Stop Trying To Scare Me

Intelligent Design or Evolution?

2009-09-04T11:29:00.001-07:00

This "debate" seems like it will never go away. Evolution of species is backed by mounds of real scientific evidence and peer review, yet the ID crowd continues on it's quest to be a "scientific" alternative to the origins of life.

I happened upon the Intelligent Design Network yesterday and I found their arguments for ID less than compelling:

"The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion."

This argument is decidedly unscientific. Translated it would read. "We don't agree that evolution can exist because our religious beliefs contradict that idea. So instead, we propose it was all designed by an intelligent super being. We have no evidence of course, except that things look really complex, but that clearly makes this a scientific disagreement."

"Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life."

Even if the above statement were true... The logical next step is not to conclude the universe was designed. Science doesn't work that way. If you can prove the evolutionary research and evidence to be false, that is one step. Evolution can then be considered not to be the true origin of species. You can now propose a different theory and provide evidence to that theory. Your scientific peers will scrutinize that evidence and either accept or deny your theory as well. It cannot be said that because evolution isn't real, than our crazy idea MUST be real.

I propose the following "Theory" following the same guidelines of the Intelligent Design Network. All life in the universe was indeed designed by a computer in an alternate reality. Ala "The Matrix", and we all just live in one big computer simulation. I personally am the center of this simulation and so all the rest of the universe is just for my benefit.

Assuming evolution doesn't hold up (it will), I propose we all move towards this new theory of enlightenment and all praise me... You don't want to make the jealous, vindictive, and loving computer mad at you now do you?

The countdown to scribblenauts

2009-09-04T11:06:00.001-07:00

Quite possibly the most anticipated game for the Nintendo DS handheld gaming platform is almost here... Only 10 days left until launch! The waiting is killing me!

For the uninitiated, Scribblenauts puts the player through a gauntlet of puzzles and challenges them to come up with creative ways to solve those puzzles. The breakthrough for this game however, is that it lets you use just about anything you can think up to solve the puzzle. From Medusa to a Spleen, if you think it will help you in your quest, you can summon it up! WAY AWESOME! At last check well over 40,000 objects had been created for the game.

Here's a video of the game from E3, depicting an epic battle... Personally I think the results are a little wrong... but there have many months to fix these little bugs since E3.

The Vatican Gets Penn'd

2009-09-03T18:28:00.001-07:00

Penn & Teller are at it again, the christian right is all upset and up in arms about the duo's hit show on the Showtime network.

Being a huge fan of the show, I of course watched it. I must say that it did seem like they went a little easy on the poor catholics. They are usually far more insulting, rude, and brash... but I think they got the point across very well.

The Vatican is BULLSHIT

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I did notice that this seemed to be the only episode this season that did not feature naked breasts. Like any man, I love massive mammaries, but the gratuitous nudity was starting to get a little silly, and I feel it takes away some of the credibility of their message. When trying to convince my mother and soon-to-be wife about the sillyness of organized religion and Astrology, I'd like to not have to expose them to naked women, just for the sake of having naked women on.

True to form, the catholic church has once again one upped themselves and have issued a prayer that must be said before sexual intercourse can commence with your spouse. It is as follows:

Father, send your Holy Spirit into our hearts. Place within us love that truly gives, tenderness that truly unites, self-offering that tells the truth and does not deceive, forgiveness that truly receives, loving physical union that welcomes.

Open our hearts to you, to each other and to the goodness of your will. Cover our poverty in the richness of your mercy and forgiveness. Clothe us in true dignity and take to yourself our shared aspirations, for your glory, forever and ever. Mary, our mother, intercede for us. Amen.

Mmmmm... boy am I in the mood...

Oh, and just for fun... apparently this cardinal's angel took a lunch break and forgot to tell him what a microphone is used for...

I'm becoming a euro-american

2009-09-03T18:14:00.001-07:00

Thanks to the somewhat reliable "suggestions" feature of the Netflix service, I was turned on to a cut little BBC show called "The IT Crowd". The first two seasons are available for instant viewing on Netflix, and the third season is available through "Less than legal means"... I got through both seasons and my ribs still hurt.

The series follows three main characters who work in the IT department for a major corporation... however it mostly revolves around the characters getting into hilarious situations, ala Seinfeld.

Please, do yourselves a favor and go check it out RIGHT NOW!

I've also imported the first and I predict only next-gen Cricket game ever to come out. Codemasters "Ashes Cricket 2009" and I have been enjoying myself gleefully. I'm starting to think I'm the only home grown American that understands and enjoys this sport at all. So far I am undefeated in online matches and can best the AI opponents on normal difficulty every time.

If you are at all interested in the sport of Cricket, and you should be, it's wayyyy better than soccer, you would be doing yourself a service to import and play this game. Most of our eastern brethren seem to have mixed reviews about the game, saying the graphics are poor and the player likenesses are off... but how would I know! I'm just a stupid Billy Yank and the flashy pictures and funny words like Wicket and Leg Spin Bowler make me chuckle.

But I'll tell you what, when a fielder dive catches the ball just before the boundary and throws the ball in mid air to the bowler for a 3rd umpire "watch this replay 100 times" close call run-out in your favor, even the biggest cowboy yankee in the US of A would have to jump out of his seat in excitement.

... and Australia wins by 5 wickets, more to come after a spot of tea.

We never went to the moon!

2009-09-03T16:47:00.001-07:00

Everyone knows the moon landings were an elaborate hoax, perpetrated by the United States government to fool it's people and the Soviet Union into believing we were the first country to ever set foot on the moon.

Flags waving in the wind, prop indicators on rocks, video in slow motion, reflections and shadows that cannot exist... phew...

Well, NASA is at it again, the so called LRO or Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, took some amazing photos of the apollo landing sites, and by far my most favorite is this one:

Turns out the early 1980's as telescope technology started getting better NASA decided it really needed to get some evidence up to the moon before it was proven once and for all the apollo missions never took place. They secretly launched the top secret "Moon Raker" aboard a shuttle and sent it to the moon to fake the footsteps you see in the image above.

