WASP

Russell's Teapot!

noreply@blogger.com (crabsallover) — Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:48:00 +0000

reposted from: http://russellsteapot.com/ (via www.thinkhumanism.com) Welcome to Russell's Teapot!

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

- Bertrand Russell

WASP (World Atheist Science People) transfer to HASSNERS

noreply@blogger.com (crabsallover) — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:36:00 +0000

With immediate effect, new WASP posts will be added to HASSNERS - Humanist - Antireligious - Scientific - Secularist - Naturalistic - Ethical - Rationalist - Sceptics. Add a Bookmark for HASSNERS http://hassners.blogspot.com/ WASP will continue to be online here until further notice.

The God FAQ

noreply@blogger.com (crabsallover) — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:49:00 +0000

reposted from: http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

THE OFFICIAL GOD FAQ

Question: “Is there a God?”

Answer: “No.”

In the quite unlikely event that you were to discover any omissions or inaccuracies on this page, they may be reported to the international headquarters of The Official God FAQ, at aod@400monkeys.com, where they will be thoroughly investigated, submitted to rigorous scientific testing and, if substantiated, included in a subsequent update. Thank you.

Debate between Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ed Husain

noreply@blogger.com (crabsallover) — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 21:32:00 +0000

reposted from: http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/blog/2007/11/centre_hosts_debate_between_ay_1.html
WASP comments are in bright green; highlights in blockquotes (yellow).

On 20th November, the Centre for Social Cohesion hosted an evening debate in Westminster between Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former Dutch MP and self-declared Muslim apostate, and Ed Husain, the author of the best-selling book The Islamist.

Debating ‘The West and the Future of Islam’, the two speakers began by making a short speech setting out their arguments before taking questions from the audience.

During the discussion, which lasted for over an hour and a half,

Ayaan Hirsi Ali argued that Islam “as a body of ideas” is opposed to ‘Enlightenment’ values.

She further said that

unless Muslims actively confronted and rejected verses from the Quran which are hostile to women’s rights and homosexuals and accept a total separation of Church and State, then conflict between Islam and the West was inevitable.

Ed Husain responded that Islam could be interpreted in numerous different ways and that it was incorrect to state definitively whether Islam was for or against the rights of women and others.

He argued that Muhammad had aimed to improve the rights of slaves and women and that it was the responsibility of modern Muslims to continue to strive against injustice, intolerance and inequality.

Among the two hundred attendees were Charles Moore, the former editor of The Daily Telegraph, Martin Ivens, the deputy-editor of The Sunday Times, Melanie Phillips, the columnist and writer, and Owen Patterson, the shadow secretary of state for Northern Ireland.

Andrew Anthony, the author of The Fallout: How a Guilty Liberal Lost His Innocence, and Nick Cohen, author of What’s Left: How the Liberals Lost Their Way also attended, along with Jemima Khan.

Among those present was Asim Siddiqui, the chairman of The City Circle. Also in the audience were several former members of Hizb ut-Tahrir, including Maajid Nawaz and Shiraz Maher.

Earlier in the day, the Centre also hosted an informal discussion between Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Douglas Murray, the Centre’s director, at the House of Lords.

The Centre will post a video of the debate between Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ed Husain on this website by next week.

Blair 'nutter' fear angers bishop

noreply@blogger.com (crabsallover) — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 21:10:00 +0000

reposted from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7112256.stm
WASP comments are in bright green; highlights in blockquotes (yellow).

Blair 'nutter' fear angers bishop

Mr Blair said politicians who talk about religion "get into trouble"

A bishop has criticised Tony Blair after he said he avoided talking about his religious views while premier because he feared the "nutter" label.

The Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, said he was "sorry" the former prime minister felt unable to talk about his faith.

It would have led to more constructive social policy at home and principled policies abroad, the bishop said.

Mr Blair's admission comes in the final episode of BBC One's The Blair Years.

During the interview, Mr Blair said faith was a crucial component for him in having the character to take on the prime minister's job and had been "hugely important" to his premiership.

A Christian vision underlies all that is important about Britain: its laws, institutions and values

Bishop of Rochester

But while it was commonplace in the US and elsewhere for politicians to talk about their religious convictions, he added: "you talk about it in our system and, frankly, people do think you're a nutter".

British voters imagined that leaders who were informed by religion would "commune with the man upstairs and then come back and say 'Right, I've been told the answer and that's it'".
Bishop Nazir-Ali said: "I am sorry that Tony Blair feels he could not talk about his faith in case people thought he was a nutter.

"A Christian vision underlies all that is important about Britain: its laws, institutions and values.
"If Blair had been able to relate this vision to his policies, we would have had more constructive social policy at home and principled policies abroad."

Mr Blair's ex-spokesman Alastair Campbell famously warned reporters: "We don't do God."
He acknowledged to the programme that his former boss "does do God in quite a big way", but that both men feared the public would be wary.

Mr Campbell added that the former PM always asked his aides to find him a church to attend each Sunday, wherever he happened to be.

The Blair Years will be screened on BBC One at 2215 GMT on 25 November. The episode in which Mr Blair discusses his faith will be broadcast on Sunday 2 December.

Does religion have a place at work? Have you been discriminated against because of your beliefs? Do you think it would affect your opportunities for a promotion?

Divining pseudoscience

noreply@blogger.com (crabsallover) — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:22:00 +0000

reposted from: http://cectic.com/076.html

Gordon Moore tells how Moore's Law began and his predictions for chip development

noreply@blogger.com (crabsallover) — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 07:48:00 +0000

reposted from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7080000/newsid_7084200/7084268.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&asb=1&news=1

Gordon Moore tells Jonathan Fildes how Moore's Law began and his predictions for chip development. (video: 15 minutes)

Recommended!

Cloning using skin cells rather than stem cells

noreply@blogger.com (crabsallover) — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:49:00 +0000

reposted & edited from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7099758.stm
WASP comments are in bright green; highlights in blockquotes (yellow).

Dolly scientist abandons cloning

An egg being collected

The scientist who controversially created Dolly the sheep is abandoning the cloning of human embryos in stem cell research.

Professor Ian Wilmut, of Edinburgh University, believes a rival method developed in Japan holds the key to curing serious medical conditions.

The new method creates stem cells from fragments of skin and removes the need to use human embryos.

Prof Wilmut developed a cloning technique which involved creating stem cells - which have the potential to be grown into any cell in the human body - from human embryos.

