isaac, the hospital's ophthalmologist, said. "Most patients may hopefully improve their vision. But there may be long-term effects on the retina."

So, while you may not go blind from a short look, serious damage is occurring and it's best not to take any chances. If viewing the sun, always be sure to take proper precautions.

* Photo by Lykaestria

Driving in the rain with cruise control - Is it safe?

noreply@blogger.com (The Gator) — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:58:00 +0000

The Short Version: This is one e-mail warning that is actually true.

For most of the last decade an e-mail has been floating around warning drivers about the dangers of using cruise control in the rain. It seems like the typical e-mail warning; a personal story of a bad situation that happened to someone which is to serve as a caution to others about the dangers of something we use everyday.

As with most e-mails stories, not enough details are given to verify the exact story contained in the e-mail. Searches of various news sources found no reports of this particular accident. However, it is possible to determine the validity of the warning.

The National Safety Commission explains:

When water stands on the road, it can become deep enough that the tires can’t squeeze the water through the tread fast enough. When this happens, the tires can actually rise up on top of the water and ride across the water like water skis creating a condition known as"hydroplaning." The first step a driver should take to counteract skidding is to take his/her foot off the gas pedal in order to slow the car's speed. This is where cruise control presents a problem. Cruise control will want to keep your vehicle going at a constant speed and speed only adds to the problem.

Emdunds.com adds that "if you hydroplane, there's the chance your car could actually accelerate. Cruise control also allows drivers to be less vigilant and to take their foot away from the pedals — not a great idea when reaction time is so important." What happens is that the car slows down while hydroplaning, so the cruise tries to accelerate. With the wheels spinning even faster, it is easy to lose control when the tires hit dry pavement again. Even worse is if one tire continues to hydroplane while another connects with the road, causing the car to spin.

The same admonition against using cruise control also applies to snowy and icy conditions. Any time the roads may be slick, it is best to control the speed of the vehicle manually.

* Photo by Theo Müller

The $100 Million Health Care Vote - Is the e-mail true?

noreply@blogger.com (The Gator) — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:24:00 +0000

The Short Version: It looks like it is accurate.

*****New Information: Since the writing of this article, Landrieu herself has responded to the charges, stating, "It’s not $100 million, it’s $300 million, and I’m proud of it and will keep fighting for it."*****

A new e-mail forward is quickly making the rounds claiming the senate health care bill includes what amounts to a bribe of Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu. This e-mail is essentially a copy and paste job from a report by ABC News' Jonathan Karl, Huma Khan, and Z. Byron Wolf. It charges that:

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

The section spends two pages defining which states would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”

ABC News has been told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill. . .

How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.

So, is this e-mail forward true?

The complete text of the bill in question, H.R.3590, is available from OpenCongress.org. Section 2006 on page 432 of the bill does indeed include the quoted text.

In addition, the Congressional Budget Office released their analysis of the bill on November 18, 2009. Page 23 includes a table entitled "Estimate of Effects on Direct Spending and Revenues for Non-Coverage Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". This table reports that the section in question is anticipated to cost $0.1 billion (or $100 million) in the year 2011, and $0 for every other year from 2010 to 2019. This is the only reference to section 2006 and no further details are given about the method behind this determination.

The tricky part to this e-mail rumor is determining which states qualify. There are several pages of legalese laying out the specifics, most of which only further confuse the issue. The basics are that every county or parish in the state must have been declared a major disaster under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.

The Corner quotes Landrieu's press secretary as saying, "It’s something she has been working on for a long time." They also report that John McCain states, "If you look at what’s in that provision, you see the benefits those states (that are home to fence-sitting Democrats) will receive, especially Louisiana." McCain's comments seem to imply that there are other states that might qualify. Perhaps further clarification on the issue will be brought out during debate on the bill in the upcoming weeks... perhaps.

An interesting thing to note is that, according to CNN, Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana, on Saturday (11/21) became the 59th lawmaker to agree to vote for the debate after earlier in the week leaning against, and The Politico quotes Landrieu as saying, "you’ve got to use the leverage when you’ve got it to get some things that are important." The 60th vote came from Democrat Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas later the same day.

However, several democrats have only (publicly) agreed to vote for debate, which does not necessarily mean they will vote for passage. The vote for debate simply overrides the impending Republican filibuster. As Karen Tumulty reports for Yahoo News, "more questionable is whether Reid can muster 60 votes several weeks from now, when he presses to end debate and move to final passage."

