Can non-believers reinvent atheism to side-step Dawkin’s snarkiness. After all, to those of unfaith, it doesn’t matter that all religions are fairy stories, we can still learn and benefit from them by picking-and-mixing the best bits of their morality, art, transcendentalism and sermonising (lectures that present not just facts but insights into the human condition).

Alain de Botton posits the idea of a mixed-creed “religion for atheists” – call it Atheism 2.0 – that incorporates religious forms and traditions to satisfy our human need for connection, ritual and transcendence, but without all the creation myths, the slings and arrows, undead and the reincarnation.

Atheism 2.0: Don’t get god, get good is a post from: SciScoop Science News

Star Wars Uncut is a post from: SciScoop Science News

I often get asked about using herbs for cleansing, or “detox”. Many seem to think that using certain plants for a week or two can provide them with a range of health benefits. Some are non-specific, such as “greater vitality”; others are more targeted, such as “a cure for my arthritis”. This time of year, I hear the idea that an herbal detox can reverse the overindulgences from the holiday season. There is a considerable mythology built up around this concept. Let’s examine it for a moment.

First, if you need to cleanse, you must be dirty or toxic to begin with. This is an insidious thought, and presupposes a weakness in the physiology (original sin?). I have seen folks internalize this thought, leading to greater restriction of food, harsher purgative treatments, fear of the world all around. This is not conducive to well-being!

In fact, the human physiology is well adapted to managing substances that enter its domain. Through the liver, kidneys, lymph channels and skin, it keeps us safe and healthy remarkably well. If you doubt this, consider alcohol, a strong poison that, in moderation, causes few if any long-term ill effects.

Second, the plants used in detox programs are usually ones that, by virtue of their chemical constituents, induce or accelerate the metabolic and eliminative function of the body. This may very well be the case – bitter plants, for instance, do have effects on digestive and hepatic secretions[i]. But the notion that you can use these plants in high doses for two weeks to cure a range of complaints is akin to thinking that you can cure obesity by starving yourself for two weeks. Our bodies simply don’t work that way, and such a strategy might even be harmful.

I suspect that the detox mythology, as so many myths, holds within a kernel of truth. Growing up in the Alps of northern Italy, my grandmother, father, and aunts would gather bitter dandelion greens for salad in the spring. “Helping the digestion” was quoted to me as a reason for eating these salads – which, as you can imagine, were not my favorites. But these rituals didn’t take place just once a year: during the summer, endive, escarole, and radicchio (some very bitter veg) kept showing up on my plate. In the fall, chicory roots (bitter, “liver” plants[ii]) were dug up and roasted. These were daily, moderate habits – not monthly binges. That’s the point.

Another part of the mythology is that our chemical environment has changed over the last two hundred years. It’s a complex question – bacterial toxins are less present, but petrochemicals are in ascendance. We are starting to understand a bit of how this affects us[iii], and it doesn’t look particularly good. I am not sure how effective the plants used in detox programs are at eliminating these chemicals from our bodies. I am also unclear as to the whole “oxidative chemical” model of aging and inflammation[iv] – and therefore question whether “anti-oxidants” are really what we seek. But one thing I do know is that the number of plant species we consume has dropped quickly over the last one hundred years[v], and as a result, the chemical environment has really shifted away from the one in which we evolved. I recommend avoiding petrochemicals and reintroducing botanicals – but not in massive, infrequent quantities. Except in rare situations[vi], this is not very helpful and may actually be harmful[vii]. Traditional approaches always rely on gentle, long-term habits – and, as with exercise, this might be the closest we can get to a panacea.

[i] For instance, in the case of Dandelion

[ii] Maude Grieve, 1931

[iii] Review by Hectors et al. “Environmental pollutants and type 2 diabetes” 2010

[iv] Testing the oxidative stress hypothesis

[v] Cordain, L. et al. “Origins and evolution of the Western diet” 2005

Grivetti and Ogle 2000

[vi] Hruby et al. “Chemotherapy of Amanita phalloides poisoning with intravenous silibinin” 1983

[vii] Hepatitis and cholestasis induced by Chelidonium

Does doing detox make you dirty? is a post from: SciScoop Science News

Ever wondered how they date the start of the Chinese year, because, as you probably know, it changes year to year? It’s actually the day of the second New Moon after the Winter Solstice (the shortest day of the year in the Northern Hemisphere). So, there you go. Easy on the wonton this evening and not too much rice wine y’all.

Happy Chinese New Year 农历新年 « thecuriousastronomer.

Happy Chinese New Year 新年快乐 is a post from: SciScoop Science News

Mr Stephen Fry
I see no reason why
you wouldn’t want some day, maybe
to let me have your baby

You would be amazed
what science does these days
so think it over
and tell me what you think

Molly even promises to hang an iPad in the crib. Never has Mr Fry looked so embarrassed. Here’s Molly’s story of how she got to Harvard in December to sing her song to Stephen.

An open letter to Stephen Fry is a post from: SciScoop Science News

The idea was an off-the-cuff remark that somehow contains a big idea. The idea that one doesn’t have to understand, get or believe, in a god, to behave in a morally acceptable manner. But, that applies equally to atheist, theist, agnostic, and people of other or no faith alike…we can all “get good”, (the double entendre deliberately inherent in that phrase being that we can either understand or be good, with or without religious faith.

