Pro-science

Will the US finally get universal health care?

2009-11-08T11:21:00.003+01:00

I have never hidden my stance on universal health care. I am completely in favor it. What's more, I consider it an atrocity that any western country can have millions of citizens who haven't got basic health care coverage.

It looks like the US has finally realized this as well. Obama made it one of his key issues during the election (as did the other Democratic candidates), and has been working hard to get it through since he stepped into office. What's more, every poll shows that the majority of the US population backs his efforts.

Now, it looks more likely that this effort will become successful.

The US congress has voted 220-215 for expanding health care coverage in the US.

This was a largely partisan vote, with 219 Democrats, and only 1 Republican, voting for the expansions, and 39 Democrats and 176 Republicans voting against the expansion. You can see how the members voted here. Note the names of the people who voted against, especially the Democrats. These are the people who want millions of US citizens to continue not having health care coverage. Remember this during the next election - these people don't have the best interest of the voters in mind.

The battle is not over yet - the bill has to pass the senate - but it is a lot closer now than a few days ago.

There is much not to like about the bill which passed in the Congress. I don't like the reliance on insurance companies, and I hate the anti-abortion amendment, which the anti-choice members of the Congress got introduced. Yet, even with these flaws, there is much to like, e.g. the abolition of preexisting conditions. It's a good first step, and hopefully the Democrats won't stumble now.

One more strike against a JFK conspiracy

2009-11-08T10:33:00.004+01:00

Ever since John F. Kennedy was murdered there have been accusations of a conspiracy with Lee Oswald as the fall guy. At first it was just a small fringe group, but since then, these views have gained more foothold in the mainstream. A major reason for this was Oliver Stone's atrocious 1991 movie JFK, which contained numerous factual errors.

One of the earliest claims of evidence for a conspiracy, is the supposed fakeness of the photo of Lee Harvey Oswald standing in a backyard with the riffle used to kill President John F. Kennedy.

Now, throughout computer analysis of the photo, shows that it's not faked, but rather a real photo.

Iconic Photo Of JFK Assassin Oswald Was Not Faked, Professor Finds

Dartmouth computer scientist Hany Farid has new evidence regarding a photograph of accused John F. Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. Farid, a pioneer in the field of digital forensics, digitally analyzed an iconic image of Oswald pictured in a backyard setting holding a rifle in one hand and Marxist newspapers in the other.

Oswald and others claimed that the incriminating photo was a fake, noting the seemingly inconsistent lighting and shadows. After analyzing the photo with modern-day forensic tools, Farid says the photo almost certainly was not altered.

Scientists are always careful to not speak in absolutes so "Almost certainly was not" is science-speech for "Was not".

I know that this new evidence will not convince the hardcore conspiracy theorists, since nothing will, but perhaps it can be used to counter their claims, allowing others to understand that there is absolutely no evidence of a broader conspiracy.

Helping people helping others

2009-11-04T19:00:00.004+01:00

Ever so often someone sends me something they thought I might want to share with my readers. Most of the time, it's some kind of money making scheme or something, but on rare occasions, it's actually something worthwhile.

Today was one of these occasions.

I was made aware of this collaboration between the Fresh Air Fund and OneSight

One out of four school children in the U.S. has vision problems, and 86% do not get their vision checked before age 12.

Many Fresh Air children do not have access to affordable vision care. Glasses break, are too expensive to replace, or are never prescribed in the first place. And often as a result, children's performance in academics, sports and activities suffers.

For the fifth summer in a row, OneSight offered to bring their traveling optical clinic to all five Fresh Air Fund camp.

Together with OneSight's Vision Vans – and a team of local doctors and volunteers, OneSight provides free eye exams and eyewear to thousands of children in need each year.

This summer at Fresh Air camp, OneSight's staff screened 3,295 children and counselors, gave 1,757 eye exams, and made 1,629 pairs of glasses, with 1,458 of them on-site and 171 specially driven in. The team stayed at Camp Hayden-Marks for two camp sessions, to make sure every child who needed the gift of sight was screened.

If you want to read more about this effort, or perhaps even support it, see this page

Want to avoid errors? Sleep more

2009-11-01T09:20:00.004+01:00

I thought this was pretty well established science, but apparently it's not. A new study has found that sleep deprivation can negatively affect information processing.

A study in the Nov.1 issue of the journal Sleep shows that sleep deprivation causes some people to shift from a more automatic, implicit process of information categorization (information-integration) to a more controlled, explicit process (rule-based). This use of rule-based strategies in a task in which information-integration strategies are optimal can lead to potentially devastating errors when quick and accurate categorization is fundamental to survival.

Results show that sleep deprivation led to an overall performance deficit on an information-integration category learning task that was held over the course of two days. Performance improved in the control group by 4.3 percent from the end of day one to the beginning of day two (accuracy increased from 74 percent to 78.3 percent); performance in the sleep-deprived group declined by 2.4 percent (accuracy decreased from 73.1 percent to 70.7 percent) from the end of day one to the beginning of day two.

According to co-principal investigators W. Todd Maddox, PhD, professor of psychology, and David M. Schnyer, PhD, associate professor of psychology at the Institute for Neuroscience at the University of Texas in Austin, fast and accurate categorization is critical in situations that could become a matter of life or death. However, categorization may become compromised in people who often experience sleep deprivation in fast-paced, high pressure roles such as doctors, firefighters, soldiers and even parents. Many tasks performed on a daily basis require information-integration processing rather than rule-based categorization. Examples include driving, making a medical diagnosis and performing air-traffic control.

I think we've all experience times where we have been sleep deprived, and have our ability to use information be compromised as a result. So the findings of this study shouldn't come as a surprise.

Still, it's good that such things are researched, so it can be quantified how badly peoples' performance is affected. Studies, such as this one, can lead to changes in watch schedules etc. Or, given the fact that the effect is not universal, it could lead to better monitoring of those who have the type of jobs where this might cause problems.

The study is behind the paywall at SLEEP, but the abstract can be found here

The stupidity ... it burns! D'Souza edition

2009-10-31T14:59:00.003+01:00

I haven't been posting in a while, so I thought that I would look a little around on the internet, and see if I could find something to write about. I came across a few things, but nothing that really made me think "that'll work". Until I came to an article titled What Really Riles Muslim Extremists?
by Dinesh D'Souza. Jackpot.

Let the fisking begin.

More insurgent bombings in Iraq. More Taliban strikes in Afghanistan. What's up with these people? Just Wednesday, a deadly car bomb exploded in Peshawar, Pakistan, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Islamabad. Is Islam the problem?

No. Islam is not the problem. There are many peaceful adherents of Islam. Fanaticism on the other hand, is the problem.