Thanksgiving Myths

noreply@blogger.com (The Gator) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:21:00 +0000

Like most holidays, there are many myths surrounding Thanksgiving. Browse the links below to jump through the article and check out the truth behind your favorite myths.

Does eating turkey make you tired?
The first thanksgiving was celebrated by Pilgrims and Indians in Plymouth.
There is an animal called the Turducken.
Is it safe to cook stuffing inside a turkey?
Cooking a turkey in a fryer is dangerous.

Does eating turkey make you tired?

Ever notice how everyone feels like taking a nap shortly after eating Thanksgiving dinner? The blame is always placed on the turkey, which supposedly contains tryptophan which makes you tired. L-tryptophan, as it is actually named, can be metabolised into seratonin and melatonin, neurotransmitters that have a calming effect and can make you tired. However, according to chemistry.about.com, "L-tryptophan needs to be taken on an empty stomach and without any other amino acids or protein in order to make you drowsy. There's lots of protein in a serving of turkey and it's probably not the only food on the table." Also, chicken, pork, beef, soybeans, and cheese (among others) contain more tryptophan than turkey and nobody blames them for sleepiness.

The real problem is the combination of carbohydrates and tryptophan. Carbohydrates cause an increase in insulin production which makes the amino acids move from the bloodstream to muscle cells, allowing the tryptophan to work its magic. In addition to the tryptophan, a large meal takes a lot of work to digest and a lot of blood gets redirected to the digestive system. The lack of blood elsewhere causes the body to be more lethargic.

Simon Young, a neurochemist at McGill University in Montreal, tells National Geographic, "There have been many studies citing a post-lunch dip in performance, from factory output to single-car accidents. These things tend to peak in the early afternoon. A thousand-calorie lunch causes a sedative effect that a smaller meal doesn't have."

* Photo by Vera Kratochvil

The first thanksgiving was celebrated by Pilgrims and Indians in Plymouth.

According to The History Channel, "In 1621, the Plymouth colonists and Wampanoag Indians shared an autumn harvest feast which is acknowledged today as one of the first Thanksgiving celebrations in the colonies." However, they also note that "Although this feast is considered by many to the very first Thanksgiving celebration, it was actually in keeping with a long tradition of celebrating the harvest and giving thanks for a successful bounty of crops."

Pilgrim Hall Museum explains that this was really more of a harvest festival to celebrate the second harvest, as was the custom of the English. A day of "thanksgiving" was a religious event which most likely would not have involved the Native Americans. The harvest festival and religious thanksgiving later evolved into a single celebration which was made a national holiday by Abraham Lincoln in 1863.

So, the celebration at Plymouth was not so much the "first Thanksgiving" as it was an important event in our nation's history that inspired the holiday now celebrated each November.

* Painting by Jean Louis Gerome Ferris

There is an animal called the Turducken.

A turducken is not an animal; it is actually three animals. This increasingly popular Thanksgiving treat is a turkey, stuffed with a duck, stuffed with a chicken, with different types of stuffing in between each layer. According to homecooking.about.com, it is not a difficult dish to make but is time-consuming as each of the birds must be de-boned.

Many different recipes are available online, including ones from Paula Deen and Paul Prudhomme. If you're really into meat, you could also try the turbaconducken.

* Photo by Christopher Corkum

Is it safe to cook stuffing inside a turkey?

The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service notes that "mishandled or improperly prepared stuffing can lead to foodborne illness." If done correctly, cooking stuffing inside a turkey (or other bird) can be perfectly safe. The FSIS includes a page on their website devoted to stuffing safety.

Some basic tips to remember are:

Do not mix the wet and dry ingredients until ready to be cooked. The stuffing should be moist when cooking because heat destroys bacteria more rapidly in a moist environment
If cooking seperately or inside a bird, the stuffing needs to reach at least 165°F to safely kill all bacteria. Simply cooking the bird to 165°F is not enough.
Premixed stuffing sold as a cooked product should be safe to use. However, stuffing a turkey with cooked stuffing can recontaminate the stuffing.

* Photo by Shari Weinsheimer

Cooking a turkey in a fryer is dangerous.

Underwriters Laboratories "has decided not to certify any turkey fryers with our trusted UL Mark." They have produced a video demonstrating many of the dangers these fryers can pose.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission reports that "since 1998, CPSC has reports of 75 incidents that involved fires, flames, or burns associated with turkey fryers. . . The majority of reported incidents occurred while the oil was being heated, prior to adding the turkey."

