https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=BanjopineSGUTranscripts - User contributions [en]2026-04-14T12:11:12ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.43.8https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_400&diff=7264SGU Episode 4002013-08-08T23:58:57Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeNum = 400<br />
|episodeDate = 16<sup>th</sup> March 2012<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Fossil_diatome.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-16.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45352.0.html<br />
|qowText = Our inner weighing of evidence is not a careful mathematical calculation resulting in a probabilistic estimate of truth, but more like a whirlpool blending of the objective and the personal. The result is a set of beliefs - both conscious and unconscious - that guide us in interpreting all the events of our lives.<br />
|qowAuthor = {{w|Leonard Mlodinow}}<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: This is Rogue Leader, checking in from Sierra-Golf-Uniform Mission Control. I need a news item status report, please identify.<br />
<br />
E: Echo Three to Echo Seven. Han, old buddy, do you read me? Uhhh, I mean, Steve, this is Rogue Four, copy?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, Rogue... Five? here, I guess? I don't&mdash;I don't know, I'm here. Why do we have to talk like this, Steve? Steve?<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: This is Rogue Leader, Rogue Five. Call me Rogue Leader. Can you please identify? That means use your code name. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I'm refusing your stupid order. Over.<br />
<br />
B: This is Rogue Mandelbrot. Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue Mandelbrot, I don't recognize your callsign. Use your issued designation. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
B: ''(exhales, indignant)'' This is Rogue Two. If any of the other Rogues want to call me Rogue Mandelbrot, feel free; it's much cooler than friggin' Rogue Two.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue One, come in, Rogue One. Do you copy? Over. Has anyone talked to Rogue One recently? &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: You mean Jay, right? Is Rogue One Jay? We have names already, Steve. I seriously do not understand this.<br />
<br />
J: This is Rogue One. I copy. I'm at 42,000 feet coming in over San Diego.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue One, are you go for a news item? &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
J: Roger that, Rogue Leader. I'm covering the death of Duane Gish. Over.<br />
<br />
B: Over what, his dead body?<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Cut the unnecessary chatter on this frequency, Rogue Two. What is your news item? Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
B: I'm talking about carbon nanotubes and solar panels and new battery technology.<br />
<br />
E: Are they charging those new batteries with solar panels made out of carbon nanotubes? How cool!<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative, Rogue Two. No one wants to hear about any news items on those topics from us ever again.&lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Rogue Two should push that idea out the airlock. Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue Four, will you give me a news item status update, please? &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
E: Uhhh. Roger that. I've got plants talking to animals.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative on that one, Rogue Four. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
E: I've got latest paranormal belief statistics from the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative too.<br />
<br />
E: I've got bee venom killing the HIV.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Mmmm, nope. Over.<br />
<br />
E: Uhhh, 3D printing replaces 75% of a man's skull.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative on that one, Rogue Four.<br />
<br />
E: Uhhh. ''(exhales)'' How about people can live to be 150 years old?<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a go on that last one, Rogue Four. &lt;beep&gt; Rogue Five, I still need a status report on your news items. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I wanna talk about a sloth that got its makeup done. Uhhh, on a TV show. It's great.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: A sloth on a TV show. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, it's like&mdash;it's a sloth that they brought in from the zoo, and they put it in a makeup chair and they put makeup on it. That's what I'm gonna talk about.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Maybe we'll put that on the back burner there, Rogue Five. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
J: Rogue One to Rogue Leader, come in.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue Leader here. Go ahead, Rogue One. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
J: Permission to fly my ship into Rogue Two. Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative, Rogue One. Cut the shit. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: This is overdone. Over.<br />
<br />
E: ''(As Sean Connery)'' I'll take Rogue Four for a thousand. Over.<br />
<br />
J: ''Oh yeah''? Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: We are ready to go with Mission 400. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
''(rocket launching)''<br />
<br />
''(theme music)''<br />
<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(6:54)</small> ==<br />
* March 16, 1912: Historical badass Captain Lawrence Oates sacrifices himself for Scott's Terra Nova Expedition in the most badass way possible.<br />
<br />
S: Well, we do have a great show for you, our number 400. We're gonna start, as we usually do, with This Day in Skepticism. Rebecca.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Alright, let's set the stage, you guys. It's early 1912. You are part of the Terra Nova Expedition to the South Pole, an effort led by Robert Falcon Scott.<br />
<br />
S: Wait, wait. I thought Terra Nova went back in time to the time of the dinosaurs.<br />
<br />
R: No, that was just a terrible short-lived TV show.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, that's right.<br />
<br />
R: Is that still on?<br />
<br />
B: No.<br />
<br />
R: No. Can't be. Yeah, okay. So, you arrived at the South Pole in December of 1911, only to find that the Norwegians beat you to it by a solid month. So you turned around and you march back, only to find horrific weather, scurvy, other illnesses, injuries and diminishing food supplies. And come March, one person is already dead, and if the rest don't make it to safety soon, everybody's going to die.<br />
<br />
S: And that's when The Thing attacked, right? 'Cause they already killed the Norwegians. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, yeah. That, I think, did happen in the recent Thing adaptation, but I'm not positive, because much like everyone else, I didn't watch it.<br />
<br />
B: I don't know what it is, but it's weird<br />
<br />
E: ''unintelligible)'' – the rest of the world, nobody saw it.<br />
<br />
R: So, Captain Lawrence Oates, who was on the team to handle the ponies, had become weak and ill and frostbitten, and he told everybody else "Go on without me." And they refused.<br />
<br />
E: They said "Alright."<br />
<br />
R: So on the morning of March 16, 1912, Oates got up and walked out the tent, never to be seen again. And before he left, he said "I'm just going outside and may be some time." Thereby giving English folks for the following century the best possible thing to say when going out for milk during a particularly bad rainstorm. So his sacrifice was awesome, but ultimately all for naught, since everyone else in the party died twenty miles later. But it was still pretty badass.<br />
<br />
S: So, how do they know he said that if everyone else died?<br />
<br />
R: They kept diaries. You dummy.<br />
<br />
S: They wrote that down, before they…?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and in fact, according to Oates's diary, he loathed Scott.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I remember reading that.<br />
<br />
R: Despite his sacrifice.<br />
<br />
E: He mother-fracked him up and--<br />
<br />
S: Although, he also said at one point that, maybe I'm just in a bad mood because I'm in friggin' Antarctica.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Maybe it's the frostbite talking. ''(laughter)'' But I feel like the person leading us is incompetent.<br />
<br />
E: Maybe it's the slow embrace of death talking here. ''(laughter)'' This suuuccckks!<br />
<br />
R: I think you could forgive him for being a little cranky.<br />
<br />
S: Worst expedition ever.<br />
<br />
R: It really was, like, oh, can you imagine, you know, embarking on this grand expedition that will very likely cost you your life and you make it. You make it to the South Pole, only to find out that some Norwegians beat you there. Ouch! And then dying on the way back. I mean, that part sucked, too.<br />
<br />
J: Right before the guy dies, he's like, this really sucks! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: But they had that exploration spirit.<br />
<br />
R: They did.<br />
<br />
S: That excelsior spirit.<br />
<br />
B: Excelsior!<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that<br />
<br />
R: For whatever's that worth, which is exactly nothing.<br />
<br />
S: So they got that going for them.<br />
<br />
B: Which is nice.<br />
<br />
S: Which is nice. <br />
<br />
E: That's a nice footnote.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Meteorite Fossils <small>(10:23)</small>===<br />
[http://phys.org/news/2013-03-astrobiologists-meteorite-space-algae.html Astrobiologists claim meteorite carried space algae]<br />
<br />
S: Bob, on a much happier note, though, you're gonna tell us about life on meteorites. Maybe even alien life, or maybe not.<br />
<br />
B: So here's the news story. The first nanosecond you read it, you're thinking, holy crap, I mean, is this, could this be possibly true? How awesome would that be? Some of the titles were: Astrobiologists find ancient fossils in fireball fragments; another one was: Astrobiologists claims meteorite carried space algae. And, but then you think, well, if, really, if that were true, right, that would be the news item of the century, at least, if not the millennium. And people, everyone would be talking about it. It'd be all over the internet, which it wasn't. So, you know, I'm thinking, well, what the hell is really going on here, 'cause I'm used to these news items that seem pretty awesome but clearly aren't. But that ''is'' the claim that's being made by scientists at Cardiff University in the U.K., and it all started with this fireball that blew up over a Sri Lankan province called Polonnaruwa on December 29, 2012. I didn't even hear about that one. I looked at some of the police reports that came out of that. People were claiming that they were burned by meteorites and that they were, there were fumes; these weird fumes that even caused someone to pass out, apparently, and had to be taken to the hospital. And right there, that's gotta raise some skeptical eyebrows because<br />
<br />
S: Because ''(unintelliglble)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, meteors generally are not hot. ''(laughter)'' They're travelling in space and they're close to absolute zero, so a brief little journey, fiery journey through the atmosphere isn't gonna make that much of a difference, and it conducts heat very well<br />
<br />
R: Yeah you definitely need to preheat those first. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Right. By the time you get there, they are not hot, they are generally pretty cold. And the fumes, the whole thing with the fumes is silly. I just think of these weird science fiction movies from like the '50s and the '60s where a meteor hits and they're hot and they've got these weird alien fumes coming out. Just like, just those two things right there, whoa, what's going on here? So what happened was they found, allegedly, they found 628 of these little meteorite fragments that allegedly came from this meteor, and they sent it off to Cardiff University. And the scientists there were studying it. They used electron—<br />
<br />
R: That's where Dr. Who is. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: That's right.<br />
<br />
S: He's called "The Doctor." He's not actually called Dr. Who. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Thank you for stopping that flood of emails.<br />
<br />
B: We'll still get 'im. So, they're looking at these little bits of meteorite and they find fossils of algae deep inside. Specifically, they were diatoms. I think that's how that's pronounced.<br />
<br />
S: Diatoms? [long o]<br />
<br />
B: Diatoms? Really? Specifically, these are single-celled plantlife. All over the planet. The cell walls specifically for these are made of silica, so it's kind of interesting. So what came from this was the declaration by these scientists that life on earth must have had some extraterrestrial origins, so-called panspermia. And, I think that seemed a little bit, you know, jumping the gun a little bit. But the science fails here are pretty, pretty big. There's so many red flags. And signs that, yet again, it's just way too premature to go to public with something like this. I keep thinking of cold fusion and other similar things where these guys just, they just like totally jump the gun and did not do their due diligence.<br />
<br />
S: Two things, Bob. Two things. First of all, I confirmed it is diatoms [long o], thank you.<br />
<br />
B: Okay. <br />
<br />
S: This is worse than being premature. This is bad science. These guys did a crappy job. <br />
<br />
B: Exactly, and now I'll go . . .; I'll explain why it was actually, not only premature, very bad science. One of the key things they should have done, but maybe one of the first things they should have done, is to show that these things came from a meteorite. Without a shadow of a doubt, or as conclusively as can be done. They didn't even really even do that, let alone show that it came from the one from Sri Lanka. Now I think that they looked at over 600 and only three of them did they say came from a carbonaceous chondrite, which is a type of meteorite, but in the opinion of many, they didn't even do that to a sufficient degree. So that, that was key. You have to show like, hey, this is from a meteorite because these diatoms are everywhere. They're all over. They're all over the place. You can't just find them, find these fossils and say "looks like it came from a meteorite. So therefore, panspermia." Blah, blah. The other big thing that they totally blew was the whole concept of contamination, which is a huge, huge problem. And they did not seem to take that seriously enough at all. They were saying that the fossils inside were too deep inside the rocky fragments. And, but the thing is, that doesn't matter. If they even just consulted somebody who's familiar with this stuff, they'd say that doesn't matter. The tiniest little crevice or crack these guys can get into. You could crack it open and find something in the very, very middle of it, but it doesn't matter 'cause they could still get in there. It doesn't mean that it's ancient and been accreting around these fossils for a millennium and thousands of millions of years. So related to that, they didn't consult with the experts in the relevant fields. Bring in a meteor expert. If you're gonna convince the world that you found life from another planet, algae, no less, similar to Earth's algae, you've gotta cross all your t's and dot all you I's. Bring in some experts; consult with outside labs. Don't do this all on your own because you just look really silly, especially when, you know, the overwhelming probability that people are just gonna say "no, you're just way off and here's why. 1-2-3-4."<br />
<br />
S: Bob, how'd they get this published in a peer-reviewed journal?<br />
<br />
B: Ah, there you go. I call this section the "Journal of Doubt." They published it in the Journal of Cosmology. I mean, we've mentioned this before. It's not a respected journal. They're known to have very, very loose submission guidelines. <br />
<br />
S: It's a rag.<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely. They published a paper in 2009 about the meteor with a fossil-like cyanobacteria in it. I mean, this is like the same journal. And I think the same people that actually trying to push this stuff. So, there, right there, another huge, huge red flag. Don't go to the Journal of Cosmology. Sounds kind of authoritative, maybe. But if you know anything about it, it's not. Also, another interesting point that should be considered I think is one of the co-authors, Chandra Wickramasinghe, was the first guy to actually propose, that I'm aware of, to propose this whole idea of panspermia, back in 1981, and from what I could gather, a lot of skeptics claim that this guy is somewhat fanatical about this. I mean, alright, it's your idea, of course it's gonna be your pet idea, and very protective of it, but apparently this guy's really got some blinders on when it comes to this, and he often, or has been shown in the past, to ignore evidence that's contradictory. Which is just really human nature, but, and this is what science and critical thinking are designed to protect against. When you insulate yourself from the process and procedures of real science, you run the risk of being laughed at sometimes, and having people call it tabloid science because you just have not done your homework. This has happened before with this guy, and with this Journal. But a lot of people, I wonder if a lot of people are thinking that we've been invaded by algae. So I'll close with my favorite title from Red Orbit. It was "Algae From Outer Space? It's Probably Just Bad Science." Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: Probably.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. Prophetic.<br />
<br />
R: Thank god, 'cause it'd be like Day of the Triffids but more boring. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: Guys, when bad science like this comes out, to me it smacks of people wanting to believe in something. There's a lot of conclusions that they could have jumped to that weren't so crazy or so wonderful, for lacking a better way to describe it. 'Cause it is pretty wonderful and amazing.<br />
<br />
S: Well I mean, I think it's reasonable to assume that that's the base line. Every scientist wants their theory to be true; wants to find something interesting and important, and we just assume that that's the case, that everyone's biased. But the point is to design rigorous studies so that you minimize the effects of that bias and you rule it out as much as possible. And that's when, if you haven't done that, of course your bias comes through.<br />
<br />
B: That's what science is designed to protect against.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Duane Gish Dies <small>(18:46)</small>===<br />
* [http://ncse.com/news/2013/03/duane-t-gish-dies-0014753 Duane T. Gish dies]<br />
<br />
S: Speaking of motivated reasoning, Jay, you're gonna tell us about Duane Gish.<br />
<br />
R: Can I just say that somebody on Twitter said that I was literally Hitler for constantly pointing out when Steve makes a bad segue? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Literally Hitler! Awesome.<br />
<br />
E: Really?<br />
<br />
R: Well, they were kidding.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, okay.<br />
<br />
J: The young Earth creationist Duane T. Gish, he died on March 5, 2013. He was 92 years old.<br />
<br />
B: Whoa!<br />
<br />
J: He had a good run. <br />
<br />
R: He galloped into heaven.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right? You coined that phrase, Rebecca, I read that.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. So I thought I'd just throw it out there again.<br />
<br />
J: He was born on February 17, 1921 in White City, Kansas. He served in the U.S. Army from 1940 to '46, in the Pacific theater of operations. He became a captain, which I didn't know. In 1949 he earned a bachelor's of science in chemistry from the University of California and in '53 he went on to get his Ph.D. from Berkeley. He spent the next fourteen or so years as a researcher until 1971, when, what guys? He became the vice president of . . .?<br />
<br />
S: The ICR, the Institute for Creation Research.<br />
<br />
J: That's right. Which was founded only a year earlier by Henry Morris. Gish retired in 2005. He still, of course, kept busy. He was still writing. He was a Methodist from the age of ten, and he later became a fundamentalist Baptist. He wrote a lot of books. He wrote, the one he was most famous for was titled ''Evolution, the fossils say no!'' That was published in 1978.<br />
<br />
S: I actually have and read most of that book.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, you did?<br />
<br />
R: Masochist.<br />
<br />
E: Did you lose a bet?<br />
<br />
S: No. Gotta read what the other side's saying, too. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: That's true. This was in the time before the internet, I know.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, back in the early '80s, when I read it.<br />
<br />
J; In 1995, he also wrote ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: He's not listening very well.<br />
<br />
J: It seems to me that's his "Oh, yeah?" book, you know. But, of course, guys, and everyone listening to this show, or at least most of the people, know that he is best known for the mighty Gish Gallop, which he, which is described as his technique that he used during a debate to quickly fire off tons of misinformation that can't possibly be properly discussed by the person that he's arguing against. Right? So he brings up one idea that would take someone maybe ten or fifteen minutes to go over and to disprove or discredit, but he'll come up, he'll spill out 30 or 40 of these things in a series, in a very short amount of time. Guys. I didn't know this, and I'm surprised that I didn't. Did you know, do you know who coined the phrase "Gish Gallop"?<br />
<br />
R: Genie Scott.<br />
<br />
J: Genie Scott.<br />
<br />
B: How awesome!<br />
<br />
R: Genie mother f—Scott.<br />
<br />
J: She is so awesome.<br />
<br />
B: She coined that?<br />
<br />
J: This is her quote: "It's where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn't a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate."<br />
<br />
R; A prayer.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, Steve, remember when we had Dr. Michael Park come and lecture for the New England Skeptics Society and he told us about his experience in debating Duane Gish?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I remember that very well. Yeah, Gish also debated Michael Shermer. I actually listened to that entire debate on tape. And he debated Massimo Pigliucci five times.<br />
<br />
J: Yup.<br />
<br />
B: Whoa.<br />
<br />
J: That's right.<br />
<br />
E: Five!<br />
<br />
R: I know he debated Shermer a bunch of times, too, didn't he? I thought he was one of those<br />
<br />
S: Maybe.<br />
<br />
R: like Hitchens-DeSousa sort of things, fool around.<br />
<br />
J: Gish claimed that he entered into more than 300 debates during his career, which is quite a bit. I wouldn't have been surprised, though, if he said 800, because it just always seemed like he was violently debating someone. You know, overall, I classify him as just someone that was phenomenally misguided that had a belief that he was trying to qualify for his entire life and could never admit to himself that the science does disprove it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but you know, he was intellectually very dishonest. Because he would be factually refuted; he would say things that were factually wrong. Those factual errors would be pointed out to him in no uncertain terms and the next night he'd give the same talk and repeat the same error that he was just corrected. He just didn't care about the facts.<br />
<br />
R: He obviously wasn't stupid. So, I mean, there's really only one option left. If you're not stupid but you're continuing to repeat the same false information over and over and over again, then you're just dishonest.<br />
<br />
E: He would have throngs of followers travel around in buses from one lecture to another, and they would help pack the auditoriums and have his own cheering and rooting sections.<br />
<br />
B: Wow, isn't that nice.<br />
<br />
R: Groupies.<br />
<br />
E: With bibles in hand, sort of, cheering him on as he would go. So it always maybe seemed like that at least half of the audience, maybe, is in sync with his points of view on these matters. But it was staged, they were essentially shills.<br />
<br />
S: And he made popular, I don't know if he originated a lot of these arguments, but he made popular a lot of common creationist arguments like evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.<br />
<br />
B: Awwggh.<br />
<br />
S: Which we've spoken about: it doesn't. Or that archaeopteryx was just bird. Just one of the forms that birds take. With teeth and tails.<br />
<br />
''(more than one person speaking – unintelligible)'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: It flew.<br />
<br />
J: Those are good examples of a comment that's so easy to hear an even believe. And it's also a comment that would take quite a bit of information to show why it's wrong. And he spewed these things out during debates and was blowing the hair back of the people that were trying to respond to him and respond to the things that he was saying. They just couldn't keep up with the guy.<br />
<br />
B: If he showed one, you know, one good thing that came out of that was he really proved that these types of debates are horrible forms. This is not the kind of thing you want to get into unless it's set up properly and focused and designed not to allow people to go off on tangents and do the Gish Gallop.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, he made us, he made skeptics get better at debating and better at choosing the venue and the format of confrontations like that.<br />
<br />
B: He evolved our approach.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: That's probably the nicest thing you could say about him.<br />
<br />
S: Donald Prothero wrote about it and he debated Gish as well, and wrote about it on Skeptic Blog, if you want a first-hand account. He talks a lot about how intellectually dishonest he was, as well. So, no more Duane Gish, but I can almost guarantee you we have not seen the end of the Gish Gallop. Imagine, that that's your legacy. That's his legacy, the Gish Gallop.<br />
<br />
J: Well, to skeptics and to scientists.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Meta-Analysis <small>(26:04)</small>===<br />
* [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/revenge-of-the-woo/ Revenge of the Woo]<br />
* [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/another-acupuncture-meta-analysis-low-back-pain/ Another Acupuncture Meta-Analysis – Low Back Pain]<br />
<br />
S: This week I wrote a couple of articles about acupuncture. Acupuncture is just the alternative medicine that won't go away. I think it, from my perspective I think it's the one that has managed to gain the most respectability among the mainstream scientific community.<br />
<br />
E: More than chiropractic?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I think so. I think even, perhaps, more than chiropractic. Although that's probably, they're probably close. In terms of, you ask the average physician, what do you think about acupuncture, a lot of them say, they probably don't think about it too much, but they think that, oh, yeah, you know, there's some evidence to show that it works. And physicians are increasingly referring patients with pain for acupuncture. The biggest scandal, in my opinion, about a year ago, I'm pretty sure I talked about this on the show, was that the American Headache Society actually now recommends, or lists, acupuncture as a recommended treatment for migraines. And even when the evidence they cite to support that recommendation shows quite clearly that it doesn't work. Just absolutely astonishing. So about a year ago, a paper came out which was a meta-analysis of acupuncture for various conditions, and the authors who did the meta-analysis concluded that acupuncture is effective and that it was reasonable to refer to an acupuncturist. Even when their own data showed that there was no clinically significant difference between acupuncture interventions and sham acupuncture. They thought that there was a small but statistically significant difference. That's what they concluded. And, of course, we roundly criticized the paper. I focused on their interpretation. David Gorski had a lot of questions about the methods that were not really carefully spelled out in terms of the details of the analysis. But even if you grant them the analysis that there was a small statistically significant difference between sham acupuncture, meaning either to stick needles in the wrong place or you're not sticking it to depth, or eliciting the chi, you know that sensation that is supposed to indicate that you're manipulating the chi, or the chi, or whatever you're supposed to be doing, versus quote unquote real acupuncture. Multiple reviews have shown that essentially there's no difference between the two, sham acupuncture and placebo acupuncture and true acupuncture all have about the same effect. A couple of reviews now, including this one, the lead author was Vickers, so this is the Vickers acupuncture meta-analysis, they found a small but statistically significant difference. My point at the time was the difference between the sham and the true acupuncture was not clinically significant. And it simply isn't, by any analysis. It was such a tiny effect. Therefore, when you have such a small effect, and we've said this before in multiple contexts, that it's essentially within the noise of doing clinical trials. The clinical trials are not rigorous enough that you can be that precise that a tiny difference you could say is a real physiological difference as opposed to just noise in the data. Well, the authors, Vickers et al., the authors actually published a response to the blogposts that were written criticizing their original article in the published, in the peer-reviewed literature. They actually got a response published. Which is a first as far as I can tell. A peer-reviewed, published response to our blogpost. They specifically referenced my blogpost about them in Science-Based Medicine, David Gorski's and a number of others. It was really, it was really very whiney. ''(laughter)'' It was unbelievable, I mean.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeahh?<br />
<br />
S: So, this is what they wrote in their article:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Although there was little argument about the findings in the scientific press, a controversy played out in blogposts and the lay press. This controversy was characterized by ad hominem remarks, anonymous criticism, phony expertise and the use of opinion to contradict data predominantly by self-proclaimed skeptics. There was a near-complete absence of substantive scientific critique…</blockquote><br />
<br />
R: In fairness, you are self-proclaimed.<br />
<br />
S: That's the only thing they got right, was that we are self-proclaimed. That is complete hogwash, that entire characterization. And they cherry-picked the responses. They were characterized, first of all, by ad hominem remarks. Some of us pointed out the fact that one of the authors was a homeopath. I'm sorry, but that's a legitimate piece of information.<br />
<br />
E: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
S: If you're evaluating a scientific paper, the fact that somebody is a blatant pseudoscientist is relevant. They specifically referenced me to support their assertion that they were characterized by ad hominem remarks because I said that their discussion showed a pro- acupuncture bias. That was their example.<br />
<br />
R: That's an ad hom?<br />
<br />
S: That was an ad hom.<br />
<br />
B: Whoa.<br />
<br />
S: I was being charitable by saying that it reflected bias, because it was blatant nonsense, is what their conclusion was.<br />
<br />
J: But that's an ad hom?<br />
<br />
E: In their own minds.<br />
<br />
S: It's just whiney. The anonymous criticism, most of it was not anonymous. All of us at some point in time put our real name to our criticisms. But, you know, a couple of medical blogs, like Orac, you know, they blog anonymously so they can get snarky and have a little bit of protection. But to say that it's characterized by anonymity is ridiculous. Phony expertise, that's an interesting one. So they claim that because we are not published in, we haven't published acupuncture research. Yes. They miss what our actual expertise is, we are experts in the difference between science and pseudoscience. And it's that expertise that they lack that precisely is what bit them in the heinie and why they utterly failed in their original article.<br />
<br />
B: Rebecca, did he say "heinie"?<br />
<br />
E: Heinie.<br />
<br />
R: I think he said "heinie."<br />
<br />
E: That sounds like an ad hominem to me.<br />
<br />
R: Sounds like something a six-year-old would say.<br />
<br />
J: Heinie-ho.<br />
<br />
S: It's an ad heinie attack. ''(laughter)'' We focused on a couple of things where I think they went profoundly wrong. So, first, one thing they did, is they defended themselves by saying "Well we're not saying acupuncture works, we're saying that referring to an acupuncturist works."<br />
<br />
R: What?<br />
<br />
E: Distinction? No difference?<br />
<br />
S: What they're do . . . that's one way to sell placebo effects. Right? They're saying that, well, because if you get referred to an acupuncturist, you feel like you have a benefit. Even if it's sham or real acupuncture, it doesn't matter. The referral to an acupuncturist is effective. But you could say that about anything that doesn't work. You could say referral to a hypnotherapist makes people feel better, even though hypnotherapy for whatever specific indication that you ''[unintelligible]'' doesn't work.<br />
<br />
B: A referral to a bloodletter works.<br />
<br />
S: The homeopaths made the same argument. They wrote an article a couple of years ago saying, homeopathic remedies don't work but referral to a homeopath works. That's just, it's a way of trying to package the placebo effect.<br />
<br />
J: It's intellectually insulting. Really. It's like putting a wrapper around bullshit and saying this is not a bullshit sandwich because there's a very think foil wrapper around it. But as soon as you bite into it, there's shit in your mouth.<br />
<br />
B: The shit hoagie. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's a fecal taco. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: It's a crap trap!<br />
<br />
B: It's an unfossilized copralite sandwich.<br />
<br />
S: Are we done? So<br />
<br />
R: I think we did it, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. We didn't miss any crap humor.<br />
<br />
R: I'm pretty sure we got them all.<br />
<br />
S: So here's the thing.<br />
<br />
E: Turd burger.<br />
<br />
R: Turd burger!<br />
<br />
J: Thank you!<br />
<br />
S: Turd burger. Very good, Evan. The acupuncturists are desperately trying to say that the placebo effect's real, real and, remember all this real and fake acupuncture both work. The point that they're missing is that that comparison between no intervention and any of the forms of acupuncture: sham, placebo or real acupuncture; that comparison is unblended. And therefore, it's unreliable. We cannot make conclusions based upon that. Because it's subject to all of the bias and illusion and statistical effects and everything that gets mixed in with the measured placebo response in a clinical trial. So, I liken this n-rays. N-rays are there when you have an unblended observation and then as soon as you put in proper scientific blinding, the phenomenon vanishes.<br />
<br />
E: So does dowsing, right? You know where everything is when you're dowsing, yeah, a hundred percent accuracy. Now blind it. Random chance.<br />
<br />
S: Exactly. Phenomena that vanish when you properly blind the observation are not frickin' real. They're not real. That's how things that are fake behave. When you blind the observation they completely go away. And that's what all the acupuncture literature shows when you<br />
<br />
B: But they can still be helpful.<br />
<br />
S: When you blind the comparison for needle position for insertion of needles, they have no effect. Now, the vast majority of reviews say that there is no difference between sham and real acupuncture. A couple like theirs say that there is a small effect. And here's the other point of contention. So I wrote that the tiny clinically insignificant effect that they are claiming that they found is indistinguishable from no effect at all. That it overlaps with zero effect. And Vickers, he tried to address that by saying that, well, there are ways of calculating statistical significance and whether or not the competence interval overlaps with zero. So he completely missed my point, which I then spelled out in great detail in my follow-up blogpost about it. That is, we're talking about two entirely different things. He's talking about statistical significance. I'm talking about bias, systematic bias. Statistical significance does not address systematic bias, because it's ''systematic.'' It introduces a measurable difference in the outcome because there's some bias towards a positive result, which we know exists. And I gave examples of it, so even he, if you were really paying attention, he should have known what I was talking about. I gave specific examples of it, like the authors that published a study on the researchers' degree of freedom and they specifically applied it to Bem's ESP research. They showed that even with a zero effect, there's no real effect, you can generate a false, statistically false, positive outcome by just manipulating certain variables like how many data points you collect and what statistical analysis you use, things like that. So, the point is, these tiny effect sizes are not reliable because the documented, known sources of systematic bias would show a small statistically significant effect. This is why p values and statistical significance is insufficient. This is also why we advocate a Bayesian approach where you start with a prior probability and then you calculate how much the data changes the prior probability, as opposed to just statistical significance. This is why statistical significance fails. This is why evidence-based medicine fails when you apply it to unlikely things, like acupuncture. This is exactly why we need science-based medicine. A proper science-based medicine approach to this data shows it's implausible to begin with, and you don't have the kind of evidence that is necessary to significantly move us from "it probably doesn't work." Which would need, what we would need is, not only a statistical significant effect size, but a clinically significant effect size that's reproducible and stands up to proper blinding. We don't have that with acupuncture. You could take everything I just said and apply it to ESP research, and we haven't done that. This is exactly the same story with ESP research. Right? It's, they don't have those same, those things at the same time. They don't have a statistical significant and a large enough effect size that we know it's greater than just the bias and systematic noise that exists in research in general. And that's why they don't hold up to replication. One more point, one last point. I don't like meta-analysis. I know some people do it really well. I know that Edzard Ernst has made a career out of doing excellent meta-analysis, systematic reviews. That's why when he does it of alternative medicine they're negative. But there are approaches that are better because the meta-analysis is still subject to the garbage in-garbage out problem. There is a, you could do what's called a "best evidence" analysis where you look at the quality of the evidence and how that relates to the outcome. And what you do, what you see with homeopathy or acupuncture or any of these modalities, when you do that kind of analysis, is that there's an inverse relationship. The better the study, the smaller the effect size, and the best studies are negative. Or you get down to effect sizes that are clinically insignificant and that are totally in the noise of the base line of bias that exists in clinical research. Acupuncture is not real. But Vickers dug his heels in, didn't really understand or address our criticism and just made this whiney completely unfair smear campaign against his critics. It really was very unseemly.<br />
<br />
J: You know, another key thing here, Steve. There's two things I can pull out of this. The first one is that they truly don't understand science and they're being fooled by their lack of understanding. The second one is that they have skin in the game. They want to believe, and that's the thing that's fueling this. This is why, if you were to demonstrate to me that something is false that I had some skin in the game on, I would be very willing and able to very quickly admit it and move on and let it go. I don't actually like anything that much that I have to completely blind myself to reality, but<br />
<br />
S: I don't know how much all that is true in this case. I mean, maybe the homeopath, but I think it's more, 'cause I think that generally what we see with acupuncture is a lot of people involved are scientists who generally know what they're doing; they're just not skeptics. They're failing at these subtle aspects of how to interpret the literature and they're not adequately taking into account things like researcher degrees of freedom and these other sources of subtle error in the research. So that's where they fail, and it's really no longer acceptable because we are pointing it out to them in excruciating detail. So they, rather than engaging, where they start to move in the direction that you were painting, Jay, is when they dug in their heels and got really whiney.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and there actually are things that you, Jay, would need to be blinded to. I mean no matter how open-minded we think we are; no matter how open we are, we think we are, to changing our minds if we discover something, all of us have implicit biases that need to be controlled for, and that's the key bit of education that's missing. Not just the general idea of how to do science, but how easy it is for us to be fooled.<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
R: How easy our brains are tricked.<br />
<br />
J: I totally agree with you. I guess what I was saying, Rebecca, was that under the correct methodology, if something was disproved to me, something came out to be false that I recently or long-term believed, it doesn't matter. I'm capable of letting it go and not holding on for one reason or another, right, and I think that we see examples of this over and over again. You know, homeopaths and chiropractors pop into the front of my mind as people that are holding onto these dear beliefs of theirs. To the end. It doesn't matter; science is irrelevant to them. They don't care about the facts anymore.<br />
S: Yeah, but Jay, I agree with you, but there are different flavors. And you're talking about one flavor of people who don't get it right, of pseudoscientists, the true believer, if you will. I'm talking about scientists who are just not skeptics. So these guys are not aware. They haven't made a career examining ESP research. And finding out why proponents of ESP, for example, think that they have found evidence of extra-sensory perception when they haven't. And examining all the subtle ways in which they manipulate the data and their analysis and why they fail. Where they twist their logic. So these guys are falling into the skeptical traps because they're not skeptics. They don't understand the principles of science-based medicine. They're just, they're naïve. They're frankly naïve about that degree of problems, you know, the subtle problems that creep in. It's interesting the different flavors of cranks and pseudo-scientists and just legitimate scientists who get it wrong sometimes. You know, the ways in which that happens. That's what we study. That's what we are, in fact, experts in. So it was interesting that he sort of criticized all the things that are actually the reasons for why they completely failed. This might have been a good dialog. I might have learned something out of this exchange. But it's an opportunity for us to explain their failure at least, and that is a teaching moment, I guess.<br />
<br />
== Quickie With Bob <small>(44:14)</small> ==<br />
<br />
J: I would like a Quickie With Bob.<br />
<br />
B: Ooo. Thank you, Jay. I will be gentle. Welcome to this week's Quickie With Bob. An astronomer has, for the first time in the century, discovered the closest solar system to our sun. It's a meager 6.5 light years, or about 38 trillion miles away. Just around the corner, really. So we've got Alpha Centauri, which is about 4.4 light years away, Bernard's Star, six light years, and now the third closest at 6.5 light years is called WISE J104915.57-531906. I really hope they come up with a catchier name soon. So what took so long to find it if it's so close? Well, it's a binary brown dwarf star system. Brown dwarfs are very dim since they can't fuse hydrogen like real stars. They're considered sub-stellar objects, actually. They're in the zone between the lightest stars and the heaviest gas giants, the biggest being about 80 or so Jupiter masses, which is pretty huge, but even then, still not quite a star. Most would appear not brown, but magenta, to the human eye. I think we should call them "magenta dwarfs." It was discovered by Kevin Luhman, using the WISE satellite data. This has been your Quickie With Bob. I hope it was good for you, too.<br />
<br />
S: Okay, thanks, Bob. Bob, one quick question. I always am a little uneasy calling them brown dwarf stars when they're not fusing hydrogen . . .<br />
<br />
B: Well, actually, the brown dwarfs at the higher end of the spectrum can actually fuse deuterium and possibly lithium. So yeah, they're doing a little bit of fusion.<br />
<br />
S: At the high end, but not all of them. Some of them are not fusing anything.<br />
<br />
B: Not all of them, right, and it's still controversial, you know, where the demarcation is for these types of things.<br />
<br />
S: Shouldn't they, aren't they just really big planets? Or give them their own designation. I think fusing<br />
<br />
B: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: should be the cut-off for a star. You have to be fusing something to be a star. <br />
<br />
B: Right. I agree. <br />
<br />
J: Then what are you, a proto-star?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, maybe a proto-star. But something. Something else, other than just a star.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, they're clearly not main sequence. They're not fusing hydrogen. But, yeah, I think that's a really good way to classify them. If you're fusing anything, deuterium, lithium, whatever, then I believe you deserve the moniker "star."<br />
<br />
S: But I'm sure astronomers can come up with some category.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, they'll figure it out.<br />
<br />
S: They figured out the difference between planet and dwarf planet, I think they can figure out the difference between<br />
<br />
B: Right<br />
<br />
S: a real star and<br />
<br />
E: It took 20 years to agree on, though.<br />
<br />
== News Items Continued==<br />
=== Live to 150 <small>(46:46)</small>===<br />
* [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2291254/New-drug-developed-using-compound-red-wine-help-humans-live-150.html New drug being developed using compound found in red wine 'could help humans live until they are 150']<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(54:44)</small>==<br />
* http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45351.0.html<br />
* Answer to last week: Yvan<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(58:08)</small> ==<br />
[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-03/wkh-nii031113.php Item number one]. A new study finds that those infected with HIV have no increase in mortality if they are well controlled on medication.<br />
[http://www.utmb.edu/newsroom/article8352.aspx Item number two]. Recently published research finds that screening colonoscopy did not increase survival.<br />
And [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130311173907.htm item number three]. Engineers have built a self-healing integrated-circuit chip able to repair itself and resume function even after significant damage.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:11:26)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Our inner weighing of evidence is not a careful mathematical calculation resulting in a probabilistic estimate of truth, but more like a whirlpool blending of the objective and the personal. The result is a set of beliefs - both conscious and unconscious - that guide us in interpreting all the events of our lives.</blockquote><br />
Leonard Mlodinow<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS 2013 <small>(1:12:42)</small> ===<br />
* April 5th-7th 2013<br />
<br />
=== Rich Binder's Artwork <small>(1:13:05)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_400&diff=7031SGU Episode 4002013-07-27T04:05:15Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeNum = 400<br />
|episodeDate = 16<sup>th</sup> March 2012<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Fossil_diatome.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-16.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45352.0.html<br />
|qowText = Our inner weighing of evidence is not a careful mathematical calculation resulting in a probabilistic estimate of truth, but more like a whirlpool blending of the objective and the personal. The result is a set of beliefs - both conscious and unconscious - that guide us in interpreting all the events of our lives.<br />
|qowAuthor = {{w|Leonard Mlodinow}}<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: This is Rogue Leader, checking in from Sierra-Golf-Uniform Mission Control. I need a news item status report, please identify.<br />
<br />
E: Echo Three to Echo Seven. Han, old buddy, do you read me? Uhhh, I mean, Steve, this is Rogue Four, copy?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, Rogue... Five? here, I guess? I don't&mdash;I don't know, I'm here. Why do we have to talk like this, Steve? Steve?<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: This is Rogue Leader, Rogue Five. Call me Rogue Leader. Can you please identify? That means use your code name. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I'm refusing your stupid order. Over.<br />
<br />
B: This is Rogue Mandelbrot. Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue Mandelbrot, I don't recognize your callsign. Use your issued designation. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
B: ''(exhales, indignant)'' This is Rogue Two. If any of the other Rogues want to call me Rogue Mandelbrot, feel free; it's much cooler than friggin' Rogue Two.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue One, come in, Rogue One. Do you copy? Over. Has anyone talked to Rogue One recently? &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: You mean Jay, right? Is Rogue One Jay? We have names already, Steve. I seriously do not understand this.<br />
<br />
J: This is Rogue One. I copy. I'm at 42,000 feet coming in over San Diego.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue One, are you go for a news item? &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
J: Roger that, Rogue Leader. I'm covering the death of Duane Gish. Over.<br />
<br />
B: Over what, his dead body?<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Cut the unnecessary chatter on this frequency, Rogue Two. What is your news item? Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
B: I'm talking about carbon nanotubes and solar panels and new battery technology.<br />
<br />
E: Are they charging those new batteries with solar panels made out of carbon nanotubes? How cool!<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative, Rogue Two. No one wants to hear about any news items on those topics from us ever again.&lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Rogue Two should push that idea out the airlock. Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue Four, will you give me a news item status update, please? &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
E: Uhhh. Roger that. I've got plants talking to animals.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative on that one, Rogue Four. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
E: I've got latest paranormal belief statistics from the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative too.<br />
<br />
E: I've got bee venom killing the HIV.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Mmmm, nope. Over.<br />
<br />
E: Uhhh, 3D printing replaces 75% of a man's skull.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative on that one, Rogue Four.<br />
<br />
E: Uhhh. ''(exhales)'' How about people can live to be 150 years old?<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a go on that last one, Rogue Four. &lt;beep&gt; Rogue Five, I still need a status report on your news items. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I wanna talk about a sloth that got its makeup done. Uhhh, on a TV show. It's great.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: A sloth on a TV show. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, it's like&mdash;it's a sloth that they brought in from the zoo, and they put it in a makeup chair and they put makeup on it. That's what I'm gonna talk about.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Maybe we'll put that on the back burner there, Rogue Five. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
J: Rogue One to Rogue Leader, come in.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue Leader here. Go ahead, Rogue One. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
J: Permission to fly my ship into Rogue Two. Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative, Rogue One. Cut the shit. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: This is overdone. Over.<br />
<br />
E: ''(As Sean Connery)'' I'll take Rogue Four for a thousand. Over.<br />
<br />
J: ''Oh yeah''? Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: We are ready to go with Mission 400. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
''(rocket launching)''<br />
<br />
''(theme music)''<br />
<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(6:54)</small> ==<br />
* March 16, 1912: Historical badass Captain Lawrence Oates sacrifices himself for Scott's Terra Nova Expedition in the most badass way possible.<br />
<br />
S: Well, we do have a great show for you, our number 400. We're gonna start, as we usually do, with This Day in Skepticism. Rebecca.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Alright, let's set the stage, you guys. It's early 1912. You are part of the Terra Nova Expedition to the South Pole, an effort led by Robert Falcon Scott.<br />
<br />
S: Wait, wait. I thought Terra Nova went back in time to the time of the dinosaurs.<br />
<br />
R: No, that was just a terrible short-lived TV show.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, that's right.<br />
<br />
R: Is that still on?<br />
<br />
B: No.<br />
<br />
R: No. Can't be. Yeah, okay. So, you arrived at the South Pole in December of 1911, only to find that the Norwegians beat you to it by a solid month. So you turned around and you march back, only to find horrific weather, scurvy, other illnesses, injuries and diminishing food supplies. And come March, one person is already dead, and if the rest don't make it to safety soon, everybody's going to die.<br />
<br />
S: And that's when The Thing attacked, right? 'Cause they already killed the Norwegians. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, yeah. That, I think, did happen in the recent Thing adaptation, but I'm not positive, because much like everyone else, I didn't watch it.<br />
<br />
B: I don't know what it is, but it's weird<br />
<br />
E: ''unintelligible)'' – the rest of the world, nobody saw it.<br />
<br />
R: So, Captain Lawrence Oates, who was on the team to handle the ponies, had become weak and ill and frostbitten, and he told everybody else "Go on without me." And they refused.<br />
<br />
E: They said "Alright."<br />
<br />
R: So on the morning of March 16, 1912, Oates got up and walked out the tent, never to be seen again. And before he left, he said "I'm just going outside and may be some time." Thereby giving English folks for the following century the best possible thing to say when going out for milk during a particularly bad rainstorm. So his sacrifice was awesome, but ultimately all for naught, since everyone else in the party died twenty miles later. But it was still pretty badass.<br />
<br />
S: So, how do they know he said that if everyone else died?<br />
<br />
R: They kept diaries. You dummy.<br />
<br />
S: They wrote that down, before they…?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and in fact, according to Oates's diary, he loathed Scott.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I remember reading that.<br />
<br />
R: Despite his sacrifice.<br />
<br />
E: He mother-fracked him up and--<br />
<br />
S: Although, he also said at one point that, maybe I'm just in a bad mood because I'm in friggin' Antarctica.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Maybe it's the frostbite talking. ''(laughter)'' But I feel like the person leading us is incompetent.<br />
<br />
E: Maybe it's the slow embrace of death talking here. ''(laughter)'' This suuuccckks!<br />
<br />
R: I think you could forgive him for being a little cranky.<br />
<br />
S: Worst expedition ever.<br />
<br />
R: It really was, like, oh, can you imagine, you know, embarking on this grand expedition that will very likely cost you your life and you make it. You make it to the South Pole, only to find out that some Norwegians beat you there. Ouch! And then dying on the way back. I mean, that part sucked, too.<br />
<br />
J: Right before the guy dies, he's like, this really sucks! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: But they had that exploration spirit.<br />
<br />
R: They did.<br />
<br />
S: That excelsior spirit.<br />
<br />
B: Excelsior!<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that<br />
<br />
R: For whatever's that worth, which is exactly nothing.<br />
<br />
S: So they got that going for them.<br />
<br />
B: Which is nice.<br />
<br />
S: Which is nice. <br />
<br />
E: That's a nice footnote.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Meteorite Fossils <small>(10:23)</small>===<br />
[http://phys.org/news/2013-03-astrobiologists-meteorite-space-algae.html Astrobiologists claim meteorite carried space algae]<br />
<br />
S: Bob, on a much happier note, though, you're gonna tell us about life on meteorites. Maybe even alien life, or maybe not.<br />
<br />
B: So here's the news story. The first nanosecond you read it, you're thinking, holy crap, I mean, is this, could this be possibly true? How awesome would that be? Some of the titles were: Astrobiologists find ancient fossils in fireball fragments; another one was: Astrobiologists claims meteorite carried space algae. And, but then you think, well, if, really, if that were true, right, that would be the news item of the century, at least, if not the millennium. And people, everyone would be talking about it. It'd be all over the internet, which it wasn't. So, you know, I'm thinking, well, what the hell is really going on here, 'cause I'm used to these news items that seem pretty awesome but clearly aren't. But that ''is'' the claim that's being made by scientists at Cardiff University in the U.K., and it all started with this fireball that blew up over a Sri Lankan province called Polonnaruwa on December 29, 2012. I didn't even hear about that one. I looked at some of the police reports that came out of that. People were claiming that they were burned by meteorites and that they were, there were fumes; these weird fumes that even caused someone to pass out, apparently, and had to be taken to the hospital. And right there, that's gotta raise some skeptical eyebrows because<br />
<br />
S: Because ''(unintelliglble)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, meteors generally are not hot. ''(laughter)'' They're travelling in space and they're close to absolute zero, so a brief little journey, fiery journey through the atmosphere isn't gonna make that much of a difference, and it conducts heat very well<br />
<br />
R: Yeah you definitely need to preheat those first. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Right. By the time you get there, they are not hot, they are generally pretty cold. And the fumes, the whole thing with the fumes is silly. I just think of these weird science fiction movies from like the '50s and the '60s where a meteor hits and they're hot and they've got these weird alien fumes coming out. Just like, just those two things right there, whoa, what's going on here? So what happened was they found, allegedly, they found 628 of these little meteorite fragments that allegedly came from this meteor, and they sent it off to Cardiff University. And the scientists there were studying it. They used electron—<br />
<br />
R: That's where Dr. Who is. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: That's right.<br />
<br />
S: He's called "The Doctor." He's not actually called Dr. Who. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Thank you for stopping that flood of emails.<br />
<br />
B: We'll still get 'im. So, they're looking at these little bits of meteorite and they find fossils of algae deep inside. Specifically, they were diatoms. I think that's how that's pronounced.<br />
<br />
S: Diatoms? [long o]<br />
<br />
B: Diatoms? Really? Specifically, these are single-celled plantlife. All over the planet. The cell walls specifically for these are made of silica, so it's kind of interesting. So what came from this was the declaration by these scientists that life on earth must have had some extraterrestrial origins, so-called panspermia. And, I think that seemed a little bit, you know, jumping the gun a little bit. But the science fails here are pretty, pretty big. There's so many red flags. And signs that, yet again, it's just way too premature to go to public with something like this. I keep thinking of cold fusion and other similar things where these guys just, they just like totally jump the gun and did not do their due diligence.<br />
<br />
S: Two things, Bob. Two things. First of all, I confirmed it is diatoms [long o], thank you.<br />
<br />
B: Okay. <br />
<br />
S: This is worse than being premature. This is bad science. These guys did a crappy job. <br />
<br />
B: Exactly, and now I'll go . . .; I'll explain why it was actually, not only premature, very bad science. One of the key things they should have done, but maybe one of the first things they should have done, is to show that these things came from a meteorite. Without a shadow of a doubt, or as conclusively as can be done. They didn't even really even do that, let alone show that it came from the one from Sri Lanka. Now I think that they looked at over 600 and only three of them did they say came from a carbonaceous chondrite, which is a type of meteorite, but in the opinion of many, they didn't even do that to a sufficient degree. So that, that was key. You have to show like, hey, this is from a meteorite because these diatoms are everywhere. They're all over. They're all over the place. You can't just find them, find these fossils and say "looks like it came from a meteorite. So therefore, panspermia." Blah, blah. The other big thing that they totally blew was the whole concept of contamination, which is a huge, huge problem. And they did not seem to take that seriously enough at all. They were saying that the fossils inside were too deep inside the rocky fragments. And, but the thing is, that doesn't matter. If they even just consulted somebody who's familiar with this stuff, they'd say that doesn't matter. The tiniest little crevice or crack these guys can get into. You could crack it open and find something in the very, very middle of it, but it doesn't matter 'cause they could still get in there. It doesn't mean that it's ancient and been accreting around these fossils for a millennium and thousands of millions of years. So related to that, they didn't consult with the experts in the relevant fields. Bring in a meteor expert. If you're gonna convince the world that you found life from another planet, algae, no less, similar to Earth's algae, you've gotta cross all your t's and dot all you I's. Bring in some experts; consult with outside labs. Don't do this all on your own because you just look really silly, especially when, you know, the overwhelming probability that people are just gonna say "no, you're just way off and here's why. 1-2-3-4."<br />
<br />
S: Bob, how'd they get this published in a peer-reviewed journal?<br />
<br />
B: Ah, there you go. I call this section the "Journal of Doubt." They published it in the Journal of Cosmology. I mean, we've mentioned this before. It's not a respected journal. They're known to have very, very loose submission guidelines. <br />
<br />
S: It's a rag.<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely. They published a paper in 2009 about the meteor with a fossil-like cyanobacteria in it. I mean, this is like the same journal. And I think the same people that actually trying to push this stuff. So, there, right there, another huge, huge red flag. Don't go to the Journal of Cosmology. Sounds kind of authoritative, maybe. But if you know anything about it, it's not. Also, another interesting point that should be considered I think is one of the co-authors, Chandra Wickramasinghe, was the first guy to actually propose, that I'm aware of, to propose this whole idea of panspermia, back in 1981, and from what I could gather, a lot of skeptics claim that this guy is somewhat fanatical about this. I mean, alright, it's your idea, of course it's gonna be your pet idea, and very protective of it, but apparently this guy's really got some blinders on when it comes to this, and he often, or has been shown in the past, to ignore evidence that's contradictory. Which is just really human nature, but, and this is what science and critical thinking are designed to protect against. When you insulate yourself from the process and procedures of real science, you run the risk of being laughed at sometimes, and having people call it tabloid science because you just have not done your homework. This has happened before with this guy, and with this Journal. But a lot of people, I wonder if a lot of people are thinking that we've been invaded by algae. So I'll close with my favorite title from Red Orbit. It was "Algae From Outer Space? It's Probably Just Bad Science." Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: Probably.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. Prophetic.<br />
<br />
R: Thank god, 'cause it'd be like Day of the Triffids but more boring. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: Guys, when bad science like this comes out, to me it smacks of people wanting to believe in something. There's a lot of conclusions that they could have jumped to that weren't so crazy or so wonderful, for lacking a better way to describe it. 'Cause it is pretty wonderful and amazing.<br />
<br />
S: Well I mean, I think it's reasonable to assume that that's the base line. Every scientist wants their theory to be true; wants to find something interesting and important, and we just assume that that's the case, that everyone's biased. But the point is to design rigorous studies so that you minimize the effects of that bias and you rule it out as much as possible. And that's when, if you haven't done that, of course your bias comes through.<br />
<br />
B: That's what science is designed to protect against.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Duane Gish Dies <small>(18:46)</small>===<br />
* [http://ncse.com/news/2013/03/duane-t-gish-dies-0014753 Duane T. Gish dies]<br />
<br />
S: Speaking of motivated reasoning, Jay, you're gonna tell us about Duane Gish.<br />
<br />
R: Can I just say that somebody on Twitter said that I was literally Hitler for constantly pointing out when Steve makes a bad segue? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Literally Hitler! Awesome.<br />
<br />
E: Really?<br />
<br />
R: Well, they were kidding.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, okay.<br />
<br />
J: The young Earth creationist Duane T. Gish, he died on March 5, 2013. He was 92 years old.<br />
<br />
B: Whoa!<br />
<br />
J: He had a good run. <br />
<br />
R: He galloped into heaven.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right? You coined that phrase, Rebecca, I read that.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. So I thought I'd just throw it out there again.<br />
<br />
J: He was born on February 17, 1921 in White City, Kansas. He served in the U.S. Army from 1940 to '46, in the Pacific theater of operations. He became a captain, which I didn't know. In 1949 he earned a bachelor's of science in chemistry from the University of California and in '53 he went on to get his Ph.D. from Berkeley. He spent the next fourteen or so years as a researcher until 1971, when, what guys? He became the vice president of . . .?<br />
<br />
S: The ICR, the Institute for Creation Research.<br />
<br />
J: That's right. Which was founded only a year earlier by Henry Morris. Gish retired in 2005. He still, of course, kept busy. He was still writing. He was a Methodist from the age of ten, and he later became a fundamentalist Baptist. He wrote a lot of books. He wrote, the one he was most famous for was titled ''Evolution, the fossils say no!'' That was published in 1978.<br />
<br />
S: I actually have and read most of that book.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, you did?<br />
<br />
R: Masochist.<br />
<br />
E: Did you lose a bet?<br />
<br />
S: No. Gotta read what the other side's saying, too. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: That's true. This was in the time before the internet, I know.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, back in the early '80s, when I read it.<br />
<br />
J; In 1995, he also wrote ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: He's not listening very well.<br />
<br />
J: It seems to me that's his "Oh, yeah?" book, you know. But, of course, guys, and everyone listening to this show, or at least most of the people, know that he is best known for the mighty Gish Gallop, which he, which is described as his technique that he used during a debate to quickly fire off tons of misinformation that can't possibly be properly discussed by the person that he's arguing against. Right? So he brings up one idea that would take someone maybe ten or fifteen minutes to go over and to disprove or discredit, but he'll come up, he'll spill out 30 or 40 of these things in a series, in a very short amount of time. Guys. I didn't know this, and I'm surprised that I didn't. Did you know, do you know who coined the phrase "Gish Gallop"?<br />
<br />
R: Genie Scott.<br />
<br />
J: Genie Scott.<br />
<br />
B: How awesome!<br />
<br />
R: Genie mother f—Scott.<br />
<br />
J: She is so awesome.<br />
<br />
B: She coined that?<br />
<br />
J: This is her quote: "It's where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn't a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate."<br />
<br />
R; A prayer.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, Steve, remember when we had Dr. Michael Park come and lecture for the New England Skeptics Society and he told us about his experience in debating Duane Gish?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I remember that very well. Yeah, Gish also debated Michael Shermer. I actually listened to that entire debate on tape. And he debated Massimo Pigliucci five times.<br />
<br />
J: Yup.<br />
<br />
B: Whoa.<br />
<br />
J: That's right.<br />
<br />
E: Five!<br />
<br />
R: I know he debated Shermer a bunch of times, too, didn't he? I thought he was one of those<br />
<br />
S: Maybe.<br />
<br />
R: like Hitchens-DeSousa sort of things, fool around.<br />
<br />
J: Gish claimed that he entered into more than 300 debates during his career, which is quite a bit. I wouldn't have been surprised, though, if he said 800, because it just always seemed like he was violently debating someone. You know, overall, I classify him as just someone that was phenomenally misguided that had a belief that he was trying to qualify for his entire life and could never admit to himself that the science does disprove it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but you know, he was intellectually very dishonest. Because he would be factually refuted; he would say things that were factually wrong. Those factual errors would be pointed out to him in no uncertain terms and the next night he'd give the same talk and repeat the same error that he was just corrected. He just didn't care about the facts.<br />
<br />
R: He obviously wasn't stupid. So, I mean, there's really only one option left. If you're not stupid but you're continuing to repeat the same false information over and over and over again, then you're just dishonest.<br />
<br />
E: He would have throngs of followers travel around in buses from one lecture to another, and they would help pack the auditoriums and have his own cheering and rooting sections.<br />
<br />
B: Wow, isn't that nice.<br />
<br />
R: Groupies.<br />
<br />
E: With bibles in hand, sort of, cheering him on as he would go. So it always maybe seemed like that at least half of the audience, maybe, is in sync with his points of view on these matters. But it was staged, they were essentially shills.<br />
<br />
S: And he made popular, I don't know if he originated a lot of these arguments, but he made popular a lot of common creationist arguments like evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.<br />
<br />
B: Awwggh.<br />
<br />
S: Which we've spoken about: it doesn't. Or that archaeopteryx was just bird. Just one of the forms that birds take. With teeth and tails.<br />
<br />
''(more than one person speaking – unintelligible)'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: It flew.<br />
<br />
J: Those are good examples of a comment that's so easy to hear an even believe. And it's also a comment that would take quite a bit of information to show why it's wrong. And he spewed these things out during debates and was blowing the hair back of the people that were trying to respond to him and respond to the things that he was saying. They just couldn't keep up with the guy.<br />
<br />
B: If he showed one, you know, one good thing that came out of that was he really proved that these types of debates are horrible forms. This is not the kind of thing you want to get into unless it's set up properly and focused and designed not to allow people to go off on tangents and do the Gish Gallop.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, he made us, he made skeptics get better at debating and better at choosing the venue and the format of confrontations like that.<br />
<br />
B: He evolved our approach.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: That's probably the nicest thing you could say about him.<br />
<br />
S: Donald Prothero wrote about it and he debated Gish as well, and wrote about it on Skeptic Blog, if you want a first-hand account. He talks a lot about how intellectually dishonest he was, as well. So, no more Duane Gish, but I can almost guarantee you we have not seen the end of the Gish Gallop. Imagine, that that's your legacy. That's his legacy, the Gish Gallop.<br />
<br />
J: Well, to skeptics and to scientists.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Meta-Analysis <small>(26:04)</small>===<br />
* [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/revenge-of-the-woo/ Revenge of the Woo]<br />
* [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/another-acupuncture-meta-analysis-low-back-pain/ Another Acupuncture Meta-Analysis – Low Back Pain]<br />
<br />
S: This week I wrote a couple of articles about acupuncture. Acupuncture is just the alternative medicine that won't go away. I think it, from my perspective I think it's the one that has managed to gain the most respectability among the mainstream scientific community.<br />
<br />
E: More than chiropractic?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I think so. I think even, perhaps, more than chiropractic. Although that's probably, they're probably close. In terms of, you ask the average physician, what do you think about acupuncture, a lot of them say, they probably don't think about it too much, but they think that, oh, yeah, you know, there's some evidence to show that it works. And physicians are increasingly referring patients with pain for acupuncture. The biggest scandal, in my opinion, about a year ago, I'm pretty sure I talked about this on the show, was that the American Headache Society actually now recommends, or lists, acupuncture as a recommended treatment for migraines. And even when the evidence they cite to support that recommendation shows quite clearly that it doesn't work. Just absolutely astonishing. So about a year ago, a paper came out which was a meta-analysis of acupuncture for various conditions, and the authors who did the meta-analysis concluded that acupuncture is effective and that it was reasonable to refer to an acupuncturist. Even when their own data showed that there was no clinically significant difference between acupuncture interventions and sham acupuncture. They thought that there was a small but statistically significant difference. That's what they concluded. And, of course, we roundly criticized the paper. I focused on their interpretation. David Gorski had a lot of questions about the methods that were not really carefully spelled out in terms of the details of the analysis. But even if you grant them the analysis that there was a small statistically significant difference between sham acupuncture, meaning either to stick needles in the wrong place or you're not sticking it to depth, or eliciting the chi, you know that sensation that is supposed to indicate that you're manipulating the chi, or the chi, or whatever you're supposed to be doing, versus quote unquote real acupuncture. Multiple reviews have shown that essentially there's no difference between the two, sham acupuncture and placebo acupuncture and true acupuncture all have about the same effect. A couple of reviews now, including this one, the lead author was Vickers, so this is the Vickers acupuncture meta-analysis, they found a small but statistically significant difference. My point at the time was the difference between the sham and the true acupuncture was not clinically significant. And it simply isn't, by any analysis. It was such a tiny effect. Therefore, when you have such a small effect, and we've said this before in multiple contexts, that it's essentially within the noise of doing clinical trials. The clinical trials are not rigorous enough that you can be that precise that a tiny difference you could say is a real physiological difference as opposed to just noise in the data. Well, the authors, Vickers et al., the authors actually published a response to the blogposts that were written criticizing their original article in the published, in the peer-reviewed literature. They actually got a response published. Which is a first as far as I can tell. A peer-reviewed, published response to our blogpost. They specifically referenced my blogpost about them in Science-Based Medicine, David Gorski's and a number of others. It was really, it was really very whiney. ''(laughter)'' It was unbelievable, I mean.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeahh?<br />
<br />
S: So, this is what they wrote in their article:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Although there was little argument about the findings in the scientific press, a controversy played out in blogposts and the lay press. This controversy was characterized by ad hominem remarks, anonymous criticism, phony expertise and the use of opinion to contradict data predominantly by self-proclaimed skeptics. There was a near-complete absence of substantive scientific critique…</blockquote><br />
<br />
R: In fairness, you are self-proclaimed.<br />
<br />
S: That's the only thing they got right, was that we are self-proclaimed. That is complete hogwash, that entire characterization. And they cherry-picked the responses. They were characterized, first of all, by ad hominem remarks. Some of us pointed out the fact that one of the authors was a homeopath. I'm sorry, but that's a legitimate piece of information.<br />
<br />
E: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
S: If you're evaluating a scientific paper, the fact that somebody is a blatant pseudoscientist is relevant. They specifically referenced me to support their assertion that they were characterized by ad hominem remarks because I said that their discussion showed a pro- acupuncture bias. That was their example.<br />
<br />
R: That's an ad hom?<br />
<br />
S: That was an ad hom.<br />
<br />
B: Whoa.<br />
<br />
S: I was being charitable by saying that it reflected bias, because it was blatant nonsense, is what their conclusion was.<br />
<br />
J: But that's an ad hom?<br />
<br />
E: In their own minds.<br />
<br />
S: It's just whiney. The anonymous criticism, most of it was not anonymous. All of us at some point in time put our real name to our criticisms. But, you know, a couple of medical blogs, like Orac, you know, they blog anonymously so they can get snarky and have a little bit of protection. But to say that it's characterized by anonymity is ridiculous. Phony expertise, that's an interesting one. So they claim that because we are not published in, we haven't published acupuncture research. Yes. They miss what our actual expertise is, we are experts in the difference between science and pseudoscience. And it's that expertise that they lack that precisely is what bit them in the heinie and why they utterly failed in their original article.<br />
<br />
B: Rebecca, did he say "heinie"?<br />
<br />
E: Heinie.<br />
<br />
R: I think he said "heinie."<br />
<br />
E: That sounds like an ad hominem to me.<br />
<br />
R: Sounds like something a six-year-old would say.<br />
<br />
J: Heinie-ho.<br />
<br />
S: It's an ad heinie attack. ''(laughter)'' We focused on a couple of things where I think they went profoundly wrong. So, first, one thing they did, is they defended themselves by saying "Well we're not saying acupuncture works, we're saying that referring to an acupuncturist works."<br />
<br />
R: What?<br />
<br />
E: Distinction? No difference?<br />
<br />
S: What they're do . . . that's one way to sell placebo effects. Right? They're saying that, well, because if you get referred to an acupuncturist, you feel like you have a benefit. Even if it's sham or real acupuncture, it doesn't matter. The referral to an acupuncturist is effective. But you could say that about anything that doesn't work. You could say referral to a hypnotherapist makes people feel better, even though hypnotherapy for whatever specific indication that you ''[unintelligible]'' doesn't work.<br />
<br />
B: A referral to a bloodletter works.<br />
<br />
S: The homeopaths made the same argument. They wrote an article a couple of years ago saying, homeopathic remedies don't work but referral to a homeopath works. That's just, it's a way of trying to package the placebo effect.<br />
<br />
J: It's intellectually insulting. Really. It's like putting a wrapper around bullshit and saying this is not a bullshit sandwich because there's a very think foil wrapper around it. But as soon as you bite into it, there's shit in your mouth.<br />
<br />
B: The shit hoagie. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's a fecal taco. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: It's a crap trap!<br />
<br />
B: It's an unfossilized copralite sandwich.<br />
<br />
S: Are we done? So<br />
<br />
R: I think we did it, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. We didn't miss any crap humor.<br />
<br />
R: I'm pretty sure we got them all.<br />
<br />
S: So here's the thing.<br />
<br />
E: Turd burger.<br />
<br />
R: Turd burger!<br />
<br />
J: Thank you!<br />
<br />
S: Turd burger. Very good, Evan. The acupuncturists are desperately trying to say that the placebo effect's real, real and, remember all this real and fake acupuncture both work. The point that they're missing is that that comparison between no intervention and any of the forms of acupuncture: sham, placebo or real acupuncture; that comparison is unblended. And therefore, it's unreliable. We cannot make conclusions based upon that. Because it's subject to all of the bias and illusion and statistical effects and everything that gets mixed in with the measured placebo response in a clinical trial. So, I liken this n-rays. N-rays are there when you have an unblended observation and then as soon as you put in proper scientific blinding, the phenomenon vanishes.<br />
<br />
E: So does dowsing, right? You know where everything is when you're dowsing, yeah, a hundred percent accuracy. Now blind it. Random chance.<br />
<br />
S: Exactly. Phenomena that vanish when you properly blind the observation are not frickin' real. They're not real. That's how things that are fake behave. When you blind the observation they completely go away. And that's what all the acupuncture literature shows when you<br />
<br />
B: But they can still be helpful.<br />
<br />
S: When you blind the comparison for needle position for insertion of needles, they have no effect. Now, the vast majority of reviews say that there is no difference between sham and real acupuncture. A couple like theirs say that there is a small effect. And here's the other point of contention. So I wrote that the tiny clinically insignificant effect that they are claiming that they found is indistinguishable from no effect at all. That it overlaps with zero effect. And Vickers, he tried to address that by saying that, well, there are ways of calculating statistical significance and whether or not the competence interval overlaps with zero. So he completely missed my point, which I then spelled out in great detail in my follow-up blogpost about it. That is, we're talking about two entirely different things. He's talking about statistical significance. I'm talking about bias, systematic bias. Statistical significance does not address systematic bias, because it's ''systematic.'' It introduces a measurable difference in the outcome because there's some bias towards a positive result, which we know exists. And I gave examples of it, so even he, if you were really paying attention, he should have known what I was talking about. I gave specific examples of it, like the authors that published a study on the researchers' degree of freedom and they specifically applied it to Bem's ESP research. They showed that even with a zero effect, there's no real effect, you can generate a false, statistically false, positive outcome by just manipulating certain variables like how many data points you collect and what statistical analysis you use, things like that. So, the point is, these tiny effect sizes are not reliable because the documented, known sources of systematic bias would show a small statistically significant effect. This is why p values and statistical significance is insufficient. This is also why we advocate a Bayesian approach where you start with a prior probability and then you calculate how much the data changes the prior probability, as opposed to just statistical significance. This is why statistical significance fails. This is why evidence-based medicine fails when you apply it to unlikely things, like acupuncture. This is exactly why we need science-based medicine. A proper science-based medicine approach to this data shows it's implausible to begin with, and you don't have the kind of evidence that is necessary to significantly move us from "it probably doesn't work." Which would need, what we would need is, not only a statistical significant effect size, but a clinically significant effect size that's reproducible and stands up to proper blinding. We don't have that with acupuncture. You could take everything I just said and apply it to ESP research, and we haven't done that. This is exactly the same story with ESP research. Right? It's, they don't have those same, those things at the same time. They don't have a statistical significant and a large enough effect size that we know it's greater than just the bias and systematic noise that exists in research in general. And that's why they don't hold up to replication. One more point, one last point. I don't like meta-analysis. I know some people do it really well. I know that Edzard Ernst has made a career out of doing excellent meta-analysis, systematic reviews. That's why when he does it of alternative medicine they're negative. But there are approaches that are better because the meta-analysis is still subject to the garbage in-garbage out problem. There is a, you could do what's called a "best evidence" analysis where you look at the quality of the evidence and how that relates to the outcome. And what you do, what you see with homeopathy or acupuncture or any of these modalities, when you do that kind of analysis, is that there's an inverse relationship. The better the study, the smaller the effect size, and the best studies are negative. Or you get down to effect sizes that are clinically insignificant and that are totally in the noise of the base line of bias that exists in clinical research. Acupuncture is not real. But Vickers dug his heels in, didn't really understand or address our criticism and just made this whiney completely unfair smear campaign against his critics. It really was very unseemly.<br />
<br />
J: You know, another key thing here, Steve. There's two things I can pull out of this. The first one is that they truly don't understand science and they're being fooled by their lack of understanding. The second one is that they have skin in the game. They want to believe, and that's the thing that's fueling this. This is why, if you were to demonstrate to me that something is false that I had some skin in the game on, I would be very willing and able to very quickly admit it and move on and let it go. I don't actually like anything that much that I have to completely blind myself to reality, but<br />
<br />
S: I don't know how much all that is true in this case. I mean, maybe the homeopath, but I think it's more, 'cause I think that generally what we see with acupuncture is a lot of people involved are scientists who generally know what they're doing; they're just not skeptics. They're failing at these subtle aspects of how to interpret the literature and they're not adequately taking into account things like researcher degrees of freedom and these other sources of subtle error in the research. So that's where they fail, and it's really no longer acceptable because we are pointing it out to them in excruciating detail. So they, rather than engaging, where they start to move in the direction that you were painting, Jay, is when they dug in their heels and got really whiney.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and there actually are things that you, Jay, would need to be blinded to. I mean no matter how open-minded we think we are; no matter how open we are, we think we are, to changing our minds if we discover something, all of us have implicit biases that need to be controlled for, and that's the key bit of education that's missing. Not just the general idea of how to do science, but how easy it is for us to be fooled.<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
R: How easy our brains are tricked.<br />
<br />
J: I totally agree with you. I guess what I was saying, Rebecca, was that under the correct methodology, if something was disproved to me, something came out to be false that I recently or long-term believed, it doesn't matter. I'm capable of letting it go and not holding on for one reason or another, right, and I think that we see examples of this over and over again. You know, homeopaths and chiropractors pop into the front of my mind as people that are holding onto these dear beliefs of theirs. To the end. It doesn't matter; science is irrelevant to them. They don't care about the facts anymore.<br />
S: Yeah, but Jay, I agree with you, but there are different flavors. And you're talking about one flavor of people who don't get it right, of pseudoscientists, the true believer, if you will. I'm talking about scientists who are just not skeptics. So these guys are not aware. They haven't made a career examining ESP research. And finding out why proponents of ESP, for example, think that they have found evidence of extra-sensory perception when they haven't. And examining all the subtle ways in which they manipulate the data and their analysis and why they fail. Where they twist their logic. So these guys are falling into the skeptical traps because they're not skeptics. They don't understand the principles of science-based medicine. They're just, they're naïve. They're frankly naïve about that degree of problems, you know, the subtle problems that creep in. It's interesting the different flavors of cranks and pseudo-scientists and just legitimate scientists who get it wrong sometimes. You know, the ways in which that happens. That's what we study. That's what we are, in fact, experts in. So it was interesting that he sort of criticized all the things that are actually the reasons for why they completely failed. This might have been a good dialog. I might have learned something out of this exchange. But it's an opportunity for us to explain their failure at least, and that is a teaching moment, I guess.<br />
<br />
== Quicky With Bob <small>(44:14)</small> ==<br />
* Astronomer discovers closest star system to our sun<br />
<br />
== News Items Continued==<br />
=== Live to 150 <small>(46:46)</small>===<br />
* [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2291254/New-drug-developed-using-compound-red-wine-help-humans-live-150.html New drug being developed using compound found in red wine 'could help humans live until they are 150']<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(54:44)</small>==<br />
* http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45351.0.html<br />
* Answer to last week: Yvan<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(58:08)</small> ==<br />
[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-03/wkh-nii031113.php Item number one]. A new study finds that those infected with HIV have no increase in mortality if they are well controlled on medication.<br />
[http://www.utmb.edu/newsroom/article8352.aspx Item number two]. Recently published research finds that screening colonoscopy did not increase survival.<br />