Many atheists, and even some believers, would like us to believe that Muslim fanatics are doing this in the hope of going straight to heaven, so that they can enjoy the company of 72 virgins there. Some go as far as saying that religion itself is to blame, because it makes people susceptible to fanaticism, terrorism and violence.

Actually, it would be more correct to say, "Many people believe that Muslim fanatics..." Many other people understand that there are multiple reasons behind these terrorist attacks. Having said that, religion is to a large degree responsible for the particular mode of attack.

An example of this is described here. As the article explains, Iraqi women were raped, and afterward pressured to become suicide bombers to remove their shame. This is only possible where religious and cultural norms creates an atmosphere where it is better to be dead than live "in shame".

But this accusation against religion is nonsense. Even against Islam, it's questionable. Robert Pape's study of insurgency and suicide bombing shows that these actions have nothing to do with promises of heavenly reward. Rather, extremists are motivated by more mundane motives: they invaded our country, they stole our land, they raped my sister, and so on.

Again, I refer back to the article I linked above, which shows that the motivation can be religious in nature, even if there is no expectation of heavily rewards.

Whether or not this is true, Islamist terrorism is a special case. The original suicide bombers, the Japanese kamikazes, were not motivated by religion but rather by fanatical loyalty to the emperor.

D'Souza demonstrates his appalling lack of cultural awareness and lack of historical knowledge. The Japanese soldiers were fanatically loyal to the emperor exactly because of religion!

The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka conduct suicide attacks in a desperate struggle over land and self-determination.

Yes, it's true that Tamil Tigers conduct suicide attacks, but not in the numbers that Islamic terrorists do. I would also claim that there is a vast difference between the oppression that the Tamil face in Sri Lanka, and the conditions in Pakistan.

If religion is the problem, where are the Buddhist suicide bombers?

Buddhists tend to be non-violent, but again, D'Souza shows his ignorance. The very example he mentioned himself, the Japanese pilots, where often Zen Buddhists.

Nor has anyone been able to identify the Christian bin Laden, the Christian equivalent of al-Qaida or Hezbollah, or the Christian country today run along the lines of post-Khomeini Iran.

Do I need to explain North Ireland, the IRA etc.? How about Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda?

Regarding a Christian country run along the lines of post-Khomeini Iran, try to look at what some of the far-right groups in the US are trying to introduce.

Most people in the world believe in God and the afterlife, yet hardly any of them launch suicide attacks in the hope of going straight to heaven.

A religious belief is not sufficient for launching suicide attacks. That requires fanaticism and perceived oppression. I say "perceived", since many of the right-winged terrorist attacks seen in the US since Obama was elected, were made by people who perceived themselves as oppressed, without any evidence of them being so.

The atheist attack on religion fails.

Even if every example that D'Souza had given had been non-religious, it would not make the "attack on religion" fail. It could perhaps be overly broad, but even if suicide attacks were unique for one particular subset of religion (which I have already explained isn't the case), doesn't mean that religion wasn't the cause.

But even more significant, it boomerangs on the atheists. To see why, you have to understand the larger atheist critique. For two centuries, atheists have said that belief in the next world detracts from the pressing task of improving this one. The afterlife, in other words, is anti-life. We see this in the subtitle of Christopher Hitchens' book, How Religion Poisons Everything. But the most famous atheist to make this accusation was Karl Marx.

Even if everything D'Souza had written so far was correct - and it isn't - this wouldn't follow logically.

Interestingly enough, suicide attacks could be considered a way of trying to move the world towards a particular path, and thus improve it (in the eyes of the suicide attacker).

Marx famously said religion is the "opiate of the people." He meant that religion is a kind of drug that numbs us from being aware of social injustice.

No, that wasn't what he meant. What he meant was that religion was a force in getting people to accept social injustice. That's not quite the same.

Marx's call to eradicate religion was taken up with a vengeance by a host of dictators: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, Enver Hoxha, Fidel Castro and Kim Jong-il. These despots have collectively killed millions more than even bin Laden could ever dream of orchestrating.

Kim Jong-il created a different religion, with him as a deity.

For the rest of them, it's important that their defining characteristic was not that they were atheists, but that they were totalitarians, and thus wouldn't allow any potential groups to become too powerful. Stalin is a good example of this complexity - at times he heavily prosecuted the Orthodox Church, and others he allowed it to grow and become influential. It was dependent on what suited him at the time.

Had these despots been so avidly atheist as D'Souza believes, and had atheists really believed that religion completely removes religious peoples' focus on the current, then why wouldn't they let the religions continue? It would make things easier for them. The answer is, of course, that the despots understood that religion can distract, but it can also be used to get people to do things - such as suicide attacks - which means that they either needs to control it, or get rid of it.

Beliefs in God and life after death have proven far less dangerous to society than the attempts to establish the God-free utopia.

Please give just one example of any society where they have tried to create a God-free utopia.

Most of the time, the focus were on getting rid of the earlier despots - the Russian Revolution and the Long March happened for a reason. It wasn't like the earlier regimes were exactly likable. Much like how the Iran Revolution also happened for a good reason, likewise the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan.

After that, the focus were on staying in power, often through ruthless suppression of anyone who might be a threat, including religious groups.

Fine, let's listen to the atheists who say we need to watch out for heaven-seeking Muslims bent on blowing up civilians and flying planes into buildings.
But let's be just as vigilant against atheist fanatics who are willing to murder millions in order to establish their version of heaven on Earth

Only one of these groups is real - the religious fanatics. The other groups is a strawman, since there are no one willing to kill millions for atheism. There are people who wants totalitarian power, and those we should indeed look out for, be they religious or otherwise.

Alien snakes invading the US

2009-10-15T18:57:00.003+02:00

National Geographic reports that alien (as in non-native) snakes threaten to invade the lowest third of the US according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

Alien Giant Snakes Threaten to Invade Up to 1/3 of U.S.

Nine species of giant snakes—none of them native to North America and all popular pets among reptile lovers—could wreak havoc on U.S. ecosystems if the snakes become established in the wild, according to a new study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (pictures of giant snakes mentioned in the study).

These snakes come to the US as pets, but when they became too hard to maintain, their owners let them out in the free, allowing them to breed.

I cannot fathom why people can't get into their thick heads that releasing non-native animals into the wild is a horribly bad idea. Australia has many prime examples of this, but it's not like the US doesn't have similar examples, e.g. the European starlings.

If you cannot take care of your non-native animal, make sure to get someone else to take it off you, or have it put down. The last suggestion might sound rough, but it's much better than creating havoc in the local ecosystem.

