This article was linked to on Digg recently, and there has been some misunderstanding of its content. It concerns a discovery of a new catalyst that could make it possible to use sunlight to directly split water into hydrogen and oxygen. This might turn out to be quite important in the future (if we start using hydrogen as fuel, and if this turns out to be more efficient than other ways of producing hydrogen, etc.), but you can’t mention “water” and “energy” in the same sentence without certain people assuming that the useable energy is in the water itself. I know I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: water is already in its lowest chemical energy state. You cannot extract energy from water using chemical* means. That means no water-powered car engines, no water-powered batteries, etc.
Of course this discovery is interesting enough in itself. Storing solar energy for later use has always been a bottleneck in this particular form of alternative energy, so if you could store it as chemical energy in hydrogen, it could potentially surpass the standard lead-acid or lithium-polymer battery solution. However, this remains to be seen. For the time being, this technology is still in experimental stages.
*Other forms of energy are routinely extracted from water in order to generate electrical power, for example kinetic/potential energy in a hydroelectic station, or thermal energy at a geothermal plant. The hydrogen in water could also be used as fusion fuel**, thus releasing nuclear energy.
**Note that a fusion reaction would far surpass (by several orders of magnitude) the energy required to split the hydrogen and oxygen apart, thus avoiding the problem that makes it impossible to get a surplus of chemical energy from water.
Is it ethical to prescribe a placebo?
Glucosamine is a drug that is sometimes prescribed, and often recommended, to treat joint pain and arthritis. Extracted from the shells of shellfish, it isn’t toxic, and it’s relatively cheap to purchase. People who use it often notice a substantial decrease in their joint pain while they are on the medication. Unfortunately, glucosamine probably doesn’t work. Clinical evidence of its efficacy has been contradictory, at best (it’s a bit telling that the product is sold as a supplement, rather than a drug). However, in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, it was found to be no more effective than a placebo . This would seem to indicate that any reduction in pain brought about by the drug is a result of the placebo effect, and not a medical effect.
In many ways, glucosamine is a lot like most other types of non-evidence based medical treatments. It has no proven biological effect, and any change experienced by the patient is identical to the placebo effect. However, glucosamine doesn’t exhibit most of the harms present in other quack medicine. It’s not toxic, and is relatively inexpensive; additionally, the illness that it’s meant to treat (arthritis/other joint pain) is both a) non-lethal, and b) incurable (meaning there is no harm from delaying seeking proper treatment). Treating the condition properly, one could only hope to reduce the pain — and this is already being accomplished by the placebo effect.
This creates a tough situation for the skeptically minded when we see somebody else using, or prescribing, glucosamine. On the one hand, belief in the efficacy of glucosamine is utter nonsense, and though it might not necessarily be the case, lack of skeptical thinking about one form of treatment could lead to a lack of skepticism concerning other treatments in the future. On the other hand, the harms in this case are relatively non-existent, and scientific skepticism not being too popular, skeptics are often forced to pick their battles.
What do you think?
As many may have noticed, activity recently here has been low. No, we haven’t gone anywhere, but have instead been working on a fairly large website update. Well, I’m now pleased to announce the introduction of our “Special Features” section, where you’ll find the usual slew of published articles as well as our newly-conceived Panel Discussions and Podcast, as explained below:
Panel Discussion - A biweekly feature published every other Saturday where Lintbox staff and contributors alike will each chime in on a single topic or controversy of note. The first is slated to be published this coming Saturday. Don’t miss it!
Podcast - Though still in the planning stages, we will occasionally publish a 30 minute-long feature where one author will have his/her chance to speak out on a particular topic of choice, followed by a discussion by the Lintbox staff. The layout has not yet been finalized however, so stayed tuned for related updates!
Finally, we are currently looking for new skeptics interested in writing or contributing to Lintbox! Should this meet your fancy, be sure to send us an application via the Contact Us page! Keep in mind, we will be keeping a close eye on all applications and may require a writing sample for consideration.
Stay tuned for more soon!
Yesterday, to my stern disapproval, the normally science-friendly Discovery Channel hosted the documentary: Decoding the Past: Doomsday 2012 - The End of Days, a title which could have been a lot shorter, but I suppose they really needed to nail down that end-of-the-world feeling to it. Anyway, while I typically love what’s aired on Discovery, The End of Days wasn’t as bad as I expected it to be; It was worse.
We haven’t yet really covered much on the 2012 nonsense, which I suppose we should sometime in the future (we do have more than four years to do so, after all!).
The gist of it, for those lucky enough to have not heard of the hysteria, is that the Ancient Mayans’ calendar ends in December of 2012, which has led many to speculate that the world must end by that date, and not that, you know, the Mayans didn’t want to waste their lives writing calendars for dates they probably wouldn’t still be around to experience.
In any case, the finite Mayan calendar is the core of the 2012 doomsday claims. Once you sprinkle a few vaguely applicable lines from soothsayers of the past to support it, you’ve got an apocalypse-nowish theory compelling enough to get Hollywood’s attention.