And [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130311173907.htm item number three]. Engineers have built a self-healing integrated-circuit chip able to repair itself and resume function even after significant damage.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:11:26)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Our inner weighing of evidence is not a careful mathematical calculation resulting in a probabilistic estimate of truth, but more like a whirlpool blending of the objective and the personal. The result is a set of beliefs - both conscious and unconscious - that guide us in interpreting all the events of our lives.</blockquote><br />
Leonard Mlodinow<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS 2013 <small>(1:12:42)</small> ===<br />
* April 5th-7th 2013<br />
<br />
=== Rich Binder's Artwork <small>(1:13:05)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_400&diff=6933SGU Episode 4002013-07-21T21:42:38Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 400<br />
|episodeDate = 16<sup>th</sup> March 2012 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:Fossil_diatome.jpg <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = <!-- leave blank if no guest --><br />
|guest2 = <!-- leave blank if no second guest --><br />
|guest3 = <!-- leave blank if no third guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-16.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=400<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45352.0.html<br />
|qowText = Our inner weighing of evidence is not a careful mathematical calculation resulting in a probabilistic estimate of truth, but more like a whirlpool blending of the objective and the personal. The result is a set of beliefs - both conscious and unconscious - that guide us in interpreting all the events of our lives.<!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Mlodinow Leonard Mlodinow] <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: This is Rogue Leader, checking in from Sierra-Golf-Uniform Mission Control. I need a news item status report, please identify.<br />
<br />
E: Echo Three to Echo Seven. Han, old buddy, do you read me? Uhhh, I mean, Steve, this is Rogue Four, copy?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, Rogue... Five? here, I guess? I don't&mdash;I don't know, I'm here. Why do we have to talk like this, Steve? Steve?<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: This is Rogue Leader, Rogue Five. Call me Rogue Leader. Can you please identify? That means use your code name. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I'm refusing your stupid order. Over.<br />
<br />
B: This is Rogue Mandelbrot. Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue Mandelbrot, I don't recognize your callsign. Use your issued designation. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
B: ''(exhales, indignant)'' This is Rogue Two. If any of the other Rogues want to call me Rogue Mandelbrot, feel free; it's much cooler than friggin' Rogue Two.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue One, come in, Rogue One. Do you copy? Over. Has anyone talked to Rogue One recently? &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: You mean Jay, right? Is Rogue One Jay? We have names already, Steve. I seriously do not understand this.<br />
<br />
J: This is Rogue One. I copy. I'm at 42,000 feet coming in over San Diego.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue One, are you go for a news item? &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
J: Roger that, Rogue Leader. I'm covering the death of Duane Gish. Over.<br />
<br />
B: Over what, his dead body?<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Cut the unnecessary chatter on this frequency, Rogue Two. What is your news item? Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
B: I'm talking about carbon nanotubes and solar panels and new battery technology.<br />
<br />
E: Are they charging those new batteries with solar panels made out of carbon nanotubes? How cool!<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative, Rogue Two. No one wants to hear about any news items on those topics from us ever again.&lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Rogue Two should push that idea out the airlock. Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue Four, will you give me a news item status update, please? &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
E: Uhhh. Roger that. I've got plants talking to animals.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative on that one, Rogue Four. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
E: I've got latest paranormal belief statistics from the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative too.<br />
<br />
E: I've got bee venom killing the HIV.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Mmmm, nope. Over.<br />
<br />
E: Uhhh, 3D printing replaces 75% of a man's skull.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative on that one, Rogue Four.<br />
<br />
E: Uhhh. ''(exhales)'' How about people can live to be 150 years old?<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a go on that last one, Rogue Four. &lt;beep&gt; Rogue Five, I still need a status report on your news items. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I wanna talk about a sloth that got its makeup done. Uhhh, on a TV show. It's great.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: A sloth on a TV show. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, it's like&mdash;it's a sloth that they brought in from the zoo, and they put it in a makeup chair and they put makeup on it. That's what I'm gonna talk about.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Maybe we'll put that on the back burner there, Rogue Five. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
J: Rogue One to Rogue Leader, come in.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue Leader here. Go ahead, Rogue One. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
J: Permission to fly my ship into Rogue Two. Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative, Rogue One. Cut the shit. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: This is overdone. Over.<br />
<br />
E: ''(As Sean Connery)'' I'll take Rogue Four for a thousand. Over.<br />
<br />
J: ''Oh yeah''? Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: We are ready to go with Mission 400. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
''(rocket launching)''<br />
<br />
''(theme music)''<br />
<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(6:54)</small> ==<br />
* March 16, 1912: Historical badass Captain Lawrence Oates sacrifices himself for Scott's Terra Nova Expedition in the most badass way possible.<br />
<br />
S: Well, we do have a great show for you, our number 400. We're gonna start, as we usually do, with This Day in Skepticism. Rebecca.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Alright, let's set the stage, you guys. It's early 1912. You are part of the Terra Nova Expedition to the South Pole, an effort led by Robert Falcon Scott.<br />
<br />
S: Wait, wait. I thought Terra Nova went back in time to the time of the dinosaurs.<br />
<br />
R: No, that was just a terrible short-lived TV show.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, that's right.<br />
<br />
R: Is that still on?<br />
<br />
B: No.<br />
<br />
R: No. Can't be. Yeah, okay. So, you arrived at the South Pole in December of 1911, only to find that the Norwegians beat you to it by a solid month. So you turned around and you march back, only to find horrific weather, scurvy, other illnesses, injuries and diminishing food supplies. And come March, one person is already dead, and if the rest don't make it to safety soon, everybody's going to die.<br />
<br />
S: And that's when The Thing attacked, right? 'Cause they already killed the Norwegians. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, yeah. That, I think, did happen in the recent Thing adaptation, but I'm not positive, because much like everyone else, I didn't watch it.<br />
<br />
B: I don't know what it is, but it's weird<br />
<br />
E: ''unintelligible)'' – the rest of the world, nobody saw it.<br />
<br />
R: So, Captain Lawrence Oates, who was on the team to handle the ponies, had become weak and ill and frostbitten, and he told everybody else "Go on without me." And they refused.<br />
<br />
E: They said "Alright."<br />
<br />
R: So on the morning of March 16, 1912, Oates got up and walked out the tent, never to be seen again. And before he left, he said "I'm just going outside and may be some time." Thereby giving English folks for the following century the best possible thing to say when going out for milk during a particularly bad rainstorm. So his sacrifice was awesome, but ultimately all for naught, since everyone else in the party died twenty miles later. But it was still pretty badass.<br />
<br />
S: So, how do they know he said that if everyone else died?<br />
<br />
R: They kept diaries. You dummy.<br />
<br />
S: They wrote that down, before they…?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and in fact, according to Oates's diary, he loathed Scott.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I remember reading that.<br />
<br />
R: Despite his sacrifice.<br />
<br />
E: He mother-fracked him up and--<br />
<br />
S: Although, he also said at one point that, maybe I'm just in a bad mood because I'm in friggin' Antarctica.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Maybe it's the frostbite talking. ''(laughter)'' But I feel like the person leading us is incompetent.<br />
<br />
E: Maybe it's the slow embrace of death talking here. ''(laughter)'' This suuuccckks!<br />
<br />
R: I think you could forgive him for being a little cranky.<br />
<br />
S: Worst expedition ever.<br />
<br />
R: It really was, like, oh, can you imagine, you know, embarking on this grand expedition that will very likely cost you your life and you make it. You make it to the South Pole, only to find out that some Norwegians beat you there. Ouch! And then dying on the way back. I mean, that part sucked, too.<br />
<br />
J: Right before the guy dies, he's like, this really sucks! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: But they had that exploration spirit.<br />
<br />
R: They did.<br />
<br />
S: That excelsior spirit.<br />
<br />
B: Excelsior!<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that<br />
<br />
R: For whatever's that worth, which is exactly nothing.<br />
<br />
S: So they got that going for them.<br />
<br />
B: Which is nice.<br />
<br />
S: Which is nice. <br />
<br />
E: That's a nice footnote.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Meteorite Fossils <small>(10:23)</small>===<br />
[http://phys.org/news/2013-03-astrobiologists-meteorite-space-algae.html Astrobiologists claim meteorite carried space algae]<br />
<br />
S: Bob, on a much happier note, though, you're gonna tell us about life on meteorites. Maybe even alien life, or maybe not.<br />
<br />
B: So here's the news story. The first nanosecond you read it, you're thinking, holy crap, I mean, is this, could this be possibly true? How awesome would that be? Some of the titles were: Astrobiologists find ancient fossils in fireball fragments; another one was: Astrobiologists claims meteorite carried space algae. And, but then you think, well, if, really, if that were true, right, that would be the news item of the century, at least, if not the millennium. And people, everyone would be talking about it. It'd be all over the internet, which it wasn't. So, you know, I'm thinking, well, what the hell is really going on here, 'cause I'm used to these news items that seem pretty awesome but clearly aren't. But that ''is'' the claim that's being made by scientists at Cardiff University in the U.K., and it all started with this fireball that blew up over a Sri Lankan province called Polonnaruwa on December 29, 2012. I didn't even hear about that one. I looked at some of the police reports that came out of that. People were claiming that they were burned by meteorites and that they were, there were fumes; these weird fumes that even caused someone to pass out, apparently, and had to be taken to the hospital. And right there, that's gotta raise some skeptical eyebrows because<br />
<br />
S: Because ''(unintelliglble)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, meteors generally are not hot. ''(laughter)'' They're travelling in space and they're close to absolute zero, so a brief little journey, fiery journey through the atmosphere isn't gonna make that much of a difference, and it conducts heat very well<br />
<br />
R: Yeah you definitely need to preheat those first. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Right. By the time you get there, they are not hot, they are generally pretty cold. And the fumes, the whole thing with the fumes is silly. I just think of these weird science fiction movies from like the '50s and the '60s where a meteor hits and they're hot and they've got these weird alien fumes coming out. Just like, just those two things right there, whoa, what's going on here? So what happened was they found, allegedly, they found 628 of these little meteorite fragments that allegedly came from this meteor, and they sent it off to Cardiff University. And the scientists there were studying it. They used electron—<br />
<br />
R: That's where Dr. Who is. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: That's right.<br />
<br />
S: He's called "The Doctor." He's not actually called Dr. Who. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Thank you for stopping that flood of emails.<br />
<br />
B: We'll still get 'im. So, they're looking at these little bits of meteorite and they find fossils of algae deep inside. Specifically, they were diatoms. I think that's how that's pronounced.<br />
<br />
S: Diatoms? [long o]<br />
<br />
B: Diatoms? Really? Specifically, these are single-celled plantlife. All over the planet. The cell walls specifically for these are made of silica, so it's kind of interesting. So what came from this was the declaration by these scientists that life on earth must have had some extraterrestrial origins, so-called panspermia. And, I think that seemed a little bit, you know, jumping the gun a little bit. But the science fails here are pretty, pretty big. There's so many red flags. And signs that, yet again, it's just way too premature to go to public with something like this. I keep thinking of cold fusion and other similar things where these guys just, they just like totally jump the gun and did not do their due diligence.<br />
<br />
S: Two things, Bob. Two things. First of all, I confirmed it is diatoms [long o], thank you.<br />
<br />
B: Okay. <br />
<br />
S: This is worse than being premature. This is bad science. These guys did a crappy job. <br />
<br />
B: Exactly, and now I'll go . . .; I'll explain why it was actually, not only premature, very bad science. One of the key things they should have done, but maybe one of the first things they should have done, is to show that these things came from a meteorite. Without a shadow of a doubt, or as conclusively as can be done. They didn't even really even do that, let alone show that it came from the one from Sri Lanka. Now I think that they looked at over 600 and only three of them did they say came from a carbonaceous chondrite, which is a type of meteorite, but in the opinion of many, they didn't even do that to a sufficient degree. So that, that was key. You have to show like, hey, this is from a meteorite because these diatoms are everywhere. They're all over. They're all over the place. You can't just find them, find these fossils and say "looks like it came from a meteorite. So therefore, panspermia." Blah, blah. The other big thing that they totally blew was the whole concept of contamination, which is a huge, huge problem. And they did not seem to take that seriously enough at all. They were saying that the fossils inside were too deep inside the rocky fragments. And, but the thing is, that doesn't matter. If they even just consulted somebody who's familiar with this stuff, they'd say that doesn't matter. The tiniest little crevice or crack these guys can get into. You could crack it open and find something in the very, very middle of it, but it doesn't matter 'cause they could still get in there. It doesn't mean that it's ancient and been accreting around these fossils for a millennium and thousands of millions of years. So related to that, they didn't consult with the experts in the relevant fields. Bring in a meteor expert. If you're gonna convince the world that you found life from another planet, algae, no less, similar to Earth's algae, you've gotta cross all your t's and dot all you I's. Bring in some experts; consult with outside labs. Don't do this all on your own because you just look really silly, especially when, you know, the overwhelming probability that people are just gonna say "no, you're just way off and here's why. 1-2-3-4."<br />
<br />
S: Bob, how'd they get this published in a peer-reviewed journal?<br />
<br />
B: Ah, there you go. I call this section the "Journal of Doubt." They published it in the Journal of Cosmology. I mean, we've mentioned this before. It's not a respected journal. They're known to have very, very loose submission guidelines. <br />
<br />
S: It's a rag.<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely. They published a paper in 2009 about the meteor with a fossil-like cyanobacteria in it. I mean, this is like the same journal. And I think the same people that actually trying to push this stuff. So, there, right there, another huge, huge red flag. Don't go to the Journal of Cosmology. Sounds kind of authoritative, maybe. But if you know anything about it, it's not. Also, another interesting point that should be considered I think is one of the co-authors, Chandra Wickramasinghe, was the first guy to actually propose, that I'm aware of, to propose this whole idea of panspermia, back in 1981, and from what I could gather, a lot of skeptics claim that this guy is somewhat fanatical about this. I mean, alright, it's your idea, of course it's gonna be your pet idea, and very protective of it, but apparently this guy's really got some blinders on when it comes to this, and he often, or has been shown in the past, to ignore evidence that's contradictory. Which is just really human nature, but, and this is what science and critical thinking are designed to protect against. When you insulate yourself from the process and procedures of real science, you run the risk of being laughed at sometimes, and having people call it tabloid science because you just have not done your homework. This has happened before with this guy, and with this Journal. But a lot of people, I wonder if a lot of people are thinking that we've been invaded by algae. So I'll close with my favorite title from Red Orbit. It was "Algae From Outer Space? It's Probably Just Bad Science." Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: Probably.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. Prophetic.<br />
<br />
R: Thank god, 'cause it'd be like Day of the Triffids but more boring. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: Guys, when bad science like this comes out, to me it smacks of people wanting to believe in something. There's a lot of conclusions that they could have jumped to that weren't so crazy or so wonderful, for lacking a better way to describe it. 'Cause it is pretty wonderful and amazing.<br />
<br />
S: Well I mean, I think it's reasonable to assume that that's the base line. Every scientist wants their theory to be true; wants to find something interesting and important, and we just assume that that's the case, that everyone's biased. But the point is to design rigorous studies so that you minimize the effects of that bias and you rule it out as much as possible. And that's when, if you haven't done that, of course your bias comes through.<br />
<br />
B: That's what science is designed to protect against.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Duane Gish Dies <small>(18:46)</small>===<br />
* [http://ncse.com/news/2013/03/duane-t-gish-dies-0014753 Duane T. Gish dies]<br />
<br />
S: Speaking of motivated reasoning, Jay, you're gonna tell us about Duane Gish.<br />
<br />
R: Can I just say that somebody on Twitter said that I was literally Hitler for constantly pointing out when Steve makes a bad segue? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Literally Hitler! Awesome.<br />
<br />
E: Really?<br />
<br />
R: Well, they were kidding.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, okay.<br />
<br />
J: The young Earth creationist Duane T. Gish, he died on March 5, 2013. He was 92 years old.<br />
<br />
B: Whoa!<br />
<br />
J: He had a good run. <br />
<br />
R: He galloped into heaven.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right? You coined that phrase, Rebecca, I read that.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. So I thought I'd just throw it out there again.<br />
<br />
J: He was born on February 17, 1921 in White City, Kansas. He served in the U.S. Army from 1940 to '46, in the Pacific theater of operations. He became a captain, which I didn't know. In 1949 he earned a bachelor's of science in chemistry from the University of California and in '53 he went on to get his Ph.D. from Berkeley. He spent the next fourteen or so years as a researcher until 1971, when, what guys? He became the vice president of . . .?<br />
<br />
S: The ICR, the Institute for Creation Research.<br />
<br />
J: That's right. Which was founded only a year earlier by Henry Morris. Gish retired in 2005. He still, of course, kept busy. He was still writing. He was a Methodist from the age of ten, and he later became a fundamentalist Baptist. He wrote a lot of books. He wrote, the one he was most famous for was titled ''Evolution, the fossils say no!'' That was published in 1978.<br />
<br />
S: I actually have and read most of that book.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, you did?<br />
<br />
R: Masochist.<br />
<br />
E: Did you lose a bet?<br />
<br />
S: No. Gotta read what the other side's saying, too. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: That's true. This was in the time before the internet, I know.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, back in the early '80s, when I read it.<br />
<br />
J; In 1995, he also wrote ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: He's not listening very well.<br />
<br />
J: It seems to me that's his "Oh, yeah?" book, you know. But, of course, guys, and everyone listening to this show, or at least most of the people, know that he is best known for the mighty Gish Gallop, which he, which is described as his technique that he used during a debate to quickly fire off tons of misinformation that can't possibly be properly discussed by the person that he's arguing against. Right? So he brings up one idea that would take someone maybe ten or fifteen minutes to go over and to disprove or discredit, but he'll come up, he'll spill out 30 or 40 of these things in a series, in a very short amount of time. Guys. I didn't know this, and I'm surprised that I didn't. Did you know, do you know who coined the phrase "Gish Gallop"?<br />
<br />
R: Genie Scott.<br />
<br />
J: Genie Scott.<br />
<br />
B: How awesome!<br />
<br />
R: Genie mother f—Scott.<br />
<br />
J: She is so awesome.<br />
<br />
B: She coined that?<br />
<br />
J: This is her quote: "It's where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn't a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate."<br />
<br />
R; A prayer.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, Steve, remember when we had Dr. Michael Park come and lecture for the New England Skeptics Society and he told us about his experience in debating Duane Gish?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I remember that very well. Yeah, Gish also debated Michael Shermer. I actually listened to that entire debate on tape. And he debated Massimo Pigliucci five times.<br />
<br />
J: Yup.<br />
<br />
B: Whoa.<br />
<br />
J: That's right.<br />
<br />
E: Five!<br />
<br />
R: I know he debated Shermer a bunch of times, too, didn't he? I thought he was one of those<br />
<br />
S: Maybe.<br />
<br />
R: like Hitchens-DeSousa sort of things, fool around.<br />
<br />
J: Gish claimed that he entered into more than 300 debates during his career, which is quite a bit. I wouldn't have been surprised, though, if he said 800, because it just always seemed like he was violently debating someone. You know, overall, I classify him as just someone that was phenomenally misguided that had a belief that he was trying to qualify for his entire life and could never admit to himself that the science does disprove it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but you know, he was intellectually very dishonest. Because he would be factually refuted; he would say things that were factually wrong. Those factual errors would be pointed out to him in no uncertain terms and the next night he'd give the same talk and repeat the same error that he was just corrected. He just didn't care about the facts.<br />
<br />
R: He obviously wasn't stupid. So, I mean, there's really only one option left. If you're not stupid but you're continuing to repeat the same false information over and over and over again, then you're just dishonest.<br />
<br />
E: He would have throngs of followers travel around in buses from one lecture to another, and they would help pack the auditoriums and have his own cheering and rooting sections.<br />
<br />
B: Wow, isn't that nice.<br />
<br />
R: Groupies.<br />
<br />
E: With bibles in hand, sort of, cheering him on as he would go. So it always maybe seemed like that at least half of the audience, maybe, is in sync with his points of view on these matters. But it was staged, they were essentially shills.<br />
<br />
S: And he made popular, I don't know if he originated a lot of these arguments, but he made popular a lot of common creationist arguments like evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.<br />
<br />
B: Awwggh.<br />
<br />
S: Which we've spoken about: it doesn't. Or that archaeopteryx was just bird. Just one of the forms that birds take. With teeth and tails.<br />
<br />
''(more than one person speaking – unintelligible)'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: It flew.<br />
<br />
J: Those are good examples of a comment that's so easy to hear an even believe. And it's also a comment that would take quite a bit of information to show why it's wrong. And he spewed these things out during debates and was blowing the hair back of the people that were trying to respond to him and respond to the things that he was saying. They just couldn't keep up with the guy.<br />
<br />
B: If he showed one, you know, one good thing that came out of that was he really proved that these types of debates are horrible forms. This is not the kind of thing you want to get into unless it's set up properly and focused and designed not to allow people to go off on tangents and do the Gish Gallop.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, he made us, he made skeptics get better at debating and better at choosing the venue and the format of confrontations like that.<br />
<br />
B: He evolved our approach.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: That's probably the nicest thing you could say about him.<br />
<br />
S: Donald Prothero wrote about it and he debated Gish as well, and wrote about it on Skeptic Blog, if you want a first-hand account. He talks a lot about how intellectually dishonest he was, as well. So, no more Duane Gish, but I can almost guarantee you we have not seen the end of the Gish Gallop. Imagine, that that's your legacy. That's his legacy, the Gish Gallop.<br />
<br />
J: Well, to skeptics and to scientists.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Meta-Analysis <small>(26:04)</small>===<br />
* [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/revenge-of-the-woo/ Revenge of the Woo]<br />
* [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/another-acupuncture-meta-analysis-low-back-pain/ Another Acupuncture Meta-Analysis – Low Back Pain]<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = banjopine<br />
}}<br />
== Quicky With Bob <small>(44:14)</small> ==<br />
* Astronomer discovers closest star system to our sun<br />
<br />
== News Items Continued==<br />
=== Live to 150 <small>(46:46)</small>===<br />
* [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2291254/New-drug-developed-using-compound-red-wine-help-humans-live-150.html New drug being developed using compound found in red wine 'could help humans live until they are 150']<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(54:44)</small>==<br />
* http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45351.0.html<br />
* Answer to last week: Yvan<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(58:08)</small> ==<br />
[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-03/wkh-nii031113.php Item number one]. A new study finds that those infected with HIV have no increase in mortality if they are well controlled on medication.<br />
[http://www.utmb.edu/newsroom/article8352.aspx Item number two]. Recently published research finds that screening colonoscopy did not increase survival.<br />
And [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130311173907.htm item number three]. Engineers have built a self-healing integrated-circuit chip able to repair itself and resume function even after significant damage.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:11:26)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Our inner weighing of evidence is not a careful mathematical calculation resulting in a probabilistic estimate of truth, but more like a whirlpool blending of the objective and the personal. The result is a set of beliefs - both conscious and unconscious - that guide us in interpreting all the events of our lives.</blockquote><br />
Leonard Mlodinow<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS 2013 <small>(1:12:42)</small> ===<br />
* April 5th-7th 2013<br />
<br />
=== Rich Binder's Artwork <small>1:13:05</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_400&diff=6853SGU Episode 4002013-06-27T00:45:20Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 400<br />
|episodeDate = 16<sup>th</sup> March 2012 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:Fossil_diatome.jpg <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = <!-- leave blank if no guest --><br />
|guest2 = <!-- leave blank if no second guest --><br />
|guest3 = <!-- leave blank if no third guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-16.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=400<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45352.0.html<br />
|qowText = Our inner weighing of evidence is not a careful mathematical calculation resulting in a probabilistic estimate of truth, but more like a whirlpool blending of the objective and the personal. The result is a set of beliefs - both conscious and unconscious - that guide us in interpreting all the events of our lives.<!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Mlodinow Leonard Mlodinow] <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: This is Rogue Leader, checking in from Sierra-Golf-Uniform Mission Control. I need a news item status report, please identify.<br />
<br />
E: Echo Three to Echo Seven. Han, old buddy, do you read me? Uhhh, I mean, Steve, this is Rogue Four, copy?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, Rogue... Five? here, I guess? I don't&mdash;I don't know, I'm here. Why do we have to talk like this, Steve? Steve?<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: This is Rogue Leader, Rogue Five. Call me Rogue Leader. Can you please identify? That means use your code name. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I'm refusing your stupid order. Over.<br />
<br />
B: This is Rogue Mandelbrot. Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue Mandelbrot, I don't recognize your callsign. Use your issued designation. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
B: ''(exhales, indignant)'' This is Rogue Two. If any of the other Rogues want to call me Rogue Mandelbrot, feel free; it's much cooler than friggin' Rogue Two.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue One, come in, Rogue One. Do you copy? Over. Has anyone talked to Rogue One recently? &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: You mean Jay, right? Is Rogue One Jay? We have names already, Steve. I seriously do not understand this.<br />
<br />
J: This is Rogue One. I copy. I'm at 42,000 feet coming in over San Diego.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue One, are you go for a news item? &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
J: Roger that, Rogue Leader. I'm covering the death of Duane Gish. Over.<br />
<br />
B: Over what, his dead body?<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Cut the unnecessary chatter on this frequency, Rogue Two. What is your news item? Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
B: I'm talking about carbon nanotubes and solar panels and new battery technology.<br />
<br />
E: Are they charging those new batteries with solar panels made out of carbon nanotubes? How cool!<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative, Rogue Two. No one wants to hear about any news items on those topics from us ever again.&lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Rogue Two should push that idea out the airlock. Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue Four, will you give me a news item status update, please? &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
E: Uhhh. Roger that. I've got plants talking to animals.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative on that one, Rogue Four. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
E: I've got latest paranormal belief statistics from the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative too.<br />
<br />
E: I've got bee venom killing the HIV.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Mmmm, nope. Over.<br />
<br />
E: Uhhh, 3D printing replaces 75% of a man's skull.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative on that one, Rogue Four.<br />
<br />
E: Uhhh. ''(exhales)'' How about people can live to be 150 years old?<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a go on that last one, Rogue Four. &lt;beep&gt; Rogue Five, I still need a status report on your news items. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I wanna talk about a sloth that got its makeup done. Uhhh, on a TV show. It's great.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: A sloth on a TV show. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, it's like&mdash;it's a sloth that they brought in from the zoo, and they put it in a makeup chair and they put makeup on it. That's what I'm gonna talk about.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Maybe we'll put that on the back burner there, Rogue Five. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
J: Rogue One to Rogue Leader, come in.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue Leader here. Go ahead, Rogue One. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
J: Permission to fly my ship into Rogue Two. Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative, Rogue One. Cut the shit. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: This is overdone. Over.<br />
<br />
E: ''(As Sean Connery)'' I'll take Rogue Four for a thousand. Over.<br />
<br />
J: ''Oh yeah''? Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: We are ready to go with Mission 400. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
''(rocket launching)''<br />
<br />
''(theme music)''<br />
<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(6:54)</small> ==<br />
* March 16, 1912: Historical badass Captain Lawrence Oates sacrifices himself for Scott's Terra Nova Expedition in the most badass way possible.<br />
<br />
S: Well, we do have a great show for you, our number 400. We're gonna start, as we usually do, with This Day in Skepticism. Rebecca.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Alright, let's set the stage, you guys. It's early 1912. You are part of the Terra Nova Expedition to the South Pole, an effort led by Robert Falcon Scott.<br />
<br />
S: Wait, wait. I thought Terra Nova went back in time to the time of the dinosaurs.<br />
<br />
R: No, that was just a terrible short-lived TV show.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, that's right.<br />
<br />
R: Is that still on?<br />
<br />
B: No.<br />
<br />
R: No. Can't be. Yeah, okay. So, you arrived at the South Pole in December of 1911, only to find that the Norwegians beat you to it by a solid month. So you turned around and you march back, only to find horrific weather, scurvy, other illnesses, injuries and diminishing food supplies. And come March, one person is already dead, and if the rest don't make it to safety soon, everybody's going to die.<br />
<br />
S: And that's when The Thing attacked, right? 'Cause they already killed the Norwegians. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, yeah. That, I think, did happen in the recent Thing adaptation, but I'm not positive, because much like everyone else, I didn't watch it.<br />
<br />
B: I don't know what it is, but it's weird<br />
<br />
E: ''unintelligible)'' – the rest of the world, nobody saw it.<br />
<br />
R: So, Captain Lawrence Oates, who was on the team to handle the ponies, had become weak and ill and frostbitten, and he told everybody else "Go on without me." And they refused.<br />
<br />
E: They said "Alright."<br />
<br />
R: So on the morning of March 16, 1912, Oates got up and walked out the tent, never to be seen again. And before he left, he said "I'm just going outside and may be some time." Thereby giving English folks for the following century the best possible thing to say when going out for milk during a particularly bad rainstorm. So his sacrifice was awesome, but ultimately all for naught, since everyone else in the party died twenty miles later. But it was still pretty badass.<br />
<br />
S: So, how do they know he said that if everyone else died?<br />
<br />
R: They kept diaries. You dummy.<br />
<br />
S: They wrote that down, before they…?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and in fact, according to Oates's diary, he loathed Scott.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I remember reading that.<br />
<br />
R: Despite his sacrifice.<br />
<br />
E: He mother-fracked him up and--<br />
<br />
S: Although, he also said at one point that, maybe I'm just in a bad mood because I'm in friggin' Antarctica.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Maybe it's the frostbite talking. ''(laughter)'' But I feel like the person leading us is incompetent.<br />
<br />
E: Maybe it's the slow embrace of death talking here. ''(laughter)'' This suuuccckks!<br />
<br />
R: I think you could forgive him for being a little cranky.<br />
<br />
S: Worst expedition ever.<br />
<br />
R: It really was, like, oh, can you imagine, you know, embarking on this grand expedition that will very likely cost you your life and you make it. You make it to the South Pole, only to find out that some Norwegians beat you there. Ouch! And then dying on the way back. I mean, that part sucked, too.<br />
<br />
J: Right before the guy dies, he's like, this really sucks! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: But they had that exploration spirit.<br />
<br />
R: They did.<br />
<br />
S: That excelsior spirit.<br />
<br />
B: Excelsior!<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that<br />
<br />
R: For whatever's that worth, which is exactly nothing.<br />
<br />
S: So they got that going for them.<br />
<br />
B: Which is nice.<br />
<br />
S: Which is nice. <br />
<br />
E: That's a nice footnote.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Meteorite Fossils <small>(10:23)</small>===<br />
[http://phys.org/news/2013-03-astrobiologists-meteorite-space-algae.html Astrobiologists claim meteorite carried space algae]<br />
<br />
S: Bob, on a much happier note, though, you're gonna tell us about life on meteorites. Maybe even alien life, or maybe not.<br />
<br />
B: So here's the news story. The first nanosecond you read it, you're thinking, holy crap, I mean, is this, could this be possibly true? How awesome would that be? Some of the titles were: Astrobiologists find ancient fossils in fireball fragments; another one was: Astrobiologists claims meteorite carried space algae. And, but then you think, well, if, really, if that were true, right, that would be the news item of the century, at least, if not the millennium. And people, everyone would be talking about it. It'd be all over the internet, which it wasn't. So, you know, I'm thinking, well, what the hell is really going on here, 'cause I'm used to these news items that seem pretty awesome but clearly aren't. But that ''is'' the claim that's being made by scientists at Cardiff University in the U.K., and it all started with this fireball that blew up over a Sri Lankan province called Polonnaruwa on December 29, 2012. I didn't even hear about that one. I looked at some of the police reports that came out of that. People were claiming that they were burned by meteorites and that they were, there were fumes; these weird fumes that even caused someone to pass out, apparently, and had to be taken to the hospital. And right there, that's gotta raise some skeptical eyebrows because<br />
<br />
S: Because ''(unintelliglble)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, meteors generally are not hot. ''(laughter)'' They're travelling in space and they're close to absolute zero, so a brief little journey, fiery journey through the atmosphere isn't gonna make that much of a difference, and it conducts heat very well<br />
<br />
R: Yeah you definitely need to preheat those first. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Right. By the time you get there, they are not hot, they are generally pretty cold. And the fumes, the whole thing with the fumes is silly. I just think of these weird science fiction movies from like the '50s and the '60s where a meteor hits and they're hot and they've got these weird alien fumes coming out. Just like, just those two things right there, whoa, what's going on here? So what happened was they found, allegedly, they found 628 of these little meteorite fragments that allegedly came from this meteor, and they sent it off to Cardiff University. And the scientists there were studying it. They used electron—<br />
<br />
R: That's where Dr. Who is. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: That's right.<br />
<br />
S: He's called "The Doctor." He's not actually called Dr. Who. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Thank you for stopping that flood of emails.<br />
<br />
B: We'll still get 'im. So, they're looking at these little bits of meteorite and they find fossils of algae deep inside. Specifically, they were diatoms. I think that's how that's pronounced.<br />
<br />
S: Diatoms? [long o]<br />
<br />
B: Diatoms? Really? Specifically, these are single-celled plantlife. All over the planet. The cell walls specifically for these are made of silica, so it's kind of interesting. So what came from this was the declaration by these scientists that life on earth must have had some extraterrestrial origins, so-called panspermia. And, I think that seemed a little bit, you know, jumping the gun a little bit. But the science fails here are pretty, pretty big. There's so many red flags. And signs that, yet again, it's just way too premature to go to public with something like this. I keep thinking of cold fusion and other similar things where these guys just, they just like totally jump the gun and did not do their due diligence.<br />
<br />
S: Two things, Bob. Two things. First of all, I confirmed it is diatoms [long o], thank you.<br />
<br />
B: Okay. <br />
<br />
S: This is worse than being premature. This is bad science. These guys did a crappy job. <br />
<br />
B: Exactly, and now I'll go . . .; I'll explain why it was actually, not only premature, very bad science. One of the key things they should have done, but maybe one of the first things they should have done, is to show that these things came from a meteorite. Without a shadow of a doubt, or as conclusively as can be done. They didn't even really even do that, let alone show that it came from the one from Sri Lanka. Now I think that they looked at over 600 and only three of them did they say came from a carbonaceous chondrite, which is a type of meteorite, but in the opinion of many, they didn't even do that to a sufficient degree. So that, that was key. You have to show like, hey, this is from a meteorite because these diatoms are everywhere. They're all over. They're all over the place. You can't just find them, find these fossils and say "looks like it came from a meteorite. So therefore, panspermia." Blah, blah. The other big thing that they totally blew was the whole concept of contamination, which is a huge, huge problem. And they did not seem to take that seriously enough at all. They were saying that the fossils inside were too deep inside the rocky fragments. And, but the thing is, that doesn't matter. If they even just consulted somebody who's familiar with this stuff, they'd say that doesn't matter. The tiniest little crevice or crack these guys can get into. You could crack it open and find something in the very, very middle of it, but it doesn't matter 'cause they could still get in there. It doesn't mean that it's ancient and been accreting around these fossils for a millennium and thousands of millions of years. So related to that, they didn't consult with the experts in the relevant fields. Bring in a meteor expert. If you're gonna convince the world that you found life from another planet, algae, no less, similar to Earth's algae, you've gotta cross all your t's and dot all you I's. Bring in some experts; consult with outside labs. Don't do this all on your own because you just look really silly, especially when, you know, the overwhelming probability that people are just gonna say "no, you're just way off and here's why. 1-2-3-4."<br />
<br />
S: Bob, how'd they get this published in a peer-reviewed journal?<br />
<br />
B: Ah, there you go. I call this section the "Journal of Doubt." They published it in the Journal of Cosmology. I mean, we've mentioned this before. It's not a respected journal. They're known to have very, very loose submission guidelines. <br />
<br />
S: It's a rag.<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely. They published a paper in 2009 about the meteor with a fossil-like cyanobacteria in it. I mean, this is like the same journal. And I think the same people that actually trying to push this stuff. So, there, right there, another huge, huge red flag. Don't go to the Journal of Cosmology. Sounds kind of authoritative, maybe. But if you know anything about it, it's not. Also, another interesting point that should be considered I think is one of the co-authors, Chandra Wickramasinghe, was the first guy to actually propose, that I'm aware of, to propose this whole idea of panspermia, back in 1981, and from what I could gather, a lot of skeptics claim that this guy is somewhat fanatical about this. I mean, alright, it's your idea, of course it's gonna be your pet idea, and very protective of it, but apparently this guy's really got some blinders on when it comes to this, and he often, or has been shown in the past, to ignore evidence that's contradictory. Which is just really human nature, but, and this is what science and critical thinking are designed to protect against. When you insulate yourself from the process and procedures of real science, you run the risk of being laughed at sometimes, and having people call it tabloid science because you just have not done your homework. This has happened before with this guy, and with this Journal. But a lot of people, I wonder if a lot of people are thinking that we've been invaded by algae. So I'll close with my favorite title from Red Orbit. It was "Algae From Outer Space? It's Probably Just Bad Science." Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: Probably.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. Prophetic.<br />
<br />
R: Thank god, 'cause it'd be like Day of the Triffids but more boring. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: Guys, when bad science like this comes out, to me it smacks of people wanting to believe in something. There's a lot of conclusions that they could have jumped to that weren't so crazy or so wonderful, for lacking a better way to describe it. 'Cause it is pretty wonderful and amazing.<br />
<br />
S: Well I mean, I think it's reasonable to assume that that's the base line. Every scientist wants their theory to be true; wants to find something interesting and important, and we just assume that that's the case, that everyone's biased. But the point is to design rigorous studies so that you minimize the effects of that bias and you rule it out as much as possible. And that's when, if you haven't done that, of course your bias comes through.<br />
<br />
B: That's what science is designed to protect against.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Duane Gish Dies <small>(18:46)</small>===<br />
* [http://ncse.com/news/2013/03/duane-t-gish-dies-0014753 Duane T. Gish dies]<br />
<br />
S: Speaking of motivated reasoning, Jay, you're gonna tell us about Duane Gish.<br />
<br />
R: Can I just say that somebody on Twitter said that I was literally Hitler for constantly pointing out when Steve makes a bad segue? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Literally Hitler! Awesome.<br />
<br />
E: Really?<br />
<br />
R: Well, they were kidding.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, okay.<br />
<br />
J: The young Earth creationist Duane T. Gish, he died on March 5, 2013. He was 92 years old.<br />
<br />
B: Whoa!<br />
<br />
J: He had a good run. <br />
<br />
R: He galloped into heaven.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right? You coined that phrase, Rebecca, I read that.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. So I thought I'd just throw it out there again.<br />
<br />
J: He was born on February 17, 1921 in White City, Kansas. He served in the U.S. Army from 1940 to '46, in the Pacific theater of operations. He became a captain, which I didn't know. In 1949 he earned a bachelor's of science in chemistry from the University of California and in '53 he went on to get his Ph.D. from Berkeley. He spent the next fourteen or so years as a researcher until 1971, when, what guys? He became the vice president of . . .?<br />
<br />
S: The ICR, the Institute for Creation Research.<br />
<br />
J: That's right. Which was founded only a year earlier by Henry Morris. Gish retired in 2005. He still, of course, kept busy. He was still writing. He was a Methodist from the age of ten, and he later became a fundamentalist Baptist. He wrote a lot of books. He wrote, the one he was most famous for was titled ''Evolution, the fossils say no!'' That was published in 1978.<br />
<br />
S: I actually have and read most of that book.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, you did?<br />
<br />
R: Masochist.<br />
<br />
E: Did you lose a bet?<br />
<br />
S: No. Gotta read what the other side's saying, too. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: That's true. This was in the time before the internet, I know.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, back in the early '80s, when I read it.<br />
<br />
J; In 1995, he also wrote ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: He's not listening very well.<br />
<br />
J: It seems to me that's his "Oh, yeah?" book, you know. But, of course, guys, and everyone listening to this show, or at least most of the people, know that he is best known for the mighty Gish Gallop, which he, which is described as his technique that he used during a debate to quickly fire off tons of misinformation that can't possibly be properly discussed by the person that he's arguing against. Right? So he brings up one idea that would take someone maybe ten or fifteen minutes to go over and to disprove or discredit, but he'll come up, he'll spill out 30 or 40 of these things in a series, in a very short amount of time. Guys. I didn't know this, and I'm surprised that I didn't. Did you know, do you know who coined the phrase "Gish Gallop"?<br />
<br />
R: Genie Scott.<br />
<br />
J: Genie Scott.<br />
<br />
B: How awesome!<br />
<br />
R: Genie mother f—Scott.<br />
<br />
J: She is so awesome.<br />
<br />
B: She coined that?<br />
<br />
J: This is her quote: "It's where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn't a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate."<br />
<br />
R; A prayer.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, Steve, remember when we had Dr. Michael Park come and lecture for the New England Skeptics Society and he told us about his experience in debating Duane Gish?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I remember that very well. Yeah, Gish also debated Michael Shermer. I actually listened to that entire debate on tape. And he debated Massimo Pigliucci five times.<br />
<br />
J: Yup.<br />
<br />
B: Whoa.<br />
<br />
J: That's right.<br />
<br />
E: Five!<br />
<br />
R: I know he debated Shermer a bunch of times, too, didn't he? I thought he was one of those<br />
<br />
S: Maybe.<br />
<br />
R: like Hitchens-DeSousa sort of things, fool around.<br />
<br />
J: Gish claimed that he entered into more than 300 debates during his career, which is quite a bit. I wouldn't have been surprised, though, if he said 800, because it just always seemed like he was violently debating someone. You know, overall, I classify him as just someone that was phenomenally misguided that had a belief that he was trying to qualify for his entire life and could never admit to himself that the science does disprove it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but you know, he was intellectually very dishonest. Because he would be factually refuted; he would say things that were factually wrong. Those factual errors would be pointed out to him in no uncertain terms and the next night he'd give the same talk and repeat the same error that he was just corrected. He just didn't care about the facts.<br />
<br />
R: He obviously wasn't stupid. So, I mean, there's really only one option left. If you're not stupid but you're continuing to repeat the same false information over and over and over again, then you're just dishonest.<br />
<br />
E: He would have throngs of followers travel around in buses from one lecture to another, and they would help pack the auditoriums and have his own cheering and rooting sections.<br />
<br />
B: Wow, isn't that nice.<br />
<br />
R: Groupies.<br />
<br />
E: With bibles in hand, sort of, cheering him on as he would go. So it always maybe seemed like that at least half of the audience, maybe, is in sync with his points of view on these matters. But it was staged, they were essentially shills.<br />
<br />
S: And he made popular, I don't know if he originated a lot of these arguments, but he made popular a lot of common creationist arguments like evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.<br />
<br />
B: Awwggh.<br />
<br />
S: Which we've spoken about: it doesn't. Or that archaeopteryx was just bird. Just one of the forms that birds take. With teeth and tails.<br />
<br />
''(more than one person speaking – unintelligible)'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: It flew.<br />
<br />
J: Those are good examples of a comment that's so easy to hear an even believe. And it's also a comment that would take quite a bit of information to show why it's wrong. And he spewed these things out during debates and was blowing the hair back of the people that were trying to respond to him and respond to the things that he was saying. They just couldn't keep up with the guy.<br />
<br />
B: If he showed one, you know, one good thing that came out of that was he really proved that these types of debates are horrible forms. This is not the kind of thing you want to get into unless it's set up properly and focused and designed not to allow people to go off on tangents and do the Gish Gallop.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, he made us, he made skeptics get better at debating and better at choosing the venue and the format of confrontations like that.<br />
<br />
B: He evolved our approach.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: That's probably the nicest thing you could say about him.<br />
<br />
S: Donald Prothero wrote about it and he debated Gish as well, and wrote about it on Skeptic Blog, if you want a first-hand account. He talks a lot about how intellectually dishonest he was, as well. So, no more Duane Gish, but I can almost guarantee you we have not seen the end of the Gish Gallop. Imagine, that that's your legacy. That's his legacy, the Gish Gallop.<br />
<br />
J: Well, to skeptics and to scientists.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Meta-Analysis <small>(26:04)</small>===<br />
* [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/revenge-of-the-woo/ Revenge of the Woo]<br />
* [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/another-acupuncture-meta-analysis-low-back-pain/ Another Acupuncture Meta-Analysis – Low Back Pain]<br />
<br />
== Quicky With Bob <small>(44:14)</small> ==<br />
* Astronomer discovers closest star system to our sun<br />
<br />
== News Items Continued==<br />
=== Live to 150 <small>(46:46)</small>===<br />
* [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2291254/New-drug-developed-using-compound-red-wine-help-humans-live-150.html New drug being developed using compound found in red wine 'could help humans live until they are 150']<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(54:44)</small>==<br />
* http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45351.0.html<br />
* Answer to last week: Yvan<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(58:08)</small> ==<br />
[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-03/wkh-nii031113.php Item number one]. A new study finds that those infected with HIV have no increase in mortality if they are well controlled on medication.<br />
[http://www.utmb.edu/newsroom/article8352.aspx Item number two]. Recently published research finds that screening colonoscopy did not increase survival.<br />
And [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130311173907.htm item number three]. Engineers have built a self-healing integrated-circuit chip able to repair itself and resume function even after significant damage.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:11:26)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Our inner weighing of evidence is not a careful mathematical calculation resulting in a probabilistic estimate of truth, but more like a whirlpool blending of the objective and the personal. The result is a set of beliefs - both conscious and unconscious - that guide us in interpreting all the events of our lives.</blockquote><br />
Leonard Mlodinow<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS 2013 <small>(1:12:42)</small> ===<br />
* April 5th-7th 2013<br />
<br />
=== Rich Binder's Artwork <small>1:13:05</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_400&diff=6849SGU Episode 4002013-06-25T22:40:37Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 400<br />
|episodeDate = 16<sup>th</sup> March 2012 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:Fossil_diatome.jpg <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = <!-- leave blank if no guest --><br />
|guest2 = <!-- leave blank if no second guest --><br />
|guest3 = <!-- leave blank if no third guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-16.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=400<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45352.0.html<br />
|qowText = Our inner weighing of evidence is not a careful mathematical calculation resulting in a probabilistic estimate of truth, but more like a whirlpool blending of the objective and the personal. The result is a set of beliefs - both conscious and unconscious - that guide us in interpreting all the events of our lives.<!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Mlodinow Leonard Mlodinow] <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: This is Rogue Leader, checking in from Sierra-Golf-Uniform Mission Control. I need a news item status report, please identify.<br />
<br />
E: Echo Three to Echo Seven. Han, old buddy, do you read me? Uhhh, I mean, Steve, this is Rogue Four, copy?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, Rogue... Five? here, I guess? I don't&mdash;I don't know, I'm here. Why do we have to talk like this, Steve? Steve?<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: This is Rogue Leader, Rogue Five. Call me Rogue Leader. Can you please identify? That means use your code name. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I'm refusing your stupid order. Over.<br />
<br />
B: This is Rogue Mandelbrot. Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue Mandelbrot, I don't recognize your callsign. Use your issued designation. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
B: ''(exhales, indignant)'' This is Rogue Two. If any of the other Rogues want to call me Rogue Mandelbrot, feel free; it's much cooler than friggin' Rogue Two.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue One, come in, Rogue One. Do you copy? Over. Has anyone talked to Rogue One recently? &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: You mean Jay, right? Is Rogue One Jay? We have names already, Steve. I seriously do not understand this.<br />
<br />
J: This is Rogue One. I copy. I'm at 42,000 feet coming in over San Diego.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue One, are you go for a news item? &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
J: Roger that, Rogue Leader. I'm covering the death of Duane Gish. Over.<br />
<br />
B: Over what, his dead body?<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Cut the unnecessary chatter on this frequency, Rogue Two. What is your news item? Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
B: I'm talking about carbon nanotubes and solar panels and new battery technology.<br />
<br />
E: Are they charging those new batteries with solar panels made out of carbon nanotubes? How cool!<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative, Rogue Two. No one wants to hear about any news items on those topics from us ever again.&lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Rogue Two should push that idea out the airlock. Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue Four, will you give me a news item status update, please? &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
E: Uhhh. Roger that. I've got plants talking to animals.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative on that one, Rogue Four. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
E: I've got latest paranormal belief statistics from the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative too.<br />
<br />
E: I've got bee venom killing the HIV.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Mmmm, nope. Over.<br />
<br />
E: Uhhh, 3D printing replaces 75% of a man's skull.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative on that one, Rogue Four.<br />
<br />
E: Uhhh. ''(exhales)'' How about people can live to be 150 years old?<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a go on that last one, Rogue Four. &lt;beep&gt; Rogue Five, I still need a status report on your news items. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I wanna talk about a sloth that got its makeup done. Uhhh, on a TV show. It's great.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: A sloth on a TV show. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, it's like&mdash;it's a sloth that they brought in from the zoo, and they put it in a makeup chair and they put makeup on it. That's what I'm gonna talk about.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Maybe we'll put that on the back burner there, Rogue Five. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
J: Rogue One to Rogue Leader, come in.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue Leader here. Go ahead, Rogue One. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
J: Permission to fly my ship into Rogue Two. Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative, Rogue One. Cut the shit. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: This is overdone. Over.<br />
<br />
E: ''(As Sean Connery)'' I'll take Rogue Four for a thousand. Over.<br />
<br />
J: ''Oh yeah''? Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: We are ready to go with Mission 400. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
''(rocket launching)''<br />
<br />
''(theme music)''<br />
<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(6:54)</small> ==<br />
* March 16, 1912: Historical badass Captain Lawrence Oates sacrifices himself for Scott's Terra Nova Expedition in the most badass way possible.<br />
<br />
S: Well, we do have a great show for you, our number 400. We're gonna start, as we usually do, with This Day in Skepticism. Rebecca.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Alright, let's set the stage, you guys. It's early 1912. You are part of the Terra Nova Expedition to the South Pole, an effort led by Robert Falcon Scott.<br />
<br />
S: Wait, wait. I thought Terra Nova went back in time to the time of the dinosaurs.<br />
<br />
R: No, that was just a terrible short-lived TV show.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, that's right.<br />
<br />
R: Is that still on?<br />
<br />
B: No.<br />
<br />
R: No. Can't be. Yeah, okay. So, you arrived at the South Pole in December of 1911, only to find that the Norwegians beat you to it by a solid month. So you turned around and you march back, only to find horrific weather, scurvy, other illnesses, injuries and diminishing food supplies. And come March, one person is already dead, and if the rest don't make it to safety soon, everybody's going to die.<br />
<br />
S: And that's when The Thing attacked, right? 'Cause they already killed the Norwegians. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, yeah. That, I think, did happen in the recent Thing adaptation, but I'm not positive, because much like everyone else, I didn't watch it.<br />
<br />
B: I don't know what it is, but it's weird<br />
<br />
E: ''unintelligible)'' – the rest of the world, nobody saw it.<br />
<br />
R: So, Captain Lawrence Oates, who was on the team to handle the ponies, had become weak and ill and frostbitten, and he told everybody else "Go on without me." And they refused.<br />
<br />
E: They said "Alright."<br />
<br />
R: So on the morning of March 16, 1912, Oates got up and walked out the tent, never to be seen again. And before he left, he said "I'm just going outside and may be some time." Thereby giving English folks for the following century the best possible thing to say when going out for milk during a particularly bad rainstorm. So his sacrifice was awesome, but ultimately all for naught, since everyone else in the party died twenty miles later. But it was still pretty badass.<br />
<br />
S: So, how do they know he said that if everyone else died?<br />
<br />
R: They kept diaries. You dummy.<br />
<br />
S: They wrote that down, before they…?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and in fact, according to Oates's diary, he loathed Scott.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I remember reading that.<br />
<br />
R: Despite his sacrifice.<br />
<br />
E: He mother-fracked him up and--<br />
<br />
S: Although, he also said at one point that, maybe I'm just in a bad mood because I'm in friggin' Antarctica.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Maybe it's the frostbite talking. ''(laughter)'' But I feel like the person leading us is incompetent.<br />
<br />
E: Maybe it's the slow embrace of death talking here. ''(laughter)'' This suuuccckks!<br />
<br />
R: I think you could forgive him for being a little cranky.<br />
<br />
S: Worst expedition ever.<br />
<br />
R: It really was, like, oh, can you imagine, you know, embarking on this grand expedition that will very likely cost you your life and you make it. You make it to the South Pole, only to find out that some Norwegians beat you there. Ouch! And then dying on the way back. I mean, that part sucked, too.<br />
<br />
J: Right before the guy dies, he's like, this really sucks! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: But they had that exploration spirit.<br />
<br />
R: They did.<br />
<br />
S: That excelsior spirit.<br />
<br />
B: Excelsior!<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that<br />
<br />
R: For whatever's that worth, which is exactly nothing.<br />
<br />
S: So they got that going for them.<br />
<br />
B: Which is nice.<br />
<br />
S: Which is nice. <br />
<br />
E: That's a nice footnote.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Meteorite Fossils <small>(10:23)</small>===<br />
[http://phys.org/news/2013-03-astrobiologists-meteorite-space-algae.html Astrobiologists claim meteorite carried space algae]<br />
<br />
S: Bob, on a much happier note, though, you're gonna tell us about life on meteorites. Maybe even alien life, or maybe not.<br />
<br />
B: So here's the news story. The first nanosecond you read it, you're thinking, holy crap, I mean, is this, could this be possibly true? How awesome would that be? Some of the titles were: Astrobiologists find ancient fossils in fireball fragments; another one was: Astrobiologists claims meteorite carried space algae. And, but then you think, well, if, really, if that were true, right, that would be the news item of the century, at least, if not the millennium. And people, everyone would be talking about it. It'd be all over the internet, which it wasn't. So, you know, I'm thinking, well, what the hell is really going on here, 'cause I'm used to these news items that seem pretty awesome but clearly aren't. But that ''is'' the claim that's being made by scientists at Cardiff University in the U.K., and it all started with this fireball that blew up over a Sri Lankan province called Polonnaruwa on December 29, 2012. I didn't even hear about that one. I looked at some of the police reports that came out of that. People were claiming that they were burned by meteorites and that they were, there were fumes; these weird fumes that even caused someone to pass out, apparently, and had to be taken to the hospital. And right there, that's gotta raise some skeptical eyebrows because<br />
<br />
S: Because ''(unintelliglble)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, meteors generally are not hot. ''(laughter)'' They're travelling in space and they're close to absolute zero, so a brief little journey, fiery journey through the atmosphere isn't gonna make that much of a difference, and it conducts heat very well<br />
<br />
R: Yeah you definitely need to preheat those first. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Right. By the time you get there, they are not hot, they are generally pretty cold. And the fumes, the whole thing with the fumes is silly. I just think of these weird science fiction movies from like the '50s and the '60s where a meteor hits and they're hot and they've got these weird alien fumes coming out. Just like, just those two things right there, whoa, what's going on here? So what happened was they found, allegedly, they found 628 of these little meteorite fragments that allegedly came from this meteor, and they sent it off to Cardiff University. And the scientists there were studying it. They used electron—<br />
<br />
R: That's where Dr. Who is. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: That's right.<br />
<br />
S: He's called "The Doctor." He's not actually called Dr. Who. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Thank you for stopping that flood of emails.<br />
<br />
B: We'll still get 'im. So, they're looking at these little bits of meteorite and they find fossils of algae deep inside. Specifically, they were diatoms. I think that's how that's pronounced.<br />
<br />
S: Diatoms? [long o]<br />
<br />
B: Diatoms? Really? Specifically, these are single-celled plantlife. All over the planet. The cell walls specifically for these are made of silica, so it's kind of interesting. So what came from this was the declaration by these scientists that life on earth must have had some extraterrestrial origins, so-called panspermia. And, I think that seemed a little bit, you know, jumping the gun a little bit. But the science fails here are pretty, pretty big. There's so many red flags. And signs that, yet again, it's just way too premature to go to public with something like this. I keep thinking of cold fusion and other similar things where these guys just, they just like totally jump the gun and did not do their due diligence.<br />
<br />
S: Two things, Bob. Two things. First of all, I confirmed it is diatoms [long o], thank you.<br />
<br />
B: Okay. <br />
<br />
S: This is worse than being premature. This is bad science. These guys did a crappy job. <br />
<br />
B: Exactly, and now I'll go . . .; I'll explain why it was actually, not only premature, very bad science. One of the key things they should have done, but maybe one of the first things they should have done, is to show that these things came from a meteorite. Without a shadow of a doubt, or as conclusively as can be done. They didn't even really even do that, let alone show that it came from the one from Sri Lanka. Now I think that they looked at over 600 and only three of them did they say came from a carbonaceous chondrite, which is a type of meteorite, but in the opinion of many, they didn't even do that to a sufficient degree. So that, that was key. You have to show like, hey, this is from a meteorite because these diatoms are everywhere. They're all over. They're all over the place. You can't just find them, find these fossils and say "looks like it came from a meteorite. So therefore, panspermia." Blah, blah. The other big thing that they totally blew was the whole concept of contamination, which is a huge, huge problem. And they did not seem to take that seriously enough at all. They were saying that the fossils inside were too deep inside the rocky fragments. And, but the thing is, that doesn't matter. If they even just consulted somebody who's familiar with this stuff, they'd say that doesn't matter. The tiniest little crevice or crack these guys can get into. You could crack it open and find something in the very, very middle of it, but it doesn't matter 'cause they could still get in there. It doesn't mean that it's ancient and been accreting around these fossils for a millennium and thousands of millions of years. So related to that, they didn't consult with the experts in the relevant fields. Bring in a meteor expert. If you're gonna convince the world that you found life from another planet, algae, no less, similar to Earth's algae, you've gotta cross all your t's and dot all you I's. Bring in some experts; consult with outside labs. Don't do this all on your own because you just look really silly, especially when, you know, the overwhelming probability that people are just gonna say "no, you're just way off and here's why. 1-2-3-4."<br />
<br />
S: Bob, how'd they get this published in a peer-reviewed journal?<br />
<br />
B: Ah, there you go. I call this section the "Journal of Doubt." They published it in the Journal of Cosmology. I mean, we've mentioned this before. It's not a respected journal. They're known to have very, very loose submission guidelines. <br />
<br />
S: It's a rag.<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely. They published a paper in 2009 about the meteor with a fossil-like cyanobacteria in it. I mean, this is like the same journal. And I think the same people that actually trying to push this stuff. So, there, right there, another huge, huge red flag. Don't go to the Journal of Cosmology. Sounds kind of authoritative, maybe. But if you know anything about it, it's not. Also, another interesting point that should be considered I think is one of the co-authors, Chandra Wickramasinghe, was the first guy to actually propose, that I'm aware of, to propose this whole idea of panspermia, back in 1981, and from what I could gather, a lot of skeptics claim that this guy is somewhat fanatical about this. I mean, alright, it's your idea, of course it's gonna be your pet idea, and very protective of it, but apparently this guy's really got some blinders on when it comes to this, and he often, or has been shown in the past, to ignore evidence that's contradictory. Which is just really human nature, but, and this is what science and critical thinking are designed to protect against. When you insulate yourself from the process and procedures of real science, you run the risk of being laughed at sometimes, and having people call it tabloid science because you just have not done your homework. This has happened before with this guy, and with this Journal. But a lot of people, I wonder if a lot of people are thinking that we've been invaded by algae. So I'll close with my favorite title from Red Orbit. It was "Algae From Outer Space? It's Probably Just Bad Science." Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: Probably.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. Prophetic.<br />
<br />
R: Thank god, 'cause it'd be like Day of the Triffids but more boring. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: Guys, when bad science like this comes out, to me it smacks of people wanting to believe in something. There's a lot of conclusions that they could have jumped to that weren't so crazy or so wonderful, for lacking a better way to describe it. 'Cause it is pretty wonderful and amazing.<br />
<br />
S: Well I mean, I think it's reasonable to assume that that's the base line. Every scientist wants their theory to be true; wants to find something interesting and important, and we just assume that that's the case, that everyone's biased. But the point is to design rigorous studies so that you minimize the effects of that bias and you rule it out as much as possible. And that's when, if you haven't done that, of course your bias comes through.<br />
<br />
B: That's what science is designed to protect against.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Duane Gish Dies <small>(18:46)</small>===<br />
* [http://ncse.com/news/2013/03/duane-t-gish-dies-0014753 Duane T. Gish dies]<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = banjopine<br />
}}<br />
=== Acupuncture Meta-Analysis <small>(26:04)</small>===<br />
* [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/revenge-of-the-woo/ Revenge of the Woo]<br />
* [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/another-acupuncture-meta-analysis-low-back-pain/ Another Acupuncture Meta-Analysis – Low Back Pain]<br />
<br />
== Quicky With Bob <small>(44:14)</small> ==<br />
* Astronomer discovers closest star system to our sun<br />
<br />
== News Items Continued==<br />
=== Live to 150 <small>(46:46)</small>===<br />
* [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2291254/New-drug-developed-using-compound-red-wine-help-humans-live-150.html New drug being developed using compound found in red wine 'could help humans live until they are 150']<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(54:44)</small>==<br />
* http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45351.0.html<br />
* Answer to last week: Yvan<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(58:08)</small> ==<br />
[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-03/wkh-nii031113.php Item number one]. A new study finds that those infected with HIV have no increase in mortality if they are well controlled on medication.<br />
[http://www.utmb.edu/newsroom/article8352.aspx Item number two]. Recently published research finds that screening colonoscopy did not increase survival.<br />
And [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130311173907.htm item number three]. Engineers have built a self-healing integrated-circuit chip able to repair itself and resume function even after significant damage.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:11:26)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Our inner weighing of evidence is not a careful mathematical calculation resulting in a probabilistic estimate of truth, but more like a whirlpool blending of the objective and the personal. The result is a set of beliefs - both conscious and unconscious - that guide us in interpreting all the events of our lives.</blockquote><br />
Leonard Mlodinow<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS 2013 <small>(1:12:42)</small> ===<br />
* April 5th-7th 2013<br />
<br />
=== Rich Binder's Artwork <small>1:13:05</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_400&diff=6830SGU Episode 4002013-06-23T23:19:13Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 400<br />
|episodeDate = 16<sup>th</sup> March 2012 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:Fossil_diatome.jpg <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = <!-- leave blank if no guest --><br />
|guest2 = <!-- leave blank if no second guest --><br />
|guest3 = <!-- leave blank if no third guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-16.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=400<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45352.0.html<br />
|qowText = Our inner weighing of evidence is not a careful mathematical calculation resulting in a probabilistic estimate of truth, but more like a whirlpool blending of the objective and the personal. The result is a set of beliefs - both conscious and unconscious - that guide us in interpreting all the events of our lives.<!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Mlodinow Leonard Mlodinow] <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: This is Rogue Leader, checking in from Sierra-Golf-Uniform Mission Control. I need a news item status report, please identify.<br />
<br />
E: Echo Three to Echo Seven. Han, old buddy, do you read me? Uhhh, I mean, Steve, this is Rogue Four, copy?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, Rogue... Five? here, I guess? I don't&mdash;I don't know, I'm here. Why do we have to talk like this, Steve? Steve?<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: This is Rogue Leader, Rogue Five. Call me Rogue Leader. Can you please identify? That means use your code name. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I'm refusing your stupid order. Over.<br />
<br />
B: This is Rogue Mandelbrot. Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue Mandelbrot, I don't recognize your callsign. Use your issued designation. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
B: ''(exhales, indignant)'' This is Rogue Two. If any of the other Rogues want to call me Rogue Mandelbrot, feel free; it's much cooler than friggin' Rogue Two.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue One, come in, Rogue One. Do you copy? Over. Has anyone talked to Rogue One recently? &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: You mean Jay, right? Is Rogue One Jay? We have names already, Steve. I seriously do not understand this.<br />
<br />
J: This is Rogue One. I copy. I'm at 42,000 feet coming in over San Diego.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue One, are you go for a news item? &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
J: Roger that, Rogue Leader. I'm covering the death of Duane Gish. Over.<br />
<br />
B: Over what, his dead body?<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Cut the unnecessary chatter on this frequency, Rogue Two. What is your news item? Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
B: I'm talking about carbon nanotubes and solar panels and new battery technology.<br />
<br />
E: Are they charging those new batteries with solar panels made out of carbon nanotubes? How cool!<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative, Rogue Two. No one wants to hear about any news items on those topics from us ever again.&lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Rogue Two should push that idea out the airlock. Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue Four, will you give me a news item status update, please? &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
E: Uhhh. Roger that. I've got plants talking to animals.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative on that one, Rogue Four. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
E: I've got latest paranormal belief statistics from the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative too.<br />
<br />
E: I've got bee venom killing the HIV.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Mmmm, nope. Over.<br />
<br />
E: Uhhh, 3D printing replaces 75% of a man's skull.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative on that one, Rogue Four.<br />
<br />
E: Uhhh. ''(exhales)'' How about people can live to be 150 years old?<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a go on that last one, Rogue Four. &lt;beep&gt; Rogue Five, I still need a status report on your news items. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I wanna talk about a sloth that got its makeup done. Uhhh, on a TV show. It's great.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: A sloth on a TV show. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, it's like&mdash;it's a sloth that they brought in from the zoo, and they put it in a makeup chair and they put makeup on it. That's what I'm gonna talk about.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Maybe we'll put that on the back burner there, Rogue Five. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
J: Rogue One to Rogue Leader, come in.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue Leader here. Go ahead, Rogue One. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
J: Permission to fly my ship into Rogue Two. Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative, Rogue One. Cut the shit. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: This is overdone. Over.<br />
<br />
E: ''(As Sean Connery)'' I'll take Rogue Four for a thousand. Over.<br />
<br />
J: ''Oh yeah''? Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: We are ready to go with Mission 400. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
''(rocket launching)''<br />
<br />
''(theme music)''<br />
<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(6:54)</small> ==<br />
* March 16, 1912: Historical badass Captain Lawrence Oates sacrifices himself for Scott's Terra Nova Expedition in the most badass way possible.<br />
<br />
S: Well, we do have a great show for you, our number 400. We're gonna start, as we usually do, with This Day in Skepticism. Rebecca.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Alright, let's set the stage, you guys. It's early 1912. You are part of the Terra Nova Expedition to the South Pole, an effort led by Robert Falcon Scott.<br />
<br />
S: Wait, wait. I thought Terra Nova went back in time to the time of the dinosaurs.<br />
<br />
R: No, that was just a terrible short-lived TV show.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, that's right.<br />
<br />
R: Is that still on?<br />
<br />
B: No.<br />
<br />
R: No. Can't be. Yeah, okay. So, you arrived at the South Pole in December of 1911, only to find that the Norwegians beat you to it by a solid month. So you turned around and you march back, only to find horrific weather, scurvy, other illnesses, injuries and diminishing food supplies. And come March, one person is already dead, and if the rest don't make it to safety soon, everybody's going to die.<br />
<br />
S: And that's when The Thing attacked, right? 'Cause they already killed the Norwegians. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, yeah. That, I think, did happen in the recent Thing adaptation, but I'm not positive, because much like everyone else, I didn't watch it.<br />
<br />
B: I don't know what it is, but it's weird<br />
<br />
E: ''unintelligible)'' – the rest of the world, nobody saw it.<br />
<br />
R: So, Captain Lawrence Oates, who was on the team to handle the ponies, had become weak and ill and frostbitten, and he told everybody else "Go on without me." And they refused.<br />
<br />
E: They said "Alright."<br />
<br />
R: So on the morning of March 16, 1912, Oates got up and walked out the tent, never to be seen again. And before he left, he said "I'm just going outside and may be some time." Thereby giving English folks for the following century the best possible thing to say when going out for milk during a particularly bad rainstorm. So his sacrifice was awesome, but ultimately all for naught, since everyone else in the party died twenty miles later. But it was still pretty badass.<br />
<br />
S: So, how do they know he said that if everyone else died?<br />
<br />
R: They kept diaries. You dummy.<br />
<br />
S: They wrote that down, before they…?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and in fact, according to Oates's diary, he loathed Scott.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I remember reading that.<br />
<br />
R: Despite his sacrifice.<br />
<br />
E: He mother-fracked him up and--<br />
<br />
S: Although, he also said at one point that, maybe I'm just in a bad mood because I'm in friggin' Antarctica.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Maybe it's the frostbite talking. ''(laughter)'' But I feel like the person leading us is incompetent.<br />
<br />
E: Maybe it's the slow embrace of death talking here. ''(laughter)'' This suuuccckks!<br />
<br />
R: I think you could forgive him for being a little cranky.<br />
<br />
S: Worst expedition ever.<br />
<br />
R: It really was, like, oh, can you imagine, you know, embarking on this grand expedition that will very likely cost you your life and you make it. You make it to the South Pole, only to find out that some Norwegians beat you there. Ouch! And then dying on the way back. I mean, that part sucked, too.<br />
<br />
J: Right before the guy dies, he's like, this really sucks! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: But they had that exploration spirit.<br />
<br />
R: They did.<br />
<br />
S: That excelsior spirit.<br />
<br />
B: Excelsior!<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that<br />
<br />
R: For whatever's that worth, which is exactly nothing.<br />
<br />
S: So they got that going for them.<br />
<br />
B: Which is nice.<br />
<br />
S: Which is nice. <br />
<br />
E: That's a nice footnote.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Meteorite Fossils <small>(10:23)</small>===<br />
[http://phys.org/news/2013-03-astrobiologists-meteorite-space-algae.html Astrobiologists claim meteorite carried space algae]<br />
<br />
S: Bob, on a much happier note, though, you're gonna tell us about life on meteorites. Maybe even alien life, or maybe not.<br />
<br />
B: So here's the news story. The first nanosecond you read it, you're thinking, holy crap, I mean, is this, could this be possibly true? How awesome would that be? Some of the titles were: Astrobiologists find ancient fossils in fireball fragments; another one was: Astrobiologists claims meteorite carried space algae. And, but then you think, well, if, really, if that were true, right, that would be the news item of the century, at least, if not the millennium. And people, everyone would be talking about it. It'd be all over the internet, which it wasn't. So, you know, I'm thinking, well, what the hell is really going on here, 'cause I'm used to these news items that seem pretty awesome but clearly aren't. But that ''is'' the claim that's being made by scientists at Cardiff University in the U.K., and it all started with this fireball that blew up over a Sri Lankan province called Polonnaruwa on December 29, 2012. I didn't even hear about that one. I looked at some of the police reports that came out of that. People were claiming that they were burned by meteorites and that they were, there were fumes; these weird fumes that even caused someone to pass out, apparently, and had to be taken to the hospital. And right there, that's gotta raise some skeptical eyebrows because<br />
<br />
S: Because ''(unintelliglble)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, meteors generally are not hot. ''(laughter)'' They're travelling in space and they're close to absolute zero, so a brief little journey, fiery journey through the atmosphere isn't gonna make that much of a difference, and it conducts heat very well<br />
<br />
R: Yeah you definitely need to preheat those first. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Right. By the time you get there, they are not hot, they are generally pretty cold. And the fumes, the whole thing with the fumes is silly. I just think of these weird science fiction movies from like the '50s and the '60s where a meteor hits and they're hot and they've got these weird alien fumes coming out. Just like, just those two things right there, whoa, what's going on here? So what happened was they found, allegedly, they found 628 of these little meteorite fragments that allegedly came from this meteor, and they sent it off to Cardiff University. And the scientists there were studying it. They used electron—<br />
<br />
R: That's where Dr. Who is. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: That's right.<br />
<br />
S: He's called "The Doctor." He's not actually called Dr. Who. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Thank you for stopping that flood of emails.<br />
<br />
B: We'll still get 'im. So, they're looking at these little bits of meteorite and they find fossils of algae deep inside. Specifically, they were diatoms. I think that's how that's pronounced.<br />
<br />
S: Diatoms? [long o]<br />
<br />
B: Diatoms? Really? Specifically, these are single-celled plantlife. All over the planet. The cell walls specifically for these are made of silica, so it's kind of interesting. So what came from this was the declaration by these scientists that life on earth must have had some extraterrestrial origins, so-called panspermia. And, I think that seemed a little bit, you know, jumping the gun a little bit. But the science fails here are pretty, pretty big. There's so many red flags. And signs that, yet again, it's just way too premature to go to public with something like this. I keep thinking of cold fusion and other similar things where these guys just, they just like totally jump the gun and did not do their due diligence.<br />
<br />
S: Two things, Bob. Two things. First of all, I confirmed it is diatoms [long o], thank you.<br />
<br />
B: Okay. <br />
<br />
S: This is worse than being premature. This is bad science. These guys did a crappy job. <br />
<br />