Vegetarian spiders

2009-10-15T18:36:00.003+02:00

We all know that spiders eat insects, or the occasional bird or small rodent, but it now appear that there exist a breed which is vegetarian, or at least partly vegetarian.

The 60-Second Science podcast over at Scientific American has more on this: Odd Spider Prefers Salad

Scientific American also has an article about the subject

Unusual Spider Species Passes Up Live Prey for Plants

Of the 40,000-plus spider species known, only a few nibble on plants—typically, as a dietary supplement of nectar or simply as an accidental ingestion of pollen. A new paper, published online today in Current Biology, details the natural history of Bagheera kiplingi, a jumping spider that has vegetarian leanings, and its interesting arrangement with a plant and the ants that protect it.

Certain acacia plants (Vachellia collinsii) and ants (Pseudomyrmex peperi) have developed a mutually beneficial arrangement. The plant provides hollow areas for the ants to nest, along with nutritious nuggets, called Beltian bodies, for them to eat. For their part, the ants help to fend off would-be plant eaters. The crafty B. kiplingi, however, has thwarted the system—also feasting on the plant while managing to outmaneuver attacking ants.

It's not known why the spiders prefers to eat the less nutritious plant leaves to other prey, but interestingly enough, the behavior of the spiders while the hunt is the same as it would have been if it was more traditional prey

Despite their unusual meals, these spiders still exhibit some more traditional hunting behavior. "They're like miniature cats," Meehan says. "They literally stalk and hunt the plant,"

I can't help smile at the thought of a spider stalking a plant.

The original study is behind a paywall, but can be found here.

National Geographic also writes about the spider: "Surreal" Vegetarian Spider Found -- A First

I guess I have been Evolutionized

2009-10-12T18:24:00.004+02:00

Via facebook I became aware that Answers In Genesis, that paragon of stupidity, is warning people that they might have been "Evolutionized"

Evolution can become so ingrained in our thinking that we don’t even notice it. Our government schools and universities are entrenched in evolution, from biology to philosophy and even English class. There is no escaping evolution after we graduate, either. We encounter it in the newspaper, on the radio, on television, and in blockbuster movies.

Yes, it's funny how science can become ingrained in our thinking isn't it? Concepts like the fact that our world rotates around a sun, and not the other way around, that it's round, and that there is something called gravity, also seem to be ingrained in our thinking.

So, how do you know if you’ve been evolutionized? Here are a few questions to find out:

Given the fact that AIG hasn't ever demonstrated that they understand evolution, I am quite doubtful of their ability to make sensible questions related to it. But let's go through the questions, shall we?

Are tribes in the South American rain forest more primitive forms of humans than we are?

And BAM! Straight away, stupidity strikes. Biologically speaking, there is no difference between humans, so the question makes absolutely no sense. It's like asking: "Which of these forks are most fork-like?" Forks are forks, like humans are humans.

The concept of "primitive" humans is a socio-economic construct, and has historically been propagated by, among other things, organized religion.

Did dinosaurs live before humans?

We know that dinosaurs roamed the Earth in the period from 230 to 65 million years ago. We also know that the oldest known fossil of Homo sapiens is approximately 200,000 years old. Do the math.

Even if we take the oldest know fossil of an ancestor (or, more likely, a species which shares a common ancestor with us), Ida, is approximately 47 million years old.

Were the people who lived in caves and used simple tools not very intelligent?

Depends on what you mean by "people" and "intelligent".

Chimpanzees use spears for hunting and Rooks can use tools as well, yet I think few people would claim that they are as intelligent as us. Ancestors to Homo sapiens also used tools, and some even lived in caves, and it's quite likely that they were less intelligent than what we are now.

If we are only talking about Homo sapiens, then they quite intelligent. They figured out to use tools after all. What they were lacking however, was all the knowledge we now have, including such things as common languages and writing.

Did Noah lack special tools or equipment to build the Ark?

The Ark is supposed to have carried 14 (or perhaps 7) or 2 of all animals, depending upon their cleanness. Given the number of species which exist, this would require an extremely large boat - way beyond the skills of the time. Even now, it's not possible to build a wooden boat large enough to fit them all, or even to just accommodate the measures given in the Bible

This of course ignores all the other problems with the global flood story.

So, this question is much like asking: "Does Santa Claus lack special tools or equipment to maintain his sled?" The problem is not the tools, but the fact that what is described is fundamentally impossible.

Are the stars older than the earth?

Yes. As a matter of fact, most, if not all, stars are older than the earth.

What does this have to do with evolution anyway? I can see why the global flood and Noah's Ark might relate to evolution, but the age of stars?

Is there more than one race?

Race is a social construct, so this has nothing to do with science and evolution.

Does it take millions of years to form fossils, oil, coal, or diamonds?

Yes. What's more, diamonds are formed from coal.

Did Adam have to learn how to speak, read, and write after he was created?

Quite often people misuses the phrase "begging the question", but this is actually a very good example of it. For this question to make sense, we have to grant the premise of Adam having been created.

Well, guess what, I am not going to grant that premise.

Unless AIG can provide any scientific evidence of the creation of a human male approximately 6000 years ago (heck, give or take a few millenniums), by some divine being, I am going to say that this question is nonsense.

We understand the evolution of our species pretty well, and know that it's much older than the mere 6000 years that AIG and other Biblical literalists claim.

We also know that many species communicates (or speak if you prefer), so it's quite possible, even likely, that our ancestors communicated before becoming Homo sapiens.

Anyway, that was the questions which should demonstrate whether the reader was evolutionized. If you answered yes to any of them, then you are supposedly evolutionized - which presumably means that answering no, would mean that you reject evolution, even if the questions didn't make sense or were based on a wrong, even grotesquely warped, understanding of what evolution entails.

If you can bear the stupidity, try to see the answers to the questions accordingly to AIG - they also give the answer from the evolutionary side as well. As horribly wrong as anything else they say.

The most important challenge of our time

2009-10-03T18:09:00.004+02:00

There are many issues that I blog about on a regular, or at least semi-regular basis, that are of real importance to not only me, but to a lot of people. Ironically, however, I rarely blog about the one issue that I think is the single most important one facing us. The one issue upon which we, as a whole and as individuals, will be judge by future generations.

I am talking about anthropogenic global climate change (AGC).

The first time I became aware of AGC was back when I was in 8th grade. This was in 1988 or 1989. Back then, there was a whole lot of doubt about the issue, but a clear consensus was beginning to form, based upon not only the observable facts, but also on our understanding of science. Still, there was room for doubts.

Since then, we have seen the temperatures rise to alarming levels, and our understanding of the science behind AGC is much better, leaving no room for doubt. And let's make this very clear - among the scientists working with climate research and related subjects, there is no doubt. There might be a crank somewhere claiming that the evidence is inconclusive, like there are scientists who denies evolution, but the evidence for AGC is overwhelming.

