You've Got Mail, Sort Of

Yesterday I was walking down the street in Chicago.  It was a cold mid-afternoon and I was the only person out and about except for a guy walking across the street to my left.  From the corner of my eye I could see the monochromatic grey-blue figure catch up to me and walk past, revealing a heavy bag full of mail.  He was a USPS postal carrier.

And why is the USPS going broke?

Here's a guy walking door-to-door in a major city-- rain, snow, sleet and hail, except when the weather sucks.  He's delivering a series of paper packets originating from far away to where he was going.  Each letter is being custom moved for less than half a buck.  This is freakin' Amish!

I'm feverishly doing the math in my head and it seems like the system is bound to fail.  The costs of fuel to move it, the machines and people to sort and handle that letter, and the costs of that one guy's pay to do a tough physical job, pay for his health insurance and pension.  It seems like it can't work.

And New Math reveals it doesn't.   The USPS is 9.2 Billion in the hole here at the end of 2011.  That's equivalent to the GDP of Mongolia or the Bahamas.

Worse yet, I'd guess about 80% of what I get via the mail I don't want anyway.  Even those Victoria Secret catalogs that somehow ended up coming to me are pretty boring after the first 700.  Every mail room and lobby has a special garbage can just for junk mail.

Could we maybe just ditch the whole system and go electronic?  I seem to get email everyday without a problem and can filter the junk, no problem.  I can respond quickly and have a solid record of the correspondence.  Sweet!

Could we build a nationwide 3G network that would provide everyone email access?   A simple email reader could be provided to each person for a nominal fee, and maybe a few cents could be charged per email sent via that network.

This way we'd save a fortune in paper, subsidies to paper and timber companies, a ton in the costs of physically moving a document from point A to point B.

The small charge would deter wasteful usage and massive mailings.

It just seems like in the age of data and information, we can do it much better.

Science Denial in Political Candidates;The Importance of a Simple but Telling Question

Back in 2008 Republican presidential hopefuls gathered in an on-stage “debate”.  By debate I mean they did what all politicians do regardless of political party- they used the occasion to bend questions to fit their answers and stroke the expectations of smiling partisans counting down to that primary election.

The event was typical and boring.  Stock answers to non-issues and sidestepping issues that truly matter in our country.

But one web-submitted question resonated especially well with me and it should be a mandated question in all political debates from here on out…. “This is a yes-no question… Do you believe in evolution?”

The question should have been, “Do you accept the evidence for evolution,” because we don’t have to believe something when it has been substantiated with overwhelming evidence, but these are politicians, not scientists, so we’ll let it slide.

The question was posed to Senator John McCain, who enthusiastically said, “Yes.”

When asked to the rest of the stage with a show-of-hands, hands were slow to raise, and candidates looked back and forth at each other, thinking quickly of how their answer could be politically expedient.

Gov. Mike Huckabee was the first hand up, followed by Sen. Sam Brownback and Rep. Tom Tancredo.

This was a telling moment.  Here were three candidates willing to ignore evidence and brandish their ignorance in a show to placate a political base.  To me, grounds for immediate disqualification.

This year during the “debates” some pundit mentioned that such questions were useless in vetting a presidential candidate. I could not disagree more.  This is absolutely the best question to ask anyone seeking the highest office in the land, an office where they literally have their finger on the power to annihilate the planet. They also have to make many policy decisions that could benefit from objective scientific validation, and to turn a blind eye to science for political gains is detrimental to us all.

To deny that evolution happened over the last 3.6 billion years (and still happens and is ongoing) means that you have to be willing to ignore evidence.  Worse, you have to be willing to ignore evidence and accept what someone believes in the absence of evidence, but on the basis of faith.

So when an important decision needs to be made (like invade Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein in retribution for 9-11) who do we want to make that decision?  Do we want someone in power that will carefully consider and weigh all points of view, options, and evidence, and then make a decision based on the facts, or do we want someone that will default to the voice in his head, the voice he hears in prayers, the voices of his supporters, the voices of big business, the voices of his party, and/or the voices of contributors? 

Evolution is the basis of speciation and natural selection is the mechanism by which it happens.  That is not a subject of debate among the world’s scientists.  Fewer theories have more support from diverse scientists and avenues of inquiry.  To refuse to accept this evidence to placate the ignorant shows that a politician is either lying or stupid.

Anyone not accepting evolution as an established and supported theory that explains the diversity of life on earth should be immediately disqualified from holding the office of President of the USA.  The next decade will require hard decisions to be made on economic policy, energy policy, foreign policy, and many other areas.  We need leaders that are connected to science and quality information, that can make good decisions when provided with information, and accept reality over influences.