Building blocks

Embryonic or stem cells are widely regarded as the most flexible cells in the body and are seen as the body's building blocks.

Wilmut has now embraced a technique developed by Prof Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University, Japan, that involves genetically modifying adult cells to make them almost as flexible as stem cells. The research has been conducted on mice.

The work is due to be published in a scientific journal on Tuesday. Prof Wilmut said his own research team held a meeting at which it was agreed the Japanese method had more potential than the use of embryonic cells.

He said:

"The work which was described from Japan of using a technique to change cells from a patient directly into stem cells without making an embryo has got so much more potential.

"Even though it's only been described for the mouse, when we were considering which option to pursue, whether to clone or whether to copy the work in Japan, we decided to copy the work in Japan."

More acceptable

Speaking to the Daily Telegraph, Prof Wilmut said: "Before too long we will be able to use the Yamanaka approach to achieve the same, without making embryos. In the long term, direct reprogramming will be more productive.

"I decided a few weeks ago not to pursue nuclear transfer [the method used to create Dolly the sheep]," and he admitted the new method "was easier to accept socially".

Dolly the sheep was unveiled to the world in 1997

The eventual aim is to grow replacement tissue as body parts become worn out.

There is some way to go before Prof Yamanaka's method can be used to grow tissue for transplantation as the resulting cells are unstable and potentially cancerous.

But Professor Wilmut believes that within five years the new technique could provide a better and ethically more acceptable alternative to cloning embryos for medical research.

BHA - British Humanist Association - Science Vision

noreply@blogger.com (crabsallover) — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:18:00 +0000

reposted from: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bhascience/

Tom Rees has posted the following questions in the database of BHA Science. (to join this Yahoo group you must be a member of the BHA.

Tom, thanks for creating the four question Database table "What do you want from the group, what can you do for the group?" viz:-

1) Name
2) Where did you here about the group?
3) Why did you join the group?
4) Do you have a 'vision' for what you want the group to be?

Let me explain why I think the 'vision' bit is important for BHA Science group.

A vision should be a source of inspiration and will stretch the Resources and Capabilities of the BHA Science group. Because our Resources and Capabilities are not fixed our vision can be stretched a lot! For example we potentially have the resources of many science professionals of the honourary BHA associates, the capabilities of 7000+ BHA members and the BHA Philosophers group. We could get the help of some of the 17 Million people (MORI poll) in the UK that have a humanist outlook to life. We need to create a powerful BHA Science vision & mission that will encourage some of them to join BHA Science group in our venture!

We should aim for a BHA Science group statement of no more than one or two paragraphs which encapsulate our shared vision.

The vision is part of a strategic planning process which may include some or all of these steps (not necessarily in this order):-

* Vision - Define the vision after consultation with group members
* Set a Mission Statement with hierarchy of goals
o a Mission Statement tells you what the group is now. It concentrates on the present situation.
o because people have several goals - "Goal congruency" refers to how well the goals combine with each other. Does goal X appear compatible with goal Y? Do they fit together to form a unified strategy? "Goal hierarchy" consists of the nesting of one or more goals within other goal(s).
* SWOT - assess the current Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunites and Threats
o for example a Threat could be that a Steering Committee could be too controlling and dictatorial - losing motivation and commitment of many group members.
* Formulate - Formulate actions to be taken to attain these goals
* Implement - Implementation of the agreed upon action
* Control - Monitor and get feedback from implemented actions to more or less control the operation

BHA Science vision & mission statements should be part of the BHA culture & values and should re-energise the current BHA Vision & Mission Statements at http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentChapterView.asp?chapter=333

BHA Vision
A world without religious privilege or discrimination, where people are free to live good lives on the basis of reason, experience and shared human values.

BHA Mission
The British Humanist Association exists to promote Humanism and support and represent people who seek to live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs.

Onions 'cut heart disease risk'

noreply@blogger.com (crabsallover) — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 07:34:00 +0000

reposted from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7069343.stm
WASP comments are in bright green; highlights in blockquotes (yellow).

Onions 'cut heart disease risk'

Onions are a good source of quercetin

Eating a meal rich in compounds called flavonoids reduces some early signs of heart disease, research shows.

An Institute of Food Research team focused on one of the compounds, quercetin, which is found in tea, onions, apples and red wine.

The Atherosclerosis study examined the effect of the compounds produced after quercetin is broken down by the body.

They were shown to help prevent the chronic inflammation which can lead to thickening of the arteries.

The effect is more subtle than laboratory experiments using the parent compound

Dr Paul Kroon
Institute of Food Research

Previous research has shown quercetin is metabolised very quickly by the intestine and liver and is not actually found in human blood.

So instead the researchers concentrated on the compounds that enter the bloodstream after quercetin is ingested, absorbed and metabolised.

The compounds were used - in concentrations similar to those that would be produced following digestion - to treat cells taken from the lining of the blood vessels.

Lower dose, bigger impact

Lead researcher Dr Paul Kroon said: "We tested compounds that are actually found in the blood, rather than the flavonoid in food before it is eaten, as only these compounds will actually come into contact with human tissues and have an effect on arterial health.

"The effect is more subtle than laboratory experiments using the parent compound.

"But the metabolites still have an effect on the cells lining the blood vessels."

The research found that, in the case of one inflammatory process, a lower dose of the compounds - achievable by eating 100g to 200g of onions - actually had a bigger impact.

Bridget Aisbitt, a nutrition scientist at the British Nutrition Foundation, said: "Inflammation is an important process in the furring up of arteries that can lead to heart disease and stroke and this study gives us clues as to why a diet rich in fruit and vegetables appears to reduce the risk of these conditions.

"In the UK we are only consuming about two portions of fruit and vegetables per day on average, so this study underlines the importance of getting your five a day to stay healthy throughout life."

You big, fat pile of bacteria

noreply@blogger.com (crabsallover) — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 06:44:00 +0000

reposted from: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1830,n,n
WASP comments are in bright green; highlights in blockquotes (yellow).

You big, fat pile of bacteria

Go ahead, roll in it. Revel in it. You're made of it. What, you prefer a meek, sterile world?

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Friday, November 2, 2007

I'm 2 or 3 years old. I'm out in the backyard playing in the grass and my dad is just over there, working in the garden, planting tomatoes or carrots or human shrunken heads or God knows what because how the hell should I know, I'm only 3.