Not strong. Overwhelming. Not just for the fact that the temperature is changing, with temperatures rising etc., but for the fact that this change is driven by mankind.

I cannot emphasis this strongly enough.

Unfortunately, the measures necessary to stop AGC, or at least lessen it, are not being taken. There is not the political will to do so.

At the same time, scientists are starting to panic - fearing that we might soon reach the point where we cannot turn back.

It seems like the voices of the scientists are finally starting to get heard. Perhaps some politicians had their eyes opened by the reports by the IPCC, which unambiguously said that all evidence shows us that AGC is real, and that we have to act now.

I don't know, but I am happy that the politicians are starting to take this seriously.

On December 7th, a climate conference starts here in Copenhagen - generally called Cop15. It is perhaps the last real chance of making a treating addressing AGC in time for it to have effect.

Today, I spent an hour listening to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon speak about "The Road to Copenhagen" at the University of Copenhagen. I haven't always been too impressed by the current Secretary-General, but on the subject of AGC, I've always been impressed by his dedication. He, as few other politicians, seem to realize that AGC is the single most important issue, regardless of financial crisis, flu pandemics etc. If we cannot address AGC, those other issues will seem quite small in comparison to what we will encounter in the future.

The Secretary-General was optimistic about Cop15, explaining that a lot of positive signals had already been made by key players, such as the EU and Japan, and even poorer countries like China and India seems committed. Regarding the elephant in the room, the US, he said that the US has changed it position from the previous administration, and while their level of ambition might be lower than we would want (not his exact wording), the rest of us "have to encourage them continuously".

Obviously, I hope he is right regarding the likelihood of getting a treaty out of Cop15, but I also think it's important that we, the public, try to do our best to help it along. If you can, write your member of parliament/congress and ask him or her to support a meaningful, science-based treaty, without regard to personal/nationalistic gains.

If we blow this chance, there very well might not be another. If that's the case, future generations won't judge us kindly.

Get your sundays supplement

2009-09-26T10:06:00.002+02:00

Just thought I'd give a shout-out to the brilliant podcast Sundays Supplement which I am currently working my way through. I listen to one episode each morning, while taking the train to work (I am currently working on a project in Malmö, Sweden).

You can find the podcasts here

It's hosted by comedians Simon Dunn and Iszi Lawrence.

If you like British humor, and want to find out what British newspaper you should have bought last Sunday, it's definitely worth checking out this podcast.

The 120th Skeptics' Circle

2009-09-23T18:00:00.005+02:00

Welcome to the 120th edition of the Skeptics' Circle, a blog carnival of the best (apolitical) skeptical writing in the blogsphere.

The Skeptics' Circle was first started by St. Nate back in February 2005, and is currently run by Orac, of Respectful Insolence. As you might have figured out, I am the host of this edition, where we have, as always, a quite good crop of skeptical related posts.

Before starting on those though, I thought I'd dwell a little on the first edition of the carnival. When preparing for this edition, I couldn't help wonder how much the skeptic blogsphere had changed since February 2005, which in internet time must be close to a century ago. So, I went back to the original carnival and looked at the contributors then. Apart from St. Nate, who was the host, there were 11 blogs involved in the first edition. Of these, 4 has moved to ScienceBlogs, 2 has closed, 1 has closed and reopened in a different location, 3 are inactive, while one is still going strong in the original location.

In other words, half of the original blogs are either closed or inactive.

This shows to me, the importance of getting new, strong, skeptical voices involved in the blogsphere all the time, be it people involved in fighting creationism/intelligent design, global warming denial, anti-vaccinationists, or some other type of pseudo- or anti-science. We need them all. So, if you come across new skeptical bloggers (or even ancient unknown ones), make sure to support their work, either by leaving comments, or by linking to their posts, and encourage them to participate in the Skeptics' Circle, either as contributors, or as hosts.

Now, enough preaching for the choir, let's get on to the contributions.

There are two types of contributions this time. One is skeptical posts, as we've known them from the first edition, the second is contributions that are reflecting on the skeptic movement in one way or another. The first two contributions are definitely of the latter type.

Greta Christina has written two posts about sex and race in the atheist/skeptical movements, or as she says "why these movements are so predominantly white and
male, what we can do about it... and why we should care."

The first of these two is Getting It Right Early: Why Atheists Need to Act Now on Gender and Race, and the second is Race, Gender, and Atheism, Part 2: What We Need To Do -- And Why

If you are a regular reader of my blog, I think you can guess that I stand in agreement with Greta Christina, and think this is very important for skepticism to look into these issues. Only by confronting our biases can we address them, and become more inclusive.

The second contributor is Greg Fish, who writes about a deadly serious subject - the scientific basis of evidence used in court: if it’s good in enough in court…. Recently, it was shown that it's possible to fake DNA evidence, so this subject is as important as ever.

Ever since the first edition, creationists have been the target of many contributions, and Runolfr takes them on in this edition: Creationist Cut-and-Paste

Another favorite target are homeopaths, one of which Michael Meadon takes on in Fun with a local homeopath.

Given the court setbacks that the creationists have encountered, I'd have to say that homeopaths are probably a greater danger to society than creationists, but I certainly enjoyed both take-downs.

Rogue Medic also addresses alternative "medicine", in this case in the form of acupuncture, taking offset in a comment left by an altie in an earlier blogpost of his. Eureka - Conventional Treatment Plus Placebo Beats Conventional Treatment Alone - comment from RavenBlack

Over at Happy Jihad's House of Pancakes, HJ tells the story of the way a family feels they were treated by the Ghost Hunters: "We're TAPS. We're here to help."

Another reflective post on skepticism, this time by Akusai over at Action Skeptics - he describes it as "Skepticism 101", and it is indeed a good introduction to skepticism. A Deeper Level of Criticism

cubiksrube explains Cargo cults

Bronze Dog has two, unrelated, submissions to this circle - the first one, What Makes Me Angry and Why, explains the anger that many of us skeptics feel when confronted with pseudo-/anti-science, while the other, Creationists and The Boy Who Cried 'Wolf!' is aimed at creationists who wants to be honest (do they exist?).

Chris Hallquist has submitted a book review on a food book which reveals the anti-science slant of the book: In Defense of Food Isn’t About Nutrition (a review)

And now for something I believe is a first. The next contributor is Dr. Flegg who has written about homeopathic practitioners who are moving into Africa in False profits over at ABC's unleashed. As far as I am aware, this is the first time a blogpost connected to the site of a major news channel has been part of the circle.