If using a turkey fryer this thanksgiving, here are the ways to prevent any potential disasters:

Always use the fryer outside on a level surface to avoid tipping.
Do not overfill the fryer. Before heating:

put the turkey into the fryer
fill with water
remove the turkey
mark the water level
remove the water
fill the oil to the marked height
heat oil
insert turkey

Do not leave the fryer unattended. Most do not have a thermostat and the oil can ignite if the temperature gets too high.
Make sure the turkey is completely thawed.

New Cook County Correctional Center E-mail

noreply@blogger.com (The Gator) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:04:00 +0000

The Short Version: Pictures are actually of a prison in Leoben, Austria.

Pictures (at right) of a supposed correctional center in Illinois have been circulating the internet, with claims that then Senator Obama "helped arrange the funds to build this beautiful 'punishment center'." However, as can easily be seen on Mi Modern Architecture, the pictures in the e-mail are of a new detention center in Leoben, Austria.

The irony of the e-mail is that it claims, "This is what is wrong here in the USA", presumable comparing how the United States does things compared with the rest of the world. In reality, the pictures would seem to show "what is right" in the USA, as this building is not located in the United States.

The real Cook County Jail, on the other hand, does not look nearly as nice:

Is it dangerous to mix Robitussin and Motrin?

noreply@blogger.com (The Gator) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:06:00 +0000

The Short Version: They're probably safe, but you should always consult a doctor before mixing meds.

An e-mail has been making the rounds claiming that an 8 year old girl named Madison recently died due to taking Robitussin and Motrin together. The e-mail warns that "this caused a heart attack."

There are several versions floating around, each with a different name of a supposed health care professional and their phone number in the signature line at the end. Phone calls to several of the numbers reached only disconnected phones and a fax machine. All versions of the story claim to have happened locally in order to give credibility to the story. However, it seems unlikely that this same situation would have happened "locally" in several different states, all to 8 year old girls named Madison.

As is the usual with these types of e-mails, the minimal information given in the story (an 8 year old girl named Madison died somewhere at some time) makes it difficult to verify the accuracy of the particular incident. A quick search online netted no additional information. Most results were simply forums where people had posted the e-mail text, furthering the rumor.

So, is the story at least possible? The active ingredient in Motrin is ibuprofen. Robitussin has several possible active ingredients, depending on which version you choose; Chlorpheniramine, Dextromethorphan, and Guaifenesin are the most common. The FDA has not released any warnings about combinations of these drugs, and drugs.com's interactions checker came up empty as well. In addition, Micromedex, a drug reference commonly used by doctors to check interactions when prescribing drugs, lists no complications. It seems unlikely that "quite a few children have died the same way", as the e-mail claims, and yet none of these resources has bothered to list the problem.

While the story is more than likely false, it does point out the possible dangers of self-medication. Even with over the counter drugs, like Motrin and Rubitussin, combinations can be dangerous. It is always best to consult with your doctor, or at the very least a pharmacist, before taking any medications.

*Photo by Petr Kratochvil

Diabetes Myths

noreply@blogger.com (The Gator) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 06:24:00 +0000

November is American Diabetes Month, so The Gator has decided to tackle a few of the more common diabetes myths.

Eating too much sugar causes diabetes
Obese people will eventually get diabetes
People with diabetes can't eat sweets
Diabetics can eat as much fruit as they want; Fruit is healthy

Eating too much sugar causes diabetes - FALSE

According to WebMD, weight can contribute to a person's risk of diabetes, but the amount of sugar in their diet does not (unless the excess sugar causes weight gain). The Diet Channel agrees, adding:

When one eats, the pancreas sends insulin into the bloodstream. There, the insulin stimulates the cells of the muscles and liver to take in the sugar. . . When those genetically predisposed to diabetes gain too much weight, they will produce insulin slower or stop responding to insulin, causing their blood sugar to rise even higher.

Obese people will eventually get diabetes - FALSE

A 2007 study by the University of Texas - Southwestern found that:

an abundance of adiponectin, a hormone that controls sensitivity to insulin, and a lack of leptin, a hormone that curbs appetite, enables mice to store excess calories in fat tissue instead of in liver, heart or muscle tissue — places where excess fat can lead to inflammation, diabetes and heart disease.

They stress that "the message isn’t that it’s good to be obese," and that the study merely demonstrates why some obese people don't develop diabetes. The Wall Street Journal reports that "roughly 20% of the people with Type 2 diabetes are thin, and 75% of obese people never get it."