[Read more →]
I recently read this article on organic foods over at quackwatch.org. Following the article, the author had posted a reader protest complaining how it was unfair to lump organic farmers/foodies in with other “quacks”. The reader asks:
Honestly, is it so nutty to think we would be better off eating food that ISN’T full of chemicals and additives, preservatives and artificial colors?
Thinking about this question, I realized that the answer is “yes”. Nutty is probably not the word I would use to describe it, but it is a bit strange to think that we would be better off eating “food that isn’t full of chemicals, additives, preservatives, and artificial colors.” More accurately, it is a tad nutty to believe that so-called “natural” or “organic” products do not contain chemicals, additives, preservatives and artificial colors. The truth is that all foods — not just “artificial” foods — contain chemical preservatives and colors! The reader has simply assumed that because the chemicals found in organic foods are naturally occurring, they must also be safe.
This variation on the naturalistic fallacy is the foundation of naturopathy and a lot of modern new-age quackery. We have already explained in previous posts how natural is not always safe. Nature produces just as many harmful substances as it does nutritious substances… if not more. Furthermore, all “synthetic” compounds created by humans are merely variations on the chemicals we have already found in nature. The fact is that any distinction between the natural and artificial (insofar as it applies to the realm of biology and chemistry) is tenuous at best. In reality, human synthesis of chemicals usually involves nothing more than facilitating, or expediting, natural synthesis. Even when we create elements not found in nature, we produce them using other natural elements. Anyways, it is not as if you would find Ununpentium on the ingredients list of your favorite cereal. Conversely, finding all natural Uranium-238 on the ingredients list might be cause for concern.
[Read more →]
The CBC posted this article on naturopathic “medicine” by “Doctor” Lorne Swetlikoff, N.D. (not M.D.).
The article is a load of crap (the claims can be easily dismissed as nonsense), but what do you expect from a “doctor” of naturopathy? What surprises and disgusts me is that the CBC, a supposedly reputable news source, thought it was a good idea to publish this story, and by doing so, endorse this type of “medical” advice.
I think I just used up my quota of scare quotes for the month. Damn.
However, there was one positive outcome to this article. The comments left by the readers seemed (for the most part) skeptical of the article’s claims. To me, this was a refreshing change of pace, and a nice reminder that there are other rational people out there.
—
Why do we drive like jerks, and behave like assholes on the internet?
Some of the more seemingly sophisticated arguments for God (or some type of higher power) revolve around the mysterious nature of human morality. Dismissing evolutionary explanations for morality, some people believe that we simply cannot explain traits like altruism through the evolution of selfish motives. They believe that reciprocity is only a small part of what we like to think of as decent behavior. However, if this is the case, why do we behave like jerks when we obtain a small amount of anonymity?
To the best of my understanding, the current theory is that we evolved altruistic tendencies in response to our social environments. Just as speed, strength and agility can confer a survival advantage in a natural environment, so can altruistic behavior and honesty confer a survival advantage in a social environment. In turn, the reciprocal relationship in any social environment confers a survival benefit in most natural environments. Because evolution and natural selection will operate to select for traits in any type of environment, our morality is merely a product of our evolution in our given social environment.
However, the idea of reciprocity breaks down when you become an anonymous actor. If the evolutionary theory of morality is correct, then our morality works in such a way (or at least initially involved in such a way) that we behave in certain ways towards other people in the hopes that they will return the favour. For example, we do not lie to other people in hopes that they will be truthful with us, and we do not steal from them in the hopes that they too will not steal from us. The reciprocal relationship does not even have to be symmetrical, which is why somebody might endanger themselves in order to save another person. They do not necessarily expect the same in return from the person they saved, but rather do so in the hopes that they might receive help if they were ever in need of saving. The key to this reciprocal relationship is that the people or society we are behaving kindly towards in turn must know to whom they should reciprocate. If we act in an anonymous fashion, they would not know to whom they “owe” their reciprocal action. Similarly, we would not have to fear harmful reciprocation should we do something inappropriate or harmful.
Interestingly, this matches the behavior that we see in social atmospheres when people are granted anonymity. As mentioned at the start of this post, people are (or at least perceive themselves to be) anonymous when they are in their cars, or on the internet. When in these situations, people tend to behave like jerks; and do thinks that they would never think of doing to somebody’s face. However, when you keep the environment constant, but take away the factor of anonymity - say on a social networking site like Facebook -the behavioral differences seem to vanish.
So why do we drive like jerks, and behave like assholes on the internet? Because our morality evolved in a system of reciprocity, and when placed in an anonymous environment where reciprocity becomes irrelevant, our moral instincts break down.
In my recent article about Consumer Reports, I mentioned that there was no evidence to support the hypothesis that organically grown foods are any safer, tastier, or more nutritious than are their non-organically grown counterparts. Accepting this premise, you might say that it is still a legitimate choice to purchase organic food to support a more “natural” method of farming. Aside from the fact that this is quite fallacious, it is also very wrong.