B: Exactly, and now I'll go . . .; I'll explain why it was actually, not only premature, very bad science. One of the key things they should have done, but maybe one of the first things they should have done, is to show that these things came from a meteorite. Without a shadow of a doubt, or as conclusively as can be done. They didn't even really even do that, let alone show that it came from the one from Sri Lanka. Now I think that they looked at over 600 and only three of them did they say came from a carbonaceous chondrite, which is a type of meteorite, but in the opinion of many, they didn't even do that to a sufficient degree. So that, that was key. You have to show like, hey, this is from a meteorite because these diatoms are everywhere. They're all over. They're all over the place. You can't just find them, find these fossils and say "looks like it came from a meteorite. So therefore, panspermia." Blah, blah. The other big thing that they totally blew was the whole concept of contamination, which is a huge, huge problem. And they did not seem to take that seriously enough at all. They were saying that the fossils inside were too deep inside the rocky fragments. And, but the thing is, that doesn't matter. If they even just consulted somebody who's familiar with this stuff, they'd say that doesn't matter. The tiniest little crevice or crack these guys can get into. You could crack it open and find something in the very, very middle of it, but it doesn't matter 'cause they could still get in there. It doesn't mean that it's ancient and been accreting around these fossils for a millennium and thousands of millions of years. So related to that, they didn't consult with the experts in the relevant fields. Bring in a meteor expert. If you're gonna convince the world that you found life from another planet, algae, no less, similar to Earth's algae, you've gotta cross all your t's and dot all you I's. Bring in some experts; consult with outside labs. Don't do this all on your own because you just look really silly, especially when, you know, the overwhelming probability that people are just gonna say "no, you're just way off and here's why. 1-2-3-4."<br />
<br />
S: Bob, how'd they get this published in a peer-reviewed journal?<br />
<br />
B: Ah, there you go. I call this section the "Journal of Doubt." They published it in the Journal of Cosmology. I mean, we've mentioned this before. It's not a respected journal. They're known to have very, very loose submission guidelines. <br />
<br />
S: It's a rag.<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely. They published a paper in 2009 about the meteor with a fossil-like cyanobacteria in it. I mean, this is like the same journal. And I think the same people that actually trying to push this stuff. So, there, right there, another huge, huge red flag. Don't go to the Journal of Cosmology. Sounds kind of authoritative, maybe. But if you know anything about it, it's not. Also, another interesting point that should be considered I think is one of the co-authors, Chandra Wickramasinghe, was the first guy to actually propose, that I'm aware of, to propose this whole idea of panspermia, back in 1981, and from what I could gather, a lot of skeptics claim that this guy is somewhat fanatical about this. I mean, alright, it's your idea, of course it's gonna be your pet idea, and very protective of it, but apparently this guy's really got some blinders on when it comes to this, and he often, or has been shown in the past, to ignore evidence that's contradictory. Which is just really human nature, but, and this is what science and critical thinking are designed to protect against. When you insulate yourself from the process and procedures of real science, you run the risk of being laughed at sometimes, and having people call it tabloid science because you just have not done your homework. This has happened before with this guy, and with this Journal. But a lot of people, I wonder if a lot of people are thinking that we've been invaded by algae. So I'll close with my favorite title from Red Orbit. It was "Algae From Outer Space? It's Probably Just Bad Science." Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: Probably.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. Prophetic.<br />
<br />
R: Thank god, 'cause it'd be like Day of the Triffids but more boring. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: Guys, when bad science like this comes out, to me it smacks of people wanting to believe in something. There's a lot of conclusions that they could have jumped to that weren't so crazy or so wonderful, for lacking a better way to describe it. 'Cause it is pretty wonderful and amazing.<br />
<br />
S: Well I mean, I think it's reasonable to assume that that's the base line. Every scientist wants their theory to be true; wants to find something interesting and important, and we just assume that that's the case, that everyone's biased. But the point is to design rigorous studies so that you minimize the effects of that bias and you rule it out as much as possible. And that's when, if you haven't done that, of course your bias comes through.<br />
<br />
B: That's what science is designed to protect against.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Duane Gish Dies <small>(18:46)</small>===<br />
* [http://ncse.com/news/2013/03/duane-t-gish-dies-0014753 Duane T. Gish dies]<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Meta-Analysis <small>(26:04)</small>===<br />
* [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/revenge-of-the-woo/ Revenge of the Woo]<br />
* [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/another-acupuncture-meta-analysis-low-back-pain/ Another Acupuncture Meta-Analysis – Low Back Pain]<br />
<br />
== Quicky With Bob <small>(44:14)</small> ==<br />
* Astronomer discovers closest star system to our sun<br />
<br />
== News Items Continued==<br />
=== Live to 150 <small>(46:46)</small>===<br />
* [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2291254/New-drug-developed-using-compound-red-wine-help-humans-live-150.html New drug being developed using compound found in red wine 'could help humans live until they are 150']<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(54:44)</small>==<br />
* http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45351.0.html<br />
* Answer to last week: Yvan<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(58:08)</small> ==<br />
[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-03/wkh-nii031113.php Item number one]. A new study finds that those infected with HIV have no increase in mortality if they are well controlled on medication.<br />
[http://www.utmb.edu/newsroom/article8352.aspx Item number two]. Recently published research finds that screening colonoscopy did not increase survival.<br />
And [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130311173907.htm item number three]. Engineers have built a self-healing integrated-circuit chip able to repair itself and resume function even after significant damage.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:11:26)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Our inner weighing of evidence is not a careful mathematical calculation resulting in a probabilistic estimate of truth, but more like a whirlpool blending of the objective and the personal. The result is a set of beliefs - both conscious and unconscious - that guide us in interpreting all the events of our lives.</blockquote><br />
Leonard Mlodinow<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS 2013 <small>(1:12:42)</small> ===<br />
* April 5th-7th 2013<br />
<br />
=== Rich Binder's Artwork <small>1:13:05</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_400&diff=6805SGU Episode 4002013-06-19T00:24:30Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 400<br />
|episodeDate = 16<sup>th</sup> March 2012 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:Fossil_diatome.jpg <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = <!-- leave blank if no guest --><br />
|guest2 = <!-- leave blank if no second guest --><br />
|guest3 = <!-- leave blank if no third guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-16.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=400<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45352.0.html<br />
|qowText = Our inner weighing of evidence is not a careful mathematical calculation resulting in a probabilistic estimate of truth, but more like a whirlpool blending of the objective and the personal. The result is a set of beliefs - both conscious and unconscious - that guide us in interpreting all the events of our lives.<!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Mlodinow Leonard Mlodinow] <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: This is Rogue Leader, checking in from Sierra-Golf-Uniform Mission Control. I need a news item status report, please identify.<br />
<br />
E: Echo Three to Echo Seven. Han, old buddy, do you read me? Uhhh, I mean, Steve, this is Rogue Four, copy?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, Rogue... Five? here, I guess? I don't&mdash;I don't know, I'm here. Why do we have to talk like this, Steve? Steve?<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: This is Rogue Leader, Rogue Five. Call me Rogue Leader. Can you please identify? That means use your code name. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I'm refusing your stupid order. Over.<br />
<br />
B: This is Rogue Mandelbrot. Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue Mandelbrot, I don't recognize your callsign. Use your issued designation. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
B: ''(exhales, indignant)'' This is Rogue Two. If any of the other Rogues want to call me Rogue Mandelbrot, feel free; it's much cooler than friggin' Rogue Two.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue One, come in, Rogue One. Do you copy? Over. Has anyone talked to Rogue One recently? &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: You mean Jay, right? Is Rogue One Jay? We have names already, Steve. I seriously do not understand this.<br />
<br />
J: This is Rogue One. I copy. I'm at 42,000 feet coming in over San Diego.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue One, are you go for a news item? &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
J: Roger that, Rogue Leader. I'm covering the death of Duane Gish. Over.<br />
<br />
B: Over what, his dead body?<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Cut the unnecessary chatter on this frequency, Rogue Two. What is your news item? Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
B: I'm talking about carbon nanotubes and solar panels and new battery technology.<br />
<br />
E: Are they charging those new batteries with solar panels made out of carbon nanotubes? How cool!<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative, Rogue Two. No one wants to hear about any news items on those topics from us ever again.&lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Rogue Two should push that idea out the airlock. Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue Four, will you give me a news item status update, please? &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
E: Uhhh. Roger that. I've got plants talking to animals.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative on that one, Rogue Four. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
E: I've got latest paranormal belief statistics from the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative too.<br />
<br />
E: I've got bee venom killing the HIV.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Mmmm, nope. Over.<br />
<br />
E: Uhhh, 3D printing replaces 75% of a man's skull.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative on that one, Rogue Four.<br />
<br />
E: Uhhh. ''(exhales)'' How about people can live to be 150 years old?<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a go on that last one, Rogue Four. &lt;beep&gt; Rogue Five, I still need a status report on your news items. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I wanna talk about a sloth that got its makeup done. Uhhh, on a TV show. It's great.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: A sloth on a TV show. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, it's like&mdash;it's a sloth that they brought in from the zoo, and they put it in a makeup chair and they put makeup on it. That's what I'm gonna talk about.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Maybe we'll put that on the back burner there, Rogue Five. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
J: Rogue One to Rogue Leader, come in.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue Leader here. Go ahead, Rogue One. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
J: Permission to fly my ship into Rogue Two. Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative, Rogue One. Cut the shit. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: This is overdone. Over.<br />
<br />
E: ''(As Sean Connery)'' I'll take Rogue Four for a thousand. Over.<br />
<br />
J: ''Oh yeah''? Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: We are ready to go with Mission 400. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
''(rocket launching)''<br />
<br />
''(theme music)''<br />
<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(6:54)</small> ==<br />
* March 16, 1912: Historical badass Captain Lawrence Oates sacrifices himself for Scott's Terra Nova Expedition in the most badass way possible.<br />
<br />
S: Well, we do have a great show for you, our number 400. We're gonna start, as we usually do, with This Day in Skepticism. Rebecca.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Alright, let's set the stage, you guys. It's early 1912. You are part of the Terra Nova Expedition to the South Pole, an effort led by Robert Falcon Scott.<br />
<br />
S: Wait, wait. I thought Terra Nova went back in time to the time of the dinosaurs.<br />
<br />
R: No, that was just a terrible short-lived TV show.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, that's right.<br />
<br />
R: Is that still on?<br />
<br />
B: No.<br />
<br />
R: No. Can't be. Yeah, okay. So, you arrived at the South Pole in December of 1911, only to find that the Norwegians beat you to it by a solid month. So you turned around and you march back, only to find horrific weather, scurvy, other illnesses, injuries and diminishing food supplies. And come March, one person is already dead, and if the rest don't make it to safety soon, everybody's going to die.<br />
<br />
S: And that's when The Thing attacked, right? 'Cause they already killed the Norwegians. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, yeah. That, I think, did happen in the recent Thing adaptation, but I'm not positive, because much like everyone else, I didn't watch it.<br />
<br />
B: I don't know what it is, but it's weird<br />
<br />
E: ''unintelligible)'' – the rest of the world, nobody saw it.<br />
<br />
R: So, Captain Lawrence Oates, who was on the team to handle the ponies, had become weak and ill and frostbitten, and he told everybody else "Go on without me." And they refused.<br />
<br />
E: They said "Alright."<br />
<br />
R: So on the morning of March 16, 1912, Oates got up and walked out the tent, never to be seen again. And before he left, he said "I'm just going outside and may be some time." Thereby giving English folks for the following century the best possible thing to say when going out for milk during a particularly bad rainstorm. So his sacrifice was awesome, but ultimately all for naught, since everyone else in the party died twenty miles later. But it was still pretty badass.<br />
<br />
S: So, how do they know he said that if everyone else died?<br />
<br />
R: They kept diaries. You dummy.<br />
<br />
S: They wrote that down, before they…?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and in fact, according to Oates's diary, he loathed Scott.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I remember reading that.<br />
<br />
R: Despite his sacrifice.<br />
<br />
E: He mother-fracked him up and--<br />
<br />
S: Although, he also said at one point that, maybe I'm just in a bad mood because I'm in friggin' Antarctica.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Maybe it's the frostbite talking. ''(laughter)'' But I feel like the person leading us is incompetent.<br />
<br />
E: Maybe it's the slow embrace of death talking here. ''(laughter)'' This suuuccckks!<br />
<br />
R: I think you could forgive him for being a little cranky.<br />
<br />
S: Worst expedition ever.<br />
<br />
R: It really was, like, oh, can you imagine, you know, embarking on this grand expedition that will very likely cost you your life and you make it. You make it to the South Pole, only to find out that some Norwegians beat you there. Ouch! And then dying on the way back. I mean, that part sucked, too.<br />
<br />
J: Right before the guy dies, he's like, this really sucks! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: But they had that exploration spirit.<br />
<br />
R: They did.<br />
<br />
S: That excelsior spirit.<br />
<br />
B: Excelsior!<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that<br />
<br />
R: For whatever's that worth, which is exactly nothing.<br />
<br />
S: So they got that going for them.<br />
<br />
B: Which is nice.<br />
<br />
S: Which is nice. <br />
<br />
E: That's a nice footnote.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Meteorite Fossils <small>(10:23)</small>===<br />
[http://phys.org/news/2013-03-astrobiologists-meteorite-space-algae.html Astrobiologists claim meteorite carried space algae]<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = banjopine<br />
}}<br />
=== Duane Gish Dies <small>(18:46)</small>===<br />
* [http://ncse.com/news/2013/03/duane-t-gish-dies-0014753 Duane T. Gish dies]<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Meta-Analysis <small>(26:04)</small>===<br />
* [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/revenge-of-the-woo/ Revenge of the Woo]<br />
* [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/another-acupuncture-meta-analysis-low-back-pain/ Another Acupuncture Meta-Analysis – Low Back Pain]<br />
<br />
== Quicky With Bob <small>(44:14)</small> ==<br />
* Astronomer discovers closest star system to our sun<br />
<br />
== News Items Continued==<br />
=== Live to 150 <small>(46:46)</small>===<br />
* [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2291254/New-drug-developed-using-compound-red-wine-help-humans-live-150.html New drug being developed using compound found in red wine 'could help humans live until they are 150']<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(54:44)</small>==<br />
* http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45351.0.html<br />
* Answer to last week: Yvan<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(58:08)</small> ==<br />
[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-03/wkh-nii031113.php Item number one]. A new study finds that those infected with HIV have no increase in mortality if they are well controlled on medication.<br />
[http://www.utmb.edu/newsroom/article8352.aspx Item number two]. Recently published research finds that screening colonoscopy did not increase survival.<br />
And [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130311173907.htm item number three]. Engineers have built a self-healing integrated-circuit chip able to repair itself and resume function even after significant damage.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:11:26)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Our inner weighing of evidence is not a careful mathematical calculation resulting in a probabilistic estimate of truth, but more like a whirlpool blending of the objective and the personal. The result is a set of beliefs - both conscious and unconscious - that guide us in interpreting all the events of our lives.</blockquote><br />
Leonard Mlodinow<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS 2013 <small>(1:12:42)</small> ===<br />
* April 5th-7th 2013<br />
<br />
=== Rich Binder's Artwork <small>1:13:05</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_400&diff=6804SGU Episode 4002013-06-16T23:31:45Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 400<br />
|episodeDate = 16<sup>th</sup> March 2012 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:Fossil_diatome.jpg <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = <!-- leave blank if no guest --><br />
|guest2 = <!-- leave blank if no second guest --><br />
|guest3 = <!-- leave blank if no third guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-16.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=400<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45352.0.html<br />
|qowText = Our inner weighing of evidence is not a careful mathematical calculation resulting in a probabilistic estimate of truth, but more like a whirlpool blending of the objective and the personal. The result is a set of beliefs - both conscious and unconscious - that guide us in interpreting all the events of our lives.<!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Mlodinow Leonard Mlodinow] <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: This is Rogue Leader, checking in from Sierra-Golf-Uniform Mission Control. I need a news item status report, please identify.<br />
<br />
E: Echo Three to Echo Seven. Han, old buddy, do you read me? Uhhh, I mean, Steve, this is Rogue Four, copy?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, Rogue... Five? here, I guess? I don't&mdash;I don't know, I'm here. Why do we have to talk like this, Steve? Steve?<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: This is Rogue Leader, Rogue Five. Call me Rogue Leader. Can you please identify? That means use your code name. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I'm refusing your stupid order. Over.<br />
<br />
B: This is Rogue Mandelbrot. Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue Mandelbrot, I don't recognize your callsign. Use your issued designation. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
B: ''(exhales, indignant)'' This is Rogue Two. If any of the other Rogues want to call me Rogue Mandelbrot, feel free; it's much cooler than friggin' Rogue Two.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue One, come in, Rogue One. Do you copy? Over. Has anyone talked to Rogue One recently? &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: You mean Jay, right? Is Rogue One Jay? We have names already, Steve. I seriously do not understand this.<br />
<br />
J: This is Rogue One. I copy. I'm at 42,000 feet coming in over San Diego.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue One, are you go for a news item? &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
J: Roger that, Rogue Leader. I'm covering the death of Duane Gish. Over.<br />
<br />
B: Over what, his dead body?<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Cut the unnecessary chatter on this frequency, Rogue Two. What is your news item? Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
B: I'm talking about carbon nanotubes and solar panels and new battery technology.<br />
<br />
E: Are they charging those new batteries with solar panels made out of carbon nanotubes? How cool!<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative, Rogue Two. No one wants to hear about any news items on those topics from us ever again.&lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Rogue Two should push that idea out the airlock. Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue Four, will you give me a news item status update, please? &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
E: Uhhh. Roger that. I've got plants talking to animals.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative on that one, Rogue Four. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
E: I've got latest paranormal belief statistics from the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative too.<br />
<br />
E: I've got bee venom killing the HIV.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Mmmm, nope. Over.<br />
<br />
E: Uhhh, 3D printing replaces 75% of a man's skull.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative on that one, Rogue Four.<br />
<br />
E: Uhhh. ''(exhales)'' How about people can live to be 150 years old?<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a go on that last one, Rogue Four. &lt;beep&gt; Rogue Five, I still need a status report on your news items. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I wanna talk about a sloth that got its makeup done. Uhhh, on a TV show. It's great.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: A sloth on a TV show. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, it's like&mdash;it's a sloth that they brought in from the zoo, and they put it in a makeup chair and they put makeup on it. That's what I'm gonna talk about.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Maybe we'll put that on the back burner there, Rogue Five. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
J: Rogue One to Rogue Leader, come in.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: Rogue Leader here. Go ahead, Rogue One. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
J: Permission to fly my ship into Rogue Two. Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: That's a negative, Rogue One. Cut the shit. Over. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
R: This is overdone. Over.<br />
<br />
E: ''(As Sean Connery)'' I'll take Rogue Four for a thousand. Over.<br />
<br />
J: ''Oh yeah''? Over.<br />
<br />
&lt;beep&gt; S: We are ready to go with Mission 400. &lt;beep&gt;<br />
<br />
''(rocket launching)''<br />
<br />
''(theme music)''<br />
<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(6:54)</small> ==<br />
* March 16, 1912: Historical badass Captain Lawrence Oates sacrifices himself for Scott's Terra Nova Expedition in the most badass way possible.<br />
<br />
S: Well, we do have a great show for you, our number 400. We're gonna start, as we usually do, with This Day in Skepticism. Rebecca.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Alright, let's set the stage, you guys. It's early 1912. You are part of the Terra Nova Expedition to the South Pole, an effort led by Robert Falcon Scott.<br />
<br />
S: Wait, wait. I thought Terra Nova went back in time to the time of the dinosaurs.<br />
<br />
R: No, that was just a terrible short-lived TV show.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, that's right.<br />
<br />
R: Is that still on?<br />
<br />
B: No.<br />
<br />
R: No. Can't be. Yeah, okay. So, you arrived at the South Pole in December of 1911, only to find that the Norwegians beat you to it by a solid month. So you turned around and you march back, only to find horrific weather, scurvy, other illnesses, injuries and diminishing food supplies. And come March, one person is already dead, and if the rest don't make it to safety soon, everybody's going to die.<br />
<br />
S: And that's when The Thing attacked, right? 'Cause they already killed the Norwegians. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, yeah. That, I think, did happen in the recent Thing adaptation, but I'm not positive, because much like everyone else, I didn't watch it.<br />
<br />
B: I don't know what it is, but it's weird<br />
<br />
E: ''unintelligible)'' – the rest of the world, nobody saw it.<br />
<br />
R: So, Captain Lawrence Oates, who was on the team to handle the ponies, had become weak and ill and frostbitten, and he told everybody else "Go on without me." And they refused.<br />
<br />
E: They said "Alright."<br />
<br />
R: So on the morning of March 16, 1912, Oates got up and walked out the tent, never to be seen again. And before he left, he said "I'm just going outside and may be some time." Thereby giving English folks for the following century the best possible thing to say when going out for milk during a particularly bad rainstorm. So his sacrifice was awesome, but ultimately all for naught, since everyone else in the party died twenty miles later. But it was still pretty badass.<br />
<br />
S: So, how do they know he said that if everyone else died?<br />
<br />
R: They kept diaries. You dummy.<br />
<br />
S: They wrote that down, before they…?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and in fact, according to Oates's diary, he loathed Scott.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I remember reading that.<br />
<br />
R: Despite his sacrifice.<br />
<br />
E: He mother-fracked him up and--<br />
<br />
S: Although, he also said at one point that, maybe I'm just in a bad mood because I'm in friggin' Antarctica.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Maybe it's the frostbite talking. ''(laughter)'' But I feel like the person leading us is incompetent.<br />
<br />
E: Maybe it's the slow embrace of death talking here. ''(laughter)'' This suuuccckks!<br />
<br />
R: I think you could forgive him for being a little cranky.<br />
<br />
S: Worst expedition ever.<br />
<br />
R: It really was, like, oh, can you imagine, you know, embarking on this grand expedition that will very likely cost you your life and you make it. You make it to the South Pole, only to find out that some Norwegians beat you there. Ouch! And then dying on the way back. I mean, that part sucked, too.<br />
<br />
J: Right before the guy dies, he's like, this really sucks! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: But they had that exploration spirit.<br />
<br />
R: They did.<br />
<br />
S: That excelsior spirit.<br />
<br />
B: Excelsior!<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that<br />
<br />
R: For whatever's that worth, which is exactly nothing.<br />
<br />
S: So they got that going for them.<br />
<br />
B: Which is nice.<br />
<br />
S: Which is nice. <br />
<br />
E: That's a nice footnote.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Meteorite Fossils <small>(10:23)</small>===<br />
[http://phys.org/news/2013-03-astrobiologists-meteorite-space-algae.html Astrobiologists claim meteorite carried space algae]<br />
<br />
=== Duane Gish Dies <small>(18:46)</small>===<br />
* [http://ncse.com/news/2013/03/duane-t-gish-dies-0014753 Duane T. Gish dies]<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Meta-Analysis <small>(26:04)</small>===<br />
* [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/revenge-of-the-woo/ Revenge of the Woo]<br />
* [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/another-acupuncture-meta-analysis-low-back-pain/ Another Acupuncture Meta-Analysis – Low Back Pain]<br />
<br />
== Quicky With Bob <small>(44:14)</small> ==<br />
* Astronomer discovers closest star system to our sun<br />
<br />
== News Items Continued==<br />
=== Live to 150 <small>(46:46)</small>===<br />
* [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2291254/New-drug-developed-using-compound-red-wine-help-humans-live-150.html New drug being developed using compound found in red wine 'could help humans live until they are 150']<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(54:44)</small>==<br />
* http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45351.0.html<br />
* Answer to last week: Yvan<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(58:08)</small> ==<br />
[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-03/wkh-nii031113.php Item number one]. A new study finds that those infected with HIV have no increase in mortality if they are well controlled on medication.<br />
[http://www.utmb.edu/newsroom/article8352.aspx Item number two]. Recently published research finds that screening colonoscopy did not increase survival.<br />
And [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130311173907.htm item number three]. Engineers have built a self-healing integrated-circuit chip able to repair itself and resume function even after significant damage.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:11:26)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Our inner weighing of evidence is not a careful mathematical calculation resulting in a probabilistic estimate of truth, but more like a whirlpool blending of the objective and the personal. The result is a set of beliefs - both conscious and unconscious - that guide us in interpreting all the events of our lives.</blockquote><br />
Leonard Mlodinow<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS 2013 <small>(1:12:42)</small> ===<br />
* April 5th-7th 2013<br />
<br />
=== Rich Binder's Artwork <small>1:13:05</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SGU_episode_list&diff=6767Template:SGU episode list2013-06-11T23:00:16Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div><noinclude>This template is used to display the list of full-length episodes on the [[Main Page]] and the [[SGU Episodes]] page. Additions and amendments to this template will be reflected on those pages.<br />
<br />
Pages currently in progress should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{i}}</nowiki></code> to add the pencil icon, and pages that have sections open to other contributors to transcribe should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{Open}}</nowiki></code> to include the green arrow icon. <br />
<br />
Pages that have been proof-read and verified by a contributor other than the author should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{tick}}</nowiki></code> to include the green tick icon.</noinclude><br />
{|style="margin:1em 3em"<br />
|style="padding-right: 6em;white-space:nowrap" valign="top"|<span id="2013"><big>'''2013'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 412]], Jun 8 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 411]], Jun 1 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 410]], May 25 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 409]], May 18 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 408]], May 11 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 407]], May 4 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 406]], Apr 27 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 405]], Apr 20 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 404]], Apr 13 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 403]], Apr 6 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 402]], Mar 30 2013 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 401]], Mar 23 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 400]], Mar 16 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 399]], Mar 9 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 398]], Mar 2 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 397]], Feb 23 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 396]], Feb 16 2013<br />
* [[SGU Episode 395]], Feb 9 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 394]], Feb 2 2013<br />
* [[SGU Episode 393]], Jan 26 2013 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 392]], Jan 19 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 391]], Jan 12 2013 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 390]], Jan 5 2013<br />
<br />
<span id="2012"><big>'''2012'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 389]], Dec 29 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 388]], Dec 22 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 387]], Dec 15 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 386]], Dec 8 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 385]], Dec 1 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 384]], Nov 24 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 383]], Nov 17 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 382]], Nov 10 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 381]], Nov 3 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 380]], Oct 27 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 379]], Oct 20 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 378]], Oct 13 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 377]], Oct 6 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 376]], Sep 29 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 375]], Sep 22 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 374]], Sep 15 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 373]], Sep 8 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 372]], Sep 1 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 371]], Aug 25 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 370]], Aug 18 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 369]], Aug 11 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 368]], Aug 4 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 367]], Jul 28 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 366]], Jul 21 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 365]], Jul 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 364]], Jul 7 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 363]], Jun 30 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 362]], Jun 23 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 361]], Jun 16 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 360]], Jun 9 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 359]], Jun 2 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 358]], May 26 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 357]], May 19 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 356]], May 12 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 355]], May 5 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 354]], Apr 28 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 353]], Apr 21 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 352]], Apr 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 351]], Apr 7 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 350]], Mar 31 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 349]], Mar 24 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 348]], Mar 17 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 347]], Mar 10 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 346]], Mar 3 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 345]], Feb 25 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 341]], Jan 28 2012 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 340]], Jan 21 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 339]], Jan 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 338]], Jan 7 2012 {{tick}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2011"><big>'''2011'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 337]], Dec 31 2011 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 335]], Dec 17 2011 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 331]], Nov 19 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 330]], Nov 11 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 328]], Oct 29 2011<br />
* [[SGU 24hr]], Sep 23-24 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 320]], Aug 29 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 312]], Jul 5 2011 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 308]], Jun 08 2011 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 287]], Jan 12 2011 {{Open}}<br />
|valign="top" style=white-space:nowrap|<span id="2010"><big>'''2010'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 285]], Dec 29 2010 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 271]], Sep 22 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 260]], Jun 30 2010 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 257]], Jun 14 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 252]], May 12 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 247]], Apr 7 2010 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 245]], Mar 25 2010 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 232]], Jan 1 2010<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2009"><big>'''2009'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 220]], Oct 7 2009 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 216]], Sep 9 2009 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 185]], Feb 4 2009<br />
* [[SGU Episode 184]], Jan 28 2009<br />
* [[SGU Episode 183]], Jan 21 2009 {{i}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2008"><big>'''2008'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 165]], Sep 17 2008<br />
* [[SGU Episode 156]], Jul 16 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 152]], Jun 11 2008 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 146]], May 7 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 144]], Apr 23 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 141]], Apr 2 2008<br />
* [[SGU Episode 140]], Mar 26 2008 {{i}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2007"><big>'''2007'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 127]], Dec 26, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 123]], Nov 28, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 116]], Oct 10, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 113]], Sep 19, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 111]], Sep 5, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 110]], Aug 28, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 109]], Aug 24, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 105]], Jul 25, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 103]], Jul 11, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 102]], Jul 3, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 100]], June 19, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 98]], June 6, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 97]], May 30 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 89]], Apr 4, 2007 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 79]], Jan 24, 2007<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2006"><big>'''2006'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 73]], Dec 13 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 68]], Nov 8 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 62]], Sep 27 2006 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 61]], Sep 20 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 55]], Aug 9 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 49]], Jun 28 2006 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 47]], Jun 14 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 46]], Jun 7 2006 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 38]], Apr 12 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 31]], Feb 22 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 27]], Jan 25 2006 <br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2005"><big>'''2005'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 22]], Dec 14 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 21]], Dec 7 2005 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 20]], Nov 23 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 19]], Nov 16 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 18]], Nov 2 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 17]], Oct 26 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 16]], Oct 12 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 15]], Oct 6 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 14]], Sep 28 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 13]], Sep 14 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 12]], Sep 7 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 11]], Aug 31 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 10]], Aug 23 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 9]], Aug 10 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 8]], Aug 2 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 7]], Jul 20 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 6]], Jul 7 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 5]], Jun 29 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 4]], Jun 15 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 3]], Jun 7 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 2]], Jun 1 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 1]], May 4 2005 {{tick}}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<noinclude><br />
[[Category: List templates]]<br />
</noinclude></div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_399&diff=6766SGU Episode 3992013-06-11T22:58:58Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription =<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 399<br />
|episodeDate = 9<sup>th</sup> March 2013<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mars-comet-NASA-JPL-600x328.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|guest1 = GH: George Hrab<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-09.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=399<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45268.0.html<br />
|qowText = Neither evolution nor creation qualifies as a scientific theory.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish Duane Gish]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today March 6, 2013, and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: 400!<br />
<br />
S: Evan Bernstein,<br />
<br />
E: Good evening, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: And we have a special guest rogue with us this evening, George Hrab. George, welcome back.<br />
<br />
GH: This isn't ''The Price is Right''! Jay, you lied to me. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: What else is new?<br />
<br />
J: No, but this is our 400th!<br />
<br />
S: No, it's not, Jay. Next week is our 400th episode.<br />
<br />
GH: 399!<br />
<br />
J: 399!<br />
<br />
E: 399! And that's a bargain.<br />
<br />
S: We're not round number bigots here, anyway. That's all superstitious nonsense.<br />
<br />
GH: Roundists. You're all roundists.<br />
<br />
S: So, Rebecca's voice is still recovering from whatever infection she had. So she is again not with us this week. But George will be taking her place and speaking in falsetto the entire show.<br />
<br />
GH: ''(starting high pitched, dropping to low)'' Y-e-e-e-s. I'm so skeptical. ''(normal voice)'' It's not a Rebecca impression. It's not a Rebecca impression at all. ''(laughter)'' We got that. All right. Good.<br />
<br />
J: So we were just talking before the show, like, saying hi to George and everything, and it occurred to me I wanted to ask George this question. George, ever listening, you ever listen to a podcast—<br />
<br />
GH: ''(in a Russian accent)'' Ever listenink to ''(unintelligible)'' Oh, sorry. Go ahead. So, have I ever listened to what?<br />
<br />
J: Has this ever happened where you're listening to a show that you've recorded, and somebody says your name in the podcast, and you answer them in real time? Like, it just happened to me two days ago. I was listening to one of our shows, and Steve says "So, Jay," and I actually go "Yeah." I'm like wh-o-o-o-a. He's not in the car with me! I'm not on the phone with him. I'm hearing him in the podcast.<br />
<br />
GH: I don't listen to my show 'cause I don't really like my show.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: But sound effects that I've done before have scared the hell out of me. I'll forget that I inserted an airplane or something, and it'll scare the crap out of me. ''(laughter)'' Or like a doorbell sound or something, yeah. But I don't actually, because I'm the only person on my show, for me to respond to myself as if I was actually talking to myself, I think would be indicative of something really scary and awesome. <br />
<br />
J: All right, that is a good point.<br />
<br />
GH: But, I respond to ''(two people talking – undecipherable)'' And if I listen to this show, I'll make sure that every time you say "Hey, George" no matter where I am, I'll say "What? Oh, damn!" ''(laughter)'' What? Oh, damn!<br />
<br />
E: With a head turn, right?<br />
<br />
''(two people talking—inaudible – something about Scooby-Doo)''<br />
<br />
GH: ''(imitating Scooby)'' Erh?<br />
<br />
B: Scooby snack.<br />
<br />
S: Hey George!<br />
<br />
GH: Erh?<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(2:45)</small> ==<br />
March 9, 1851: Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted died. &Oslash;rsted was a Danish physicist and chemist who discovered current traveling along a wire could deflect a compass needle.<br />
<br />
S: Evan is gonna tell us about this day in skepticism.<br />
<br />
E: All right. So, March 9, and the year was 1851. Now, we all know who Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted was<br />
<br />
B: ''(singing)'' Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted.<br />
<br />
J: I have no idea who he is.<br />
<br />
E: Well, he was a Danish. Oh, I'm sorry, wait, he was a Danish physicist<br />
<br />
S: And delicious.<br />
<br />
GH: I sing.<br />
<br />
E: Who made a discovery. He discovered that an electric current in a wire causes a nearby magnetized compass needle to deflect, indicating the electric current in a wire induces a magnetic field around it.<br />
<br />
B: That is awesome.<br />
<br />
J: That is awesome.<br />
<br />
B: You could just retire after making that discovery. I'm done. I've made my contribution.<br />
<br />
E: A little electro-magnetic theory for you, then?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah, but how do you monotize that. I mean, that's the problem. What d'ya do with that? What kind of invention could that possibly lead to? ''(people talking simultaneously)''<br />
<br />
B: It's just a laboratory curiosity. Nothing to see here.<br />
<br />
GH: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: It took like a hundred years for them to slap one of those suckers in a bracelet. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
GH: And then you get the real money.<br />
<br />
E: A bracelet made of, perhaps, aluminum. Hey! Speaking of aluminum<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so<br />
<br />
E and B: Aluminium.<br />
<br />
S: &Oslash;rsted also was the first one to produce metallic aluminum. Do you guys know how common—<br />
<br />
B: As opposed to rubber aluminum?<br />
<br />
S: No, as opposed an aluminum oxide or aluminum silicate. So, aluminum is the third most abundant element in the Earth's crust. And I know you guys all know that<br />
<br />
E: The third most?<br />
<br />
B: I used to know that, yes.<br />
<br />
S: After oxygen and silicon, which is why there's lots of aluminum oxides and aluminum silicate. And he figured out how to make metallic aluminum. Although it was up to later chemists to figure out how to really industrialize that process. If you recall, we talked about the fact that when aluminum was first available as a metal, it was more expensive than gold.<br />
<br />
B: I recall nothing.<br />
<br />
S: It was considered a rare and exotic metal and things made out of aluminum were like a status symbol. But then later chemists figured out how to make massive quantities of it, just from dirt, basically, and, you know, from bauxites, specifically.<br />
<br />
J: Did these scientists like cash in at that moment? Like, okay, I figured out how to make it, it's everywhere.<br />
<br />
E: Let's sell it now.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, did somebody become a trillionaire for like the first three years or what happened?<br />
<br />
S: American Aluminum, you know, I think was the company that became very wealthy mass producing aluminum. And the price went from hundreds of dollars an ounce to pennies a pound.<br />
<br />
J: Oof.<br />
<br />
GH: See, Alcoa shouldn't have waited.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, Alcoa, that's it.<br />
<br />
E: Bad investment.<br />
<br />
J: Guess I shouldn't have invested in that company early on.<br />
<br />
S: Well, you shouldn't have invested in aluminum. The company did quite well, actually. Now, did you also know that Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted was a very close friend of Hans Christian Andersen.<br />
<br />
B: Seriously?<br />
<br />
J: That's what I was gonna say.<br />
<br />
GH: No way.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, and I actually don't know exactly who Hans Christian Andersen is or was. What's his deal? Who's that guy?<br />
<br />
B: Come on, Jay.<br />
<br />
E: He wrote stories.<br />
<br />
B: It's Danny Kaye!<br />
<br />
E: That's right. Danny Kaye. He wrote Thumbelina,<br />
<br />
GH: The Little Mermaid.<br />
<br />
J: Did he sing The Little Mermaid?<br />
<br />
GH: I think he played the crab in the movie, actually. ''(laughter)'' Oh, aluminum.<br />
<br />
S: He wrote famous fairy tales. But, so, how did these guys meet? Like at a Hans Christian organization or something?<br />
<br />
E: Convention?<br />
<br />
B: I know. Famous People Named Hans Christian.<br />
<br />
GH: That was a Facebook page, wasn't it? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Did they get each other's mail, or what happened?<br />
<br />
J: My money's on the fact that maybe like half the population is just named Hans Christian something.<br />
<br />
S: Maybe.<br />
<br />
B: I think it's a coincidence.<br />
<br />
E: And March 9, 1851, was the day that we lost Hans &Oslash;rsted. Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted. So, we mourned Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted on this day. But thank you so much for all that electro-magnetism. It is doing us wonders these days.<br />
<br />
S: And aluminum. Yep.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that too.<br />
<br />
S: So George, before we go on to news items, what's new with you?<br />
<br />
GH: What's new? Goodness. Uh, what isn't? Actually, it's a short list. The newest thing is a number of you rogues were at the 21812 concert that happened last year.<br />
<br />
B: Yes! Loved it!<br />
<br />
GH: We are furiously, furiously editing and putting together what looks to be just an incredible DVD of that performance, which is audio mixing. I was at Slau's yesterday, as a matter of fact. So the audio mixing is done. A monumental effort, and now the video is being edited, and there's gonna be commentary and a documentary and it's gonna be really, really fantastic. So that is the thing which is occupying the most frontal part of my frontal creative lobe right now, is the 21812 concert.<br />
<br />
B: It only took you a year!<br />
<br />
J: When's it coming out?<br />
<br />
GH: I know, I know, I know, I know. Weeks. Months? Weeks. Well, I guess months are made up of weeks, so I'm not lying in either direction. But, weeks.<br />
<br />
S: As long as it's more than one month, right.<br />
<br />
GH: Hmm? Right.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== HIV Cure <small>(7:49)</small> ===<br />
[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/hiv-cure-game-changer/ Neurologica: HIV Cure "Game Changer"]<br />
<br />
S: So I have some ''good news'' everyone. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Excellent.<br />
<br />
J: What's up?<br />
<br />
S: Did you hear about the girl who was cured, ''cured'' of HIV?<br />
<br />
B: Despite this, or in spite of, the incompetence of her mom, apparently.<br />
<br />
S: Her mother appears to be troubled. I don't know if incompetence is her problem or if it's other things, but, so . . . Here's the story. The mother, who was HIV infected, presented for delivery with apparently no prenatal care, and delivered a child, who was positive for HIV within 30 hours of being born. So almost certainly infected in utero. The doctor was consulted, an HIV infectious disease specialist at the time was consulted on the case. Not really sure why, but decided to treat the child earlier than is typically treated. So at 31 hours, the infant was treated with anti-retroviral therapy. And also, she decided to give the infant<br />
<br />
B: Extra.<br />
<br />
S: Well, not extra, so therapeutic doses as opposed to preventive, or prophylactic doses.<br />
<br />
E: What's the difference?<br />
<br />
S: It's a higher dose. So a therapeutic dose is meant to treat an existing infection, whereas a preventive dose is meant to prevent an exposure from establishing itself as an infection.<br />
<br />
B: You can call that extra, I think.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, she gave the higher dose, the therapeutic dose.<br />
<br />
B: Extra.<br />
<br />
GH: Not the gum, but the actual medicine, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the anti-retroviral therapy. ART.<br />
<br />
GH: 'Cause that would be something, if extra gum cured AIDS. That would be, wow.<br />
<br />
S: This is Hannah Gay. A pediatric infectious disease specialist. And the child was treated with ART for the first 18 months of life, or thereabouts. At that point she was lost to follow-up, as we say. Stopped being brought back in by the mother for treatment. Now, Dr. Gay diligently tracked down the mother and the child, through the police, in order to bring the child back in for health care. So now, it was like seven or eight months the child has been getting no medication. The mother was going through some kind of life situation. Apparently has a lot of challenges. And not giving the kid their medicine. Not bringing them in to doctor's visits. So Dr. Gay at this point thought, okay, so now we have a two-year-old who has gone six, seven, eight months with no medication therapy. Their viral loads are gonna be off the charts. <br />
<br />
B: Right, because typically what happens, Steve, is when you're taking, when you're going through that process, the viruses pretty much just go into hiding, right? They just like say screw it, I'm just gonna hang out and wait til the weather's better and then once you stop it, bam! They come out. And that's what he expected.<br />
<br />
S: She, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Dr. Gay, that's what Gay expected.<br />
<br />
S: What typically happens is, in an HIV-infected individual, if they're treated with ART, then the viral loads will drop to undetectable levels. But the virus still lives on in the body, in these hidden reservoirs. As you say, they go into hiding. And these reservoirs are isolated from the immune system so that they can persist despite the retroviral therapy, and if you stopped the retroviral therapy, anti-retroviral therapy, then the infection would come back, would rebound. Because of these reservoirs. So, checked out the child, did the viral loads, they were still undetectable. There was no sign of HIV in the child at all. Went back to check everything. So now she things, all right, there's something interesting going on here. She checked a number of things. She got other specialists involved as well. First they confirmed that yes, she was indeed infected with HIV as a newborn. They confirmed that. Two, that the strain of HIV is a wild type strain that's not some mutated strain, it's not a weakened strain. It's a regular strain of HIV. Three, they tested the mother and the child to see if they happened to have a genetic type that makes them resistant to HIV, 'cause there are people out there who are naturally resistant to HIV. And they did not. So they did not have any of the known forms of resistance.<br />
<br />
B: Three great tests. So it's like, yeah. It didn't occur to me that they should do that but when I read it I'm like, oh, of course, that's exactly what you would need to do to really be secure in your conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Well, plus, I think, at this point that they were planning on publishing. And of course you want to get all your ducks in a row if you do that.<br />
<br />
B: Right, right.<br />
<br />
S: And in fact they did present this case at a conference and reported all these details. So essentially they discovered that she was infected, it was a normal virus, they're not resistant, and even six, seven months after stopping ART the virus never rebounded. They're calling this a functional cure. A functional cure. Not an outright cure, I think because a couple of, they did really, really sensitive tests for HIV, RNA and DNA and a couple of these tests showed rally miniscule little remnants of RNA or DNA.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but didn't they describe them as non-functional, or they did not have the ability to reproduce?<br />
<br />
S: They are not replication competent.<br />
<br />
B: That's what it was.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they are not replication competent. But I guess it means it's not completely, completely, completely out of the system. But what it does mean is that the virus will not rebound. It is not established. There's no active reservoirs of the virus. And the child will be able to live their life without the need for further ART, or anti-retroviral therapy.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. So we're not looking at some state of remission that's currently going on?<br />
<br />
S: Well, remission is not an unreasonable term to use. It's a remission without medication, without needing further medication or treatment. Functional cure is the specific term that they used. This is only the second case of any human being who was known to be infected with HIV who then was cured. The first one was a gentleman who got a bone marrow transplant in Germany from a donor who was HIV resistant. And they were apparently cured by that bone marrow transplant. Basically given a new immune system resistant to the HIV. This is now the second case.<br />
<br />
J: Does this help the world, Steve? Can we use this information in any way?<br />
<br />
B: Well, shit yeah. Look at the children born with AIDS like in Africa. I mean, the United States it's not so much of a huge deal as it is in Africa. But Jay, there's like, the statistic was crazy, it was like thousands of kids per pico-second in Africa.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, but my question is: does that case, the second case, of this child, does it actually help scientists figure out how to use that to make some type of cure?<br />
<br />
S: So here's the bottom line<br />
<br />
GH: We have to weaponize the baby, I think. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: The stats are about 130 children per year develop HIV from their mother in the United States. But it's about a thousand children per day world-wide in developing countries. So that's a lot. That's a thousand kids per day.<br />
<br />
GH: Why is that woman having so many children? ''(laughter)'' I'm sorry. Sorry.<br />
<br />
S: What this suggests is that the standard of care for treating newborns born of infected mothers might be, rather than giving prophylactic doses, but to give, would be to give therapeutic doses earlier, to try to prevent the virus from ever establishing an infection. Which seems to be the case here. The virus never got itself established. Here's the trick, though, is that, I mean, it's gotta be studied, is the case. This is an anecdote, right? It's interesting, but it's one case. And it's hard to extrapolate from that. So this will lead to research looking at this approach to show that it's safe, to show that it's effective. What's going to be tricky, so let's you get a hundred kids, or 200 kids, 100 you give the standard therapy. The other hundred you give this early aggressive therapy. You track 'em over a few years. To really know that the children have been functionally cured, you would want to actually stop their ART. That's gonna be tricky to do.<br />
<br />
E: That's tough.<br />
<br />
S: Ethically, how are you gonna do that? We're not gonna give you proof in therapy to see how you're doing. So, the best they could hope to do would be to follow a lot of children and then track those whose parents stopped giving them the medication due to non-compliance or whatever. Like in this case. You know, you can't randomly choose people not to get treatment just to see how they do. That's the definition of unethical research. But you may be able to track cases where the children stopped getting their drugs for one reason or another and see how they do. And maybe you can gather enough information from that to say okay, it's reasonable in these cases with these outcomes to reduce the medication, see how they do, maybe wean them off, tracking them carefully. So it's not gonna instantly lead to replicating this exact treatment paradigm, but it will, I think, probably it'll lead to studying this higher, more aggressive, early treatment, which may lead to curing infants who otherwise would have been infected with HIV. But this is using drugs that are already in existence to treat HIV. This is not a new treatment or a new cure. This is not a cure for people in whom infection is already established. You might think that maybe the same applies if you, let's say, get exposed to HIV. Again, instead of getting preventive doses, maybe even as an adult, you would be given therapeutic doses right away. <br />
<br />
''(inaudible comment by GH)''<br />
<br />
J: When you say "therapeutic doses" you mean a large, large amount. <br />
<br />
S: Well, the doses that are normally given to people with HIV infection, as opposed to preventive doses, which are doses given to people who have been exposed but who are not infected. In order to reduce the risk of the exposure resulting in an infection.<br />
<br />
GH: When I read the story, it was amazing. And I remember one of the first things that popped into my head was the idea that the kid at one point was outside of the care of the hospital, whether that was seven months, or whatever it was.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: And that someone is going to latch onto something the kid did in those seven months and say that ''that'' is the actual cure.<br />
<br />
B: Ohhhhh, wow.<br />
<br />
GH: You what I mean, like Fruit Loops or something. And they're gonna say "Yeah, the fact that she had Fruit Loops!" Forget the hospital. It was the Fruit Loops that cured. Here's proof! Like that was the first, the woo radar warning system that I have installed in my brain, was like, oh man, okay, let no one take advantage of those seven months where the kid was outside of supervised care to claim that that's some kind of secret cure.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah. I didn't even think of that.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I agree.<br />
<br />
S: I haven't heard anything about it yet, but that's always a risk. There was a lot of sensational reporting of this story.<br />
<br />
GH: Wh-a-a-t?<br />
<br />
S: It's fascinating enough as it is. What I always, my radar goes up, we talk about the skeptical radar, my skeptical radar always goes up whenever I see the word "cure" in the headline of any article. Especially when it's connected to AIDS or cancer or the common cold or whatever.<br />
<br />
B: Acne.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. There are certain things where it's like, really? You mean, no, we did not cure AIDS, I'm sorry, we did not cure HIV. This is a very interesting case and has implications for research and for treatment. But no, this isn't the discovery of a cure for HIV.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, so what if a parent has AIDS. They have a kid, and they're like, I want my kid to get a therapeutic dose asap? What can they do? 'Cause that's what I would do.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Enter a trial, enter a clinical trial in which that is being done and take your chance that you'll get randomized, getting it.<br />
<br />
J: Is it hard to get into a trial?<br />
<br />
S: Well, right now, none exists. But I'm sure<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that's just it.<br />
<br />
S: It'll take time to get them up and running. I don't know how many and how many people are gonna be introduced. So, probably in the U.S., given that the number is so low, number of kids who get infected this way because of pre-natal care, etc. 'Cause you know, normally what you would do is aggressively treat the mother, get the viral loads down as low as possible so the risk of the so-called vertical transmission from mother to child is minimized. This mother didn't do that, that's probably why the child was infected. So, this is the exact people who are going to end up infected as an infant are the ones that are going to be difficult to recruit, and there aren't that many of them. So it's probably gonna be more, it's gonna be hard to get people into this trial as opposed to people having a hard time getting into such trials. You know what I mean? If you're the kind of parent who is going to seek out that kind of aggressive care, you're probably not the kind of parent who is going to give birth to an infected child in the first place. Does that make sense?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah; where's the father through all this, I wonder?<br />
<br />
S: No mention in anything.<br />
<br />
GH: I wonder what his situation is.<br />
<br />
S: Obviously the doctors are being confidential, keeping confidential the personal details. They're just saying she had some life situation that intervened, but we have no idea what that was. But clearly she's troubled.<br />
<br />
B: It still won't be an outright cure because if you have the infection, this won't work, but for people who just get it, it will a cure for them. There—<br />
<br />
S: Well, remember, she was treated at 30 hours of life.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: How many people don't we even find out that they've been exposed until—<br />
<br />
B: That's it.<br />
<br />
S: --days later. So, one example would be a health care worker who stabs themself with an HIV-infected needle.<br />
<br />
B: Yup. Perfect example.<br />
<br />
S: You would be in the clinic in 15 minutes. In fact, I did that to myself once. Not with an HIV<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
E; Oh, my gosh.<br />
<br />
S: Not with an HIV-infected needle. But I stuck myself with a Hep C needle.<br />
<br />
J: How'd you do it?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, man, I hate when that happens.<br />
<br />
GH: Did you lose a bet?<br />
<br />
S: No. It was an accident. I did what I wasn't supposed to. I recapped the needle, the needle went right through the cap and into my finger.<br />
<br />
E: Geez.<br />
<br />
J: And you were right in front of a patient?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: What'd you do?<br />
<br />
S: I finished what I was doing. I went to the health services and got two huge needles of gamma globulin injected into my buttocks.<br />
<br />
E: Gamma globulin?<br />
<br />
J: Wait a second. Wait, wait, wait, wait.<br />
<br />
B: One per cheek?<br />
<br />
S: Yup.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, I have to ask more detail. Did you keep your composure?<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
J: Like, did you do "Oh, holy shit!!" Like run out of there. <br />
<br />
GH: Like ''We're all gonna die!!!''<br />
<br />
J: ''Give me those ass needles!!'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: On panic day? Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it was not panic day. Unlike today.<br />
<br />
J: Were you embarrassed? Were you shameful, like going to some guy sitting at a desk and you're like "Um…"<br />
<br />
S: Yes, I was stupid. Yea. It was dumb. I was a medical student.<br />
<br />
J: Did they say anything to you. Like did they make you feel really weird?<br />
<br />
S: No. No.<br />
<br />
B: Steve's heart rate increased by two beats per minute.<br />
<br />
E: Were they messing with you? "Oh, we gotta do a biopsy, and now we're gonna do this. Gotta do that."<br />
<br />
S: No. They're my physician now. They acted totally professional.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, put this in a little context. Hepatitis C. How bad we talkin'?<br />
<br />
S: That's bad. Like a chronic liver infection. It would be very bad. And yes, I got, the treatment for that is gamma globulin, so it like pooled antibodies. And it's a huge dose.<br />
<br />
B: Is it a bolus? They call that a bolus?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: If they give you enough of that gamma globulin, Steve, can you turn into the Hulk? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: The first injection was very painful. The second injection was ten times as painful. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, but ten times!<br />
<br />
S: It was so much more painful! And the reason for that probably<br />
<br />
GH: It's not supposed to go in your penis. That's the problem. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: We gotta get this in here!<br />
<br />
GH: A really long needle.<br />
<br />
S: When you get the first injection your body excretes chemicals which sort of prime it for pain, and so then when you get the second injection, it has a huge exaggerated local response to the injection.<br />
<br />
B: Thank you, body, isn't that convenient?<br />
<br />
E: Well, okay<br />
<br />
J: Why's that happening?<br />
<br />
E: They should give you both needles at once. One, two, three, jab.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I don't know what would be worse.<br />
<br />
J: That's crazy.<br />
<br />
E: Two at once. Two needles at once.<br />
<br />
S: But this was, whatever, twenty years ago, so, I know I'm out of the window. And never had a problem from it.<br />
<br />
GH: Are you sure?<br />
<br />
E: No Hep C.<br />
<br />
S: I could definitely imagine the panic of jabbing yourself with an HIV-infected needle. That would be panic time.<br />
<br />
J: It just shows you how dangerous health care is. I mean, these professionals—<br />
<br />
S: This was also, this was not in the early, early days, but, this was earlier in the whole HIV situation. So, you know, the protocols for preventing these things were not as well established. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: They had you rub garlic on the wound. Prayer beads and whatever.<br />
<br />
S: The needle that I was using at that time doesn't even exist now, really. Everything is made to prevent this from happening. Anyway, let's move on.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Mars Comet <small>(24:49)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/5349/20130304/newly-discovered-comet-hit-mars-watch-two-others-near-earth.htm Newly Discovered Comet May Hit Mars: Watch for Two Others Near Earth]<br />
<br />
S: Bob, you're gonna tell us about the comet that's going to smack right into Mars.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
B: You guys remember I recently mentioned that this would be remembered maybe as the Year of the Asteroid. But not I think it will be, in retrospect, in the future, considered the Year of the Asteroid/Comet. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Slash comet.<br />
<br />
B: Slash comet. The big news in recent days is not only do we have the Pan Stars comet, which will be visible in mid-March 2013<br />
<br />
E: Can't wait.<br />
<br />
B: And also the Ison comet, which could be awesome. Very bright, in November 2013. But we also have the Sliding Spring, an oddly named comet which could potentially hit the planet Mars in October 2014; not quite this year, but coming up relatively soon. So that is kind of exciting, I think. It's not the Earth, so it's all good. This new comet was discovered January 3 this year, 2013, by famous comet hunter Robert McNaught. He actually has 74 comets on his resume.<br />
<br />
E: Wow!<br />
<br />
B: So how cool is that?<br />
<br />
J: Bob, does he hang them on the wall like a plaque?<br />
<br />
B; ''(laughing)'' Yeah, right. I would. I would create a little comet for every one that I discovered. And he also discovered asteroids. This guy's very prolific. He gets a gold star.<br />
<br />
S: Did he discover that asteroids exist?<br />
<br />
B: No. Just discovered asteroids.<br />
<br />
E: The game ''Asteroids."<br />
<br />
S: Specific asteroids.<br />
<br />
B: Yes. So this is like, apparently this is a new, or virgin, comet. Never having been in our local area of the solar system before. And I think they believe this is because of the eccentricity of its orbit, after it was ejected for the Oort Cloud of billions of comets that are in orbit about a light year, I think, from the Sun.<br />
<br />
S: Yup.<br />
<br />
B: Billions and billions of these guys and occasionally one will come careening in.<br />
<br />
S: ''(imitating Carl Sagan)'' Billions and billions.<br />
<br />
B: Billions, yes. <br />
<br />
E; That's about a Sagan.<br />
<br />
GH: A virgin comet has no tail.<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: ''(unintelligible)'' no comets, tell no tales.<br />
<br />
B: So, ah, so<br />
<br />
S: Tough crowd.<br />
<br />
J: George, don't laugh.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, George is grabbing his tie as we speak, right?<br />
<br />
S: We're laughing on the inside.<br />
<br />
GH: I was all excited. ''(unintelligible)'' Zilch. Loser.<br />
<br />
B: That's all right. You had some good ones so far, at least. So the big question, in my mind, is is this sucker gonna hit Mars? And the answer is: nobody knows, not yet anyway. Some projections put the comet within 23 to 63,000 miles away from Mars at its closest approach. That's 37 to about 100,000 kilometers away.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, Bob. The orbitors we've got; I'm sorry, the orbitor we have, we have one? Or more than one around Mars? Is it gonna be close enough that it's gonna be able to capture this thing for us? Are we gonna get a good view of it?<br />
<br />
B: It depends, actually, on various variables. But yeah, they could potentially get a really view of this. Although there are certain things that could make it not as awesome as it could be. Depending the various factors of the approach and things. But, as you know though, as we've talked about this, the estimates of the future positions of these objects are very difficult, 'cause you need to take a nice long look at its orbit so that you can accurately extrapolate, right? And one I wasn't quite aware of , though, is that this is even more problematic with comets, because, think about it; you've got these frozen gases on this comet; they heat up because it's getting closer to the sun, and then they explosively sublimate. They turn from ice to gas very quickly. And so it's like these little geysers that are erupting on the comet, and this, of course, is what creates the tail. That can change the orbit, as you can imagine these little geysers erupting. That could subtly, I mean not a lot, but it can change the orbit of the comet a tiny bit.<br />
<br />
S: Like little jets.<br />
<br />
B: And, right, and enough, this thing is gonna be so close to Mars as it is, that it could actually make it hit it or even miss it by even a greater distance. So right now, we really won't know until probably the earliest, I think, is late summer. It's when we can confident of what's gonna happen. Chances are, unfortunately, it's not gonna hit. Well, I guess it depends how you look at it. But if it did hit. Whoa. I mean, we're talking megahit. This thing's five to thirty miles across. This thing will be coming in at about, say, 55 kilometers, or 33 miles per second.<br />
<br />
GH: Geez.<br />
<br />
B: I mean this thing'll be coming in so fast. That is kinetic energy. They're talking, the impact equivalent of a billion megatons, that's a petaton. Equivalent to a one petaton nuke.<br />
<br />
S: Bob, you like petatons?<br />
<br />
B: I love petatons. They're awesome!<br />
<br />
S: You're a petaphile?! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good one. Go for the easy ones, Steve, that was good.<br />
<br />
E: See, Bob. There is the horizon. Did you see it coming?<br />
<br />
B: That's with a "t" by the way, not a "d." Now, that's millions of times bigger than anything that we've ever detonated. We're talking about a crater that could be hundreds of miles or kilometers across. It would be totally devastating. But that would be cool.<br />
<br />
''(unintelligible – several people talking at once.)''<br />
<br />
B: I want this thing to hit Mars so bad. But, and I want one of our rovers to have a safe front-row seat to film this entire thing. But the problem is, I don't think there's, there won't be anywhere safe on the planet. Even if it was on the other side. This thing can be so devastating. It could take out every probe on the planet or in orbit. It won't matter where you are. It could wipe out everything. And that would clearly suck.<br />
<br />
S: Would it be worth it, though, to get the video?<br />
<br />
B: Think about the time and effort and future science that we would be getting out of these things, all wiped in an hour. Bam! Game over, you're done. But, yeah, the video, the YouTube video that came out of that would be epic. Totally epic.<br />
<br />
J: Is that gonna ruin the geologic history of Mars?<br />
<br />
B: No. In what way Jay?<br />
<br />
E: Not all of it.<br />
<br />
S: It's going to hit the last colony of life on Mars. ''(laughter)'' Wipe it out. Some bacterial colony.<br />
<br />
GH: That group of cells up there is all getting psyched.<br />
<br />
S: This little frozen, this little underground pond.<br />
<br />
E: ''(in a little voice)'' Yay, we can think! Ahhhhhh! Crash.<br />
<br />
J: Let me clarify. So we have a petaton object hitting the surface of Mars. Couldn't that breach the, get down in the mantle and actually . . .<br />
<br />
S: The Martian crust is a little thicker than Earth's. Mars's crust is 50 kilometers thick on average, while Earth's is 40 kilometers on average. And the mantle is still hot. So, like Earth, Mars has a relatively thin crust. It also has a much thinner atmosphere, only 1/100 the thickness that of Earth. So that's less of a cushion to slow down anything incoming, like a comet. But I don't know if this could carry the punch necessary to crack open the crust down to the mantle.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, and that would be a deep crater, Jay. <br />
<br />
J: Couldn't that kick up enough matter into the tiny atmosphere that there is and actually just screw up all of that geologic information?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, it'll definitely erase a lot of geological information, no question.<br />
<br />
GH: But it could also expose a lot, too.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I don't know, but, yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: I wonder, if it does hit, will this be a, sort of a good selling point for us to come up with some kind of comet deterrence system, asteroid deterrence system. Like, look at Mars! Look at what happened! That could be us!<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: You know, I'm just saying. It'd be nice, right?<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely. That's one of the big benefits of the Russian asteroid recently. That people are like, oh, boy, we've gotta really start taking this seriously. If something like that hit Mars and with such a devastating effect, and we filmed it in all of its glory, yeah, that would be, that would spur us even more. So in that regard, I think that will be a great benefit of this thing taking out Mars.<br />
<br />
S: So I'm having mixed feelings about ''(unintelligible)'' It would be uber-cool in many ways, but I don't want all of NASA's probes to be destroyed. That would suck.<br />
<br />
B: In one fell swoop. Which of course, the conspiracy theorists would say, well, yeah, this was manmade. We steered the comet towards Mars to wipe out, so that our probes wouldn't run into the secret…. ''(overlapping comments)''<br />
<br />
S: What if the comet hits Cydonia? Like it hits the face on Mars.<br />
<br />
B: I was just thinking that, Steve. I was just thinking that! That would be, I really hope that doesn't happen, 'cause that would be too much of a coincidence.<br />
<br />
''(Many people talking at once – unintelligible)''<br />
<br />
GH: --put the pieces together. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we're getting there. That's our next item. So, Bob, what I read, though, was that the current estimate is that there's a 0.1 percent chance that the nucleus of the comet will directly hit Mars.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it's looking unlikely, very unlikely, even right now, before we know the obit.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: But it's not completely ruled out and who knows, these are comets and they are inherently harder to predict than asteroids.<br />
<br />
S: But even if it's not a direct hit, though, there's a good chance that the <br />
<br />
B: The comea, the coma?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the coma will pass through Mars. Essentially<br />
<br />
GH: Combover?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It'll coma over, yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: If it does hit, though, what happens to all the life force vampires that're in the comet? Are they affected by that, or is that . .. <br />
<br />
B: OOOOhhhh. Yeah, I know what you're thinking of, George.<br />
<br />
GH: Damn right.<br />
<br />
J: My vote is I don't want it to hit.<br />
<br />
B: 'Nuf said.<br />
<br />
GH: 'Nuf said.<br />
<br />
S: Jay votes no. What do you say, Evan?<br />
<br />
E: Absolutely yes. This is a once, gosh, not even once in a lifetime chance. Once in a, I don't know, species time chance, for this to happen.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I wanna see Mars split in two.<br />
<br />
S: George, what do you think?<br />
<br />
GH: I want it to hit, but I want it to hit like on the far side so we can't see it. Just to really be like Doooohhhhhhh it's so aaaaaaawwwwww. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Worst case scenario.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah, I want a massive---<br />
<br />
''(Many people talking at once – unintelligible)''<br />
<br />
S: --wipes out all our probes so we don't get to see anything.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah, this huge nerd sigh, that just is like "guuuuuhh." Yeah, that's what I want. <br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' Nerd sigh.<br />
<br />
J; Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
E: Steve, what do you want? You said no?<br />
<br />
S: I'm on the fence. No, I said I'm conflicted, very conflicted.<br />
<br />
E: Don't forget, Mars has two moons.<br />
<br />
S: Maybe it'll hit one of the moons.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that'd be cool!<br />
<br />
E: How cool would that be?<br />
<br />
J: Not cool. <br />
<br />
E: Why?<br />
<br />
J: It could hit one of the moons and send it towards the Earth and then we're all f'd.<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
B: I'll take that chance.<br />
<br />
J: Hey, come on. You never know, Steve.<br />
<br />
E: That's what happened in ''Thundarr the Barbarian.'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S; Jay, what are the names of the moons of Mars?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, there's, uh, Zero Zero One and Zero Zero Two. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Alpha and Beta.<br />
<br />
B: Deimos and Phobos.<br />
<br />
S: Phobos and Deimos, yes.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, the first one, Frankie Gismore ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: And the second one is?<br />
<br />
J: I love it when we have all guys on the show. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Sirius UFO <small>(35:31)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp9aOb04e20&list=PL6E8B33D9279BEF7B&index=1 YouTube: Dr.Steven Greer - Sirius Documentary (Trailer) - New Movie Coming Soon ! 2012]<br />
<br />
S: Hey, Evan, you're gonna tell us<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: about the Srius UFO documentary.<br />
<br />
B: Seriously.<br />
<br />
E: Very serious. We received multiple emails and messages this week about the most recent episode of the Joe Rogan Experience. Right? That's a podcast, or, it's also a vodcast, but, for those of you not familiar with him, Joe Rogan is an American martial artist, a stand-up comedian, an actor, a writer and color commentator for the Ultimate Fighting Championship mixed martial arts events. Now. Full disclosure here. I've never seen his stand-up comedy, I've never seen him act. But I've watched him a lot of times doing UFC color, he's very good at it. And now, for the first time ever, I've listened to an entire episode of his podcast. Because he had a fella on, his name is Dr. Steven Greer. And he has put together a documentary film that'll be coming out in April called ''Sirius.'' And Joe Rogan spent three hours on his podcast talking with Dr. Steven Greer.<br />
<br />
B: Wow. Three hours.<br />
<br />
E: Have you guys heard of Steven Greer before?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah. He's the head of the Disclosure Project.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. Disclosure Project and other little projects having to do with the world of UFOs. He's huge UFOlogists. He's a prominent believer and conspiracy theorist. So if you haven't heard of him before, consider yourself fortunate. So this is a conspiracy theorist's wet dream. Right? Dr. Greer has stitched together a narrative by which extra-terrestrials, they not only exist, but they are regular visitors to Earth, through space and time. And their physics-altering technologies have been co-opted by the military industrial complex in an effort to suppress the flow of free and clean energy to the people. The masses. Here on Earth.<br />
<br />
GH: Booorr-ing!<br />
<br />
E: And there's also a, but, George, there's also a shadow government. Did you know that? And it has no borders. It's the very, very powerful, a couple hundred powerful people in corporations around the planet, and they are the puppetmasters pulling the strings of society and technology. You know, they're oil barons and coal tycoons and nuclear-hungry megalomaniacs. And they want to dominate the people of Earth by not giving them access to the alien technology that would give us clean fuel and efficient means of energy. So to top it all off, the ''coup de grace,'' the icing on the cake, the smoking gun, the final nail in the coffin.<br />
<br />
S: Coup de grace ''(pronouncing the "s" sound (Evan didn't))''<br />
<br />
B: We get it.<br />
<br />
S: It's coup de gras-s-s<br />
<br />
E: Coup ''(pronouncing the "P")'' de gra-cey.<br />
<br />
S: De gracey. Coup de gracey is acceptable.<br />
<br />
E: Dr. Greer has video, photographic and physical evidence of an extra-terrestrial.<br />
<br />
S: And he'll show it to you if you pay him.<br />
<br />
E: If you pay him. Yes. But if you look at the trailer, he'll show you a little peek of it at the very end of his trailer. It's about six inches long, this little thing. It looks like a little dried-out husk of what would have otherwise been that alien from the infamous alien autopsy video back in the '90s. The one that was, you know, a full-blown hoax.<br />
<br />
B: It reminded me of the little alien driving the human body thing in ''Men in Black.'' But not as good of a prop, though, because, you know, the movie made a better prop than he did.<br />
<br />
GH: A homunculus.<br />
<br />
S: It's a homunculus.<br />
<br />
J: It's a homunculus, man.<br />
<br />
S: So, yeah, the six-inch alien is interesting. We have x-rays of it and some pictures of a skeleton. What's interesting, one thing that I find interesting is that it has every bone a human has in the right place, basically in the right shape. But it's just a little distorted. So the proportions are distorted, but all the bones pretty much are human.<br />
<br />
J: You think that that's an actual fetus corpse?<br />
<br />
S: I don't know. It could be a hundred percent a fake, just like the alien autopsy. It could be some weird<br />
<br />
B: How about a monkey, some weird monkey<br />
<br />
S: Primate.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, a primate with no fur or something, a baby one, I don't know. It's either that or it's a complete and utter hoax. It's not just a misidentification and wishful thinking and all that stuff, it's like a clear "I am going to scam people and make all this shit up."<br />
<br />
GH: I think the keychain part of it really gives it away, though. I think that's<br />
<br />
S: Keychain, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yes. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Little "Made in China" tag on it, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Am I missing something here? Like, do a DNA test on the damn thing.<br />
<br />
S: So he's claiming to be doing a DNA test.<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
S: And claiming to be examining it. But it's all "oh, we need to raise money in order to do the proper science experiments and I have some undisclosed guy in some undisclosed country doing these examinations and it's all. . . So, listening to this guy, 'cause I watched a dozen of his YouTube videos and the trailer to his movie and read some of his articles. You know, he's one of these people where I am not convinced that he's not completely full of it. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: I'm not convinced that he believes what he's saying. You know, he could believe it somewhat, he could be a total true believer, he could be a total con artist or anywhere in between. It's just, it's hard to say. But he definitely is trying very hard to make a lot of money out of what he's doing. Which doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong. But it gives him a certain vibe. He's doing things, like he has these seminars where he will train you to summon a UFO mentally.<br />
<br />
E: Yup. That's right. He knows the secret.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god, he's going to that level?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: So he's saying that he could teach you how to attract a UFO—<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: That's exactly right. He calls it, and he has a name for it, it's called coherent thought. And you use protocols from, that he describes as close encounters of the<br />
<br />
J: Wait, wait. I got it, Evan, I got it.<br />
<br />
E: fifth kind. Okay.<br />
<br />
J: George.<br />
<br />
GH: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Roll play with me, shall you?<br />
<br />
GH: All right, hit it.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>''electronic noises for about 7 seconds. They continue as background to the conversation.''<br />
Voice 1: So we have travelled a trillion years, but we will wait in the atmosphere of this planet. We will wait.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: Uh, do you think we should maybe like get in touch with the, like, world government, or something?<br />
<br />
Voice 1: No. No. No, we will wait. We will sit here and just wait.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: 'Cause you know, we've basically spend like pretty much our entire planet's resource to get this ship to this point. You know, it's<br />
<br />
Voice 1: You're young; don't be anxious. We will wait.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: If there's maybe like a president or like maybe some kind of you know, like a united nations or some organization?<br />
<br />
Voice 1: Oh look! The light on the dashboard just turned on! Somebody's summoning us.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: Is that an official kind of person that represents like a large number of people that we could then maybe, you know, have a liaison with them, or who is that representing that little dashboard light?<br />
<br />
Voice 1: This is . . . um . . . a hippie in a field in North America.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: Okay. So we're gonna travel across the known, pretty much, galaxy, to talk to, um, a hippie.<br />
<br />
''Background noise fades.''</blockquote><br />
<br />
J: Does this make sense, guys? I mean, seriously. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
''(Many people talking at once – unintelligible)''<br />
<br />
E: --Perfect sense.<br />
<br />
GH: --our production off Broadway.<br />
<br />
S: What happens, Jay, is that he points to lights in the sky and says "That's a UFO."<br />
<br />
J: Right.<br />
<br />
S: He's probably pointing at satellites.<br />
<br />
GH: It turned green, which means we can go.<br />
<br />
J: Did anybody think to ask him why are they waiting to just barely show themselves? Like, come on, how could people be this --- fooled?<br />
<br />
S: Don't ask that question.<br />
<br />
E: Well, Jay, I'm sorry you asked that, because there is kind of an answer to that.<br />
<br />
J: What?<br />
<br />