People with diabetes can't eat sweets - FALSE

In the past, it was believed that eating sugar increased blood glucose levels causing hyperglycemia. However, as Diabetes Mellitus Information explains, research has shown that "eating sugar has the same effect on blood glucose levels as any other carbohydrates. . . The key is to substitute small portions of sweet for other carbohydrates containing foods."

Diabetic Seniors also warns diabetics to be careful of diabetic desserts labeled as "sugar-free" as they still may contain carbohydrates. It's best to check "Total Carbohydrates" in the nutrition facts label.

Diabetics can eat as much fruit as they want; Fruit is healthy. - TRUE and FALSE

Fruit is healthy. However, it contains carbohydrates and some fruits can cause trouble for diabetics. Health Hubs explains:

Fiber rich foods are general safe for diabetics to eat because they tend to have a lower glycemic index (GI) and therefore do not spike blood sugar levels to the same extent as high GI foods. This is because fiber slows down the absorption of sugar into the blood stream. Fiber rich fruits tend to be fruits with edible skins and seeds as it is these parts of the fruit that are highest in fiber. Fruits high in fiber include (fiber content in brackets): apples (2.3%), pears (2.1%), apricots (2.1%), blueberries (8.4%), kiwifruit (2.1%), and pomegranates (3.4%).

Bananas, dates, grapes, watermelons, oranges, fruit juices, and dried fruits, on the other hand, are high in glucose and should be considered carefully as part of a balanced meal plan.

Can Talking on a Cell Phone Cause a Fire at the Gas Station?

noreply@blogger.com (The Gator) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:40:00 +0000

The Short Version: In theory, maybe, but probably not.

As The Gator previously investigated static electricity can ignite gas vapors while refueling, hence the warnings at gas stations against reentering your vehicle while refueling. The other common warning is against cell phone use, but is that a real danger?

The Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI), who has been collecting data on gas station fires for more than a decade, notes that "So far, we have been unable to document any incidents that were sparked by a cellular telephone. In fact, many researchers have tried to ignite fuel vapors with a cell phone and failed." In 2003, and again in 2004, the popular Discovery Channel show MythBusters investigated this myth and both times were unable to create a fire from a cell phone.

One car fire was originally attributed to a cell phone in 2004, but after a thorough investigation, the assistant fire chief ruled out the cell phone as a possible cause. Other such internet reports of cell phone caused fires tend to lack the details needed to verify their credibility.

So, while it is technically possible for a cell phone to maybe cause a spark that could under the perfect circumstances ignite gasoline vapors, the odds of this happening are very remote.

*Photo by Anna Cervova

Can Static Electricity Cause Fires at the Fuel Pump?

noreply@blogger.com (The Gator) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:26:00 +0000

The Short Version: Yes.

The Petroleum Equipment Institute has been collecting information on this subject since the mid 1990s and reports that "almost 200 incidents have been reported to PEI that appear to be related to static electrical discharge." A full report of these incidents is available on their website. One interesting thing to note is that "The accidents occurred with conventional and vacuum assist Stage II vapor recovery nozzles," so this is not something that has been solved by modern gas pumps, as many claim.

Of the 170 fires in their report, 85 occurred when the person reentered the vehicle while fueling and 39 occurred when the person touched somewhere near the gas cap before refueling began. So, it seems that a majority of static related fires come from static build up with the car seat.

On a related myth, it should be noted that PEI has not documented a single case that was caused by a cell phone.

Check out the video to see one of these incidents. This video also happens to be a good example of how to handle one of these fires. Notice how she turns off the gas flow from the nozzle before pulling it out of the tank.

Is the ACLU Trying to Remove Cross-Shaped Headstones?

noreply@blogger.com (The Gator) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:18:00 +0000

Short version: No.

An old e-mail has begun circulating yet again claiming that the ACLU is attempting to remove cross-shaped headstones from military graves. The ACLU states on their website, "The ACLU has long argued that veterans and their families should be free to choose religious symbols on military headstones. . . and that the government should not be permitted to restrict such religious expression in federal cemeteries." The confusion most likely stems from a lawsuit filed by the ACLU to include a Wiccan symbol as an option for military headstones. This lawsuit, however, had nothing to do with removing any other symbols of faith.

The National Cemetery Administration "furnishes upon request, at no charge to the applicant, a Government headstone or marker for the unmarked grave of any deceased eligible Veteran in any cemetery around the world, regardless of their date of death." A list of available symbols of belief is available from the Department of Veteran's Affairs and currently has 98 different options, including the Christian cross.