They could instead run for King of a planet that is flat, cooling and in the middle of the universe. 

Dog Time Travel

My dogs were in an elevator for the first time. It must seem like magic to them. The wall opens, they walk into a tiny room, wait a few seconds, and then the wall opens and they are in a completely different place.

A Prediction for 2012

The "angels" paying off Christmas layaway accounts are just Mayans with high credit card limits.

I will sleep well tonight knowing that if I ever have a worn or weathered hot dog, I can get it restored to its original luster for under a buck.

Hit and Run?

Why do they call it a "hit and run" when you hit and drive away?

A Life as a Spectator

Someone very close to me posted the following on her facebook page, receiving lots of "likes" and favorable comments from friends and readers.  It is called, "Wings of the Soul".

It sure does feel good to put stock in such mantras, especially because they help you not think.  Rubbish like this reflects why some are always watching life pass by, and are generally discontent with their situation.  Yet they subscribe to this kind of lazy thinking.

It is not how I live at all. To me, I would change this to nothing makes sense until you solve it, master the confusion instead of laughing at it, claim back the basis of the tears, and remind yourself that YOU control whether things happen or don't. A lot of people like to coast on "wings of your soul", but I think proactive action and reason are much better remedies than wishful thinking.

More Anti-GMO Anti Science

I write this blog to try to add a sobering scientific overlay to topics of frequent discussion.  Most attacks on science and scientists are shrugged off because good science always wins. However, by gently addressing dissenting opinions against science, maybe we can accelerate the process.


Today on Facebook I read a post from a friend about the horrors of GM foods.  The post was in regard to the fact that Whole Foods Markets and other retailers have dropped hard opposition to the USDA's decision to deregulate transgenic alfalfa.  The links provided directed me to an online article by Ronnie Cummings regarding this situation.


The organic foods community is not happy with Whole Foods and their ilk because they have stated that there needs to be coexistence with biotech crops.  My guess is that they see that they are losing important credibility.  If you are trying to make the claim that your foods are healthier and more sustainable (which they may or may not be), your claims are vacant if you fail to accept science in other issues.  It is like the trainer that tells you that you need to exercise daily for fitness, but smoking is good for you too.


Of course, the anti-science madness of the anti-GM folks tears Whole Foods a new one.  Cummings article is quite the rant.  The second paragraph is quite telling and ironically fun.  The first sentence starts out with, "In a cleverly worded, but profoundly misleading email sent to its customers last week" and then goes on to use clever words to profoundly mislead.  Let's look at a few examples. 


Beyond the regulatory euphemism of "conditional deregulation," this means that WFM and their colleagues are willing to go along with the massive planting of a chemical and energy-intensive GE perennial crop, alfalfa;


Ok, first point.  The GE alfalfa is no more chemical and/or energy intensive than the conventional crop. Many independent studies from all over the world show that transgenic crops lead to profoundly less use of insecticides and herbicides (see Tomorrow's Table, Pam Ronald for good citations and clear explanation). We continue,  


 guaranteed to spread its mutant genes and seeds across the nation; 


That's quite a guarantee!  First of all, these are not mutants.  Mutation provides the basis of all of the genetic variation we see and benefit from. Even those organic crops are loaded with mutations, they have to be. Furthermore, they are the products of human intervention in the breeding process, where man has deliberately crossed plants to capitalize on those mutations.  


guaranteed to contaminate the alfalfa fed to organic animals


So?  Is there any evidence that this is harmful? Nope. 


guaranteed to lead to massive poisoning of farm workers


Again, quite a guarantee.  And study after study reflect the low toxicity of glyphosate, especially compared to other conventional herbicides. PubMed that one on your own.


 and destruction of the essential soil food web ...


and it continues. Cummings also states:


In exchange for a new assault on farmworkers and rural communities (a recent large-scale Swedish study found that spraying Roundup doubles farm workers' and rural residents' risk of getting cancer)


I wasted 30 minutes of my life that I will never get back trying to find this recent Swedish study.  I wish these folks would cite their references better.  All I found was one report from 1999 from Hardell and Erikson in the journal Cancer that showed a correlation between glyphosate and non-Hodgkins Lymphoma.  That study was the last of the kind, and no follow-ups were presented.  Twelve years later the stuff seems to be getting safer?   


Could the anti-science types be distorting facts?  Yep.  I guess one lone 1999 study is "recent" in geological time. 


One of the other ways you know that the anti-GMO interests are scientifically bankrupt and simply parroting a party line comes if you google large chunks of their rhetoric. Try this one from Cummings' article...