Here is an image of Apollo 17 actor Jack Schmitt testing the rake on the soundstage before it's launch a few years later.

Interestingly, you can see that they managed to add stars to the set by the time they filmed the Apollo 17 hoax.

In all seriousness, these images are amazing, and I can't wait until the Ares missions begin and we start going back there. We have HD cameras now! The sets are going to have to be far more detailed... I hope NASA is up for it!

Wheatgrass juice is scary

2009-04-05T22:45:00.001-07:00

So I'm about to take a long car ride today and I'm feeling a bit sleepy... It's too hot for coffee and I think I'm numb to the effects of caffeine these days anyway. So I decide to take a detour to the local Jamba Juice.

I usually shy away from these places as the clientele are not my type of people. As my girlfriend puts it; "They're all skinny, and happy, and healthy, and have perfect skin". I like to drum it down to the typical juice goer is not as fat as me.

But the Aloha Pineapple is delicious and cold, and I decide to walk in and order one. This faces me with another one of my nemesis's... The ole' bushel of wheatgrass juice sitting behind the counter. I know they are going to offer it to me. I don't want it. It's grass for crying out loud. My dog eats grass and I yell at him for it... I wouldn't want to be hypocritical.

Gross, why would I want to eat this stuff? Well, perhaps the claims are why so many people are into drinking this. They include:

Improving the digestive system

Prevents diabetes and heart disease

Cures constipation

Detoxifies heavy metals from bloodstream

Promote general well being

Fortified with vitamins your body needs

Let's take a look at these one by one...

What is wheatgrass?

Turns out wheatgrass is exactly what it sounds like. It is a very young form of the common wheat plant. Originally thought to be worthless until maturity, apparently it has magical healing powers as a young plant.

Improves the digestive system and colon health

This has never been scientifically tested, or verified... but in general anything that helps you... um... go number 2 with ease is generally considered to be a healthy digestive food. However fiber has these characteristics as well, and is widely available in many forms. From tasteless food additives, to breakfast cereals. What is in wheatgrass juice that gives it the same properties as fiber I wonder?

I found these nutritional facts about the 1.1 Oz Jamba Juice wheatgrass shot. Take a look:

Nothing in there really. Certainly no appreciable fiber. I'm going to hazard a guess that this stuff is almost entirely undigestible and therefore comes right back out in a hurry. But I have no basis for that.

Prevents diabetes and heart disease

Neither of these are scientifically verified either... Which is scary. I do like that it's qualified as "Prevents" not "Treats". If you have either of these diseases you might be out of luck already.

Cures constipation

This I believe... however a few slices of pepperoni pizza will do the trick for me as well. I wonder what this stuff does to you if you aren't constipated?

Detoxifies heavy metals from the bloodstream

Also not verifiable... and very unlikely... Unless it relates to the massive diarrhea you are bound to get from drinking it?

Promote general well being

This is subjective, and probably not testable scientifically. If you believe the grass makes you a better person, drink up!

Fortified with vitamins

Some places don't even claim this anymore... It has become common knowledge that the juice contains a modest amount of Vitamin C, and a large amount of Iron. Other vitamins are not present.

Why do they offer it if the health effects are marginal?

Money... most likely... People believe it is really healthy stuff... After all, we are told it is. It tastes bad, it looks worse, but people will spend $3 to $5 for a tiny shot of the stuff. Shoot, I may start selling it to my neighbors for extra pizza money.

Final verdict

The health benefits of wheatgrass juice are slight at best. Many other foods have far more health benefits, and are cheaper. I seriously doubt there are any real negative effects from the stuff, so if you enjoy it you might as well keep spending money on it. As for me? I think I'll take the advice I give my dog, and avoid grass for the foreseeable future.

Cremation or Bury? The choice just got harder.

2009-04-02T13:31:00.001-07:00

It’s always been my wish to be cremated and blasted into space… But now I’m wondering if I should reconsider staying earthside and resting for eternity as an honored member of the United Federation of Planets.

A company named Eternal Image is releasing a Star Trek urn and Casket for the uber nerds like myself. Price TBD.

Too bad there’s no rank insignia on either… We all know I’m going to die a famous star ship captain.

The Conficker worm is scary!

2009-04-02T13:01:00.001-07:00

Well April 1st has come and gone and the computers of the world did not melt into a massive pile of bits and bytes. The media sure loved this thing though. Computer viruses are on the top ten list of media stories when they surface. Why does the media think scaring us about computer worms is going to get their ratings up?

I think the explanation is really simple, just about EVERYONE has a computer in their home. Even my late 90 year old grandfather had purchased a computer. The greater majority of these people have NO IDEA how their computer works, or what a computer worm even is.

Working in the high tech sector as I do, I often get phone calls and emails from people I rarely ever hear from when these news reports start popping up. The general consensus on Conficker was; if you boot your computer on April 1st, the whole thing is going to melt to the ground.

Turns out Conficker wasn’t quite as scary as it was originally thought. This is a really good computer worm however, and it did propagate to an estimated 30% of all Windows PCs.

What does it do?
It propagates itself. All computer worms and viruses must self propagate to fit the definition. This involved an already infected computer spreading the worm to other computers.

Is it going to melt my computer?
Turns out Conficker actually doesn’t have any malicious code in it at all. It does use what is called “Self preservation”. This includes disabling Windows Update, Preventing anti-virus, and anti-malware software from running. And my personal favorite, it prevents you from navigating to anti-virus, anti-malware web sites to get the tools required to remove it.

Final Verdict
Conficker turned out to not really be as scary as we were told. There were some high profile infections, including several French Navy airbases, British navy ships and submarines, etc… The good news is, it really doesn’t do anything!

The patch for Windows that prevents this exploit has been available since October 2008! Please update your Windows OS, and call the media and tell them you already took care of their latest scare tactic 6 months ago.

A Trillion Dollars is a whole lot of money!

2009-03-31T16:14:00.001-07:00

I heard a good analogy on the radio today about the stimulus packages and bailouts fluttering around the news today. Turns out most people have no idea how big a trillion really is.