E: The aliens are here because they realize we are on the cusp of obtaining technology that can be a threat to them or to other planets . . .<br />
<br />
GH: iPhone 6<br />
<br />
E: and people on other . . . the iPhone 6, exactly. You know, with all of our nuclear capabilities and mushroom clouds, and these sorts of thing, that's why the aliens have taken an interest.<br />
<br />
S: But we've had nuclear weapons for 70 years.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, but it's not, you know, it's only a blip in time because the aliens have been visiting us for millions of years.<br />
<br />
J: Guys, guys, we're about to create warp drive.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Is that from Cochran?<br />
<br />
GH: First Contact, there you go.<br />
<br />
J: Thank you, of course.<br />
<br />
B: That's gotta be it.<br />
<br />
''(Many people talking at once – unintelligible)''<br />
<br />
GH: I don't wanna be a statue. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: This guy, the other thing that makes me very suspicious of this guy is that he's doing this "we're right on the cusp, it's happen; governments are gonna start disclosing all the real stuff; they're hiding everything from us. I just need a little bit more money and I'm gonna prove all this." I get the same vibe as the free energy people, which he is a free energy person.<br />
<br />
E: Dennis Lee. He is, yes.<br />
<br />
S: It's like we're just about to prove the free energy thing and I just need a little bit more investors to give me some more money. We'll get the DNA analysis and free energy thing and all, and everything. It's all a big conspiracy. You know, it's just hard to swallow the whole thing. <br />
<br />
GH: Was Joe Rogan at all questioning or skeptical, at all? Or was it just three hours of complete agreement and, like, do you think he completely bought into it? Or did he have him on the show to kind of just, sort of show this is a crazy guy?<br />
<br />
E: That's a great question, George. Joe had him on the show, Joe says, because his listeners demanded it.<br />
<br />
GH: Ah, okay.<br />
<br />
E: Well, not demanded, but heavily requested that this person be on the show. So that gives you an insight as to the audience of the Joe Rogan Show. But, in any case, Joe did a, better than I expected, job of asking him some questions that a good skeptic would have asked. Now here's the problem with Joe, though. And he admits this. He wants to believe that this stuff and other things like it are actually true, and therefore, he will be much, much more relaxed in his level of standards, right. His threshold by which the person has to achieve in order to convince Joe that something is right. But Joe's not a dumb person. He knows some things. And he shows that he knows some things. He knows a little bit about science and physics and so forth. And he does ask some decent questions. But at the same time, he really has, his biases do get the better of him in the end.<br />
<br />
GH: I've listened to his show. He's a very smart guy. He's a very funny guy. I liked his stand-up and I've heard a number of his podcasts, too. And on some things he can be very skeptical. His approach is actually really good. And other times he'll sort of begin just a little bit of skepticism and then there's no follow-up like at all. Like one response from a person and he just kind of stops that kind of front. And it's a shame because I bet if he had some kind of epiphany moment, I think there could be a real turnaround for him. Because he is a deductive kind of smart guy. He's not a completely credulous—from what I can tell, anyway, from the limited amount I've listened to.<br />
<br />
S: Well what I want to know is why is there a six-inch tall alien that looks more human than any alien has the right to look. That's what I want to know. Why will it have DNA, if it's alien?<br />
<br />
J: Because they seeded the Earth, Steve. Come on, there's always a good explanation.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I know. They always have their hand-waving BS explanation, but it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.<br />
<br />
B: Look at Prometheus. They were big and muscular, you know. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
GH: Don't even start on Prometheus.<br />
<br />
E: Prometheus? Oh<br />
<br />
S: George, you love that movie.<br />
<br />
GH: Love it. Love it! I have it running in a loop in my head all day long. ''(laughter)'' Ugggghh! I'm in it for the money.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, boy.<br />
<br />
E: That's a good line, from that. So, there you go. That's the latest with the, Joe and . . .<br />
<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(47:08)</small>==<br />
<br />
S: All right, so, Evan, it's time for ''Who's That Noisy?''<br />
<br />
E: Yup. I'm gonna play for you last week's noisy, and it was up to you the listening audience to guess exactly what this noisy was. Here we go.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Men's voices speaking on some kind of communicators:<br />
Person 1: You're looking a little hot and all your calls will be a little early. (Beep) Person 2: Okay. Person 3: And that looks good here.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: That is, that is a whistlepig. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: No, no, that was . . . no, we can't do that two weeks in a row. Yeah, we can't.<br />
<br />
J: We knew it was a NASA beep, communication with somebody in outer space, but we didn't know what mission. What was it?<br />
<br />
E: Well, George, what do you think? Have you heard that before somewhere?<br />
<br />
GH: That is actually the mission that the band Rush used for the song "Countdown."<br />
<br />
E: Um hmmm. That is exactly correct. STS 1. Space Shuttle Columbia.<br />
<br />
GH: Right.<br />
<br />
E: April 12, 1981. Yup. That was a little part of the communiqué going on between Mission Control and astronauts Young and Crippen in the shuttle itself.<br />
<br />
J: Awesome.<br />
<br />
GH or J: ''(singing)'' ''Excitement soo grand.''<br />
<br />
J: ''(singing)'' ''It's the final countdown.''<br />
<br />
GH: Not that one. No, no, stop it, stop it. No. Wrong hair. Wrong hair. ''(laughter)'' More kimonos, less hair.<br />
<br />
E: I'm very proud of our audience. So many correct guesses. I was very, very pleased with everyone this past week, so thank you all for playing and submitting your correct guesses. I drew randomly from all the correct guesses and Ross Rawlings, you are the winner this week, because I drew your name. So, well done, Ross.<br />
<br />
GH: Ross Rawlings! Fantastic!<br />
<br />
E: He is now in the running <br />
<br />
''George making trumpeting sounds''<br />
<br />
E: Is that ''The Dating Game?''<br />
<br />
GH: Tell him what he's won! Tell him what he's won! ''(laughter)'' ''(trumpeting continues)''<br />
<br />
E: Welllll, Ross, you are now in the running to join us for an episode of ''Science or Fiction'' on an episode of The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. We will have the drawing at the beginning of 2014. So congratulations!<br />
<br />
''(trumpeting finishes up)'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: I didn't know you carried a little bugle in your back pocket there, George. That's very handy.<br />
<br />
GH: I'm just happy to see you.<br />
<br />
E: Logic puzzle this week, ladies and gentlemen. Get your thinking caps on, and try this one: A man from the Ukraine had three sons. The first son was named Rab, and he became a lawyer.<br />
<br />
S: Isn't it Rab ''(pronouncing it "Rob")'' like Hrab?<br />
<br />
E: It's R-A-B.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: How would you pronounce that, George?<br />
<br />
GH: I would say Rob.<br />
<br />
E: Okay.<br />
<br />
GH: If he's Ukrainian. And don't say "The Ukraine," just say "Ukraine."<br />
<br />
E: Oh, okay. Sorry 'bout that. <br />
<br />
S: A man from The France. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
GH: Exactly. The France, yeah. Or, The England.<br />
<br />
E: A man from The Hague had three sons.<br />
<br />
S: Go ahead, Evan. Get it right this time.<br />
<br />
E: A man from Ukraine had three sons. The first son was named Rab, and he became a lawyer. The second son was named Ymra, and he became a soldier. The 3rd son became a sailor, so, what was his name? <br />
<br />
S: Got it.<br />
<br />
E: So, go ahead, give us your answer to that logic puzzle. wtn@theskepticsguide.org is the email. Or you can post it on the forums at sguforums.com. Tune up your thinking caps. Good luck, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Thanks, Evan.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Question 1: Magnet Hill <small>(50:26)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: We have a few questions this week. I don't know if we'll get through all of them, but let's start with this one. This one comes from Jonathan Nonon from New York, and Jonathan writes:<br />
<br />
<blockquote> I am a Software Engineer originally from Dominican Republic,</blockquote><br />
<br />
Is it ''The'' Dominican Republic?<br />
<br />
<blockquote>I have been a listener of the show since 2010, and every week I am looking forward to a new SGU chapter. When I was a kid (I am 28) </blockquote><br />
<br />
He's still a kid.<br />
<br />
<blockquote> back in the DR, a journalist made an investigation about a "Magnetic Pole" in one remote corner of the country, Barahona, in the south east of the island. It always puzzled me. The place looks like a hill, however, everything you place in the ground "rolls" in the opposite direction, uphill. All objects, no matter what material they are, the are pulled upwards. You can look at dozens of videos on youtube by searching the string "polo magnetico barahona" [Magnetic Pole Barahona] The common and most simple explanation is that the place is an optical illusion. Is not that I do not believe it, I do not understand it. I have been looking for explanations, but none of them satisfy my curiosity. In my little research, I didn't find any other place where this phenomenon is happening. If you can explain this phenomenon I will appreciate it. </blockquote><br />
<br />
J: This phenomenon was one of the first ones that I debunked on my own. I figured it out by myself and I was really proud of myself. It was a long time ago. Thank you. So, it's known by many names, and there are hundreds of locations around the world that have this thing happening. But first, these are called, they're known by different terms: gravity hill, magnetic hill, spooky mystery hill, mystery spot or gravity road, there's lots of different names, different um, it's funny but<br />
<br />
E: Sounds like an episode of Scooby Doo or something, right?<br />
<br />
J: Different interpretations of the names that these places get around the world all revolve around that them. Something about a road or a hill being magnetic or spooky.<br />
<br />
GH: ''(in a southern accent)'' Fried Hill. Chicken Hill. ''(unintelligible)'' Spooky Hill.<br />
<br />
J: Whistlepig Hill.<br />
<br />
GH: Whistlepig Hill. That's about it.<br />
<br />
J: So, these places are where the lay of the land produces an optical illusion. The emailer was absolutely correct. Typically, these are roads that have a tiny downhill slope but happen to appear like they're going uphill. A common test that you'll see someone do on YouTube is they'll turn their car off, put it in neutral, and then they take their foot off the gas and the break and everything. No interaction, and the car just starts rolling, it looks like uphill. The illusion is another example that people are easy to fool because of the way our senses work, and we've talked about this on the show before. The way our senses construct reality is happening incredibly fast in our brain. Our brain's constantly trying to make sense of what it sees. Like, what cues do we use to tell spatially how big things are, how far things are, and what their orientation is compared to everything else that we're seeing. And our brain has to make decisions with the information that it has in front of them. And also taking into account or effecting what you're seeing is your bias, your pre-conceived notions of how things are supposed to behave. So in this case, typically when we are outside and trying to orient ourselves, the horizon comes into play, particular in a case like this where there's something going uphill or downhill and we need to know spatially where it is in comparison to where we are. The other big thing is the angle of the trees and the surrounding hills and the land. It can and does happen, like I said there's hundreds of places around the world this is, where it actually looks the opposite of what the land is actually doing, which is weird, I know, but it does happen, and thousands upon millions of people have been fooled over the years at these locations. But that's it. Magicians use the fact that we are susceptible to illusions to fool us all the time. You can go on YouTube and fall prey to illusions that even on a 2D screen. We're that susceptible to them. And that is the explanation, even though we'd like to think that there's something cool going on; you know, there's some type of cosmic thing that's reversing the magnetic forces: nope, sorry, it's just your eyes playing tricks on you.<br />
<br />
E: It's not a vortex.<br />
<br />
S: The magnetic thing doesn't even make sense because things that are not ferro-magnetic are also affected.<br />
<br />
E: Plastic bottles. That's right.<br />
<br />
S: It would have to be a gravity phenomenon; there's an anti-gravity field, or something, there. Cyclists, bike riders, know about this phenomenon. You know what they call it?<br />
<br />
J: Something slope, or<br />
<br />
S: It's called a false flat.<br />
<br />
J: False flat. There you go.<br />
<br />
S: So when it looks like you're on a level field, but you're actually slightly going uphill, and so it's harder, so if you don't account for that, you may get tuckered out because you think; you're actually pedaling uphill and you don't realize it because the optical illusion looks flat.<br />
<br />
GH: My dad, years ago, like when I was kid and we would drive in the Lincoln Tunnel to get into New York City, or the Holland Tunnel. The first third of the tunnel, you're going at a pretty decent angle sort of downwards, but there's no sense of it because you're in this tunnel. He would put the car in neutral and he would sort of say, are we flat right now? What do you think is our position right now? And I would say, Yeah, we're totally flat, like it just feels like all of a sudden we're totally level; and he put the car in neutral, it just rolled down until you get to the bottom, where it flattens out, where the car would then slow, and then it would sort of, you know, you would notice that you're going now uphill on that last part of it. That was the first time as a kid that this perception thing, was like, you don't trust what you're seeing; don't trust what you're feeling, don't trust what you're seeing necessarily.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I've noticed that in long tunnels as well. You lose your perspective. 'Cause it's all relative. It's hard to know if you're going down or going up. <br />
<br />
GH: 'Cause there's no horizon. It's that false horizon. Which is also my favorite Schwartzenegger film.<br />
<br />
J: ''(In an Austrian accent)'' False horizon.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, god.<br />
<br />
GH: ''(In an Austrian accent)'' This movie everything rolls uphill. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Question 2: Tourette <small>(56:27)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: All right, one more question. This one comes from Woody. And Woody writes:<br />
<blockquote>I was recently in a discussion about Tourette Syndrome and, to get quickly to the point, minor forms of said syndrome. It was my assertion that minor forms where more akin to compulsion or in more extreme cases OCD, and that Tourette was specifically in the extreme. I remember you touching shortly on this on the SGU and searched your Blogs to see if you had written more in depth, to no avail. I was hoping that you could give me a short rundown on the "mechanics."</blockquote><br />
<br />
Okay, sure, I'll be happy to do that, Woody. Tourette Syndrome is a neurological disorder first described by a famous French neurologist, Tourette, which involves, essentially, tics. A tic is an involuntary movement of some kind. It could be moving a part of your body, it could be a vocalization, clearing your throat, anything like that is a tic. And it's involuntary in that people do it<br />
<br />
B: Involuntarily, ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they don't want to do it, but, well, the reason why I'm clarifying is because most people with these tics ''can'' suppress them for a short period of time. So it's not involuntary like a seizure is involuntary, where you have ''no'' control over it. It's involuntary . . . maybe it's better to think of it that the desire to do the movement's involuntary. But you can temporarily suppress it. But when people try to do that they describe it as like this growing itch, this growing desire to do the tic, and that can only be relieved by executing the tic. Right? So it essentially becomes impossible to suppress it for any length of time.<br />
<br />
J: It sounds horrifying.<br />
<br />
S: It is, And in its severe form it's very debilitating.<br />
<br />
E: Debilitating, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Now he brings up obsessive compulsive disorder, OCD, and there is a relationship between OCD and Tourette, but it's not just one of extremity. It's not like extreme cases are OCD and mild cases are Tourette, or the other way around. You can have both Tourette's and OCD, and they do frequently occur together. So does Tourette's and ADHD, attention deficit and hyper-activity disorder. What obsessive-compulsive disorder is, you can think of that as the mental version of a tic. It is an involuntary thought or obsession. So the notion that you have to do things a certain number of times, for example, or that you have to wash your hands, or there are people who have obsessive checking behavior, like they might turn a light switch on and off 20 times. Or I read of a case where somebody had this obsession that they, while driving, that they ran somebody over, and so they kept having to turn around and go back to see if there was a dead body in the street. And they just would get into this endless loop of going back and checking to see if they had run somebody over. They are similar parts of the brain, similar phenomenon, OCD is mental, tics are physical. But they're very similar, phenomenalogically. But you can have very mild Tourette Syndrome. In fact there's a lot of people, you've probably seen them, you know, who have these little tics. You know. That are not that bad and not debilitating in any way, they're just odd. All the way up to people who, their tic is swearing: so-called coprolalia. That's about 10-15% of people with Tourette's will have the coprolalia. They'll, not just clearing the throat or some vocalization, but for whatever reason, their tic is saying something that is socially unacceptable. And it's absolutely culture specific. You know, it's not like people in different cultures say the same thing. The tic is saying something that is a swear word in your culture; that will be socially offensive or inappropriate in the current context.<br />
<br />
GH: Was it thought at some point that perhaps Tourette's was misinterpreted as possession?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, I'm sure, going back. Going back, absolutely. If you read classic descriptions of people who were thought to be<br />
<br />
GH: witches and stuff.<br />
<br />
S: possessed by demons, yeah. These were people, probably, with neurological disorders. I'm sure Tourette's is on the list. Seizures. You know, if you had a fit, they didn't think "Oh, he's having an electric discharge in the brain." They would think you're possessed by a demon.<br />
<br />
GH: Right.<br />
<br />
S: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
GH: Do you guys have any OCD stuff? Any of you guys have any kind of little compulsions?<br />
<br />
S: I assume by your question that you do.<br />
<br />
GH: I don't think I do. I mean, there's, it's just that weird thing of determining what is sort of tradition, in a weird way. Like, everybody has whatever they do. Like when I'm setting up my drums, let's say. It's a certain order that I have to do it. If it doesn't happen in that order, it's okay. I don't feel like the world's gonna collapse, but there is a certain pleasure in knowing, oh, this goes, then this goes, then this goes.<br />
<br />
S: It feels right. Yeah. So I had two very mild OCD-type things when I was younger that I basically outgrew.<br />
<br />
E: So you think.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well, they're still present a little bit, but I don't actually do them anymore.<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
S: I had an even-number bias,<br />
<br />
GH: Hm.<br />
<br />
S: Where even numbers feel right, and odd numbers don't so<br />
<br />
B: Freak.<br />
<br />
S: I had bias toward doing things an even number of times. Or I had a completion sort of OCD. Where like if I did something on one side, it felt better if I did it on the other side. Or like if I tapped one finger, I had to tap all of my fingers. But, very little things like that. Very subtle, and just when I was younger. I don't do them anymore as an adult, but I still, sometimes they're like way deep back buried in my head that there's little<br />
<br />
GH: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: It feels a little right to complete things or to have an even number.<br />
<br />
GH: Right, right.<br />
<br />
J: I definitely had some as a kid. Like I, the switch thing sparked a memory. I think I used to just keep flipping the light switch for no reason, until I just felt like, okay, I'm done with that. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
GH: You just wanted to be in a disco, that's all. You were just hoping for the strobe effect.<br />
<br />
J: I, spacially, things, I was particular about where things were. I would have like a fear, like something was gonna fall off the nightstand I would keep pushing it more and more into the nightstand until it was ridiculously in the center. <br />
<br />
S: That's a good one.<br />
<br />
B: But this isn't dramatic, is it?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, sure. Pre-disposition.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, boy.<br />
<br />
J: I definitely grew out of them, like if anything I wish I was a little more OCD now, 'cause I'd be cleaner and get more stuff done. Steve's like, I'm OCD, I had to complete medical school. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: The thing is, what's interesting is in that anxiety and obsessive-compulsiveness, a little bit of that is very practical and adaptive, and beneficial. There's an upside and a downside, and most people are somewhere in the middle. Obviously if you had no anxiety whatsoever, you'd walk out into traffic. Or if you had no, you would have no personal hygiene. Your house would be a mess. You have to be motivated to do stuff by a little bit of anxiety, a little bit of the obsessiveness. But too much and it starts to become counter-productive. There's a bell curve. And what we're really talking about with OCD is people just at one end of the spectrum.<br />
<br />
J: It's fascinating to think that there's a healthy amount of OCD, which you just said, in the range of whatever we would say is normal, that isn't obstructive.<br />
<br />
S: Healthy.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, healthy.<br />
<br />
S: And maybe along with that comes these little quirks that are benign, but that are just interesting quirks in how our brain works.<br />
<br />
GH: Most people that are successful, ___________ successful, I mean, Tycho Brahe, when he was sitting, looking at stars night after night after night, that's a compulsion. All the people that, Gregor Mendel on some level was probably obsessive, you know. You have to be, on some level, or whether you're painting or an artists or something, there's some kind of a compulsion and an obsession that can drive stuff, and that's why a lot of those people don't have social skills necessarily, or don't do well outside of the compulsion, and yet they can be special.<br />
<br />
S: Think about the entire skeptical movement, is based upon compulsion. Somebody is wrong on the internet. Why do we care so much? Because people believe things that are not reasonable, or that are unscientific.<br />
<br />
J: Well, what are we gonna do? Not correct them, Steve. I mean, come on, seriously.<br />
<br />
S: I'm just saying, this is a good healthy compulsion. It bothers us emotionally, so we are motivated to do something.<br />
<br />
GH: Until it's comments on a Facebook page, correcting some obscure reference which was wrong. I mean, it's like, okay, fine. Yes. Technically, you're correct. I'm sorry that my joke didn't adhere to the 14th Century standards of the ___________ system. The way I was implying at 37 characters in, I'm sorry, you're correct. It's much funnier your way.<br />
<br />
J: The words you were saying were correct, George, but totally, you were completely incorrect.<br />
<br />
GH: Yes, your version is much funnier. I'm sorry.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there's a recurring discussion of pedantry, people who are pedantic. A certain amount of being pedantic is good. It means being a good scientist, detail oriented. You could spin it all in a very positive way. You know, you get the facts right. Or you could say you're obsessed with irrelevant details that don't matter. And both could be correct, it's just a matter of degree. Fascinating the way our brains work.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:06:04)</small> ==<br />
''Voiceover" It's time for Science or Fiction''<br />
<br />
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts with which I challenge my panel of expert skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. We have a theme this week, with ''four'' items. I know you guys ''love'' this. The theme is: the internet. Four facts about the internet, only three of them are true. Are you all ready?<br />
<br />
J: Do it.<br />
<br />
E: Uh huh.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/osoa-idh022613.php Item #1]: Greater than 60% of upstream traffic is comprised of torrent files, while Netflix by itself represents 1/3 of peak download traffic. [http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/photos/how-25-tech-companies-got-their-names-slideshow/amazon-holds-news-conference-photo--982673090.html Item #2]: Amazon.com benefitted from the popularity of the Yahoo search engine, which listed search results alphabetically. [http://royal.pingdom.com/2013/01/16/internet-2012-in-numbers/ Item #3]: North America has the highest internet penetration at 78.6%, while Africa has the lowest at 15.6%. And [http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blemtax2.htm Item #4]: In 1999 Congressman Peter Schnell proposed House Bill 602P allowing the US postal service to charge a 5cent surcharge for each e-mail sent. The bill died in response to public outrage.<br />
<br />
GH: Geez.<br />
<br />
S: George, you were the first one to utter a noise. Which mean that you get to go first. I know you didn't know the rules, but that's no excuse, so.<br />
<br />
GH: ''(Makes noises indicating consternation)'' I would totally believe that, in the first one, that Netflix has that much of the share, and the torrent, the torrent and the Netflix percentages, I would think that's correct. Amazon benefitting from the alphabetical listing, I also would think that is correct. I think the percentages seem right between North America and Africa, 78 and 15.6. That seems legit. The thing, the one that stood out to me is the fourth one, that five cent surcharge, because that's been one of those kind of internet myths which has been passed around forever and ever. Even though you said that it wasn't that it didn't pass, to think that Congress, in 1999, seeing as the internet sort of really sort of hit it off in '93, that they would be that far ahead of the curve in thinking of having a five cent surcharge, I think that's the fake one. So I would say the surcharge one is the fake.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Bob?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, boy. Yeah. Umm. Yeah, I hear often that torrent just dominates internet traffic so I could buy 60% upstream. I mean even higher wouldn't be too surprising. And Netflix. Man, I have watched Netflix every damn night. I'm not surprised at that. Even that could be higher and I wouldn't be too surprised. Internet penetration, North American 78. Yeah, you know, I'm kind of not sure about that one 'cause I would think that other countries, like Japan, or some other countries would have higher internet penetration than even we do. But I think because you, I don't know, maybe something about using North America instead of the United States kind of is getting my attention. And then the five cent surcharge. So the fact that somebody proposed a bill, ehh, it doesn't concern me or get my attention as much as the Amazon one. I don't think I've ever used Yahoo's search engine. It just makes no sense to me that the search results will be listed alphabetically. To me that's just ridiculous. That can't be right. Because it's just too easy to name yourself then get yourself high on the list. It just seems silly to have your results listed alphabetically. I'm just gonna go for that one. That's gotta be fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Evan?<br />
<br />
E: Ummm. Well, the congressman, five cent surcharge for each email sent. I have some recollection of this. I'm not sure if this is a twisting of this somehow, but I'm gonna say that that one's correct. Okay. The highest internet penetration at 78.6%. I suppose so; we're judging the continents here. Therefore, well, Antarctica. I think Antarctica would have the lowest internet penetration, but I guess we're not counting that. So given the remaining continents, I suppose Africa's gonna, I imagine, have the lowest. It's such a big continent. Well, I think that one's correct. Therefore, it's down to Amazon and the popularity of the Yahoo search engine or greater than 60% of upstream traffic. Torrent files. So, it kind of leaves this Yahoo and Amazon.com one, yeah. I don't know. Results alphabetically, seems a little simplistic, so I guess for the same reason Bob, I'll say that one's fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. And, Jay.<br />
<br />
J: Okay, I'll take them in order. The first about 60% of upstream traffic is Torrent files, that one is absolutely true. The glut of upstream Torrent files is, of course that's true because of how much downloading that's happening. It can track those types of things. And we know what websites people are going to to get the files, and it's hard to track, I would imagine, but I'm sure that there's a way to gauge that, and I do believe that there is a phenomenal amount of file-sharing going on. The second one about Amazon benefitting from Yahoo. Yes, that is true, by the way. And Yahoo definitely used to display their things in alphabetical order.<br />
<br />
B: Really? What the hell? <br />
<br />
J: That's a hundred percent true. <br />
<br />
B: Stupid. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
GH: Stupid Yahoo. Stupid.<br />
<br />
E: That's why it's called Yahoo.<br />
<br />
J: The third one about North America having the highest penetration and Africa has the lowest, those numbers seem right to me as well. So, the five cent one is absolutely false. Absolutely false.<br />
<br />
S: Okay, so we have a split decision here. But you all agree on the first one, so we'll start there. Greater than 60% of upstream traffic is comprised of Torrent files while Netflix by itself represents one third of peak download traffic. You all think that one is true. And that is . . . science. Not surprising. So obviously it does depend a little bit on what resource you're looking at for who's studying internet traffic and reporting on it. Most of the studies come from companies that sell products and services to ISPs to regulate their traffic. So they may not be the most objective sources, but I tried to find as many sources for this as I could, and I'll have links to this. So, yeah, so, 60%, 61% specifically, so greater than 60% of upstream traffic: just upstream. For total traffic it's actually much less. It's like 20% for the Torrent files. Some list it as peer-to-peer. But I guess most of that is Torrent. Some list it as Torrent traffic. And a recent 2012 study showed that Netflix represent a third, now this is download, rather than upload, and it's during the peak times. So one-third of peak download traffic.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, snow days and after 5:00.<br />
<br />
S: Right. And different surveys whacked up internet traffic in different ways, like how much is on web pages versus blogs, versus video. Video is obviously taking off, where web pages kind of peaked and are on the, they're going down. I saw another study; there was ''so'' much information about, you know, statistical information on the internet that I could choose from. One study, recent study, showed that more than half of website visits are by robots, rather than people.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah. Absolutely.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, wasn't surprising.<br />
<br />
E: Like, Data?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and a lot of that is malicious.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. Definitely a lot of it's malicious, and keep in mind that Google has its tentacles out there all the time. Which I think is a good thing, from a data perspective, it's fantastic. But at the same time, you could have software that can show you all the times that your IP address is pinged. And, of course, the more popular your IP address is, like a public website that might have just regular traffic going to it, whatever, it's scary. It's insane. And it's not by human hands. I'm sure the vast minority of it is by humans.<br />
<br />
S: Vast minority. I always liked that phrase. All right, let's go on to number 3. North America has the highest internet penetration at 78.6% while Africa has the lowest at 15.6. You all also agree that that one is science, and that one is . . . also science. So far so good.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: It's not surprising that Africa is so low. Or that North America is high. I thought that some people might think that Europe, for example, has a higher penetration than North America, but it doesn't. It's lower. Asia's actually quite low. This is broken up by continent, obviously. So whereas Japan may have a high penetration, Asia actually is low. Just above Africa. All right, here we go. Let's go back to number 2. Amazon.com benefitted from the popularity of the Yahoo search engine which listed search results alphabetically. Jay and George think this one is science; Evan and Bob, you think this one is fiction.<br />
<br />
J: Georgie!<br />
<br />
E: Hold my hand, Bob.<br />
<br />
S: And this one<br />
<br />
B: Not gonna help.<br />
<br />
S: is . . . science!<br />
<br />
J: Thank you.<br />
<br />
S: All right, Bob and Evan.<br />
<br />
E: Give me my hand back, Bob. That didn't help at all.<br />
<br />
S: That was surprising.<br />
<br />
J: No, it wasn't.<br />
<br />
B: Very. I wish I used Yahoo now. 'Cause I went from MetaCrawler right to Google. I think I used Yahoo, literally, three times in my life, search.<br />
<br />
S: So, do you guys know what Amazon.com was called before it was Amazon.com?<br />
<br />
GH: Zingy Zing Zinger.<br />
<br />
B: Zamazon.<br />
<br />
S: It was called Cadabra.com. As in abracadabra. But they thought it sounded too much like "cadaver."<br />
<br />
E: I agree.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I know a website that's called Abracadabra. Really cool stuff. <br />
<br />
S: And so they changed the name to Amazon. And some references that I found said that they specifically changed their name to something with an "A" to get high on the Yahoo listings. Others that it was just a happy consequence of doing that. Some credited the fact that Yahoo is so dominant now with their early boost from being listed on the first page alphabetically. That's why I just said that they benefitted, not that it's responsible for their popularity. I don't know if you could justify that claim.<br />
<br />
J: I love Amazon.com.<br />
<br />
S: Certainly it didn't hurt, being listed high up in the order alphabetically.<br />
<br />
B: Why would Yahoo make a search engine that would list themselves second to last? ''(laughter)'' That's all I wanna know.<br />
<br />
E: 'Cause they wanted to stick it to Zebra.com. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
GH: Are you guys aware of the Amazon logo? I'm sure you're all aware of this, but when this was first pointed out to me, the smile, 'cause you have the word Amazon, and it looks like a face. Well the smile actually is pointing from A to Z. I just thought that was cool. That's like, you know, they cover everything. A to Z.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
GH: No, no, it's just neat. It's one of those design things. Like you never see it and then when you see it you can't not see it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, it's<br />
<br />
B: Oh, shit.<br />
<br />
J: logo has an arrow in it.<br />
<br />
GH: That's it. Yeah, I love that type of stuff.<br />
<br />
B: I just noticed it, George. Awesome.<br />
<br />
GH: There you go.<br />
<br />
J: One quick interesting fact about Amazon; fact, or whatever. But Amazon was one of the companies that helped write modern shopping software. They came up with the, well, did they come up it, whatever; they made it popular. They made that way of checking out and their processes. They are a phenomenal internet company. They are a phenomenal aggregator of companies' goods.<br />
<br />
E: Alligator.<br />
<br />
GH: When you first about the concept of Amazon, whenever that was, '94, '95, when you ''first'' heard the commercial—I remember being in the car and hearing a commercial for this and the idea that there were like millions of book available somewhere through the internet. Did you guys think that would work?<br />
<br />
S: I did. But I was a pretty much, I was an early internet optimist. I have to say.<br />
<br />
GH: I remember thinking<br />
<br />
J: But, George<br />
<br />
B: I don't know what I thought.<br />
<br />
J: George, I didn't think their other model of aggregating other people's good was gonna work. I thought that was very strange.<br />
<br />
GH: Right. I thought it was a brilliant idea that would never work. I was like that is the coolest idea and people are ''never'' gonna wanna use it.<br />
<br />
J: Well, we do.<br />
<br />
GH: Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: Let's go on to number 4. In 1989 Congressman Peter Schnell proposed House Bill 602P allowing the U.S. Postal Service to charge a five cent surcharge for each email. The bill died in response to public outrage. George, you're right. This is an urban myth. It comes up all the time. It's the never-ending "Oh, they're gonna charge for email. The Postal Service is upset that they're losing all of their revenue from regular mail so they're gonna try to make it back by taxing email." It's all nonsense.<br />
<br />
GH: Yay.<br />
<br />
J: Complete hooey.<br />
<br />
GH: Yay.<br />
<br />
E: The whole thing?<br />
<br />
GH: I never get this right!<br />
<br />
J: One hundred percent nonsense.<br />
<br />
S: It's a hundred percent. There's also some clues in there. <br />
<br />
B: No, there's not.<br />
<br />
S: There is. First of all, Peter Schnell never existed. Not that you know every congressman that ever lived, but.<br />
<br />
E: I should have Yahoo'd that.<br />
<br />
GH: My list of congressman. Hmm.<br />
<br />
S: The other thing. This is a little detail, but, house bills are numbered all by the letter "H,"<br />
<br />
E: HR<br />
<br />
S: and Senate bills by the letter "S." There's no such thing as a bill, and 602P doesn't make sense.<br />
<br />
E: You said to pee.<br />
<br />
GH: So clever.<br />
<br />
S: Well, I didn’t make that up. This is the spam, right? This is the bill that, you look up House Bill 602P, it's this. But the people who made it up didn't even number it right. They didn't even use a House Bill numbering system. <br />
<br />
GH: Sweet.<br />
<br />
J: If you take every third letter in that sentence it spells out "Steve is awesome" too.<br />
<br />
E: Stupid memory.<br />
<br />
S: All right. So, Jay and George, you both won this week. So I have a run-off bonus question.<br />
<br />
GH: Ohhh.<br />
<br />
J: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Okay? What was the number one trending Google search term for 2012?<br />
<br />
GH: Oh, um. Um, um. Gangman style.<br />
<br />
S: Very close, number two.<br />
<br />
GH: That was number two?<br />
<br />
S: yup.<br />
<br />
GH: Son of a bitch.<br />
<br />
E: That's pretty good, George.<br />
<br />
GH: Um.<br />
<br />
J: For the fact that I haven't slept in a month and my brain is completely fried, I'm going to say, sadly, was it "Call Me Maybe"?<br />
<br />
S: Nope.<br />
<br />
E: Nah. Sandy Hook?<br />
<br />
S: Number three was Hurricane Sandy. And, despite the fact that this was an election year in the United States, the number one trending Google search term in 2012 was "Whitney Houston."<br />
<br />
B: What?<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah. I recall reading that.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
B: Did she die or something?<br />
<br />
GH: Always Love You.<br />
<br />
B; Yeah, I knew that.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
GH: Wow. So I get the Science or Fiction right, and I get the close to, this is, guys, you know what, you've just made my—what time is it? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Made my picosecond.<br />
<br />
B: You made my minute.<br />
<br />
S: 10:28. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:22:01)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: Alright, Jay, what's your quote for this week?<br />
<br />
J: My quote for this week is:<br />
<blockquote>Neither evolution nor creation qualifies as a scientific theory.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: I have a sneaking suspicion I know who said that ''(he laughs)''<br />
<br />
J: Who do you think it is, Steve?<br />
<br />
S: Was that Duane Galloping Gish?<br />
<br />
J: ''(shouts)'' Duane Gish. ''(Back to a normal voice)'' Why am I quoting him, guys?<br />
<br />
GH: I thought it was Whitney Houston.<br />
<br />
J: ''(inaudible)'' attached to this.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: ''(sings)'' Neither evolution nor creation. ''(Back to a normal voice)'' Duane Gish died on 3/5/2013.<br />
<br />
S: Yes. And we will talk, next week, 'cause we just discovered it during our actual recording, that he died yesterday. So we will probably discuss it in more detail<br />
<br />
GH: Look, there's no proof that he's died. Scientists don't agree that he died. There's a lot of debate about whether or not he's dead. I don't think we should jump … Look, we should be able to teach the fact that he might be alive or that he might be dead, 'cause there's no consensus on this.<br />
<br />
S: How can you even define death?<br />
<br />
''(two people talking at once—inaudible)''<br />
<br />
S: It's a false dichotomy.<br />
<br />
GH: Exactly.<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS <small>(1:23:06)</small> ===<br />
<br />
J: Hey, George, the name of your show is what?<br />
<br />
GH: It's called ''Stimulus Response,'' is the name of the whole evening. 'Cause it's all science-y.<br />
<br />
J: And that's on Friday, April 5th, and then NECSS is on the 6th and 7th and we have activities going on from<br />
<br />
S: We have a new event planned. We're gonna have a showdown between Michael Shermer and Massimo Pigliucci over the science of ethics. That's gonna be interesting. They're gonna go mano a mano.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, exactly. A little gunslinger action.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, Steve, I didn't know we locked that in yet, so I'm really, I'm glad to hear that.<br />
<br />
S: Yes. Julia Galef is going to moderate. Next week is show 400.<br />
<br />
GH: Congratulations, guys. That is really awesome. That is really, really meaningful and fantastic.<br />
<br />
S: Thank you.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
GH: And so cool.<br />
<br />
S: Thank you , George.<br />
<br />
J: Thanks, George.<br />
<br />
S: Hey, George, you just passed 300!<br />
<br />
GH: I just passed 300, yeah. But that's<br />
<br />
S: That's awesome, too.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah, but you guys are 400! 400! ''(laugher)'' That's tremendous. Tremendous, guys.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, thanks George.<br />
<br />
J: Thanks, George.<br />
<br />
E: Thanks, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: And thanks for joining me this week, everyone.<br />
<br />
J: Thanks, Dr. Steve.<br />
<br />
E: Good to be here. Good week.<br />
<br />
S: And until next week, this is your Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_399&diff=6765SGU Episode 3992013-06-10T00:52:55Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 399<br />
|episodeDate = 9<sup>th</sup> March 2013<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mars-comet-NASA-JPL-600x328.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|guest1 = GH: George Hrab<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-09.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=399<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45268.0.html<br />
|qowText = Neither evolution nor creation qualifies as a scientific theory.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish Duane Gish]<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today March 6, 2013, and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: 400!<br />
<br />
S: Evan Bernstein,<br />
<br />
E: Good evening, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: And we have a special guest rogue with us this evening, George Hrab. George, welcome back.<br />
<br />
GH: This isn't ''The Price is Right''! Jay, you lied to me. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: What else is new?<br />
<br />
J: No, but this is our 400th!<br />
<br />
S: No, it's not, Jay. Next week is our 400th episode.<br />
<br />
GH: 399!<br />
<br />
J: 399!<br />
<br />
E: 399! And that's a bargain.<br />
<br />
S: We're not round number bigots here, anyway. That's all superstitious nonsense.<br />
<br />
GH: Roundists. You're all roundists.<br />
<br />
S: So, Rebecca's voice is still recovering from whatever infection she had. So she is again not with us this week. But George will be taking her place and speaking in falsetto the entire show.<br />
<br />
GH: ''(starting high pitched, dropping to low)'' Y-e-e-e-s. I'm so skeptical. ''(normal voice)'' It's not a Rebecca impression. It's not a Rebecca impression at all. ''(laughter)'' We got that. All right. Good.<br />
<br />
J: So we were just talking before the show, like, saying hi to George and everything, and it occurred to me I wanted to ask George this question. George, ever listening, you ever listen to a podcast—<br />
<br />
GH: ''(in a Russian accent)'' Ever listenink to ''(unintelligible)'' Oh, sorry. Go ahead. So, have I ever listened to what?<br />
<br />
J: Has this ever happened where you're listening to a show that you've recorded, and somebody says your name in the podcast, and you answer them in real time? Like, it just happened to me two days ago. I was listening to one of our shows, and Steve says "So, Jay," and I actually go "Yeah." I'm like wh-o-o-o-a. He's not in the car with me! I'm not on the phone with him. I'm hearing him in the podcast.<br />
<br />
GH: I don't listen to my show 'cause I don't really like my show.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: But sound effects that I've done before have scared the hell out of me. I'll forget that I inserted an airplane or something, and it'll scare the crap out of me. ''(laughter)'' Or like a doorbell sound or something, yeah. But I don't actually, because I'm the only person on my show, for me to respond to myself as if I was actually talking to myself, I think would be indicative of something really scary and awesome. <br />
<br />
J: All right, that is a good point.<br />
<br />
GH: But, I respond to ''(two people talking – undecipherable)'' And if I listen to this show, I'll make sure that every time you say "Hey, George" no matter where I am, I'll say "What? Oh, damn!" ''(laughter)'' What? Oh, damn!<br />
<br />
E: With a head turn, right?<br />
<br />
''(two people talking—inaudible – something about Scooby-Doo)''<br />
<br />
GH: ''(imitating Scooby)'' Erh?<br />
<br />
B: Scooby snack.<br />
<br />
S: Hey George!<br />
<br />
GH: Erh?<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(2:45)</small> ==<br />
March 9, 1851: Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted died. &Oslash;rsted was a Danish physicist and chemist who discovered current traveling along a wire could deflect a compass needle.<br />
<br />
S: Evan is gonna tell us about this day in skepticism.<br />
<br />
E: All right. So, March 9, and the year was 1851. Now, we all know who Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted was<br />
<br />
B: ''(singing)'' Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted.<br />
<br />
J: I have no idea who he is.<br />
<br />
E: Well, he was a Danish. Oh, I'm sorry, wait, he was a Danish physicist<br />
<br />
S: And delicious.<br />
<br />
GH: I sing.<br />
<br />
E: Who made a discovery. He discovered that an electric current in a wire causes a nearby magnetized compass needle to deflect, indicating the electric current in a wire induces a magnetic field around it.<br />
<br />
B: That is awesome.<br />
<br />
J: That is awesome.<br />
<br />
B: You could just retire after making that discovery. I'm done. I've made my contribution.<br />
<br />
E: A little electro-magnetic theory for you, then?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah, but how do you monotize that. I mean, that's the problem. What d'ya do with that? What kind of invention could that possibly lead to? ''(people talking simultaneously)''<br />
<br />
B: It's just a laboratory curiosity. Nothing to see here.<br />
<br />
GH: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: It took like a hundred years for them to slap one of those suckers in a bracelet. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
GH: And then you get the real money.<br />
<br />
E: A bracelet made of, perhaps, aluminum. Hey! Speaking of aluminum<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so<br />
<br />
E and B: Aluminium.<br />
<br />
S: &Oslash;rsted also was the first one to produce metallic aluminum. Do you guys know how common—<br />
<br />
B: As opposed to rubber aluminum?<br />
<br />
S: No, as opposed an aluminum oxide or aluminum silicate. So, aluminum is the third most abundant element in the Earth's crust. And I know you guys all know that<br />
<br />
E: The third most?<br />
<br />
B: I used to know that, yes.<br />
<br />
S: After oxygen and silicon, which is why there's lots of aluminum oxides and aluminum silicate. And he figured out how to make metallic aluminum. Although it was up to later chemists to figure out how to really industrialize that process. If you recall, we talked about the fact that when aluminum was first available as a metal, it was more expensive than gold.<br />
<br />
B: I recall nothing.<br />
<br />
S: It was considered a rare and exotic metal and things made out of aluminum were like a status symbol. But then later chemists figured out how to make massive quantities of it, just from dirt, basically, and, you know, from bauxites, specifically.<br />
<br />
J: Did these scientists like cash in at that moment? Like, okay, I figured out how to make it, it's everywhere.<br />
<br />
E: Let's sell it now.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, did somebody become a trillionaire for like the first three years or what happened?<br />
<br />
S: American Aluminum, you know, I think was the company that became very wealthy mass producing aluminum. And the price went from hundreds of dollars an ounce to pennies a pound.<br />
<br />
J: Oof.<br />
<br />
GH: See, Alcoa shouldn't have waited.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, Alcoa, that's it.<br />
<br />
E: Bad investment.<br />
<br />
J: Guess I shouldn't have invested in that company early on.<br />
<br />
S: Well, you shouldn't have invested in aluminum. The company did quite well, actually. Now, did you also know that Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted was a very close friend of Hans Christian Andersen.<br />
<br />
B: Seriously?<br />
<br />
J: That's what I was gonna say.<br />
<br />
GH: No way.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, and I actually don't know exactly who Hans Christian Andersen is or was. What's his deal? Who's that guy?<br />
<br />
B: Come on, Jay.<br />
<br />
E: He wrote stories.<br />
<br />
B: It's Danny Kaye!<br />
<br />
E: That's right. Danny Kaye. He wrote Thumbelina,<br />
<br />
GH: The Little Mermaid.<br />
<br />
J: Did he sing The Little Mermaid?<br />
<br />
GH: I think he played the crab in the movie, actually. ''(laughter)'' Oh, aluminum.<br />
<br />
S: He wrote famous fairy tales. But, so, how did these guys meet? Like at a Hans Christian organization or something?<br />
<br />
E: Convention?<br />
<br />
B: I know. Famous People Named Hans Christian.<br />
<br />
GH: That was a Facebook page, wasn't it? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Did they get each other's mail, or what happened?<br />
<br />
J: My money's on the fact that maybe like half the population is just named Hans Christian something.<br />
<br />
S: Maybe.<br />
<br />
B: I think it's a coincidence.<br />
<br />
E: And March 9, 1851, was the day that we lost Hans &Oslash;rsted. Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted. So, we mourned Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted on this day. But thank you so much for all that electro-magnetism. It is doing us wonders these days.<br />
<br />
S: And aluminum. Yep.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that too.<br />
<br />
S: So George, before we go on to news items, what's new with you?<br />
<br />
GH: What's new? Goodness. Uh, what isn't? Actually, it's a short list. The newest thing is a number of you rogues were at the 21812 concert that happened last year.<br />
<br />
B: Yes! Loved it!<br />
<br />
GH: We are furiously, furiously editing and putting together what looks to be just an incredible DVD of that performance, which is audio mixing. I was at Slau's yesterday, as a matter of fact. So the audio mixing is done. A monumental effort, and now the video is being edited, and there's gonna be commentary and a documentary and it's gonna be really, really fantastic. So that is the thing which is occupying the most frontal part of my frontal creative lobe right now, is the 21812 concert.<br />
<br />
B: It only took you a year!<br />
<br />
J: When's it coming out?<br />
<br />
GH: I know, I know, I know, I know. Weeks. Months? Weeks. Well, I guess months are made up of weeks, so I'm not lying in either direction. But, weeks.<br />
<br />
S: As long as it's more than one month, right.<br />
<br />
GH: Hmm? Right.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== HIV Cure <small>(7:49)</small> ===<br />
[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/hiv-cure-game-changer/ Neurologica: HIV Cure "Game Changer"]<br />
<br />
S: So I have some ''good news'' everyone. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Excellent.<br />
<br />
J: What's up?<br />
<br />
S: Did you hear about the girl who was cured, ''cured'' of HIV?<br />
<br />
B: Despite this, or in spite of, the incompetence of her mom, apparently.<br />
<br />
S: Her mother appears to be troubled. I don't know if incompetence is her problem or if it's other things, but, so . . . Here's the story. The mother, who was HIV infected, presented for delivery with apparently no prenatal care, and delivered a child, who was positive for HIV within 30 hours of being born. So almost certainly infected in utero. The doctor was consulted, an HIV infectious disease specialist at the time was consulted on the case. Not really sure why, but decided to treat the child earlier than is typically treated. So at 31 hours, the infant was treated with anti-retroviral therapy. And also, she decided to give the infant<br />
<br />
B: Extra.<br />
<br />
S: Well, not extra, so therapeutic doses as opposed to preventive, or prophylactic doses.<br />
<br />
E: What's the difference?<br />
<br />
S: It's a higher dose. So a therapeutic dose is meant to treat an existing infection, whereas a preventive dose is meant to prevent an exposure from establishing itself as an infection.<br />
<br />
B: You can call that extra, I think.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, she gave the higher dose, the therapeutic dose.<br />
<br />
B: Extra.<br />
<br />
GH: Not the gum, but the actual medicine, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the anti-retroviral therapy. ART.<br />
<br />
GH: 'Cause that would be something, if extra gum cured AIDS. That would be, wow.<br />
<br />
S: This is Hannah Gay. A pediatric infectious disease specialist. And the child was treated with ART for the first 18 months of life, or thereabouts. At that point she was lost to follow-up, as we say. Stopped being brought back in by the mother for treatment. Now, Dr. Gay diligently tracked down the mother and the child, through the police, in order to bring the child back in for health care. So now, it was like seven or eight months the child has been getting no medication. The mother was going through some kind of life situation. Apparently has a lot of challenges. And not giving the kid their medicine. Not bringing them in to doctor's visits. So Dr. Gay at this point thought, okay, so now we have a two-year-old who has gone six, seven, eight months with no medication therapy. Their viral loads are gonna be off the charts. <br />
<br />
B: Right, because typically what happens, Steve, is when you're taking, when you're going through that process, the viruses pretty much just go into hiding, right? They just like say screw it, I'm just gonna hang out and wait til the weather's better and then once you stop it, bam! They come out. And that's what he expected.<br />
<br />
S: She, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Dr. Gay, that's what Gay expected.<br />
<br />
S: What typically happens is, in an HIV-infected individual, if they're treated with ART, then the viral loads will drop to undetectable levels. But the virus still lives on in the body, in these hidden reservoirs. As you say, they go into hiding. And these reservoirs are isolated from the immune system so that they can persist despite the retroviral therapy, and if you stopped the retroviral therapy, anti-retroviral therapy, then the infection would come back, would rebound. Because of these reservoirs. So, checked out the child, did the viral loads, they were still undetectable. There was no sign of HIV in the child at all. Went back to check everything. So now she things, all right, there's something interesting going on here. She checked a number of things. She got other specialists involved as well. First they confirmed that yes, she was indeed infected with HIV as a newborn. They confirmed that. Two, that the strain of HIV is a wild type strain that's not some mutated strain, it's not a weakened strain. It's a regular strain of HIV. Three, they tested the mother and the child to see if they happened to have a genetic type that makes them resistant to HIV, 'cause there are people out there who are naturally resistant to HIV. And they did not. So they did not have any of the known forms of resistance.<br />
<br />
B: Three great tests. So it's like, yeah. It didn't occur to me that they should do that but when I read it I'm like, oh, of course, that's exactly what you would need to do to really be secure in your conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Well, plus, I think, at this point that they were planning on publishing. And of course you want to get all your ducks in a row if you do that.<br />
<br />
B: Right, right.<br />
<br />
S: And in fact they did present this case at a conference and reported all these details. So essentially they discovered that she was infected, it was a normal virus, they're not resistant, and even six, seven months after stopping ART the virus never rebounded. They're calling this a functional cure. A functional cure. Not an outright cure, I think because a couple of, they did really, really sensitive tests for HIV, RNA and DNA and a couple of these tests showed rally miniscule little remnants of RNA or DNA.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but didn't they describe them as non-functional, or they did not have the ability to reproduce?<br />
<br />
S: They are not replication competent.<br />
<br />
B: That's what it was.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they are not replication competent. But I guess it means it's not completely, completely, completely out of the system. But what it does mean is that the virus will not rebound. It is not established. There's no active reservoirs of the virus. And the child will be able to live their life without the need for further ART, or anti-retroviral therapy.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. So we're not looking at some state of remission that's currently going on?<br />
<br />
S: Well, remission is not an unreasonable term to use. It's a remission without medication, without needing further medication or treatment. Functional cure is the specific term that they used. This is only the second case of any human being who was known to be infected with HIV who then was cured. The first one was a gentleman who got a bone marrow transplant in Germany from a donor who was HIV resistant. And they were apparently cured by that bone marrow transplant. Basically given a new immune system resistant to the HIV. This is now the second case.<br />
<br />
J: Does this help the world, Steve? Can we use this information in any way?<br />
<br />
B: Well, shit yeah. Look at the children born with AIDS like in Africa. I mean, the United States it's not so much of a huge deal as it is in Africa. But Jay, there's like, the statistic was crazy, it was like thousands of kids per pico-second in Africa.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, but my question is: does that case, the second case, of this child, does it actually help scientists figure out how to use that to make some type of cure?<br />
<br />
S: So here's the bottom line<br />
<br />
GH: We have to weaponize the baby, I think. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: The stats are about 130 children per year develop HIV from their mother in the United States. But it's about a thousand children per day world-wide in developing countries. So that's a lot. That's a thousand kids per day.<br />
<br />
GH: Why is that woman having so many children? ''(laughter)'' I'm sorry. Sorry.<br />
<br />
S: What this suggests is that the standard of care for treating newborns born of infected mothers might be, rather than giving prophylactic doses, but to give, would be to give therapeutic doses earlier, to try to prevent the virus from ever establishing an infection. Which seems to be the case here. The virus never got itself established. Here's the trick, though, is that, I mean, it's gotta be studied, is the case. This is an anecdote, right? It's interesting, but it's one case. And it's hard to extrapolate from that. So this will lead to research looking at this approach to show that it's safe, to show that it's effective. What's going to be tricky, so let's you get a hundred kids, or 200 kids, 100 you give the standard therapy. The other hundred you give this early aggressive therapy. You track 'em over a few years. To really know that the children have been functionally cured, you would want to actually stop their ART. That's gonna be tricky to do.<br />
<br />
E: That's tough.<br />
<br />
S: Ethically, how are you gonna do that? We're not gonna give you proof in therapy to see how you're doing. So, the best they could hope to do would be to follow a lot of children and then track those whose parents stopped giving them the medication due to non-compliance or whatever. Like in this case. You know, you can't randomly choose people not to get treatment just to see how they do. That's the definition of unethical research. But you may be able to track cases where the children stopped getting their drugs for one reason or another and see how they do. And maybe you can gather enough information from that to say okay, it's reasonable in these cases with these outcomes to reduce the medication, see how they do, maybe wean them off, tracking them carefully. So it's not gonna instantly lead to replicating this exact treatment paradigm, but it will, I think, probably it'll lead to studying this higher, more aggressive, early treatment, which may lead to curing infants who otherwise would have been infected with HIV. But this is using drugs that are already in existence to treat HIV. This is not a new treatment or a new cure. This is not a cure for people in whom infection is already established. You might think that maybe the same applies if you, let's say, get exposed to HIV. Again, instead of getting preventive doses, maybe even as an adult, you would be given therapeutic doses right away. <br />
<br />
''(inaudible comment by GH)''<br />
<br />
J: When you say "therapeutic doses" you mean a large, large amount. <br />
<br />
S: Well, the doses that are normally given to people with HIV infection, as opposed to preventive doses, which are doses given to people who have been exposed but who are not infected. In order to reduce the risk of the exposure resulting in an infection.<br />
<br />
GH: When I read the story, it was amazing. And I remember one of the first things that popped into my head was the idea that the kid at one point was outside of the care of the hospital, whether that was seven months, or whatever it was.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: And that someone is going to latch onto something the kid did in those seven months and say that ''that'' is the actual cure.<br />
<br />
B: Ohhhhh, wow.<br />
<br />
GH: You what I mean, like Fruit Loops or something. And they're gonna say "Yeah, the fact that she had Fruit Loops!" Forget the hospital. It was the Fruit Loops that cured. Here's proof! Like that was the first, the woo radar warning system that I have installed in my brain, was like, oh man, okay, let no one take advantage of those seven months where the kid was outside of supervised care to claim that that's some kind of secret cure.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah. I didn't even think of that.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I agree.<br />
<br />
S: I haven't heard anything about it yet, but that's always a risk. There was a lot of sensational reporting of this story.<br />
<br />
GH: Wh-a-a-t?<br />
<br />
S: It's fascinating enough as it is. What I always, my radar goes up, we talk about the skeptical radar, my skeptical radar always goes up whenever I see the word "cure" in the headline of any article. Especially when it's connected to AIDS or cancer or the common cold or whatever.<br />
<br />
B: Acne.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. There are certain things where it's like, really? You mean, no, we did not cure AIDS, I'm sorry, we did not cure HIV. This is a very interesting case and has implications for research and for treatment. But no, this isn't the discovery of a cure for HIV.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, so what if a parent has AIDS. They have a kid, and they're like, I want my kid to get a therapeutic dose asap? What can they do? 'Cause that's what I would do.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Enter a trial, enter a clinical trial in which that is being done and take your chance that you'll get randomized, getting it.<br />
<br />
J: Is it hard to get into a trial?<br />
<br />
S: Well, right now, none exists. But I'm sure<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that's just it.<br />
<br />
S: It'll take time to get them up and running. I don't know how many and how many people are gonna be introduced. So, probably in the U.S., given that the number is so low, number of kids who get infected this way because of pre-natal care, etc. 'Cause you know, normally what you would do is aggressively treat the mother, get the viral loads down as low as possible so the risk of the so-called vertical transmission from mother to child is minimized. This mother didn't do that, that's probably why the child was infected. So, this is the exact people who are going to end up infected as an infant are the ones that are going to be difficult to recruit, and there aren't that many of them. So it's probably gonna be more, it's gonna be hard to get people into this trial as opposed to people having a hard time getting into such trials. You know what I mean? If you're the kind of parent who is going to seek out that kind of aggressive care, you're probably not the kind of parent who is going to give birth to an infected child in the first place. Does that make sense?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah; where's the father through all this, I wonder?<br />
<br />
S: No mention in anything.<br />
<br />
GH: I wonder what his situation is.<br />
<br />
S: Obviously the doctors are being confidential, keeping confidential the personal details. They're just saying she had some life situation that intervened, but we have no idea what that was. But clearly she's troubled.<br />
<br />
B: It still won't be an outright cure because if you have the infection, this won't work, but for people who just get it, it will a cure for them. There—<br />
<br />
S: Well, remember, she was treated at 30 hours of life.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: How many people don't we even find out that they've been exposed until—<br />
<br />
B: That's it.<br />
<br />
S: --days later. So, one example would be a health care worker who stabs themself with an HIV-infected needle.<br />
<br />
B: Yup. Perfect example.<br />
<br />
S: You would be in the clinic in 15 minutes. In fact, I did that to myself once. Not with an HIV<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
E; Oh, my gosh.<br />
<br />
S: Not with an HIV-infected needle. But I stuck myself with a Hep C needle.<br />
<br />
J: How'd you do it?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, man, I hate when that happens.<br />
<br />
GH: Did you lose a bet?<br />
<br />
S: No. It was an accident. I did what I wasn't supposed to. I recapped the needle, the needle went right through the cap and into my finger.<br />
<br />
E: Geez.<br />
<br />
J: And you were right in front of a patient?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: What'd you do?<br />
<br />
S: I finished what I was doing. I went to the health services and got two huge needles of gamma globulin injected into my buttocks.<br />
<br />
E: Gamma globulin?<br />
<br />
J: Wait a second. Wait, wait, wait, wait.<br />
<br />
B: One per cheek?<br />
<br />
S: Yup.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, I have to ask more detail. Did you keep your composure?<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
J: Like, did you do "Oh, holy shit!!" Like run out of there. <br />
<br />
GH: Like ''We're all gonna die!!!''<br />
<br />
J: ''Give me those ass needles!!'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: On panic day? Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it was not panic day. Unlike today.<br />
<br />
J: Were you embarrassed? Were you shameful, like going to some guy sitting at a desk and you're like "Um…"<br />
<br />
S: Yes, I was stupid. Yea. It was dumb. I was a medical student.<br />
<br />
J: Did they say anything to you. Like did they make you feel really weird?<br />
<br />
S: No. No.<br />
<br />
B: Steve's heart rate increased by two beats per minute.<br />
<br />
E: Were they messing with you? "Oh, we gotta do a biopsy, and now we're gonna do this. Gotta do that."<br />
<br />
S: No. They're my physician now. They acted totally professional.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, put this in a little context. Hepatitis C. How bad we talkin'?<br />
<br />
S: That's bad. Like a chronic liver infection. It would be very bad. And yes, I got, the treatment for that is gamma globulin, so it like pooled antibodies. And it's a huge dose.<br />
<br />
B: Is it a bolus? They call that a bolus?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: If they give you enough of that gamma globulin, Steve, can you turn into the Hulk? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: The first injection was very painful. The second injection was ten times as painful. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, but ten times!<br />
<br />
S: It was so much more painful! And the reason for that probably<br />
<br />
GH: It's not supposed to go in your penis. That's the problem. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: We gotta get this in here!<br />
<br />
GH: A really long needle.<br />
<br />
S: When you get the first injection your body excretes chemicals which sort of prime it for pain, and so then when you get the second injection, it has a huge exaggerated local response to the injection.<br />
<br />
B: Thank you, body, isn't that convenient?<br />
<br />
E: Well, okay<br />
<br />
J: Why's that happening?<br />
<br />
E: They should give you both needles at once. One, two, three, jab.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I don't know what would be worse.<br />
<br />
J: That's crazy.<br />
<br />
E: Two at once. Two needles at once.<br />
<br />
S: But this was, whatever, twenty years ago, so, I know I'm out of the window. And never had a problem from it.<br />
<br />
GH: Are you sure?<br />
<br />
E: No Hep C.<br />
<br />
S: I could definitely imagine the panic of jabbing yourself with an HIV-infected needle. That would be panic time.<br />
<br />
J: It just shows you how dangerous health care is. I mean, these professionals—<br />
<br />
S: This was also, this was not in the early, early days, but, this was earlier in the whole HIV situation. So, you know, the protocols for preventing these things were not as well established. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: They had you rub garlic on the wound. Prayer beads and whatever.<br />
<br />
S: The needle that I was using at that time doesn't even exist now, really. Everything is made to prevent this from happening. Anyway, let's move on.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Mars Comet <small>(24:49)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/5349/20130304/newly-discovered-comet-hit-mars-watch-two-others-near-earth.htm Newly Discovered Comet May Hit Mars: Watch for Two Others Near Earth]<br />
<br />
S: Bob, you're gonna tell us about the comet that's going to smack right into Mars.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
B: You guys remember I recently mentioned that this would be remembered maybe as the Year of the Asteroid. But not I think it will be, in retrospect, in the future, considered the Year of the Asteroid/Comet. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Slash comet.<br />
<br />
B: Slash comet. The big news in recent days is not only do we have the Pan Stars comet, which will be visible in mid-March 2013<br />
<br />
E: Can't wait.<br />
<br />
B: And also the Ison comet, which could be awesome. Very bright, in November 2013. But we also have the Sliding Spring, an oddly named comet which could potentially hit the planet Mars in October 2014; not quite this year, but coming up relatively soon. So that is kind of exciting, I think. It's not the Earth, so it's all good. This new comet was discovered January 3 this year, 2013, by famous comet hunter Robert McNaught. He actually has 74 comets on his resume.<br />
<br />
E: Wow!<br />
<br />
B: So how cool is that?<br />
<br />
J: Bob, does he hang them on the wall like a plaque?<br />
<br />
B; ''(laughing)'' Yeah, right. I would. I would create a little comet for every one that I discovered. And he also discovered asteroids. This guy's very prolific. He gets a gold star.<br />
<br />
S: Did he discover that asteroids exist?<br />
<br />
B: No. Just discovered asteroids.<br />
<br />
E: The game ''Asteroids."<br />
<br />
S: Specific asteroids.<br />
<br />
B: Yes. So this is like, apparently this is a new, or virgin, comet. Never having been in our local area of the solar system before. And I think they believe this is because of the eccentricity of its orbit, after it was ejected for the Oort Cloud of billions of comets that are in orbit about a light year, I think, from the Sun.<br />
<br />
S: Yup.<br />
<br />
B: Billions and billions of these guys and occasionally one will come careening in.<br />
<br />
S: ''(imitating Carl Sagan)'' Billions and billions.<br />
<br />
B: Billions, yes. <br />
<br />
E; That's about a Sagan.<br />
<br />
GH: A virgin comet has no tail.<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: ''(unintelligible)'' no comets, tell no tales.<br />
<br />
B: So, ah, so<br />
<br />
S: Tough crowd.<br />
<br />
J: George, don't laugh.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, George is grabbing his tie as we speak, right?<br />
<br />
S: We're laughing on the inside.<br />
<br />
GH: I was all excited. ''(unintelligible)'' Zilch. Loser.<br />
<br />
B: That's all right. You had some good ones so far, at least. So the big question, in my mind, is is this sucker gonna hit Mars? And the answer is: nobody knows, not yet anyway. Some projections put the comet within 23 to 63,000 miles away from Mars at its closest approach. That's 37 to about 100,000 kilometers away.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, Bob. The orbitors we've got; I'm sorry, the orbitor we have, we have one? Or more than one around Mars? Is it gonna be close enough that it's gonna be able to capture this thing for us? Are we gonna get a good view of it?<br />
<br />
B: It depends, actually, on various variables. But yeah, they could potentially get a really view of this. Although there are certain things that could make it not as awesome as it could be. Depending the various factors of the approach and things. But, as you know though, as we've talked about this, the estimates of the future positions of these objects are very difficult, 'cause you need to take a nice long look at its orbit so that you can accurately extrapolate, right? And one I wasn't quite aware of , though, is that this is even more problematic with comets, because, think about it; you've got these frozen gases on this comet; they heat up because it's getting closer to the sun, and then they explosively sublimate. They turn from ice to gas very quickly. And so it's like these little geysers that are erupting on the comet, and this, of course, is what creates the tail. That can change the orbit, as you can imagine these little geysers erupting. That could subtly, I mean not a lot, but it can change the orbit of the comet a tiny bit.<br />
<br />
S: Like little jets.<br />
<br />
B: And, right, and enough, this thing is gonna be so close to Mars as it is, that it could actually make it hit it or even miss it by even a greater distance. So right now, we really won't know until probably the earliest, I think, is late summer. It's when we can confident of what's gonna happen. Chances are, unfortunately, it's not gonna hit. Well, I guess it depends how you look at it. But if it did hit. Whoa. I mean, we're talking megahit. This thing's five to thirty miles across. This thing will be coming in at about, say, 55 kilometers, or 33 miles per second.<br />
<br />
GH: Geez.<br />
<br />
B: I mean this thing'll be coming in so fast. That is kinetic energy. They're talking, the impact equivalent of a billion megatons, that's a petaton. Equivalent to a one petaton nuke.<br />
<br />
S: Bob, you like petatons?<br />
<br />
B: I love petatons. They're awesome!<br />
<br />
S: You're a petaphile?! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good one. Go for the easy ones, Steve, that was good.<br />
<br />
E: See, Bob. There is the horizon. Did you see it coming?<br />
<br />
B: That's with a "t" by the way, not a "d." Now, that's millions of times bigger than anything that we've ever detonated. We're talking about a crater that could be hundreds of miles or kilometers across. It would be totally devastating. But that would be cool.<br />
<br />
''(unintelligible – several people talking at once.)''<br />
<br />
B: I want this thing to hit Mars so bad. But, and I want one of our rovers to have a safe front-row seat to film this entire thing. But the problem is, I don't think there's, there won't be anywhere safe on the planet. Even if it was on the other side. This thing can be so devastating. It could take out every probe on the planet or in orbit. It won't matter where you are. It could wipe out everything. And that would clearly suck.<br />
<br />
S: Would it be worth it, though, to get the video?<br />
<br />
B: Think about the time and effort and future science that we would be getting out of these things, all wiped in an hour. Bam! Game over, you're done. But, yeah, the video, the YouTube video that came out of that would be epic. Totally epic.<br />
<br />
J: Is that gonna ruin the geologic history of Mars?<br />
<br />
B: No. In what way Jay?<br />
<br />
E: Not all of it.<br />
<br />
S: It's going to hit the last colony of life on Mars. ''(laughter)'' Wipe it out. Some bacterial colony.<br />
<br />
GH: That group of cells up there is all getting psyched.<br />
<br />
S: This little frozen, this little underground pond.<br />
<br />
E: ''(in a little voice)'' Yay, we can think! Ahhhhhh! Crash.<br />
<br />
J: Let me clarify. So we have a petaton object hitting the surface of Mars. Couldn't that breach the, get down in the mantle and actually . . .<br />
<br />
S: The Martian crust is a little thicker than Earth's. Mars's crust is 50 kilometers thick on average, while Earth's is 40 kilometers on average. And the mantle is still hot. So, like Earth, Mars has a relatively thin crust. It also has a much thinner atmosphere, only 1/100 the thickness that of Earth. So that's less of a cushion to slow down anything incoming, like a comet. But I don't know if this could carry the punch necessary to crack open the crust down to the mantle.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, and that would be a deep crater, Jay. <br />
<br />
J: Couldn't that kick up enough matter into the tiny atmosphere that there is and actually just screw up all of that geologic information?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, it'll definitely erase a lot of geological information, no question.<br />
<br />
GH: But it could also expose a lot, too.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I don't know, but, yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: I wonder, if it does hit, will this be a, sort of a good selling point for us to come up with some kind of comet deterrence system, asteroid deterrence system. Like, look at Mars! Look at what happened! That could be us!<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: You know, I'm just saying. It'd be nice, right?<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely. That's one of the big benefits of the Russian asteroid recently. That people are like, oh, boy, we've gotta really start taking this seriously. If something like that hit Mars and with such a devastating effect, and we filmed it in all of its glory, yeah, that would be, that would spur us even more. So in that regard, I think that will be a great benefit of this thing taking out Mars.<br />
<br />
S: So I'm having mixed feelings about ''(unintelligible)'' It would be uber-cool in many ways, but I don't want all of NASA's probes to be destroyed. That would suck.<br />
<br />
B: In one fell swoop. Which of course, the conspiracy theorists would say, well, yeah, this was manmade. We steered the comet towards Mars to wipe out, so that our probes wouldn't run into the secret…. ''(overlapping comments)''<br />
<br />
S: What if the comet hits Cydonia? Like it hits the face on Mars.<br />
<br />
B: I was just thinking that, Steve. I was just thinking that! That would be, I really hope that doesn't happen, 'cause that would be too much of a coincidence.<br />
<br />
''(Many people talking at once – unintelligible)''<br />
<br />
GH: --put the pieces together. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we're getting there. That's our next item. So, Bob, what I read, though, was that the current estimate is that there's a 0.1 percent chance that the nucleus of the comet will directly hit Mars.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it's looking unlikely, very unlikely, even right now, before we know the obit.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: But it's not completely ruled out and who knows, these are comets and they are inherently harder to predict than asteroids.<br />
<br />
S: But even if it's not a direct hit, though, there's a good chance that the <br />
<br />
B: The comea, the coma?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the coma will pass through Mars. Essentially<br />
<br />
GH: Combover?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It'll coma over, yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: If it does hit, though, what happens to all the life force vampires that're in the comet? Are they affected by that, or is that . .. <br />
<br />
B: OOOOhhhh. Yeah, I know what you're thinking of, George.<br />
<br />
GH: Damn right.<br />
<br />
J: My vote is I don't want it to hit.<br />
<br />
B: 'Nuf said.<br />
<br />
GH: 'Nuf said.<br />
<br />
S: Jay votes no. What do you say, Evan?<br />
<br />
E: Absolutely yes. This is a once, gosh, not even once in a lifetime chance. Once in a, I don't know, species time chance, for this to happen.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I wanna see Mars split in two.<br />
<br />
S: George, what do you think?<br />
<br />
GH: I want it to hit, but I want it to hit like on the far side so we can't see it. Just to really be like Doooohhhhhhh it's so aaaaaaawwwwww. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Worst case scenario.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah, I want a massive---<br />
<br />
''(Many people talking at once – unintelligible)''<br />
<br />
S: --wipes out all our probes so we don't get to see anything.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah, this huge nerd sigh, that just is like "guuuuuhh." Yeah, that's what I want. <br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' Nerd sigh.<br />
<br />
J; Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
E: Steve, what do you want? You said no?<br />
<br />
S: I'm on the fence. No, I said I'm conflicted, very conflicted.<br />
<br />
E: Don't forget, Mars has two moons.<br />
<br />
S: Maybe it'll hit one of the moons.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that'd be cool!<br />
<br />
E: How cool would that be?<br />
<br />
J: Not cool. <br />
<br />
E: Why?<br />
<br />
J: It could hit one of the moons and send it towards the Earth and then we're all f'd.<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
B: I'll take that chance.<br />
<br />
J: Hey, come on. You never know, Steve.<br />
<br />
E: That's what happened in ''Thundarr the Barbarian.'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S; Jay, what are the names of the moons of Mars?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, there's, uh, Zero Zero One and Zero Zero Two. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Alpha and Beta.<br />
<br />
B: Deimos and Phobos.<br />
<br />
S: Phobos and Deimos, yes.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, the first one, Frankie Gismore ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: And the second one is?<br />
<br />
J: I love it when we have all guys on the show. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Sirius UFO <small>(35:31)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp9aOb04e20&list=PL6E8B33D9279BEF7B&index=1 YouTube: Dr.Steven Greer - Sirius Documentary (Trailer) - New Movie Coming Soon ! 2012]<br />
<br />
S: Hey, Evan, you're gonna tell us<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: about the Srius UFO documentary.<br />
<br />
B: Seriously.<br />
<br />
E: Very serious. We received multiple emails and messages this week about the most recent episode of the Joe Rogan Experience. Right? That's a podcast, or, it's also a vodcast, but, for those of you not familiar with him, Joe Rogan is an American martial artist, a stand-up comedian, an actor, a writer and color commentator for the Ultimate Fighting Championship mixed martial arts events. Now. Full disclosure here. I've never seen his stand-up comedy, I've never seen him act. But I've watched him a lot of times doing UFC color, he's very good at it. And now, for the first time ever, I've listened to an entire episode of his podcast. Because he had a fella on, his name is Dr. Steven Greer. And he has put together a documentary film that'll be coming out in April called ''Sirius.'' And Joe Rogan spent three hours on his podcast talking with Dr. Steven Greer.<br />
<br />
B: Wow. Three hours.<br />
<br />
E: Have you guys heard of Steven Greer before?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah. He's the head of the Disclosure Project.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. Disclosure Project and other little projects having to do with the world of UFOs. He's huge UFOlogists. He's a prominent believer and conspiracy theorist. So if you haven't heard of him before, consider yourself fortunate. So this is a conspiracy theorist's wet dream. Right? Dr. Greer has stitched together a narrative by which extra-terrestrials, they not only exist, but they are regular visitors to Earth, through space and time. And their physics-altering technologies have been co-opted by the military industrial complex in an effort to suppress the flow of free and clean energy to the people. The masses. Here on Earth.<br />
<br />
GH: Booorr-ing!<br />
<br />
E: And there's also a, but, George, there's also a shadow government. Did you know that? And it has no borders. It's the very, very powerful, a couple hundred powerful people in corporations around the planet, and they are the puppetmasters pulling the strings of society and technology. You know, they're oil barons and coal tycoons and nuclear-hungry megalomaniacs. And they want to dominate the people of Earth by not giving them access to the alien technology that would give us clean fuel and efficient means of energy. So to top it all off, the ''coup de grace,'' the icing on the cake, the smoking gun, the final nail in the coffin.<br />
<br />
S: Coup de grace ''(pronouncing the "s" sound (Evan didn't))''<br />
<br />
B: We get it.<br />
<br />
S: It's coup de gras-s-s<br />
<br />
E: Coup ''(pronouncing the "P")'' de gra-cey.<br />
<br />
S: De gracey. Coup de gracey is acceptable.<br />
<br />
E: Dr. Greer has video, photographic and physical evidence of an extra-terrestrial.<br />
<br />
S: And he'll show it to you if you pay him.<br />
<br />
E: If you pay him. Yes. But if you look at the trailer, he'll show you a little peek of it at the very end of his trailer. It's about six inches long, this little thing. It looks like a little dried-out husk of what would have otherwise been that alien from the infamous alien autopsy video back in the '90s. The one that was, you know, a full-blown hoax.<br />
<br />
B: It reminded me of the little alien driving the human body thing in ''Men in Black.'' But not as good of a prop, though, because, you know, the movie made a better prop than he did.<br />
<br />
GH: A homunculus.<br />
<br />
S: It's a homunculus.<br />
<br />
J: It's a homunculus, man.<br />
<br />
S: So, yeah, the six-inch alien is interesting. We have x-rays of it and some pictures of a skeleton. What's interesting, one thing that I find interesting is that it has every bone a human has in the right place, basically in the right shape. But it's just a little distorted. So the proportions are distorted, but all the bones pretty much are human.<br />
<br />
J: You think that that's an actual fetus corpse?<br />
<br />
S: I don't know. It could be a hundred percent a fake, just like the alien autopsy. It could be some weird<br />
<br />
B: How about a monkey, some weird monkey<br />
<br />
S: Primate.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, a primate with no fur or something, a baby one, I don't know. It's either that or it's a complete and utter hoax. It's not just a misidentification and wishful thinking and all that stuff, it's like a clear "I am going to scam people and make all this shit up."<br />
<br />
GH: I think the keychain part of it really gives it away, though. I think that's<br />
<br />
S: Keychain, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yes. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Little "Made in China" tag on it, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Am I missing something here? Like, do a DNA test on the damn thing.<br />
<br />
S: So he's claiming to be doing a DNA test.<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
S: And claiming to be examining it. But it's all "oh, we need to raise money in order to do the proper science experiments and I have some undisclosed guy in some undisclosed country doing these examinations and it's all. . . So, listening to this guy, 'cause I watched a dozen of his YouTube videos and the trailer to his movie and read some of his articles. You know, he's one of these people where I am not convinced that he's not completely full of it. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: I'm not convinced that he believes what he's saying. You know, he could believe it somewhat, he could be a total true believer, he could be a total con artist or anywhere in between. It's just, it's hard to say. But he definitely is trying very hard to make a lot of money out of what he's doing. Which doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong. But it gives him a certain vibe. He's doing things, like he has these seminars where he will train you to summon a UFO mentally.<br />
<br />
E: Yup. That's right. He knows the secret.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god, he's going to that level?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: So he's saying that he could teach you how to attract a UFO—<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: That's exactly right. He calls it, and he has a name for it, it's called coherent thought. And you use protocols from, that he describes as close encounters of the<br />
<br />
J: Wait, wait. I got it, Evan, I got it.<br />
<br />
E: fifth kind. Okay.<br />
<br />
J: George.<br />
<br />
GH: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Roll play with me, shall you?<br />
<br />
GH: All right, hit it.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>''electronic noises for about 7 seconds. They continue as background to the conversation.''<br />