The next contributor submitted no less than three posts for this edition. Andrew Bernardin has submitted Another Myth on Aging Busted, The Questionable Human Propensity for Mental Illness, and Shameful Research on Shame. They are all fairly short and to the point, and while they are definitely worth reading, I must admit that I'd have loved if especially the last one had been longer and fleshed out a bit.

Over at Blue Genes, guest blogger Ben Vincent has written on AIDS denialism: When Pseudoscience Kills – Trust, Denialism, and Peter Duesberg.

I know that I shouldn't be surprised about where woo turns up, and I have heard about pet woo in the past, but even so, I can't help get surprised when I read about CAM in veterinarian medicine, which is exactly what SkeptVet wrote about in Woo U. — CAVM as Continuing Education for Veterinarians

The Skeptical Teacher has A Challenge to Skeptics: Pithy, Non-Offensive Sound Bytes in Response to Creationism?. He also informs us that Edmund (Pseudo)Scientific Sells “Ghost Detectors” & Other Woo and gives us Three Reasons Why the Large Hadron Collider Will NOT Destroy the Earth.

On Brow submitted a post which discuss the attempts by a philosopher to use scientific jargon and results to support a particular argument for the existence of God (Aquinas' Fifth Way). Scientific jargon does not support the Fifth Way.

If you've reached this far in the post, I guess Elyse was wrong when she wrote The End is Here!. No, not really - it's a post on the latest "end of the world" claim, which said that the world would end (or rather, the rapture would happen) on September 21st. The observant reader would note that this deadline has passed, with no notable rapture-related events occurring.

The final submissions are by Podblack Cat who not only wrote about Dragon*Con 2009 in Memorable Dragon*Con 2009, but which also posted three videos about the Skeptic track there - day one, day two, and day three.

The next edition of the Skeptics' Circle will be hosted at the Mad Skeptic on October 8th. Submissions can be sent to baron.army@gmail.com - if you have something you think will fit the circle, or if you come across something which you think might fit, please make sure to send them in.

Bad pun, but interesting article

2009-09-22T11:58:00.003+02:00

Normally, there is nothing that turns me away from an article faster than a pun in the headline, but for once, curiosity got the better of me when I came across this Wired article.

Scanning Dead Salmon in fMRI Machine Highlights Risk of Red Herrings

Neuroscientist Craig Bennett purchased a whole Atlantic salmon, took it to a lab at Dartmouth, and put it into an fMRI machine used to study the brain. The beautiful fish was to be the lab’s test object as they worked out some new methods.

So, as the fish sat in the scanner, they showed it “a series of photographs depicting human individuals in social situations.” To maintain the rigor of the protocol (and perhaps because it was hilarious), the salmon, just like a human test subject, “was asked to determine what emotion the individual in the photo must have been experiencing.”

The salmon, as Bennett’s poster on the test dryly notes, “was not alive at the time of scanning.”

If that were all that had occurred, the salmon scanning would simply live on in Dartmouth lore as a “crowning achievement in terms of ridiculous objects to scan.” But the fish had a surprise in store. When they got around to analyzing the voxel (think: 3-D or “volumetric” pixel) data, the voxels representing the area where the salmon’s tiny brain sat showed evidence of activity. In the fMRI scan, it looked like the dead salmon was actually thinking about the pictures it had been shown.

The article is about the perils of false positives when using fMRI machines, and raises the question whether we can trust the results from such scanning. This question is hard to answer, but the answer is probably "it depends". The trustworthiness of such results depends on the rigorousness of the statistical methods used.

One things this experiment also highlights, which I believe strongly in, is that one should not just test for whether things works when you expect it to work, but also that it fails to work when it's expected to not work. This is something I preach when making IT systems, and it is something which everyone who do any type of tests or measurements should keep in mind.

Call for submissions

2009-09-20T09:37:00.002+02:00

On Thursday, this blog is hosting the 120th edition of the Skeptics' Circle. While I have received some entries for the carnival, I'd love to get a lot more.

The Skeptics' Circle is an apolitical blog carnival aims at presenting the best posts of skeptical blogging. For more on this, see the carnival guidelines.

If you have a post which you think would suit the carnival, please send an email to kriswager@gmail.com containing the link, and a brief description. Please include the words "skeptics' circle" in the subject line. Please note that I need these emails by Wednesday.
I'll acknowledge all emails with submissions, so if you have sent me a link, and I haven't acknowledged it within 24 hours, please send it again.

Help grrlscientist get to the Antarctic

2009-09-19T09:56:00.003+02:00

As most of my readers are probably aware of, science blogger Grrlscientist has entered in a competition to get sent to the Antarctic. She is currently in third place, with less than two days left, and she really needs your votes. Even if you have already voted on someone else, you're allowed to switch vote to her instead.

Grrlscientist has written a little more details here. Read it, follow the links to the voting, register, and vote.

R.I.P. Norman Borlaug

2009-09-13T20:25:00.003+02:00

I just saw the news that Norman Borlaug has died, 95 years old. Borlaug won the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on making better crops, allowing countries such as Mexico, Pakistan and India to become self-supplying in corn.

LA Times has an obit which describes his work, and the effect it had.

In the early 1960s, India and Pakistan were confronting famine and CIMMYT sent Borlaug to intervene. He planted demonstration plots of the new dwarf variety, but was unable to convince the state-owned seed companies to adopt them.

By 1965, however, famine in the region was so bad that the governments acquiesced. Borlaug organized a shipment of 35 truckloads of dwarf wheat seeds. Because of customs problems, the seeds couldn't be shipped from Mexico in time for planting, so he sent them to a port in Los Angeles.

U.S. customs officials held them up at the border before finally permitting them to cross. Then National Guard troops detoured them from Los Angeles because of the Watts riots. Finally, the $100,000 check drawn on the Pakistani ministry bounced because of three misspelled words on its face.

Ultimately, the cargo ship set sail for Karachi and Bombay and Borlaug went to bed relieved, only to wake the next morning to word that India and Pakistan had gone to war.

Because of the delays, the team had no time for germination studies and planting was started immediately, often in sight of artillery flashes. "We did a lot of praying," he later recalled.

Despite the problems, the new crop was 98% bigger than the previous year's and the Asian subcontinent was placed on a new path. India ordered 18,000 tons of seed from Mexico and the harvest was so big that there was a shortage of labor to harvest it, too few bullock carts to haul it to the threshing floor, and an insufficiency of jute bags, trucks, rail cars and storage facilities.

By 1968, Pakistan was self-sufficient in food production. India joined it in 1974.

It is probably impossible to overstate his importance to the world - it's estimated that his work has saved over a billion people from starvation. He was a great man, whose work still has an impact on the lives of most of us today.