Consider this…

You start a business at the birth of Christ. Every day since (7 days a week, 365 days a year) your business loses $1,000,000.

That’s one million dollars folks.

You would still need another one thousand years of daily losses to get to a trillion… That is a big number!!!

1,000,000,000,000

Gay people are scary!

2009-03-31T16:09:00.001-07:00

Homosexual men and women have encountered a great deal of resistance and interest lately. Proposition 8 in California (where I live) was a big deal. The “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy of the United States military services is also becoming a serious problem. Lets look at the facts of the former for this article and address the military problem in the future.

What is proposition 8?
Proposition 8 was a ballot proposition in California passed in the November 4, 2008 election. It clearly defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Same-sex couples are explicitly forbidden from marriage in the text.

But gay people can still get civil unions correct?
Yes! And this has been a loud argument of the “Vote Yes on 8” crowd. However, if a civil union and a marriage were the same thing why would it matter? I wondered what the difference was between the two and this is what I found out…

In California gay and lesbian couples can enter into a domestic partnership, which is essentially the same thing as a civil union.

On September 19,2003 California Governor Gray Davis signed in a law called the Domestic Partners Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003, granting gay and lesbian couples most of the rights usually reserved for married heterosexual couples.

This act is very powerful for gay and lesbian couples. Most of what you would need in terms of legal rights and safety are contained in it. Dissolution, child support, right to hospital visitation, funeral arrangements, etc…

There are a few problems, and differences from marriage with this act however.

Domestic partnerships are not legal or recognized outside of the state, so all rights associated with it may not be granted.
The law is greatly dependant on the whims of elected officials and can be changed at any time, offering a terrible sense of security.
No tax benefits
Employers are not obligated to provide family leave for ill partner.
Cannot sponsor a family member for immigration.
Must share the same residence.
Name changes are not allowed without a court order.
Domestic partnerships issued by the state are publicly available and easily searchable. Marriages are recorded at the county level and no address is on file, resulting in a large privacy gap.

That doesn’t seem too bad, it offers a lot of protections?
True, the domestic partnership law in California is really great for the gay and lesbian community… however there are differences none-the-less between marriage and domestic partnerships.

Discriminating against another human being has too many chapters in United States history to get into here. This is a clear case of discrimination against the citizens of this country and state. Aren’t “All men created equal”?

Homosexuals aren’t equal, it’s morally wrong!
Maybe… to you… and many others. Morality is clearly a subjective observation. I may think it is morally wrong to believe in a god, but I could not propose a law that prevents you from believing in one.

Rape and murder are morally wrong, should those be legal too?
Rape and murder are crimes. Both require a victim, and there are specific laws in the United States against both. Being a homosexual and engaging in homosexual sex does not victimize anyone, nor is it illegal. Simply being immoral by majority standards does not make it illegal.

If we let gays marry, soon people will want to marry animals!
This argument is ridiculous. First, animals do not have rights. There are laws to protect animals, (including laws protecting animals from sexual abuse) however this does not constitute rights.

It is also not possible to enter a legal contract with an animal for any reason.

I want to protect our children! They will teach kids being gay is ok in schools!
Look out! Schools are already teaching children that being gay is ok in schools! The purpose of this is not to convert the young minds of our kids into homosexual deviants. The purpose is to teach tolerance, so hopefully our children and future generations will look back at Prop 8 with such shame and disgust for the voting Californian’s of today.

Proposition 8 has nothing to do with children, nor their protection. The argument is a clear scare tactic. In politics if you need dissent on something, just tell people it will harm children.

What about protecting families?
Homosexual couples are already permitted to have and raise children, share custody, pay child support, and put their kids in little league. If any damage was going to be done to families it would have happened with the domestic partnerships act and not gay marriage.

We need to protect the sanctity of marriage!
The sanctity of marriage is a religious institution. You and everyone else has a right to freedom of religion and religious views. Your church does not have to perform homosexual marriage ceremonies, nor does it even have to acknowledge the fact that gay marriages exist. You can even ban homosexual individuals from your church!

California law cannot represent religion, the constitution is very clear on that. The religious views of the majority of people in the state should have no bearing on law.

The majority of people in the state don’t want gay marriage, so it’s ok.
Ignoring that fact that a great number of people who voted yes on Prop 8 did so because of the lies described above. Just because the majority votes on something does not make it right. The majority could feel that interracial couples can no longer marry as well. This cannot pass, as the constitution guarantees all rights to people regardless of color.

Discrimination is not legal, no matter how many people vote for it.

Final Verdict
My opinions are very strong on this matter. I am ashamed to live in a country and state that discriminates against another human being for simply being different from the majority. We were all told in school as we grew up about the civil rights movement and how stupid and prejudiced Americans were before the 60’s. I can’t believe it’s still happening!

Your tap water is going to kill you!

2009-02-15T02:13:00.001-08:00

I think everyone in the United States is aware of the “tap water epidemic”. It would seem that at some point in the late 1980’s we could no longer trust our municipal water supply and had to start buying water in the stores. Even though this bottled water is costing us more per gallon than gasoline.

What is in the tap water that is so dangerous? When I drink water, I drink bottled water, however am I consuming tap water anyway? Do Britta and Pur water filters really render my water safe? Where does tap water come from anyway?

Where does tap water come from?
This is a difficult question, depending on where you are located geographically this could be completely different. Many homes, particularly in rural areas, have wells dug into the ground water at the property.

This raises doubt into why this is a nationwide problem, considering our water comes from vastly different sources depending on where you are located, it is hard to generalize how dangerous it is.

I will focus on my county (Marin) and it’s water treatment and distribution practices. It should be safe to assume that the practices are similar in your area if you get your water from a large municipal source.

The water here comes from the Mt. Tam. watershed and is fairly clean at the source. It does have potentially harmful bacteria, viruses, and other naturally occurring pathogens.

How is the water treated?
Turns out this is varied quite a bit as well. Typically the water is filtered through sediment filters. A natural filter where water flows through sediment into the ground table removing large particulates.