I posted the statement on New Year’s Eve and got a flurry of Facebook comments. Some commenters simply said my words were “bad”, but I do think we can apply the social constructs of being able to distinguish between good and bad for mutual benefit. Quite flatteringly, however, several people described the maxim as “wise” and one Facebook friend (James Theobald) went so far as to suggest that the phrase – You don’t have to get god to get good – might become the new mantra for secular humanism. Here’s hoping.

You don’t have to get God to get good is a post from: SciScoop Science News

…and so is just plain wrong.

Theories do come and go, thats how science works. For a theoretical usurper to succeed in overturning an old theory requires strong, reproducible evidence. N-fusion, cold fusion, low energy nuclear reactions, call it what you will, is yet to provide that evidence, regardless of how noble are the intentions of the scientists involved.

Bradley, D. (2011). Out in the cold Materials Today, 14 (12) DOI: 10.1016/S1369-7021(11)70304-2

Cold fusion breaks the laws of physics… is a post from: SciScoop Science News

Aparently, it was written in conjunction with Dr Glenn D Wilson of the London Institute of Psychiatry and takes just 5 minutes. Why, we the licence payers are sponsoring such guff I don’t know although I’m sure Wilson’s motivation for being involved was entirely honourable.

It asks questions about whether you are a practical joker, whether you leave lights on at night, whether your parents were faithful to each other, if you like horror films and a few more…

My wife will be pleased to hear that I scored 5 out of 20:

“Responsible, dependable, caring and happy with their own lot. They will not look outside of the relationship for their thrills and do not rely on novelty to give themselves the high of being in love. They have greater satisfaction, a greater degree of investment in the relationship and a lack of perceived alternatives – they look only to their partner for all the benefits of a loving relationship.”

Adultery test.

Adultery questionnaire is a post from: SciScoop Science News

• Periodic table song – Words and video for the Tom Lehrer classic, The Elements.




• Salt and boiling point – An informational post on how adding salt to water affects its boiling point.




• Melamine in milk The deliberate contamination of milk with the toxic compound melamine still resonates with readers.




• Sex and social networking – It’s inevitable that such a title will attract people.




• Rhodiola rosea – Some herbal remedies work, some are hype. You decide.




• What does boron, carbon smell like – Educational item inspired by emailed chemistry homework question.




• Salt lowers freezing point of water – How and why does adding salt stop ice forming?




• Why do we yawn? – We yawn when we are tired, after a good night’s sleep, when others yawn and when our ears “pop”.




• Chemical structure drawing software – My early review of the ChemSketch software.




• Does time exist or not? – Time is not a river, it is not a wall of death it may not even be a dimension.

10 Evergreen science posts from Sciencebase is a post from: SciScoop Science News

Anyone even slightly familiar with the history of modern human medical science knows the importance of animal research. Without it, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates we’d be living 23.5 years less than we do. But among animal rights advocates, few issues divide the cohort quite like biomedical research on animal life. Many oppose the medical method on grounds that it’s inherently morally corrupt and therefore an unethical means to draw scientific conclusions. Others make it a point to believe that a line must eventually be drawn when it comes to animal rights, and the ability for animal life to help promote the health of humans is it. The following will attempt to compromise both perspectives: animal science is not only good for human health, but for the long-term well being of animal life as well.

Put in perspective

Of all animal species that have ever lived on this Earth, 99.9% are now extinct. Therefore organisms that exist today represent a a mere one-tenth of a percent of the total amount of life ever known. This in and of itself is certainly no justification for animal cruelty or the acceptance of neglecting the rights of animals over humans. But not only does this fascinating figure reveal the realities of life and death in the animal kingdom, it highlights the fact that human intelligence is an incredibly rare entity. We are but a fraction of the total sum of genetic material on Earth, and therefore just a speck of temporary animated dust hovering above an arid desert.

Weighing potential

For hundreds of millions of years, animals walked the Earth unaware of themselves and the scope of existence. Therefore for millions of years, the majority of life came and went without any cognitive ability to do anything about extinction, cruelty, and suffering. Then humans came along. Suddenly, an animal existed that could not only better its chances of survival through critical thinking and invention, but shape the environment around it as well. Humans are obviously the one and only animal to ever be smart enough to understand science and abstract concepts.

Ultimate goal

Among these abstract concepts are things such as empathy and compassion, which are the core drivers of most animal rights movements. If there is ever going to be animal that is going to achieve the ability to eliminate pain and suffering on a species-transcending scale, it’ll be humans. We are the one and only organism with the potential to vastly change our environment – animal welfare included. One day we will eliminate the need for animal research altogether. But in order for that to happen, we have to make sure that human minds are as healthy and productive as possible. If studying animal life is the only way to achieve that in our present time, then it’s necessary.

It takes time, but we’re getting there

Animal rights advocates ought to understand that the animal research of today that exists to improve the quality of human life tomorrow is essential in eventually solving the problems of animal cruelty. Not only that, but laws and scientific community-established ethics have significantly reduced the level of actual animal cruelty that exists in biomedical research. Industry leaders such as Huntingdon Life Sciences (PDF ethics paper) adhere to the laws put in place by every government they operate under, as well as follow no-nonsense in-house guidelines for avoiding animal cruelty at all costs.

Animal cruelty must be eradicated, but biomedical research is necessary in doing this. Humans are the only organisms with the ability to achieve that goal, so our health matters more for now. We are unfortunately the cause of most animal suffering.  But we’re also the only possible solution when it comes to stopping the practice once and for all.

An animal rights argument for biomedical research is a post from: SciScoop Science News