NY Times also has an obit of him which is well worth reading.

Bad science and the death row

2009-09-12T16:47:00.004+02:00

I know that this article is nine days old, but I thought it worth blogging about nevertheless.

Two Texans sent to death row by bad science

Two Texans convicted of committing murder by setting fires were convicted because of faulty investigations. This conclusion was reached by a study conducted by the Texas Forensic Science Commission. They retained Dr. Craig L. Beyler of Maryland to conduct the study, and reported their findings on August 25. The results corroborated those of another study conducted in 2006, by the Innocence Project.

In 1987, Ernest Willis was convicted of setting a fire which killed two women, and sent to death row. In 2004, a new district attorney suspected problems with the original investigation and ordered a new one, which resulted in Willis being freed.

In 1992, Cameron Todd Willingham was convicted of setting a fire which killed his 2 year old daughter and 1 year twins. He was executed in 2004. Willingham's prosecutor, John Henry Jackson, admits that some bad science was used in his case, but believes he was guilty, because of his jail house confession and because his feet weren't burned.

I am against the death penalty because I have the fundamental stance that it's not the role of society to kill, except in self-defense (and I don't believe that murdering someone who is locked away can in any way be considered self-defense). Even if I didn't have this viewpoint, I'd still be against the death penalty for the reason demonstrated here.

I don't know if Willingham was guilty or not, but at least part of the evidence used to convict him was based on bad science. This means that he didn't have due process when found guilty. Unlike Willis he won't have a chance to be freed though, as he has already been murdered by the State of Texas. It can be debated whether locking people up for years can be undone, but at least something can be done to undo the injustice - the same cannot be said about someone executed.

Hopefully this story will lead the State of Texas (the US state with the most executions, currently run by the governor with the most executions under his watch) to re-consider the death penalty, or at the very least, to go through the evidence used to convict people currently sitting on death row (or even better, commission the Innocence Project to do so).

Edit: The New Yorker also has an article on this story: Trial by Fire

119th Skeptics' Circle is up

2009-09-11T07:20:00.003+02:00

The 119th Skeptics' Circle is up over at Cubik's Rube - it's way more creative than next edition of it will be. How am I amble to say that? Easy, I am the host of the next edition, which will be up on September the 24th.

Please send any submissions you have to me - kriswager@gmail.com - with the words "skeptics' circle" somewhere in the title. I should have them by the 23rd for them to be included in the carnival.

Note: last time I hosted the Skeptics' Circle there were a couple of emails that didn't reach me. I will acknowledge mails, by sending a reply, when I see them, so if you haven't gotten a reply from me within a couple of days, please send the mail to me again.

Nobel Prize winner Aage Bohr has died

2009-09-10T13:52:00.003+02:00

The Danish press report that the Danish Nobel Prize winner Aage Bohr died two days ago, 87 years old. He was born in 1922 as the son of Niels Bohr, one of the greatest physicists ever to exist, and even though this obviously to some degree put him in the shadow of his father, he did significant contributions to the field as well.

Associated Press story: Denmark's Nobel prize winner Aage Bohr dies at 87

The Nobel Prize presentation of Aage Bohr's work

How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?

2009-09-05T10:34:00.003+02:00

This is a question that many people, economists included, have been asking themselves. Now, they can get the answer by reading Paul Krugman's long article on the very subject in the NY Times Magazine

>How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?

Readers of this blog are probably aware that I am a big fan of Paul Krugman, who I have found to not only be right more often than not, but to also be able to explain complex economical ideas in an accessible way - this article is no exception.

This article is well worth the read, even if you have little interest in the subject of economics (though given the times, I find it hard to believe that someone could be uninterested in that subject)

Ancient axes found in Europe

2009-09-04T18:15:00.004+02:00

Nature News has an article on an interesting discovery: Europe's oldest axes discovered

Hand axes from southern Spain have been dated to nearly a million years old, suggesting that advanced Stone Age tools were present in Europe far earlier than was previously believed.

Acheulian axes, which date to at least 1.5 million years ago, have been found in Africa, and similar tools at least 700,000 years old have been found in Israel and China. But in Europe, sophisticated tool-making was thought to stretch back only around 500,000 years.

As the article goes on to explain, the axes found in two sites in Europe have been dated to be between at least 760,000 and 900,000 years old. Quite a bit older than previous dated axes in Europe.

This is obviously very interesting news, since it demonstrates that the history of hominid migration is a lot more complicated than was assumed just a few years ago.

The Nature News article is based upon on a Nature article which is unfortunately behind a paywall here

Four books per week and other goals

2009-09-04T17:47:00.004+02:00

When I was younger, I used to be an avid reader, in periods reading on average a book per day (or even more). Yet after I started spending time on the internet, and especially since I got broadband, the number of books I've read have gone down drastically.

This has annoyed me for a while, and I've decided that I would try to do something about it.

Instead of just trying to read more, I've decided to make some reading goals for the rest of the year. They are:

1) Read four books a week. Given the fact that I might be more busy some weeks than others, I've decided that this number should be a four week average, by which I mean that at any time, I should be able to count the number of books read in the last four weeks, and find at least 16 titles.

2) Read at least one work-related book per fortnight. They tend to take me longer than other books, so I give myself 14 days for reading them. The general principle is though, that I should be reading a work-related book at all times (I tend to read several books in parallel)

3) Read at least one non-fiction book per week (including the work-related book). Not a hard goal, when combined with goal 2.

4) No more than one re-read is allowed per week. Like many other avid readers, I have a tendency to return to books. While this is enjoyable, I consider it cheating in this context.

I won't be making posts on how well I am managing every week, but I will certainly write something about it in the future.

The stupidity ... it burns!

2009-08-31T20:35:00.003+02:00

Yes, I know that I have used that post title before, but it's still true.

So, what stupidity am I talking about this time? I'm talking about a blogpost over at Darwin's God called The (Real) Problem With Atheism

You can see from the title alone that this is going to be a goldmine of stupidity, can't you? Well, let's dig in, and do some fisking.

Did you know the new atheism is on the wane? Did you even know there was such a thing as the new atheism?

Yes, I am aware that there is a group of people commonly being referred to as "new atheists", and that they have spearheaded a push to get atheism into the open, letting atheists know that they are not alone, and that it's perfectly alright to be an atheist.
I didn't know it was on the wane however - I seem to see quite a few references to the new atheists in the media, and there were (and still is) a lot of coverage of the atheist bus campaigns around the world. Perhaps you could provide us with some evidence for this claim?