The water is then treated with UV radiation, which helps destroy any microbes in the water. This UV radiation is merely Ultra Violet light, and the water does not contain any radioactive properties after it exits the filter.

The water can then be treated with chlorine. This is a remarkably small amount of chlorine, and not all tap water is treated this way. The amounts used are perfectly safe for human consumption.

Then the water is finally given a fluoride additive. This is to reduce tooth decay and had no other purpose. In my opinion this is a bit weird, but ok.

Bottled water is just water, so that must be safer than tap water.
One would assume… it’s important to realize that many bottled waters are bottled from municipal sources. That is, they are tap water in bottles. Many popular waters are packaged this way, including Dasani, and Aquafina.

It also turns out that the FDA requirements for bottled water and for tap water are identical. Except for lead. Because tap water has to travel through municipal water mains to reach your house, it has a higher chance of being exposed to lead. Bottled water must have less than 5 pbb (That’s parts per billion), tap water can have up to 15 pbb. Even at 15pbb, the lead in water is perfectly safe at these levels.

Bottled water tastes better.
Again, taste is subjective, but this is probably true. Bottled water is formulated to taste better. The active carbon filters in Pur and Britta water filters help improve the taste of tap water quite a bit. However despite their packaging, the carbon does not remove chlorine, nor does it make your tap water any more or less healthy.

Final Verdict
While it is true that contaminated water supplies in this nations history have led to illnesses and deaths, the general water supply of this country is very closely regulated and incredibly safe. Just consider the amount of tap water you consume every day. Starbucks coffee is made with municipal water, so are all the soft drinks you drink every day. Just about the only thing you consume that contains water came from a municipal water source… Except mountain spring water.

Seems to me that it might just even be safer to only drink tap water… as so much depends on it… something to think about…

Courts rule no link between vaccines and autism

2009-02-12T15:20:00.001-08:00

Hooray! Score one for the good guys!

Three separate test cases were up for review before special courts. Each was alleging that autism was caused by childhood vaccinations. The cases were started in 2007, and in all the courts the rulings were definitive: There is no cause to compensate parents of autistic children due to the vaccines those children received.

Fellow (and more successful) blogger Phil has a more complete rant on the subject.

This will not dissuade the most hardcore antivaxxers unfortunately, but it should help the public understand that this has been tested extremely thoroughly, and it is a 100% fact that vaccinations do not cause autism in children.

I don't want terrorists in my back yard

2009-02-11T01:26:00.001-08:00

One of President Obama's more lofty promises is to close the Guantanamo bay detention "camp" in Cuba. In order to do this, he must first find a new home for the detainees that cannot be released.

One of the proposed solutions for this is to move some of them into maximum security prisons here in the homeland.

But this is far too scary! Terrorists! Close to schools, airports, power plants... is it worth the risk?

I'm going to focus on one of the proposed prisons selected to receive detainees. The supermax prison in Colorado.

How safe are we from terrorists now?
Assume for a moment a free terrorist wanted to come to America right now. How difficult would it be to get in here? Lets also assume they bring nothing with them... Just themselves, a human being with an extreme prejudice towards Americans and their views.

Could this person perform an act of terrorism? Probably... terrorism could be as simple as kidnapping a small child, or setting fire to a church. However it is highly unlikely a man with no money, no contacts, and no resources could destroy an entire school, or disrupt a power station.

But could they even get into the country in the first place?

Turns out they probably can. Our borders are notoriously weak, especially along the Mexican border. It has been reported that terrorists are training in South America, and plan to cross the border into the United States from the south. It would take some effort, but there is no reason a determined terrorist couldn't get into the United States if they wanted to badly enough.

But we are talking about detainees
The fear about moving these detainees stateside is two fold. For one, if they were to escape somehow they could cause damage to our infrastructure or kill innocent people. Second, moving detainees here may cause retaliatory strikes in these areas that would otherwise not be targets for terrorist activities.

Lets assume scenario one. The terrorist might escape. They would have no money, no resources. It would be nearly impossible to cause significant damage to the country individually, and would be no less unsafe than our current border situation now.

Assume also that a habitual child rapist from the same prison also escapes. The damage would probably be worse. However we seem a lot less scared that these maniacs are in these supermax prisons.

Can someone even escape from a supermax prison?
Maybe, although it is unbelievably unlikely. Supermax inmates are monitored 24/7 with video surveillance. They are one person to a cell, and the cells have no windows. They do not do laundry, or work in shops. They are allowed to leave their cells for one hour a day. They are taken to a room with fresh air, however still inside the facility. Here they can run around in circles for an hour until they are taken back to their cells.

Never mind all the other technology in place to secure the facility. These prisons are state of the art.

No one has ever escaped from a supermax. These were designed to hold the most dangerous criminals ever. They seem perfectly suited to hold terrorists... even more than Guantanamo if you ask me.

Final verdict
The sole purpose of terrorism is to cause fear in your enemy. By giving in to irrational fears that a few select people that hate our country could do any harm by being placed inside of our most secure prisons we give in to exactly what they are aiming for.

Americans against this move are afraid of these people. You shouldn't be. These people are NOT SCARY! Having a hatred of America does not make you scary. Planning attacks against a people does not make you scary. It makes you a criminal, and now these criminals are caught. Lets get them out of Cuba and get them here, where they can never see the outside again.

Splenda, the public health experiment!?

2009-02-09T19:00:00.001-08:00

Just to be clear, I really do hate this yellow crap. I do know people however that enjoy it. Either because they wish to avoid the health effects of cane sugar, or because they are diabetic and sugar would be dangerous to consume.

A friend of mine (knowing my afinity for defending the little yellow packet) has put me onto Marcelle Pick OB/GYN NP, and her concerns that perhaps Splenda is not very safe... or as she puts it... "A public health experiment."

Who is Marcelle Pick?