Voice 1: So we have travelled a trillion years, but we will wait in the atmosphere of this planet. We will wait.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: Uh, do you think we should maybe like get in touch with the, like, world government, or something?<br />
<br />
Voice 1: No. No. No, we will wait. We will sit here and just wait.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: 'Cause you know, we've basically spend like pretty much our entire planet's resource to get this ship to this point. You know, it's<br />
<br />
Voice 1: You're young; don't be anxious. We will wait.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: If there's maybe like a president or like maybe some kind of you know, like a united nations or some organization?<br />
<br />
Voice 1: Oh look! The light on the dashboard just turned on! Somebody's summoning us.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: Is that an official kind of person that represents like a large number of people that we could then maybe, you know, have a liaison with them, or who is that representing that little dashboard light?<br />
<br />
Voice 1: This is . . . um . . . a hippie in a field in North America.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: Okay. So we're gonna travel across the known, pretty much, galaxy, to talk to, um, a hippie.<br />
<br />
''Background noise fades.''</blockquote><br />
<br />
J: Does this make sense, guys? I mean, seriously. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
''(Many people talking at once – unintelligible)''<br />
<br />
E: --Perfect sense.<br />
<br />
GH: --our production off Broadway.<br />
<br />
S: What happens, Jay, is that he points to lights in the sky and says "That's a UFO."<br />
<br />
J: Right.<br />
<br />
S: He's probably pointing at satellites.<br />
<br />
GH: It turned green, which means we can go.<br />
<br />
J: Did anybody think to ask him why are they waiting to just barely show themselves? Like, come on, how could people be this --- fooled?<br />
<br />
S: Don't ask that question.<br />
<br />
E: Well, Jay, I'm sorry you asked that, because there is kind of an answer to that.<br />
<br />
J: What?<br />
<br />
E: The aliens are here because they realize we are on the cusp of obtaining technology that can be a threat to them or to other planets . . .<br />
<br />
GH: iPhone 6<br />
<br />
E: and people on other . . . the iPhone 6, exactly. You know, with all of our nuclear capabilities and mushroom clouds, and these sorts of thing, that's why the aliens have taken an interest.<br />
<br />
S: But we've had nuclear weapons for 70 years.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, but it's not, you know, it's only a blip in time because the aliens have been visiting us for millions of years.<br />
<br />
J: Guys, guys, we're about to create warp drive.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Is that from Cochran?<br />
<br />
GH: First Contact, there you go.<br />
<br />
J: Thank you, of course.<br />
<br />
B: That's gotta be it.<br />
<br />
''(Many people talking at once – unintelligible)''<br />
<br />
GH: I don't wanna be a statue. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: This guy, the other thing that makes me very suspicious of this guy is that he's doing this "we're right on the cusp, it's happen; governments are gonna start disclosing all the real stuff; they're hiding everything from us. I just need a little bit more money and I'm gonna prove all this." I get the same vibe as the free energy people, which he is a free energy person.<br />
<br />
E: Dennis Lee. He is, yes.<br />
<br />
S: It's like we're just about to prove the free energy thing and I just need a little bit more investors to give me some more money. We'll get the DNA analysis and free energy thing and all, and everything. It's all a big conspiracy. You know, it's just hard to swallow the whole thing. <br />
<br />
GH: Was Joe Rogan at all questioning or skeptical, at all? Or was it just three hours of complete agreement and, like, do you think he completely bought into it? Or did he have him on the show to kind of just, sort of show this is a crazy guy?<br />
<br />
E: That's a great question, George. Joe had him on the show, Joe says, because his listeners demanded it.<br />
<br />
GH: Ah, okay.<br />
<br />
E: Well, not demanded, but heavily requested that this person be on the show. So that gives you an insight as to the audience of the Joe Rogan Show. But, in any case, Joe did a, better than I expected, job of asking him some questions that a good skeptic would have asked. Now here's the problem with Joe, though. And he admits this. He wants to believe that this stuff and other things like it are actually true, and therefore, he will be much, much more relaxed in his level of standards, right. His threshold by which the person has to achieve in order to convince Joe that something is right. But Joe's not a dumb person. He knows some things. And he shows that he knows some things. He knows a little bit about science and physics and so forth. And he does ask some decent questions. But at the same time, he really has, his biases do get the better of him in the end.<br />
<br />
GH: I've listened to his show. He's a very smart guy. He's a very funny guy. I liked his stand-up and I've heard a number of his podcasts, too. And on some things he can be very skeptical. His approach is actually really good. And other times he'll sort of begin just a little bit of skepticism and then there's no follow-up like at all. Like one response from a person and he just kind of stops that kind of front. And it's a shame because I bet if he had some kind of epiphany moment, I think there could be a real turnaround for him. Because he is a deductive kind of smart guy. He's not a completely credulous—from what I can tell, anyway, from the limited amount I've listened to.<br />
<br />
S: Well what I want to know is why is there a six-inch tall alien that looks more human than any alien has the right to look. That's what I want to know. Why will it have DNA, if it's alien?<br />
<br />
J: Because they seeded the Earth, Steve. Come on, there's always a good explanation.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I know. They always have their hand-waving BS explanation, but it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.<br />
<br />
B: Look at Prometheus. They were big and muscular, you know. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
GH: Don't even start on Prometheus.<br />
<br />
E: Prometheus? Oh<br />
<br />
S: George, you love that movie.<br />
<br />
GH: Love it. Love it! I have it running in a loop in my head all day long. ''(laughter)'' Ugggghh! I'm in it for the money.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, boy.<br />
<br />
E: That's a good line, from that. So, there you go. That's the latest with the, Joe and . . .<br />
<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(47:08)</small>==<br />
<br />
S: All right, so, Evan, it's time for ''Who's That Noisy?''<br />
<br />
E: Yup. I'm gonna play for you last week's noisy, and it was up to you the listening audience to guess exactly what this noisy was. Here we go.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Men's voices speaking on some kind of communicators:<br />
Person 1: You're looking a little hot and all your calls will be a little early. (Beep) Person 2: Okay. Person 3: And that looks good here.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: That is, that is a whistlepig. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: No, no, that was . . . no, we can't do that two weeks in a row. Yeah, we can't.<br />
<br />
J: We knew it was a NASA beep, communication with somebody in outer space, but we didn't know what mission. What was it?<br />
<br />
E: Well, George, what do you think? Have you heard that before somewhere?<br />
<br />
GH: That is actually the mission that the band Rush used for the song "Countdown."<br />
<br />
E: Um hmmm. That is exactly correct. STS 1. Space Shuttle Columbia.<br />
<br />
GH: Right.<br />
<br />
E: April 12, 1981. Yup. That was a little part of the communiqué going on between Mission Control and astronauts Young and Crippen in the shuttle itself.<br />
<br />
J: Awesome.<br />
<br />
GH or J: ''(singing)'' ''Excitement soo grand.''<br />
<br />
J: ''(singing)'' ''It's the final countdown.''<br />
<br />
GH: Not that one. No, no, stop it, stop it. No. Wrong hair. Wrong hair. ''(laughter)'' More kimonos, less hair.<br />
<br />
E: I'm very proud of our audience. So many correct guesses. I was very, very pleased with everyone this past week, so thank you all for playing and submitting your correct guesses. I drew randomly from all the correct guesses and Ross Rawlings, you are the winner this week, because I drew your name. So, well done, Ross.<br />
<br />
GH: Ross Rawlings! Fantastic!<br />
<br />
E: He is now in the running <br />
<br />
''George making trumpeting sounds''<br />
<br />
E: Is that ''The Dating Game?''<br />
<br />
GH: Tell him what he's won! Tell him what he's won! ''(laughter)'' ''(trumpeting continues)''<br />
<br />
E: Welllll, Ross, you are now in the running to join us for an episode of ''Science or Fiction'' on an episode of The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. We will have the drawing at the beginning of 2014. So congratulations!<br />
<br />
''(trumpeting finishes up)'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: I didn't know you carried a little bugle in your back pocket there, George. That's very handy.<br />
<br />
GH: I'm just happy to see you.<br />
<br />
E: Logic puzzle this week, ladies and gentlemen. Get your thinking caps on, and try this one: A man from the Ukraine had three sons. The first son was named Rab, and he became a lawyer.<br />
<br />
S: Isn't it Rab ''(pronouncing it "Rob")'' like Hrab?<br />
<br />
E: It's R-A-B.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: How would you pronounce that, George?<br />
<br />
GH: I would say Rob.<br />
<br />
E: Okay.<br />
<br />
GH: If he's Ukrainian. And don't say "The Ukraine," just say "Ukraine."<br />
<br />
E: Oh, okay. Sorry 'bout that. <br />
<br />
S: A man from The France. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
GH: Exactly. The France, yeah. Or, The England.<br />
<br />
E: A man from The Hague had three sons.<br />
<br />
S: Go ahead, Evan. Get it right this time.<br />
<br />
E: A man from Ukraine had three sons. The first son was named Rab, and he became a lawyer. The second son was named Ymra, and he became a soldier. The 3rd son became a sailor, so, what was his name? <br />
<br />
S: Got it.<br />
<br />
E: So, go ahead, give us your answer to that logic puzzle. wtn@theskepticsguide.org is the email. Or you can post it on the forums at sguforums.com. Tune up your thinking caps. Good luck, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Thanks, Evan.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Question 1: Magnet Hill <small>(50:26)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: We have a few questions this week. I don't know if we'll get through all of them, but let's start with this one. This one comes from Jonathan Nonon from New York, and Jonathan writes:<br />
<br />
<blockquote> I am a Software Engineer originally from Dominican Republic,</blockquote><br />
<br />
Is it ''The'' Dominican Republic?<br />
<br />
<blockquote>I have been a listener of the show since 2010, and every week I am looking forward to a new SGU chapter. When I was a kid (I am 28) </blockquote><br />
<br />
He's still a kid.<br />
<br />
<blockquote> back in the DR, a journalist made an investigation about a "Magnetic Pole" in one remote corner of the country, Barahona, in the south east of the island. It always puzzled me. The place looks like a hill, however, everything you place in the ground "rolls" in the opposite direction, uphill. All objects, no matter what material they are, the are pulled upwards. You can look at dozens of videos on youtube by searching the string "polo magnetico barahona" [Magnetic Pole Barahona] The common and most simple explanation is that the place is an optical illusion. Is not that I do not believe it, I do not understand it. I have been looking for explanations, but none of them satisfy my curiosity. In my little research, I didn't find any other place where this phenomenon is happening. If you can explain this phenomenon I will appreciate it. </blockquote><br />
<br />
J: This phenomenon was one of the first ones that I debunked on my own. I figured it out by myself and I was really proud of myself. It was a long time ago. Thank you. So, it's known by many names, and there are hundreds of locations around the world that have this thing happening. But first, these are called, they're known by different terms: gravity hill, magnetic hill, spooky mystery hill, mystery spot or gravity road, there's lots of different names, different um, it's funny but<br />
<br />
E: Sounds like an episode of Scooby Doo or something, right?<br />
<br />
J: Different interpretations of the names that these places get around the world all revolve around that them. Something about a road or a hill being magnetic or spooky.<br />
<br />
GH: ''(in a southern accent)'' Fried Hill. Chicken Hill. ''(unintelligible)'' Spooky Hill.<br />
<br />
J: Whistlepig Hill.<br />
<br />
GH: Whistlepig Hill. That's about it.<br />
<br />
J: So, these places are where the lay of the land produces an optical illusion. The emailer was absolutely correct. Typically, these are roads that have a tiny downhill slope but happen to appear like they're going uphill. A common test that you'll see someone do on YouTube is they'll turn their car off, put it in neutral, and then they take their foot off the gas and the break and everything. No interaction, and the car just starts rolling, it looks like uphill. The illusion is another example that people are easy to fool because of the way our senses work, and we've talked about this on the show before. The way our senses construct reality is happening incredibly fast in our brain. Our brain's constantly trying to make sense of what it sees. Like, what cues do we use to tell spatially how big things are, how far things are, and what their orientation is compared to everything else that we're seeing. And our brain has to make decisions with the information that it has in front of them. And also taking into account or effecting what you're seeing is your bias, your pre-conceived notions of how things are supposed to behave. So in this case, typically when we are outside and trying to orient ourselves, the horizon comes into play, particular in a case like this where there's something going uphill or downhill and we need to know spatially where it is in comparison to where we are. The other big thing is the angle of the trees and the surrounding hills and the land. It can and does happen, like I said there's hundreds of places around the world this is, where it actually looks the opposite of what the land is actually doing, which is weird, I know, but it does happen, and thousands upon millions of people have been fooled over the years at these locations. But that's it. Magicians use the fact that we are susceptible to illusions to fool us all the time. You can go on YouTube and fall prey to illusions that even on a 2D screen. We're that susceptible to them. And that is the explanation, even though we'd like to think that there's something cool going on; you know, there's some type of cosmic thing that's reversing the magnetic forces: nope, sorry, it's just your eyes playing tricks on you.<br />
<br />
E: It's not a vortex.<br />
<br />
S: The magnetic thing doesn't even make sense because things that are not ferro-magnetic are also affected.<br />
<br />
E: Plastic bottles. That's right.<br />
<br />
S: It would have to be a gravity phenomenon; there's an anti-gravity field, or something, there. Cyclists, bike riders, know about this phenomenon. You know what they call it?<br />
<br />
J: Something slope, or<br />
<br />
S: It's called a false flat.<br />
<br />
J: False flat. There you go.<br />
<br />
S: So when it looks like you're on a level field, but you're actually slightly going uphill, and so it's harder, so if you don't account for that, you may get tuckered out because you think; you're actually pedaling uphill and you don't realize it because the optical illusion looks flat.<br />
<br />
GH: My dad, years ago, like when I was kid and we would drive in the Lincoln Tunnel to get into New York City, or the Holland Tunnel. The first third of the tunnel, you're going at a pretty decent angle sort of downwards, but there's no sense of it because you're in this tunnel. He would put the car in neutral and he would sort of say, are we flat right now? What do you think is our position right now? And I would say, Yeah, we're totally flat, like it just feels like all of a sudden we're totally level; and he put the car in neutral, it just rolled down until you get to the bottom, where it flattens out, where the car would then slow, and then it would sort of, you know, you would notice that you're going now uphill on that last part of it. That was the first time as a kid that this perception thing, was like, you don't trust what you're seeing; don't trust what you're feeling, don't trust what you're seeing necessarily.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I've noticed that in long tunnels as well. You lose your perspective. 'Cause it's all relative. It's hard to know if you're going down or going up. <br />
<br />
GH: 'Cause there's no horizon. It's that false horizon. Which is also my favorite Schwartzenegger film.<br />
<br />
J: ''(In an Austrian accent)'' False horizon.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, god.<br />
<br />
GH: ''(In an Austrian accent)'' This movie everything rolls uphill. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Question 2: Tourette <small>(56:27)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: All right, one more question. This one comes from Woody. And Woody writes:<br />
<blockquote>I was recently in a discussion about Tourette Syndrome and, to get quickly to the point, minor forms of said syndrome. It was my assertion that minor forms where more akin to compulsion or in more extreme cases OCD, and that Tourette was specifically in the extreme. I remember you touching shortly on this on the SGU and searched your Blogs to see if you had written more in depth, to no avail. I was hoping that you could give me a short rundown on the "mechanics."</blockquote><br />
<br />
Okay, sure, I'll be happy to do that, Woody. Tourette Syndrome is a neurological disorder first described by a famous French neurologist, Tourette, which involves, essentially, tics. A tic is an involuntary movement of some kind. It could be moving a part of your body, it could be a vocalization, clearing your throat, anything like that is a tic. And it's involuntary in that people do it<br />
<br />
B: Involuntarily, ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they don't want to do it, but, well, the reason why I'm clarifying is because most people with these tics ''can'' suppress them for a short period of time. So it's not involuntary like a seizure is involuntary, where you have ''no'' control over it. It's involuntary . . . maybe it's better to think of it that the desire to do the movement's involuntary. But you can temporarily suppress it. But when people try to do that they describe it as like this growing itch, this growing desire to do the tic, and that can only be relieved by executing the tic. Right? So it essentially becomes impossible to suppress it for any length of time.<br />
<br />
J: It sounds horrifying.<br />
<br />
S: It is, And in its severe form it's very debilitating.<br />
<br />
E: Debilitating, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Now he brings up obsessive compulsive disorder, OCD, and there is a relationship between OCD and Tourette, but it's not just one of extremity. It's not like extreme cases are OCD and mild cases are Tourette, or the other way around. You can have both Tourette's and OCD, and they do frequently occur together. So does Tourette's and ADHD, attention deficit and hyper-activity disorder. What obsessive-compulsive disorder is, you can think of that as the mental version of a tic. It is an involuntary thought or obsession. So the notion that you have to do things a certain number of times, for example, or that you have to wash your hands, or there are people who have obsessive checking behavior, like they might turn a light switch on and off 20 times. Or I read of a case where somebody had this obsession that they, while driving, that they ran somebody over, and so they kept having to turn around and go back to see if there was a dead body in the street. And they just would get into this endless loop of going back and checking to see if they had run somebody over. They are similar parts of the brain, similar phenomenon, OCD is mental, tics are physical. But they're very similar, phenomenalogically. But you can have very mild Tourette Syndrome. In fact there's a lot of people, you've probably seen them, you know, who have these little tics. You know. That are not that bad and not debilitating in any way, they're just odd. All the way up to people who, their tic is swearing: so-called coprolalia. That's about 10-15% of people with Tourette's will have the coprolalia. They'll, not just clearing the throat or some vocalization, but for whatever reason, their tic is saying something that is socially unacceptable. And it's absolutely culture specific. You know, it's not like people in different cultures say the same thing. The tic is saying something that is a swear word in your culture; that will be socially offensive or inappropriate in the current context.<br />
<br />
GH: Was it thought at some point that perhaps Tourette's was misinterpreted as possession?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, I'm sure, going back. Going back, absolutely. If you read classic descriptions of people who were thought to be<br />
<br />
GH: witches and stuff.<br />
<br />
S: possessed by demons, yeah. These were people, probably, with neurological disorders. I'm sure Tourette's is on the list. Seizures. You know, if you had a fit, they didn't think "Oh, he's having an electric discharge in the brain." They would think you're possessed by a demon.<br />
<br />
GH: Right.<br />
<br />
S: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
GH: Do you guys have any OCD stuff? Any of you guys have any kind of little compulsions?<br />
<br />
S: I assume by your question that you do.<br />
<br />
GH: I don't think I do. I mean, there's, it's just that weird thing of determining what is sort of tradition, in a weird way. Like, everybody has whatever they do. Like when I'm setting up my drums, let's say. It's a certain order that I have to do it. If it doesn't happen in that order, it's okay. I don't feel like the world's gonna collapse, but there is a certain pleasure in knowing, oh, this goes, then this goes, then this goes.<br />
<br />
S: It feels right. Yeah. So I had two very mild OCD-type things when I was younger that I basically outgrew.<br />
<br />
E: So you think.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well, they're still present a little bit, but I don't actually do them anymore.<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
S: I had an even-number bias,<br />
<br />
GH: Hm.<br />
<br />
S: Where even numbers feel right, and odd numbers don't so<br />
<br />
B: Freak.<br />
<br />
S: I had bias toward doing things an even number of times. Or I had a completion sort of OCD. Where like if I did something on one side, it felt better if I did it on the other side. Or like if I tapped one finger, I had to tap all of my fingers. But, very little things like that. Very subtle, and just when I was younger. I don't do them anymore as an adult, but I still, sometimes they're like way deep back buried in my head that there's little<br />
<br />
GH: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: It feels a little right to complete things or to have an even number.<br />
<br />
GH: Right, right.<br />
<br />
J: I definitely had some as a kid. Like I, the switch thing sparked a memory. I think I used to just keep flipping the light switch for no reason, until I just felt like, okay, I'm done with that. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
GH: You just wanted to be in a disco, that's all. You were just hoping for the strobe effect.<br />
<br />
J: I, spacially, things, I was particular about where things were. I would have like a fear, like something was gonna fall off the nightstand I would keep pushing it more and more into the nightstand until it was ridiculously in the center. <br />
<br />
S: That's a good one.<br />
<br />
B: But this isn't dramatic, is it?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, sure. Pre-disposition.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, boy.<br />
<br />
J: I definitely grew out of them, like if anything I wish I was a little more OCD now, 'cause I'd be cleaner and get more stuff done. Steve's like, I'm OCD, I had to complete medical school. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: The thing is, what's interesting is in that anxiety and obsessive-compulsiveness, a little bit of that is very practical and adaptive, and beneficial. There's an upside and a downside, and most people are somewhere in the middle. Obviously if you had no anxiety whatsoever, you'd walk out into traffic. Or if you had no, you would have no personal hygiene. Your house would be a mess. You have to be motivated to do stuff by a little bit of anxiety, a little bit of the obsessiveness. But too much and it starts to become counter-productive. There's a bell curve. And what we're really talking about with OCD is people just at one end of the spectrum.<br />
<br />
J: It's fascinating to think that there's a healthy amount of OCD, which you just said, in the range of whatever we would say is normal, that isn't obstructive.<br />
<br />
S: Healthy.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, healthy.<br />
<br />
S: And maybe along with that comes these little quirks that are benign, but that are just interesting quirks in how our brain works.<br />
<br />
GH: Most people that are successful, ___________ successful, I mean, Tycho Brahe, when he was sitting, looking at stars night after night after night, that's a compulsion. All the people that, Gregor Mendel on some level was probably obsessive, you know. You have to be, on some level, or whether you're painting or an artists or something, there's some kind of a compulsion and an obsession that can drive stuff, and that's why a lot of those people don't have social skills necessarily, or don't do well outside of the compulsion, and yet they can be special.<br />
<br />
S: Think about the entire skeptical movement, is based upon compulsion. Somebody is wrong on the internet. Why do we care so much? Because people believe things that are not reasonable, or that are unscientific.<br />
<br />
J: Well, what are we gonna do? Not correct them, Steve. I mean, come on, seriously.<br />
<br />
S: I'm just saying, this is a good healthy compulsion. It bothers us emotionally, so we are motivated to do something.<br />
<br />
GH: Until it's comments on a Facebook page, correcting some obscure reference which was wrong. I mean, it's like, okay, fine. Yes. Technically, you're correct. I'm sorry that my joke didn't adhere to the 14th Century standards of the ___________ system. The way I was implying at 37 characters in, I'm sorry, you're correct. It's much funnier your way.<br />
<br />
J: The words you were saying were correct, George, but totally, you were completely incorrect.<br />
<br />
GH: Yes, your version is much funnier. I'm sorry.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there's a recurring discussion of pedantry, people who are pedantic. A certain amount of being pedantic is good. It means being a good scientist, detail oriented. You could spin it all in a very positive way. You know, you get the facts right. Or you could say you're obsessed with irrelevant details that don't matter. And both could be correct, it's just a matter of degree. Fascinating the way our brains work.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:06:04)</small> ==<br />
''Voiceover" It's time for Science or Fiction''<br />
<br />
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts with which I challenge my panel of expert skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. We have a theme this week, with ''four'' items. I know you guys ''love'' this. The theme is: the internet. Four facts about the internet, only three of them are true. Are you all ready?<br />
<br />
J: Do it.<br />
<br />
E: Uh huh.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/osoa-idh022613.php Item #1]: Greater than 60% of upstream traffic is comprised of torrent files, while Netflix by itself represents 1/3 of peak download traffic. [http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/photos/how-25-tech-companies-got-their-names-slideshow/amazon-holds-news-conference-photo--982673090.html Item #2]: Amazon.com benefitted from the popularity of the Yahoo search engine, which listed search results alphabetically. [http://royal.pingdom.com/2013/01/16/internet-2012-in-numbers/ Item #3]: North America has the highest internet penetration at 78.6%, while Africa has the lowest at 15.6%. And [http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blemtax2.htm Item #4]: In 1999 Congressman Peter Schnell proposed House Bill 602P allowing the US postal service to charge a 5cent surcharge for each e-mail sent. The bill died in response to public outrage.<br />
<br />
GH: Geez.<br />
<br />
S: George, you were the first one to utter a noise. Which mean that you get to go first. I know you didn't know the rules, but that's no excuse, so.<br />
<br />
GH: ''(Makes noises indicating consternation)'' I would totally believe that, in the first one, that Netflix has that much of the share, and the torrent, the torrent and the Netflix percentages, I would think that's correct. Amazon benefitting from the alphabetical listing, I also would think that is correct. I think the percentages seem right between North America and Africa, 78 and 15.6. That seems legit. The thing, the one that stood out to me is the fourth one, that five cent surcharge, because that's been one of those kind of internet myths which has been passed around forever and ever. Even though you said that it wasn't that it didn't pass, to think that Congress, in 1999, seeing as the internet sort of really sort of hit it off in '93, that they would be that far ahead of the curve in thinking of having a five cent surcharge, I think that's the fake one. So I would say the surcharge one is the fake.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Bob?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, boy. Yeah. Umm. Yeah, I hear often that torrent just dominates internet traffic so I could buy 60% upstream. I mean even higher wouldn't be too surprising. And Netflix. Man, I have watched Netflix every damn night. I'm not surprised at that. Even that could be higher and I wouldn't be too surprised. Internet penetration, North American 78. Yeah, you know, I'm kind of not sure about that one 'cause I would think that other countries, like Japan, or some other countries would have higher internet penetration than even we do. But I think because you, I don't know, maybe something about using North America instead of the United States kind of is getting my attention. And then the five cent surcharge. So the fact that somebody proposed a bill, ehh, it doesn't concern me or get my attention as much as the Amazon one. I don't think I've ever used Yahoo's search engine. It just makes no sense to me that the search results will be listed alphabetically. To me that's just ridiculous. That can't be right. Because it's just too easy to name yourself then get yourself high on the list. It just seems silly to have your results listed alphabetically. I'm just gonna go for that one. That's gotta be fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Evan?<br />
<br />
E: Ummm. Well, the congressman, five cent surcharge for each email sent. I have some recollection of this. I'm not sure if this is a twisting of this somehow, but I'm gonna say that that one's correct. Okay. The highest internet penetration at 78.6%. I suppose so; we're judging the continents here. Therefore, well, Antarctica. I think Antarctica would have the lowest internet penetration, but I guess we're not counting that. So given the remaining continents, I suppose Africa's gonna, I imagine, have the lowest. It's such a big continent. Well, I think that one's correct. Therefore, it's down to Amazon and the popularity of the Yahoo search engine or greater than 60% of upstream traffic. Torrent files. So, it kind of leaves this Yahoo and Amazon.com one, yeah. I don't know. Results alphabetically, seems a little simplistic, so I guess for the same reason Bob, I'll say that one's fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. And, Jay.<br />
<br />
J: Okay, I'll take them in order. The first about 60% of upstream traffic is Torrent files, that one is absolutely true. The glut of upstream Torrent files is, of course that's true because of how much downloading that's happening. It can track those types of things. And we know what websites people are going to to get the files, and it's hard to track, I would imagine, but I'm sure that there's a way to gauge that, and I do believe that there is a phenomenal amount of file-sharing going on. The second one about Amazon benefitting from Yahoo. Yes, that is true, by the way. And Yahoo definitely used to display their things in alphabetical order.<br />
<br />
B: Really? What the hell? <br />
<br />
J: That's a hundred percent true. <br />
<br />
B: Stupid. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
GH: Stupid Yahoo. Stupid.<br />
<br />
E: That's why it's called Yahoo.<br />
<br />
J: The third one about North America having the highest penetration and Africa has the lowest, those numbers seem right to me as well. So, the five cent one is absolutely false. Absolutely false.<br />
<br />
S: Okay, so we have a split decision here. But you all agree on the first one, so we'll start there. Greater than 60% of upstream traffic is comprised of Torrent files while Netflix by itself represents one third of peak download traffic. You all think that one is true. And that is . . . science. Not surprising. So obviously it does depend a little bit on what resource you're looking at for who's studying internet traffic and reporting on it. Most of the studies come from companies that sell products and services to ISPs to regulate their traffic. So they may not be the most objective sources, but I tried to find as many sources for this as I could, and I'll have links to this. So, yeah, so, 60%, 61% specifically, so greater than 60% of upstream traffic: just upstream. For total traffic it's actually much less. It's like 20% for the Torrent files. Some list it as peer-to-peer. But I guess most of that is Torrent. Some list it as Torrent traffic. And a recent 2012 study showed that Netflix represent a third, now this is download, rather than upload, and it's during the peak times. So one-third of peak download traffic.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, snow days and after 5:00.<br />
<br />
S: Right. And different surveys whacked up internet traffic in different ways, like how much is on web pages versus blogs, versus video. Video is obviously taking off, where web pages kind of peaked and are on the, they're going down. I saw another study; there was ''so'' much information about, you know, statistical information on the internet that I could choose from. One study, recent study, showed that more than half of website visits are by robots, rather than people.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah. Absolutely.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, wasn't surprising.<br />
<br />
E: Like, Data?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and a lot of that is malicious.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. Definitely a lot of it's malicious, and keep in mind that Google has its tentacles out there all the time. Which I think is a good thing, from a data perspective, it's fantastic. But at the same time, you could have software that can show you all the times that your IP address is pinged. And, of course, the more popular your IP address is, like a public website that might have just regular traffic going to it, whatever, it's scary. It's insane. And it's not by human hands. I'm sure the vast minority of it is by humans.<br />
<br />
S: Vast minority. I always liked that phrase. All right, let's go on to number 3. North America has the highest internet penetration at 78.6% while Africa has the lowest at 15.6. You all also agree that that one is science, and that one is . . . also science. So far so good.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: It's not surprising that Africa is so low. Or that North America is high. I thought that some people might think that Europe, for example, has a higher penetration than North America, but it doesn't. It's lower. Asia's actually quite low. This is broken up by continent, obviously. So whereas Japan may have a high penetration, Asia actually is low. Just above Africa. All right, here we go. Let's go back to number 2. Amazon.com benefitted from the popularity of the Yahoo search engine which listed search results alphabetically. Jay and George think this one is science; Evan and Bob, you think this one is fiction.<br />
<br />
J: Georgie!<br />
<br />
E: Hold my hand, Bob.<br />
<br />
S: And this one<br />
<br />
B: Not gonna help.<br />
<br />
S: is . . . science!<br />
<br />
J: Thank you.<br />
<br />
S: All right, Bob and Evan.<br />
<br />
E: Give me my hand back, Bob. That didn't help at all.<br />
<br />
S: That was surprising.<br />
<br />
J: No, it wasn't.<br />
<br />
B: Very. I wish I used Yahoo now. 'Cause I went from MetaCrawler right to Google. I think I used Yahoo, literally, three times in my life, search.<br />
<br />
S: So, do you guys know what Amazon.com was called before it was Amazon.com?<br />
<br />
GH: Zingy Zing Zinger.<br />
<br />
B: Zamazon.<br />
<br />
S: It was called Cadabra.com. As in abracadabra. But they thought it sounded too much like "cadaver."<br />
<br />
E: I agree.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I know a website that's called Abracadabra. Really cool stuff. <br />
<br />
S: And so they changed the name to Amazon. And some references that I found said that they specifically changed their name to something with an "A" to get high on the Yahoo listings. Others that it was just a happy consequence of doing that. Some credited the fact that Yahoo is so dominant now with their early boost from being listed on the first page alphabetically. That's why I just said that they benefitted, not that it's responsible for their popularity. I don't know if you could justify that claim.<br />
<br />
J: I love Amazon.com.<br />
<br />
S: Certainly it didn't hurt, being listed high up in the order alphabetically.<br />
<br />
B: Why would Yahoo make a search engine that would list themselves second to last? ''(laughter)'' That's all I wanna know.<br />
<br />
E: 'Cause they wanted to stick it to Zebra.com. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
GH: Are you guys aware of the Amazon logo? I'm sure you're all aware of this, but when this was first pointed out to me, the smile, 'cause you have the word Amazon, and it looks like a face. Well the smile actually is pointing from A to Z. I just thought that was cool. That's like, you know, they cover everything. A to Z.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
GH: No, no, it's just neat. It's one of those design things. Like you never see it and then when you see it you can't not see it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, it's<br />
<br />
B: Oh, shit.<br />
<br />
J: logo has an arrow in it.<br />
<br />
GH: That's it. Yeah, I love that type of stuff.<br />
<br />
B: I just noticed it, George. Awesome.<br />
<br />
GH: There you go.<br />
<br />
J: One quick interesting fact about Amazon; fact, or whatever. But Amazon was one of the companies that helped write modern shopping software. They came up with the, well, did they come up it, whatever; they made it popular. They made that way of checking out and their processes. They are a phenomenal internet company. They are a phenomenal aggregator of companies' goods.<br />
<br />
E: Alligator.<br />
<br />
GH: When you first about the concept of Amazon, whenever that was, '94, '95, when you ''first'' heard the commercial—I remember being in the car and hearing a commercial for this and the idea that there were like millions of book available somewhere through the internet. Did you guys think that would work?<br />
<br />
S: I did. But I was a pretty much, I was an early internet optimist. I have to say.<br />
<br />
GH: I remember thinking<br />
<br />
J: But, George<br />
<br />
B: I don't know what I thought.<br />
<br />
J: George, I didn't think their other model of aggregating other people's good was gonna work. I thought that was very strange.<br />
<br />
GH: Right. I thought it was a brilliant idea that would never work. I was like that is the coolest idea and people are ''never'' gonna wanna use it.<br />
<br />
J: Well, we do.<br />
<br />
GH: Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: Let's go on to number 4. In 1989 Congressman Peter Schnell proposed House Bill 602P allowing the U.S. Postal Service to charge a five cent surcharge for each email. The bill died in response to public outrage. George, you're right. This is an urban myth. It comes up all the time. It's the never-ending "Oh, they're gonna charge for email. The Postal Service is upset that they're losing all of their revenue from regular mail so they're gonna try to make it back by taxing email." It's all nonsense.<br />
<br />
GH: Yay.<br />
<br />
J: Complete hooey.<br />
<br />
GH: Yay.<br />
<br />
E: The whole thing?<br />
<br />
GH: I never get this right!<br />
<br />
J: One hundred percent nonsense.<br />
<br />
S: It's a hundred percent. There's also some clues in there. <br />
<br />
B: No, there's not.<br />
<br />
S: There is. First of all, Peter Schnell never existed. Not that you know every congressman that ever lived, but.<br />
<br />
E: I should have Yahoo'd that.<br />
<br />
GH: My list of congressman. Hmm.<br />
<br />
S: The other thing. This is a little detail, but, house bills are numbered all by the letter "H,"<br />
<br />
E: HR<br />
<br />
S: and Senate bills by the letter "S." There's no such thing as a bill, and 602P doesn't make sense.<br />
<br />
E: You said to pee.<br />
<br />
GH: So clever.<br />
<br />
S: Well, I didn’t make that up. This is the spam, right? This is the bill that, you look up House Bill 602P, it's this. But the people who made it up didn't even number it right. They didn't even use a House Bill numbering system. <br />
<br />
GH: Sweet.<br />
<br />
J: If you take every third letter in that sentence it spells out "Steve is awesome" too.<br />
<br />
E: Stupid memory.<br />
<br />
S: All right. So, Jay and George, you both won this week. So I have a run-off bonus question.<br />
<br />
GH: Ohhh.<br />
<br />
J: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Okay? What was the number one trending Google search term for 2012?<br />
<br />
GH: Oh, um. Um, um. Gangman style.<br />
<br />
S: Very close, number two.<br />
<br />
GH: That was number two?<br />
<br />
S: yup.<br />
<br />
GH: Son of a bitch.<br />
<br />
E: That's pretty good, George.<br />
<br />
GH: Um.<br />
<br />
J: For the fact that I haven't slept in a month and my brain is completely fried, I'm going to say, sadly, was it "Call Me Maybe"?<br />
<br />
S: Nope.<br />
<br />
E: Nah. Sandy Hook?<br />
<br />
S: Number three was Hurricane Sandy. And, despite the fact that this was an election year in the United States, the number one trending Google search term in 2012 was "Whitney Houston."<br />
<br />
B: What?<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah. I recall reading that.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
B: Did she die or something?<br />
<br />
GH: Always Love You.<br />
<br />
B; Yeah, I knew that.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
GH: Wow. So I get the Science or Fiction right, and I get the close to, this is, guys, you know what, you've just made my—what time is it? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Made my picosecond.<br />
<br />
B: You made my minute.<br />
<br />
S: 10:28. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:22:01)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Neither evolution nor creation qualifies as a scientific theory.</blockquote><br />
Duane Gish<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS <small>(1:23:06)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_399&diff=6720SGU Episode 3992013-06-05T23:21:23Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 399<br />
|episodeDate = 9<sup>th</sup> March 2013<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mars-comet-NASA-JPL-600x328.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|guest1 = GH: George Hrab<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-09.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=399<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45268.0.html<br />
|qowText = Neither evolution nor creation qualifies as a scientific theory.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish Duane Gish]<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today March 6, 2013, and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: 400!<br />
<br />
S: Evan Bernstein,<br />
<br />
E: Good evening, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: And we have a special guest rogue with us this evening, George Hrab. George, welcome back.<br />
<br />
GH: This isn't ''The Price is Right''! Jay, you lied to me. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: What else is new?<br />
<br />
J: No, but this is our 400th!<br />
<br />
S: No, it's not, Jay. Next week is our 400th episode.<br />
<br />
GH: 399!<br />
<br />
J: 399!<br />
<br />
E: 399! And that's a bargain.<br />
<br />
S: We're not round number bigots here, anyway. That's all superstitious nonsense.<br />
<br />
GH: Roundists. You're all roundists.<br />
<br />
S: So, Rebecca's voice is still recovering from whatever infection she had. So she is again not with us this week. But George will be taking her place and speaking in falsetto the entire show.<br />
<br />
GH: ''(starting high pitched, dropping to low)'' Y-e-e-e-s. I'm so skeptical. ''(normal voice)'' It's not a Rebecca impression. It's not a Rebecca impression at all. ''(laughter)'' We got that. All right. Good.<br />
<br />
J: So we were just talking before the show, like, saying hi to George and everything, and it occurred to me I wanted to ask George this question. George, ever listening, you ever listen to a podcast—<br />
<br />
GH: ''(in a Russian accent)'' Ever listenink to ''(unintelligible)'' Oh, sorry. Go ahead. So, have I ever listened to what?<br />
<br />
J: Has this ever happened where you're listening to a show that you've recorded, and somebody says your name in the podcast, and you answer them in real time? Like, it just happened to me two days ago. I was listening to one of our shows, and Steve says "So, Jay," and I actually go "Yeah." I'm like wh-o-o-o-a. He's not in the car with me! I'm not on the phone with him. I'm hearing him in the podcast.<br />
<br />
GH: I don't listen to my show 'cause I don't really like my show.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: But sound effects that I've done before have scared the hell out of me. I'll forget that I inserted an airplane or something, and it'll scare the crap out of me. ''(laughter)'' Or like a doorbell sound or something, yeah. But I don't actually, because I'm the only person on my show, for me to respond to myself as if I was actually talking to myself, I think would be indicative of something really scary and awesome. <br />
<br />
J: All right, that is a good point.<br />
<br />
GH: But, I respond to ''(two people talking – undecipherable)'' And if I listen to this show, I'll make sure that every time you say "Hey, George" no matter where I am, I'll say "What? Oh, damn!" ''(laughter)'' What? Oh, damn!<br />
<br />
E: With a head turn, right?<br />
<br />
''(two people talking—inaudible – something about Scooby-Doo)''<br />
<br />
GH: ''(imitating Scooby)'' Erh?<br />
<br />
B: Scooby snack.<br />
<br />
S: Hey George!<br />
<br />
GH: Erh?<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(2:45)</small> ==<br />
March 9, 1851: Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted died. &Oslash;rsted was a Danish physicist and chemist who discovered current traveling along a wire could deflect a compass needle.<br />
<br />
S: Evan is gonna tell us about this day in skepticism.<br />
<br />
E: All right. So, March 9, and the year was 1851. Now, we all know who Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted was<br />
<br />
B: ''(singing)'' Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted.<br />
<br />
J: I have no idea who he is.<br />
<br />
E: Well, he was a Danish. Oh, I'm sorry, wait, he was a Danish physicist<br />
<br />
S: And delicious.<br />
<br />
GH: I sing.<br />
<br />
E: Who made a discovery. He discovered that an electric current in a wire causes a nearby magnetized compass needle to deflect, indicating the electric current in a wire induces a magnetic field around it.<br />
<br />
B: That is awesome.<br />
<br />
J: That is awesome.<br />
<br />
B: You could just retire after making that discovery. I'm done. I've made my contribution.<br />
<br />
E: A little electro-magnetic theory for you, then?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah, but how do you monotize that. I mean, that's the problem. What d'ya do with that? What kind of invention could that possibly lead to? ''(people talking simultaneously)''<br />
<br />
B: It's just a laboratory curiosity. Nothing to see here.<br />
<br />
GH: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: It took like a hundred years for them to slap one of those suckers in a bracelet. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
GH: And then you get the real money.<br />
<br />
E: A bracelet made of, perhaps, aluminum. Hey! Speaking of aluminum<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so<br />
<br />
E and B: Aluminium.<br />
<br />
S: &Oslash;rsted also was the first one to produce metallic aluminum. Do you guys know how common—<br />
<br />
B: As opposed to rubber aluminum?<br />
<br />
S: No, as opposed an aluminum oxide or aluminum silicate. So, aluminum is the third most abundant element in the Earth's crust. And I know you guys all know that<br />
<br />
E: The third most?<br />
<br />
B: I used to know that, yes.<br />
<br />
S: After oxygen and silicon, which is why there's lots of aluminum oxides and aluminum silicate. And he figured out how to make metallic aluminum. Although it was up to later chemists to figure out how to really industrialize that process. If you recall, we talked about the fact that when aluminum was first available as a metal, it was more expensive than gold.<br />
<br />
B: I recall nothing.<br />
<br />
S: It was considered a rare and exotic metal and things made out of aluminum were like a status symbol. But then later chemists figured out how to make massive quantities of it, just from dirt, basically, and, you know, from bauxites, specifically.<br />
<br />
J: Did these scientists like cash in at that moment? Like, okay, I figured out how to make it, it's everywhere.<br />
<br />
E: Let's sell it now.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, did somebody become a trillionaire for like the first three years or what happened?<br />
<br />
S: American Aluminum, you know, I think was the company that became very wealthy mass producing aluminum. And the price went from hundreds of dollars an ounce to pennies a pound.<br />
<br />
J: Oof.<br />
<br />
GH: See, Alcoa shouldn't have waited.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, Alcoa, that's it.<br />
<br />
E: Bad investment.<br />
<br />
J: Guess I shouldn't have invested in that company early on.<br />
<br />
S: Well, you shouldn't have invested in aluminum. The company did quite well, actually. Now, did you also know that Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted was a very close friend of Hans Christian Andersen.<br />
<br />
B: Seriously?<br />
<br />
J: That's what I was gonna say.<br />
<br />
GH: No way.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, and I actually don't know exactly who Hans Christian Andersen is or was. What's his deal? Who's that guy?<br />
<br />
B: Come on, Jay.<br />
<br />
E: He wrote stories.<br />
<br />
B: It's Danny Kaye!<br />
<br />
E: That's right. Danny Kaye. He wrote Thumbelina,<br />
<br />
GH: The Little Mermaid.<br />
<br />
J: Did he sing The Little Mermaid?<br />
<br />
GH: I think he played the crab in the movie, actually. ''(laughter)'' Oh, aluminum.<br />
<br />
S: He wrote famous fairy tales. But, so, how did these guys meet? Like at a Hans Christian organization or something?<br />
<br />
E: Convention?<br />
<br />
B: I know. Famous People Named Hans Christian.<br />
<br />
GH: That was a Facebook page, wasn't it? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Did they get each other's mail, or what happened?<br />
<br />
J: My money's on the fact that maybe like half the population is just named Hans Christian something.<br />
<br />
S: Maybe.<br />
<br />
B: I think it's a coincidence.<br />
<br />
E: And March 9, 1851, was the day that we lost Hans &Oslash;rsted. Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted. So, we mourned Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted on this day. But thank you so much for all that electro-magnetism. It is doing us wonders these days.<br />
<br />
S: And aluminum. Yep.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that too.<br />
<br />
S: So George, before we go on to news items, what's new with you?<br />
<br />
GH: What's new? Goodness. Uh, what isn't? Actually, it's a short list. The newest thing is a number of you rogues were at the 21812 concert that happened last year.<br />
<br />
B: Yes! Loved it!<br />
<br />
GH: We are furiously, furiously editing and putting together what looks to be just an incredible DVD of that performance, which is audio mixing. I was at Slau's yesterday, as a matter of fact. So the audio mixing is done. A monumental effort, and now the video is being edited, and there's gonna be commentary and a documentary and it's gonna be really, really fantastic. So that is the thing which is occupying the most frontal part of my frontal creative lobe right now, is the 21812 concert.<br />
<br />
B: It only took you a year!<br />
<br />
J: When's it coming out?<br />
<br />
GH: I know, I know, I know, I know. Weeks. Months? Weeks. Well, I guess months are made up of weeks, so I'm not lying in either direction. But, weeks.<br />
<br />
S: As long as it's more than one month, right.<br />
<br />
GH: Hmm? Right.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== HIV Cure <small>(7:49)</small> ===<br />
[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/hiv-cure-game-changer/ Neurologica: HIV Cure "Game Changer"]<br />
<br />
S: So I have some ''good news'' everyone. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Excellent.<br />
<br />
J: What's up?<br />
<br />
S: Did you hear about the girl who was cured, ''cured'' of HIV?<br />
<br />
B: Despite this, or in spite of, the incompetence of her mom, apparently.<br />
<br />
S: Her mother appears to be troubled. I don't know if incompetence is her problem or if it's other things, but, so . . . Here's the story. The mother, who was HIV infected, presented for delivery with apparently no prenatal care, and delivered a child, who was positive for HIV within 30 hours of being born. So almost certainly infected in utero. The doctor was consulted, an HIV infectious disease specialist at the time was consulted on the case. Not really sure why, but decided to treat the child earlier than is typically treated. So at 31 hours, the infant was treated with anti-retroviral therapy. And also, she decided to give the infant<br />
<br />
B: Extra.<br />
<br />
S: Well, not extra, so therapeutic doses as opposed to preventive, or prophylactic doses.<br />
<br />
E: What's the difference?<br />
<br />
S: It's a higher dose. So a therapeutic dose is meant to treat an existing infection, whereas a preventive dose is meant to prevent an exposure from establishing itself as an infection.<br />
<br />
B: You can call that extra, I think.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, she gave the higher dose, the therapeutic dose.<br />
<br />
B: Extra.<br />
<br />
GH: Not the gum, but the actual medicine, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the anti-retroviral therapy. ART.<br />
<br />
GH: 'Cause that would be something, if extra gum cured AIDS. That would be, wow.<br />
<br />
S: This is Hannah Gay. A pediatric infectious disease specialist. And the child was treated with ART for the first 18 months of life, or thereabouts. At that point she was lost to follow-up, as we say. Stopped being brought back in by the mother for treatment. Now, Dr. Gay diligently tracked down the mother and the child, through the police, in order to bring the child back in for health care. So now, it was like seven or eight months the child has been getting no medication. The mother was going through some kind of life situation. Apparently has a lot of challenges. And not giving the kid their medicine. Not bringing them in to doctor's visits. So Dr. Gay at this point thought, okay, so now we have a two-year-old who has gone six, seven, eight months with no medication therapy. Their viral loads are gonna be off the charts. <br />
<br />
B: Right, because typically what happens, Steve, is when you're taking, when you're going through that process, the viruses pretty much just go into hiding, right? They just like say screw it, I'm just gonna hang out and wait til the weather's better and then once you stop it, bam! They come out. And that's what he expected.<br />
<br />
S: She, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Dr. Gay, that's what Gay expected.<br />
<br />
S: What typically happens is, in an HIV-infected individual, if they're treated with ART, then the viral loads will drop to undetectable levels. But the virus still lives on in the body, in these hidden reservoirs. As you say, they go into hiding. And these reservoirs are isolated from the immune system so that they can persist despite the retroviral therapy, and if you stopped the retroviral therapy, anti-retroviral therapy, then the infection would come back, would rebound. Because of these reservoirs. So, checked out the child, did the viral loads, they were still undetectable. There was no sign of HIV in the child at all. Went back to check everything. So now she things, all right, there's something interesting going on here. She checked a number of things. She got other specialists involved as well. First they confirmed that yes, she was indeed infected with HIV as a newborn. They confirmed that. Two, that the strain of HIV is a wild type strain that's not some mutated strain, it's not a weakened strain. It's a regular strain of HIV. Three, they tested the mother and the child to see if they happened to have a genetic type that makes them resistant to HIV, 'cause there are people out there who are naturally resistant to HIV. And they did not. So they did not have any of the known forms of resistance.<br />
<br />
B: Three great tests. So it's like, yeah. It didn't occur to me that they should do that but when I read it I'm like, oh, of course, that's exactly what you would need to do to really be secure in your conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Well, plus, I think, at this point that they were planning on publishing. And of course you want to get all your ducks in a row if you do that.<br />
<br />
B: Right, right.<br />
<br />
S: And in fact they did present this case at a conference and reported all these details. So essentially they discovered that she was infected, it was a normal virus, they're not resistant, and even six, seven months after stopping ART the virus never rebounded. They're calling this a functional cure. A functional cure. Not an outright cure, I think because a couple of, they did really, really sensitive tests for HIV, RNA and DNA and a couple of these tests showed rally miniscule little remnants of RNA or DNA.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but didn't they describe them as non-functional, or they did not have the ability to reproduce?<br />
<br />
S: They are not replication competent.<br />
<br />
B: That's what it was.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they are not replication competent. But I guess it means it's not completely, completely, completely out of the system. But what it does mean is that the virus will not rebound. It is not established. There's no active reservoirs of the virus. And the child will be able to live their life without the need for further ART, or anti-retroviral therapy.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. So we're not looking at some state of remission that's currently going on?<br />
<br />
S: Well, remission is not an unreasonable term to use. It's a remission without medication, without needing further medication or treatment. Functional cure is the specific term that they used. This is only the second case of any human being who was known to be infected with HIV who then was cured. The first one was a gentleman who got a bone marrow transplant in Germany from a donor who was HIV resistant. And they were apparently cured by that bone marrow transplant. Basically given a new immune system resistant to the HIV. This is now the second case.<br />
<br />
J: Does this help the world, Steve? Can we use this information in any way?<br />
<br />
B: Well, shit yeah. Look at the children born with AIDS like in Africa. I mean, the United States it's not so much of a huge deal as it is in Africa. But Jay, there's like, the statistic was crazy, it was like thousands of kids per pico-second in Africa.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, but my question is: does that case, the second case, of this child, does it actually help scientists figure out how to use that to make some type of cure?<br />
<br />
S: So here's the bottom line<br />
<br />
GH: We have to weaponize the baby, I think. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: The stats are about 130 children per year develop HIV from their mother in the United States. But it's about a thousand children per day world-wide in developing countries. So that's a lot. That's a thousand kids per day.<br />
<br />
GH: Why is that woman having so many children? ''(laughter)'' I'm sorry. Sorry.<br />
<br />
S: What this suggests is that the standard of care for treating newborns born of infected mothers might be, rather than giving prophylactic doses, but to give, would be to give therapeutic doses earlier, to try to prevent the virus from ever establishing an infection. Which seems to be the case here. The virus never got itself established. Here's the trick, though, is that, I mean, it's gotta be studied, is the case. This is an anecdote, right? It's interesting, but it's one case. And it's hard to extrapolate from that. So this will lead to research looking at this approach to show that it's safe, to show that it's effective. What's going to be tricky, so let's you get a hundred kids, or 200 kids, 100 you give the standard therapy. The other hundred you give this early aggressive therapy. You track 'em over a few years. To really know that the children have been functionally cured, you would want to actually stop their ART. That's gonna be tricky to do.<br />
<br />
E: That's tough.<br />
<br />
S: Ethically, how are you gonna do that? We're not gonna give you proof in therapy to see how you're doing. So, the best they could hope to do would be to follow a lot of children and then track those whose parents stopped giving them the medication due to non-compliance or whatever. Like in this case. You know, you can't randomly choose people not to get treatment just to see how they do. That's the definition of unethical research. But you may be able to track cases where the children stopped getting their drugs for one reason or another and see how they do. And maybe you can gather enough information from that to say okay, it's reasonable in these cases with these outcomes to reduce the medication, see how they do, maybe wean them off, tracking them carefully. So it's not gonna instantly lead to replicating this exact treatment paradigm, but it will, I think, probably it'll lead to studying this higher, more aggressive, early treatment, which may lead to curing infants who otherwise would have been infected with HIV. But this is using drugs that are already in existence to treat HIV. This is not a new treatment or a new cure. This is not a cure for people in whom infection is already established. You might think that maybe the same applies if you, let's say, get exposed to HIV. Again, instead of getting preventive doses, maybe even as an adult, you would be given therapeutic doses right away. <br />
<br />
''(inaudible comment by GH)''<br />
<br />
J: When you say "therapeutic doses" you mean a large, large amount. <br />
<br />
S: Well, the doses that are normally given to people with HIV infection, as opposed to preventive doses, which are doses given to people who have been exposed but who are not infected. In order to reduce the risk of the exposure resulting in an infection.<br />
<br />
GH: When I read the story, it was amazing. And I remember one of the first things that popped into my head was the idea that the kid at one point was outside of the care of the hospital, whether that was seven months, or whatever it was.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: And that someone is going to latch onto something the kid did in those seven months and say that ''that'' is the actual cure.<br />
<br />
B: Ohhhhh, wow.<br />
<br />
GH: You what I mean, like Fruit Loops or something. And they're gonna say "Yeah, the fact that she had Fruit Loops!" Forget the hospital. It was the Fruit Loops that cured. Here's proof! Like that was the first, the woo radar warning system that I have installed in my brain, was like, oh man, okay, let no one take advantage of those seven months where the kid was outside of supervised care to claim that that's some kind of secret cure.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah. I didn't even think of that.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I agree.<br />
<br />
S: I haven't heard anything about it yet, but that's always a risk. There was a lot of sensational reporting of this story.<br />
<br />
GH: Wh-a-a-t?<br />
<br />
S: It's fascinating enough as it is. What I always, my radar goes up, we talk about the skeptical radar, my skeptical radar always goes up whenever I see the word "cure" in the headline of any article. Especially when it's connected to AIDS or cancer or the common cold or whatever.<br />
<br />
B: Acne.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. There are certain things where it's like, really? You mean, no, we did not cure AIDS, I'm sorry, we did not cure HIV. This is a very interesting case and has implications for research and for treatment. But no, this isn't the discovery of a cure for HIV.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, so what if a parent has AIDS. They have a kid, and they're like, I want my kid to get a therapeutic dose asap? What can they do? 'Cause that's what I would do.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Enter a trial, enter a clinical trial in which that is being done and take your chance that you'll get randomized, getting it.<br />
<br />
J: Is it hard to get into a trial?<br />
<br />
S: Well, right now, none exists. But I'm sure<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that's just it.<br />
<br />
S: It'll take time to get them up and running. I don't know how many and how many people are gonna be introduced. So, probably in the U.S., given that the number is so low, number of kids who get infected this way because of pre-natal care, etc. 'Cause you know, normally what you would do is aggressively treat the mother, get the viral loads down as low as possible so the risk of the so-called vertical transmission from mother to child is minimized. This mother didn't do that, that's probably why the child was infected. So, this is the exact people who are going to end up infected as an infant are the ones that are going to be difficult to recruit, and there aren't that many of them. So it's probably gonna be more, it's gonna be hard to get people into this trial as opposed to people having a hard time getting into such trials. You know what I mean? If you're the kind of parent who is going to seek out that kind of aggressive care, you're probably not the kind of parent who is going to give birth to an infected child in the first place. Does that make sense?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah; where's the father through all this, I wonder?<br />
<br />
S: No mention in anything.<br />
<br />
GH: I wonder what his situation is.<br />
<br />
S: Obviously the doctors are being confidential, keeping confidential the personal details. They're just saying she had some life situation that intervened, but we have no idea what that was. But clearly she's troubled.<br />
<br />
B: It still won't be an outright cure because if you have the infection, this won't work, but for people who just get it, it will a cure for them. There—<br />
<br />
S: Well, remember, she was treated at 30 hours of life.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: How many people don't we even find out that they've been exposed until—<br />
<br />
B: That's it.<br />
<br />
S: --days later. So, one example would be a health care worker who stabs themself with an HIV-infected needle.<br />
<br />
B: Yup. Perfect example.<br />
<br />
S: You would be in the clinic in 15 minutes. In fact, I did that to myself once. Not with an HIV<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
E; Oh, my gosh.<br />
<br />
S: Not with an HIV-infected needle. But I stuck myself with a Hep C needle.<br />
<br />
J: How'd you do it?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, man, I hate when that happens.<br />
<br />
GH: Did you lose a bet?<br />
<br />
S: No. It was an accident. I did what I wasn't supposed to. I recapped the needle, the needle went right through the cap and into my finger.<br />
<br />
E: Geez.<br />
<br />
J: And you were right in front of a patient?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: What'd you do?<br />
<br />
S: I finished what I was doing. I went to the health services and got two huge needles of gamma globulin injected into my buttocks.<br />
<br />
E: Gamma globulin?<br />
<br />
J: Wait a second. Wait, wait, wait, wait.<br />
<br />
B: One per cheek?<br />
<br />
S: Yup.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, I have to ask more detail. Did you keep your composure?<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
J: Like, did you do "Oh, holy shit!!" Like run out of there. <br />
<br />
GH: Like ''We're all gonna die!!!''<br />
<br />
J: ''Give me those ass needles!!'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: On panic day? Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it was not panic day. Unlike today.<br />
<br />
J: Were you embarrassed? Were you shameful, like going to some guy sitting at a desk and you're like "Um…"<br />
<br />
S: Yes, I was stupid. Yea. It was dumb. I was a medical student.<br />
<br />
J: Did they say anything to you. Like did they make you feel really weird?<br />
<br />
S: No. No.<br />
<br />
B: Steve's heart rate increased by two beats per minute.<br />
<br />
E: Were they messing with you? "Oh, we gotta do a biopsy, and now we're gonna do this. Gotta do that."<br />
<br />
S: No. They're my physician now. They acted totally professional.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, put this in a little context. Hepatitis C. How bad we talkin'?<br />
<br />
S: That's bad. Like a chronic liver infection. It would be very bad. And yes, I got, the treatment for that is gamma globulin, so it like pooled antibodies. And it's a huge dose.<br />
<br />
B: Is it a bolus? They call that a bolus?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: If they give you enough of that gamma globulin, Steve, can you turn into the Hulk? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: The first injection was very painful. The second injection was ten times as painful. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, but ten times!<br />
<br />
S: It was so much more painful! And the reason for that probably<br />
<br />
GH: It's not supposed to go in your penis. That's the problem. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: We gotta get this in here!<br />
<br />
GH: A really long needle.<br />
<br />
S: When you get the first injection your body excretes chemicals which sort of prime it for pain, and so then when you get the second injection, it has a huge exaggerated local response to the injection.<br />
<br />
B: Thank you, body, isn't that convenient?<br />
<br />
E: Well, okay<br />
<br />
J: Why's that happening?<br />
<br />
E: They should give you both needles at once. One, two, three, jab.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I don't know what would be worse.<br />
<br />
J: That's crazy.<br />
<br />
E: Two at once. Two needles at once.<br />
<br />
S: But this was, whatever, twenty years ago, so, I know I'm out of the window. And never had a problem from it.<br />
<br />
GH: Are you sure?<br />
<br />
E: No Hep C.<br />
<br />
S: I could definitely imagine the panic of jabbing yourself with an HIV-infected needle. That would be panic time.<br />
<br />
J: It just shows you how dangerous health care is. I mean, these professionals—<br />
<br />
S: This was also, this was not in the early, early days, but, this was earlier in the whole HIV situation. So, you know, the protocols for preventing these things were not as well established. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: They had you rub garlic on the wound. Prayer beads and whatever.<br />
<br />
S: The needle that I was using at that time doesn't even exist now, really. Everything is made to prevent this from happening. Anyway, let's move on.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Mars Comet <small>(24:49)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/5349/20130304/newly-discovered-comet-hit-mars-watch-two-others-near-earth.htm Newly Discovered Comet May Hit Mars: Watch for Two Others Near Earth]<br />
<br />
S: Bob, you're gonna tell us about the comet that's going to smack right into Mars.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
B: You guys remember I recently mentioned that this would be remembered maybe as the Year of the Asteroid. But not I think it will be, in retrospect, in the future, considered the Year of the Asteroid/Comet. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Slash comet.<br />
<br />
B: Slash comet. The big news in recent days is not only do we have the Pan Stars comet, which will be visible in mid-March 2013<br />
<br />
E: Can't wait.<br />
<br />
B: And also the Ison comet, which could be awesome. Very bright, in November 2013. But we also have the Sliding Spring, an oddly named comet which could potentially hit the planet Mars in October 2014; not quite this year, but coming up relatively soon. So that is kind of exciting, I think. It's not the Earth, so it's all good. This new comet was discovered January 3 this year, 2013, by famous comet hunter Robert McNaught. He actually has 74 comets on his resume.<br />
<br />
E: Wow!<br />
<br />
B: So how cool is that?<br />
<br />
J: Bob, does he hang them on the wall like a plaque?<br />
<br />
B; ''(laughing)'' Yeah, right. I would. I would create a little comet for every one that I discovered. And he also discovered asteroids. This guy's very prolific. He gets a gold star.<br />
<br />
S: Did he discover that asteroids exist?<br />
<br />
B: No. Just discovered asteroids.<br />
<br />
E: The game ''Asteroids."<br />
<br />
S: Specific asteroids.<br />
<br />
B: Yes. So this is like, apparently this is a new, or virgin, comet. Never having been in our local area of the solar system before. And I think they believe this is because of the eccentricity of its orbit, after it was ejected for the Oort Cloud of billions of comets that are in orbit about a light year, I think, from the Sun.<br />
<br />
S: Yup.<br />
<br />
B: Billions and billions of these guys and occasionally one will come careening in.<br />
<br />
S: ''(imitating Carl Sagan)'' Billions and billions.<br />
<br />
B: Billions, yes. <br />
<br />
E; That's about a Sagan.<br />
<br />
GH: A virgin comet has no tail.<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: ''(unintelligible)'' no comets, tell no tales.<br />
<br />
B: So, ah, so<br />
<br />
S: Tough crowd.<br />
<br />
J: George, don't laugh.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, George is grabbing his tie as we speak, right?<br />
<br />
S: We're laughing on the inside.<br />
<br />
GH: I was all excited. ''(unintelligible)'' Zilch. Loser.<br />
<br />
B: That's all right. You had some good ones so far, at least. So the big question, in my mind, is is this sucker gonna hit Mars? And the answer is: nobody knows, not yet anyway. Some projections put the comet within 23 to 63,000 miles away from Mars at its closest approach. That's 37 to about 100,000 kilometers away.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, Bob. The orbitors we've got; I'm sorry, the orbitor we have, we have one? Or more than one around Mars? Is it gonna be close enough that it's gonna be able to capture this thing for us? Are we gonna get a good view of it?<br />
<br />
B: It depends, actually, on various variables. But yeah, they could potentially get a really view of this. Although there are certain things that could make it not as awesome as it could be. Depending the various factors of the approach and things. But, as you know though, as we've talked about this, the estimates of the future positions of these objects are very difficult, 'cause you need to take a nice long look at its orbit so that you can accurately extrapolate, right? And one I wasn't quite aware of , though, is that this is even more problematic with comets, because, think about it; you've got these frozen gases on this comet; they heat up because it's getting closer to the sun, and then they explosively sublimate. They turn from ice to gas very quickly. And so it's like these little geysers that are erupting on the comet, and this, of course, is what creates the tail. That can change the orbit, as you can imagine these little geysers erupting. That could subtly, I mean not a lot, but it can change the orbit of the comet a tiny bit.<br />
<br />
S: Like little jets.<br />
<br />
B: And, right, and enough, this thing is gonna be so close to Mars as it is, that it could actually make it hit it or even miss it by even a greater distance. So right now, we really won't know until probably the earliest, I think, is late summer. It's when we can confident of what's gonna happen. Chances are, unfortunately, it's not gonna hit. Well, I guess it depends how you look at it. But if it did hit. Whoa. I mean, we're talking megahit. This thing's five to thirty miles across. This thing will be coming in at about, say, 55 kilometers, or 33 miles per second.<br />
<br />
GH: Geez.<br />
<br />
B: I mean this thing'll be coming in so fast. That is kinetic energy. They're talking, the impact equivalent of a billion megatons, that's a petaton. Equivalent to a one petaton nuke.<br />
<br />
S: Bob, you like petatons?<br />
<br />
B: I love petatons. They're awesome!<br />
<br />
S: You're a petaphile?! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good one. Go for the easy ones, Steve, that was good.<br />
<br />
E: See, Bob. There is the horizon. Did you see it coming?<br />
<br />
B: That's with a "t" by the way, not a "d." Now, that's millions of times bigger than anything that we've ever detonated. We're talking about a crater that could be hundreds of miles or kilometers across. It would be totally devastating. But that would be cool.<br />
<br />
''(unintelligible – several people talking at once.)''<br />
<br />
B: I want this thing to hit Mars so bad. But, and I want one of our rovers to have a safe front-row seat to film this entire thing. But the problem is, I don't think there's, there won't be anywhere safe on the planet. Even if it was on the other side. This thing can be so devastating. It could take out every probe on the planet or in orbit. It won't matter where you are. It could wipe out everything. And that would clearly suck.<br />
<br />
S: Would it be worth it, though, to get the video?<br />
<br />
B: Think about the time and effort and future science that we would be getting out of these things, all wiped in an hour. Bam! Game over, you're done. But, yeah, the video, the YouTube video that came out of that would be epic. Totally epic.<br />
<br />
J: Is that gonna ruin the geologic history of Mars?<br />
<br />
B: No. In what way Jay?<br />
<br />
E: Not all of it.<br />
<br />
S: It's going to hit the last colony of life on Mars. ''(laughter)'' Wipe it out. Some bacterial colony.<br />
<br />
GH: That group of cells up there is all getting psyched.<br />
<br />
S: This little frozen, this little underground pond.<br />
<br />
E: ''(in a little voice)'' Yay, we can think! Ahhhhhh! Crash.<br />
<br />
J: Let me clarify. So we have a petaton object hitting the surface of Mars. Couldn't that breach the, get down in the mantle and actually . . .<br />
<br />
S: The Martian crust is a little thicker than Earth's. Mars's crust is 50 kilometers thick on average, while Earth's is 40 kilometers on average. And the mantle is still hot. So, like Earth, Mars has a relatively thin crust. It also has a much thinner atmosphere, only 1/100 the thickness that of Earth. So that's less of a cushion to slow down anything incoming, like a comet. But I don't know if this could carry the punch necessary to crack open the crust down to the mantle.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, and that would be a deep crater, Jay. <br />
<br />
J: Couldn't that kick up enough matter into the tiny atmosphere that there is and actually just screw up all of that geologic information?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, it'll definitely erase a lot of geological information, no question.<br />
<br />
GH: But it could also expose a lot, too.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I don't know, but, yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: I wonder, if it does hit, will this be a, sort of a good selling point for us to come up with some kind of comet deterrence system, asteroid deterrence system. Like, look at Mars! Look at what happened! That could be us!<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: You know, I'm just saying. It'd be nice, right?<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely. That's one of the big benefits of the Russian asteroid recently. That people are like, oh, boy, we've gotta really start taking this seriously. If something like that hit Mars and with such a devastating effect, and we filmed it in all of its glory, yeah, that would be, that would spur us even more. So in that regard, I think that will be a great benefit of this thing taking out Mars.<br />
<br />
S: So I'm having mixed feelings about ''(unintelligible)'' It would be uber-cool in many ways, but I don't want all of NASA's probes to be destroyed. That would suck.<br />
<br />
B: In one fell swoop. Which of course, the conspiracy theorists would say, well, yeah, this was manmade. We steered the comet towards Mars to wipe out, so that our probes wouldn't run into the secret…. ''(overlapping comments)''<br />
<br />
S: What if the comet hits Cydonia? Like it hits the face on Mars.<br />
<br />
B: I was just thinking that, Steve. I was just thinking that! That would be, I really hope that doesn't happen, 'cause that would be too much of a coincidence.<br />
<br />
''(Many people talking at once – unintelligible)''<br />
<br />
GH: --put the pieces together. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we're getting there. That's our next item. So, Bob, what I read, though, was that the current estimate is that there's a 0.1 percent chance that the nucleus of the comet will directly hit Mars.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it's looking unlikely, very unlikely, even right now, before we know the obit.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: But it's not completely ruled out and who knows, these are comets and they are inherently harder to predict than asteroids.<br />
<br />
S: But even if it's not a direct hit, though, there's a good chance that the <br />
<br />
B: The comea, the coma?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the coma will pass through Mars. Essentially<br />
<br />
GH: Combover?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It'll coma over, yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: If it does hit, though, what happens to all the life force vampires that're in the comet? Are they affected by that, or is that . .. <br />
<br />
B: OOOOhhhh. Yeah, I know what you're thinking of, George.<br />
<br />
GH: Damn right.<br />
<br />
J: My vote is I don't want it to hit.<br />
<br />
B: 'Nuf said.<br />
<br />
GH: 'Nuf said.<br />
<br />
S: Jay votes no. What do you say, Evan?<br />
<br />
E: Absolutely yes. This is a once, gosh, not even once in a lifetime chance. Once in a, I don't know, species time chance, for this to happen.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I wanna see Mars split in two.<br />
<br />
S: George, what do you think?<br />
<br />
GH: I want it to hit, but I want it to hit like on the far side so we can't see it. Just to really be like Doooohhhhhhh it's so aaaaaaawwwwww. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Worst case scenario.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah, I want a massive---<br />
<br />
''(Many people talking at once – unintelligible)''<br />
<br />
S: --wipes out all our probes so we don't get to see anything.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah, this huge nerd sigh, that just is like "guuuuuhh." Yeah, that's what I want. <br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' Nerd sigh.<br />
<br />
J; Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
E: Steve, what do you want? You said no?<br />
<br />
S: I'm on the fence. No, I said I'm conflicted, very conflicted.<br />
<br />
E: Don't forget, Mars has two moons.<br />
<br />
S: Maybe it'll hit one of the moons.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that'd be cool!<br />
<br />
E: How cool would that be?<br />
<br />
J: Not cool. <br />
<br />
E: Why?<br />
<br />
J: It could hit one of the moons and send it towards the Earth and then we're all f'd.<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
B: I'll take that chance.<br />
<br />
J: Hey, come on. You never know, Steve.<br />
<br />
E: That's what happened in ''Thundarr the Barbarian.'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S; Jay, what are the names of the moons of Mars?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, there's, uh, Zero Zero One and Zero Zero Two. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Alpha and Beta.<br />
<br />
B: Deimos and Phobos.<br />
<br />
S: Phobos and Deimos, yes.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, the first one, Frankie Gismore ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: And the second one is?<br />
<br />
J: I love it when we have all guys on the show. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Sirius UFO <small>(35:31)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp9aOb04e20&list=PL6E8B33D9279BEF7B&index=1 YouTube: Dr.Steven Greer - Sirius Documentary (Trailer) - New Movie Coming Soon ! 2012]<br />
<br />
S: Hey, Evan, you're gonna tell us<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: about the Srius UFO documentary.<br />
<br />
B: Seriously.<br />
<br />
E: Very serious. We received multiple emails and messages this week about the most recent episode of the Joe Rogan Experience. Right? That's a podcast, or, it's also a vodcast, but, for those of you not familiar with him, Joe Rogan is an American martial artist, a stand-up comedian, an actor, a writer and color commentator for the Ultimate Fighting Championship mixed martial arts events. Now. Full disclosure here. I've never seen his stand-up comedy, I've never seen him act. But I've watched him a lot of times doing UFC color, he's very good at it. And now, for the first time ever, I've listened to an entire episode of his podcast. Because he had a fella on, his name is Dr. Steven Greer. And he has put together a documentary film that'll be coming out in April called ''Sirius.'' And Joe Rogan spent three hours on his podcast talking with Dr. Steven Greer.<br />
<br />
B: Wow. Three hours.<br />
<br />
E: Have you guys heard of Steven Greer before?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah. He's the head of the Disclosure Project.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. Disclosure Project and other little projects having to do with the world of UFOs. He's huge UFOlogists. He's a prominent believer and conspiracy theorist. So if you haven't heard of him before, consider yourself fortunate. So this is a conspiracy theorist's wet dream. Right? Dr. Greer has stitched together a narrative by which extra-terrestrials, they not only exist, but they are regular visitors to Earth, through space and time. And their physics-altering technologies have been co-opted by the military industrial complex in an effort to suppress the flow of free and clean energy to the people. The masses. Here on Earth.<br />
<br />
GH: Booorr-ing!<br />
<br />
E: And there's also a, but, George, there's also a shadow government. Did you know that? And it has no borders. It's the very, very powerful, a couple hundred powerful people in corporations around the planet, and they are the puppetmasters pulling the strings of society and technology. You know, they're oil barons and coal tycoons and nuclear-hungry megalomaniacs. And they want to dominate the people of Earth by not giving them access to the alien technology that would give us clean fuel and efficient means of energy. So to top it all off, the ''coup de grace,'' the icing on the cake, the smoking gun, the final nail in the coffin.<br />
<br />
S: Coup de grace ''(pronouncing the "s" sound (Evan didn't))''<br />
<br />
B: We get it.<br />
<br />
S: It's coup de gras-s-s<br />
<br />
E: Coup ''(pronouncing the "P")'' de gra-cey.<br />
<br />
S: De gracey. Coup de gracey is acceptable.<br />
<br />
E: Dr. Greer has video, photographic and physical evidence of an extra-terrestrial.<br />
<br />
S: And he'll show it to you if you pay him.<br />
<br />
E: If you pay him. Yes. But if you look at the trailer, he'll show you a little peek of it at the very end of his trailer. It's about six inches long, this little thing. It looks like a little dried-out husk of what would have otherwise been that alien from the infamous alien autopsy video back in the '90s. The one that was, you know, a full-blown hoax.<br />
<br />
B: It reminded me of the little alien driving the human body thing in ''Men in Black.'' But not as good of a prop, though, because, you know, the movie made a better prop than he did.<br />
<br />
GH: A homunculus.<br />
<br />
S: It's a homunculus.<br />
<br />
J: It's a homunculus, man.<br />
<br />
S: So, yeah, the six-inch alien is interesting. We have x-rays of it and some pictures of a skeleton. What's interesting, one thing that I find interesting is that it has every bone a human has in the right place, basically in the right shape. But it's just a little distorted. So the proportions are distorted, but all the bones pretty much are human.<br />
<br />
J: You think that that's an actual fetus corpse?<br />
<br />
S: I don't know. It could be a hundred percent a fake, just like the alien autopsy. It could be some weird<br />
<br />
B: How about a monkey, some weird monkey<br />
<br />
S: Primate.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, a primate with no fur or something, a baby one, I don't know. It's either that or it's a complete and utter hoax. It's not just a misidentification and wishful thinking and all that stuff, it's like a clear "I am going to scam people and make all this shit up."<br />
<br />
GH: I think the keychain part of it really gives it away, though. I think that's<br />
<br />
S: Keychain, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yes. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Little "Made in China" tag on it, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Am I missing something here? Like, do a DNA test on the damn thing.<br />
<br />
S: So he's claiming to be doing a DNA test.<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
S: And claiming to be examining it. But it's all "oh, we need to raise money in order to do the proper science experiments and I have some undisclosed guy in some undisclosed country doing these examinations and it's all. . . So, listening to this guy, 'cause I watched a dozen of his YouTube videos and the trailer to his movie and read some of his articles. You know, he's one of these people where I am not convinced that he's not completely full of it. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: I'm not convinced that he believes what he's saying. You know, he could believe it somewhat, he could be a total true believer, he could be a total con artist or anywhere in between. It's just, it's hard to say. But he definitely is trying very hard to make a lot of money out of what he's doing. Which doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong. But it gives him a certain vibe. He's doing things, like he has these seminars where he will train you to summon a UFO mentally.<br />
<br />
E: Yup. That's right. He knows the secret.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god, he's going to that level?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: So he's saying that he could teach you how to attract a UFO—<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: That's exactly right. He calls it, and he has a name for it, it's called coherent thought. And you use protocols from, that he describes as close encounters of the<br />
<br />
J: Wait, wait. I got it, Evan, I got it.<br />
<br />
E: fifth kind. Okay.<br />
<br />
J: George.<br />
<br />
GH: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Roll play with me, shall you?<br />
<br />
GH: All right, hit it.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>''electronic noises for about 7 seconds. They continue as background to the conversation.''<br />
Voice 1: So we have travelled a trillion years, but we will wait in the atmosphere of this planet. We will wait.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: Uh, do you think we should maybe like get in touch with the, like, world government, or something?<br />
<br />
Voice 1: No. No. No, we will wait. We will sit here and just wait.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: 'Cause you know, we've basically spend like pretty much our entire planet's resource to get this ship to this point. You know, it's<br />
<br />