*Photo courtesy of ArlingtonCemetery.org

Did One of the Munchkins Commit Suicide on the Set of The Wizard of Oz?

noreply@blogger.com (The Gator) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:14:00 +0000

Short Version: No.

This rumor has been making the rounds for quite a while now. It has all the components of a compelling urban legend-death, controversy, believable yet suspicious-all wrapped up in one of the most famous movies of all time.

If you haven't heard it, the rumor is that one of the munchkins hanged himself on the set of the Wizard of Oz, and the suicide was caught on film in the background. Allegedly, the producers didn't notice, and the final cut of the film includes the gruesome video.

According to WendysWizardofOz.com:

a good portion of the trees in the background are painted on a backdrop, the entire movie (except the clouds in the credits) was filmed in doors. The trees in front of the backdrop are fake and very weak, they cannot hold the weight of someone trying to hang themself from the limbs.

Apparently, the creators of the film borrowed some birds from the nearby zoo to help make the indoor set look less like an indoor set. During the scene where Dorothy and the Scarecrow meet the Tin Man and head off down the yellow brick road, one of the birds (perhaps a crane?) was standing in the background and spreads his wings. This movement is what has been mistakenly seen as a suicide.

Below is the video showing what is clearly a large bird in the background.

Can You Get the Flu from a Flu Shot?

noreply@blogger.com (The Gator) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:58:00 +0000

The Short Version: No.

The first thing to clear up here is the difference between the two types of flu vaccinations (from cdc.gov):

The "flu shot" — an inactivated vaccine (containing killed virus) that is given with a needle, usually in the arm. The flu shot is approved for use in people older than 6 months, including healthy people and people with chronic medical conditions.

The nasal-spray flu vaccine — a vaccine made with live, weakened flu viruses that do not cause the flu (sometimes called LAIV for "live attenuated influenza vaccine" or FluMist®). LAIV (FluMist®) is approved for use in healthy* people 2-49 years of age who are not pregnant.

So, it is possible (although not likely) to get the flu from the nasal-spray vaccine. Since the viruses are weakened they are supposed to only live in your nose (so your body will develop antibodies) and not be able to survive in your respiratory system.

A flu shot, on the other hand, does not contain a live virus so you can't get the flu from it. According to Health.com, it is possible to have reactions to the shot, and these are "thought to be your immune system’s way of gearing up after the exposure to dead virus particles in the vaccine." Discovery Health lists the common side effects as:

primarily a low grade fever for 8 to 24 hours after you receive the shot.
a swollen, red, tender area around the vaccination spot.
and a few people, especially children, may develop slight chills or a headache within 24 hours, but the symptoms go away within a day or so.

It does take about 2 weeks before the shot is effective, so it is possible to catch the flu after getting the shot but before developing the antibodies. It is also possible to get sick because your immune system is somewhat weakened from the shot. The CDC also recommends that people with a "moderate to severe illness with a fever" wait to get the flu shot until they recover.

Another common confusion comes from the definition of "flu". Often, people claiming to have caught the flu from the shot report upset stomach, nausea, etc. This is the "stomach flu" and is NOT what the flu shot is for. The flu shot is to prevent influenza, a respiratory illness. Stomach symptoms are possible with influenza, but are most common in children than adults (CDC.gov). More common are a high fever, dry cough, sore throat, extreme tiredness, stuffy nose, and muscle aches.

If you are not already sick, or allergic to eggs, you should probably get a flu shot. The usual side effects are much better than actually getting influenza.

* Photo by Belinda Hankins Miller (CC)

Do Stocks Always Drop on October 20th?

noreply@blogger.com (The Gator) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:20:00 +0000

The Short Version: No.

Gator Note: Thanks to Ken in Mitchellville, Iowa for sending in this question.

Ken notes that he recently attended a stock trading seminar and the instructor commented that stocks always drop on October 20th. This seemed like a fairly simple myth to verify.

Marketwatch.com has historical stock price data. Using the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the closing price for the last 10 October 20ths that stocks were traded (2001, 2002, and 2007 were weekends) and the closing price for the previous trading day (19th or 17th when 20th was a Monday) were easily obtained as such:

Day 1	Price	Day 2	Price	Change
10/17/1997	7,847.03	10/20/1997	7,921.44	+74.41
10/19/1998	8,466.45	10/20/1998	8,505.85	+39.40
10/19/1999	10,204.93	10/20/1999	10,392.36	+187.43
10/19/2000	10,142.98	10/20/2000	10,226.59	+83.61
10/17/2003	9,721.79	10/20/2003	9,777.94	+56.15
10/19/2004	9,897.62	10/20/2004	9,886.93	-10.69
10/19/2005	10,414.13	10/20/2005	10,281.10	-133.03
10/19/2006	12,011.73	10/20/2006	12,002.37	-9.36
10/17/2008	8,852.22	10/20/2008	9,265.43	+413.21
10/19/2009	10,092.19	10/20/2009	10,041.48	-50.71

Simple math tells us that 60% resulted in the prices going up on October 20th. This percentage is most likely not consistent over the entire history of the stock market, but it is safe to say that recent history does not support this myth.