Step one to critical thinking is to consider the source. Who is this woman? The bio on her web page says she is cofounder of Women to Women which seeks to educate women on health issues, and holistic life choices to prevent disease. (Oh boy, I feel a holistic healing article coming soon)

According to the website she holds an MS in Nursing from Harvard School of Medicine.

OK, so we've established that the advice we are about to receive is from a nurse. A nurse with seemingly good intentions. However her "holistic" approaches have me skeptical.

In any event, she is not a doctor or a scientist. Therefore she could not have conducted any studies related to the safety of Splenda. So all of her comments on the chemical must come from factual sources, and not personal experience to be credible.

What is she claiming?
She references a New York Times article that states 11% of products in the near future will be "reduced sugar" labeled. Then she claims Splenda is the cause. I was unable to find the New York Times article she mentioned... so I will assume the first part is fact, but the Splenda to blame part is speculation... I would argue that perhaps sugar is seen as unhealthy for children by moms, not that moms are so infatuated with Splenda they no longer need to feed their kids sugar. Of course that is speculation on my behalf as well.

She claims that products made with Splenda are claiming to be natural, and that Spenda itself claims to be made from sugar. Both of these are true. The FDA does not regulate the word natural. Splenda is most certainly not natural.

She claims that Splenda was discovered by accident in the UK in 1976 by scientists trying to make a new pesticide. This is FALSE! The scientists in question are Leslie Hough and Shashikant Phadnis from the Queen Elizabeth College in the UK. They were testing chlorinated sugars as chemical intermediates. A chemical intermediate is simply a "middleware" chemical that is used to make more complex products. Pesticides were never one of the objectives. If they were, would Phandis have tasted it and discovered it was sweet?

She then claims the sucralose molecule resembles a chlorocarbon much more than a salt. Then she claims pesticides are typically chlorocarbons. This is true, but sucralose is neither a salt nor a chlorocarbon, so this argument is moot. More to the point it is a flagrant lie to put fear into our heads sucralose might be a pesticide.

What about the chlorine?
Here comes the doozy, she then claims that there is no evidence that the chlorine in sucralose enters the body. But do you want your family testing that theory?

NEWS FLASH!!!

Guess what type of atoms that table salt is made of you threw on your eggs this morning. CHLORINE! Not only does everyone ingest chlorine atom laced foods every day, but sodium chloride is a vital electrolyte in the human body, and is necessary for survival.

Oh, and by the way, the chlorine atoms in salt and Splenda do not break down and poison us in any way.

What about swollen livers?
The remainder of these so called problems related to Splenda such as swollen livers and kidneys, and shrunken thyroids were only shown in animals with outrageous doses of sucralose. Soemthing on the order of 11,000 packets a day for a 150lb human.

The FDA did not claim that because these were animal tests it must be safe for humans. The FDA felt assured that any side effects were well inside of it's 5 mg/kg limit of Splenda for human consumption.

Are your children the next ginny pigs?
And there it is... the final scare tactic... sugar in excess is categorically more dangerous to your child than Splenda will ever be. Obesity leads to the leading killers in America.

Final verdict
This woman is flat out wrong! Grossly so. Neither her nor I are qualified to make statements about this product that are speculative. Please for the love of everything, do not listen to anyone that claims something is dangerous, and your children are at risk without considering the source.

As usual, this woman routinely appears on TV spouting this crap. I find this unacceptable. I truly believe she wants to help women with health issues. However it is clear that having her name and picture on a website and her face on TV is far more important than telling the truth.

The website is a member of the Health On the Net Foundation. In order to be a part of this foundation sources must be given and information related to health issues must be factual. I encourage everyone to file a complaint with the HON related to this article.

Don't go out without a jacket, you'll catch a cold!

2009-02-09T00:33:00.001-08:00

Our mothers used to tell us this every winter day, and of course the majority of us believed her. As such, we continue the tradition and tell our kids to do the same thing.

Does the cold virus actually hang out in cold air, just waiting for an adolescent youngster not wearing a jacket? Does a jacket provide some sort of deflector shield against this disease?

Perhaps the virus is already in us, and it gets "woken up" by our bodies being exposed to the cold.

Even more confusing is the persistent rumor that being in the cold doesn't give us a cold at all, and in-fact they have no correlation.

It's hard to believe that last one though, because if you go outside with no protection on in the cold, you definitely feel like you are fixing for the sniffles.

What is the cold virus?
Turns out there are over 200 known viruses that cause cold symptoms... wow... Among these there are three popular types: Rhinovirus, Coronavirus, and Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV).

Rhinovirus accounts for 10% to 40% of all cold symptoms. (That's a big range if you ask me). Coronavirus 20% and RSV 10%.

So how do I catch the Rhinovirus?
There are over 110 different versions of Rhinovirus that have been recorded by scientists. Rhinovirus is typically active in fall, summer, and spring months. The virus thrives at around 91 degrees fahrenheit, just about the temperature inside the human nose.

What about Coronavirus?
Scientists believe the majority of adult colds are related to this brand of virus. It tends to be most active during the winter and early spring months. There are approximately 30 coronaviruses known to science. Of these about 3 are known to cause illness in humans. Unfortunately very little else is known about this brand of virus, as they are very difficult to grow in a laboratory.

So how do I catch these again?
Ok, so it turns out... we have no idea. The human race, for all it's technological knowhow and medical miracles still can't tell you where the common cold comes from! Crazy!!

BUT!

Studies have shown that being exposed to cold temperatures, as well as being exposed to cold and then immediately entering a warm area has no effect on the chances you will become infected with the cold, or develop cold symptoms.

Oh and while I'm at it! Exercise, diet, and swollen tonsils have no effect either.

Evidence does suggest that psychological stress, and allergies in your nose or throat may contribute to "catching" a cold.

Final verdict
OK mom, get off my back. Turns out if I'm gonna catch the sniffles, I'm gonna catch them anyway. So the next time it's cold enough to freeze a river... look around for that guy not wearing a jacket, shivering in his boots, comfortable in his knowledge he is still safe from the common cold and shake his frostbitten hand. That's a true believer!

Creationists are scary!