Voice 1: You're young; don't be anxious. We will wait.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: If there's maybe like a president or like maybe some kind of you know, like a united nations or some organization?<br />
<br />
Voice 1: Oh look! The light on the dashboard just turned on! Somebody's summoning us.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: Is that an official kind of person that represents like a large number of people that we could then maybe, you know, have a liaison with them, or who is that representing that little dashboard light?<br />
<br />
Voice 1: This is . . . um . . . a hippie in a field in North America.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: Okay. So we're gonna travel across the known, pretty much, galaxy, to talk to, um, a hippie.<br />
<br />
''Background noise fades.''</blockquote><br />
<br />
J: Does this make sense, guys? I mean, seriously. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
''(Many people talking at once – unintelligible)''<br />
<br />
E: --Perfect sense.<br />
<br />
GH: --our production off Broadway.<br />
<br />
S: What happens, Jay, is that he points to lights in the sky and says "That's a UFO."<br />
<br />
J: Right.<br />
<br />
S: He's probably pointing at satellites.<br />
<br />
GH: It turned green, which means we can go.<br />
<br />
J: Did anybody think to ask him why are they waiting to just barely show themselves? Like, come on, how could people be this --- fooled?<br />
<br />
S: Don't ask that question.<br />
<br />
E: Well, Jay, I'm sorry you asked that, because there is kind of an answer to that.<br />
<br />
J: What?<br />
<br />
E: The aliens are here because they realize we are on the cusp of obtaining technology that can be a threat to them or to other planets . . .<br />
<br />
GH: iPhone 6<br />
<br />
E: and people on other . . . the iPhone 6, exactly. You know, with all of our nuclear capabilities and mushroom clouds, and these sorts of thing, that's why the aliens have taken an interest.<br />
<br />
S: But we've had nuclear weapons for 70 years.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, but it's not, you know, it's only a blip in time because the aliens have been visiting us for millions of years.<br />
<br />
J: Guys, guys, we're about to create warp drive.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Is that from Cochran?<br />
<br />
GH: First Contact, there you go.<br />
<br />
J: Thank you, of course.<br />
<br />
B: That's gotta be it.<br />
<br />
''(Many people talking at once – unintelligible)''<br />
<br />
GH: I don't wanna be a statue. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: This guy, the other thing that makes me very suspicious of this guy is that he's doing this "we're right on the cusp, it's happen; governments are gonna start disclosing all the real stuff; they're hiding everything from us. I just need a little bit more money and I'm gonna prove all this." I get the same vibe as the free energy people, which he is a free energy person.<br />
<br />
E: Dennis Lee. He is, yes.<br />
<br />
S: It's like we're just about to prove the free energy thing and I just need a little bit more investors to give me some more money. We'll get the DNA analysis and free energy thing and all, and everything. It's all a big conspiracy. You know, it's just hard to swallow the whole thing. <br />
<br />
GH: Was Joe Rogan at all questioning or skeptical, at all? Or was it just three hours of complete agreement and, like, do you think he completely bought into it? Or did he have him on the show to kind of just, sort of show this is a crazy guy?<br />
<br />
E: That's a great question, George. Joe had him on the show, Joe says, because his listeners demanded it.<br />
<br />
GH: Ah, okay.<br />
<br />
E: Well, not demanded, but heavily requested that this person be on the show. So that gives you an insight as to the audience of the Joe Rogan Show. But, in any case, Joe did a, better than I expected, job of asking him some questions that a good skeptic would have asked. Now here's the problem with Joe, though. And he admits this. He wants to believe that this stuff and other things like it are actually true, and therefore, he will be much, much more relaxed in his level of standards, right. His threshold by which the person has to achieve in order to convince Joe that something is right. But Joe's not a dumb person. He knows some things. And he shows that he knows some things. He knows a little bit about science and physics and so forth. And he does ask some decent questions. But at the same time, he really has, his biases do get the better of him in the end.<br />
<br />
GH: I've listened to his show. He's a very smart guy. He's a very funny guy. I liked his stand-up and I've heard a number of his podcasts, too. And on some things he can be very skeptical. His approach is actually really good. And other times he'll sort of begin just a little bit of skepticism and then there's no follow-up like at all. Like one response from a person and he just kind of stops that kind of front. And it's a shame because I bet if he had some kind of epiphany moment, I think there could be a real turnaround for him. Because he is a deductive kind of smart guy. He's not a completely credulous—from what I can tell, anyway, from the limited amount I've listened to.<br />
<br />
S: Well what I want to know is why is there a six-inch tall alien that looks more human than any alien has the right to look. That's what I want to know. Why will it have DNA, if it's alien?<br />
<br />
J: Because they seeded the Earth, Steve. Come on, there's always a good explanation.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I know. They always have their hand-waving BS explanation, but it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.<br />
<br />
B: Look at Prometheus. They were big and muscular, you know. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
GH: Don't even start on Prometheus.<br />
<br />
E: Prometheus? Oh<br />
<br />
S: George, you love that movie.<br />
<br />
GH: Love it. Love it! I have it running in a loop in my head all day long. ''(laughter)'' Ugggghh! I'm in it for the money.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, boy.<br />
<br />
E: That's a good line, from that. So, there you go. That's the latest with the, Joe and . . .<br />
<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(47:08)</small>==<br />
<br />
S: All right, so, Evan, it's time for ''Who's That Noisy?''<br />
<br />
E: Yup. I'm gonna play for you last week's noisy, and it was up to you the listening audience to guess exactly what this noisy was. Here we go.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Men's voices speaking on some kind of communicators:<br />
Person 1: You're looking a little hot and all your calls will be a little early. (Beep) Person 2: Okay. Person 3: And that looks good here.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: That is, that is a whistlepig. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: No, no, that was . . . no, we can't do that two weeks in a row. Yeah, we can't.<br />
<br />
J: We knew it was a NASA beep, communication with somebody in outer space, but we didn't know what mission. What was it?<br />
<br />
E: Well, George, what do you think? Have you heard that before somewhere?<br />
<br />
GH: That is actually the mission that the band Rush used for the song "Countdown."<br />
<br />
E: Um hmmm. That is exactly correct. STS 1. Space Shuttle Columbia.<br />
<br />
GH: Right.<br />
<br />
E: April 12, 1981. Yup. That was a little part of the communiqué going on between Mission Control and astronauts Young and Crippen in the shuttle itself.<br />
<br />
J: Awesome.<br />
<br />
GH or J: ''(singing)'' ''Excitement soo grand.''<br />
<br />
J: ''(singing)'' ''It's the final countdown.''<br />
<br />
GH: Not that one. No, no, stop it, stop it. No. Wrong hair. Wrong hair. ''(laughter)'' More kimonos, less hair.<br />
<br />
E: I'm very proud of our audience. So many correct guesses. I was very, very pleased with everyone this past week, so thank you all for playing and submitting your correct guesses. I drew randomly from all the correct guesses and Ross Rawlings, you are the winner this week, because I drew your name. So, well done, Ross.<br />
<br />
GH: Ross Rawlings! Fantastic!<br />
<br />
E: He is now in the running <br />
<br />
''George making trumpeting sounds''<br />
<br />
E: Is that ''The Dating Game?''<br />
<br />
GH: Tell him what he's won! Tell him what he's won! ''(laughter)'' ''(trumpeting continues)''<br />
<br />
E: Welllll, Ross, you are now in the running to join us for an episode of ''Science or Fiction'' on an episode of The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. We will have the drawing at the beginning of 2014. So congratulations!<br />
<br />
''(trumpeting finishes up)'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: I didn't know you carried a little bugle in your back pocket there, George. That's very handy.<br />
<br />
GH: I'm just happy to see you.<br />
<br />
E: Logic puzzle this week, ladies and gentlemen. Get your thinking caps on, and try this one: A man from the Ukraine had three sons. The first son was named Rab, and he became a lawyer.<br />
<br />
S: Isn't it Rab ''(pronouncing it "Rob")'' like Hrab?<br />
<br />
E: It's R-A-B.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: How would you pronounce that, George?<br />
<br />
GH: I would say Rob.<br />
<br />
E: Okay.<br />
<br />
GH: If he's Ukrainian. And don't say "The Ukraine," just say "Ukraine."<br />
<br />
E: Oh, okay. Sorry 'bout that. <br />
<br />
S: A man from The France. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
GH: Exactly. The France, yeah. Or, The England.<br />
<br />
E: A man from The Hague had three sons.<br />
<br />
S: Go ahead, Evan. Get it right this time.<br />
<br />
E: A man from Ukraine had three sons. The first son was named Rab, and he became a lawyer. The second son was named Ymra, and he became a soldier. The 3rd son became a sailor, so, what was his name? <br />
<br />
S: Got it.<br />
<br />
E: So, go ahead, give us your answer to that logic puzzle. wtn@theskepticsguide.org is the email. Or you can post it on the forums at sguforums.com. Tune up your thinking caps. Good luck, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Thanks, Evan.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Question 1: Magnet Hill <small>(50:26)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: We have a few questions this week. I don't know if we'll get through all of them, but let's start with this one. This one comes from Jonathan Nonon from New York, and Jonathan writes:<br />
<br />
<blockquote> I am a Software Engineer originally from Dominican Republic,</blockquote><br />
<br />
Is it ''The'' Dominican Republic?<br />
<br />
<blockquote>I have been a listener of the show since 2010, and every week I am looking forward to a new SGU chapter. When I was a kid (I am 28) </blockquote><br />
<br />
He's still a kid.<br />
<br />
<blockquote> back in the DR, a journalist made an investigation about a "Magnetic Pole" in one remote corner of the country, Barahona, in the south east of the island. It always puzzled me. The place looks like a hill, however, everything you place in the ground "rolls" in the opposite direction, uphill. All objects, no matter what material they are, the are pulled upwards. You can look at dozens of videos on youtube by searching the string "polo magnetico barahona" [Magnetic Pole Barahona] The common and most simple explanation is that the place is an optical illusion. Is not that I do not believe it, I do not understand it. I have been looking for explanations, but none of them satisfy my curiosity. In my little research, I didn't find any other place where this phenomenon is happening. If you can explain this phenomenon I will appreciate it. </blockquote><br />
<br />
J: This phenomenon was one of the first ones that I debunked on my own. I figured it out by myself and I was really proud of myself. It was a long time ago. Thank you. So, it's known by many names, and there are hundreds of locations around the world that have this thing happening. But first, these are called, they're known by different terms: gravity hill, magnetic hill, spooky mystery hill, mystery spot or gravity road, there's lots of different names, different um, it's funny but<br />
<br />
E: Sounds like an episode of Scooby Doo or something, right?<br />
<br />
J: Different interpretations of the names that these places get around the world all revolve around that them. Something about a road or a hill being magnetic or spooky.<br />
<br />
GH: ''(in a southern accent)'' Fried Hill. Chicken Hill. ''(unintelligible)'' Spooky Hill.<br />
<br />
J: Whistlepig Hill.<br />
<br />
GH: Whistlepig Hill. That's about it.<br />
<br />
J: So, these places are where the lay of the land produces an optical illusion. The emailer was absolutely correct. Typically, these are roads that have a tiny downhill slope but happen to appear like they're going uphill. A common test that you'll see someone do on YouTube is they'll turn their car off, put it in neutral, and then they take their foot off the gas and the break and everything. No interaction, and the car just starts rolling, it looks like uphill. The illusion is another example that people are easy to fool because of the way our senses work, and we've talked about this on the show before. The way our senses construct reality is happening incredibly fast in our brain. Our brain's constantly trying to make sense of what it sees. Like, what cues do we use to tell spatially how big things are, how far things are, and what their orientation is compared to everything else that we're seeing. And our brain has to make decisions with the information that it has in front of them. And also taking into account or effecting what you're seeing is your bias, your pre-conceived notions of how things are supposed to behave. So in this case, typically when we are outside and trying to orient ourselves, the horizon comes into play, particular in a case like this where there's something going uphill or downhill and we need to know spatially where it is in comparison to where we are. The other big thing is the angle of the trees and the surrounding hills and the land. It can and does happen, like I said there's hundreds of places around the world this is, where it actually looks the opposite of what the land is actually doing, which is weird, I know, but it does happen, and thousands upon millions of people have been fooled over the years at these locations. But that's it. Magicians use the fact that we are susceptible to illusions to fool us all the time. You can go on YouTube and fall prey to illusions that even on a 2D screen. We're that susceptible to them. And that is the explanation, even though we'd like to think that there's something cool going on; you know, there's some type of cosmic thing that's reversing the magnetic forces: nope, sorry, it's just your eyes playing tricks on you.<br />
<br />
E: It's not a vortex.<br />
<br />
S: The magnetic thing doesn't even make sense because things that are not ferro-magnetic are also affected.<br />
<br />
E: Plastic bottles. That's right.<br />
<br />
S: It would have to be a gravity phenomenon; there's an anti-gravity field, or something, there. Cyclists, bike riders, know about this phenomenon. You know what they call it?<br />
<br />
J: Something slope, or<br />
<br />
S: It's called a false flat.<br />
<br />
J: False flat. There you go.<br />
<br />
S: So when it looks like you're on a level field, but you're actually slightly going uphill, and so it's harder, so if you don't account for that, you may get tuckered out because you think; you're actually pedaling uphill and you don't realize it because the optical illusion looks flat.<br />
<br />
GH: My dad, years ago, like when I was kid and we would drive in the Lincoln Tunnel to get into New York City, or the Holland Tunnel. The first third of the tunnel, you're going at a pretty decent angle sort of downwards, but there's no sense of it because you're in this tunnel. He would put the car in neutral and he would sort of say, are we flat right now? What do you think is our position right now? And I would say, Yeah, we're totally flat, like it just feels like all of a sudden we're totally level; and he put the car in neutral, it just rolled down until you get to the bottom, where it flattens out, where the car would then slow, and then it would sort of, you know, you would notice that you're going now uphill on that last part of it. That was the first time as a kid that this perception thing, was like, you don't trust what you're seeing; don't trust what you're feeling, don't trust what you're seeing necessarily.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I've noticed that in long tunnels as well. You lose your perspective. 'Cause it's all relative. It's hard to know if you're going down or going up. <br />
<br />
GH: 'Cause there's no horizon. It's that false horizon. Which is also my favorite Schwartzenegger film.<br />
<br />
J: ''(In an Austrian accent)'' False horizon.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, god.<br />
<br />
GH: ''(In an Austrian accent)'' This movie everything rolls uphill. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Question 2: Tourette <small>(56:27)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: All right, one more question. This one comes from Woody. And Woody writes:<br />
<blockquote>I was recently in a discussion about Tourette Syndrome and, to get quickly to the point, minor forms of said syndrome. It was my assertion that minor forms where more akin to compulsion or in more extreme cases OCD, and that Tourette was specifically in the extreme. I remember you touching shortly on this on the SGU and searched your Blogs to see if you had written more in depth, to no avail. I was hoping that you could give me a short rundown on the "mechanics."</blockquote><br />
<br />
Okay, sure, I'll be happy to do that, Woody. Tourette Syndrome is a neurological disorder first described by a famous French neurologist, Tourette, which involves, essentially, tics. A tic is an involuntary movement of some kind. It could be moving a part of your body, it could be a vocalization, clearing your throat, anything like that is a tic. And it's involuntary in that people do it<br />
<br />
B: Involuntarily, ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they don't want to do it, but, well, the reason why I'm clarifying is because most people with these tics ''can'' suppress them for a short period of time. So it's not involuntary like a seizure is involuntary, where you have ''no'' control over it. It's involuntary . . . maybe it's better to think of it that the desire to do the movement's involuntary. But you can temporarily suppress it. But when people try to do that they describe it as like this growing itch, this growing desire to do the tic, and that can only be relieved by executing the tic. Right? So it essentially becomes impossible to suppress it for any length of time.<br />
<br />
J: It sounds horrifying.<br />
<br />
S: It is, And in its severe form it's very debilitating.<br />
<br />
E: Debilitating, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Now he brings up obsessive compulsive disorder, OCD, and there is a relationship between OCD and Tourette, but it's not just one of extremity. It's not like extreme cases are OCD and mild cases are Tourette, or the other way around. You can have both Tourette's and OCD, and they do frequently occur together. So does Tourette's and ADHD, attention deficit and hyper-activity disorder. What obsessive-compulsive disorder is, you can think of that as the mental version of a tic. It is an involuntary thought or obsession. So the notion that you have to do things a certain number of times, for example, or that you have to wash your hands, or there are people who have obsessive checking behavior, like they might turn a light switch on and off 20 times. Or I read of a case where somebody had this obsession that they, while driving, that they ran somebody over, and so they kept having to turn around and go back to see if there was a dead body in the street. And they just would get into this endless loop of going back and checking to see if they had run somebody over. They are similar parts of the brain, similar phenomenon, OCD is mental, tics are physical. But they're very similar, phenomenalogically. But you can have very mild Tourette Syndrome. In fact there's a lot of people, you've probably seen them, you know, who have these little tics. You know. That are not that bad and not debilitating in any way, they're just odd. All the way up to people who, their tic is swearing: so-called coprolalia. That's about 10-15% of people with Tourette's will have the coprolalia. They'll, not just clearing the throat or some vocalization, but for whatever reason, their tic is saying something that is socially unacceptable. And it's absolutely culture specific. You know, it's not like people in different cultures say the same thing. The tic is saying something that is a swear word in your culture; that will be socially offensive or inappropriate in the current context.<br />
<br />
GH: Was it thought at some point that perhaps Tourette's was misinterpreted as possession?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, I'm sure, going back. Going back, absolutely. If you read classic descriptions of people who were thought to be<br />
<br />
GH: witches and stuff.<br />
<br />
S: possessed by demons, yeah. These were people, probably, with neurological disorders. I'm sure Tourette's is on the list. Seizures. You know, if you had a fit, they didn't think "Oh, he's having an electric discharge in the brain." They would think you're possessed by a demon.<br />
<br />
GH: Right.<br />
<br />
S: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
GH: Do you guys have any OCD stuff? Any of you guys have any kind of little compulsions?<br />
<br />
S: I assume by your question that you do.<br />
<br />
GH: I don't think I do. I mean, there's, it's just that weird thing of determining what is sort of tradition, in a weird way. Like, everybody has whatever they do. Like when I'm setting up my drums, let's say. It's a certain order that I have to do it. If it doesn't happen in that order, it's okay. I don't feel like the world's gonna collapse, but there is a certain pleasure in knowing, oh, this goes, then this goes, then this goes.<br />
<br />
S: It feels right. Yeah. So I had two very mild OCD-type things when I was younger that I basically outgrew.<br />
<br />
E: So you think.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well, they're still present a little bit, but I don't actually do them anymore.<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
S: I had an even-number bias,<br />
<br />
GH: Hm.<br />
<br />
S: Where even numbers feel right, and odd numbers don't so<br />
<br />
B: Freak.<br />
<br />
S: I had bias toward doing things an even number of times. Or I had a completion sort of OCD. Where like if I did something on one side, it felt better if I did it on the other side. Or like if I tapped one finger, I had to tap all of my fingers. But, very little things like that. Very subtle, and just when I was younger. I don't do them anymore as an adult, but I still, sometimes they're like way deep back buried in my head that there's little<br />
<br />
GH: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: It feels a little right to complete things or to have an even number.<br />
<br />
GH: Right, right.<br />
<br />
J: I definitely had some as a kid. Like I, the switch thing sparked a memory. I think I used to just keep flipping the light switch for no reason, until I just felt like, okay, I'm done with that. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
GH: You just wanted to be in a disco, that's all. You were just hoping for the strobe effect.<br />
<br />
J: I, spacially, things, I was particular about where things were. I would have like a fear, like something was gonna fall off the nightstand I would keep pushing it more and more into the nightstand until it was ridiculously in the center. <br />
<br />
S: That's a good one.<br />
<br />
B: But this isn't dramatic, is it?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, sure. Pre-disposition.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, boy.<br />
<br />
J: I definitely grew out of them, like if anything I wish I was a little more OCD now, 'cause I'd be cleaner and get more stuff done. Steve's like, I'm OCD, I had to complete medical school. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: The thing is, what's interesting is in that anxiety and obsessive-compulsiveness, a little bit of that is very practical and adaptive, and beneficial. There's an upside and a downside, and most people are somewhere in the middle. Obviously if you had no anxiety whatsoever, you'd walk out into traffic. Or if you had no, you would have no personal hygiene. Your house would be a mess. You have to be motivated to do stuff by a little bit of anxiety, a little bit of the obsessiveness. But too much and it starts to become counter-productive. There's a bell curve. And what we're really talking about with OCD is people just at one end of the spectrum.<br />
<br />
J: It's fascinating to think that there's a healthy amount of OCD, which you just said, in the range of whatever we would say is normal, that isn't obstructive.<br />
<br />
S: Healthy.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, healthy.<br />
<br />
S: And maybe along with that comes these little quirks that are benign, but that are just interesting quirks in how our brain works.<br />
<br />
GH: Most people that are successful, ___________ successful, I mean, Tycho Brahe, when he was sitting, looking at stars night after night after night, that's a compulsion. All the people that, Gregor Mendel on some level was probably obsessive, you know. You have to be, on some level, or whether you're painting or an artists or something, there's some kind of a compulsion and an obsession that can drive stuff, and that's why a lot of those people don't have social skills necessarily, or don't do well outside of the compulsion, and yet they can be special.<br />
<br />
S: Think about the entire skeptical movement, is based upon compulsion. Somebody is wrong on the internet. Why do we care so much? Because people believe things that are not reasonable, or that are unscientific.<br />
<br />
J: Well, what are we gonna do? Not correct them, Steve. I mean, come on, seriously.<br />
<br />
S: I'm just saying, this is a good healthy compulsion. It bothers us emotionally, so we are motivated to do something.<br />
<br />
GH: Until it's comments on a Facebook page, correcting some obscure reference which was wrong. I mean, it's like, okay, fine. Yes. Technically, you're correct. I'm sorry that my joke didn't adhere to the 14th Century standards of the ___________ system. The way I was implying at 37 characters in, I'm sorry, you're correct. It's much funnier your way.<br />
<br />
J: The words you were saying were correct, George, but totally, you were completely incorrect.<br />
<br />
GH: Yes, your version is much funnier. I'm sorry.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there's a recurring discussion of pedantry, people who are pedantic. A certain amount of being pedantic is good. It means being a good scientist, detail oriented. You could spin it all in a very positive way. You know, you get the facts right. Or you could say you're obsessed with irrelevant details that don't matter. And both could be correct, it's just a matter of degree. Fascinating the way our brains work.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:06:04)</small> ==<br />
[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/osoa-idh022613.php Item #1]: Greater than 60% of upstream traffic is comprised of torrent files, while Netflix by itself represents 1/3 of peak download traffic. [http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/photos/how-25-tech-companies-got-their-names-slideshow/amazon-holds-news-conference-photo--982673090.html Item #2]: Amazon.com benefitted from the popularity of the Yahoo search engine, which listed search results alphabetically. [http://royal.pingdom.com/2013/01/16/internet-2012-in-numbers/ Item #3]: North America has the highest internet penetration at 78.6%, while Africa has the lowest at 15.6%. [http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blemtax2.htm Item #4]: In 1999 Congressman Peter Schnell proposed House Bill 602P allowing the US postal service to charge a 5cent surcharge for each e-mail sent. The bill died in response to public outrage.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:22:01)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Neither evolution nor creation qualifies as a scientific theory.</blockquote><br />
Duane Gish<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS <small>(1:23:06)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_399&diff=6715SGU Episode 3992013-06-02T22:00:32Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 399<br />
|episodeDate = 9<sup>th</sup> March 2013<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mars-comet-NASA-JPL-600x328.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|guest1 = GH: George Hrab<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-09.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=399<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45268.0.html<br />
|qowText = Neither evolution nor creation qualifies as a scientific theory.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish Duane Gish]<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today March 6, 2013, and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: 400!<br />
<br />
S: Evan Bernstein,<br />
<br />
E: Good evening, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: And we have a special guest rogue with us this evening, George Hrab. George, welcome back.<br />
<br />
GH: This isn't ''The Price is Right''! Jay, you lied to me. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: What else is new?<br />
<br />
J: No, but this is our 400th!<br />
<br />
S: No, it's not, Jay. Next week is our 400th episode.<br />
<br />
GH: 399!<br />
<br />
J: 399!<br />
<br />
E: 399! And that's a bargain.<br />
<br />
S: We're not round number bigots here, anyway. That's all superstitious nonsense.<br />
<br />
GH: Roundists. You're all roundists.<br />
<br />
S: So, Rebecca's voice is still recovering from whatever infection she had. So she is again not with us this week. But George will be taking her place and speaking in falsetto the entire show.<br />
<br />
GH: ''(starting high pitched, dropping to low)'' Y-e-e-e-s. I'm so skeptical. ''(normal voice)'' It's not a Rebecca impression. It's not a Rebecca impression at all. ''(laughter)'' We got that. All right. Good.<br />
<br />
J: So we were just talking before the show, like, saying hi to George and everything, and it occurred to me I wanted to ask George this question. George, ever listening, you ever listen to a podcast—<br />
<br />
GH: ''(in a Russian accent)'' Ever listenink to ''(unintelligible)'' Oh, sorry. Go ahead. So, have I ever listened to what?<br />
<br />
J: Has this ever happened where you're listening to a show that you've recorded, and somebody says your name in the podcast, and you answer them in real time? Like, it just happened to me two days ago. I was listening to one of our shows, and Steve says "So, Jay," and I actually go "Yeah." I'm like wh-o-o-o-a. He's not in the car with me! I'm not on the phone with him. I'm hearing him in the podcast.<br />
<br />
GH: I don't listen to my show 'cause I don't really like my show.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: But sound effects that I've done before have scared the hell out of me. I'll forget that I inserted an airplane or something, and it'll scare the crap out of me. ''(laughter)'' Or like a doorbell sound or something, yeah. But I don't actually, because I'm the only person on my show, for me to respond to myself as if I was actually talking to myself, I think would be indicative of something really scary and awesome. <br />
<br />
J: All right, that is a good point.<br />
<br />
GH: But, I respond to ''(two people talking – undecipherable)'' And if I listen to this show, I'll make sure that every time you say "Hey, George" no matter where I am, I'll say "What? Oh, damn!" ''(laughter)'' What? Oh, damn!<br />
<br />
E: With a head turn, right?<br />
<br />
''(two people talking—inaudible – something about Scooby-Doo)''<br />
<br />
GH: ''(imitating Scooby)'' Erh?<br />
<br />
B: Scooby snack.<br />
<br />
S: Hey George!<br />
<br />
GH: Erh?<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(2:45)</small> ==<br />
March 9, 1851: Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted died. &Oslash;rsted was a Danish physicist and chemist who discovered current traveling along a wire could deflect a compass needle.<br />
<br />
S: Evan is gonna tell us about this day in skepticism.<br />
<br />
E: All right. So, March 9, and the year was 1851. Now, we all know who Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted was<br />
<br />
B: ''(singing)'' Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted.<br />
<br />
J: I have no idea who he is.<br />
<br />
E: Well, he was a Danish. Oh, I'm sorry, wait, he was a Danish physicist<br />
<br />
S: And delicious.<br />
<br />
GH: I sing.<br />
<br />
E: Who made a discovery. He discovered that an electric current in a wire causes a nearby magnetized compass needle to deflect, indicating the electric current in a wire induces a magnetic field around it.<br />
<br />
B: That is awesome.<br />
<br />
J: That is awesome.<br />
<br />
B: You could just retire after making that discovery. I'm done. I've made my contribution.<br />
<br />
E: A little electro-magnetic theory for you, then?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah, but how do you monotize that. I mean, that's the problem. What d'ya do with that? What kind of invention could that possibly lead to? ''(people talking simultaneously)''<br />
<br />
B: It's just a laboratory curiosity. Nothing to see here.<br />
<br />
GH: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: It took like a hundred years for them to slap one of those suckers in a bracelet. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
GH: And then you get the real money.<br />
<br />
E: A bracelet made of, perhaps, aluminum. Hey! Speaking of aluminum<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so<br />
<br />
E and B: Aluminium.<br />
<br />
S: &Oslash;rsted also was the first one to produce metallic aluminum. Do you guys know how common—<br />
<br />
B: As opposed to rubber aluminum?<br />
<br />
S: No, as opposed an aluminum oxide or aluminum silicate. So, aluminum is the third most abundant element in the Earth's crust. And I know you guys all know that<br />
<br />
E: The third most?<br />
<br />
B: I used to know that, yes.<br />
<br />
S: After oxygen and silicon, which is why there's lots of aluminum oxides and aluminum silicate. And he figured out how to make metallic aluminum. Although it was up to later chemists to figure out how to really industrialize that process. If you recall, we talked about the fact that when aluminum was first available as a metal, it was more expensive than gold.<br />
<br />
B: I recall nothing.<br />
<br />
S: It was considered a rare and exotic metal and things made out of aluminum were like a status symbol. But then later chemists figured out how to make massive quantities of it, just from dirt, basically, and, you know, from bauxites, specifically.<br />
<br />
J: Did these scientists like cash in at that moment? Like, okay, I figured out how to make it, it's everywhere.<br />
<br />
E: Let's sell it now.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, did somebody become a trillionaire for like the first three years or what happened?<br />
<br />
S: American Aluminum, you know, I think was the company that became very wealthy mass producing aluminum. And the price went from hundreds of dollars an ounce to pennies a pound.<br />
<br />
J: Oof.<br />
<br />
GH: See, Alcoa shouldn't have waited.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, Alcoa, that's it.<br />
<br />
E: Bad investment.<br />
<br />
J: Guess I shouldn't have invested in that company early on.<br />
<br />
S: Well, you shouldn't have invested in aluminum. The company did quite well, actually. Now, did you also know that Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted was a very close friend of Hans Christian Andersen.<br />
<br />
B: Seriously?<br />
<br />
J: That's what I was gonna say.<br />
<br />
GH: No way.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, and I actually don't know exactly who Hans Christian Andersen is or was. What's his deal? Who's that guy?<br />
<br />
B: Come on, Jay.<br />
<br />
E: He wrote stories.<br />
<br />
B: It's Danny Kaye!<br />
<br />
E: That's right. Danny Kaye. He wrote Thumbelina,<br />
<br />
GH: The Little Mermaid.<br />
<br />
J: Did he sing The Little Mermaid?<br />
<br />
GH: I think he played the crab in the movie, actually. ''(laughter)'' Oh, aluminum.<br />
<br />
S: He wrote famous fairy tales. But, so, how did these guys meet? Like at a Hans Christian organization or something?<br />
<br />
E: Convention?<br />
<br />
B: I know. Famous People Named Hans Christian.<br />
<br />
GH: That was a Facebook page, wasn't it? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Did they get each other's mail, or what happened?<br />
<br />
J: My money's on the fact that maybe like half the population is just named Hans Christian something.<br />
<br />
S: Maybe.<br />
<br />
B: I think it's a coincidence.<br />
<br />
E: And March 9, 1851, was the day that we lost Hans &Oslash;rsted. Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted. So, we mourned Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted on this day. But thank you so much for all that electro-magnetism. It is doing us wonders these days.<br />
<br />
S: And aluminum. Yep.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that too.<br />
<br />
S: So George, before we go on to news items, what's new with you?<br />
<br />
GH: What's new? Goodness. Uh, what isn't? Actually, it's a short list. The newest thing is a number of you rogues were at the 21812 concert that happened last year.<br />
<br />
B: Yes! Loved it!<br />
<br />
GH: We are furiously, furiously editing and putting together what looks to be just an incredible DVD of that performance, which is audio mixing. I was at Slau's yesterday, as a matter of fact. So the audio mixing is done. A monumental effort, and now the video is being edited, and there's gonna be commentary and a documentary and it's gonna be really, really fantastic. So that is the thing which is occupying the most frontal part of my frontal creative lobe right now, is the 21812 concert.<br />
<br />
B: It only took you a year!<br />
<br />
J: When's it coming out?<br />
<br />
GH: I know, I know, I know, I know. Weeks. Months? Weeks. Well, I guess months are made up of weeks, so I'm not lying in either direction. But, weeks.<br />
<br />
S: As long as it's more than one month, right.<br />
<br />
GH: Hmm? Right.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== HIV Cure <small>(7:49)</small> ===<br />
[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/hiv-cure-game-changer/ Neurologica: HIV Cure "Game Changer"]<br />
<br />
S: So I have some ''good news'' everyone. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Excellent.<br />
<br />
J: What's up?<br />
<br />
S: Did you hear about the girl who was cured, ''cured'' of HIV?<br />
<br />
B: Despite this, or in spite of, the incompetence of her mom, apparently.<br />
<br />
S: Her mother appears to be troubled. I don't know if incompetence is her problem or if it's other things, but, so . . . Here's the story. The mother, who was HIV infected, presented for delivery with apparently no prenatal care, and delivered a child, who was positive for HIV within 30 hours of being born. So almost certainly infected in utero. The doctor was consulted, an HIV infectious disease specialist at the time was consulted on the case. Not really sure why, but decided to treat the child earlier than is typically treated. So at 31 hours, the infant was treated with anti-retroviral therapy. And also, she decided to give the infant<br />
<br />
B: Extra.<br />
<br />
S: Well, not extra, so therapeutic doses as opposed to preventive, or prophylactic doses.<br />
<br />
E: What's the difference?<br />
<br />
S: It's a higher dose. So a therapeutic dose is meant to treat an existing infection, whereas a preventive dose is meant to prevent an exposure from establishing itself as an infection.<br />
<br />
B: You can call that extra, I think.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, she gave the higher dose, the therapeutic dose.<br />
<br />
B: Extra.<br />
<br />
GH: Not the gum, but the actual medicine, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the anti-retroviral therapy. ART.<br />
<br />
GH: 'Cause that would be something, if extra gum cured AIDS. That would be, wow.<br />
<br />
S: This is Hannah Gay. A pediatric infectious disease specialist. And the child was treated with ART for the first 18 months of life, or thereabouts. At that point she was lost to follow-up, as we say. Stopped being brought back in by the mother for treatment. Now, Dr. Gay diligently tracked down the mother and the child, through the police, in order to bring the child back in for health care. So now, it was like seven or eight months the child has been getting no medication. The mother was going through some kind of life situation. Apparently has a lot of challenges. And not giving the kid their medicine. Not bringing them in to doctor's visits. So Dr. Gay at this point thought, okay, so now we have a two-year-old who has gone six, seven, eight months with no medication therapy. Their viral loads are gonna be off the charts. <br />
<br />
B: Right, because typically what happens, Steve, is when you're taking, when you're going through that process, the viruses pretty much just go into hiding, right? They just like say screw it, I'm just gonna hang out and wait til the weather's better and then once you stop it, bam! They come out. And that's what he expected.<br />
<br />
S: She, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Dr. Gay, that's what Gay expected.<br />
<br />
S: What typically happens is, in an HIV-infected individual, if they're treated with ART, then the viral loads will drop to undetectable levels. But the virus still lives on in the body, in these hidden reservoirs. As you say, they go into hiding. And these reservoirs are isolated from the immune system so that they can persist despite the retroviral therapy, and if you stopped the retroviral therapy, anti-retroviral therapy, then the infection would come back, would rebound. Because of these reservoirs. So, checked out the child, did the viral loads, they were still undetectable. There was no sign of HIV in the child at all. Went back to check everything. So now she things, all right, there's something interesting going on here. She checked a number of things. She got other specialists involved as well. First they confirmed that yes, she was indeed infected with HIV as a newborn. They confirmed that. Two, that the strain of HIV is a wild type strain that's not some mutated strain, it's not a weakened strain. It's a regular strain of HIV. Three, they tested the mother and the child to see if they happened to have a genetic type that makes them resistant to HIV, 'cause there are people out there who are naturally resistant to HIV. And they did not. So they did not have any of the known forms of resistance.<br />
<br />
B: Three great tests. So it's like, yeah. It didn't occur to me that they should do that but when I read it I'm like, oh, of course, that's exactly what you would need to do to really be secure in your conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Well, plus, I think, at this point that they were planning on publishing. And of course you want to get all your ducks in a row if you do that.<br />
<br />
B: Right, right.<br />
<br />
S: And in fact they did present this case at a conference and reported all these details. So essentially they discovered that she was infected, it was a normal virus, they're not resistant, and even six, seven months after stopping ART the virus never rebounded. They're calling this a functional cure. A functional cure. Not an outright cure, I think because a couple of, they did really, really sensitive tests for HIV, RNA and DNA and a couple of these tests showed rally miniscule little remnants of RNA or DNA.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but didn't they describe them as non-functional, or they did not have the ability to reproduce?<br />
<br />
S: They are not replication competent.<br />
<br />
B: That's what it was.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they are not replication competent. But I guess it means it's not completely, completely, completely out of the system. But what it does mean is that the virus will not rebound. It is not established. There's no active reservoirs of the virus. And the child will be able to live their life without the need for further ART, or anti-retroviral therapy.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. So we're not looking at some state of remission that's currently going on?<br />
<br />
S: Well, remission is not an unreasonable term to use. It's a remission without medication, without needing further medication or treatment. Functional cure is the specific term that they used. This is only the second case of any human being who was known to be infected with HIV who then was cured. The first one was a gentleman who got a bone marrow transplant in Germany from a donor who was HIV resistant. And they were apparently cured by that bone marrow transplant. Basically given a new immune system resistant to the HIV. This is now the second case.<br />
<br />
J: Does this help the world, Steve? Can we use this information in any way?<br />
<br />
B: Well, shit yeah. Look at the children born with AIDS like in Africa. I mean, the United States it's not so much of a huge deal as it is in Africa. But Jay, there's like, the statistic was crazy, it was like thousands of kids per pico-second in Africa.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, but my question is: does that case, the second case, of this child, does it actually help scientists figure out how to use that to make some type of cure?<br />
<br />
S: So here's the bottom line<br />
<br />
GH: We have to weaponize the baby, I think. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: The stats are about 130 children per year develop HIV from their mother in the United States. But it's about a thousand children per day world-wide in developing countries. So that's a lot. That's a thousand kids per day.<br />
<br />
GH: Why is that woman having so many children? ''(laughter)'' I'm sorry. Sorry.<br />
<br />
S: What this suggests is that the standard of care for treating newborns born of infected mothers might be, rather than giving prophylactic doses, but to give, would be to give therapeutic doses earlier, to try to prevent the virus from ever establishing an infection. Which seems to be the case here. The virus never got itself established. Here's the trick, though, is that, I mean, it's gotta be studied, is the case. This is an anecdote, right? It's interesting, but it's one case. And it's hard to extrapolate from that. So this will lead to research looking at this approach to show that it's safe, to show that it's effective. What's going to be tricky, so let's you get a hundred kids, or 200 kids, 100 you give the standard therapy. The other hundred you give this early aggressive therapy. You track 'em over a few years. To really know that the children have been functionally cured, you would want to actually stop their ART. That's gonna be tricky to do.<br />
<br />
E: That's tough.<br />
<br />
S: Ethically, how are you gonna do that? We're not gonna give you proof in therapy to see how you're doing. So, the best they could hope to do would be to follow a lot of children and then track those whose parents stopped giving them the medication due to non-compliance or whatever. Like in this case. You know, you can't randomly choose people not to get treatment just to see how they do. That's the definition of unethical research. But you may be able to track cases where the children stopped getting their drugs for one reason or another and see how they do. And maybe you can gather enough information from that to say okay, it's reasonable in these cases with these outcomes to reduce the medication, see how they do, maybe wean them off, tracking them carefully. So it's not gonna instantly lead to replicating this exact treatment paradigm, but it will, I think, probably it'll lead to studying this higher, more aggressive, early treatment, which may lead to curing infants who otherwise would have been infected with HIV. But this is using drugs that are already in existence to treat HIV. This is not a new treatment or a new cure. This is not a cure for people in whom infection is already established. You might think that maybe the same applies if you, let's say, get exposed to HIV. Again, instead of getting preventive doses, maybe even as an adult, you would be given therapeutic doses right away. <br />
<br />
''(inaudible comment by GH)''<br />
<br />
J: When you say "therapeutic doses" you mean a large, large amount. <br />
<br />
S: Well, the doses that are normally given to people with HIV infection, as opposed to preventive doses, which are doses given to people who have been exposed but who are not infected. In order to reduce the risk of the exposure resulting in an infection.<br />
<br />
GH: When I read the story, it was amazing. And I remember one of the first things that popped into my head was the idea that the kid at one point was outside of the care of the hospital, whether that was seven months, or whatever it was.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: And that someone is going to latch onto something the kid did in those seven months and say that ''that'' is the actual cure.<br />
<br />
B: Ohhhhh, wow.<br />
<br />
GH: You what I mean, like Fruit Loops or something. And they're gonna say "Yeah, the fact that she had Fruit Loops!" Forget the hospital. It was the Fruit Loops that cured. Here's proof! Like that was the first, the woo radar warning system that I have installed in my brain, was like, oh man, okay, let no one take advantage of those seven months where the kid was outside of supervised care to claim that that's some kind of secret cure.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah. I didn't even think of that.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I agree.<br />
<br />
S: I haven't heard anything about it yet, but that's always a risk. There was a lot of sensational reporting of this story.<br />
<br />
GH: Wh-a-a-t?<br />
<br />
S: It's fascinating enough as it is. What I always, my radar goes up, we talk about the skeptical radar, my skeptical radar always goes up whenever I see the word "cure" in the headline of any article. Especially when it's connected to AIDS or cancer or the common cold or whatever.<br />
<br />
B: Acne.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. There are certain things where it's like, really? You mean, no, we did not cure AIDS, I'm sorry, we did not cure HIV. This is a very interesting case and has implications for research and for treatment. But no, this isn't the discovery of a cure for HIV.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, so what if a parent has AIDS. They have a kid, and they're like, I want my kid to get a therapeutic dose asap? What can they do? 'Cause that's what I would do.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Enter a trial, enter a clinical trial in which that is being done and take your chance that you'll get randomized, getting it.<br />
<br />
J: Is it hard to get into a trial?<br />
<br />
S: Well, right now, none exists. But I'm sure<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that's just it.<br />
<br />
S: It'll take time to get them up and running. I don't know how many and how many people are gonna be introduced. So, probably in the U.S., given that the number is so low, number of kids who get infected this way because of pre-natal care, etc. 'Cause you know, normally what you would do is aggressively treat the mother, get the viral loads down as low as possible so the risk of the so-called vertical transmission from mother to child is minimized. This mother didn't do that, that's probably why the child was infected. So, this is the exact people who are going to end up infected as an infant are the ones that are going to be difficult to recruit, and there aren't that many of them. So it's probably gonna be more, it's gonna be hard to get people into this trial as opposed to people having a hard time getting into such trials. You know what I mean? If you're the kind of parent who is going to seek out that kind of aggressive care, you're probably not the kind of parent who is going to give birth to an infected child in the first place. Does that make sense?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah; where's the father through all this, I wonder?<br />
<br />
S: No mention in anything.<br />
<br />
GH: I wonder what his situation is.<br />
<br />
S: Obviously the doctors are being confidential, keeping confidential the personal details. They're just saying she had some life situation that intervened, but we have no idea what that was. But clearly she's troubled.<br />
<br />
B: It still won't be an outright cure because if you have the infection, this won't work, but for people who just get it, it will a cure for them. There—<br />
<br />
S: Well, remember, she was treated at 30 hours of life.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: How many people don't we even find out that they've been exposed until—<br />
<br />
B: That's it.<br />
<br />
S: --days later. So, one example would be a health care worker who stabs themself with an HIV-infected needle.<br />
<br />
B: Yup. Perfect example.<br />
<br />
S: You would be in the clinic in 15 minutes. In fact, I did that to myself once. Not with an HIV<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
E; Oh, my gosh.<br />
<br />
S: Not with an HIV-infected needle. But I stuck myself with a Hep C needle.<br />
<br />
J: How'd you do it?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, man, I hate when that happens.<br />
<br />
GH: Did you lose a bet?<br />
<br />
S: No. It was an accident. I did what I wasn't supposed to. I recapped the needle, the needle went right through the cap and into my finger.<br />
<br />
E: Geez.<br />
<br />
J: And you were right in front of a patient?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: What'd you do?<br />
<br />
S: I finished what I was doing. I went to the health services and got two huge needles of gamma globulin injected into my buttocks.<br />
<br />
E: Gamma globulin?<br />
<br />
J: Wait a second. Wait, wait, wait, wait.<br />
<br />
B: One per cheek?<br />
<br />
S: Yup.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, I have to ask more detail. Did you keep your composure?<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
J: Like, did you do "Oh, holy shit!!" Like run out of there. <br />
<br />
GH: Like ''We're all gonna die!!!''<br />
<br />
J: ''Give me those ass needles!!'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: On panic day? Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it was not panic day. Unlike today.<br />
<br />
J: Were you embarrassed? Were you shameful, like going to some guy sitting at a desk and you're like "Um…"<br />
<br />
S: Yes, I was stupid. Yea. It was dumb. I was a medical student.<br />
<br />
J: Did they say anything to you. Like did they make you feel really weird?<br />
<br />
S: No. No.<br />
<br />
B: Steve's heart rate increased by two beats per minute.<br />
<br />
E: Were they messing with you? "Oh, we gotta do a biopsy, and now we're gonna do this. Gotta do that."<br />
<br />
S: No. They're my physician now. They acted totally professional.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, put this in a little context. Hepatitis C. How bad we talkin'?<br />
<br />
S: That's bad. Like a chronic liver infection. It would be very bad. And yes, I got, the treatment for that is gamma globulin, so it like pooled antibodies. And it's a huge dose.<br />
<br />
B: Is it a bolus? They call that a bolus?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: If they give you enough of that gamma globulin, Steve, can you turn into the Hulk? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: The first injection was very painful. The second injection was ten times as painful. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, but ten times!<br />
<br />
S: It was so much more painful! And the reason for that probably<br />
<br />
GH: It's not supposed to go in your penis. That's the problem. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: We gotta get this in here!<br />
<br />
GH: A really long needle.<br />
<br />
S: When you get the first injection your body excretes chemicals which sort of prime it for pain, and so then when you get the second injection, it has a huge exaggerated local response to the injection.<br />
<br />
B: Thank you, body, isn't that convenient?<br />
<br />
E: Well, okay<br />
<br />
J: Why's that happening?<br />
<br />
E: They should give you both needles at once. One, two, three, jab.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I don't know what would be worse.<br />
<br />
J: That's crazy.<br />
<br />
E: Two at once. Two needles at once.<br />
<br />
S: But this was, whatever, twenty years ago, so, I know I'm out of the window. And never had a problem from it.<br />
<br />
GH: Are you sure?<br />
<br />
E: No Hep C.<br />
<br />
S: I could definitely imagine the panic of jabbing yourself with an HIV-infected needle. That would be panic time.<br />
<br />
J: It just shows you how dangerous health care is. I mean, these professionals—<br />
<br />
S: This was also, this was not in the early, early days, but, this was earlier in the whole HIV situation. So, you know, the protocols for preventing these things were not as well established. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: They had you rub garlic on the wound. Prayer beads and whatever.<br />
<br />
S: The needle that I was using at that time doesn't even exist now, really. Everything is made to prevent this from happening. Anyway, let's move on.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Mars Comet <small>(24:49)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/5349/20130304/newly-discovered-comet-hit-mars-watch-two-others-near-earth.htm Newly Discovered Comet May Hit Mars: Watch for Two Others Near Earth]<br />
<br />
S: Bob, you're gonna tell us about the comet that's going to smack right into Mars.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
B: You guys remember I recently mentioned that this would be remembered maybe as the Year of the Asteroid. But not I think it will be, in retrospect, in the future, considered the Year of the Asteroid/Comet. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Slash comet.<br />
<br />
B: Slash comet. The big news in recent days is not only do we have the Pan Stars comet, which will be visible in mid-March 2013<br />
<br />
E: Can't wait.<br />
<br />
B: And also the Ison comet, which could be awesome. Very bright, in November 2013. But we also have the Sliding Spring, an oddly named comet which could potentially hit the planet Mars in October 2014; not quite this year, but coming up relatively soon. So that is kind of exciting, I think. It's not the Earth, so it's all good. This new comet was discovered January 3 this year, 2013, by famous comet hunter Robert McNaught. He actually has 74 comets on his resume.<br />
<br />
E: Wow!<br />
<br />
B: So how cool is that?<br />
<br />
J: Bob, does he hang them on the wall like a plaque?<br />
<br />
B; ''(laughing)'' Yeah, right. I would. I would create a little comet for every one that I discovered. And he also discovered asteroids. This guy's very prolific. He gets a gold star.<br />
<br />
S: Did he discover that asteroids exist?<br />
<br />
B: No. Just discovered asteroids.<br />
<br />
E: The game ''Asteroids."<br />
<br />
S: Specific asteroids.<br />
<br />
B: Yes. So this is like, apparently this is a new, or virgin, comet. Never having been in our local area of the solar system before. And I think they believe this is because of the eccentricity of its orbit, after it was ejected for the Oort Cloud of billions of comets that are in orbit about a light year, I think, from the Sun.<br />
<br />
S: Yup.<br />
<br />
B: Billions and billions of these guys and occasionally one will come careening in.<br />
<br />
S: ''(imitating Carl Sagan)'' Billions and billions.<br />
<br />
B: Billions, yes. <br />
<br />
E; That's about a Sagan.<br />
<br />
GH: A virgin comet has no tail.<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: ''(unintelligible)'' no comets, tell no tales.<br />
<br />
B: So, ah, so<br />
<br />
S: Tough crowd.<br />
<br />
J: George, don't laugh.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, George is grabbing his tie as we speak, right?<br />
<br />
S: We're laughing on the inside.<br />
<br />
GH: I was all excited. ''(unintelligible)'' Zilch. Loser.<br />
<br />
B: That's all right. You had some good ones so far, at least. So the big question, in my mind, is is this sucker gonna hit Mars? And the answer is: nobody knows, not yet anyway. Some projections put the comet within 23 to 63,000 miles away from Mars at its closest approach. That's 37 to about 100,000 kilometers away.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, Bob. The orbitors we've got; I'm sorry, the orbitor we have, we have one? Or more than one around Mars? Is it gonna be close enough that it's gonna be able to capture this thing for us? Are we gonna get a good view of it?<br />
<br />
B: It depends, actually, on various variables. But yeah, they could potentially get a really view of this. Although there are certain things that could make it not as awesome as it could be. Depending the various factors of the approach and things. But, as you know though, as we've talked about this, the estimates of the future positions of these objects are very difficult, 'cause you need to take a nice long look at its orbit so that you can accurately extrapolate, right? And one I wasn't quite aware of , though, is that this is even more problematic with comets, because, think about it; you've got these frozen gases on this comet; they heat up because it's getting closer to the sun, and then they explosively sublimate. They turn from ice to gas very quickly. And so it's like these little geysers that are erupting on the comet, and this, of course, is what creates the tail. That can change the orbit, as you can imagine these little geysers erupting. That could subtly, I mean not a lot, but it can change the orbit of the comet a tiny bit.<br />
<br />
S: Like little jets.<br />
<br />
B: And, right, and enough, this thing is gonna be so close to Mars as it is, that it could actually make it hit it or even miss it by even a greater distance. So right now, we really won't know until probably the earliest, I think, is late summer. It's when we can confident of what's gonna happen. Chances are, unfortunately, it's not gonna hit. Well, I guess it depends how you look at it. But if it did hit. Whoa. I mean, we're talking megahit. This thing's five to thirty miles across. This thing will be coming in at about, say, 55 kilometers, or 33 miles per second.<br />
<br />
GH: Geez.<br />
<br />
B: I mean this thing'll be coming in so fast. That is kinetic energy. They're talking, the impact equivalent of a billion megatons, that's a petaton. Equivalent to a one petaton nuke.<br />
<br />
S: Bob, you like petatons?<br />
<br />
B: I love petatons. They're awesome!<br />
<br />
S: You're a petaphile?! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good one. Go for the easy ones, Steve, that was good.<br />
<br />
E: See, Bob. There is the horizon. Did you see it coming?<br />
<br />
B: That's with a "t" by the way, not a "d." Now, that's millions of times bigger than anything that we've ever detonated. We're talking about a crater that could be hundreds of miles or kilometers across. It would be totally devastating. But that would be cool.<br />
<br />
''(unintelligible – several people talking at once.)''<br />
<br />
B: I want this thing to hit Mars so bad. But, and I want one of our rovers to have a safe front-row seat to film this entire thing. But the problem is, I don't think there's, there won't be anywhere safe on the planet. Even if it was on the other side. This thing can be so devastating. It could take out every probe on the planet or in orbit. It won't matter where you are. It could wipe out everything. And that would clearly suck.<br />
<br />
S: Would it be worth it, though, to get the video?<br />
<br />
B: Think about the time and effort and future science that we would be getting out of these things, all wiped in an hour. Bam! Game over, you're done. But, yeah, the video, the YouTube video that came out of that would be epic. Totally epic.<br />
<br />
J: Is that gonna ruin the geologic history of Mars?<br />
<br />
B: No. In what way Jay?<br />
<br />
E: Not all of it.<br />
<br />
S: It's going to hit the last colony of life on Mars. ''(laughter)'' Wipe it out. Some bacterial colony.<br />
<br />
GH: That group of cells up there is all getting psyched.<br />
<br />
S: This little frozen, this little underground pond.<br />
<br />
E: ''(in a little voice)'' Yay, we can think! Ahhhhhh! Crash.<br />
<br />
J: Let me clarify. So we have a petaton object hitting the surface of Mars. Couldn't that breach the, get down in the mantle and actually . . .<br />
<br />
S: The Martian crust is a little thicker than Earth's. Mars's crust is 50 kilometers thick on average, while Earth's is 40 kilometers on average. And the mantle is still hot. So, like Earth, Mars has a relatively thin crust. It also has a much thinner atmosphere, only 1/100 the thickness that of Earth. So that's less of a cushion to slow down anything incoming, like a comet. But I don't know if this could carry the punch necessary to crack open the crust down to the mantle.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, and that would be a deep crater, Jay. <br />
<br />
J: Couldn't that kick up enough matter into the tiny atmosphere that there is and actually just screw up all of that geologic information?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, it'll definitely erase a lot of geological information, no question.<br />
<br />
GH: But it could also expose a lot, too.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I don't know, but, yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: I wonder, if it does hit, will this be a, sort of a good selling point for us to come up with some kind of comet deterrence system, asteroid deterrence system. Like, look at Mars! Look at what happened! That could be us!<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: You know, I'm just saying. It'd be nice, right?<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely. That's one of the big benefits of the Russian asteroid recently. That people are like, oh, boy, we've gotta really start taking this seriously. If something like that hit Mars and with such a devastating effect, and we filmed it in all of its glory, yeah, that would be, that would spur us even more. So in that regard, I think that will be a great benefit of this thing taking out Mars.<br />
<br />
S: So I'm having mixed feelings about ''(unintelligible)'' It would be uber-cool in many ways, but I don't want all of NASA's probes to be destroyed. That would suck.<br />
<br />
B: In one fell swoop. Which of course, the conspiracy theorists would say, well, yeah, this was manmade. We steered the comet towards Mars to wipe out, so that our probes wouldn't run into the secret…. ''(overlapping comments)''<br />
<br />
S: What if the comet hits Cydonia? Like it hits the face on Mars.<br />
<br />
B: I was just thinking that, Steve. I was just thinking that! That would be, I really hope that doesn't happen, 'cause that would be too much of a coincidence.<br />
<br />
''(Many people talking at once – unintelligible)''<br />
<br />
GH: --put the pieces together. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we're getting there. That's our next item. So, Bob, what I read, though, was that the current estimate is that there's a 0.1 percent chance that the nucleus of the comet will directly hit Mars.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it's looking unlikely, very unlikely, even right now, before we know the obit.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: But it's not completely ruled out and who knows, these are comets and they are inherently harder to predict than asteroids.<br />
<br />
S: But even if it's not a direct hit, though, there's a good chance that the <br />
<br />
B: The comea, the coma?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the coma will pass through Mars. Essentially<br />
<br />
GH: Combover?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It'll coma over, yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: If it does hit, though, what happens to all the life force vampires that're in the comet? Are they affected by that, or is that . .. <br />
<br />
B: OOOOhhhh. Yeah, I know what you're thinking of, George.<br />
<br />
GH: Damn right.<br />
<br />
J: My vote is I don't want it to hit.<br />
<br />
B: 'Nuf said.<br />
<br />
GH: 'Nuf said.<br />
<br />
S: Jay votes no. What do you say, Evan?<br />
<br />
E: Absolutely yes. This is a once, gosh, not even once in a lifetime chance. Once in a, I don't know, species time chance, for this to happen.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I wanna see Mars split in two.<br />
<br />
S: George, what do you think?<br />
<br />
GH: I want it to hit, but I want it to hit like on the far side so we can't see it. Just to really be like Doooohhhhhhh it's so aaaaaaawwwwww. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Worst case scenario.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah, I want a massive---<br />
<br />
''(Many people talking at once – unintelligible)''<br />
<br />
S: --wipes out all our probes so we don't get to see anything.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah, this huge nerd sigh, that just is like "guuuuuhh." Yeah, that's what I want. <br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' Nerd sigh.<br />
<br />
J; Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
E: Steve, what do you want? You said no?<br />
<br />
S: I'm on the fence. No, I said I'm conflicted, very conflicted.<br />
<br />
E: Don't forget, Mars has two moons.<br />
<br />
S: Maybe it'll hit one of the moons.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that'd be cool!<br />
<br />
E: How cool would that be?<br />
<br />
J: Not cool. <br />
<br />
E: Why?<br />
<br />
J: It could hit one of the moons and send it towards the Earth and then we're all f'd.<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
B: I'll take that chance.<br />
<br />
J: Hey, come on. You never know, Steve.<br />
<br />
E: That's what happened in ''Thundarr the Barbarian.'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S; Jay, what are the names of the moons of Mars?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, there's, uh, Zero Zero One and Zero Zero Two. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Alpha and Beta.<br />
<br />
B: Deimos and Phobos.<br />
<br />
S: Phobos and Deimos, yes.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, the first one, Frankie Gismore ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: And the second one is?<br />
<br />
J: I love it when we have all guys on the show. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Sirius UFO <small>(35:31)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp9aOb04e20&list=PL6E8B33D9279BEF7B&index=1 YouTube: Dr.Steven Greer - Sirius Documentary (Trailer) - New Movie Coming Soon ! 2012]<br />
<br />
S: Hey, Evan, you're gonna tell us<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: about the Srius UFO documentary.<br />
<br />
B: Seriously.<br />
<br />
E: Very serious. We received multiple emails and messages this week about the most recent episode of the Joe Rogan Experience. Right? That's a podcast, or, it's also a vodcast, but, for those of you not familiar with him, Joe Rogan is an American martial artist, a stand-up comedian, an actor, a writer and color commentator for the Ultimate Fighting Championship mixed martial arts events. Now. Full disclosure here. I've never seen his stand-up comedy, I've never seen him act. But I've watched him a lot of times doing UFC color, he's very good at it. And now, for the first time ever, I've listened to an entire episode of his podcast. Because he had a fella on, his name is Dr. Steven Greer. And he has put together a documentary film that'll be coming out in April called ''Sirius.'' And Joe Rogan spent three hours on his podcast talking with Dr. Steven Greer.<br />
<br />
B: Wow. Three hours.<br />
<br />
E: Have you guys heard of Steven Greer before?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah. He's the head of the Disclosure Project.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. Disclosure Project and other little projects having to do with the world of UFOs. He's huge UFOlogists. He's a prominent believer and conspiracy theorist. So if you haven't heard of him before, consider yourself fortunate. So this is a conspiracy theorist's wet dream. Right? Dr. Greer has stitched together a narrative by which extra-terrestrials, they not only exist, but they are regular visitors to Earth, through space and time. And their physics-altering technologies have been co-opted by the military industrial complex in an effort to suppress the flow of free and clean energy to the people. The masses. Here on Earth.<br />
<br />
GH: Booorr-ing!<br />
<br />
E: And there's also a, but, George, there's also a shadow government. Did you know that? And it has no borders. It's the very, very powerful, a couple hundred powerful people in corporations around the planet, and they are the puppetmasters pulling the strings of society and technology. You know, they're oil barons and coal tycoons and nuclear-hungry megalomaniacs. And they want to dominate the people of Earth by not giving them access to the alien technology that would give us clean fuel and efficient means of energy. So to top it all off, the ''coup de grace,'' the icing on the cake, the smoking gun, the final nail in the coffin.<br />
<br />
S: Coup de grace ''(pronouncing the "s" sound (Evan didn't))''<br />
<br />
B: We get it.<br />
<br />
S: It's coup de gras-s-s<br />
<br />
E: Coup ''(pronouncing the "P")'' de gra-cey.<br />
<br />
S: De gracey. Coup de gracey is acceptable.<br />
<br />
E: Dr. Greer has video, photographic and physical evidence of an extra-terrestrial.<br />
<br />
S: And he'll show it to you if you pay him.<br />
<br />
E: If you pay him. Yes. But if you look at the trailer, he'll show you a little peek of it at the very end of his trailer. It's about six inches long, this little thing. It looks like a little dried-out husk of what would have otherwise been that alien from the infamous alien autopsy video back in the '90s. The one that was, you know, a full-blown hoax.<br />
<br />
B: It reminded me of the little alien driving the human body thing in ''Men in Black.'' But not as good of a prop, though, because, you know, the movie made a better prop than he did.<br />
<br />
GH: A homunculus.<br />
<br />
S: It's a homunculus.<br />
<br />
J: It's a homunculus, man.<br />
<br />
S: So, yeah, the six-inch alien is interesting. We have x-rays of it and some pictures of a skeleton. What's interesting, one thing that I find interesting is that it has every bone a human has in the right place, basically in the right shape. But it's just a little distorted. So the proportions are distorted, but all the bones pretty much are human.<br />
<br />
J: You think that that's an actual fetus corpse?<br />
<br />
S: I don't know. It could be a hundred percent a fake, just like the alien autopsy. It could be some weird<br />
<br />
B: How about a monkey, some weird monkey<br />
<br />
S: Primate.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, a primate with no fur or something, a baby one, I don't know. It's either that or it's a complete and utter hoax. It's not just a misidentification and wishful thinking and all that stuff, it's like a clear "I am going to scam people and make all this shit up."<br />
<br />
GH: I think the keychain part of it really gives it away, though. I think that's<br />
<br />
S: Keychain, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yes. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Little "Made in China" tag on it, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Am I missing something here? Like, do a DNA test on the damn thing.<br />
<br />
S: So he's claiming to be doing a DNA test.<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
S: And claiming to be examining it. But it's all "oh, we need to raise money in order to do the proper science experiments and I have some undisclosed guy in some undisclosed country doing these examinations and it's all. . . So, listening to this guy, 'cause I watched a dozen of his YouTube videos and the trailer to his movie and read some of his articles. You know, he's one of these people where I am not convinced that he's not completely full of it. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: I'm not convinced that he believes what he's saying. You know, he could believe it somewhat, he could be a total true believer, he could be a total con artist or anywhere in between. It's just, it's hard to say. But he definitely is trying very hard to make a lot of money out of what he's doing. Which doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong. But it gives him a certain vibe. He's doing things, like he has these seminars where he will train you to summon a UFO mentally.<br />
<br />
E: Yup. That's right. He knows the secret.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god, he's going to that level?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: So he's saying that he could teach you how to attract a UFO—<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: That's exactly right. He calls it, and he has a name for it, it's called coherent thought. And you use protocols from, that he describes as close encounters of the<br />
<br />
J: Wait, wait. I got it, Evan, I got it.<br />
<br />
E: fifth kind. Okay.<br />
<br />
J: George.<br />
<br />
GH: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Roll play with me, shall you?<br />
<br />
GH: All right, hit it.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>''electronic noises for about 7 seconds. They continue as background to the conversation.''<br />
Voice 1: So we have travelled a trillion years, but we will wait in the atmosphere of this planet. We will wait.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: Uh, do you think we should maybe like get in touch with the, like, world government, or something?<br />
<br />
Voice 1: No. No. No, we will wait. We will sit here and just wait.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: 'Cause you know, we've basically spend like pretty much our entire planet's resource to get this ship to this point. You know, it's<br />
<br />
Voice 1: You're young; don't be anxious. We will wait.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: If there's maybe like a president or like maybe some kind of you know, like a united nations or some organization?<br />
<br />
Voice 1: Oh look! The light on the dashboard just turned on! Somebody's summoning us.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: Is that an official kind of person that represents like a large number of people that we could then maybe, you know, have a liaison with them, or who is that representing that little dashboard light?<br />
<br />
Voice 1: This is . . . um . . . a hippie in a field in North America.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: Okay. So we're gonna travel across the known, pretty much, galaxy, to talk to, um, a hippie.<br />
<br />
''Background noise fades.''</blockquote><br />
<br />
J: Does this make sense, guys? I mean, seriously. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
''(Many people talking at once – unintelligible)''<br />
<br />
E: --Perfect sense.<br />
<br />
GH: --our production off Broadway.<br />
<br />
S: What happens, Jay, is that he points to lights in the sky and says "That's a UFO."<br />
<br />
J: Right.<br />
<br />
S: He's probably pointing at satellites.<br />
<br />
GH: It turned green, which means we can go.<br />
<br />
J: Did anybody think to ask him why are they waiting to just barely show themselves? Like, come on, how could people be this --- fooled?<br />
<br />
S: Don't ask that question.<br />
<br />
E: Well, Jay, I'm sorry you asked that, because there is kind of an answer to that.<br />
<br />
J: What?<br />
<br />
E: The aliens are here because they realize we are on the cusp of obtaining technology that can be a threat to them or to other planets . . .<br />
<br />
GH: iPhone 6<br />
<br />
E: and people on other . . . the iPhone 6, exactly. You know, with all of our nuclear capabilities and mushroom clouds, and these sorts of thing, that's why the aliens have taken an interest.<br />
<br />
S: But we've had nuclear weapons for 70 years.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, but it's not, you know, it's only a blip in time because the aliens have been visiting us for millions of years.<br />
<br />
J: Guys, guys, we're about to create warp drive.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Is that from Cochran?<br />
<br />
GH: First Contact, there you go.<br />
<br />
J: Thank you, of course.<br />
<br />
B: That's gotta be it.<br />
<br />
''(Many people talking at once – unintelligible)''<br />
<br />
GH: I don't wanna be a statue. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: This guy, the other thing that makes me very suspicious of this guy is that he's doing this "we're right on the cusp, it's happen; governments are gonna start disclosing all the real stuff; they're hiding everything from us. I just need a little bit more money and I'm gonna prove all this." I get the same vibe as the free energy people, which he is a free energy person.<br />
<br />
E: Dennis Lee. He is, yes.<br />
<br />
S: It's like we're just about to prove the free energy thing and I just need a little bit more investors to give me some more money. We'll get the DNA analysis and free energy thing and all, and everything. It's all a big conspiracy. You know, it's just hard to swallow the whole thing. <br />
<br />
GH: Was Joe Rogan at all questioning or skeptical, at all? Or was it just three hours of complete agreement and, like, do you think he completely bought into it? Or did he have him on the show to kind of just, sort of show this is a crazy guy?<br />
<br />
E: That's a great question, George. Joe had him on the show, Joe says, because his listeners demanded it.<br />
<br />
GH: Ah, okay.<br />
<br />
E: Well, not demanded, but heavily requested that this person be on the show. So that gives you an insight as to the audience of the Joe Rogan Show. But, in any case, Joe did a, better than I expected, job of asking him some questions that a good skeptic would have asked. Now here's the problem with Joe, though. And he admits this. He wants to believe that this stuff and other things like it are actually true, and therefore, he will be much, much more relaxed in his level of standards, right. His threshold by which the person has to achieve in order to convince Joe that something is right. But Joe's not a dumb person. He knows some things. And he shows that he knows some things. He knows a little bit about science and physics and so forth. And he does ask some decent questions. But at the same time, he really has, his biases do get the better of him in the end.<br />
<br />
GH: I've listened to his show. He's a very smart guy. He's a very funny guy. I liked his stand-up and I've heard a number of his podcasts, too. And on some things he can be very skeptical. His approach is actually really good. And other times he'll sort of begin just a little bit of skepticism and then there's no follow-up like at all. Like one response from a person and he just kind of stops that kind of front. And it's a shame because I bet if he had some kind of epiphany moment, I think there could be a real turnaround for him. Because he is a deductive kind of smart guy. He's not a completely credulous—from what I can tell, anyway, from the limited amount I've listened to.<br />
<br />
S: Well what I want to know is why is there a six-inch tall alien that looks more human than any alien has the right to look. That's what I want to know. Why will it have DNA, if it's alien?<br />
<br />
J: Because they seeded the Earth, Steve. Come on, there's always a good explanation.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I know. They always have their hand-waving BS explanation, but it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.<br />
<br />
B: Look at Prometheus. They were big and muscular, you know. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
GH: Don't even start on Prometheus.<br />
<br />
E: Prometheus? Oh<br />
<br />
S: George, you love that movie.<br />
<br />
GH: Love it. Love it! I have it running in a loop in my head all day long. ''(laughter)'' Ugggghh! I'm in it for the money.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, boy.<br />
<br />
E: That's a good line, from that. So, there you go. That's the latest with the, Joe and . . .<br />
<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(47:08)</small>==<br />
<br />
S: All right, so, Evan, it's time for ''Who's That Noisy?''<br />
<br />
E: Yup. I'm gonna play for you last week's noisy, and it was up to you the listening audience to guess exactly what this noisy was. Here we go.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Men's voices speaking on some kind of communicators:<br />
Person 1: You're looking a little hot and all your calls will be a little early. (Beep) Person 2: Okay. Person 3: And that looks good here.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: That is, that is a whistlepig. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: No, no, that was . . . no, we can't do that two weeks in a row. Yeah, we can't.<br />
<br />
J: We knew it was a NASA beep, communication with somebody in outer space, but we didn't know what mission. What was it?<br />
<br />
E: Well, George, what do you think? Have you heard that before somewhere?<br />
<br />
GH: That is actually the mission that the band Rush used for the song "Countdown."<br />
<br />
E: Um hmmm. That is exactly correct. STS 1. Space Shuttle Columbia.<br />
<br />
GH: Right.<br />
<br />
E: April 12, 1981. Yup. That was a little part of the communiqué going on between Mission Control and astronauts Young and Crippen in the shuttle itself.<br />
<br />
J: Awesome.<br />
<br />
GH or J: ''(singing)'' ''Excitement soo grand.''<br />
<br />
J: ''(singing)'' ''It's the final countdown.''<br />
<br />
GH: Not that one. No, no, stop it, stop it. No. Wrong hair. Wrong hair. ''(laughter)'' More kimonos, less hair.<br />
<br />
E: I'm very proud of our audience. So many correct guesses. I was very, very pleased with everyone this past week, so thank you all for playing and submitting your correct guesses. I drew randomly from all the correct guesses and Ross Rawlings, you are the winner this week, because I drew your name. So, well done, Ross.<br />
<br />
GH: Ross Rawlings! Fantastic!<br />
<br />
E: He is now in the running <br />
<br />
''George making trumpeting sounds''<br />
<br />
E: Is that ''The Dating Game?''<br />
<br />
GH: Tell him what he's won! Tell him what he's won! ''(laughter)'' ''(trumpeting continues)''<br />
<br />
E: Welllll, Ross, you are now in the running to join us for an episode of ''Science or Fiction'' on an episode of The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. We will have the drawing at the beginning of 2014. So congratulations!<br />
<br />
''(trumpeting finishes up)'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: I didn't know you carried a little bugle in your back pocket there, George. That's very handy.<br />
<br />
GH: I'm just happy to see you.<br />
<br />
E: Logic puzzle this week, ladies and gentlemen. Get your thinking caps on, and try this one: A man from the Ukraine had three sons. The first son was named Rab, and he became a lawyer.<br />
<br />
S: Isn't it Rab ''(pronouncing it "Rob")'' like Hrab?<br />
<br />
E: It's R-A-B.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: How would you pronounce that, George?<br />
<br />
GH: I would say Rob.<br />
<br />
E: Okay.<br />
<br />
GH: If he's Ukrainian. And don't say "The Ukraine," just say "Ukraine."<br />
<br />
E: Oh, okay. Sorry 'bout that. <br />
<br />
S: A man from The France. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
GH: Exactly. The France, yeah. Or, The England.<br />
<br />
E: A man from The Hague had three sons.<br />
<br />
S: Go ahead, Evan. Get it right this time.<br />
<br />
E: A man from Ukraine had three sons. The first son was named Rab, and he became a lawyer. The second son was named Ymra, and he became a soldier. The 3rd son became a sailor, so, what was his name? <br />
<br />
S: Got it.<br />
<br />
E: So, go ahead, give us your answer to that logic puzzle. wtn@theskepticsguide.org is the email. Or you can post it on the forums at sguforums.com. Tune up your thinking caps. Good luck, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Thanks, Evan.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Question 1: Magnet Hill <small>(50:26)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: We have a few questions this week. I don't know if we'll get through all of them, but let's start with this one. This one comes from Jonathan Nonon from New York, and Jonathan writes:<br />
<br />
<blockquote> I am a Software Engineer originally from Dominican Republic,</blockquote><br />
<br />
Is it ''The'' Dominican Republic?<br />
<br />
<blockquote>I have been a listener of the show since 2010, and every week I am looking forward to a new SGU chapter. When I was a kid (I am 28) </blockquote><br />
<br />
He's still a kid.<br />
<br />
<blockquote> back in the DR, a journalist made an investigation about a "Magnetic Pole" in one remote corner of the country, Barahona, in the south east of the island. It always puzzled me. The place looks like a hill, however, everything you place in the ground "rolls" in the opposite direction, uphill. All objects, no matter what material they are, the are pulled upwards. You can look at dozens of videos on youtube by searching the string "polo magnetico barahona" [Magnetic Pole Barahona] The common and most simple explanation is that the place is an optical illusion. Is not that I do not believe it, I do not understand it. I have been looking for explanations, but none of them satisfy my curiosity. In my little research, I didn't find any other place where this phenomenon is happening. If you can explain this phenomenon I will appreciate it. </blockquote><br />
<br />
J: This phenomenon was one of the first ones that I debunked on my own. I figured it out by myself and I was really proud of myself. It was a long time ago. Thank you. So, it's known by many names, and there are hundreds of locations around the world that have this thing happening. But first, these are called, they're known by different terms: gravity hill, magnetic hill, spooky mystery hill, mystery spot or gravity road, there's lots of different names, different um, it's funny but<br />
<br />
E: Sounds like an episode of Scooby Doo or something, right?<br />
<br />
J: Different interpretations of the names that these places get around the world all revolve around that them. Something about a road or a hill being magnetic or spooky.<br />
<br />
GH: ''(in a southern accent)'' Fried Hill. Chicken Hill. ''(unintelligible)'' Spooky Hill.<br />
<br />
J: Whistlepig Hill.<br />
<br />
GH: Whistlepig Hill. That's about it.<br />
<br />
J: So, these places are where the lay of the land produces an optical illusion. The emailer was absolutely correct. Typically, these are roads that have a tiny downhill slope but happen to appear like they're going uphill. A common test that you'll see someone do on YouTube is they'll turn their car off, put it in neutral, and then they take their foot off the gas and the break and everything. No interaction, and the car just starts rolling, it looks like uphill. The illusion is another example that people are easy to fool because of the way our senses work, and we've talked about this on the show before. The way our senses construct reality is happening incredibly fast in our brain. Our brain's constantly trying to make sense of what it sees. Like, what cues do we use to tell spatially how big things are, how far things are, and what their orientation is compared to everything else that we're seeing. And our brain has to make decisions with the information that it has in front of them. And also taking into account or effecting what you're seeing is your bias, your pre-conceived notions of how things are supposed to behave. So in this case, typically when we are outside and trying to orient ourselves, the horizon comes into play, particular in a case like this where there's something going uphill or downhill and we need to know spatially where it is in comparison to where we are. The other big thing is the angle of the trees and the surrounding hills and the land. It can and does happen, like I said there's hundreds of places around the world this is, where it actually looks the opposite of what the land is actually doing, which is weird, I know, but it does happen, and thousands upon millions of people have been fooled over the years at these locations. But that's it. Magicians use the fact that we are susceptible to illusions to fool us all the time. You can go on YouTube and fall prey to illusions that even on a 2D screen. We're that susceptible to them. And that is the explanation, even though we'd like to think that there's something cool going on; you know, there's some type of cosmic thing that's reversing the magnetic forces: nope, sorry, it's just your eyes playing tricks on you.<br />
<br />
E: It's not a vortex.<br />
<br />
S: The magnetic thing doesn't even make sense because things that are not ferro-magnetic are also affected.<br />
<br />
E: Plastic bottles. That's right.<br />
<br />
S: It would have to be a gravity phenomenon; there's an anti-gravity field, or something, there. Cyclists, bike riders, know about this phenomenon. You know what they call it?<br />
<br />
J: Something slope, or<br />
<br />
S: It's called a false flat.<br />
<br />
J: False flat. There you go.<br />
<br />
S: So when it looks like you're on a level field, but you're actually slightly going uphill, and so it's harder, so if you don't account for that, you may get tuckered out because you think; you're actually pedaling uphill and you don't realize it because the optical illusion looks flat.<br />
<br />