Like any self-respecting child, I like to dig in the dirt with my bare hands, probe, investigate the planet I currently cruise so close to. It pays off nicely. I eventually find real treasure: a big, fat, juicy earthworm. Oh my yes.

It is fascinating. It is squiggly and squishy and weird and wonderful — you know, just like life. I hold it up to the light. I hold it close to my face, my nose, my mouth. I am examining. I am expanding my tiny little brain. My mouth is possibly wide open in wonder.

It is apparently at this precise moment that my father looks up, glances over to check on me, sees a giant earthworm dangling over my wide-open mouth. He is, naturally, a tiny bit startled. He shouts my name, hoping to halt the inevitable. I jump. I react accordingly.

And I do the only natural thing: I pop that fat sucker into my mouth and swallow it down whole, germs, dirt clods, slimy goodness and all, and give my dad an innocent "Who, me?" look. Mmmm, childhood.

I did not get the slightest bit sick. I did not even get queasy. I do not, in fact, recall feeling that I had actually done anything comestibly incorrect, nor did the act cause me any permanent aversion toward playing in the soil or digging for big fat happy earthworms. (Though of course, munching that bad boy, despite being a clear example of superior intelligence, is an act my two older sisters have, to this day, refused to let me live down. Sisters. What can you do?)

Of course, it turns out, biologically speaking, that big, dirty earth-muncher probably did my immune system, my intestinal tract and all the happy bacteria therein a world of good. It's true.

It's a notion backed up by my favorite article of late, from Kent Sepkowitz over at Slate, who happily argues, in the face of recent E. coli outbreaks and nasty meat recalls and the ominous dangers of virulent organisms out to eat your brain, that, far from not cleaning, cooking and irradiating our food well enough and far from not ensuring we have the correct FDA precautions, we as an overpampered culture are probably not getting enough nasty buggy immune-system-boosting microbes in our diet, in our meats, in our mouths. And therefore we should probably, you know, eat a bit more crap. As in, excrement.

He's referring, of course, to the trace amounts of nasty fecal-related bugs and bacteria that come along with our topsoil and meats and foodstuffs, and that, while minimizing their presence is an excellent plan, eradicating them completely from human consumption is doing our bodies more harm than good and might eventually make us all into a bunch of biological "bubble-baby" wimps who can't even touch a plant without falling over and convulsing. Hell, it's already happening.

All of which dovetails nicely with another new study, this one from Britain, that says guess what, boys and girls are actually not made of snips, or snails, or puppy dog tails, sugar or spice or anything nice. Nor are we made of the usual suspects, of blood and bone and skin and vodka and wine and residual plastic polymer molecules that come from licking your iPhone way, way too much.

No, unless you're Britney Spears or Paris Hilton or Pete Doherty and are therefore made up of equal parts Xanax and Diet Coke and nitrous oxide, we are all essentially made of — you guessed it — great heaping gobs of bacteria, massive hordes of them, all manner of wacky bugs and parasites and wondrous horrible-looking microorganisms all munching happily on the same air and blood and burrito that you do, trillions of toothy things working in some sort of bizarre harmony to keep you alive, despite how some might like to kill you. What's more, this is a good thing.

Ah, there's the rub. Because while this knowledge, these bacteria, is/are vital and essential to our survival, the cultural mind-set at large runs directly opposite. So much so that we could be, in effect, cleaning and scrubbing and protecting ourselves to death, as our immune systems whimper and wither and drug-resistant bacteria get nastier and nature always, always finds a way to thwart our silly efforts to eradicate its wild side.

Hell, just look at the ads, the obnoxious articles, the insidious marketing, the cleaning solvent aisle at the supermarket, all screaming the same shrill one-note alarm (and all, by the way, apparently aimed straight at the same sad demographic: frumpy paranoid moms with too many kids and too little time to actually, you know, read): Bacteria is bad! Germs are evil! Don't touch that doorknob! If you consider yourself a good parent, if you love your kids, you must scrub every surface and sanitize every toilet and wash your hands 12 times an hour and oh my God don't ever ever ever let your kids eat something from the floor or the table or the backyard garden because what are you, insane?

Yes, obviously, it's just more fear-based B.S. for a fear-based culture, right? Easy enough.

Problem is, the pattern doesn't stop there. That alarmist germophobic mind-set that insists on sanitized overcooked ultra-safe bleached-out everything then grows and mutates and extends well beyond the toilet and the kitchen and the backyard and the human gut, straight into human experience as a whole, resulting in one horrifically bland, edge-free, prefab life.

Tract homes. Cruise ships. Gated communities. Giant, vacuum-sealed malls. Swimming pools with no deep ends. Swimming pools built 50 yards from the warm, dangerous ocean in Hawaii. Theme restaurants. Theme hotels. Theme vacations. Theme nature. Second Life. Megachurches. Groupthink. Intellectual numbness. Spiritual stasis. Rubber gloves. Face masks. Body condoms. Processed foods. Bans on raw milk. Quadruple-washed lettuce. Spitting instead of swallowing. Entire islands and towns built and owned and operated by the Walt Disney Company.

And then, wider: Fear of your own body. Fear of sex, blood, bodily fluids, human contact. Fear of pain, aging, death. Fear of nature. Fear of the new. Fear of the different, the strange, the foreign, the Other. Voila: you're a meek little island and everything looks like an invading force.

The trend is palpable, obvious, sad. We seem to be all too happy to have as much raw human experience filed down to a safe nub as possible, all contingencies taken care of and all bacteria scrubbed away and all dangers bleached out and not a single thing left to chance because oh my God what if something went wrong? What if it all broke down? What if you caught something and got sick and died?

But then again, so what? Maybe we need to be reminded, over and over again, that taking that risk and eating that crap and rolling in the dirt and opening to that wicked sense of uncertainty is actually what makes all the difference. You think? Is it not better to swallow that fat squishy worm of dirty, squirmy life, and find out?

Thoughts about this column? E-mail Mark.

Mark Morford's Notes & Errata column appears every Wednesday and Friday on SFGate and in the Datebook section of the San Francisco Chronicle. To get on the e-mail list for this column, please click here and remove one article of clothing.

Mark's column also has an RSS feed and an archive of past columns, which includes another small photo of Mark potentially sufficient for you to recognize him in the street and give him gifts.

Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

noreply@blogger.com (crabsallover) — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 05:27:00 +0000

reposted from: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1821,n,n
WASP comments are in bright green; highlights in blockquotes (yellow).

The Westboro Baptist Church is a pernicious hateful organisation that uses children, amongst others, to promote its beliefs. Its had a just come uppence by the legal system.

Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

by AP

Thanks to Stephen M. Weeks for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/10/31/803048.html&cookieattempt=1

By ALEX DOMINGUEZ, Associated Press Writer

BALTIMORE - A grieving father won a nearly $11 million verdict Wednesday against a fundamentalist Kansas church that pickets military funerals out of a belief that the war in Iraq is a punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

Albert Snyder of York, Pa., sued the Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified damages after members demonstrated at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq.

The federal jury first awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages. It returned in the afternoon with its decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress.

Snyder's attorney, Craig Trebilcock, had urged jurors to determine an amount "that says don't do this in Maryland again. Do not bring your circus of hate to Maryland again."

The defense said it planned to appeal, and one of the church's leaders, Shirley Phelps-Roper, said the members would continue to picket military funerals.

"Absolutely; don't you understand this was an act in futility?" Phelps-Roper said.

Church members routinely picket funerals of military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, carrying signs such as "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "God hates fags."

Snyder claimed the protests intruded upon what should have been a private ceremony and sullied his memory of the event.

The church members testified they are following their religious beliefs by spreading the message that soldiers are dying because the nation is too tolerant of homosexuality.

Their attorneys maintained in closing arguments Tuesday that the burial was a public event and that even abhorrent points of view are protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and religion.

A number of states have passed laws regarding funeral protests, and Congress has passed a law prohibiting such protests at federal cemeteries. But the Maryland lawsuit is believed to be the first filed by the family of a fallen serviceman.

The church and three of its leaders _ Fred Phelps and his two daughters, Phelps-Roper and Rebekah Phelps-Davis, 46 _ were found liable for invasion of privacy and intent to inflict emotional distress.

The group is confident the award will be overturned on appeal, Phelps said

"Oh, it will take about five minutes to get that thing reversed," he said.

Earlier, church members staged a demonstration outside the federal courthouse. Phelps held a sign reading "God is your enemy," while Phelps-Roper stood on an American flag and carried a sign that read "God hates fag enablers." Members of the group sang "God Hates America" to the tune of "God Bless America."

Snyder sobbed when he heard the verdict, while members of the church greeted the news with tightlipped smiles.

It was unclear whether the plaintiffs would be able to collect the damages awarded.

Before the jury began deliberating the size of punitive damages, U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett noted that the size of the compensatory award "far exceeds the net worth of the defendants," according to financial statements filed with the court.

Defense lawyer Jonathan Katz said the church has about 75 members and is funded by tithing.

The defense attorney said that the assets of the church and the three defendants are less than a million dollars and that the compensatory award is about three times the defendants' net worth, mainly in homes, cars and retirement accounts.

One of Snyder's attorneys, Sean Summers, said he would tirelessly seek payment of the award.

"We will chase them forever if it takes that long," Summers said.

'Thousands' pose UK terror threat

noreply@blogger.com (crabsallover) — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 20:06:00 +0000

reposted from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7078712.stm
WASP comments are in bright green; highlights in blockquotes (yellow).

'Thousands' pose UK terror threat

Jonathan Evans took over as director of MI5 in April

There are at least 2,000 people in the UK who pose a threat to national security because of their support for terrorism, the head of MI5 has said.

Jonathan Evans said there had been a rise of 400 since November 2006.

He said children as young as 15 were being recruited for terrorist-related activity by al-Qaeda.

Resources that could be devoted to counter-terrorism were instead being used to protect the UK against spying by Russia, China and others, he added.

There had been "no decrease" in the number of Russian covert intelligence officers operating in the UK since the end of the Cold War, Mr Evans said in a speech in Manchester.

"A number of countries continue to devote considerable time and energy trying to steal our sensitive technology on civilian and military projects, and trying to obtain political and economic intelligence at our expense."

It was "a matter of some disappointment", he said, that this ongoing threat continued to take up significant amounts of equipment, money and staff.

'Deliberate campaign'

Mr Evans took over as director general of MI5 in April from Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller.

We will do our utmost to hold back the physical threat of attacks, but alone, this is merely containment

Jonathan Evans
MI5 director-general

Profile: Jonathan Evans

MI5 'evolving' to meet threat

Speaking on Monday at the Society of Editors' annual conference, he said the number of individuals in the UK causing concern had risen in part due to better intelligence gathering in "extremist communities".

"But it is also because there remains a steady flow of new recruits to the extremist cause."

In order to gather recruits, Mr Evans said,

extremists were methodically and intentionally targeting vulnerable young people and children.

The UK had to do more to protect these young people, he added.

Mr Evans said attacks on the UK were "not simply random plots by disparate and fragmented groups", but part of a "deliberate campaign" by al-Qaeda.

In the past 12 months, MI5 had found links between an increasing range of countries and terror plots in the UK, he said.

In Iraq, Algeria and parts of East Africa, especially Somalia, he said, the "al-Qaeda brand" had expanded and now posed a threat to the UK.

'Root causes'

Mr Evans said he did not think the level of terror threat against the UK had "reached its peak".

Every decision by the security service to investigate someone entails a decision not to investigate someone else

Jonathan Evans

"We will do our utmost to hold back the physical threat of attacks, but alone, this is merely containment.

"Long-term resolution requires identifying and addressing the root causes of the problem."

He said it was "inevitable" there would be individuals who came to police or security service attention, but were still able to go on to carry out acts of terrorism.

"Every decision by the security service to investigate someone entails a decision not to investigate someone else. Knowing of somebody is not the same as knowing all about somebody."

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said the speech contained the message that MI5 needed the public's help.

"It's about tackling the ideology at grass roots. They can only really tackle the symptoms. They can't go up to people and say, 'Do you follow al-Qaeda?'"

Shiraz Maher, a former member of radical Muslim group Hizb ut-Tahrir, said the recruitment of young people by militant groups was a reality.

Youth initiatives, including football training and anti-drugs schemes, were being used to groom "impressionable and idealistic" young people,

he told BBC Radio 4's The World at One programme.

Foreign policy

But the Ramadhan Foundation said it was concerned Mr Evans had not stressed the 2,000 people suspected of involvement in extremist activity made up only a small proportion of the 1.6 million Muslim population.