    Roundup devastates essential soil microorganisms that provide plant nutrition and sequester climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases


How many hits?  1400.  1400 verbatim cut-and-pastes from one thoughtless anti-GMO rant to the next. Seems like this is a lifted phrase that pops up again and again as one lemming plagiarizes the previous one.   It also was in the Facebook post.   Where does it come from?


Most of the anti-GMO pieces citing this alleged factoid say it was a "recent study".  So, once again I go to PubMed and put in "glyphosate" and "climate".  I tried "Roundup" and "climate".  I could not find a single report, even in obscure low-impact journals, that presented any data regarding this claim.


Could the anti-GMO folks be lying again?   Maybe.  I certainly may have missed something here, but I don't think so.


The most clear problem with the anti-GMO argument is that they want to have it both ways, and Cummings' work is a perfect example.  Here he expounds gloriously on the hazards of transgenic crops and their attendant herbicides. He tells how dangerous they are, how "recent" studies clearly demonstrate their dangers.  He also "guarantees' they will "contaminate" everything, based on his knowledge of corn, soy and cotton that are almost 100% transgenic in acreage.


If this stuff is so dangerous and deadly, and if it is everywhere, why doesn't everyone drop dead from it?


Exactly.


If anything, the calories afforded because of transgenic breakthroughs and higher production are leading to obesity and other issues associated with over-nutrition.  I think the evidence says that it works too well as intended.  


The bottom line.  The rhetoric of the anti-GMO contingent is anti-intellectual and anti-scientific at best, and boldface lies at the worst.  We don't know if the authors are uninformed, poor critical thinkers, or really solid geniuses with an agenda that want to distort information for their cause.  I like to think that it is the former, which is why I try to educate and comment in this arena.

Natural News- Distorting Facts to Profit from the Naturalist Fallacy

This morning I’m parsing Facebook and find a post from a friend.  His post exclaims, “Institute of medicine safety report confirms vaccine dangers http://t.co/N5zWiFsw via @HealthRanger”.   I was intrigued.

HealthRanger is a pseudonym for one of the authors over at Natural News, a website that promotes allegedly healthy and natural products.  They do not just promote concoctions, supplements, complementary and alternative medicine that are scientifically unvetted, they go out of their way to bash science, technology and western medicine.

The former is no big deal.  While unethical, I’m glad that we are free to be suckered into nostrums and bogus concoctions that have alleged pharmacological properties, even in the absence of evidence.  The harm comes in when people forego legitimate science in pursuit of alternative practices and suffer from the consequences.  Most of these treatments don’t work (and can’t work, e.g. homeopathy) or they have biologically active compounds (like herbs and plant extracts) that can elicit some effects, yet are not pure, well quantified, or tested for side effects.  

It must be good stuff, it's natural.   So are dog turds, the AIDS virus, radon gas and arsenic.

Where I do have a serious problem is when Natural News attacks science.  In the note above, my friend writes that the Institute of Medicine (a solid source of good information that has always touted vaccine safety and efficacy) “confirms vaccine dangers”.  When you read the Natural News article, they use the same distortion in their title.  They also quote the report where it states, “relationship between certain vaccines and adverse health complications does exist”, cherry picking this nugget from the rest of the story.  Natural News also states that this "settles the argument".  They did get that last point right, but it settles it in a way that does not support their claims of danger.

You can read a synopsis of the findings here. 

The rest of the IOM report really echoes the incredible safety of vaccines and their awesome place in public health security.  In the true spirit of scientific discourse the report says that there are documented negative side effects of vaccination, and science has known this for some time.  These negative side effects are generally mild and are exceedingly rare.  When you read the list, they are typically confined to anaphylaxsis, except for rare instances of viral re-activation from Varicella (chicken pox) vaccine where the patient then gets the chicken pox they would have caught without the vaccine.  

Negative side effects, yes.  Less severe than the disease itself, absolutely. 

The report also supports rejection of the association between vaccines and diabetes, autism, Bell’s palsy, or asthma, the “risks” frequently touted by anti-vaxers.  Of course, Natural News seemed to miss this.

The take home message is that HealthRanger and Natural News are at best just poor connoisseurs of  scientific information, lousy readers and non-critical thinkers.  At the worst they are cherry-picking liars that distort legitimate data to promote a naturalist concept, where they are the profiteers.  

And they say that Big Ag, Big Pharma, Big Science are all lying about their products to make a buck.   Take a look in the mirror Natural News. 

Even the untrained eye can see through this veil of deception.  All you have to do is read the report.  Once again, Natural News finds end-of-the-world danger where the objective, peer-reviewed, reproducible and accountable scientific community finds minimal risk.