The fact is that here in Canada — and in other countries that have modern farming practices — we have the most plentiful, healthful and safe food supply in all of recorded history (though you would not know it by talking to a naturopath). So much, in fact, that one of our biggest problems right now stems from an overabundance of food and the resulting over-consumption of certain types of foods. Short of obesity-related health problems, we live in a time and place where people are living longer than ever before.
Enter the organic food crowd, who believe that we are being slowly poisoned by the pesticides and antibiotics in our foods. The truth is even if evidence surfaced that eating non-organic food is harmful (none exists, to date), any negative health effects due to pesticide or antibiotic consumption would be vastly overshadowed by the health benefits accrued by modern farming techniques. In a way, organic food proponents bear some resemblance to anti-vaccine proponents. People who have never had to deal with nation-wide pandemics of measles or polio fail to see the importance of vaccinating their children and maintaining herd immunity against the diseases. Similarly, people who have grown up in a country with an abundant supply of safe and healthful food fail to appreciate all of the harms and waste that we have been able to eliminate through modern farming techniques.
The other problem with organic food is that even if we wanted to, we simply could not feed all of the people in Canada using organic farming techniques, let alone the world while maintaining affordable food prices (if you think increased food prices due to rising oil costs are bad…). Short of a mass extinction, there appears to be no way to reconcile this huge problem. Organic farming would only ever work as long as a small percentage of the population consumed organically grown foods — but proponents of organic foods believe that all food should be grown organically.
So why is organically grown food bad?
[Read more →]
Talk about the re-classification of Pluto from a planet to a new type of celestial body (first dwarf planet, then plutoid) has died down of late. But according to this article from the Telegraph, several “leading astronomers”, including Dr. David Morrison from NASA, believe that Pluto deserves to retain its planetary status.
They claim that the revised definitions are confusing and will mean that newly discovered planets in solar systems outside our own can no longer be described as such.
…
Dr David Morrison, director of the NASA Lunar Science Institute in California, said: “It has never before been necessary for any organisation to define a word that has been in common every day use so I see no reason why it was necessary on this occasion.
“Astronomers use adjectives such as giant and dwarf to describe different subclasses of objects like planets, stars and galaxies, so why could Pluto not remain as a dwarf planet just as Jupiter is a giant planet.
“Also, around 90 per cent of the planets we know now are outside our solar system, but under the International Astronomical Union’s definition, they cannot be classed as planets.”
Scientific terminology has to be precisely defined on a regular basis. In fact, without a rigid definition, scientific terminology becomes relatively meaningless. Though it might seem unfair to Pluto’s fans, it is not within the purview of science to make exceptions in classification out of sentimental value. The IAU came up with a more precise definition of “planet”, and Pluto didn’t happen to belong in that group. Case closed. This doesn’t mean that Pluto will vanish from our solar system, or that we can’t still discover “plutoids” in other solar systems. This in no way quantitatively changes the observations being made, or the science being done — it only gives scientists a more precise tool with which they can classify celestial bodies.
Mark Sykes, from the Planetary Science Institute will argue that roundness should be the only category that is applied.
This, he says, will lead to the number of planets in our own solar system increasing to 12.
Why would it be any more desirable for our solar system to have twelve, rather than eight, planets? It will not change the physical characteristics of the objects, the potential for finding life, or increase the chance that we can one day inhabit them. All we are doing is shifting from one arbitrary definition (all definitions are arbitrary, really) to another more useful/precise definition. The idea that planets should be categorized based on their “roundness” just sounds like a vague criterion that will serve little scientific purpose other than to have Pluto remain classified as a planet.
Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson, from the American Museum of Natural History, will argue that Pluto does not deserve to be a planet.
There might be a good reason for why Pluto should remain classified as a planet, but this article doesn’t mention any of them. It seems that the opposition to Pluto’s plutoid classification is from a few holdout astronomers who are opposed to change for sentimental reasons. Science is not about maintaining the status quo; it’s about explaining the universe, and sometimes we have to change our criteria for classification in order to better facilitate that purpose. If you’re opposed to change, then science probably isn’t the right field for you.
—
Without getting back in to the whole vegetarian debate, I just wanted to applaud PETA on reaching a brand new low in their advertising campaign.
Capitalizing on the recent Greyhound bus murder, they have released an advertisement comparing the bus murder to the killing and consumption of animals, which is reported by the CBC, as “…meant to make people understand how animals suffer when they are killed in slaughterhouses.”
It boggles my mind how even somebody who believes firmly in vegetarianism and animal rights could draw a moral comparison between the brutal murder of another human being, and the killing of an animal (no matter how cute or furry).
“We can’t do anything to bring Tim back or bring his family relief from their suffering. But all of us can ask what we personally can do to decrease our support for this sort of violence,” Freedrick said.
Translation: we’re a bunch of opportunistic assholes. Stealing animals and blowing up research labs is one thing, but PETA has achieved a brand new low by capitalizing on this event to try and make a point about vegetarianism. Regardless of your personal, philosophical, or religious views on the consumption of meat, I think we can all agree that this advertisement is in bad taste, and yet one more reason to say “FUCK YOU, PETA”.
Click here to view the advertisement.
—