2009-02-08T19:27:00.001-08:00

Religion is always a hot topic, and very often ignorant religious speakers will lash out at the "Atheist" community with far reaching claims of Darwin and his ideas, or the eye couldn't have evolved...

I stumbled on this video of a young, completely ignorant and misinformed young woman. She speaks of Darwin being a theologian and of no transitional fossils ever being found... UGH!

I won't take on the entire ID vs. Evolution nonsense in this post. For one, it's Sunday and I don't want to spend that much time on such rediculous garbage. Second, I think it's been done to death and this argument may never go away. The earth will always be 6,000 years old to some people and I'm ok with that for now... provided they keep it to themselves!

So where are these transitional fossils?
I bring this up now because those pesky scientists have found yet another transitional whale fossil. DAMN THEM!.. DAMN THEM ALL TO HELL!!!!!

Introducing Maiacetus! Isn't she gorgeous? It's clearly adapted for aquatic life.

What do you mean "she"?
Here comes the best part! This fossilized specimen was pregnant at death! Terrible for her, excellent for science. The fetus was oriented for a head-first birth, which is not good for birth at sea, so this animal would have given birth on land.

Awesome!

Final Verdict
Creationism, Intelligent Design, and other ignorant, misinformed ramblings of the religious circles are always trying to drive this nonsense into the weak minded. Do not be weak minded! Consider the source, go to multiple sources! Learn the truth! Don't become a mindless zombie. The future of the world depends on you!

For the full paper on Maiacetus head over here. (It's free)

Bear attacks are scary

2009-02-07T10:01:00.001-08:00

And as it turns out, I only have an 8 percent chance of surviving one! Ouch!

Your peanut butter will kill you!

2009-02-06T22:16:00.001-08:00

Oh man... peanut butter has become scary. I'm sure we've all been following the massive peanut recall going on right now. Should you throw out all your peanut butter?

Where did the scary peanuts come from?
Peanut Corporation of America (PCA), a wholesale peanut manufacturer based out of Blakeley GA plant is the culprit.

It turns out they had tested their peanut lots for salmonella. If the peanuts tested positive for salmonella they would run a subsequent test. If the second test returned a negative result, the peanuts would be shipped.

That seems dangerous, but not out right malicious.
True, until it was later learned by the FDA that the company may have already shipped the peanuts before the results came back. Should a positive result come back, occasionally they would get a second test that would show a negative result... However, and this is the doozy... Sometimes PCA would just let the shipment continue on it's way!

Oh my god, everything with peanuts in it is contaminated!
Not really. For one... PCA does not ship peanut products to consumers. So any peanuts you have are just fine. They do however supply A LOT of manufacturers peanuts. Over 1,300 products have been recalled by the FDA, one of the largest consumer recalls in history!

So I should throw out my peanut butter?
No! Your peanut butter is safe, and delicious! The FDA specifically says that consumer peanut butter is safe.

What should I throw away?
The FDA has a HUGE list of recalled products on their website. Check it out and discard anything on the list. Remember to wash your hands when you are done. Salmonella will ruin your day... and your plumbing.

Final Verdict
Peanuts and peanut butter have become pretty scary. Thankfully the FDA caught this quickly and the damage was minimal. The good news is the peanut butter is safe! Good moms can still choose Jif, and Skippy creamy will always hold a dear place in my heart.... and my soft palette.

Rise in measles in the UK… Scary…

2009-02-06T16:40:00.001-08:00

So what are they trying to scare us about this time? Measles? Isn’t that disease gone? Do we vaccinate children for that?

The BBC News has stated that in the UK confirmed cases of measles has risen 36% from 990 in 2007 to 1,348 in 2008.

The cause?

“Dr Ramsay said: "There are still many children out there who were not vaccinated as toddlers over the past decade and remain unprotected.

Unfortunately this means that measles, which is highly infectious, is spreading easily among these unvaccinated children.”

OH MY DEAR GOD!!!

The anti-vaccination epidemic is still circulating, please help us all put an end to this.

For more information about this story and new anti-vaccination propaganda have a look at fellow skeptic blog Bad Astronomy

The hole in the ozone layer is scary!

2009-02-06T15:21:00.001-08:00

Who else remembers the 80’s and early 90’s when the hole in the ozone layer was threatening to evaporate the oceans, raise global temperature, and cause our skin to become cancerous in seconds?

Global warming seems to have the spotlight now. Is that because the hole went away? Was it not man made in the first place? Was it just not as scary as we were told? Where is the “Sunblock 5000” I was promised in the Robocop movies?

What is Ozone?
Ozone is an oxygen molecule, specifically three oxygen atoms. Breathable oxygen contains two oxygen atoms. Ozone at low levels of the atmosphere is a pollutant and is greatly responsible for what we call “smog”. I won’t go into the chemistry that takes place in the lower atmosphere as it relates to ozone and smog because it has nothing to do with the scary hole.

Ozone in the upper atmosphere is responsible for filtering ultra violet light from the sun before it gets to the surface. (Specifically UV-B light) Presumably if a hole in this layer existed, UV light emitted from the sun would travel unabated down to us.

If you are still eager to learn about how ozone contributes to peroxyacyl nitrates in the air. Read up on ozone at Wikipedia.

Where did the hole come from?
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s) are considered to be the main man made chemical for depletion of the ozone layer. The chemical was used from about 1930 to 1978 as an aerosol and refrigerant.

In 1974 a study discovered that CFC’s in combination with high frequency UV light can rapidly destroy ozone molecules.

In 1978 the United States banned CFC’s in aerosol products, however industry pressure kept them around in other industrial applications.

So if CFC’s are gone, the hole must have gone away?
Sort-of! It’s still here, and it’s still getting bigger. But it’s a bit confusing. The hole in question is in the Antarctic. It forms every October in the spring, and lasts about 2 months. It does move over some populated areas such as the southern tip of South America.

CFC levels in the stratosphere have been dropping for years.

However, the hole in the Ozone we were all terrified about 15 years ago was over Canada! This was the “Arctic” ozone hole.