Mohammed Shafiq, a spokesman for the Muslim youth organisation, said the language was inflammatory and called for responsible dialogue.

He said the group was prepared to talk to the police and security services, but in order to defeat terrorism it was important to acknowledge the threat existed mainly due to foreign policy.

Liberal Democrat shadow home secretary Nick Clegg highlighted the timing of the release of these figures which comes a day before Gordon Brown's announcement on new anti-terror powers.

"It is crucial that the security services do not get drawn into politics," he said.

During his speech, Mr Evans also announced that MI5's new Northern Ireland headquarters would soon be formally opened and said that by 2011 25% of the service's staff would be based outside London.

spoon bending fraud

noreply@blogger.com (crabsallover) — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 09:10:00 +0000

reposted from: http://cectic.com/068.html

On arguing with a believer

noreply@blogger.com (crabsallover) — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 09:07:00 +0000

reposted from: http://cectic.com/069.html

Noctilucent Clouds

noreply@blogger.com (crabsallover) — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 01:10:00 +0000

reposted from: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

Noctilucent Clouds Over Sweden
Credit & Copyright: P-M Hedén

Explanation: Sometimes it's night on the ground but day in the air. As the Earth rotates to eclipse the Sun, sunset rises up from the ground. Therefore, at sunset on the ground, sunlight still shines on clouds above. Under usual circumstances, a pretty sunset might be visible, but unusual noctilucent clouds float so high up they can be seen well after dark. Pictured above last month, a network of noctilucent clouds cast a colorful but eerie glow after dusk near Vallentuna, Sweden. Although noctilucent clouds are thought to be composed of small ice-coated particles, much remains unknown about them. Satellites launched to help study these clouds includes Sweden's Odin and NASA's AIM. Recent evidence indicates that at least some noctilucent clouds result from freezing water exhaust from Space Shuttles.

The Great Carina Nebula

noreply@blogger.com (crabsallover) — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 11:00:00 +0000

reposted from: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
WASP comments are in bright green; highlights in blockquotes (yellow).

The Great Carina Nebula
Credit & Copyright: Robert Gendler and Stephane Guisard

Explanation: A jewel of the southern sky, the Great Carina Nebula, aka NGC 3372, spans over 300 light-years, one of our galaxy's largest star forming regions. Like the smaller, more northerly Orion Nebula, the Carina Nebula is easily visible to the naked eye, though at a distance of 7,500 light-years it is some 5 times farther away. This stunning telescopic view reveals remarkable details of the region's glowing filaments of interstellar gas and dark cosmic dust clouds. The Carina Nebula is home to young, extremely massive stars, including the still enigmatic variable Eta Carinae, a star with well over 100 times the mass of the Sun. Eta Carinae is the bright star left of the central dark notch in this field and just below the dusty Keyhole Nebula (NGC 3324).

Shell shapes evolved to avoid 'turning turtle'

noreply@blogger.com (crabsallover) — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 05:44:00 +0000

reposted from: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19626275.800&feedId=fundamentals_rss20
WASP comments are in bright green; highlights in blockquotes (yellow).

Shell shapes evolved to avoid 'turning turtle'

27 October 2007

FOR a tortoise, being upside down is at best ignominious and at worst fatal. So to avoid it, some species have evolved a quite brilliant trick - perfectly shaped self-righting shells.

Gabor Domokos and Peter Varkonyi at the Budapest University of Technology and Economics in Hungary

modelled the geometry of turtle and tortoise shells of differing dome heights. Those with very tall domes, such as the star tortoise, effectively have just one stable orientation, right side up. Put another way, a star tortoise placed on its back will automatically roll back onto its front, righting itself with little effort.

In geometric terms, this tortoise's shell is known as a monostatic object, one that has only one stable way of resting on a horizontal surface. Such shapes are incredibly rare in nature, the researchers say.

Other, flatter species, such as the Argentine snake-necked turtle, have two stable points - on their belly and their back - and must use their neck as a lever to flip themselves back over. Animals with medium height domes have the worst shape of all, say the researchers. They can come to rest at three distinct points, right side up and on either side of the shell, meaning they can get stuck halfway through a roll

(Proceedings of the Royal Society B, DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2007.1188).

From issue 2627 of New Scientist magazine, 27 October 2007, page 22

Synthetic life 'no terror threat'

noreply@blogger.com (crabsallover) — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 05:34:00 +0000

reposted from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7059490.stm

Synthetic life 'no terror threat'

Scientist Craig Venter on his latest project

Philosophy Matters: a review

noreply@blogger.com (crabsallover) — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 01:18:00 +0000

reposted from: http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/think/article.php?num=16

For me a difficult read. What do you think?

Philosophy Matters: a review

Michael Lacewing

Roger Trigg, Philosophy Matters (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002)

Roger Trigg's new book continues his discussions from Rationality and Science (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993) and Rationality and Religion (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998) on the role of reason in our thought and lives.

Its fundamental premise is that philosophy is an irreplaceable discipline,

and Trigg seeks to defend it from the Scylla of scientism and the Charibdis of relativism. His bold tone will engage many readers in the challenges he discusses.

Scientism (which is my word, not Trigg's) is the belief that science is the only exemplar of rationality and all knowledge must come through empirical investigation; relativism is the belief that claims to truth are relative to the believer, so what is true for one person may not be true for another.

Trigg diagnoses that these views are two sides of the same coin with the common assumption that "once the constraint of empirical investigation is ignored, anyone can claim anything" (14). Therefore, either all knowledge must be established by science, or knowledge is constrained, if at all, only by cultural convention, not by how the world is.

Trigg begins his defence of philosophy by pointing out how many philosophical assumptions science makes.

Three key examples: materialism makes claims that go well beyond the empirical evidence, for it claims that everything, including what we have never experienced, is material. It thus becomes a metaphysical claim, requiring philosophical arguments.

Second, why, given its phenomenal improbability, is there a universe in which we exist at all? One popular scientific explanation of this claims, roughly, that there are an indefinitely large number of universes, so it becomes very probable that we would evolve in one of them. This claim involves many philosophical issues about whether this claim is really an explanation, about the possibility of other universes, why there are universes at all, and so on.

Third, science obviously presupposes rationality, but can it explain this rationality? There seems to be a conflict between the causal determinism science assumes and the type of rational freedom that is required for scientists (and the rest of us) to create and follow arguments, such as the argument that determinism is true.