In recent years there has been a surge of activity from atheists. Organizations, web sites, conferences and books advocating the materialistic world view have entered the spiritual marketplace. Fueled by strong convictions, these thinkers have made little attempt to make their hard-edged attitudes palatable to the unsuspecting public. Instead, they have force-fed their ideas onto searchers, insisting that atheism is mandated by science and logic. When you strip away religious sentiment and just look at the data, they declared, atheism is required.

Yes, authors publishing books about atheism, and why they don't believe in a god, can only be considered force-feeding ideas to other people. Unlike the many books by religious people about their religions and why they are religious, which are of course just informative.

How dare atheists publish slogans like "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" on billboards, without attempting to make it palatable to the "unsuspecting public"?

No, seriously, the author of the blogpost obviously haven't read the works by the new atheists, which are generally quite respectful towards other people (if not their beliefs). Reading these books would also have made the writer aware that none of those books, articles etc. claims that atheism is required based on the scientific evidence, but instead that the scientific evidence doesn't support any religious claims, and thus makes atheism a viable option. This is very different from what he claims that the atheists says.

Initially the new atheism attracted quite a bit of attention but now, as Bryon McCane pointed out this week, it is fading fast.

The evidence McCane provides for this claim is the fact that there are no books by new atheists on the bestselling charts. No great surprise, given the fact that none of the big names in that movement (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett) have published anything recently.

I take some solace in its demise not because I dislike atheists but because the new atheism sowed needless confusion. Atheism is, and always has been, irrelevant in the origins debate. But the rise of the new atheism made atheism appear more important than it really is.

I have read through this part several times, and no matter how many times I've read it, it makes no sense.

There can be two sorts of debates about origins: a science-based one, and one based on religious views. In the first case, I agree that atheism is not important, since religion plays no role, and thus is kept out of it. In the second case, atheism plays a very important role, even if you're religious - it's what keep dragging the debate back to reality. If religion, no matter how moderate, gets to dominate that debate, science won't be allowed to do its job without interference - that's why even religious people should appreciate the atheistic view in that context.

Unless of course they are not willing to conform their religious views to reality, in which case, an atheistic counterpoint becomes even more important.

For many, atheism is the driving force behind evolutionary thought. Isn't the origins debate between religious people and those who reject god? Did not Princeton's Charles Hodge early on identify Darwinism as atheism in disguise? Is not the rise of twentieth century atheism evidence for this? After all, it was the leading atheist Richard Dawkins who admitted that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

It's only among the fundamentalist religious groups that science, such as the Theory of Evolution, is equaled to atheism. In the rest of the world, e.g. among Catholics, it's accepted that one can be religious and understand science as well. If science and religion conflicts, religion adjusts (as both the former Pope and the Dalai Lama has acknowledged).

What Dawkins meant by his comment about "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" (which wasn't an admission but an explanation) was that until Darwin explained evolution, atheists might well realize that there were no gods, but they couldn't explain how humans came to exist. After Darwin's book, atheists could now understand how this might happen, even though there were no gods around.

It would be a mistake to think, however, that this meant that Dawkins (and others) didn't think that people couldn't be atheists before Darwin wrote his book - back then, there were still the same problems with the lack of evidence for any gods, and the problems with a multitude of religions. They just didn't have an alternative explanation (something which entirely valid - one can discard a hypothesis without having another in its place).

The rise of the new atheism seemed to confirm such views. Evolution, it seems, is all about atheism.

If you think that, you obviously haven't been following the subject very closely. Dawkins, and to some degree Dennett, did involve evolution in their arguments, but Hitchens and Harris didn't, and even Dawkins focuses much more on the lack of evidence for the existence of a god, than on evolution.

Maybe it would be better to actually read some of the authors that you criticize?

Before we close this case, however, let's take one more look. First, there are no arguments for evolution made from atheism. If you study the evolution genre, and especially that part that argues for the veracity of the theory, you will have great difficulty finding atheistic premises. In fact, I have not found any.

If you haven't found an atheistic premise for evolution, then you haven't understood anything about science. All science operate under the fundamental premise that there is nothing super-natural involved, including gods. Since the Theory of Evolution is science, the fundamental premise behind it, is that no gods have been involved - do you know what "atheist" means?

In other words, the whole damn premise of our understanding of evolution, is based on atheism.

This doesn't make science anti-religious as such, but only allows science to operate in the known, observable world, instead of the unobservable realms of the super-natural.

The strong arguments for evolution are, and always have been, from theism. God would not create this gritty world so it must have evolved. There is no meaningful distinction between theist and atheist when it comes to belief in evolution--they both rely on the same theological premises. An evolutionary theist, such as Francis Collins, and an evolutionary atheist, such as PZ Myers, use arguments that rely on the same theological assumptions.

I am sorry, but you, sir, are a moron. The strong arguments for evolution has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with observable facts - the very sort of facts that lead Darwin to understand the fundamentals of evolution in the first place. Facts such as bio-diversity and the fossil record, mutating diseases, genes etc.

For you to think that the arguments for evolution are from theism shows such a confounding stupidity, that it's a wonder that you're even able to type those words.

Oh, and I've been reading PZ Myers' blog for years, long before it moved to ScienceBlogs - could you point me to any place where he bases his arguments on any theological premises? And no, the base premise of science (which I explained above) is not a theological premise.

This is the dirty little trade secret of atheism: it is parasitical on theism. Atheism, itself, has nothing to add to the origins debate. As McCane notes, "the new atheists’ biggest mistake, by far, was to be openly intolerant of religion. They mocked, derided and made fun of it."

Atheism is the lack of religion. Nothing more, nothing less. "New atheism", or vocal atheism as I prefer to call it, is a push against the religious fanatics, which tries to impose their religious views on other people, including through removing the teaching of evolution from science classes. Pushing against such people, explaining why their arguments are not only wrong, but ridiculously wrong, is not parasitical to those arguments.

And in a science context, theism has nothing to add to the origins debate, and every time someone tries to argue from a theistic view-point, they just end up getting their arguments disproved. This is why the smarter religious sects, such as the Catholic Church, avoid doing so.

Indeed, atheism is motivated by skepticism of theism. It is not a positive argument for atheism, but a negative argument against theism. But an argument against theism usually entails theological convictions. Talk to any atheist and you're liable to hear strong convictions about what god should and should not do.

If you talk with an atheist in a strongly religious country, this is obviously the case (you are a product of your environment after all), but talk to an atheist from a secular country, and they will have a very relaxed attitude to religion (sorry, you probably didn't realize that there might be atheists outside the US).

One thing is true though, there is not really any positive arguments for atheism. There can't be - again, atheism is just the lack of belief in a god. Most people become atheists by following the evidence for gods to where it leads - nowhere. Being an atheist is a default option, where no other option makes sense to you.