Do Trans Fats Stay in Your Body Forever?

noreply@blogger.com (The Gator) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:28:00 +0000

The Short Version: No.

Gator Note: Thanks to Mark in Grimes, Iowa for sending in this question.

Trans fats have become a topic of many conversations in recent years as research has discovered their negative affects. According to WebMD:

Trans fats seemed like such a good thing once, enhancing the flavor, texture, and shelf life of many processed foods -- from cookies to frozen pizza. Unfortunately, they come with a health risk. Trans fatty foods tantalize your taste buds, then travel through your digestive system to your arteries, where they turn to sludge. . . Like saturated fats, trans fats raise LDL "bad" cholesterol and increase the risk of heart disease. But unlike saturated fats, trans fats lower HDL "good" cholesterol.

So, does that "sludge" stay in your body forever? Dr. Susan Mitchell says in an article she wrote for ThirdAge.com, "Trans fat isn't stored as trans fat in the body but broken down into components such as triglycerides". (Gator Note: this quote actually comes from a comment that Dr. Mitchell posted to this article)

This seems to be confirmed by a post on madsci.org by Michael Onken, a biochemist at Washington University in St. Louis, who references "Helena Curtis' introductory textbook, Biology". It is somewhat of a technical description, so scientists feel free to follow the link for the full post. The basics are:

Fat cells store triglycerides in large containers that take most of the cell.
The cells grow as they fill up on triglycerides, leading to the increase in size we see.
The weight is lost by breaking down the triglycerides into a fatty acid,
which is then used to create energy and releases carbon dioxide (don't tell Al Gore, he might outlaw fat people...).

So, basically trans fats get processed just like any other fat. If a person consumes large amounts and doesn't exercise, then the fats could potentially not get processed, but this is true for all fats. The real reason trans fats are so bad is because they raise the bad cholesterol and lower the good cholesterol.

The American Heart Association recommends "that about 25–35 percent of your daily calories come from fats. Less than 7 percent of calories from saturated fat and less than 1 percent from trans fat is recommended." Taking a typical 2000 calorie diet that means about 500 or so calories should come from fats, but only 20 calories should come from trans fats. Most of your fat calories should come from monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats.

* Photo by Petr Kratochvil

Glade Plug-In Air Fresheners Cause House Fires

noreply@blogger.com (The Gator) — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 03:51:00 +0000

The Short Version: They're probably okay, although care should be used when using any small plug in electronic devices.

Gator Note: Thanks to Vickie in Mitchellville, IA for sending in this myth.

According to the e-mails that have been circulating for some time, Glade plug-in air fresheners can spontaneously start a house fire when left plugged into an outlet.

In 2002 the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a voluntary recall of the Glade Extra Outlet Scented Oil Air Fresheners which states:

These Extra Outlet PlugIns® may have been misassembled during manufacture, which could pose a risk of fire. . . SC Johnson has received five reports of misassembly and no reports of injury or property damage.

Although the report admits the potential of fire, "five reports of misassembly and no reports of . . . damage" is hardly reason to stop using the products.

SC Johnson stated in a press release on June 17, 2004:

Because SC Johnson is committed to selling safe products, the company thoroughly investigated these rumors. First, it confirmed that no one had contacted SC Johnson to tell the company about these fires or to ask the company to investigate them. Additionally, SC Johnson had a leading fire investigation expert call the fire department representative who is identified in one of the Internet postings. That fireman indicated that he has no evidence that SC Johnson products had caused any fire. SC Johnson suspects this rumor may be associated with a past SC Johnson voluntary recall of one of its air freshener products, a Glade® Extra Outlet Scented Oil product. . . SC Johnson has no knowledge of any credible reports of fire related to this product. SC Johnson also knows that its products do not cause fires because all of the Glade PlugIns® products have been thoroughly tested by Underwriters Laboratories and other independent laboratories, and SC Johnson products meet or exceed safety requirements. SC Johnson continues to work closely with the Consumer Product Safety Commission to investigate allegations involving PlugIns® products.