GH: My dad, years ago, like when I was kid and we would drive in the Lincoln Tunnel to get into New York City, or the Holland Tunnel. The first third of the tunnel, you're going at a pretty decent angle sort of downwards, but there's no sense of it because you're in this tunnel. He would put the car in neutral and he would sort of say, are we flat right now? What do you think is our position right now? And I would say, Yeah, we're totally flat, like it just feels like all of a sudden we're totally level; and he put the car in neutral, it just rolled down until you get to the bottom, where it flattens out, where the car would then slow, and then it would sort of, you know, you would notice that you're going now uphill on that last part of it. That was the first time as a kid that this perception thing, was like, you don't trust what you're seeing; don't trust what you're feeling, don't trust what you're seeing necessarily.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I've noticed that in long tunnels as well. You lose your perspective. 'Cause it's all relative. It's hard to know if you're going down or going up. <br />
<br />
GH: 'Cause there's no horizon. It's that false horizon. Which is also my favorite Schwartzenegger film.<br />
<br />
J: ''(In an Austrian accent)'' False horizon.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, god.<br />
<br />
GH: ''(In an Austrian accent)'' This movie everything rolls uphill. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Question 2: Tourette <small>(56:27)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was recently in a discussion about Tourette Syndrome and, to get to get quickly to the point, minor forms of said syndrome. It was my assertion that minor forms where more akin to compulsion or in more extreme cases OCD, and that Tourette was specifically an extreme. I remember you touching shortly on this on the SGU and searched your Blogs to see if you had written anything more in depth, to no avail. I was hoping that you could give me a short rundown on the "mechanics" to help me better understand what is going on with this phenomenon. If you would like to answer on the air I would be honored, but a small Email response is really all I am after here. Faithful listener, keep up the good work, etc.<br/><br />
Woody</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:06:04)</small> ==<br />
[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/osoa-idh022613.php Item #1]: Greater than 60% of upstream traffic is comprised of torrent files, while Netflix by itself represents 1/3 of peak download traffic. [http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/photos/how-25-tech-companies-got-their-names-slideshow/amazon-holds-news-conference-photo--982673090.html Item #2]: Amazon.com benefitted from the popularity of the Yahoo search engine, which listed search results alphabetically. [http://royal.pingdom.com/2013/01/16/internet-2012-in-numbers/ Item #3]: North America has the highest internet penetration at 78.6%, while Africa has the lowest at 15.6%. [http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blemtax2.htm Item #4]: In 1999 Congressman Peter Schnell proposed House Bill 602P allowing the US postal service to charge a 5cent surcharge for each e-mail sent. The bill died in response to public outrage.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:22:01)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Neither evolution nor creation qualifies as a scientific theory.</blockquote><br />
Duane Gish<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS <small>(1:23:06)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_399&diff=6694SGU Episode 3992013-06-01T01:13:56Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 399<br />
|episodeDate = 9<sup>th</sup> March 2013<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mars-comet-NASA-JPL-600x328.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|guest1 = GH: George Hrab<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-09.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=399<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45268.0.html<br />
|qowText = Neither evolution nor creation qualifies as a scientific theory.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish Duane Gish]<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today March 6, 2013, and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: 400!<br />
<br />
S: Evan Bernstein,<br />
<br />
E: Good evening, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: And we have a special guest rogue with us this evening, George Hrab. George, welcome back.<br />
<br />
GH: This isn't ''The Price is Right''! Jay, you lied to me. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: What else is new?<br />
<br />
J: No, but this is our 400th!<br />
<br />
S: No, it's not, Jay. Next week is our 400th episode.<br />
<br />
GH: 399!<br />
<br />
J: 399!<br />
<br />
E: 399! And that's a bargain.<br />
<br />
S: We're not round number bigots here, anyway. That's all superstitious nonsense.<br />
<br />
GH: Roundists. You're all roundists.<br />
<br />
S: So, Rebecca's voice is still recovering from whatever infection she had. So she is again not with us this week. But George will be taking her place and speaking in falsetto the entire show.<br />
<br />
GH: ''(starting high pitched, dropping to low)'' Y-e-e-e-s. I'm so skeptical. ''(normal voice)'' It's not a Rebecca impression. It's not a Rebecca impression at all. ''(laughter)'' We got that. All right. Good.<br />
<br />
J: So we were just talking before the show, like, saying hi to George and everything, and it occurred to me I wanted to ask George this question. George, ever listening, you ever listen to a podcast—<br />
<br />
GH: ''(in a Russian accent)'' Ever listenink to ''(unintelligible)'' Oh, sorry. Go ahead. So, have I ever listened to what?<br />
<br />
J: Has this ever happened where you're listening to a show that you've recorded, and somebody says your name in the podcast, and you answer them in real time? Like, it just happened to me two days ago. I was listening to one of our shows, and Steve says "So, Jay," and I actually go "Yeah." I'm like wh-o-o-o-a. He's not in the car with me! I'm not on the phone with him. I'm hearing him in the podcast.<br />
<br />
GH: I don't listen to my show 'cause I don't really like my show.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: But sound effects that I've done before have scared the hell out of me. I'll forget that I inserted an airplane or something, and it'll scare the crap out of me. ''(laughter)'' Or like a doorbell sound or something, yeah. But I don't actually, because I'm the only person on my show, for me to respond to myself as if I was actually talking to myself, I think would be indicative of something really scary and awesome. <br />
<br />
J: All right, that is a good point.<br />
<br />
GH: But, I respond to ''(two people talking – undecipherable)'' And if I listen to this show, I'll make sure that every time you say "Hey, George" no matter where I am, I'll say "What? Oh, damn!" ''(laughter)'' What? Oh, damn!<br />
<br />
E: With a head turn, right?<br />
<br />
''(two people talking—inaudible – something about Scooby-Doo)''<br />
<br />
GH: ''(imitating Scooby)'' Erh?<br />
<br />
B: Scooby snack.<br />
<br />
S: Hey George!<br />
<br />
GH: Erh?<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(2:45)</small> ==<br />
March 9, 1851: Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted died. &Oslash;rsted was a Danish physicist and chemist who discovered current traveling along a wire could deflect a compass needle.<br />
<br />
S: Evan is gonna tell us about this day in skepticism.<br />
<br />
E: All right. So, March 9, and the year was 1851. Now, we all know who Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted was<br />
<br />
B: ''(singing)'' Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted.<br />
<br />
J: I have no idea who he is.<br />
<br />
E: Well, he was a Danish. Oh, I'm sorry, wait, he was a Danish physicist<br />
<br />
S: And delicious.<br />
<br />
GH: I sing.<br />
<br />
E: Who made a discovery. He discovered that an electric current in a wire causes a nearby magnetized compass needle to deflect, indicating the electric current in a wire induces a magnetic field around it.<br />
<br />
B: That is awesome.<br />
<br />
J: That is awesome.<br />
<br />
B: You could just retire after making that discovery. I'm done. I've made my contribution.<br />
<br />
E: A little electro-magnetic theory for you, then?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah, but how do you monotize that. I mean, that's the problem. What d'ya do with that? What kind of invention could that possibly lead to? ''(people talking simultaneously)''<br />
<br />
B: It's just a laboratory curiosity. Nothing to see here.<br />
<br />
GH: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: It took like a hundred years for them to slap one of those suckers in a bracelet. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
GH: And then you get the real money.<br />
<br />
E: A bracelet made of, perhaps, aluminum. Hey! Speaking of aluminum<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so<br />
<br />
E and B: Aluminium.<br />
<br />
S: &Oslash;rsted also was the first one to produce metallic aluminum. Do you guys know how common—<br />
<br />
B: As opposed to rubber aluminum?<br />
<br />
S: No, as opposed an aluminum oxide or aluminum silicate. So, aluminum is the third most abundant element in the Earth's crust. And I know you guys all know that<br />
<br />
E: The third most?<br />
<br />
B: I used to know that, yes.<br />
<br />
S: After oxygen and silicon, which is why there's lots of aluminum oxides and aluminum silicate. And he figured out how to make metallic aluminum. Although it was up to later chemists to figure out how to really industrialize that process. If you recall, we talked about the fact that when aluminum was first available as a metal, it was more expensive than gold.<br />
<br />
B: I recall nothing.<br />
<br />
S: It was considered a rare and exotic metal and things made out of aluminum were like a status symbol. But then later chemists figured out how to make massive quantities of it, just from dirt, basically, and, you know, from bauxites, specifically.<br />
<br />
J: Did these scientists like cash in at that moment? Like, okay, I figured out how to make it, it's everywhere.<br />
<br />
E: Let's sell it now.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, did somebody become a trillionaire for like the first three years or what happened?<br />
<br />
S: American Aluminum, you know, I think was the company that became very wealthy mass producing aluminum. And the price went from hundreds of dollars an ounce to pennies a pound.<br />
<br />
J: Oof.<br />
<br />
GH: See, Alcoa shouldn't have waited.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, Alcoa, that's it.<br />
<br />
E: Bad investment.<br />
<br />
J: Guess I shouldn't have invested in that company early on.<br />
<br />
S: Well, you shouldn't have invested in aluminum. The company did quite well, actually. Now, did you also know that Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted was a very close friend of Hans Christian Andersen.<br />
<br />
B: Seriously?<br />
<br />
J: That's what I was gonna say.<br />
<br />
GH: No way.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, and I actually don't know exactly who Hans Christian Andersen is or was. What's his deal? Who's that guy?<br />
<br />
B: Come on, Jay.<br />
<br />
E: He wrote stories.<br />
<br />
B: It's Danny Kaye!<br />
<br />
E: That's right. Danny Kaye. He wrote Thumbelina,<br />
<br />
GH: The Little Mermaid.<br />
<br />
J: Did he sing The Little Mermaid?<br />
<br />
GH: I think he played the crab in the movie, actually. ''(laughter)'' Oh, aluminum.<br />
<br />
S: He wrote famous fairy tales. But, so, how did these guys meet? Like at a Hans Christian organization or something?<br />
<br />
E: Convention?<br />
<br />
B: I know. Famous People Named Hans Christian.<br />
<br />
GH: That was a Facebook page, wasn't it? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Did they get each other's mail, or what happened?<br />
<br />
J: My money's on the fact that maybe like half the population is just named Hans Christian something.<br />
<br />
S: Maybe.<br />
<br />
B: I think it's a coincidence.<br />
<br />
E: And March 9, 1851, was the day that we lost Hans &Oslash;rsted. Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted. So, we mourned Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted on this day. But thank you so much for all that electro-magnetism. It is doing us wonders these days.<br />
<br />
S: And aluminum. Yep.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that too.<br />
<br />
S: So George, before we go on to news items, what's new with you?<br />
<br />
GH: What's new? Goodness. Uh, what isn't? Actually, it's a short list. The newest thing is a number of you rogues were at the 21812 concert that happened last year.<br />
<br />
B: Yes! Loved it!<br />
<br />
GH: We are furiously, furiously editing and putting together what looks to be just an incredible DVD of that performance, which is audio mixing. I was at Slau's yesterday, as a matter of fact. So the audio mixing is done. A monumental effort, and now the video is being edited, and there's gonna be commentary and a documentary and it's gonna be really, really fantastic. So that is the thing which is occupying the most frontal part of my frontal creative lobe right now, is the 21812 concert.<br />
<br />
B: It only took you a year!<br />
<br />
J: When's it coming out?<br />
<br />
GH: I know, I know, I know, I know. Weeks. Months? Weeks. Well, I guess months are made up of weeks, so I'm not lying in either direction. But, weeks.<br />
<br />
S: As long as it's more than one month, right.<br />
<br />
GH: Hmm? Right.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== HIV Cure <small>(7:49)</small> ===<br />
[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/hiv-cure-game-changer/ Neurologica: HIV Cure "Game Changer"]<br />
<br />
S: So I have some ''good news'' everyone. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Excellent.<br />
<br />
J: What's up?<br />
<br />
S: Did you hear about the girl who was cured, ''cured'' of HIV?<br />
<br />
B: Despite this, or in spite of, the incompetence of her mom, apparently.<br />
<br />
S: Her mother appears to be troubled. I don't know if incompetence is her problem or if it's other things, but, so . . . Here's the story. The mother, who was HIV infected, presented for delivery with apparently no prenatal care, and delivered a child, who was positive for HIV within 30 hours of being born. So almost certainly infected in utero. The doctor was consulted, an HIV infectious disease specialist at the time was consulted on the case. Not really sure why, but decided to treat the child earlier than is typically treated. So at 31 hours, the infant was treated with anti-retroviral therapy. And also, she decided to give the infant<br />
<br />
B: Extra.<br />
<br />
S: Well, not extra, so therapeutic doses as opposed to preventive, or prophylactic doses.<br />
<br />
E: What's the difference?<br />
<br />
S: It's a higher dose. So a therapeutic dose is meant to treat an existing infection, whereas a preventive dose is meant to prevent an exposure from establishing itself as an infection.<br />
<br />
B: You can call that extra, I think.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, she gave the higher dose, the therapeutic dose.<br />
<br />
B: Extra.<br />
<br />
GH: Not the gum, but the actual medicine, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the anti-retroviral therapy. ART.<br />
<br />
GH: 'Cause that would be something, if extra gum cured AIDS. That would be, wow.<br />
<br />
S: This is Hannah Gay. A pediatric infectious disease specialist. And the child was treated with ART for the first 18 months of life, or thereabouts. At that point she was lost to follow-up, as we say. Stopped being brought back in by the mother for treatment. Now, Dr. Gay diligently tracked down the mother and the child, through the police, in order to bring the child back in for health care. So now, it was like seven or eight months the child has been getting no medication. The mother was going through some kind of life situation. Apparently has a lot of challenges. And not giving the kid their medicine. Not bringing them in to doctor's visits. So Dr. Gay at this point thought, okay, so now we have a two-year-old who has gone six, seven, eight months with no medication therapy. Their viral loads are gonna be off the charts. <br />
<br />
B: Right, because typically what happens, Steve, is when you're taking, when you're going through that process, the viruses pretty much just go into hiding, right? They just like say screw it, I'm just gonna hang out and wait til the weather's better and then once you stop it, bam! They come out. And that's what he expected.<br />
<br />
S: She, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Dr. Gay, that's what Gay expected.<br />
<br />
S: What typically happens is, in an HIV-infected individual, if they're treated with ART, then the viral loads will drop to undetectable levels. But the virus still lives on in the body, in these hidden reservoirs. As you say, they go into hiding. And these reservoirs are isolated from the immune system so that they can persist despite the retroviral therapy, and if you stopped the retroviral therapy, anti-retroviral therapy, then the infection would come back, would rebound. Because of these reservoirs. So, checked out the child, did the viral loads, they were still undetectable. There was no sign of HIV in the child at all. Went back to check everything. So now she things, all right, there's something interesting going on here. She checked a number of things. She got other specialists involved as well. First they confirmed that yes, she was indeed infected with HIV as a newborn. They confirmed that. Two, that the strain of HIV is a wild type strain that's not some mutated strain, it's not a weakened strain. It's a regular strain of HIV. Three, they tested the mother and the child to see if they happened to have a genetic type that makes them resistant to HIV, 'cause there are people out there who are naturally resistant to HIV. And they did not. So they did not have any of the known forms of resistance.<br />
<br />
B: Three great tests. So it's like, yeah. It didn't occur to me that they should do that but when I read it I'm like, oh, of course, that's exactly what you would need to do to really be secure in your conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Well, plus, I think, at this point that they were planning on publishing. And of course you want to get all your ducks in a row if you do that.<br />
<br />
B: Right, right.<br />
<br />
S: And in fact they did present this case at a conference and reported all these details. So essentially they discovered that she was infected, it was a normal virus, they're not resistant, and even six, seven months after stopping ART the virus never rebounded. They're calling this a functional cure. A functional cure. Not an outright cure, I think because a couple of, they did really, really sensitive tests for HIV, RNA and DNA and a couple of these tests showed rally miniscule little remnants of RNA or DNA.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but didn't they describe them as non-functional, or they did not have the ability to reproduce?<br />
<br />
S: They are not replication competent.<br />
<br />
B: That's what it was.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they are not replication competent. But I guess it means it's not completely, completely, completely out of the system. But what it does mean is that the virus will not rebound. It is not established. There's no active reservoirs of the virus. And the child will be able to live their life without the need for further ART, or anti-retroviral therapy.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. So we're not looking at some state of remission that's currently going on?<br />
<br />
S: Well, remission is not an unreasonable term to use. It's a remission without medication, without needing further medication or treatment. Functional cure is the specific term that they used. This is only the second case of any human being who was known to be infected with HIV who then was cured. The first one was a gentleman who got a bone marrow transplant in Germany from a donor who was HIV resistant. And they were apparently cured by that bone marrow transplant. Basically given a new immune system resistant to the HIV. This is now the second case.<br />
<br />
J: Does this help the world, Steve? Can we use this information in any way?<br />
<br />
B: Well, shit yeah. Look at the children born with AIDS like in Africa. I mean, the United States it's not so much of a huge deal as it is in Africa. But Jay, there's like, the statistic was crazy, it was like thousands of kids per pico-second in Africa.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, but my question is: does that case, the second case, of this child, does it actually help scientists figure out how to use that to make some type of cure?<br />
<br />
S: So here's the bottom line<br />
<br />
GH: We have to weaponize the baby, I think. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: The stats are about 130 children per year develop HIV from their mother in the United States. But it's about a thousand children per day world-wide in developing countries. So that's a lot. That's a thousand kids per day.<br />
<br />
GH: Why is that woman having so many children? ''(laughter)'' I'm sorry. Sorry.<br />
<br />
S: What this suggests is that the standard of care for treating newborns born of infected mothers might be, rather than giving prophylactic doses, but to give, would be to give therapeutic doses earlier, to try to prevent the virus from ever establishing an infection. Which seems to be the case here. The virus never got itself established. Here's the trick, though, is that, I mean, it's gotta be studied, is the case. This is an anecdote, right? It's interesting, but it's one case. And it's hard to extrapolate from that. So this will lead to research looking at this approach to show that it's safe, to show that it's effective. What's going to be tricky, so let's you get a hundred kids, or 200 kids, 100 you give the standard therapy. The other hundred you give this early aggressive therapy. You track 'em over a few years. To really know that the children have been functionally cured, you would want to actually stop their ART. That's gonna be tricky to do.<br />
<br />
E: That's tough.<br />
<br />
S: Ethically, how are you gonna do that? We're not gonna give you proof in therapy to see how you're doing. So, the best they could hope to do would be to follow a lot of children and then track those whose parents stopped giving them the medication due to non-compliance or whatever. Like in this case. You know, you can't randomly choose people not to get treatment just to see how they do. That's the definition of unethical research. But you may be able to track cases where the children stopped getting their drugs for one reason or another and see how they do. And maybe you can gather enough information from that to say okay, it's reasonable in these cases with these outcomes to reduce the medication, see how they do, maybe wean them off, tracking them carefully. So it's not gonna instantly lead to replicating this exact treatment paradigm, but it will, I think, probably it'll lead to studying this higher, more aggressive, early treatment, which may lead to curing infants who otherwise would have been infected with HIV. But this is using drugs that are already in existence to treat HIV. This is not a new treatment or a new cure. This is not a cure for people in whom infection is already established. You might think that maybe the same applies if you, let's say, get exposed to HIV. Again, instead of getting preventive doses, maybe even as an adult, you would be given therapeutic doses right away. <br />
<br />
''(inaudible comment by GH)''<br />
<br />
J: When you say "therapeutic doses" you mean a large, large amount. <br />
<br />
S: Well, the doses that are normally given to people with HIV infection, as opposed to preventive doses, which are doses given to people who have been exposed but who are not infected. In order to reduce the risk of the exposure resulting in an infection.<br />
<br />
GH: When I read the story, it was amazing. And I remember one of the first things that popped into my head was the idea that the kid at one point was outside of the care of the hospital, whether that was seven months, or whatever it was.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: And that someone is going to latch onto something the kid did in those seven months and say that ''that'' is the actual cure.<br />
<br />
B: Ohhhhh, wow.<br />
<br />
GH: You what I mean, like Fruit Loops or something. And they're gonna say "Yeah, the fact that she had Fruit Loops!" Forget the hospital. It was the Fruit Loops that cured. Here's proof! Like that was the first, the woo radar warning system that I have installed in my brain, was like, oh man, okay, let no one take advantage of those seven months where the kid was outside of supervised care to claim that that's some kind of secret cure.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah. I didn't even think of that.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I agree.<br />
<br />
S: I haven't heard anything about it yet, but that's always a risk. There was a lot of sensational reporting of this story.<br />
<br />
GH: Wh-a-a-t?<br />
<br />
S: It's fascinating enough as it is. What I always, my radar goes up, we talk about the skeptical radar, my skeptical radar always goes up whenever I see the word "cure" in the headline of any article. Especially when it's connected to AIDS or cancer or the common cold or whatever.<br />
<br />
B: Acne.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. There are certain things where it's like, really? You mean, no, we did not cure AIDS, I'm sorry, we did not cure HIV. This is a very interesting case and has implications for research and for treatment. But no, this isn't the discovery of a cure for HIV.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, so what if a parent has AIDS. They have a kid, and they're like, I want my kid to get a therapeutic dose asap? What can they do? 'Cause that's what I would do.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Enter a trial, enter a clinical trial in which that is being done and take your chance that you'll get randomized, getting it.<br />
<br />
J: Is it hard to get into a trial?<br />
<br />
S: Well, right now, none exists. But I'm sure<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that's just it.<br />
<br />
S: It'll take time to get them up and running. I don't know how many and how many people are gonna be introduced. So, probably in the U.S., given that the number is so low, number of kids who get infected this way because of pre-natal care, etc. 'Cause you know, normally what you would do is aggressively treat the mother, get the viral loads down as low as possible so the risk of the so-called vertical transmission from mother to child is minimized. This mother didn't do that, that's probably why the child was infected. So, this is the exact people who are going to end up infected as an infant are the ones that are going to be difficult to recruit, and there aren't that many of them. So it's probably gonna be more, it's gonna be hard to get people into this trial as opposed to people having a hard time getting into such trials. You know what I mean? If you're the kind of parent who is going to seek out that kind of aggressive care, you're probably not the kind of parent who is going to give birth to an infected child in the first place. Does that make sense?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah; where's the father through all this, I wonder?<br />
<br />
S: No mention in anything.<br />
<br />
GH: I wonder what his situation is.<br />
<br />
S: Obviously the doctors are being confidential, keeping confidential the personal details. They're just saying she had some life situation that intervened, but we have no idea what that was. But clearly she's troubled.<br />
<br />
B: It still won't be an outright cure because if you have the infection, this won't work, but for people who just get it, it will a cure for them. There—<br />
<br />
S: Well, remember, she was treated at 30 hours of life.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: How many people don't we even find out that they've been exposed until—<br />
<br />
B: That's it.<br />
<br />
S: --days later. So, one example would be a health care worker who stabs themself with an HIV-infected needle.<br />
<br />
B: Yup. Perfect example.<br />
<br />
S: You would be in the clinic in 15 minutes. In fact, I did that to myself once. Not with an HIV<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
E; Oh, my gosh.<br />
<br />
S: Not with an HIV-infected needle. But I stuck myself with a Hep C needle.<br />
<br />
J: How'd you do it?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, man, I hate when that happens.<br />
<br />
GH: Did you lose a bet?<br />
<br />
S: No. It was an accident. I did what I wasn't supposed to. I recapped the needle, the needle went right through the cap and into my finger.<br />
<br />
E: Geez.<br />
<br />
J: And you were right in front of a patient?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: What'd you do?<br />
<br />
S: I finished what I was doing. I went to the health services and got two huge needles of gamma globulin injected into my buttocks.<br />
<br />
E: Gamma globulin?<br />
<br />
J: Wait a second. Wait, wait, wait, wait.<br />
<br />
B: One per cheek?<br />
<br />
S: Yup.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, I have to ask more detail. Did you keep your composure?<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
J: Like, did you do "Oh, holy shit!!" Like run out of there. <br />
<br />
GH: Like ''We're all gonna die!!!''<br />
<br />
J: ''Give me those ass needles!!'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: On panic day? Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it was not panic day. Unlike today.<br />
<br />
J: Were you embarrassed? Were you shameful, like going to some guy sitting at a desk and you're like "Um…"<br />
<br />
S: Yes, I was stupid. Yea. It was dumb. I was a medical student.<br />
<br />
J: Did they say anything to you. Like did they make you feel really weird?<br />
<br />
S: No. No.<br />
<br />
B: Steve's heart rate increased by two beats per minute.<br />
<br />
E: Were they messing with you? "Oh, we gotta do a biopsy, and now we're gonna do this. Gotta do that."<br />
<br />
S: No. They're my physician now. They acted totally professional.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, put this in a little context. Hepatitis C. How bad we talkin'?<br />
<br />
S: That's bad. Like a chronic liver infection. It would be very bad. And yes, I got, the treatment for that is gamma globulin, so it like pooled antibodies. And it's a huge dose.<br />
<br />
B: Is it a bolus? They call that a bolus?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: If they give you enough of that gamma globulin, Steve, can you turn into the Hulk? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: The first injection was very painful. The second injection was ten times as painful. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, but ten times!<br />
<br />
S: It was so much more painful! And the reason for that probably<br />
<br />
GH: It's not supposed to go in your penis. That's the problem. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: We gotta get this in here!<br />
<br />
GH: A really long needle.<br />
<br />
S: When you get the first injection your body excretes chemicals which sort of prime it for pain, and so then when you get the second injection, it has a huge exaggerated local response to the injection.<br />
<br />
B: Thank you, body, isn't that convenient?<br />
<br />
E: Well, okay<br />
<br />
J: Why's that happening?<br />
<br />
E: They should give you both needles at once. One, two, three, jab.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I don't know what would be worse.<br />
<br />
J: That's crazy.<br />
<br />
E: Two at once. Two needles at once.<br />
<br />
S: But this was, whatever, twenty years ago, so, I know I'm out of the window. And never had a problem from it.<br />
<br />
GH: Are you sure?<br />
<br />
E: No Hep C.<br />
<br />
S: I could definitely imagine the panic of jabbing yourself with an HIV-infected needle. That would be panic time.<br />
<br />
J: It just shows you how dangerous health care is. I mean, these professionals—<br />
<br />
S: This was also, this was not in the early, early days, but, this was earlier in the whole HIV situation. So, you know, the protocols for preventing these things were not as well established. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: They had you rub garlic on the wound. Prayer beads and whatever.<br />
<br />
S: The needle that I was using at that time doesn't even exist now, really. Everything is made to prevent this from happening. Anyway, let's move on.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Mars Comet <small>(24:49)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/5349/20130304/newly-discovered-comet-hit-mars-watch-two-others-near-earth.htm Newly Discovered Comet May Hit Mars: Watch for Two Others Near Earth]<br />
<br />
S: Bob, you're gonna tell us about the comet that's going to smack right into Mars.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
B: You guys remember I recently mentioned that this would be remembered maybe as the Year of the Asteroid. But not I think it will be, in retrospect, in the future, considered the Year of the Asteroid/Comet. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Slash comet.<br />
<br />
B: Slash comet. The big news in recent days is not only do we have the Pan Stars comet, which will be visible in mid-March 2013<br />
<br />
E: Can't wait.<br />
<br />
B: And also the Ison comet, which could be awesome. Very bright, in November 2013. But we also have the Sliding Spring, an oddly named comet which could potentially hit the planet Mars in October 2014; not quite this year, but coming up relatively soon. So that is kind of exciting, I think. It's not the Earth, so it's all good. This new comet was discovered January 3 this year, 2013, by famous comet hunter Robert McNaught. He actually has 74 comets on his resume.<br />
<br />
E: Wow!<br />
<br />
B: So how cool is that?<br />
<br />
J: Bob, does he hang them on the wall like a plaque?<br />
<br />
B; ''(laughing)'' Yeah, right. I would. I would create a little comet for every one that I discovered. And he also discovered asteroids. This guy's very prolific. He gets a gold star.<br />
<br />
S: Did he discover that asteroids exist?<br />
<br />
B: No. Just discovered asteroids.<br />
<br />
E: The game ''Asteroids."<br />
<br />
S: Specific asteroids.<br />
<br />
B: Yes. So this is like, apparently this is a new, or virgin, comet. Never having been in our local area of the solar system before. And I think they believe this is because of the eccentricity of its orbit, after it was ejected for the Oort Cloud of billions of comets that are in orbit about a light year, I think, from the Sun.<br />
<br />
S: Yup.<br />
<br />
B: Billions and billions of these guys and occasionally one will come careening in.<br />
<br />
S: ''(imitating Carl Sagan)'' Billions and billions.<br />
<br />
B: Billions, yes. <br />
<br />
E; That's about a Sagan.<br />
<br />
GH: A virgin comet has no tail.<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: ''(unintelligible)'' no comets, tell no tales.<br />
<br />
B: So, ah, so<br />
<br />
S: Tough crowd.<br />
<br />
J: George, don't laugh.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, George is grabbing his tie as we speak, right?<br />
<br />
S: We're laughing on the inside.<br />
<br />
GH: I was all excited. ''(unintelligible)'' Zilch. Loser.<br />
<br />
B: That's all right. You had some good ones so far, at least. So the big question, in my mind, is is this sucker gonna hit Mars? And the answer is: nobody knows, not yet anyway. Some projections put the comet within 23 to 63,000 miles away from Mars at its closest approach. That's 37 to about 100,000 kilometers away.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, Bob. The orbitors we've got; I'm sorry, the orbitor we have, we have one? Or more than one around Mars? Is it gonna be close enough that it's gonna be able to capture this thing for us? Are we gonna get a good view of it?<br />
<br />
B: It depends, actually, on various variables. But yeah, they could potentially get a really view of this. Although there are certain things that could make it not as awesome as it could be. Depending the various factors of the approach and things. But, as you know though, as we've talked about this, the estimates of the future positions of these objects are very difficult, 'cause you need to take a nice long look at its orbit so that you can accurately extrapolate, right? And one I wasn't quite aware of , though, is that this is even more problematic with comets, because, think about it; you've got these frozen gases on this comet; they heat up because it's getting closer to the sun, and then they explosively sublimate. They turn from ice to gas very quickly. And so it's like these little geysers that are erupting on the comet, and this, of course, is what creates the tail. That can change the orbit, as you can imagine these little geysers erupting. That could subtly, I mean not a lot, but it can change the orbit of the comet a tiny bit.<br />
<br />
S: Like little jets.<br />
<br />
B: And, right, and enough, this thing is gonna be so close to Mars as it is, that it could actually make it hit it or even miss it by even a greater distance. So right now, we really won't know until probably the earliest, I think, is late summer. It's when we can confident of what's gonna happen. Chances are, unfortunately, it's not gonna hit. Well, I guess it depends how you look at it. But if it did hit. Whoa. I mean, we're talking megahit. This thing's five to thirty miles across. This thing will be coming in at about, say, 55 kilometers, or 33 miles per second.<br />
<br />
GH: Geez.<br />
<br />
B: I mean this thing'll be coming in so fast. That is kinetic energy. They're talking, the impact equivalent of a billion megatons, that's a petaton. Equivalent to a one petaton nuke.<br />
<br />
S: Bob, you like petatons?<br />
<br />
B: I love petatons. They're awesome!<br />
<br />
S: You're a petaphile?! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good one. Go for the easy ones, Steve, that was good.<br />
<br />
E: See, Bob. There is the horizon. Did you see it coming?<br />
<br />
B: That's with a "t" by the way, not a "d." Now, that's millions of times bigger than anything that we've ever detonated. We're talking about a crater that could be hundreds of miles or kilometers across. It would be totally devastating. But that would be cool.<br />
<br />
''(unintelligible – several people talking at once.)''<br />
<br />
B: I want this thing to hit Mars so bad. But, and I want one of our rovers to have a safe front-row seat to film this entire thing. But the problem is, I don't think there's, there won't be anywhere safe on the planet. Even if it was on the other side. This thing can be so devastating. It could take out every probe on the planet or in orbit. It won't matter where you are. It could wipe out everything. And that would clearly suck.<br />
<br />
S: Would it be worth it, though, to get the video?<br />
<br />
B: Think about the time and effort and future science that we would be getting out of these things, all wiped in an hour. Bam! Game over, you're done. But, yeah, the video, the YouTube video that came out of that would be epic. Totally epic.<br />
<br />
J: Is that gonna ruin the geologic history of Mars?<br />
<br />
B: No. In what way Jay?<br />
<br />
E: Not all of it.<br />
<br />
S: It's going to hit the last colony of life on Mars. ''(laughter)'' Wipe it out. Some bacterial colony.<br />
<br />
GH: That group of cells up there is all getting psyched.<br />
<br />
S: This little frozen, this little underground pond.<br />
<br />
E: ''(in a little voice)'' Yay, we can think! Ahhhhhh! Crash.<br />
<br />
J: Let me clarify. So we have a petaton object hitting the surface of Mars. Couldn't that breach the, get down in the mantle and actually . . .<br />
<br />
S: The Martian crust is a little thicker than Earth's. Mars's crust is 50 kilometers thick on average, while Earth's is 40 kilometers on average. And the mantle is still hot. So, like Earth, Mars has a relatively thin crust. It also has a much thinner atmosphere, only 1/100 the thickness that of Earth. So that's less of a cushion to slow down anything incoming, like a comet. But I don't know if this could carry the punch necessary to crack open the crust down to the mantle.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, and that would be a deep crater, Jay. <br />
<br />
J: Couldn't that kick up enough matter into the tiny atmosphere that there is and actually just screw up all of that geologic information?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, it'll definitely erase a lot of geological information, no question.<br />
<br />
GH: But it could also expose a lot, too.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I don't know, but, yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: I wonder, if it does hit, will this be a, sort of a good selling point for us to come up with some kind of comet deterrence system, asteroid deterrence system. Like, look at Mars! Look at what happened! That could be us!<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: You know, I'm just saying. It'd be nice, right?<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely. That's one of the big benefits of the Russian asteroid recently. That people are like, oh, boy, we've gotta really start taking this seriously. If something like that hit Mars and with such a devastating effect, and we filmed it in all of its glory, yeah, that would be, that would spur us even more. So in that regard, I think that will be a great benefit of this thing taking out Mars.<br />
<br />
S: So I'm having mixed feelings about ''(unintelligible)'' It would be uber-cool in many ways, but I don't want all of NASA's probes to be destroyed. That would suck.<br />
<br />
B: In one fell swoop. Which of course, the conspiracy theorists would say, well, yeah, this was manmade. We steered the comet towards Mars to wipe out, so that our probes wouldn't run into the secret…. ''(overlapping comments)''<br />
<br />
S: What if the comet hits Cydonia? Like it hits the face on Mars.<br />
<br />
B: I was just thinking that, Steve. I was just thinking that! That would be, I really hope that doesn't happen, 'cause that would be too much of a coincidence.<br />
<br />
''(Many people talking at once – unintelligible)''<br />
<br />
GH: --put the pieces together. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we're getting there. That's our next item. So, Bob, what I read, though, was that the current estimate is that there's a 0.1 percent chance that the nucleus of the comet will directly hit Mars.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it's looking unlikely, very unlikely, even right now, before we know the obit.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: But it's not completely ruled out and who knows, these are comets and they are inherently harder to predict than asteroids.<br />
<br />
S: But even if it's not a direct hit, though, there's a good chance that the <br />
<br />
B: The comea, the coma?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the coma will pass through Mars. Essentially<br />
<br />
GH: Combover?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It'll coma over, yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: If it does hit, though, what happens to all the life force vampires that're in the comet? Are they affected by that, or is that . .. <br />
<br />
B: OOOOhhhh. Yeah, I know what you're thinking of, George.<br />
<br />
GH: Damn right.<br />
<br />
J: My vote is I don't want it to hit.<br />
<br />
B: 'Nuf said.<br />
<br />
GH: 'Nuf said.<br />
<br />
S: Jay votes no. What do you say, Evan?<br />
<br />
E: Absolutely yes. This is a once, gosh, not even once in a lifetime chance. Once in a, I don't know, species time chance, for this to happen.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I wanna see Mars split in two.<br />
<br />
S: George, what do you think?<br />
<br />
GH: I want it to hit, but I want it to hit like on the far side so we can't see it. Just to really be like Doooohhhhhhh it's so aaaaaaawwwwww. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Worst case scenario.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah, I want a massive---<br />
<br />
''(Many people talking at once – unintelligible)''<br />
<br />
S: --wipes out all our probes so we don't get to see anything.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah, this huge nerd sigh, that just is like "guuuuuhh." Yeah, that's what I want. <br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' Nerd sigh.<br />
<br />
J; Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
E: Steve, what do you want? You said no?<br />
<br />
S: I'm on the fence. No, I said I'm conflicted, very conflicted.<br />
<br />
E: Don't forget, Mars has two moons.<br />
<br />
S: Maybe it'll hit one of the moons.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that'd be cool!<br />
<br />
E: How cool would that be?<br />
<br />
J: Not cool. <br />
<br />
E: Why?<br />
<br />
J: It could hit one of the moons and send it towards the Earth and then we're all f'd.<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
B: I'll take that chance.<br />
<br />
J: Hey, come on. You never know, Steve.<br />
<br />
E: That's what happened in ''Thundarr the Barbarian.'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S; Jay, what are the names of the moons of Mars?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, there's, uh, Zero Zero One and Zero Zero Two. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Alpha and Beta.<br />
<br />
B: Deimos and Phobos.<br />
<br />
S: Phobos and Deimos, yes.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, the first one, Frankie Gismore ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: And the second one is?<br />
<br />
J: I love it when we have all guys on the show. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Sirius UFO <small>(35:31)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp9aOb04e20&list=PL6E8B33D9279BEF7B&index=1 YouTube: Dr.Steven Greer - Sirius Documentary (Trailer) - New Movie Coming Soon ! 2012]<br />
<br />
S: Hey, Evan, you're gonna tell us<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: about the Srius UFO documentary.<br />
<br />
B: Seriously.<br />
<br />
E: Very serious. We received multiple emails and messages this week about the most recent episode of the Joe Rogan Experience. Right? That's a podcast, or, it's also a vodcast, but, for those of you not familiar with him, Joe Rogan is an American martial artist, a stand-up comedian, an actor, a writer and color commentator for the Ultimate Fighting Championship mixed martial arts events. Now. Full disclosure here. I've never seen his stand-up comedy, I've never seen him act. But I've watched him a lot of times doing UFC color, he's very good at it. And now, for the first time ever, I've listened to an entire episode of his podcast. Because he had a fella on, his name is Dr. Steven Greer. And he has put together a documentary film that'll be coming out in April called ''Sirius.'' And Joe Rogan spent three hours on his podcast talking with Dr. Steven Greer.<br />
<br />
B: Wow. Three hours.<br />
<br />
E: Have you guys heard of Steven Greer before?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah. He's the head of the Disclosure Project.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. Disclosure Project and other little projects having to do with the world of UFOs. He's huge UFOlogists. He's a prominent believer and conspiracy theorist. So if you haven't heard of him before, consider yourself fortunate. So this is a conspiracy theorist's wet dream. Right? Dr. Greer has stitched together a narrative by which extra-terrestrials, they not only exist, but they are regular visitors to Earth, through space and time. And their physics-altering technologies have been co-opted by the military industrial complex in an effort to suppress the flow of free and clean energy to the people. The masses. Here on Earth.<br />
<br />
GH: Booorr-ing!<br />
<br />
E: And there's also a, but, George, there's also a shadow government. Did you know that? And it has no borders. It's the very, very powerful, a couple hundred powerful people in corporations around the planet, and they are the puppetmasters pulling the strings of society and technology. You know, they're oil barons and coal tycoons and nuclear-hungry megalomaniacs. And they want to dominate the people of Earth by not giving them access to the alien technology that would give us clean fuel and efficient means of energy. So to top it all off, the ''coup de grace,'' the icing on the cake, the smoking gun, the final nail in the coffin.<br />
<br />
S: Coup de grace ''(pronouncing the "s" sound (Evan didn't))''<br />
<br />
B: We get it.<br />
<br />
S: It's coup de gras-s-s<br />
<br />
E: Coup ''(pronouncing the "P")'' de gra-cey.<br />
<br />
S: De gracey. Coup de gracey is acceptable.<br />
<br />
E: Dr. Greer has video, photographic and physical evidence of an extra-terrestrial.<br />
<br />
S: And he'll show it to you if you pay him.<br />
<br />
E: If you pay him. Yes. But if you look at the trailer, he'll show you a little peek of it at the very end of his trailer. It's about six inches long, this little thing. It looks like a little dried-out husk of what would have otherwise been that alien from the infamous alien autopsy video back in the '90s. The one that was, you know, a full-blown hoax.<br />
<br />
B: It reminded me of the little alien driving the human body thing in ''Men in Black.'' But not as good of a prop, though, because, you know, the movie made a better prop than he did.<br />
<br />
GH: A homunculus.<br />
<br />
S: It's a homunculus.<br />
<br />
J: It's a homunculus, man.<br />
<br />
S: So, yeah, the six-inch alien is interesting. We have x-rays of it and some pictures of a skeleton. What's interesting, one thing that I find interesting is that it has every bone a human has in the right place, basically in the right shape. But it's just a little distorted. So the proportions are distorted, but all the bones pretty much are human.<br />
<br />
J: You think that that's an actual fetus corpse?<br />
<br />
S: I don't know. It could be a hundred percent a fake, just like the alien autopsy. It could be some weird<br />
<br />
B: How about a monkey, some weird monkey<br />
<br />
S: Primate.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, a primate with no fur or something, a baby one, I don't know. It's either that or it's a complete and utter hoax. It's not just a misidentification and wishful thinking and all that stuff, it's like a clear "I am going to scam people and make all this shit up."<br />
<br />
GH: I think the keychain part of it really gives it away, though. I think that's<br />
<br />
S: Keychain, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yes. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Little "Made in China" tag on it, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Am I missing something here? Like, do a DNA test on the damn thing.<br />
<br />
S: So he's claiming to be doing a DNA test.<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
S: And claiming to be examining it. But it's all "oh, we need to raise money in order to do the proper science experiments and I have some undisclosed guy in some undisclosed country doing these examinations and it's all. . . So, listening to this guy, 'cause I watched a dozen of his YouTube videos and the trailer to his movie and read some of his articles. You know, he's one of these people where I am not convinced that he's not completely full of it. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: I'm not convinced that he believes what he's saying. You know, he could believe it somewhat, he could be a total true believer, he could be a total con artist or anywhere in between. It's just, it's hard to say. But he definitely is trying very hard to make a lot of money out of what he's doing. Which doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong. But it gives him a certain vibe. He's doing things, like he has these seminars where he will train you to summon a UFO mentally.<br />
<br />
E: Yup. That's right. He knows the secret.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god, he's going to that level?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: So he's saying that he could teach you how to attract a UFO—<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: That's exactly right. He calls it, and he has a name for it, it's called coherent thought. And you use protocols from, that he describes as close encounters of the<br />
<br />
J: Wait, wait. I got it, Evan, I got it.<br />
<br />
E: fifth kind. Okay.<br />
<br />
J: George.<br />
<br />
GH: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Roll play with me, shall you?<br />
<br />
GH: All right, hit it.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>''electronic noises for about 7 seconds. They continue as background to the conversation.''<br />
Voice 1: So we have travelled a trillion years, but we will wait in the atmosphere of this planet. We will wait.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: Uh, do you think we should maybe like get in touch with the, like, world government, or something?<br />
<br />
Voice 1: No. No. No, we will wait. We will sit here and just wait.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: 'Cause you know, we've basically spend like pretty much our entire planet's resource to get this ship to this point. You know, it's<br />
<br />
Voice 1: You're young; don't be anxious. We will wait.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: If there's maybe like a president or like maybe some kind of you know, like a united nations or some organization?<br />
<br />
Voice 1: Oh look! The light on the dashboard just turned on! Somebody's summoning us.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: Is that an official kind of person that represents like a large number of people that we could then maybe, you know, have a liaison with them, or who is that representing that little dashboard light?<br />
<br />
Voice 1: This is . . . um . . . a hippie in a field in North America.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: Okay. So we're gonna travel across the known, pretty much, galaxy, to talk to, um, a hippie.<br />
<br />
''Background noise fades.''</blockquote><br />
<br />
J: Does this make sense, guys? I mean, seriously. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
''(Many people talking at once – unintelligible)''<br />
<br />
E: --Perfect sense.<br />
<br />
GH: --our production off Broadway.<br />
<br />
S: What happens, Jay, is that he points to lights in the sky and says "That's a UFO."<br />
<br />
J: Right.<br />
<br />
S: He's probably pointing at satellites.<br />
<br />
GH: It turned green, which means we can go.<br />
<br />
J: Did anybody think to ask him why are they waiting to just barely show themselves? Like, come on, how could people be this --- fooled?<br />
<br />
S: Don't ask that question.<br />
<br />
E: Well, Jay, I'm sorry you asked that, because there is kind of an answer to that.<br />
<br />
J: What?<br />
<br />
E: The aliens are here because they realize we are on the cusp of obtaining technology that can be a threat to them or to other planets . . .<br />
<br />
GH: iPhone 6<br />
<br />
E: and people on other . . . the iPhone 6, exactly. You know, with all of our nuclear capabilities and mushroom clouds, and these sorts of thing, that's why the aliens have taken an interest.<br />
<br />
S: But we've had nuclear weapons for 70 years.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, but it's not, you know, it's only a blip in time because the aliens have been visiting us for millions of years.<br />
<br />
J: Guys, guys, we're about to create warp drive.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Is that from Cochran?<br />
<br />
GH: First Contact, there you go.<br />
<br />
J: Thank you, of course.<br />
<br />
B: That's gotta be it.<br />
<br />
''(Many people talking at once – unintelligible)''<br />
<br />
GH: I don't wanna be a statue. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: This guy, the other thing that makes me very suspicious of this guy is that he's doing this "we're right on the cusp, it's happen; governments are gonna start disclosing all the real stuff; they're hiding everything from us. I just need a little bit more money and I'm gonna prove all this." I get the same vibe as the free energy people, which he is a free energy person.<br />
<br />
E: Dennis Lee. He is, yes.<br />
<br />
S: It's like we're just about to prove the free energy thing and I just need a little bit more investors to give me some more money. We'll get the DNA analysis and free energy thing and all, and everything. It's all a big conspiracy. You know, it's just hard to swallow the whole thing. <br />
<br />
GH: Was Joe Rogan at all questioning or skeptical, at all? Or was it just three hours of complete agreement and, like, do you think he completely bought into it? Or did he have him on the show to kind of just, sort of show this is a crazy guy?<br />
<br />
E: That's a great question, George. Joe had him on the show, Joe says, because his listeners demanded it.<br />
<br />
GH: Ah, okay.<br />
<br />
E: Well, not demanded, but heavily requested that this person be on the show. So that gives you an insight as to the audience of the Joe Rogan Show. But, in any case, Joe did a, better than I expected, job of asking him some questions that a good skeptic would have asked. Now here's the problem with Joe, though. And he admits this. He wants to believe that this stuff and other things like it are actually true, and therefore, he will be much, much more relaxed in his level of standards, right. His threshold by which the person has to achieve in order to convince Joe that something is right. But Joe's not a dumb person. He knows some things. And he shows that he knows some things. He knows a little bit about science and physics and so forth. And he does ask some decent questions. But at the same time, he really has, his biases do get the better of him in the end.<br />
<br />
GH: I've listened to his show. He's a very smart guy. He's a very funny guy. I liked his stand-up and I've heard a number of his podcasts, too. And on some things he can be very skeptical. His approach is actually really good. And other times he'll sort of begin just a little bit of skepticism and then there's no follow-up like at all. Like one response from a person and he just kind of stops that kind of front. And it's a shame because I bet if he had some kind of epiphany moment, I think there could be a real turnaround for him. Because he is a deductive kind of smart guy. He's not a completely credulous—from what I can tell, anyway, from the limited amount I've listened to.<br />
<br />
S: Well what I want to know is why is there a six-inch tall alien that looks more human than any alien has the right to look. That's what I want to know. Why will it have DNA, if it's alien?<br />
<br />
J: Because they seeded the Earth, Steve. Come on, there's always a good explanation.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I know. They always have their hand-waving BS explanation, but it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.<br />
<br />
B: Look at Prometheus. They were big and muscular, you know. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
GH: Don't even start on Prometheus.<br />
<br />
E: Prometheus? Oh<br />
<br />
S: George, you love that movie.<br />
<br />
GH: Love it. Love it! I have it running in a loop in my head all day long. ''(laughter)'' Ugggghh! I'm in it for the money.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, boy.<br />
<br />
E: That's a good line, from that. So, there you go. That's the latest with the, Joe and . . .<br />
<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(47:08)</small>==<br />
<br />
S: All right, so, Evan, it's time for ''Who's That Noisy?''<br />
<br />
E: Yup. I'm gonna play for you last week's noisy, and it was up to you the listening audience to guess exactly what this noisy was. Here we go.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Men's voices speaking on some kind of communicators:<br />
Person 1: You're looking a little hot and all your calls will be a little early. (Beep) Person 2: Okay. Person 3: And that looks good here.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: That is, that is a whistlepig. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: No, no, that was . . . no, we can't do that two weeks in a row. Yeah, we can't.<br />
<br />
J: We knew it was a NASA beep, communication with somebody in outer space, but we didn't know what mission. What was it?<br />
<br />
E: Well, George, what do you think? Have you heard that before somewhere?<br />
<br />
GH: That is actually the mission that the band Rush used for the song "Countdown."<br />
<br />
E: Um hmmm. That is exactly correct. STS 1. Space Shuttle Columbia.<br />
<br />
GH: Right.<br />
<br />
E: April 12, 1981. Yup. That was a little part of the communiqué going on between Mission Control and astronauts Young and Crippen in the shuttle itself.<br />
<br />
J: Awesome.<br />
<br />
GH or J: ''(singing)'' ''Excitement soo grand.''<br />
<br />
J: ''(singing)'' ''It's the final countdown.''<br />
<br />
GH: Not that one. No, no, stop it, stop it. No. Wrong hair. Wrong hair. ''(laughter)'' More kimonos, less hair.<br />
<br />
E: I'm very proud of our audience. So many correct guesses. I was very, very pleased with everyone this past week, so thank you all for playing and submitting your correct guesses. I drew randomly from all the correct guesses and Ross Rawlings, you are the winner this week, because I drew your name. So, well done, Ross.<br />
<br />
GH: Ross Rawlings! Fantastic!<br />
<br />
E: He is now in the running <br />
<br />
''George making trumpeting sounds''<br />
<br />
E: Is that ''The Dating Game?''<br />
<br />
GH: Tell him what he's won! Tell him what he's won! ''(laughter)'' ''(trumpeting continues)''<br />
<br />
E: Welllll, Ross, you are now in the running to join us for an episode of ''Science or Fiction'' on an episode of The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. We will have the drawing at the beginning of 2014. So congratulations!<br />
<br />
''(trumpeting finishes up)'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: I didn't know you carried a little bugle in your back pocket there, George. That's very handy.<br />
<br />
GH: I'm just happy to see you.<br />
<br />
E: Logic puzzle this week, ladies and gentlemen. Get your thinking caps on, and try this one: A man from the Ukraine had three sons. The first son was named Rab, and he became a lawyer.<br />
<br />
S: Isn't it Rab ''(pronouncing it "Rob")'' like Hrab?<br />
<br />
E: It's R-A-B.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: How would you pronounce that, George?<br />
<br />
GH: I would say Rob.<br />
<br />
E: Okay.<br />
<br />
GH: If he's Ukrainian. And don't say "The Ukraine," just say "Ukraine."<br />
<br />
E: Oh, okay. Sorry 'bout that. <br />
<br />
S: A man from The France. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
GH: Exactly. The France, yeah. Or, The England.<br />
<br />
E: A man from The Hague had three sons.<br />
<br />
S: Go ahead, Evan. Get it right this time.<br />
<br />
E: A man from Ukraine had three sons. The first son was named Rab, and he became a lawyer. The second son was named Ymra, and he became a soldier. The 3rd son became a sailor, so, what was his name? <br />
<br />
S: Got it.<br />
<br />
E: So, go ahead, give us your answer to that logic puzzle. wtn@theskepticsguide.org is the email. Or you can post it on the forums at sguforums.com. Tune up your thinking caps. Good luck, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Thanks, Evan.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Question 1: Magnet Hill <small>(50:26)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>Dear Skeptic Rogues, I am a Software Engineer originally from Dominican Republic, I have been a listener of the show since 2010, and every week I am looking forward to a new SGU chapter. When I was a kid (I am 28) back in DR, a journalist made an investigation about a "Magnetic Pole" in one remote corner of the country, Barahona, in the south east of the island. It always puzzle me.The place looks like a hill, however, everything you place in the ground "rolls" in the opposite direction, uphill. All objects, no matter what material they are, the are pulled upwards.You can look at dozens of videos in youtube by searching the string "polo magnetico barahona" (Magnetic Pole Barahona)The common and most simple explanation is that the place is an optical illusion. Is not that I do not believe it, I do not understand it.I have been looking for explanations, but none of them satisfy my curiosity. In my little research, I did't find any other place where this phenomena is happening. If you find an explanation to this phenomena I will appreciate it. Thanks in advance for your kind responses!<br/><br />
Jonathan Nonon<br/><br />
New York </blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Question 2: Tourette <small>(56:27)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was recently in a discussion about Tourette Syndrome and, to get to get quickly to the point, minor forms of said syndrome. It was my assertion that minor forms where more akin to compulsion or in more extreme cases OCD, and that Tourette was specifically an extreme. I remember you touching shortly on this on the SGU and searched your Blogs to see if you had written anything more in depth, to no avail. I was hoping that you could give me a short rundown on the "mechanics" to help me better understand what is going on with this phenomenon. If you would like to answer on the air I would be honored, but a small Email response is really all I am after here. Faithful listener, keep up the good work, etc.<br/><br />
Woody</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:06:04)</small> ==<br />
[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/osoa-idh022613.php Item #1]: Greater than 60% of upstream traffic is comprised of torrent files, while Netflix by itself represents 1/3 of peak download traffic. [http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/photos/how-25-tech-companies-got-their-names-slideshow/amazon-holds-news-conference-photo--982673090.html Item #2]: Amazon.com benefitted from the popularity of the Yahoo search engine, which listed search results alphabetically. [http://royal.pingdom.com/2013/01/16/internet-2012-in-numbers/ Item #3]: North America has the highest internet penetration at 78.6%, while Africa has the lowest at 15.6%. [http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blemtax2.htm Item #4]: In 1999 Congressman Peter Schnell proposed House Bill 602P allowing the US postal service to charge a 5cent surcharge for each e-mail sent. The bill died in response to public outrage.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:22:01)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Neither evolution nor creation qualifies as a scientific theory.</blockquote><br />
Duane Gish<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS <small>(1:23:06)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_399&diff=6690SGU Episode 3992013-05-31T00:32:28Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 399<br />
|episodeDate = 9<sup>th</sup> March 2013<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mars-comet-NASA-JPL-600x328.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|guest1 = GH: George Hrab<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-09.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=399<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45268.0.html<br />
|qowText = Neither evolution nor creation qualifies as a scientific theory.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish Duane Gish]<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today March 6, 2013, and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: 400!<br />
<br />
S: Evan Bernstein,<br />
<br />
E: Good evening, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: And we have a special guest rogue with us this evening, George Hrab. George, welcome back.<br />
<br />
GH: This isn't ''The Price is Right''! Jay, you lied to me. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: What else is new?<br />
<br />
J: No, but this is our 400th!<br />
<br />
S: No, it's not, Jay. Next week is our 400th episode.<br />
<br />
GH: 399!<br />
<br />
J: 399!<br />
<br />
E: 399! And that's a bargain.<br />
<br />
S: We're not round number bigots here, anyway. That's all superstitious nonsense.<br />
<br />
GH: Roundists. You're all roundists.<br />
<br />
S: So, Rebecca's voice is still recovering from whatever infection she had. So she is again not with us this week. But George will be taking her place and speaking in falsetto the entire show.<br />
<br />
GH: ''(starting high pitched, dropping to low)'' Y-e-e-e-s. I'm so skeptical. ''(normal voice)'' It's not a Rebecca impression. It's not a Rebecca impression at all. ''(laughter)'' We got that. All right. Good.<br />
<br />
J: So we were just talking before the show, like, saying hi to George and everything, and it occurred to me I wanted to ask George this question. George, ever listening, you ever listen to a podcast—<br />
<br />
GH: ''(in a Russian accent)'' Ever listenink to ''(unintelligible)'' Oh, sorry. Go ahead. So, have I ever listened to what?<br />
<br />
J: Has this ever happened where you're listening to a show that you've recorded, and somebody says your name in the podcast, and you answer them in real time? Like, it just happened to me two days ago. I was listening to one of our shows, and Steve says "So, Jay," and I actually go "Yeah." I'm like wh-o-o-o-a. He's not in the car with me! I'm not on the phone with him. I'm hearing him in the podcast.<br />
<br />
GH: I don't listen to my show 'cause I don't really like my show.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: But sound effects that I've done before have scared the hell out of me. I'll forget that I inserted an airplane or something, and it'll scare the crap out of me. ''(laughter)'' Or like a doorbell sound or something, yeah. But I don't actually, because I'm the only person on my show, for me to respond to myself as if I was actually talking to myself, I think would be indicative of something really scary and awesome. <br />
<br />
J: All right, that is a good point.<br />
<br />
GH: But, I respond to ''(two people talking – undecipherable)'' And if I listen to this show, I'll make sure that every time you say "Hey, George" no matter where I am, I'll say "What? Oh, damn!" ''(laughter)'' What? Oh, damn!<br />
<br />
E: With a head turn, right?<br />
<br />
''(two people talking—inaudible – something about Scooby-Doo)''<br />
<br />
GH: ''(imitating Scooby)'' Erh?<br />
<br />
B: Scooby snack.<br />
<br />
S: Hey George!<br />
<br />
GH: Erh?<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(2:45)</small> ==<br />
March 9, 1851: Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted died. &Oslash;rsted was a Danish physicist and chemist who discovered current traveling along a wire could deflect a compass needle.<br />
<br />
S: Evan is gonna tell us about this day in skepticism.<br />
<br />
E: All right. So, March 9, and the year was 1851. Now, we all know who Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted was<br />
<br />
B: ''(singing)'' Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted.<br />
<br />
J: I have no idea who he is.<br />
<br />
E: Well, he was a Danish. Oh, I'm sorry, wait, he was a Danish physicist<br />
<br />
S: And delicious.<br />
<br />
GH: I sing.<br />
<br />
E: Who made a discovery. He discovered that an electric current in a wire causes a nearby magnetized compass needle to deflect, indicating the electric current in a wire induces a magnetic field around it.<br />
<br />
B: That is awesome.<br />
<br />
J: That is awesome.<br />
<br />
B: You could just retire after making that discovery. I'm done. I've made my contribution.<br />
<br />
E: A little electro-magnetic theory for you, then?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah, but how do you monotize that. I mean, that's the problem. What d'ya do with that? What kind of invention could that possibly lead to? ''(people talking simultaneously)''<br />
<br />
B: It's just a laboratory curiosity. Nothing to see here.<br />
<br />
GH: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: It took like a hundred years for them to slap one of those suckers in a bracelet. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
GH: And then you get the real money.<br />
<br />
E: A bracelet made of, perhaps, aluminum. Hey! Speaking of aluminum<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so<br />
<br />
E and B: Aluminium.<br />
<br />
S: &Oslash;rsted also was the first one to produce metallic aluminum. Do you guys know how common—<br />
<br />
B: As opposed to rubber aluminum?<br />
<br />
S: No, as opposed an aluminum oxide or aluminum silicate. So, aluminum is the third most abundant element in the Earth's crust. And I know you guys all know that<br />
<br />
E: The third most?<br />
<br />
B: I used to know that, yes.<br />
<br />
S: After oxygen and silicon, which is why there's lots of aluminum oxides and aluminum silicate. And he figured out how to make metallic aluminum. Although it was up to later chemists to figure out how to really industrialize that process. If you recall, we talked about the fact that when aluminum was first available as a metal, it was more expensive than gold.<br />
<br />
B: I recall nothing.<br />
<br />
S: It was considered a rare and exotic metal and things made out of aluminum were like a status symbol. But then later chemists figured out how to make massive quantities of it, just from dirt, basically, and, you know, from bauxites, specifically.<br />
<br />
J: Did these scientists like cash in at that moment? Like, okay, I figured out how to make it, it's everywhere.<br />
<br />
E: Let's sell it now.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, did somebody become a trillionaire for like the first three years or what happened?<br />
<br />
S: American Aluminum, you know, I think was the company that became very wealthy mass producing aluminum. And the price went from hundreds of dollars an ounce to pennies a pound.<br />
<br />
J: Oof.<br />
<br />
GH: See, Alcoa shouldn't have waited.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, Alcoa, that's it.<br />
<br />
E: Bad investment.<br />
<br />
J: Guess I shouldn't have invested in that company early on.<br />
<br />
S: Well, you shouldn't have invested in aluminum. The company did quite well, actually. Now, did you also know that Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted was a very close friend of Hans Christian Andersen.<br />
<br />
B: Seriously?<br />
<br />
J: That's what I was gonna say.<br />
<br />
GH: No way.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, and I actually don't know exactly who Hans Christian Andersen is or was. What's his deal? Who's that guy?<br />
<br />
B: Come on, Jay.<br />
<br />
E: He wrote stories.<br />
<br />
B: It's Danny Kaye!<br />
<br />
E: That's right. Danny Kaye. He wrote Thumbelina,<br />
<br />
GH: The Little Mermaid.<br />
<br />
J: Did he sing The Little Mermaid?<br />
<br />
GH: I think he played the crab in the movie, actually. ''(laughter)'' Oh, aluminum.<br />
<br />
S: He wrote famous fairy tales. But, so, how did these guys meet? Like at a Hans Christian organization or something?<br />
<br />
E: Convention?<br />
<br />
B: I know. Famous People Named Hans Christian.<br />
<br />
GH: That was a Facebook page, wasn't it? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Did they get each other's mail, or what happened?<br />
<br />
J: My money's on the fact that maybe like half the population is just named Hans Christian something.<br />
<br />
S: Maybe.<br />
<br />
B: I think it's a coincidence.<br />
<br />
E: And March 9, 1851, was the day that we lost Hans &Oslash;rsted. Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted. So, we mourned Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted on this day. But thank you so much for all that electro-magnetism. It is doing us wonders these days.<br />
<br />
S: And aluminum. Yep.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that too.<br />
<br />
S: So George, before we go on to news items, what's new with you?<br />
<br />
GH: What's new? Goodness. Uh, what isn't? Actually, it's a short list. The newest thing is a number of you rogues were at the 21812 concert that happened last year.<br />
<br />
B: Yes! Loved it!<br />
<br />
GH: We are furiously, furiously editing and putting together what looks to be just an incredible DVD of that performance, which is audio mixing. I was at Slau's yesterday, as a matter of fact. So the audio mixing is done. A monumental effort, and now the video is being edited, and there's gonna be commentary and a documentary and it's gonna be really, really fantastic. So that is the thing which is occupying the most frontal part of my frontal creative lobe right now, is the 21812 concert.<br />
<br />
B: It only took you a year!<br />
<br />
J: When's it coming out?<br />
<br />
GH: I know, I know, I know, I know. Weeks. Months? Weeks. Well, I guess months are made up of weeks, so I'm not lying in either direction. But, weeks.<br />
<br />
S: As long as it's more than one month, right.<br />
<br />
GH: Hmm? Right.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== HIV Cure <small>(7:49)</small> ===<br />
[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/hiv-cure-game-changer/ Neurologica: HIV Cure "Game Changer"]<br />
<br />
S: So I have some ''good news'' everyone. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Excellent.<br />
<br />
J: What's up?<br />
<br />
S: Did you hear about the girl who was cured, ''cured'' of HIV?<br />
<br />
B: Despite this, or in spite of, the incompetence of her mom, apparently.<br />
<br />
S: Her mother appears to be troubled. I don't know if incompetence is her problem or if it's other things, but, so . . . Here's the story. The mother, who was HIV infected, presented for delivery with apparently no prenatal care, and delivered a child, who was positive for HIV within 30 hours of being born. So almost certainly infected in utero. The doctor was consulted, an HIV infectious disease specialist at the time was consulted on the case. Not really sure why, but decided to treat the child earlier than is typically treated. So at 31 hours, the infant was treated with anti-retroviral therapy. And also, she decided to give the infant<br />
<br />
B: Extra.<br />
<br />
S: Well, not extra, so therapeutic doses as opposed to preventive, or prophylactic doses.<br />
<br />
E: What's the difference?<br />
<br />
S: It's a higher dose. So a therapeutic dose is meant to treat an existing infection, whereas a preventive dose is meant to prevent an exposure from establishing itself as an infection.<br />
<br />
B: You can call that extra, I think.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, she gave the higher dose, the therapeutic dose.<br />
<br />
B: Extra.<br />
<br />
GH: Not the gum, but the actual medicine, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the anti-retroviral therapy. ART.<br />
<br />
GH: 'Cause that would be something, if extra gum cured AIDS. That would be, wow.<br />
<br />
S: This is Hannah Gay. A pediatric infectious disease specialist. And the child was treated with ART for the first 18 months of life, or thereabouts. At that point she was lost to follow-up, as we say. Stopped being brought back in by the mother for treatment. Now, Dr. Gay diligently tracked down the mother and the child, through the police, in order to bring the child back in for health care. So now, it was like seven or eight months the child has been getting no medication. The mother was going through some kind of life situation. Apparently has a lot of challenges. And not giving the kid their medicine. Not bringing them in to doctor's visits. So Dr. Gay at this point thought, okay, so now we have a two-year-old who has gone six, seven, eight months with no medication therapy. Their viral loads are gonna be off the charts. <br />
<br />
B: Right, because typically what happens, Steve, is when you're taking, when you're going through that process, the viruses pretty much just go into hiding, right? They just like say screw it, I'm just gonna hang out and wait til the weather's better and then once you stop it, bam! They come out. And that's what he expected.<br />
<br />
S: She, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Dr. Gay, that's what Gay expected.<br />
<br />
S: What typically happens is, in an HIV-infected individual, if they're treated with ART, then the viral loads will drop to undetectable levels. But the virus still lives on in the body, in these hidden reservoirs. As you say, they go into hiding. And these reservoirs are isolated from the immune system so that they can persist despite the retroviral therapy, and if you stopped the retroviral therapy, anti-retroviral therapy, then the infection would come back, would rebound. Because of these reservoirs. So, checked out the child, did the viral loads, they were still undetectable. There was no sign of HIV in the child at all. Went back to check everything. So now she things, all right, there's something interesting going on here. She checked a number of things. She got other specialists involved as well. First they confirmed that yes, she was indeed infected with HIV as a newborn. They confirmed that. Two, that the strain of HIV is a wild type strain that's not some mutated strain, it's not a weakened strain. It's a regular strain of HIV. Three, they tested the mother and the child to see if they happened to have a genetic type that makes them resistant to HIV, 'cause there are people out there who are naturally resistant to HIV. And they did not. So they did not have any of the known forms of resistance.<br />
<br />
B: Three great tests. So it's like, yeah. It didn't occur to me that they should do that but when I read it I'm like, oh, of course, that's exactly what you would need to do to really be secure in your conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Well, plus, I think, at this point that they were planning on publishing. And of course you want to get all your ducks in a row if you do that.<br />
<br />
B: Right, right.<br />
<br />
S: And in fact they did present this case at a conference and reported all these details. So essentially they discovered that she was infected, it was a normal virus, they're not resistant, and even six, seven months after stopping ART the virus never rebounded. They're calling this a functional cure. A functional cure. Not an outright cure, I think because a couple of, they did really, really sensitive tests for HIV, RNA and DNA and a couple of these tests showed rally miniscule little remnants of RNA or DNA.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but didn't they describe them as non-functional, or they did not have the ability to reproduce?<br />
<br />
S: They are not replication competent.<br />
<br />
B: That's what it was.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they are not replication competent. But I guess it means it's not completely, completely, completely out of the system. But what it does mean is that the virus will not rebound. It is not established. There's no active reservoirs of the virus. And the child will be able to live their life without the need for further ART, or anti-retroviral therapy.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. So we're not looking at some state of remission that's currently going on?<br />
<br />
S: Well, remission is not an unreasonable term to use. It's a remission without medication, without needing further medication or treatment. Functional cure is the specific term that they used. This is only the second case of any human being who was known to be infected with HIV who then was cured. The first one was a gentleman who got a bone marrow transplant in Germany from a donor who was HIV resistant. And they were apparently cured by that bone marrow transplant. Basically given a new immune system resistant to the HIV. This is now the second case.<br />
<br />
J: Does this help the world, Steve? Can we use this information in any way?<br />
<br />
B: Well, shit yeah. Look at the children born with AIDS like in Africa. I mean, the United States it's not so much of a huge deal as it is in Africa. But Jay, there's like, the statistic was crazy, it was like thousands of kids per pico-second in Africa.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, but my question is: does that case, the second case, of this child, does it actually help scientists figure out how to use that to make some type of cure?<br />
<br />
S: So here's the bottom line<br />
<br />
GH: We have to weaponize the baby, I think. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: The stats are about 130 children per year develop HIV from their mother in the United States. But it's about a thousand children per day world-wide in developing countries. So that's a lot. That's a thousand kids per day.<br />
<br />
GH: Why is that woman having so many children? ''(laughter)'' I'm sorry. Sorry.<br />
<br />
S: What this suggests is that the standard of care for treating newborns born of infected mothers might be, rather than giving prophylactic doses, but to give, would be to give therapeutic doses earlier, to try to prevent the virus from ever establishing an infection. Which seems to be the case here. The virus never got itself established. Here's the trick, though, is that, I mean, it's gotta be studied, is the case. This is an anecdote, right? It's interesting, but it's one case. And it's hard to extrapolate from that. So this will lead to research looking at this approach to show that it's safe, to show that it's effective. What's going to be tricky, so let's you get a hundred kids, or 200 kids, 100 you give the standard therapy. The other hundred you give this early aggressive therapy. You track 'em over a few years. To really know that the children have been functionally cured, you would want to actually stop their ART. That's gonna be tricky to do.<br />
<br />
E: That's tough.<br />
<br />
S: Ethically, how are you gonna do that? We're not gonna give you proof in therapy to see how you're doing. So, the best they could hope to do would be to follow a lot of children and then track those whose parents stopped giving them the medication due to non-compliance or whatever. Like in this case. You know, you can't randomly choose people not to get treatment just to see how they do. That's the definition of unethical research. But you may be able to track cases where the children stopped getting their drugs for one reason or another and see how they do. And maybe you can gather enough information from that to say okay, it's reasonable in these cases with these outcomes to reduce the medication, see how they do, maybe wean them off, tracking them carefully. So it's not gonna instantly lead to replicating this exact treatment paradigm, but it will, I think, probably it'll lead to studying this higher, more aggressive, early treatment, which may lead to curing infants who otherwise would have been infected with HIV. But this is using drugs that are already in existence to treat HIV. This is not a new treatment or a new cure. This is not a cure for people in whom infection is already established. You might think that maybe the same applies if you, let's say, get exposed to HIV. Again, instead of getting preventive doses, maybe even as an adult, you would be given therapeutic doses right away. <br />
<br />
''(inaudible comment by GH)''<br />
<br />
J: When you say "therapeutic doses" you mean a large, large amount. <br />
<br />
S: Well, the doses that are normally given to people with HIV infection, as opposed to preventive doses, which are doses given to people who have been exposed but who are not infected. In order to reduce the risk of the exposure resulting in an infection.<br />
<br />
GH: When I read the story, it was amazing. And I remember one of the first things that popped into my head was the idea that the kid at one point was outside of the care of the hospital, whether that was seven months, or whatever it was.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: And that someone is going to latch onto something the kid did in those seven months and say that ''that'' is the actual cure.<br />
<br />
B: Ohhhhh, wow.<br />
<br />
GH: You what I mean, like Fruit Loops or something. And they're gonna say "Yeah, the fact that she had Fruit Loops!" Forget the hospital. It was the Fruit Loops that cured. Here's proof! Like that was the first, the woo radar warning system that I have installed in my brain, was like, oh man, okay, let no one take advantage of those seven months where the kid was outside of supervised care to claim that that's some kind of secret cure.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah. I didn't even think of that.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I agree.<br />
<br />
S: I haven't heard anything about it yet, but that's always a risk. There was a lot of sensational reporting of this story.<br />
<br />
GH: Wh-a-a-t?<br />
<br />
S: It's fascinating enough as it is. What I always, my radar goes up, we talk about the skeptical radar, my skeptical radar always goes up whenever I see the word "cure" in the headline of any article. Especially when it's connected to AIDS or cancer or the common cold or whatever.<br />
<br />
B: Acne.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. There are certain things where it's like, really? You mean, no, we did not cure AIDS, I'm sorry, we did not cure HIV. This is a very interesting case and has implications for research and for treatment. But no, this isn't the discovery of a cure for HIV.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, so what if a parent has AIDS. They have a kid, and they're like, I want my kid to get a therapeutic dose asap? What can they do? 'Cause that's what I would do.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Enter a trial, enter a clinical trial in which that is being done and take your chance that you'll get randomized, getting it.<br />
<br />
J: Is it hard to get into a trial?<br />
<br />
S: Well, right now, none exists. But I'm sure<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that's just it.<br />
<br />
S: It'll take time to get them up and running. I don't know how many and how many people are gonna be introduced. So, probably in the U.S., given that the number is so low, number of kids who get infected this way because of pre-natal care, etc. 'Cause you know, normally what you would do is aggressively treat the mother, get the viral loads down as low as possible so the risk of the so-called vertical transmission from mother to child is minimized. This mother didn't do that, that's probably why the child was infected. So, this is the exact people who are going to end up infected as an infant are the ones that are going to be difficult to recruit, and there aren't that many of them. So it's probably gonna be more, it's gonna be hard to get people into this trial as opposed to people having a hard time getting into such trials. You know what I mean? If you're the kind of parent who is going to seek out that kind of aggressive care, you're probably not the kind of parent who is going to give birth to an infected child in the first place. Does that make sense?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah; where's the father through all this, I wonder?<br />
<br />
S: No mention in anything.<br />
<br />
GH: I wonder what his situation is.<br />
<br />
S: Obviously the doctors are being confidential, keeping confidential the personal details. They're just saying she had some life situation that intervened, but we have no idea what that was. But clearly she's troubled.<br />
<br />
B: It still won't be an outright cure because if you have the infection, this won't work, but for people who just get it, it will a cure for them. There—<br />
<br />
S: Well, remember, she was treated at 30 hours of life.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: How many people don't we even find out that they've been exposed until—<br />
<br />
B: That's it.<br />
<br />
S: --days later. So, one example would be a health care worker who stabs themself with an HIV-infected needle.<br />
<br />
B: Yup. Perfect example.<br />
<br />
S: You would be in the clinic in 15 minutes. In fact, I did that to myself once. Not with an HIV<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
E; Oh, my gosh.<br />
<br />
S: Not with an HIV-infected needle. But I stuck myself with a Hep C needle.<br />
<br />
J: How'd you do it?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, man, I hate when that happens.<br />
<br />
GH: Did you lose a bet?<br />
<br />
S: No. It was an accident. I did what I wasn't supposed to. I recapped the needle, the needle went right through the cap and into my finger.<br />
<br />
E: Geez.<br />
<br />
J: And you were right in front of a patient?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: What'd you do?<br />
<br />
S: I finished what I was doing. I went to the health services and got two huge needles of gamma globulin injected into my buttocks.<br />
<br />
E: Gamma globulin?<br />
<br />
J: Wait a second. Wait, wait, wait, wait.<br />
<br />
B: One per cheek?<br />
<br />
S: Yup.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, I have to ask more detail. Did you keep your composure?<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
J: Like, did you do "Oh, holy shit!!" Like run out of there. <br />
<br />
GH: Like ''We're all gonna die!!!''<br />
<br />
J: ''Give me those ass needles!!'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: On panic day? Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it was not panic day. Unlike today.<br />
<br />
J: Were you embarrassed? Were you shameful, like going to some guy sitting at a desk and you're like "Um…"<br />
<br />
S: Yes, I was stupid. Yea. It was dumb. I was a medical student.<br />
<br />
J: Did they say anything to you. Like did they make you feel really weird?<br />
<br />
S: No. No.<br />
<br />
B: Steve's heart rate increased by two beats per minute.<br />
<br />
E: Were they messing with you? "Oh, we gotta do a biopsy, and now we're gonna do this. Gotta do that."<br />
<br />
S: No. They're my physician now. They acted totally professional.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, put this in a little context. Hepatitis C. How bad we talkin'?<br />
<br />
S: That's bad. Like a chronic liver infection. It would be very bad. And yes, I got, the treatment for that is gamma globulin, so it like pooled antibodies. And it's a huge dose.<br />
<br />
B: Is it a bolus? They call that a bolus?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: If they give you enough of that gamma globulin, Steve, can you turn into the Hulk? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: The first injection was very painful. The second injection was ten times as painful. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, but ten times!<br />
<br />
S: It was so much more painful! And the reason for that probably<br />
<br />
GH: It's not supposed to go in your penis. That's the problem. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: We gotta get this in here!<br />