As the atheist Myers wrote in the LA Times recently:

We go right to the central issue of whether there is a god or not. We're pretty certain that if there were an all-powerful being pulling the strings and shaping history for the benefit of human beings, the universe would look rather different than it does.

How do they have any idea what god would and would not do? Because they hold certain beliefs about god. Their atheism relies on their theism. Unbelievable. The folks who bring you the new, cutting edge, atheism rely on, yes, their own ridiculous pious pleadings. How pathetic.

Like many other atheists, PZ Myers didn't start out being an atheist, so he actually knows a fair bit about the beliefs of others. In this case, his argument is based on the concept of god as most people hold it, which is as a beneficiary deity.

I am leaving out a part where the author goes into atheism in the past, making no point whatsoever, and start where he returns to the now.

The story is no different today. Scientifically the theory is a muddle, but metaphysically it is mandated. Its truth is derived from the rejection of design / creation. Today, as in centuries past, the arguments come from the theists and are borrowed by the atheists.

If the past paragraphs had left me in any doubt about the lack of knowledge of the author on the subjects of atheism and evolution, this paragraph would have left me no doubt. The Theory of Evolution is one of the most well-tested, well-founded theories of science, and for someone to claim that it "is a muddle", just serves to demonstrate that he is a moron. Something we were not really in doubt about, but which has now, once again been demonstrated.

Again, evolution is clearly demonstrated as have happened in the past as well as happening now. There are no theistic arguments involved, and while design/creation is rejected, it's not only necessary to do that, because theists (such as the Discovery Institute) try to inject those concepts into the sphere of science.

Evolution is not about science, it is about god, and atheism is irrelevant. It makes no difference whether the theological arguments come from a theist such as Francis Collins or an atheist such as PZ Myers, the science is asinine either way.

What can one say in the presence of such grand stupidity - is it even possible to gleam a coherent idea from the above paragraph?

Evolution is a natural phenomenon, happening as I write this. In science, the Theory of Evolution explains the mechanisms for evolution. Science is based entirely on an atheistic premise.
Of the things that he mentions, science, god, and atheism, the only thing that is irrelevant for evolution, is god. The very thing he claims it's about.

And what was it that Dawkins said? "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Note the causal relationship. It was evolution that enabled atheism, not the other way around. The real problem with atheism is not that it is the driving force behind evolution; rather, the real problem is that it masks the driving force behind evolution. It is theism, not atheism, that is the driving force behind evolution.

I think I have already addressed this.

Reading through this garbage, I notice that not once does the author try to provide any evidence for his claims about theism (or god) being the driving force behind evolution. Not surprising, I guess, since there is no evidence for this.

Modern day slavery

2009-08-31T17:43:00.002+02:00

Through one of my colleagues' twitter feed, I became aware of this interview with Benjamin Skinner, author of A Crime So Monstrous: Face to Face with Modern-Day Slavery

There Are More Slaves Today Than at Any Time in Human History

As the title of the interview makes clear, slavery is not a thing of the past, but is very much still happening, and in greater numbers than ever seen before. It's estimated that there are 27 million people living in slavery world-wide (though governments only acknowledge the existence of 12.3 million slaves).

This high number is not due to some broad definition of what constructs a slave, but rather is based on Kevin Bales' definition

slaves are those forced to work, held through fraud, under threat of violence, for no pay beyond subsistence

This doesn't just include things like sex slaves, but also people who are forced to work without pay, to pay off generational debt (i.e. debt made by earlier generations).

It's a depressing high number, and something which cannot be addressed except through international organizations like the UN. Some, especially religious, groups tries to buy the slaves free, but as Skinner says, this only cause more problems.

TM: These are those who practice what they call redemptions, buying slaves their freedom. Who's doing it, and what's your analysis of it?

BS: On the basis of three months spent in southern and northern Sudan, two months in southern Sudan in particular. ... There was one particular evangelical group based in Switzerland, organized and run by an American who raised cash around the States. They'd go to a Sunday School or a second-grade class in Colorado, talk about slavery, and say, "Bring us your lunch money. If you can get us $50, we will buy a slave's freedom."

It was a very effective sales pitch. They managed to raise over $3 million dollars by my calculations over the course of the 1990s.

In theory, they were giving money to "retrievers" who would go into northern Sudan, and through whatever means necessary, secure the slaves' freedom and bring them back down into the south.

In the context of the Sudanese civil war, slavery is used as a weapon of war by the north. Northern militias raid southern villages, and in many cases, kill the men and take the women and children as slaves and as a weapon of genocide. That much is not questioned. There is no question that these slave raids were going on.

I found that redemption on the ground was enormously problematic. There was scant oversight. They were literally giving duffel bags full of cash to factions within the rebels that were at that point resisting an ongoing peace process.

What they risked doing, whether through recklessness or through intent, was to become essentially angels of destruction at a time when a negotiated peace was just beginning to take hold. Thankfully, at this point they've scaled back the redemptions.

Skinner supports the organization Free the Slaves through donating parts of his royalties. I took a look at the website, and it certainly looks like a worthwhile organization.

The Human Family Tree | Interactive - National Geographic Channel

2009-08-29T14:01:00.002+02:00

Interesting interactive page at National Geographic about how closely related humans really are.

Explore the haplogroups from participants in the National Geographic Channel show The Human Family Tree.

View >>

How safe is your drinking water?

2009-08-23T13:11:00.004+02:00

Due to the discovery of e.coli bacteria in the water from a waterwork in Denmark, there has been some debate about requiring more frequent testing of Danish drinking water. I wholeheartedly agree with such a measure, and hope it's put into place.

Having said that, requiring such testing doesn't help much if you allow unhealthy amounts of substances in the water. According to NY Times, this might have been the case in the US, where the E.P.A. might allow unsafe amounts of Atrazine in drinking water.

Debating How Much Weed Killer Is Safe in Your Water Glass

For decades, farmers, lawn care workers and professional green thumbs have relied on the popular weed killer atrazine to protect their crops, golf courses and manicured lawns.

But atrazine often washes into water supplies and has become among the most common contaminants in American reservoirs and other sources of drinking water.

Now, new research suggests that atrazine may be dangerous at lower concentrations than previously thought. Recent studies suggest that, even at concentrations meeting current federal standards, the chemical may be associated with birth defects, low birth weights and menstrual problems.

The problem is not just that new knowledge has come to light, but also the fact that the E.P.A. has ignore this new knowledge, arguing that the epidemiological studies that knowledge was obtained through, contained flaws.

In my opinion, when you have several epidemiological studies showing that there might be serious problems with something at the currently allowed levels, it would be prudent to adjust the allowed amounts pending further research.