In a report by New York reporter Tappy Phillips in 2002, two fire victims were interviewed in which the source of the fire may have been a plug-in air freshener. However, in both of these instances, the air fresheners were not Glade brand, but rather Wallflower, made by the White Barn Candle Company. Phillips also reported that "The CPSC says some fires attributed to air fresheners may be caused by faulty electrical wiring." Since little info is given about these two examples it is impossible to verify the report.

A more recent article published on Firehouse.com on October 7, 2009 reports that "A plug-in air freshener is to blame for a Bessemer City [NC] fire that killed a dozen pets, investigators said. . . Gastonia's Assistant Fire Marshal Billy Glover said, "This is the second one that I have investigated this week.” He said the problem is that plug-ins use heat to spread the smell, and if it gets hot enough, the plastic will melt. He said the plug-ins are safe to use sparingly, but check them often to make sure they don't overheat. He also suggests residents not keep flammable material near or under them.

So, while the e-mails that have been circulating may or may not relate a true story, it appears that there is some evidence to support a claim that plug-in air fresheners may have been involved in a few isolated house fires. Whether or not the air freshener (or faulty wiring) is the cause of the fire. It is entirely possible that a mass produced (and cheaply produced I might add) product could have the occasional bad component that could overheat and melt the plastic case, subsequently igniting any flammable material nearby (curtain, towel, stuffed animal, etc). It is also just as plausible that a problem with the house's wiring could cause the perfectly safe air freshener to overheat leading to the same end result. It should also be noted that any other small electronic device (such as a night light) could cause the same type of electrical fire.

It is The Gator's opinion that the best course of action is to only purchase air fresheners that contain the UL (Underwriter's Laboratories) logo, indicating that it has been independently tested for safety. As noted above in the SC Johnson press release, the Glade brand plug-ins should contain this certification.

Also, take care not to keep any flammable materials near the air freshener and don't leave them plugged in for extended periods of time. You wouldn't leave a candle burning 24 hours a day, and this should be no different. If you feel the air freshener is getting too hot, unplug it immediately.

Does Michelle Obama Have a Larger Staff than any Previous First Lady?

noreply@blogger.com (The Gator) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 03:25:00 +0000

The Short Version: No.

Gator Note: Thanks to Janice in Columbia, MO for sending in this question.

This rumor has been floating around ever since an article was published on thelastcrusade.org arguing that Michelle Obama is spending too much money on staff considering the current economic state of the country. This article then got forwarded around with an additional paragraph at the end claiming, "One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President's own pocket."

This last section is simply and completely false and easily proven so. For example, Jackie Kennedy had a staff of 40 (not 1), and Hillary Clinton had 20 plus another 15 interns and volunteers (not 3), according to WhiteHouseMuseum.org. First Ladies have had a staff ever since Caroline Harrison's niece served as social secretary in 1889, but it wasn't until 1978 (many years after Mamie Eisenhower) that PL95-570 was passed authorizing "assistance and services . . . to be provided to the spouse of the President in connection with assistance provided by such spouse to the President in the discharge of the President’s duties and responsibilities."

Since the post on "The Last Crusade" doesn't cite its source (something that annoys The Gator) he will assume the information came from the "Annual Report to Congress on White House Office Staff" available in pdf form from WhiteHouse.gov. It appears they pulled out all employees with "First Lady" in the title and also included any "social" positions (e.g. social secretary).

An article from National Journal has a similar list for the Bush white house in 2007. Just going by job titles (some are farily vague) there are at least 15 with the words "First Lady" in the title. Including positions with the word "social", the list grows to 17, minimum. That's a few more than the "one" that the e-mail claims Laura Bush had.

The table below compares the Obama staff list to the Bush staff list:

Obama Staffer	Salary	Job Title	Salary	Bush Staffer
Susan Sher	$172,200	Chief of Staff	$168,000	Anita McBride
Jocelyn Frye	$140,000	Director of Policy and Projects	$108,000	Cherie Harder
Desiree Rogers	$113,000	White House Social Secretary	$108,000	Amy Zantzinger
Camille Johnston	$102,000	Director of Communications
Melissa Winter	$102,000	Deputy Chief of Staff	$84,700	Sonja Miller
David Medina	$90,000	Deputy Chief of Staff
Catherine Lelyveld	$84,000	Press Secretary	$90,000	Sally Niemiec
Frances Starkey	$75,000	Director of Scheduling and Advance	$75,000	Deanna Ballard
		Director of Advance	$65,000	Charity Wallace
Trooper Sanders	$70,000	Deputy Director of Policy and Projects	$65,000	Carrie Underwood
Erinn Burnough	$65,000	Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary	$50,000	Dorothy Thornton
Joseph Reinstein	$65,000	Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary
Jennifer Goodman	$62,000	Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator	$50,000	Marisa Etter
Alan Fitts	$60,000	Trip Director
		Deputy Director of Advance	$50,000	Kristin King
Dana Lewis	$60,000	Special Assistant and Personal Aide	$47,500	Lindsey Lineweaver
Semonti Mustaphi	$52,500	Deputy Press Secretary	$43,000	Tarah Donoghue
Kristen Jarvis	$50,000	Traveling Aide
Tyler Lechtenberg	$45,000	Associate Director of Correspondence	$59,700	Misty Marshall
Joseph Boswell	$40,000	Executive Assistant to the Chief of Staff	$46,200	Kimberly Rawson
Sally Armbruster	$36,000	Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary
Deilia Jackson	$36,000	Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence	$42,500	Campbell Vogel
		Assistant Press Secretary to the First Lady	$39,000	Jonathan Block

It's obvious that the Obama "First Lady Staff" is not much different than the previous one. And this is just going by job titles. There are most likely many other staff who answer to the First Lady but have more generic titles like "secretary" or "director". Whether or not the First Lady (who is not elected and has no official duties) needs this large of a staff funded by taxpayer dollars is clearly a matter for debate. However, the current administration is not far exceeding its predecessors as the e-mails would have you believe.

Trident-Covered Coffin

noreply@blogger.com (The Gator) — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:46:00 +0000

The Short Version: Yes, the story is true.

An e-mail has been circulating recently about a funeral procession for a Navy Seal where other seals present slapped their trident pins onto the lid of the coffin. It includes pictures of the coffin covered in 45 of the pins (at right).

A page on the Navy's website has been dedicated to Mike Monsoor, the fallen soldier who is the subject of the e-mails. According to the Official Citation signed by then president George W. Bush:

WHILE THE SEALS VIGILANTLY WATCHED FOR ENEMY ACTIVITY, AN INSURGENT THREW A HAND GRENADE FROM AN UNSEEN LOCATION, WHICH BOUNCED OFF PETTY OFFICER MONSOOR’S CHEST AND LANDED IN FRONT OF HIM. ALTHOUGH ONLY HE COULD HAVE ESCAPED THE BLAST, PETTY OFFICER MONSOOR CHOSE INSTEAD TO PROTECT HIS TEAMMATES. INSTANTLY AND WITHOUT REGARD FOR HIS OWN SAFETY, HE THREW HIMSELF ONTO THE GRENADE TO ABSORB THE FORCE OF THE EXPLOSION WITH HIS BODY, SAVING THE LIVES OF HIS TWO TEAMMATES.

Monsoor received the Medal of Honor in April of 2008. During his funeral on October 12, 2006 the trident pins were indeed stuck into the lid of the coffin as can be seen near the end of the video below. Although it appears that the coffin in the picture included in the e-mail may have been from a different funeral as the coffin in the video seems to have many more pins on it.

The e-mail also implies that the pins, which are awarded to Navy Seals after successful completion of the SEAL Qualification Training, are perhaps in short supply, or that the SEALs are giving up the only such pin they will receive. However, a quick google search netted numerous websites selling these pins, including NavySEALS.com.

- The Gator

New Coins Leave Out "In God We Trust"

noreply@blogger.com (The Gator) — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 03:30:00 +0000

The Short Version: No, they don't, and they never did.

The Gator has received several e-mails telling him to boycott the new dollar coins because they omit the words "In God We Trust". The e-mails presented this as another attempt to phase God out of America. Although there are several groups attempting to do exactly this, they have not yet been successful. The new dollar coins (begun in 2007 with the Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005) do, in fact, contain the phrase. The confusion comes from a new design feature--writing on the edge of the coin, as can be seen in the picture below.

There was enough confusion for Congress to pass the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 which instructed the mint to move "In God We Trust" back to the obverse (face) of the coin (compare the Washington coin from 2007 to the Polk coin from 2009 at the right).

There have been several lawsuits over the years attempting to remove the words, although none have succeeded. In the first of these, Aronow v. United States, the 9th circuit court of appeals ruled "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise." Aronow, 432 F.2d at 243.

*Presidential $1 Coin images from the United States Mint.