Oh man, how big is that one?
There isn’t one… The conditions in the arctic are not suitable for an ozone hole to form. Turns out all the fear and scare tactics were to prevent an Arctic ozone hole from ever forming, because if it did it would be over much more populous areas.

But the fear worked! We stopped using CFC’s and the hole never came.
No, just because the arctic ozone hole never formed doesn’t mean it ever could have. The ozone depletion problem was contributed to by man, however irrational fears were an unnecessary part of the solution.

They’re doing the same thing with global warming, is that fake too?
No, global warming is a real problem with genuine contributions from human interference. However the fear mongering and political thrashing that global warming is facing is a real problem as well and I will address that in a future article.

Final Verdict
CFC’s were a real problem, and if left unabated the damage to the planet could have been really severe. I’m glad this problem was stopped.

An arctic ozone hole is nonsense. They scared us for nothing, almost to the point of outright ignorance, just to get our attention. I suppose it worked, but it could have worked other ways too. I wish I had these critical thinking skills in my youth, I would have worn a lot less sunblock.

Vaccinations in children cause Autism

2009-02-06T00:51:00.001-08:00

A terrifying trend has really gained steam lately that claims chemicals in vaccines given to children contribute to autism. Pushed into the mainstream media by celebrities and news organizations. The most famous of which is most certainly Jenny McCarthy.

How are the vaccines creating autism?
Preservatives are used in vaccines to prevent bacterial or fungal growth in the compounds. In the early 20th century numerous illnesses and deaths in young children were discovered to be the result of tainted vaccinations.

One of the preservatives used is Thimerosal. Thimerosal is approximately 49% mercury. It is suggested that mercury can cause autism, and as a result, Thimerosal can cause autism.

I don't want to inject my baby with mercury!
Don't worry, since 1998 no vaccines even contain Thimerosal anymore, except the influenza vaccine.

But my child had their vaccines before 1998.
Mercury is not always the same. There are two types of mercury. Methylmercury and Ethylmercury. Methylmercury is found in fish and other animals. If ingested it remains in the body for a long time. Given large enough concentrations this can cause health problems. Especially for pregnant women.

Ethylmercury is processed much more easily by the body and does not stay in the system long enough to cause any ill effects. Thimerosal is an Ethylmercury.

Perhaps it still causes autism while it's in there?
No evidence has ever been found linking Thimerosal to Autism. A great number of studies have concluded in-fact that there is absolutely no link between the two. Here are some:

* A study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine in 2003 by Paul Stehr-Green found that more children in Sweden and Denmark were diagnosed with autism after removal of thimerosal from vaccines in those countries.

* Kreesten Madsen reviewed the medical record of a thousand autistic children diagnosed between 1971 and 2000 and found that despite removal of thimerosal from vaccines, the incidence of autism diagnoses increased between 1992 and 2000. The study was published in Pediatrics in 2003.

* Similarly, Anders Hviid studied Danish children between 1990 and 1996 and found that the number of children with autism increased after thimerosal was removed from vaccines. This study was published in 2003 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

* A study of more than 14,000 children in the United Kingdom found no evidence of increased autism relative to exposure to thimerosal. The study, by Jon Heron, was published in 2004 in the journal Pediatrics.

* Another study in the same issue of Pediatrics by Nick Andrews studied the records of more than one hundred thousand children who received different amounts of thimerosal and did not find evidence that exposure to thimerosal led to neurodevelopmental disorders.

* In 2004 the Institute of Medicine (IOM) reviewed more than 200 studies related to thimerosal and autism. They concluded that there was no relationship to cause concern.

* A study published in 2006 by Eric Fombonne looked at 28,000 children born in Canada between 1987 and 1998, a period during which there were varied amounts of thimerosal contained in recommended vaccines. Fombonne’s study, published in Pediatrics, also concluded no relationship between quantity of thimerosal a child was exposed to and development of autism.

* The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a study by Bill Thompson and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2007. The study compared results of forty separate tests performed on one thousand children exposed to thimerosal-containing vaccines and again, found no link between quantities of thimerosal and development of autism.

* Schechter and Grether published a study of rates of autism diagnosed in California between 1995 and 2007 and found that despite removal of thimerosal from vaccines, rates of autism have continued to increase. The study was published in Archives of General Psychiatry.

Final Verdict
Celebrities are people. Being an actor or actress does not make you a professional at anything other than acting. It does however give you press. It is important for the media to not run with the ramblings of crazy celebrities. It is terrible that Ms. McCarthy's son has autism, and the trend of rising autism rates around the world really is scary.

It is incredibly DANGEROUS to not give your children their vaccinations. Not only to them, but to the population they may spread the diseases to as well. Several very lethal and awful ailments are all but extinct in the world today thanks to these wonder vaccinations. To think a grief stricken celebrity and the greedy media could contribute to such a dangerous and irresponsible cause is sickening.

I encourage you to visit the Stop Jenny McCarthy website and learn more about this awful idea.

Inorganic vegetables contain unhealthy chemicals?

2009-02-05T23:48:00.001-08:00

A couple of weeks ago I'm at my local grocery outlet and I realize that it has become impossible in this town to purchase anything that is not organic. So I reluctantly pick up my box of frozen organic corn and promptly throw it into the microwave when I get home. Add some decidedly inorganic butter, and have a taste..... hmmm... Pesticide corn tastes the same to me.

What did I gain? I know what I lost, about $2 more for a box of frozen corn. Are the corn pesticides the Green Giant used to get for me really so bad? Lets do some research...

What is "organic" produce anyway?
According to this article from the Mayo Clinic: "The word "organic" refers to the way farmers grow and process agricultural products, such as fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy products and meat. Organic farming practices are designed to encourage soil and water conservation and reduce pollution. Farmers who grow organic produce and meat don't use conventional methods to fertilize, control weeds or prevent livestock disease. For example, rather than using chemical weedkillers, organic farmers may conduct sophisticated crop rotations and spread mulch or manure to keep weeds at bay."