It would seem that science throws up some inescapable philosophical issues, which cannot be resolved within science. Science is right to adopt certain constraints on the types of entities (materialism) and explanations (determinism) it works with. Trigg terms this 'methodological naturalism' (p. 27), and notes it is not a claim about the nature of reality nor the foundations of all knowledge.

From here, Trigg turns to argue that to retreat to the claim that reality is therefore whatever we make it (relativism) is self-contradictory. We must sustain a distinction between people's beliefs about reality and reality itself to make any claims about truth. The claim that truth is dependent upon belief, if true, is only true for those who believe it - so it ceases to be a claim about belief and truth in general! Of course, there is a more sophisticated form of relativism that points to the dependence of our conception of reality upon our language (this is the 'Sapir-Whorf' hypothesis, presented by US anthropologists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf). In its strong form, it argues that not only do different languages support different conceptions of reality, but that no 'neutral' conception of reality can be formed. The difficulty with this conclusion, Trigg claims, is that it fails to explain translation and the common everyday constraints on all human experience (such as the presence and solidity of physical objects). Finally, relativism presupposes there are alternative views of the world, but a thorough-going relativist should not be able to step back from his or her linguistically-saturated conception of reality to conceive of the alternatives. If stepping back is possible, then rationality and thought are not entirely conditioned by language and circumstance. We can therefore form a conception of reality that transcends these limits and so separate reality from what we believe about reality. So relativism is false.

With this fairly swift dismissal of relativism, Trigg considers the problem of scientism in greater depth. There are chapters on the neo-Darwinist attempt to explain rationality, determinism, the nature of the laws of nature, and the relation between mind and brain. Each is a reflection of the fundamental question 'how can reason, necessarily presupposed by science, be explained within the scientific picture of the world?' Trigg argues that reasoning is irreducible, that evolutionary and causal accounts fail, since they must presuppose reason is an autonomous activity aiming at truth. He concludes

'Philosophy matters if we think reason matters' (p. 138), for it is philosophy that tests the rationality of our beliefs and the assumptions made by science.

And we must think reason matters, because if reason is an illusion, a mere effect of causal processes, the arguments that it is an illusion could not be made.

Trigg's writing is forthright, free of technicalities, and he provides a helpful glossary of those terms that one cannot avoid using in these discussions. His approach enables him to get into deep philosophical questions very quickly, and his discussions are an admirable account of philosophical controversies raging at present. For those already familiar with the issues, reading Trigg's book may offer helpful clarity and useful synopsis, but it is unlikely to provide much new material. Its aim is clearly to reach those who are new to the area, such as undergraduates and (that ill-defined individual) the interested layperson, who should find it an appealing introduction.

The book serves more as a warning than an answer, which is its intention. It is a call to engage in philosophy, but does not seek to provide philosophical solutions to the very difficult problems it tackles. This is understandable, but it points towards a different type of ill that many believe afflicts philosophy as a discipline, viz. the lack of genuine solutions that can command universal assent. And this, I believe, is one of the motivations for the scientism and relativism Trigg discusses. Given that Trigg is clearly seeking to undermine our temptation towards either positions, it is a shame that he does not tackle this challenge head on.

The reader could well be left with a sense that Trigg has established just how difficult these questions are, but also with the sense that philosophy has done little to resolve them.

From this, one might conclude that either our faith is better placed in a scientific research programme to deliver whatever answers there may be, and/or that we should abandon the hope of 'truth' on these matters, diagnosing all beliefs that go beyond science as subjective or relative. If I am right, Trigg has left untouched a fundamental challenge to the view that philosophy matters.

Trigg has argued forcefully that we should not abandon philosophy, for no other discipline can address the questions it addresses; and yet, do we have good reason to believe that doing philosophy will help us understand, in more than the broadest of brushstrokes, the nature of reality? On the penultimate page, Trigg claims 'Without a self-conscious understanding of what we are about, we are liable to think and act uncritically, in ways that can be ultimately disastrous. If we do not know who we are, or where we are, how can we act with any autonomy or consistency, let alone wisdom?' (p. 142) This book establishes that these are ultimately philosophical, not scientific, questions; but it does not establish that they are answerable questions. This suggests that we may still lack the 'self-conscious understanding' Trigg argues is necessary for autonomous, consistent, wise action. Alternatively, if we can act autonomously, consistently, and wisely, but we have not successfully resolved philosophical questions, then what is it that philosophy is meant to contribute to our lives?

This line of argument makes an assumption which is highly questionable, viz. that there needs to be some positive content to the self-conscious understanding to which Trigg refers. Given the challenges of scientism and relativism that are so prevalent in the current intellectual climate, perhaps to avoid certain ways of heteronomous, inconsistent, and foolish action that may tempt us, ways that assimilate us to machines, for instance, we need understand no more than this: that certain questions are irreducibly philosophical, for this in itself tells us something important about who we are, and certainly something important about what we are not. We are beings for whom some questions must remain open, and, as far as we know, this is a unique position to be in. As Trigg never discusses what kind of self-conscious understanding we need, I am not certain that he would endorse this conclusion, but his book contributes to it, and I welcome that result.

Hillary brings up science, but will it stay in play?

noreply@blogger.com (crabsallover) — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:44:00 +0000

reposted from: http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?more=1&title=hillary_brings_up_science_but_will_it_st_5

Save for the media swarm in the wake of the hand raises by Republican candidates Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo, it appears Hillary Clinton is the first to put science in the spotlight in the race for the White House.

Speaking on the 50th anniversary of the Sputnik launch Thursday at the Carnegie Institution for Science, Clinton took the opportunity to talk about Bush's less publicized war--the one on science. (This, no doubt, had author and columnist Chris Mooney doing backflips.) She also released, via her website, an "Agenda to Reclaim Scientific Innovation."

Here's an outline of the other "war," thus far:

...instead of fostering a climate of discovery and innovation, the Bush administration has declared war on science.
The record is breathtaking: banning the most promising kinds of stem cell research, allowing political appointees to censor studies on climate change, muzzling global warming experts like Dr. James Hansen, overruling doctors and the FDA on emergency contraception, suppressing and manipulating data on mercury pollution, even delaying one report which found that 8 percent of women between 16 and 49 years of age have mercury levels in their blood that could harm future children, denying the risks of toxins like asbestos in the air after the 9/11 attacks, overruling scientists who sought to protect animals under the Endangered Species Act, eliminating scientific committees at the Department of Health and Human Services that did not parrot the politically accepted ideology -- or packing those committees with industry insiders, altering scientific tests on the lead content of children's lunch boxes -- and appointing a lead industry consultant to a key panel formed by the Centers for Disease Control, barring a USDA researcher from publishing or even discussing his work on antibiotic resistant bacteria, censoring government websites on breast cancer research, contraception, climate change, and so much else.

She covered all the highlights of science and policy: stem cells, the mess at the FDA, budget woes (at agencies from NIH to DARPA), space exploration (both manned and unmanned), climate change, and renewable energy. While, these issues are likely not new to readers of this publication and other science-savvy individuals, it's heartening to see them introduced on the political stump.

Of course (and here's my cynical streak erupting from my bile-filled belly) this speech was at the Carnegie Institution for Science. What was she going to talk about? Tax cuts for the rich?

Within the context of the entire Clinton campaign, this is something Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science, and his colleague Matt Nisbet would call "framing." Hillary's platform is no doubt broad and has primarily focused on Bush's more well-known war, healthcare, education reform and whether or not she wants to pow wow with some of the more controversial world leaders in power today. But, on this day, she chose to focus on science.

Rather than framing, I call this "playing to the crowd." (I will consider calling it framing as soon as Mooney and Nisbet admit they are writing a book about framing in the Gladwellian mold, which, lucky for them, a recent Wired article can help them title and turn into a cash cow. For those interested, myself included, Mooney will be further breaking down the elements--or frames--of the speech all week on his blog.)

But, leaving the semantic discussion on framing, I am more concerned with whether the substance of this speech will just fade away to the bottom of Clinton's bullet-point list of stances, or whether such a strident call-to-arms will necessitate others (both Democrat and Republican) to refine their ideas about the role science plays in the next election.

I would like to see some alternative options to Clinton's proposals from other candidates because, frankly, this is a topic that's important to me. There is plenty to tweak, massage or offer alternative ideas here: The issue of manned vs. unmanned space exploration, new ideas for improving science education, how to increase the number of women pursuing science degrees, etc. The hope is that the Obamas and Edwards (and to a less likely extent the Giulianis and Romneys of the world) won't just say, "Hey, that sounds good, just fold all that business Hillary was talking about into my campaign, as well."

But will anyone step up and take what Hillary has proposed and run with it? Will Hillary even mention the subject in similar breadth and depth when it's not a significant scientific anniversary and she's not standing in front of a group of researchers?

With all the aforementioned highlights, it seems as though, if science and technology are going to have their day in the political arena, now would be the time. Hell, just days before Clinton's speech, Michael Griffin, NASA chief, admitted that China will likely beat the United States back to the moon. Do we have to wait another 10 years for another Communist country to beat us to a space goal before we re-prioritize science in our culture? (That last time really served to chap our collective hide.)

If no one else in either party puts their chips down, remember New York mayor (and rumored independent presidential candidate) Michael Bloomberg has been there, done that.

Hey, Hillary, can you say "running mate"?

Posted by Nikhil Swaminathan · 6 comments

1 - 6 of 6

Ashlie Hocking [Member] October 8, 2007 @ 8:35 pm writes:

I like that she's brought this issue to the forefront, but I doubt she differs much from most of the other Democratic candidates on this. Hopefully, some of the Republican candidates also feel this way, although you probably won't hear them bash Bush on this publicly.

Flag as inappropriate

Chad Brick [Member] October 9, 2007 @ 12:14 pm writes:

It's sad that so many people seem blind to the fact that Democrats are also at war with science, whenever it conflicts with their agenda. That is the nature of politics. Lots of scientific evidence shows that many boogey-men of the left, such as nuclear power or GMO's just ain't that bad. Yet they scream, twisting and distorting the matters while attempting to scare people, just as Republicans do when complaining about their pet peeves.

Ashlie Hocking [Member] October 9, 2007 @ 4:03 pm writes:

There are many far-left leaning members of the public who are against nuclear power and GMOs, but which of the Democratic candidates have come out against them? Al Gore (admittedly not one of the candidates) has expressed strong support for nuclear power, IIRC.

Kimberly Riley [Member] October 9, 2007 @ 6:07 pm writes:

I will add in this.. The media doesn't help. They love using scare tactics. And the recent TV shows that are on what I used to consider good science aren't helping either. Examples... Discovery shows end of world and dooms day programs, and what if the worst was to happen situations. Recent one up is methane gas in the atmosphere setting on fire. Animal planet, which gives animals motives and emotions they simply do not have. (note, animals can show empathy and can express a wide range of emotions, but give me a break, they aren't living a soap opera.. they take it too far, beyond what these animals are actually doing, which is surviving). Other programs which talk about ancient or future animals and presents everything as fact, rather than giving the supporting evidence. One of my biggest beefs was that walking with dinos, where they showed velociraptors as a selfish pack.. which actual evidence suggests they were the exact opposite of. They didn't give any reason to why they picked that behavior instead of, what most group living birds do, a cooperative pack. The list is very long, long enough I canceled cable because of all the bad shows (there are some good ones, I will admit, but they are far and few between) Bad and poor science is being propagated everywhere, even in what once were respected TV channels for showing good science. This problem goes beyond politics right down to what's being watched on TV and what's being taught in schools. The general public wouldn't be eating this stuff up if they were educated and if the TV channels actually assumed the human population had more than two cents to rub together between their ears.

Cellular Visions - the Inner life of a cell

noreply@blogger.com (crabsallover) — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 05:53:00 +0000

reposted from: http://www.studiodaily.com/main/technique/tprojects/6850.html#commentform

Film with explanation of biochemistry: http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/anim_innerlife_Hi.html

Key gene work scoops Nobel Prize

noreply@blogger.com (crabsallover) — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:01:00 +0000

reposted from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7033492.stm

Key gene work scoops Nobel Prize

Sir Martin used the technology to probe cystic fibrosis

Two US scientists and their UK collaborator have been awarded the Nobel Prize for medicine for their groundbreaking work in gene technology.

Mario Capecchi, Oliver Smithies and Briton Martin Evans developed a technique known as gene targeting.

It enabled them to replicate human diseases in mice by introducing genetic changes into the animal's stem cells.

The Nobel Committee said this had led to many new insights into conditions such as cancer and heart disease.