Well soil and water conservation are most definitely good things. But are these herbicides and pesticides the other farmers using really going to cause me harm?

Are organic foods safer?
Nope! No conclusive evidence has ever been found that there is a health or safety difference between organic and inorganic foods.

But they are most certainly healthier!
Nope! organic foods have also never been shown to provide any additional health benefits from their inorganic counterparts.

At least the environment is better off if I buy organic.
This is true, USDA certified organic foods are held to very strict government regulations related to conservation. However, not all food labeled as "Natural" or even "Organic" is held to these standards. Only food packaging with the official USDA Organic logo are...

OK, I'll only buy my foods that have that label.
This is a reasonable attitude if you really want to support environmental conservation for farmers, and don't mind paying a little extra for your food to do so. However, keep in mind that even though a product does have the USDA Organic label, it still only has to be 95% organic. 95% is pretty good, and even I won't complain about that... but I wonder what 5% of my corn isn't organic?

Having no chemical pesticides in my food MUST be better for me
This is not true. The pesticides most commonly used in agriculture are organophosphates. Scary stuff for sure. Sarin gas is an organophosphate. In large quantities, this can be very damaging to your health. However, the quantities contained in produce delivered at the store are so small, no short-term or long-term effects have ever been detected.

So chemical pesticides are not a good reason to buy organic?
Well... they are... unfortunately. Exposure to these pesticides in large quantities is very dangerous. According to the World Health Organization, roughly 25 million farm workers a year have severe or minor health complications related to working with the pesticides. Even in the United States approximately 33,000 deaths are reported each year as a result of working with the chemicals.

Final Verdict
Organic produce is not any more healthy or safe than ordinary produce. To purchase organic produce out of a fear of health risks is an unfounded fear of hearsay and rumor.

However, buying organic foods does help environmental conservation and is much safer for the farmers and farm workers of the world. After doing my research I have a new appreciation for this "hippy" alternative to buying produce. If your budget can handle it, I don't see any reason why buying organic is bad. But if you need to be more conservative with your wallet... don't worry... the Green Giant's got your back.

SPLENDA® – What are your children eating?

2009-02-05T17:02:00.001-08:00

Here’s one of my favorites, and I want to kick off the blog with it.

For those of you that spend a lot of time at home and are unsure what I’m talking about… SPLENDA® is an artificial sweetener. The most popular brand in the United States according to the Wall Street Journal. It holds a 62% market share in the $1.5 billion artificial sweetener market.

SPLENDA® is manufactured by McNeil Nutritionals, LLC, out of Ft. Washington PA. The famous slogan for the product is “Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar”

So why should I be scared of it?
Because you obviously don’t know The Truth About Splenda.

Is it really made from sugar?
Yes, the manufacturing process does begin with sucrose (Table sugar). However the molecular structure is significantly changed in the process to produce Sucralose. Sucralose is the result of parts of the sucrose molecule being replaced by chlorine atoms. The end result is not sugar without calories, it is an artificial chemical that tastes sweet.

Does it really taste like sugar?
Taste is subjective, so it’s up to individual opinion if that statement is true. Sucralose is 600 times more sweet than sugar. To me it tastes much different than sugar.

It’s not natural, it must be unhealthy!
Oh man, I hate this argument. Arsenic is natural, so is cancer… just because a chemical is man made does not immediately make it bad for you. The artificial sweetener market has been the most tested food product ever in the United States. Other types being saccharine, aspartame, etc…

There is very little sucralose in a packet of SPLENDA®. Most of it is filler in the form of Maltodextrin. Surprisingly, the amount of maltodextrin in the packet equates to about 3.5 calories. However under United States law it is still lawful to claim the product contains 0 calories… ugh…

Of the tiny bit of sucralose in the packet, only about 11-27% enters the body. This is removed by the kidneys and eliminated in the urine. About 20-30% of the sucralose that made it this far is metabolized. (That’s a terrifically small amount)

What about the Duke University Study? They say it’s bad!
The article in question is mentioned on the “Truth about Splenda” website, as it’s the only other fact about the product being bad on that site. (The first one being that it is not natural). The report in question can be found here.

The study found that sucralose ingested in male rats at a rate of 1.1-11 mg/kg resulted in a reduction of beneficial bacteria in the gut, and increased the fecal pH of the animals. Over 12 weeks.

The FDA has approved sucralose up to 5 mg/kg per day. So this finding is surprising.

Oh god, my poop is acidic! I’m going to get cancer from this stuff!
Slow down! First of all, rats are not humans. The results of this study at best warrant human studies as well. The adverse conditions these rats suffered occurred very quickly (12 weeks). Most consumers of SPLENDA® have been eating more than 1.1 mg/kg per day and are just fine. (1.1mg/kg per day is approximately 6 packets for a 150lb human)

This study mentions nothing about cancer. In-fact many studies have already proven that Sucralose and Aspartame do not contribute to cancer.

That website is scary, I’ll never eat SPLENDA® again!
I don’t suppose you happened to catch who made that website?

“This website is part of an effort to educate consumers about the chemical artificial sweetener Splenda and is provided by The Sugar Association, which represents sugar beet and sugar cane farmers across America.”

I love the sugar farmers… and I appreciate the hard work and dedication they bring to the life and society of this country. However, a web site attacking an artificial sugar, made from a group of sugar farmers? Market jealousy has turned into unnecessary fear mongering.

Final Verdict
I personally hate this yellow stuff. But there is really nothing to be concerned about. Buy it, eat it, sprinkle it on your cereal. The sugar farmers might be a little agitated, but at least you didn’t let them scare you!

If you are still not convinced. I want you to go sit down in a quiet place. No TV, radio, or internet. Rest for 5 minutes. Then ponder how good that natural sugar is in all it's diabetic inducing glory. Your kids will thank you for it.

I have never given my children SPLENDA®, but after reading the Truth about Splenda website. I think I just might have to.

External Links:
Wikipedia: Sucralose
Wikipedia: Aspartame
The Truth About Splenda
Splenda Homepage
Duke University Study