Its impact on the understanding of gene function and its benefits to mankind will continue to increase over many years to come

Nobel committee

For instance, science has gained a greater understanding of how disease can strike otherwise healthy people.

The technique has also helped to shed new light on the ageing process, and on how the embryo develops in the womb. It can be used to study almost every aspect of mammalian physiology.

In its citation, the Nobel Committee praised the technique as "an immensely powerful technology" which was now being used in virtually all areas of biomedical research.

"Gene targeting in mice has pervaded all fields of biomedicine," it said.

"Its impact on the understanding of gene function and its benefits to mankind will continue to increase over many years to come."

Gene knockout

The technique is commonly described as gene "knockout".

Professor Capecchi specialises in organ generation

It enables scientists to silence specific genes, and monitor the effect, so that gene-by-gene they are able to build a picture of the development of disease.

To date more than 10,000 mice genes - around half of the total - have been knocked out, with the rest confidently predicted to follow soon.

As a result, more than 500 different mouse models of human disorders have been developed - including cardiovascular and neuro-degenerative diseases, diabetes and cancer.

The technology spun out of the discovery by Sir Martin of embryonic stem cells in mice.

These cells form all tissues of the body and Sir Martin found that they could be removed and grown separately in the laboratory.

All three scientists, who will share the prestigious $1.54 million award, have subsequently used gene targeting to make significant advances.

This group's work has given hope to many thousands of people currently suffering from incurable genetic conditions

Jo Tanner
Coalition for Medical Progress

Professor Capecchi, based at the University of Utah, has used the technology to uncover the role of genes involved in organ development, and the overall plan of the body.

Sir Martin, of the University of Cardiff, has specialised on the inherited disease cystic fibrosis.

He described the award as like winning the "World Cup".

He said: "It's wonderful - the sort of thing which when you start off as a youngster in science you look up to these fantastic Nobel Prize winners, and think, could that ever be you? No, of course not.

Professor Smithies, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, was born in the UK, but has since taken US citizenship.

He has developed mouse models for common human diseases such as high blood pressure and thickened arteries.

Profound effect

Professor Stephen O'Rahilly, of the University of Cambridge, said: "The development of gene targeting technology in the mouse has had a profound influence on medical research.

"Thanks to this technology we have a much better understanding of the function of specific genes in pathways in the whole organism and a greater ability to predict whether drugs acting on those pathways are likely to have beneficial effects in disease."

Jo Tanner, of Coalition for Medical Progress, said: "If we are ever going to find cures for genetic conditions such as muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis, scientists will need to work on animal models, identifying the genetic defects responsible and correcting them in animals before trialling potential treatments in humans.

"This group's work has given hope to many thousands of people currently suffering from incurable genetic conditions."

Aurora, Stars, Meteor, Lake, Alaska

noreply@blogger.com (crabsallover) — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:16:00 +0000

reposted from: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

Astronomy Picture of the Day

Discover the cosmos! Each day a different image or photograph of our fascinating universe is featured, along with a brief explanation written by a professional astronomer.

2007 October 9

Aurora, Stars, Meteor, Lake, Alaska
Credit & Copyright: Bud Kuenzli

Explanation: Sometimes, after your eyes adapt to the dark, a spectacular sky appears. In this case, a picturesque lake lies in front of you, beautiful green aurora flap high above you, brilliant stars shine far in the distance, and, for a brief moment, a bright meteor streaks by. This digitally fused breathtaking panorama was captured late last month across one of the Chena Lakes in North Pole, Alaska, USA, and includes the Pleiades open cluster of stars on the image right. The shot is unusual not only for the many wonders it has captured simultaneously, but because lakes this far north tend to freeze and become non-reflecting before a sky this dark can be photographed.

appendix’s purpose

noreply@blogger.com (crabsallover) — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 06:02:00 +0000

reposted from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21153898/

Scientists may have found appendix’s purpose

Seemingly useless organ may produce, protect good germs for your gut

WASHINGTON -

Some scientists think they have figured out the real job of the troublesome and seemingly useless appendix: It produces and protects good germs for your gut.

That’s the theory from surgeons and immunologists at Duke University Medical School, published online in a scientific journal this week.

For generations the appendix has been dismissed as superfluous. Doctors figured it had no function. Surgeons removed them routinely. People live fine without them.

And when infected the appendix can turn deadly. It gets inflamed quickly and some people die if it isn’t removed in time. Two years ago, 321,000 Americans were hospitalized with appendicitis, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The function of the appendix seems related to the massive amount of bacteria populating the human digestive system, according to the study in the

Journal of Theoretical Biology.

There are more bacteria than human cells in the typical body. Most of it is good and helps digest food.

'A good safe house'
But sometimes the flora of bacteria in the intestines die or are purged.

Diseases such as cholera or amoebic dysentery would clear the gut of useful bacteria. The appendix’s job is to reboot the digestive system in that case.

The appendix “acts as a good safe house for bacteria,” said Duke surgery professor Bill Parker, a study co-author. The location of the appendix — just below the normal one-way flow of food and germs in the large intestine in a sort of gut cul-de-sac — helps support the theory, he said.

Also, the worm-shaped organ outgrowth acts like a bacteria factory, cultivating the good germs, Parker said.

That use is not needed in a modern industrialized society, Parker said. If a person’s gut flora dies, they can usually repopulate it easily with germs they pick up from other people, he said. But before dense populations in modern times and during epidemics of cholera that affected a whole region, it wasn’t as easy to grow back that bacteria and the appendix came in handy.

In less developed countries, where the appendix may be still useful, the rate of appendicitis is lower than in the U.S., other studies have shown, Parker said.

The appendix, which is about two to four inches long, may be another case of an overly hygienic society triggering an overreaction by the body’s immune system, he said.

Even though the appendix seems to have a function, people should still have them removed when they are inflamed because it could turn deadly, Parker said. About 300 to 400 Americans die of appendicitis each year,

according to the CDC.

Five scientists not connected with the research said that the Duke theory makes sense and raises interesting questions.

The idea “seems by far the most likely” explanation for the function of the appendix, said Brandeis University biochemistry professor Douglas Theobald. “It makes evolutionary sense.”

The theory led Gary Huffnagle, a University of Michigan internal medicine and microbiology professor, to wonder about

the value of another body part that is often yanked: “I’ll bet eventually we’ll find the same sort of thing with the tonsils.”