<br />
GH: A really long needle.<br />
<br />
S: When you get the first injection your body excretes chemicals which sort of prime it for pain, and so then when you get the second injection, it has a huge exaggerated local response to the injection.<br />
<br />
B: Thank you, body, isn't that convenient?<br />
<br />
E: Well, okay<br />
<br />
J: Why's that happening?<br />
<br />
E: They should give you both needles at once. One, two, three, jab.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I don't know what would be worse.<br />
<br />
J: That's crazy.<br />
<br />
E: Two at once. Two needles at once.<br />
<br />
S: But this was, whatever, twenty years ago, so, I know I'm out of the window. And never had a problem from it.<br />
<br />
GH: Are you sure?<br />
<br />
E: No Hep C.<br />
<br />
S: I could definitely imagine the panic of jabbing yourself with an HIV-infected needle. That would be panic time.<br />
<br />
J: It just shows you how dangerous health care is. I mean, these professionals—<br />
<br />
S: This was also, this was not in the early, early days, but, this was earlier in the whole HIV situation. So, you know, the protocols for preventing these things were not as well established. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: They had you rub garlic on the wound. Prayer beads and whatever.<br />
<br />
S: The needle that I was using at that time doesn't even exist now, really. Everything is made to prevent this from happening. Anyway, let's move on.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Mars Comet <small>(24:49)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/5349/20130304/newly-discovered-comet-hit-mars-watch-two-others-near-earth.htm Newly Discovered Comet May Hit Mars: Watch for Two Others Near Earth]<br />
<br />
S: Bob, you're gonna tell us about the comet that's going to smack right into Mars.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
B: You guys remember I recently mentioned that this would be remembered maybe as the Year of the Asteroid. But not I think it will be, in retrospect, in the future, considered the Year of the Asteroid/Comet. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Slash comet.<br />
<br />
B: Slash comet. The big news in recent days is not only do we have the Pan Stars comet, which will be visible in mid-March 2013<br />
<br />
E: Can't wait.<br />
<br />
B: And also the Ison comet, which could be awesome. Very bright, in November 2013. But we also have the Sliding Spring, an oddly named comet which could potentially hit the planet Mars in October 2014; not quite this year, but coming up relatively soon. So that is kind of exciting, I think. It's not the Earth, so it's all good. This new comet was discovered January 3 this year, 2013, by famous comet hunter Robert McNaught. He actually has 74 comets on his resume.<br />
<br />
E: Wow!<br />
<br />
B: So how cool is that?<br />
<br />
J: Bob, does he hang them on the wall like a plaque?<br />
<br />
B; ''(laughing)'' Yeah, right. I would. I would create a little comet for every one that I discovered. And he also discovered asteroids. This guy's very prolific. He gets a gold star.<br />
<br />
S: Did he discover that asteroids exist?<br />
<br />
B: No. Just discovered asteroids.<br />
<br />
E: The game ''Asteroids."<br />
<br />
S: Specific asteroids.<br />
<br />
B: Yes. So this is like, apparently this is a new, or virgin, comet. Never having been in our local area of the solar system before. And I think they believe this is because of the eccentricity of its orbit, after it was ejected for the Oort Cloud of billions of comets that are in orbit about a light year, I think, from the Sun.<br />
<br />
S: Yup.<br />
<br />
B: Billions and billions of these guys and occasionally one will come careening in.<br />
<br />
S: ''(imitating Carl Sagan)'' Billions and billions.<br />
<br />
B: Billions, yes. <br />
<br />
E; That's about a Sagan.<br />
<br />
GH: A virgin comet has no tail.<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: ''(unintelligible)'' no comets, tell no tales.<br />
<br />
B: So, ah, so<br />
<br />
S: Tough crowd.<br />
<br />
J: George, don't laugh.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, George is grabbing his tie as we speak, right?<br />
<br />
S: We're laughing on the inside.<br />
<br />
GH: I was all excited. ''(unintelligible)'' Zilch. Loser.<br />
<br />
B: That's all right. You had some good ones so far, at least. So the big question, in my mind, is is this sucker gonna hit Mars? And the answer is: nobody knows, not yet anyway. Some projections put the comet within 23 to 63,000 miles away from Mars at its closest approach. That's 37 to about 100,000 kilometers away.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, Bob. The orbitors we've got; I'm sorry, the orbitor we have, we have one? Or more than one around Mars? Is it gonna be close enough that it's gonna be able to capture this thing for us? Are we gonna get a good view of it?<br />
<br />
B: It depends, actually, on various variables. But yeah, they could potentially get a really view of this. Although there are certain things that could make it not as awesome as it could be. Depending the various factors of the approach and things. But, as you know though, as we've talked about this, the estimates of the future positions of these objects are very difficult, 'cause you need to take a nice long look at its orbit so that you can accurately extrapolate, right? And one I wasn't quite aware of , though, is that this is even more problematic with comets, because, think about it; you've got these frozen gases on this comet; they heat up because it's getting closer to the sun, and then they explosively sublimate. They turn from ice to gas very quickly. And so it's like these little geysers that are erupting on the comet, and this, of course, is what creates the tail. That can change the orbit, as you can imagine these little geysers erupting. That could subtly, I mean not a lot, but it can change the orbit of the comet a tiny bit.<br />
<br />
S: Like little jets.<br />
<br />
B: And, right, and enough, this thing is gonna be so close to Mars as it is, that it could actually make it hit it or even miss it by even a greater distance. So right now, we really won't know until probably the earliest, I think, is late summer. It's when we can confident of what's gonna happen. Chances are, unfortunately, it's not gonna hit. Well, I guess it depends how you look at it. But if it did hit. Whoa. I mean, we're talking megahit. This thing's five to thirty miles across. This thing will be coming in at about, say, 55 kilometers, or 33 miles per second.<br />
<br />
GH: Geez.<br />
<br />
B: I mean this thing'll be coming in so fast. That is kinetic energy. They're talking, the impact equivalent of a billion megatons, that's a petaton. Equivalent to a one petaton nuke.<br />
<br />
S: Bob, you like petatons?<br />
<br />
B: I love petatons. They're awesome!<br />
<br />
S: You're a petaphile?! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good one. Go for the easy ones, Steve, that was good.<br />
<br />
E: See, Bob. There is the horizon. Did you see it coming?<br />
<br />
B: That's with a "t" by the way, not a "d." Now, that's millions of times bigger than anything that we've ever detonated. We're talking about a crater that could be hundreds of miles or kilometers across. It would be totally devastating. But that would be cool.<br />
<br />
''(unintelligible – several people talking at once.)''<br />
<br />
B: I want this thing to hit Mars so bad. But, and I want one of our rovers to have a safe front-row seat to film this entire thing. But the problem is, I don't think there's, there won't be anywhere safe on the planet. Even if it was on the other side. This thing can be so devastating. It could take out every probe on the planet or in orbit. It won't matter where you are. It could wipe out everything. And that would clearly suck.<br />
<br />
S: Would it be worth it, though, to get the video?<br />
<br />
B: Think about the time and effort and future science that we would be getting out of these things, all wiped in an hour. Bam! Game over, you're done. But, yeah, the video, the YouTube video that came out of that would be epic. Totally epic.<br />
<br />
J: Is that gonna ruin the geologic history of Mars?<br />
<br />
B: No. In what way Jay?<br />
<br />
E: Not all of it.<br />
<br />
S: It's going to hit the last colony of life on Mars. ''(laughter)'' Wipe it out. Some bacterial colony.<br />
<br />
GH: That group of cells up there is all getting psyched.<br />
<br />
S: This little frozen, this little underground pond.<br />
<br />
E: ''(in a little voice)'' Yay, we can think! Ahhhhhh! Crash.<br />
<br />
J: Let me clarify. So we have a petaton object hitting the surface of Mars. Couldn't that breach the, get down in the mantle and actually . . .<br />
<br />
S: The Martian crust is a little thicker than Earth's. Mars's crust is 50 kilometers thick on average, while Earth's is 40 kilometers on average. And the mantle is still hot. So, like Earth, Mars has a relatively thin crust. It also has a much thinner atmosphere, only 1/100 the thickness that of Earth. So that's less of a cushion to slow down anything incoming, like a comet. But I don't know if this could carry the punch necessary to crack open the crust down to the mantle.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, and that would be a deep crater, Jay. <br />
<br />
J: Couldn't that kick up enough matter into the tiny atmosphere that there is and actually just screw up all of that geologic information?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, it'll definitely erase a lot of geological information, no question.<br />
<br />
GH: But it could also expose a lot, too.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I don't know, but, yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: I wonder, if it does hit, will this be a, sort of a good selling point for us to come up with some kind of comet deterrence system, asteroid deterrence system. Like, look at Mars! Look at what happened! That could be us!<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: You know, I'm just saying. It'd be nice, right?<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely. That's one of the big benefits of the Russian asteroid recently. That people are like, oh, boy, we've gotta really start taking this seriously. If something like that hit Mars and with such a devastating effect, and we filmed it in all of its glory, yeah, that would be, that would spur us even more. So in that regard, I think that will be a great benefit of this thing taking out Mars.<br />
<br />
S: So I'm having mixed feelings about ''(unintelligible)'' It would be uber-cool in many ways, but I don't want all of NASA's probes to be destroyed. That would suck.<br />
<br />
B: In one fell swoop. Which of course, the conspiracy theorists would say, well, yeah, this was manmade. We steered the comet towards Mars to wipe out, so that our probes wouldn't run into the secret…. ''(overlapping comments)''<br />
<br />
S: What if the comet hits Cydonia? Like it hits the face on Mars.<br />
<br />
B: I was just thinking that, Steve. I was just thinking that! That would be, I really hope that doesn't happen, 'cause that would be too much of a coincidence.<br />
<br />
''(Many people talking at once – unintelligible)''<br />
<br />
GH: --put the pieces together. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we're getting there. That's our next item. So, Bob, what I read, though, was that the current estimate is that there's a 0.1 percent chance that the nucleus of the comet will directly hit Mars.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it's looking unlikely, very unlikely, even right now, before we know the obit.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: But it's not completely ruled out and who knows, these are comets and they are inherently harder to predict than asteroids.<br />
<br />
S: But even if it's not a direct hit, though, there's a good chance that the <br />
<br />
B: The comea, the coma?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the coma will pass through Mars. Essentially<br />
<br />
GH: Combover?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It'll coma over, yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: If it does hit, though, what happens to all the life force vampires that're in the comet? Are they affected by that, or is that . .. <br />
<br />
B: OOOOhhhh. Yeah, I know what you're thinking of, George.<br />
<br />
GH: Damn right.<br />
<br />
J: My vote is I don't want it to hit.<br />
<br />
B: 'Nuf said.<br />
<br />
GH: 'Nuf said.<br />
<br />
S: Jay votes no. What do you say, Evan?<br />
<br />
E: Absolutely yes. This is a once, gosh, not even once in a lifetime chance. Once in a, I don't know, species time chance, for this to happen.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I wanna see Mars split in two.<br />
<br />
S: George, what do you think?<br />
<br />
GH: I want it to hit, but I want it to hit like on the far side so we can't see it. Just to really be like Doooohhhhhhh it's so aaaaaaawwwwww. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Worst case scenario.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah, I want a massive---<br />
<br />
''(Many people talking at once – unintelligible)''<br />
<br />
S: --wipes out all our probes so we don't get to see anything.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah, this huge nerd sigh, that just is like "guuuuuhh." Yeah, that's what I want. <br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' Nerd sigh.<br />
<br />
J; Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
E: Steve, what do you want? You said no?<br />
<br />
S: I'm on the fence. No, I said I'm conflicted, very conflicted.<br />
<br />
E: Don't forget, Mars has two moons.<br />
<br />
S: Maybe it'll hit one of the moons.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that'd be cool!<br />
<br />
E: How cool would that be?<br />
<br />
J: Not cool. <br />
<br />
E: Why?<br />
<br />
J: It could hit one of the moons and send it towards the Earth and then we're all f'd.<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
B: I'll take that chance.<br />
<br />
J: Hey, come on. You never know, Steve.<br />
<br />
E: That's what happened in ''Thundarr the Barbarian.'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S; Jay, what are the names of the moons of Mars?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, there's, uh, Zero Zero One and Zero Zero Two. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Alpha and Beta.<br />
<br />
B: Deimos and Phobos.<br />
<br />
S: Phobos and Deimos, yes.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, the first one, Frankie Gismore ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: And the second one is?<br />
<br />
J: I love it when we have all guys on the show. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Sirius UFO <small>(35:31)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp9aOb04e20&list=PL6E8B33D9279BEF7B&index=1 YouTube: Dr.Steven Greer - Sirius Documentary (Trailer) - New Movie Coming Soon ! 2012]<br />
<br />
S: Hey, Evan, you're gonna tell us<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: about the Srius UFO documentary.<br />
<br />
B: Seriously.<br />
<br />
E: Very serious. We received multiple emails and messages this week about the most recent episode of the Joe Rogan Experience. Right? That's a podcast, or, it's also a vodcast, but, for those of you not familiar with him, Joe Rogan is an American martial artist, a stand-up comedian, an actor, a writer and color commentator for the Ultimate Fighting Championship mixed martial arts events. Now. Full disclosure here. I've never seen his stand-up comedy, I've never seen him act. But I've watched him a lot of times doing UFC color, he's very good at it. And now, for the first time ever, I've listened to an entire episode of his podcast. Because he had a fella on, his name is Dr. Steven Greer. And he has put together a documentary film that'll be coming out in April called ''Sirius.'' And Joe Rogan spent three hours on his podcast talking with Dr. Steven Greer.<br />
<br />
B: Wow. Three hours.<br />
<br />
E: Have you guys heard of Steven Greer before?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah. He's the head of the Disclosure Project.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. Disclosure Project and other little projects having to do with the world of UFOs. He's huge UFOlogists. He's a prominent believer and conspiracy theorist. So if you haven't heard of him before, consider yourself fortunate. So this is a conspiracy theorist's wet dream. Right? Dr. Greer has stitched together a narrative by which extra-terrestrials, they not only exist, but they are regular visitors to Earth, through space and time. And their physics-altering technologies have been co-opted by the military industrial complex in an effort to suppress the flow of free and clean energy to the people. The masses. Here on Earth.<br />
<br />
GH: Booorr-ing!<br />
<br />
E: And there's also a, but, George, there's also a shadow government. Did you know that? And it has no borders. It's the very, very powerful, a couple hundred powerful people in corporations around the planet, and they are the puppetmasters pulling the strings of society and technology. You know, they're oil barons and coal tycoons and nuclear-hungry megalomaniacs. And they want to dominate the people of Earth by not giving them access to the alien technology that would give us clean fuel and efficient means of energy. So to top it all off, the ''coup de grace,'' the icing on the cake, the smoking gun, the final nail in the coffin.<br />
<br />
S: Coup de grace ''(pronouncing the "s" sound (Evan didn't))''<br />
<br />
B: We get it.<br />
<br />
S: It's coup de gras-s-s<br />
<br />
E: Coup ''(pronouncing the "P")'' de gra-cey.<br />
<br />
S: De gracey. Coup de gracey is acceptable.<br />
<br />
E: Dr. Greer has video, photographic and physical evidence of an extra-terrestrial.<br />
<br />
S: And he'll show it to you if you pay him.<br />
<br />
E: If you pay him. Yes. But if you look at the trailer, he'll show you a little peek of it at the very end of his trailer. It's about six inches long, this little thing. It looks like a little dried-out husk of what would have otherwise been that alien from the infamous alien autopsy video back in the '90s. The one that was, you know, a full-blown hoax.<br />
<br />
B: It reminded me of the little alien driving the human body thing in ''Men in Black.'' But not as good of a prop, though, because, you know, the movie made a better prop than he did.<br />
<br />
GH: A homunculus.<br />
<br />
S: It's a homunculus.<br />
<br />
J: It's a homunculus, man.<br />
<br />
S: So, yeah, the six-inch alien is interesting. We have x-rays of it and some pictures of a skeleton. What's interesting, one thing that I find interesting is that it has every bone a human has in the right place, basically in the right shape. But it's just a little distorted. So the proportions are distorted, but all the bones pretty much are human.<br />
<br />
J: You think that that's an actual fetus corpse?<br />
<br />
S: I don't know. It could be a hundred percent a fake, just like the alien autopsy. It could be some weird<br />
<br />
B: How about a monkey, some weird monkey<br />
<br />
S: Primate.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, a primate with no fur or something, a baby one, I don't know. It's either that or it's a complete and utter hoax. It's not just a misidentification and wishful thinking and all that stuff, it's like a clear "I am going to scam people and make all this shit up."<br />
<br />
GH: I think the keychain part of it really gives it away, though. I think that's<br />
<br />
S: Keychain, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yes. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Little "Made in China" tag on it, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Am I missing something here? Like, do a DNA test on the damn thing.<br />
<br />
S: So he's claiming to be doing a DNA test.<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
S: And claiming to be examining it. But it's all "oh, we need to raise money in order to do the proper science experiments and I have some undisclosed guy in some undisclosed country doing these examinations and it's all. . . So, listening to this guy, 'cause I watched a dozen of his YouTube videos and the trailer to his movie and read some of his articles. You know, he's one of these people where I am not convinced that he's not completely full of it. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: I'm not convinced that he believes what he's saying. You know, he could believe it somewhat, he could be a total true believer, he could be a total con artist or anywhere in between. It's just, it's hard to say. But he definitely is trying very hard to make a lot of money out of what he's doing. Which doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong. But it gives him a certain vibe. He's doing things, like he has these seminars where he will train you to summon a UFO mentally.<br />
<br />
E: Yup. That's right. He knows the secret.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god, he's going to that level?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: So he's saying that he could teach you how to attract a UFO—<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: That's exactly right. He calls it, and he has a name for it, it's called coherent thought. And you use protocols from, that he describes as close encounters of the<br />
<br />
J: Wait, wait. I got it, Evan, I got it.<br />
<br />
E: fifth kind. Okay.<br />
<br />
J: George.<br />
<br />
GH: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Roll play with me, shall you?<br />
<br />
GH: All right, hit it.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>''electronic noises for about 7 seconds. They continue as background to the conversation.''<br />
Voice 1: So we have travelled a trillion years, but we will wait in the atmosphere of this planet. We will wait.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: Uh, do you think we should maybe like get in touch with the, like, world government, or something?<br />
<br />
Voice 1: No. No. No, we will wait. We will sit here and just wait.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: 'Cause you know, we've basically spend like pretty much our entire planet's resource to get this ship to this point. You know, it's<br />
<br />
Voice 1: You're young; don't be anxious. We will wait.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: If there's maybe like a president or like maybe some kind of you know, like a united nations or some organization?<br />
<br />
Voice 1: Oh look! The light on the dashboard just turned on! Somebody's summoning us.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: Is that an official kind of person that represents like a large number of people that we could then maybe, you know, have a liaison with them, or who is that representing that little dashboard light?<br />
<br />
Voice 1: This is . . . um . . . a hippie in a field in North America.<br />
<br />
Voice 2: Okay. So we're gonna travel across the known, pretty much, galaxy, to talk to, um, a hippie.<br />
<br />
''Background noise fades.''</blockquote><br />
<br />
J: Does this make sense, guys? I mean, seriously. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
''(Many people talking at once – unintelligible)''<br />
<br />
E: --Perfect sense.<br />
<br />
GH: --our production off Broadway.<br />
<br />
S: What happens, Jay, is that he points to lights in the sky and says "That's a UFO."<br />
<br />
J: Right.<br />
<br />
S: He's probably pointing at satellites.<br />
<br />
GH: It turned green, which means we can go.<br />
<br />
J: Did anybody think to ask him why are they waiting to just barely show themselves? Like, come on, how could people be this --- fooled?<br />
<br />
S: Don't ask that question.<br />
<br />
E: Well, Jay, I'm sorry you asked that, because there is kind of an answer to that.<br />
<br />
J: What?<br />
<br />
E: The aliens are here because they realize we are on the cusp of obtaining technology that can be a threat to them or to other planets . . .<br />
<br />
GH: iPhone 6<br />
<br />
E: and people on other . . . the iPhone 6, exactly. You know, with all of our nuclear capabilities and mushroom clouds, and these sorts of thing, that's why the aliens have taken an interest.<br />
<br />
S: But we've had nuclear weapons for 70 years.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, but it's not, you know, it's only a blip in time because the aliens have been visiting us for millions of years.<br />
<br />
J: Guys, guys, we're about to create warp drive.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Is that from Cochran?<br />
<br />
GH: First Contact, there you go.<br />
<br />
J: Thank you, of course.<br />
<br />
B: That's gotta be it.<br />
<br />
''(Many people talking at once – unintelligible)''<br />
<br />
GH: I don't wanna be a statue. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: This guy, the other thing that makes me very suspicious of this guy is that he's doing this "we're right on the cusp, it's happen; governments are gonna start disclosing all the real stuff; they're hiding everything from us. I just need a little bit more money and I'm gonna prove all this." I get the same vibe as the free energy people, which he is a free energy person.<br />
<br />
E: Dennis Lee. He is, yes.<br />
<br />
S: It's like we're just about to prove the free energy thing and I just need a little bit more investors to give me some more money. We'll get the DNA analysis and free energy thing and all, and everything. It's all a big conspiracy. You know, it's just hard to swallow the whole thing. <br />
<br />
GH: Was Joe Rogan at all questioning or skeptical, at all? Or was it just three hours of complete agreement and, like, do you think he completely bought into it? Or did he have him on the show to kind of just, sort of show this is a crazy guy?<br />
<br />
E: That's a great question, George. Joe had him on the show, Joe says, because his listeners demanded it.<br />
<br />
GH: Ah, okay.<br />
<br />
E: Well, not demanded, but heavily requested that this person be on the show. So that gives you an insight as to the audience of the Joe Rogan Show. But, in any case, Joe did a, better than I expected, job of asking him some questions that a good skeptic would have asked. Now here's the problem with Joe, though. And he admits this. He wants to believe that this stuff and other things like it are actually true, and therefore, he will be much, much more relaxed in his level of standards, right. His threshold by which the person has to achieve in order to convince Joe that something is right. But Joe's not a dumb person. He knows some things. And he shows that he knows some things. He knows a little bit about science and physics and so forth. And he does ask some decent questions. But at the same time, he really has, his biases do get the better of him in the end.<br />
<br />
GH: I've listened to his show. He's a very smart guy. He's a very funny guy. I liked his stand-up and I've heard a number of his podcasts, too. And on some things he can be very skeptical. His approach is actually really good. And other times he'll sort of begin just a little bit of skepticism and then there's no follow-up like at all. Like one response from a person and he just kind of stops that kind of front. And it's a shame because I bet if he had some kind of epiphany moment, I think there could be a real turnaround for him. Because he is a deductive kind of smart guy. He's not a completely credulous—from what I can tell, anyway, from the limited amount I've listened to.<br />
<br />
S: Well what I want to know is why is there a six-inch tall alien that looks more human than any alien has the right to look. That's what I want to know. Why will it have DNA, if it's alien?<br />
<br />
J: Because they seeded the Earth, Steve. Come on, there's always a good explanation.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I know. They always have their hand-waving BS explanation, but it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.<br />
<br />
B: Look at Prometheus. They were big and muscular, you know. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
GH: Don't even start on Prometheus.<br />
<br />
E: Prometheus? Oh<br />
<br />
S: George, you love that movie.<br />
<br />
GH: Love it. Love it! I have it running in a loop in my head all day long. ''(laughter)'' Ugggghh! I'm in it for the money.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, boy.<br />
<br />
E: That's a good line, from that. So, there you go. That's the latest with the, Joe and . . .<br />
<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(47:08)</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: STS 1<br />
<br />
A man from Ukraine had three sons. The first son was named Rab, and he became a lawyer. The second son was named Ymra, and he became a soldier. The 3rd son became a sailor, so what was his name? <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Question 1: Magnet Hill <small>(50:26)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>Dear Skeptic Rogues, I am a Software Engineer originally from Dominican Republic, I have been a listener of the show since 2010, and every week I am looking forward to a new SGU chapter. When I was a kid (I am 28) back in DR, a journalist made an investigation about a "Magnetic Pole" in one remote corner of the country, Barahona, in the south east of the island. It always puzzle me.The place looks like a hill, however, everything you place in the ground "rolls" in the opposite direction, uphill. All objects, no matter what material they are, the are pulled upwards.You can look at dozens of videos in youtube by searching the string "polo magnetico barahona" (Magnetic Pole Barahona)The common and most simple explanation is that the place is an optical illusion. Is not that I do not believe it, I do not understand it.I have been looking for explanations, but none of them satisfy my curiosity. In my little research, I did't find any other place where this phenomena is happening. If you find an explanation to this phenomena I will appreciate it. Thanks in advance for your kind responses!<br/><br />
Jonathan Nonon<br/><br />
New York </blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Question 2: Tourette <small>(56:27)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was recently in a discussion about Tourette Syndrome and, to get to get quickly to the point, minor forms of said syndrome. It was my assertion that minor forms where more akin to compulsion or in more extreme cases OCD, and that Tourette was specifically an extreme. I remember you touching shortly on this on the SGU and searched your Blogs to see if you had written anything more in depth, to no avail. I was hoping that you could give me a short rundown on the "mechanics" to help me better understand what is going on with this phenomenon. If you would like to answer on the air I would be honored, but a small Email response is really all I am after here. Faithful listener, keep up the good work, etc.<br/><br />
Woody</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:06:04)</small> ==<br />
[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/osoa-idh022613.php Item #1]: Greater than 60% of upstream traffic is comprised of torrent files, while Netflix by itself represents 1/3 of peak download traffic. [http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/photos/how-25-tech-companies-got-their-names-slideshow/amazon-holds-news-conference-photo--982673090.html Item #2]: Amazon.com benefitted from the popularity of the Yahoo search engine, which listed search results alphabetically. [http://royal.pingdom.com/2013/01/16/internet-2012-in-numbers/ Item #3]: North America has the highest internet penetration at 78.6%, while Africa has the lowest at 15.6%. [http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blemtax2.htm Item #4]: In 1999 Congressman Peter Schnell proposed House Bill 602P allowing the US postal service to charge a 5cent surcharge for each e-mail sent. The bill died in response to public outrage.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:22:01)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Neither evolution nor creation qualifies as a scientific theory.</blockquote><br />
Duane Gish<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS <small>(1:23:06)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_399&diff=6678SGU Episode 3992013-05-27T21:56:01Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 399<br />
|episodeDate = 9<sup>th</sup> March 2013<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mars-comet-NASA-JPL-600x328.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|guest1 = GH: George Hrab<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-09.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=399<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45268.0.html<br />
|qowText = Neither evolution nor creation qualifies as a scientific theory.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish Duane Gish]<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today March 6, 2013, and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: 400!<br />
<br />
S: Evan Bernstein,<br />
<br />
E: Good evening, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: And we have a special guest rogue with us this evening, George Hrab. George, welcome back.<br />
<br />
GH: This isn't ''The Price is Right''! Jay, you lied to me. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: What else is new?<br />
<br />
J: No, but this is our 400th!<br />
<br />
S: No, it's not, Jay. Next week is our 400th episode.<br />
<br />
GH: 399!<br />
<br />
J: 399!<br />
<br />
E: 399! And that's a bargain.<br />
<br />
S: We're not round number bigots here, anyway. That's all superstitious nonsense.<br />
<br />
GH: Roundists. You're all roundists.<br />
<br />
S: So, Rebecca's voice is still recovering from whatever infection she had. So she is again not with us this week. But George will be taking her place and speaking in falsetto the entire show.<br />
<br />
GH: ''(starting high pitched, dropping to low)'' Y-e-e-e-s. I'm so skeptical. ''(normal voice)'' It's not a Rebecca impression. It's not a Rebecca impression at all. ''(laughter)'' We got that. All right. Good.<br />
<br />
J: So we were just talking before the show, like, saying hi to George and everything, and it occurred to me I wanted to ask George this question. George, ever listening, you ever listen to a podcast—<br />
<br />
GH: ''(in a Russian accent)'' Ever listenink to ''(unintelligible)'' Oh, sorry. Go ahead. So, have I ever listened to what?<br />
<br />
J: Has this ever happened where you're listening to a show that you've recorded, and somebody says your name in the podcast, and you answer them in real time? Like, it just happened to me two days ago. I was listening to one of our shows, and Steve says "So, Jay," and I actually go "Yeah." I'm like wh-o-o-o-a. He's not in the car with me! I'm not on the phone with him. I'm hearing him in the podcast.<br />
<br />
GH: I don't listen to my show 'cause I don't really like my show.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: But sound effects that I've done before have scared the hell out of me. I'll forget that I inserted an airplane or something, and it'll scare the crap out of me. ''(laughter)'' Or like a doorbell sound or something, yeah. But I don't actually, because I'm the only person on my show, for me to respond to myself as if I was actually talking to myself, I think would be indicative of something really scary and awesome. <br />
<br />
J: All right, that is a good point.<br />
<br />
GH: But, I respond to ''(two people talking – undecipherable)'' And if I listen to this show, I'll make sure that every time you say "Hey, George" no matter where I am, I'll say "What? Oh, damn!" ''(laughter)'' What? Oh, damn!<br />
<br />
E: With a head turn, right?<br />
<br />
''(two people talking—inaudible – something about Scooby-Doo)''<br />
<br />
GH: ''(imitating Scooby)'' Erh?<br />
<br />
B: Scooby snack.<br />
<br />
S: Hey George!<br />
<br />
GH: Erh?<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(2:45)</small> ==<br />
March 9, 1851: Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted died. &Oslash;rsted was a Danish physicist and chemist who discovered current traveling along a wire could deflect a compass needle.<br />
<br />
S: Evan is gonna tell us about this day in skepticism.<br />
<br />
E: All right. So, March 9, and the year was 1851. Now, we all know who Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted was<br />
<br />
B: ''(singing)'' Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted.<br />
<br />
J: I have no idea who he is.<br />
<br />
E: Well, he was a Danish. Oh, I'm sorry, wait, he was a Danish physicist<br />
<br />
S: And delicious.<br />
<br />
GH: I sing.<br />
<br />
E: Who made a discovery. He discovered that an electric current in a wire causes a nearby magnetized compass needle to deflect, indicating the electric current in a wire induces a magnetic field around it.<br />
<br />
B: That is awesome.<br />
<br />
J: That is awesome.<br />
<br />
B: You could just retire after making that discovery. I'm done. I've made my contribution.<br />
<br />
E: A little electro-magnetic theory for you, then?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah, but how do you monotize that. I mean, that's the problem. What d'ya do with that? What kind of invention could that possibly lead to? ''(people talking simultaneously)''<br />
<br />
B: It's just a laboratory curiosity. Nothing to see here.<br />
<br />
GH: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: It took like a hundred years for them to slap one of those suckers in a bracelet. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
GH: And then you get the real money.<br />
<br />
E: A bracelet made of, perhaps, aluminum. Hey! Speaking of aluminum<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so<br />
<br />
E and B: Aluminium.<br />
<br />
S: &Oslash;rsted also was the first one to produce metallic aluminum. Do you guys know how common—<br />
<br />
B: As opposed to rubber aluminum?<br />
<br />
S: No, as opposed an aluminum oxide or aluminum silicate. So, aluminum is the third most abundant element in the Earth's crust. And I know you guys all know that<br />
<br />
E: The third most?<br />
<br />
B: I used to know that, yes.<br />
<br />
S: After oxygen and silicon, which is why there's lots of aluminum oxides and aluminum silicate. And he figured out how to make metallic aluminum. Although it was up to later chemists to figure out how to really industrialize that process. If you recall, we talked about the fact that when aluminum was first available as a metal, it was more expensive than gold.<br />
<br />
B: I recall nothing.<br />
<br />
S: It was considered a rare and exotic metal and things made out of aluminum were like a status symbol. But then later chemists figured out how to make massive quantities of it, just from dirt, basically, and, you know, from bauxites, specifically.<br />
<br />
J: Did these scientists like cash in at that moment? Like, okay, I figured out how to make it, it's everywhere.<br />
<br />
E: Let's sell it now.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, did somebody become a trillionaire for like the first three years or what happened?<br />
<br />
S: American Aluminum, you know, I think was the company that became very wealthy mass producing aluminum. And the price went from hundreds of dollars an ounce to pennies a pound.<br />
<br />
J: Oof.<br />
<br />
GH: See, Alcoa shouldn't have waited.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, Alcoa, that's it.<br />
<br />
E: Bad investment.<br />
<br />
J: Guess I shouldn't have invested in that company early on.<br />
<br />
S: Well, you shouldn't have invested in aluminum. The company did quite well, actually. Now, did you also know that Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted was a very close friend of Hans Christian Andersen.<br />
<br />
B: Seriously?<br />
<br />
J: That's what I was gonna say.<br />
<br />
GH: No way.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, and I actually don't know exactly who Hans Christian Andersen is or was. What's his deal? Who's that guy?<br />
<br />
B: Come on, Jay.<br />
<br />
E: He wrote stories.<br />
<br />
B: It's Danny Kaye!<br />
<br />
E: That's right. Danny Kaye. He wrote Thumbelina,<br />
<br />
GH: The Little Mermaid.<br />
<br />
J: Did he sing The Little Mermaid?<br />
<br />
GH: I think he played the crab in the movie, actually. ''(laughter)'' Oh, aluminum.<br />
<br />
S: He wrote famous fairy tales. But, so, how did these guys meet? Like at a Hans Christian organization or something?<br />
<br />
E: Convention?<br />
<br />
B: I know. Famous People Named Hans Christian.<br />
<br />
GH: That was a Facebook page, wasn't it? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Did they get each other's mail, or what happened?<br />
<br />
J: My money's on the fact that maybe like half the population is just named Hans Christian something.<br />
<br />
S: Maybe.<br />
<br />
B: I think it's a coincidence.<br />
<br />
E: And March 9, 1851, was the day that we lost Hans &Oslash;rsted. Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted. So, we mourned Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted on this day. But thank you so much for all that electro-magnetism. It is doing us wonders these days.<br />
<br />
S: And aluminum. Yep.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that too.<br />
<br />
S: So George, before we go on to news items, what's new with you?<br />
<br />
GH: What's new? Goodness. Uh, what isn't? Actually, it's a short list. The newest thing is a number of you rogues were at the 21812 concert that happened last year.<br />
<br />
B: Yes! Loved it!<br />
<br />
GH: We are furiously, furiously editing and putting together what looks to be just an incredible DVD of that performance, which is audio mixing. I was at Slau's yesterday, as a matter of fact. So the audio mixing is done. A monumental effort, and now the video is being edited, and there's gonna be commentary and a documentary and it's gonna be really, really fantastic. So that is the thing which is occupying the most frontal part of my frontal creative lobe right now, is the 21812 concert.<br />
<br />
B: It only took you a year!<br />
<br />
J: When's it coming out?<br />
<br />
GH: I know, I know, I know, I know. Weeks. Months? Weeks. Well, I guess months are made up of weeks, so I'm not lying in either direction. But, weeks.<br />
<br />
S: As long as it's more than one month, right.<br />
<br />
GH: Hmm? Right.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== HIV Cure <small>(7:49)</small> ===<br />
[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/hiv-cure-game-changer/ Neurologica: HIV Cure "Game Changer"]<br />
<br />
S: So I have some ''good news'' everyone. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Excellent.<br />
<br />
J: What's up?<br />
<br />
S: Did you hear about the girl who was cured, ''cured'' of HIV?<br />
<br />
B: Despite this, or in spite of, the incompetence of her mom, apparently.<br />
<br />
S: Her mother appears to be troubled. I don't know if incompetence is her problem or if it's other things, but, so . . . Here's the story. The mother, who was HIV infected, presented for delivery with apparently no prenatal care, and delivered a child, who was positive for HIV within 30 hours of being born. So almost certainly infected in utero. The doctor was consulted, an HIV infectious disease specialist at the time was consulted on the case. Not really sure why, but decided to treat the child earlier than is typically treated. So at 31 hours, the infant was treated with anti-retroviral therapy. And also, she decided to give the infant<br />
<br />
B: Extra.<br />
<br />
S: Well, not extra, so therapeutic doses as opposed to preventive, or prophylactic doses.<br />
<br />
E: What's the difference?<br />
<br />
S: It's a higher dose. So a therapeutic dose is meant to treat an existing infection, whereas a preventive dose is meant to prevent an exposure from establishing itself as an infection.<br />
<br />
B: You can call that extra, I think.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, she gave the higher dose, the therapeutic dose.<br />
<br />
B: Extra.<br />
<br />
GH: Not the gum, but the actual medicine, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the anti-retroviral therapy. ART.<br />
<br />
GH: 'Cause that would be something, if extra gum cured AIDS. That would be, wow.<br />
<br />
S: This is Hannah Gay. A pediatric infectious disease specialist. And the child was treated with ART for the first 18 months of life, or thereabouts. At that point she was lost to follow-up, as we say. Stopped being brought back in by the mother for treatment. Now, Dr. Gay diligently tracked down the mother and the child, through the police, in order to bring the child back in for health care. So now, it was like seven or eight months the child has been getting no medication. The mother was going through some kind of life situation. Apparently has a lot of challenges. And not giving the kid their medicine. Not bringing them in to doctor's visits. So Dr. Gay at this point thought, okay, so now we have a two-year-old who has gone six, seven, eight months with no medication therapy. Their viral loads are gonna be off the charts. <br />
<br />
B: Right, because typically what happens, Steve, is when you're taking, when you're going through that process, the viruses pretty much just go into hiding, right? They just like say screw it, I'm just gonna hang out and wait til the weather's better and then once you stop it, bam! They come out. And that's what he expected.<br />
<br />
S: She, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Dr. Gay, that's what Gay expected.<br />
<br />
S: What typically happens is, in an HIV-infected individual, if they're treated with ART, then the viral loads will drop to undetectable levels. But the virus still lives on in the body, in these hidden reservoirs. As you say, they go into hiding. And these reservoirs are isolated from the immune system so that they can persist despite the retroviral therapy, and if you stopped the retroviral therapy, anti-retroviral therapy, then the infection would come back, would rebound. Because of these reservoirs. So, checked out the child, did the viral loads, they were still undetectable. There was no sign of HIV in the child at all. Went back to check everything. So now she things, all right, there's something interesting going on here. She checked a number of things. She got other specialists involved as well. First they confirmed that yes, she was indeed infected with HIV as a newborn. They confirmed that. Two, that the strain of HIV is a wild type strain that's not some mutated strain, it's not a weakened strain. It's a regular strain of HIV. Three, they tested the mother and the child to see if they happened to have a genetic type that makes them resistant to HIV, 'cause there are people out there who are naturally resistant to HIV. And they did not. So they did not have any of the known forms of resistance.<br />
<br />
B: Three great tests. So it's like, yeah. It didn't occur to me that they should do that but when I read it I'm like, oh, of course, that's exactly what you would need to do to really be secure in your conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Well, plus, I think, at this point that they were planning on publishing. And of course you want to get all your ducks in a row if you do that.<br />
<br />
B: Right, right.<br />
<br />
S: And in fact they did present this case at a conference and reported all these details. So essentially they discovered that she was infected, it was a normal virus, they're not resistant, and even six, seven months after stopping ART the virus never rebounded. They're calling this a functional cure. A functional cure. Not an outright cure, I think because a couple of, they did really, really sensitive tests for HIV, RNA and DNA and a couple of these tests showed rally miniscule little remnants of RNA or DNA.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but didn't they describe them as non-functional, or they did not have the ability to reproduce?<br />
<br />
S: They are not replication competent.<br />
<br />
B: That's what it was.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they are not replication competent. But I guess it means it's not completely, completely, completely out of the system. But what it does mean is that the virus will not rebound. It is not established. There's no active reservoirs of the virus. And the child will be able to live their life without the need for further ART, or anti-retroviral therapy.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. So we're not looking at some state of remission that's currently going on?<br />
<br />
S: Well, remission is not an unreasonable term to use. It's a remission without medication, without needing further medication or treatment. Functional cure is the specific term that they used. This is only the second case of any human being who was known to be infected with HIV who then was cured. The first one was a gentleman who got a bone marrow transplant in Germany from a donor who was HIV resistant. And they were apparently cured by that bone marrow transplant. Basically given a new immune system resistant to the HIV. This is now the second case.<br />
<br />
J: Does this help the world, Steve? Can we use this information in any way?<br />
<br />
B: Well, shit yeah. Look at the children born with AIDS like in Africa. I mean, the United States it's not so much of a huge deal as it is in Africa. But Jay, there's like, the statistic was crazy, it was like thousands of kids per pico-second in Africa.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, but my question is: does that case, the second case, of this child, does it actually help scientists figure out how to use that to make some type of cure?<br />
<br />
S: So here's the bottom line<br />
<br />
GH: We have to weaponize the baby, I think. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: The stats are about 130 children per year develop HIV from their mother in the United States. But it's about a thousand children per day world-wide in developing countries. So that's a lot. That's a thousand kids per day.<br />
<br />
GH: Why is that woman having so many children? ''(laughter)'' I'm sorry. Sorry.<br />
<br />
S: What this suggests is that the standard of care for treating newborns born of infected mothers might be, rather than giving prophylactic doses, but to give, would be to give therapeutic doses earlier, to try to prevent the virus from ever establishing an infection. Which seems to be the case here. The virus never got itself established. Here's the trick, though, is that, I mean, it's gotta be studied, is the case. This is an anecdote, right? It's interesting, but it's one case. And it's hard to extrapolate from that. So this will lead to research looking at this approach to show that it's safe, to show that it's effective. What's going to be tricky, so let's you get a hundred kids, or 200 kids, 100 you give the standard therapy. The other hundred you give this early aggressive therapy. You track 'em over a few years. To really know that the children have been functionally cured, you would want to actually stop their ART. That's gonna be tricky to do.<br />
<br />
E: That's tough.<br />
<br />
S: Ethically, how are you gonna do that? We're not gonna give you proof in therapy to see how you're doing. So, the best they could hope to do would be to follow a lot of children and then track those whose parents stopped giving them the medication due to non-compliance or whatever. Like in this case. You know, you can't randomly choose people not to get treatment just to see how they do. That's the definition of unethical research. But you may be able to track cases where the children stopped getting their drugs for one reason or another and see how they do. And maybe you can gather enough information from that to say okay, it's reasonable in these cases with these outcomes to reduce the medication, see how they do, maybe wean them off, tracking them carefully. So it's not gonna instantly lead to replicating this exact treatment paradigm, but it will, I think, probably it'll lead to studying this higher, more aggressive, early treatment, which may lead to curing infants who otherwise would have been infected with HIV. But this is using drugs that are already in existence to treat HIV. This is not a new treatment or a new cure. This is not a cure for people in whom infection is already established. You might think that maybe the same applies if you, let's say, get exposed to HIV. Again, instead of getting preventive doses, maybe even as an adult, you would be given therapeutic doses right away. <br />
<br />
''(inaudible comment by GH)''<br />
<br />
J: When you say "therapeutic doses" you mean a large, large amount. <br />
<br />
S: Well, the doses that are normally given to people with HIV infection, as opposed to preventive doses, which are doses given to people who have been exposed but who are not infected. In order to reduce the risk of the exposure resulting in an infection.<br />
<br />
GH: When I read the story, it was amazing. And I remember one of the first things that popped into my head was the idea that the kid at one point was outside of the care of the hospital, whether that was seven months, or whatever it was.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: And that someone is going to latch onto something the kid did in those seven months and say that ''that'' is the actual cure.<br />
<br />
B: Ohhhhh, wow.<br />
<br />
GH: You what I mean, like Fruit Loops or something. And they're gonna say "Yeah, the fact that she had Fruit Loops!" Forget the hospital. It was the Fruit Loops that cured. Here's proof! Like that was the first, the woo radar warning system that I have installed in my brain, was like, oh man, okay, let no one take advantage of those seven months where the kid was outside of supervised care to claim that that's some kind of secret cure.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah. I didn't even think of that.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I agree.<br />
<br />
S: I haven't heard anything about it yet, but that's always a risk. There was a lot of sensational reporting of this story.<br />
<br />
GH: Wh-a-a-t?<br />
<br />
S: It's fascinating enough as it is. What I always, my radar goes up, we talk about the skeptical radar, my skeptical radar always goes up whenever I see the word "cure" in the headline of any article. Especially when it's connected to AIDS or cancer or the common cold or whatever.<br />
<br />
B: Acne.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. There are certain things where it's like, really? You mean, no, we did not cure AIDS, I'm sorry, we did not cure HIV. This is a very interesting case and has implications for research and for treatment. But no, this isn't the discovery of a cure for HIV.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, so what if a parent has AIDS. They have a kid, and they're like, I want my kid to get a therapeutic dose asap? What can they do? 'Cause that's what I would do.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Enter a trial, enter a clinical trial in which that is being done and take your chance that you'll get randomized, getting it.<br />
<br />
J: Is it hard to get into a trial?<br />
<br />
S: Well, right now, none exists. But I'm sure<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that's just it.<br />
<br />
S: It'll take time to get them up and running. I don't know how many and how many people are gonna be introduced. So, probably in the U.S., given that the number is so low, number of kids who get infected this way because of pre-natal care, etc. 'Cause you know, normally what you would do is aggressively treat the mother, get the viral loads down as low as possible so the risk of the so-called vertical transmission from mother to child is minimized. This mother didn't do that, that's probably why the child was infected. So, this is the exact people who are going to end up infected as an infant are the ones that are going to be difficult to recruit, and there aren't that many of them. So it's probably gonna be more, it's gonna be hard to get people into this trial as opposed to people having a hard time getting into such trials. You know what I mean? If you're the kind of parent who is going to seek out that kind of aggressive care, you're probably not the kind of parent who is going to give birth to an infected child in the first place. Does that make sense?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah; where's the father through all this, I wonder?<br />
<br />
S: No mention in anything.<br />
<br />
GH: I wonder what his situation is.<br />
<br />
S: Obviously the doctors are being confidential, keeping confidential the personal details. They're just saying she had some life situation that intervened, but we have no idea what that was. But clearly she's troubled.<br />
<br />
B: It still won't be an outright cure because if you have the infection, this won't work, but for people who just get it, it will a cure for them. There—<br />
<br />
S: Well, remember, she was treated at 30 hours of life.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: How many people don't we even find out that they've been exposed until—<br />
<br />
B: That's it.<br />
<br />
S: --days later. So, one example would be a health care worker who stabs themself with an HIV-infected needle.<br />
<br />
B: Yup. Perfect example.<br />
<br />
S: You would be in the clinic in 15 minutes. In fact, I did that to myself once. Not with an HIV<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
E; Oh, my gosh.<br />
<br />
S: Not with an HIV-infected needle. But I stuck myself with a Hep C needle.<br />
<br />
J: How'd you do it?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, man, I hate when that happens.<br />
<br />
GH: Did you lose a bet?<br />
<br />
S: No. It was an accident. I did what I wasn't supposed to. I recapped the needle, the needle went right through the cap and into my finger.<br />
<br />
E: Geez.<br />
<br />
J: And you were right in front of a patient?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: What'd you do?<br />
<br />
S: I finished what I was doing. I went to the health services and got two huge needles of gamma globulin injected into my buttocks.<br />
<br />
E: Gamma globulin?<br />
<br />
J: Wait a second. Wait, wait, wait, wait.<br />
<br />
B: One per cheek?<br />
<br />
S: Yup.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, I have to ask more detail. Did you keep your composure?<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
J: Like, did you do "Oh, holy shit!!" Like run out of there. <br />
<br />
GH: Like ''We're all gonna die!!!''<br />
<br />
J: ''Give me those ass needles!!'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: On panic day? Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it was not panic day. Unlike today.<br />
<br />
J: Were you embarrassed? Were you shameful, like going to some guy sitting at a desk and you're like "Um…"<br />
<br />
S: Yes, I was stupid. Yea. It was dumb. I was a medical student.<br />
<br />
J: Did they say anything to you. Like did they make you feel really weird?<br />
<br />
S: No. No.<br />
<br />
B: Steve's heart rate increased by two beats per minute.<br />
<br />
E: Were they messing with you? "Oh, we gotta do a biopsy, and now we're gonna do this. Gotta do that."<br />
<br />
S: No. They're my physician now. They acted totally professional.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, put this in a little context. Hepatitis C. How bad we talkin'?<br />
<br />
S: That's bad. Like a chronic liver infection. It would be very bad. And yes, I got, the treatment for that is gamma globulin, so it like pooled antibodies. And it's a huge dose.<br />
<br />
B: Is it a bolus? They call that a bolus?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: If they give you enough of that gamma globulin, Steve, can you turn into the Hulk? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: The first injection was very painful. The second injection was ten times as painful. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, but ten times!<br />
<br />
S: It was so much more painful! And the reason for that probably<br />
<br />
GH: It's not supposed to go in your penis. That's the problem. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: We gotta get this in here!<br />
<br />
GH: A really long needle.<br />
<br />
S: When you get the first injection your body excretes chemicals which sort of prime it for pain, and so then when you get the second injection, it has a huge exaggerated local response to the injection.<br />
<br />
B: Thank you, body, isn't that convenient?<br />
<br />
E: Well, okay<br />
<br />
J: Why's that happening?<br />
<br />
E: They should give you both needles at once. One, two, three, jab.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I don't know what would be worse.<br />
<br />
J: That's crazy.<br />
<br />
E: Two at once. Two needles at once.<br />
<br />
S: But this was, whatever, twenty years ago, so, I know I'm out of the window. And never had a problem from it.<br />
<br />
GH: Are you sure?<br />
<br />
E: No Hep C.<br />
<br />
S: I could definitely imagine the panic of jabbing yourself with an HIV-infected needle. That would be panic time.<br />
<br />
J: It just shows you how dangerous health care is. I mean, these professionals—<br />
<br />
S: This was also, this was not in the early, early days, but, this was earlier in the whole HIV situation. So, you know, the protocols for preventing these things were not as well established. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: They had you rub garlic on the wound. Prayer beads and whatever.<br />
<br />
S: The needle that I was using at that time doesn't even exist now, really. Everything is made to prevent this from happening. Anyway, let's move on.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Mars Comet <small>(24:49)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/5349/20130304/newly-discovered-comet-hit-mars-watch-two-others-near-earth.htm Newly Discovered Comet May Hit Mars: Watch for Two Others Near Earth]<br />
<br />
S: Bob, you're gonna tell us about the comet that's going to smack right into Mars.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
B: You guys remember I recently mentioned that this would be remembered maybe as the Year of the Asteroid. But not I think it will be, in retrospect, in the future, considered the Year of the Asteroid/Comet. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Slash comet.<br />
<br />
B: Slash comet. The big news in recent days is not only do we have the Pan Stars comet, which will be visible in mid-March 2013<br />
<br />
E: Can't wait.<br />
<br />
B: And also the Ison comet, which could be awesome. Very bright, in November 2013. But we also have the Sliding Spring, an oddly named comet which could potentially hit the planet Mars in October 2014; not quite this year, but coming up relatively soon. So that is kind of exciting, I think. It's not the Earth, so it's all good. This new comet was discovered January 3 this year, 2013, by famous comet hunter Robert McNaught. He actually has 74 comets on his resume.<br />
<br />
E: Wow!<br />
<br />
B: So how cool is that?<br />
<br />
J: Bob, does he hang them on the wall like a plaque?<br />
<br />
B; ''(laughing)'' Yeah, right. I would. I would create a little comet for every one that I discovered. And he also discovered asteroids. This guy's very prolific. He gets a gold star.<br />
<br />
S: Did he discover that asteroids exist?<br />
<br />
B: No. Just discovered asteroids.<br />
<br />
E: The game ''Asteroids."<br />
<br />
S: Specific asteroids.<br />
<br />
B: Yes. So this is like, apparently this is a new, or virgin, comet. Never having been in our local area of the solar system before. And I think they believe this is because of the eccentricity of its orbit, after it was ejected for the Oort Cloud of billions of comets that are in orbit about a light year, I think, from the Sun.<br />
<br />
S: Yup.<br />
<br />
B: Billions and billions of these guys and occasionally one will come careening in.<br />
<br />
S: ''(imitating Carl Sagan)'' Billions and billions.<br />
<br />
B: Billions, yes. <br />
<br />
E; That's about a Sagan.<br />
<br />
GH: A virgin comet has no tail.<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: ''(unintelligible)'' no comets, tell no tales.<br />
<br />
B: So, ah, so<br />
<br />
S: Tough crowd.<br />
<br />
J: George, don't laugh.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, George is grabbing his tie as we speak, right?<br />
<br />
S: We're laughing on the inside.<br />
<br />
GH: I was all excited. ''(unintelligible)'' Zilch. Loser.<br />
<br />
B: That's all right. You had some good ones so far, at least. So the big question, in my mind, is is this sucker gonna hit Mars? And the answer is: nobody knows, not yet anyway. Some projections put the comet within 23 to 63,000 miles away from Mars at its closest approach. That's 37 to about 100,000 kilometers away.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, Bob. The orbitors we've got; I'm sorry, the orbitor we have, we have one? Or more than one around Mars? Is it gonna be close enough that it's gonna be able to capture this thing for us? Are we gonna get a good view of it?<br />
<br />
B: It depends, actually, on various variables. But yeah, they could potentially get a really view of this. Although there are certain things that could make it not as awesome as it could be. Depending the various factors of the approach and things. But, as you know though, as we've talked about this, the estimates of the future positions of these objects are very difficult, 'cause you need to take a nice long look at its orbit so that you can accurately extrapolate, right? And one I wasn't quite aware of , though, is that this is even more problematic with comets, because, think about it; you've got these frozen gases on this comet; they heat up because it's getting closer to the sun, and then they explosively sublimate. They turn from ice to gas very quickly. And so it's like these little geysers that are erupting on the comet, and this, of course, is what creates the tail. That can change the orbit, as you can imagine these little geysers erupting. That could subtly, I mean not a lot, but it can change the orbit of the comet a tiny bit.<br />
<br />
S: Like little jets.<br />
<br />
B: And, right, and enough, this thing is gonna be so close to Mars as it is, that it could actually make it hit it or even miss it by even a greater distance. So right now, we really won't know until probably the earliest, I think, is late summer. It's when we can confident of what's gonna happen. Chances are, unfortunately, it's not gonna hit. Well, I guess it depends how you look at it. But if it did hit. Whoa. I mean, we're talking megahit. This thing's five to thirty miles across. This thing will be coming in at about, say, 55 kilometers, or 33 miles per second.<br />
<br />
GH: Geez.<br />
<br />
B: I mean this thing'll be coming in so fast. That is kinetic energy. They're talking, the impact equivalent of a billion megatons, that's a petaton. Equivalent to a one petaton nuke.<br />
<br />
S: Bob, you like petatons?<br />
<br />
B: I love petatons. They're awesome!<br />
<br />
S: You're a petaphile?! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good one. Go for the easy ones, Steve, that was good.<br />
<br />
E: See, Bob. There is the horizon. Did you see it coming?<br />
<br />
B: That's with a "t" by the way, not a "d." Now, that's millions of times bigger than anything that we've ever detonated. We're talking about a crater that could be hundreds of miles or kilometers across. It would be totally devastating. But that would be cool.<br />
<br />
''(unintelligible – several people talking at once.)''<br />
<br />
B: I want this thing to hit Mars so bad. But, and I want one of our rovers to have a safe front-row seat to film this entire thing. But the problem is, I don't think there's, there won't be anywhere safe on the planet. Even if it was on the other side. This thing can be so devastating. It could take out every probe on the planet or in orbit. It won't matter where you are. It could wipe out everything. And that would clearly suck.<br />
<br />
S: Would it be worth it, though, to get the video?<br />
<br />
B: Think about the time and effort and future science that we would be getting out of these things, all wiped in an hour. Bam! Game over, you're done. But, yeah, the video, the YouTube video that came out of that would be epic. Totally epic.<br />
<br />
J: Is that gonna ruin the geologic history of Mars?<br />
<br />
B: No. In what way Jay?<br />
<br />
E: Not all of it.<br />
<br />
S: It's going to hit the last colony of life on Mars. ''(laughter)'' Wipe it out. Some bacterial colony.<br />
<br />
GH: That group of cells up there is all getting psyched.<br />
<br />
S: This little frozen, this little underground pond.<br />
<br />
E: ''(in a little voice)'' Yay, we can think! Ahhhhhh! Crash.<br />
<br />
J: Let me clarify. So we have a petaton object hitting the surface of Mars. Couldn't that breach the, get down in the mantle and actually . . .<br />
<br />
S: The Martian crust is a little thicker than Earth's. Mars's crust is 50 kilometers thick on average, while Earth's is 40 kilometers on average. And the mantle is still hot. So, like Earth, Mars has a relatively thin crust. It also has a much thinner atmosphere, only 1/100 the thickness that of Earth. So that's less of a cushion to slow down anything incoming, like a comet. But I don't know if this could carry the punch necessary to crack open the crust down to the mantle.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, and that would be a deep crater, Jay. <br />
<br />
J: Couldn't that kick up enough matter into the tiny atmosphere that there is and actually just screw up all of that geologic information?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, it'll definitely erase a lot of geological information, no question.<br />
<br />
GH: But it could also expose a lot, too.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I don't know, but, yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: I wonder, if it does hit, will this be a, sort of a good selling point for us to come up with some kind of comet deterrence system, asteroid deterrence system. Like, look at Mars! Look at what happened! That could be us!<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: You know, I'm just saying. It'd be nice, right?<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely. That's one of the big benefits of the Russian asteroid recently. That people are like, oh, boy, we've gotta really start taking this seriously. If something like that hit Mars and with such a devastating effect, and we filmed it in all of its glory, yeah, that would be, that would spur us even more. So in that regard, I think that will be a great benefit of this thing taking out Mars.<br />
<br />
S: So I'm having mixed feelings about ''(unintelligible)'' It would be uber-cool in many ways, but I don't want all of NASA's probes to be destroyed. That would suck.<br />
<br />
B: In one fell swoop. Which of course, the conspiracy theorists would say, well, yeah, this was manmade. We steered the comet towards Mars to wipe out, so that our probes wouldn't run into the secret…. ''(overlapping comments)''<br />
<br />
S: What if the comet hits Cydonia? Like it hits the face on Mars.<br />
<br />
B: I was just thinking that, Steve. I was just thinking that! That would be, I really hope that doesn't happen, 'cause that would be too much of a coincidence.<br />
<br />
''(Many people talking at once – unintelligible)''<br />
<br />
GH: --put the pieces together. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we're getting there. That's our next item. So, Bob, what I read, though, was that the current estimate is that there's a 0.1 percent chance that the nucleus of the comet will directly hit Mars.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it's looking unlikely, very unlikely, even right now, before we know the obit.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: But it's not completely ruled out and who knows, these are comets and they are inherently harder to predict than asteroids.<br />
<br />
S: But even if it's not a direct hit, though, there's a good chance that the <br />
<br />
B: The comea, the coma?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the coma will pass through Mars. Essentially<br />
<br />
GH: Combover?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It'll coma over, yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: If it does hit, though, what happens to all the life force vampires that're in the comet? Are they affected by that, or is that . .. <br />
<br />
B: OOOOhhhh. Yeah, I know what you're thinking of, George.<br />
<br />
GH: Damn right.<br />
<br />
J: My vote is I don't want it to hit.<br />
<br />
B: 'Nuf said.<br />
<br />
GH: 'Nuf said.<br />
<br />
S: Jay votes no. What do you say, Evan?<br />
<br />
E: Absolutely yes. This is a once, gosh, not even once in a lifetime chance. Once in a, I don't know, species time chance, for this to happen.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I wanna see Mars split in two.<br />
<br />
S: George, what do you think?<br />
<br />
GH: I want it to hit, but I want it to hit like on the far side so we can't see it. Just to really be like Doooohhhhhhh it's so aaaaaaawwwwww. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Worst case scenario.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah, I want a massive---<br />
<br />
''(Many people talking at once – unintelligible)''<br />
<br />
S: --wipes out all our probes so we don't get to see anything.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah, this huge nerd sigh, that just is like "guuuuuhh." Yeah, that's what I want. <br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' Nerd sigh.<br />
<br />
J; Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
E: Steve, what do you want? You said no?<br />
<br />
S: I'm on the fence. No, I said I'm conflicted, very conflicted.<br />
<br />
E: Don't forget, Mars has two moons.<br />
<br />
S: Maybe it'll hit one of the moons.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that'd be cool!<br />
<br />
E: How cool would that be?<br />
<br />
J: Not cool. <br />
<br />
E: Why?<br />
<br />
J: It could hit one of the moons and send it towards the Earth and then we're all f'd.<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
B: I'll take that chance.<br />
<br />
J: Hey, come on. You never know, Steve.<br />
<br />
E: That's what happened in ''Thundarr the Barbarian.'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S; Jay, what are the names of the moons of Mars?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, there's, uh, Zero Zero One and Zero Zero Two. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Alpha and Beta.<br />
<br />
B: Deimos and Phobos.<br />
<br />
S: Phobos and Deimos, yes.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, the first one, Frankie Gismore ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: And the second one is?<br />
<br />
J: I love it when we have all guys on the show. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Sirius UFO <small>(35:31)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp9aOb04e20&list=PL6E8B33D9279BEF7B&index=1 YouTube: Dr.Steven Greer - Sirius Documentary (Trailer) - New Movie Coming Soon ! 2012]<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(47:08)</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: STS 1<br />
<br />
A man from Ukraine had three sons. The first son was named Rab, and he became a lawyer. The second son was named Ymra, and he became a soldier. The 3rd son became a sailor, so what was his name? <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Question 1: Magnet Hill <small>(50:26)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>Dear Skeptic Rogues, I am a Software Engineer originally from Dominican Republic, I have been a listener of the show since 2010, and every week I am looking forward to a new SGU chapter. When I was a kid (I am 28) back in DR, a journalist made an investigation about a "Magnetic Pole" in one remote corner of the country, Barahona, in the south east of the island. It always puzzle me.The place looks like a hill, however, everything you place in the ground "rolls" in the opposite direction, uphill. All objects, no matter what material they are, the are pulled upwards.You can look at dozens of videos in youtube by searching the string "polo magnetico barahona" (Magnetic Pole Barahona)The common and most simple explanation is that the place is an optical illusion. Is not that I do not believe it, I do not understand it.I have been looking for explanations, but none of them satisfy my curiosity. In my little research, I did't find any other place where this phenomena is happening. If you find an explanation to this phenomena I will appreciate it. Thanks in advance for your kind responses!<br/><br />
Jonathan Nonon<br/><br />
New York </blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Question 2: Tourette <small>(56:27)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was recently in a discussion about Tourette Syndrome and, to get to get quickly to the point, minor forms of said syndrome. It was my assertion that minor forms where more akin to compulsion or in more extreme cases OCD, and that Tourette was specifically an extreme. I remember you touching shortly on this on the SGU and searched your Blogs to see if you had written anything more in depth, to no avail. I was hoping that you could give me a short rundown on the "mechanics" to help me better understand what is going on with this phenomenon. If you would like to answer on the air I would be honored, but a small Email response is really all I am after here. Faithful listener, keep up the good work, etc.<br/><br />
Woody</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:06:04)</small> ==<br />
[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/osoa-idh022613.php Item #1]: Greater than 60% of upstream traffic is comprised of torrent files, while Netflix by itself represents 1/3 of peak download traffic. [http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/photos/how-25-tech-companies-got-their-names-slideshow/amazon-holds-news-conference-photo--982673090.html Item #2]: Amazon.com benefitted from the popularity of the Yahoo search engine, which listed search results alphabetically. [http://royal.pingdom.com/2013/01/16/internet-2012-in-numbers/ Item #3]: North America has the highest internet penetration at 78.6%, while Africa has the lowest at 15.6%. [http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blemtax2.htm Item #4]: In 1999 Congressman Peter Schnell proposed House Bill 602P allowing the US postal service to charge a 5cent surcharge for each e-mail sent. The bill died in response to public outrage.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:22:01)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Neither evolution nor creation qualifies as a scientific theory.</blockquote><br />
Duane Gish<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS <small>(1:23:06)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_399&diff=6644SGU Episode 3992013-05-25T01:47:09Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 399<br />
|episodeDate = 9<sup>th</sup> March 2013<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mars-comet-NASA-JPL-600x328.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|guest1 = GH: George Hrab<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-09.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=399<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45268.0.html<br />
|qowText = Neither evolution nor creation qualifies as a scientific theory.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish Duane Gish]<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today March 6, 2013, and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: 400!<br />
<br />
S: Evan Bernstein,<br />
<br />
E: Good evening, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: And we have a special guest rogue with us this evening, George Hrab. George, welcome back.<br />
<br />
GH: This isn't ''The Price is Right''! Jay, you lied to me. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: What else is new?<br />
<br />
J: No, but this is our 400th!<br />
<br />
S: No, it's not, Jay. Next week is our 400th episode.<br />
<br />
GH: 399!<br />
<br />
J: 399!<br />
<br />
E: 399! And that's a bargain.<br />
<br />
S: We're not round number bigots here, anyway. That's all superstitious nonsense.<br />
<br />
GH: Roundists. You're all roundists.<br />
<br />
S: So, Rebecca's voice is still recovering from whatever infection she had. So she is again not with us this week. But George will be taking her place and speaking in falsetto the entire show.<br />
<br />
GH: ''(starting high pitched, dropping to low)'' Y-e-e-e-s. I'm so skeptical. ''(normal voice)'' It's not a Rebecca impression. It's not a Rebecca impression at all. ''(laughter)'' We got that. All right. Good.<br />
<br />
J: So we were just talking before the show, like, saying hi to George and everything, and it occurred to me I wanted to ask George this question. George, ever listening, you ever listen to a podcast—<br />
<br />
GH: ''(in a Russian accent)'' Ever listenink to ''(unintelligible)'' Oh, sorry. Go ahead. So, have I ever listened to what?<br />
<br />
J: Has this ever happened where you're listening to a show that you've recorded, and somebody says your name in the podcast, and you answer them in real time? Like, it just happened to me two days ago. I was listening to one of our shows, and Steve says "So, Jay," and I actually go "Yeah." I'm like wh-o-o-o-a. He's not in the car with me! I'm not on the phone with him. I'm hearing him in the podcast.<br />
<br />
GH: I don't listen to my show 'cause I don't really like my show.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: But sound effects that I've done before have scared the hell out of me. I'll forget that I inserted an airplane or something, and it'll scare the crap out of me. ''(laughter)'' Or like a doorbell sound or something, yeah. But I don't actually, because I'm the only person on my show, for me to respond to myself as if I was actually talking to myself, I think would be indicative of something really scary and awesome. <br />
<br />
J: All right, that is a good point.<br />
<br />
GH: But, I respond to ''(two people talking – undecipherable)'' And if I listen to this show, I'll make sure that every time you say "Hey, George" no matter where I am, I'll say "What? Oh, damn!" ''(laughter)'' What? Oh, damn!<br />
<br />
E: With a head turn, right?<br />
<br />
''(two people talking—inaudible – something about Scooby-Doo)''<br />
<br />
GH: ''(imitating Scooby)'' Erh?<br />
<br />
B: Scooby snack.<br />
<br />
S: Hey George!<br />
<br />
GH: Erh?<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(2:45)</small> ==<br />
March 9, 1851: Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted died. &Oslash;rsted was a Danish physicist and chemist who discovered current traveling along a wire could deflect a compass needle.<br />
<br />
S: Evan is gonna tell us about this day in skepticism.<br />
<br />
E: All right. So, March 9, and the year was 1851. Now, we all know who Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted was<br />
<br />
B: ''(singing)'' Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted.<br />
<br />
J: I have no idea who he is.<br />
<br />
E: Well, he was a Danish. Oh, I'm sorry, wait, he was a Danish physicist<br />
<br />
S: And delicious.<br />
<br />
GH: I sing.<br />
<br />
E: Who made a discovery. He discovered that an electric current in a wire causes a nearby magnetized compass needle to deflect, indicating the electric current in a wire induces a magnetic field around it.<br />
<br />
B: That is awesome.<br />
<br />
J: That is awesome.<br />
<br />
B: You could just retire after making that discovery. I'm done. I've made my contribution.<br />
<br />
E: A little electro-magnetic theory for you, then?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah, but how do you monotize that. I mean, that's the problem. What d'ya do with that? What kind of invention could that possibly lead to? ''(people talking simultaneously)''<br />
<br />
B: It's just a laboratory curiosity. Nothing to see here.<br />
<br />
GH: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: It took like a hundred years for them to slap one of those suckers in a bracelet. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
GH: And then you get the real money.<br />
<br />
E: A bracelet made of, perhaps, aluminum. Hey! Speaking of aluminum<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so<br />
<br />
E and B: Aluminium.<br />
<br />
S: &Oslash;rsted also was the first one to produce metallic aluminum. Do you guys know how common—<br />
<br />
B: As opposed to rubber aluminum?<br />
<br />
S: No, as opposed an aluminum oxide or aluminum silicate. So, aluminum is the third most abundant element in the Earth's crust. And I know you guys all know that<br />
<br />
E: The third most?<br />
<br />
B: I used to know that, yes.<br />
<br />
S: After oxygen and silicon, which is why there's lots of aluminum oxides and aluminum silicate. And he figured out how to make metallic aluminum. Although it was up to later chemists to figure out how to really industrialize that process. If you recall, we talked about the fact that when aluminum was first available as a metal, it was more expensive than gold.<br />
<br />
B: I recall nothing.<br />
<br />
S: It was considered a rare and exotic metal and things made out of aluminum were like a status symbol. But then later chemists figured out how to make massive quantities of it, just from dirt, basically, and, you know, from bauxites, specifically.<br />
<br />
J: Did these scientists like cash in at that moment? Like, okay, I figured out how to make it, it's everywhere.<br />
<br />
E: Let's sell it now.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, did somebody become a trillionaire for like the first three years or what happened?<br />
<br />
S: American Aluminum, you know, I think was the company that became very wealthy mass producing aluminum. And the price went from hundreds of dollars an ounce to pennies a pound.<br />
<br />
J: Oof.<br />
<br />
GH: See, Alcoa shouldn't have waited.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, Alcoa, that's it.<br />
<br />
E: Bad investment.<br />
<br />
J: Guess I shouldn't have invested in that company early on.<br />
<br />
S: Well, you shouldn't have invested in aluminum. The company did quite well, actually. Now, did you also know that Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted was a very close friend of Hans Christian Andersen.<br />
<br />
B: Seriously?<br />
<br />
J: That's what I was gonna say.<br />
<br />
GH: No way.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, and I actually don't know exactly who Hans Christian Andersen is or was. What's his deal? Who's that guy?<br />
<br />
B: Come on, Jay.<br />
<br />
E: He wrote stories.<br />
<br />
B: It's Danny Kaye!<br />
<br />
E: That's right. Danny Kaye. He wrote Thumbelina,<br />
<br />
GH: The Little Mermaid.<br />
<br />
J: Did he sing The Little Mermaid?<br />
<br />
GH: I think he played the crab in the movie, actually. ''(laughter)'' Oh, aluminum.<br />
<br />
S: He wrote famous fairy tales. But, so, how did these guys meet? Like at a Hans Christian organization or something?<br />
<br />
E: Convention?<br />
<br />
B: I know. Famous People Named Hans Christian.<br />
<br />
GH: That was a Facebook page, wasn't it? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Did they get each other's mail, or what happened?<br />
<br />
J: My money's on the fact that maybe like half the population is just named Hans Christian something.<br />
<br />
S: Maybe.<br />
<br />
B: I think it's a coincidence.<br />
<br />
E: And March 9, 1851, was the day that we lost Hans &Oslash;rsted. Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted. So, we mourned Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted on this day. But thank you so much for all that electro-magnetism. It is doing us wonders these days.<br />
<br />
S: And aluminum. Yep.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that too.<br />
<br />
S: So George, before we go on to news items, what's new with you?<br />
<br />
GH: What's new? Goodness. Uh, what isn't? Actually, it's a short list. The newest thing is a number of you rogues were at the 21812 concert that happened last year.<br />
<br />
B: Yes! Loved it!<br />
<br />
GH: We are furiously, furiously editing and putting together what looks to be just an incredible DVD of that performance, which is audio mixing. I was at Slau's yesterday, as a matter of fact. So the audio mixing is done. A monumental effort, and now the video is being edited, and there's gonna be commentary and a documentary and it's gonna be really, really fantastic. So that is the thing which is occupying the most frontal part of my frontal creative lobe right now, is the 21812 concert.<br />
<br />
B: It only took you a year!<br />
<br />
J: When's it coming out?<br />
<br />
GH: I know, I know, I know, I know. Weeks. Months? Weeks. Well, I guess months are made up of weeks, so I'm not lying in either direction. But, weeks.<br />
<br />
S: As long as it's more than one month, right.<br />
<br />
GH: Hmm? Right.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== HIV Cure <small>(7:49)</small> ===<br />
[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/hiv-cure-game-changer/ Neurologica: HIV Cure "Game Changer"]<br />
<br />
S: So I have some ''good news'' everyone. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Excellent.<br />
<br />
J: What's up?<br />
<br />
S: Did you hear about the girl who was cured, ''cured'' of HIV?<br />
<br />
B: Despite this, or in spite of, the incompetence of her mom, apparently.<br />
<br />
S: Her mother appears to be troubled. I don't know if incompetence is her problem or if it's other things, but, so . . . Here's the story. The mother, who was HIV infected, presented for delivery with apparently no prenatal care, and delivered a child, who was positive for HIV within 30 hours of being born. So almost certainly infected in utero. The doctor was consulted, an HIV infectious disease specialist at the time was consulted on the case. Not really sure why, but decided to treat the child earlier than is typically treated. So at 31 hours, the infant was treated with anti-retroviral therapy. And also, she decided to give the infant<br />
<br />
B: Extra.<br />
<br />
S: Well, not extra, so therapeutic doses as opposed to preventive, or prophylactic doses.<br />
<br />
E: What's the difference?<br />
<br />
S: It's a higher dose. So a therapeutic dose is meant to treat an existing infection, whereas a preventive dose is meant to prevent an exposure from establishing itself as an infection.<br />
<br />
B: You can call that extra, I think.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, she gave the higher dose, the therapeutic dose.<br />
<br />
B: Extra.<br />
<br />
GH: Not the gum, but the actual medicine, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the anti-retroviral therapy. ART.<br />
<br />
GH: 'Cause that would be something, if extra gum cured AIDS. That would be, wow.<br />
<br />
S: This is Hannah Gay. A pediatric infectious disease specialist. And the child was treated with ART for the first 18 months of life, or thereabouts. At that point she was lost to follow-up, as we say. Stopped being brought back in by the mother for treatment. Now, Dr. Gay diligently tracked down the mother and the child, through the police, in order to bring the child back in for health care. So now, it was like seven or eight months the child has been getting no medication. The mother was going through some kind of life situation. Apparently has a lot of challenges. And not giving the kid their medicine. Not bringing them in to doctor's visits. So Dr. Gay at this point thought, okay, so now we have a two-year-old who has gone six, seven, eight months with no medication therapy. Their viral loads are gonna be off the charts. <br />
<br />
B: Right, because typically what happens, Steve, is when you're taking, when you're going through that process, the viruses pretty much just go into hiding, right? They just like say screw it, I'm just gonna hang out and wait til the weather's better and then once you stop it, bam! They come out. And that's what he expected.<br />
<br />
S: She, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Dr. Gay, that's what Gay expected.<br />
<br />
S: What typically happens is, in an HIV-infected individual, if they're treated with ART, then the viral loads will drop to undetectable levels. But the virus still lives on in the body, in these hidden reservoirs. As you say, they go into hiding. And these reservoirs are isolated from the immune system so that they can persist despite the retroviral therapy, and if you stopped the retroviral therapy, anti-retroviral therapy, then the infection would come back, would rebound. Because of these reservoirs. So, checked out the child, did the viral loads, they were still undetectable. There was no sign of HIV in the child at all. Went back to check everything. So now she things, all right, there's something interesting going on here. She checked a number of things. She got other specialists involved as well. First they confirmed that yes, she was indeed infected with HIV as a newborn. They confirmed that. Two, that the strain of HIV is a wild type strain that's not some mutated strain, it's not a weakened strain. It's a regular strain of HIV. Three, they tested the mother and the child to see if they happened to have a genetic type that makes them resistant to HIV, 'cause there are people out there who are naturally resistant to HIV. And they did not. So they did not have any of the known forms of resistance.<br />
<br />
B: Three great tests. So it's like, yeah. It didn't occur to me that they should do that but when I read it I'm like, oh, of course, that's exactly what you would need to do to really be secure in your conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Well, plus, I think, at this point that they were planning on publishing. And of course you want to get all your ducks in a row if you do that.<br />
<br />
B: Right, right.<br />
<br />
S: And in fact they did present this case at a conference and reported all these details. So essentially they discovered that she was infected, it was a normal virus, they're not resistant, and even six, seven months after stopping ART the virus never rebounded. They're calling this a functional cure. A functional cure. Not an outright cure, I think because a couple of, they did really, really sensitive tests for HIV, RNA and DNA and a couple of these tests showed rally miniscule little remnants of RNA or DNA.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but didn't they describe them as non-functional, or they did not have the ability to reproduce?<br />
<br />
S: They are not replication competent.<br />
<br />
B: That's what it was.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they are not replication competent. But I guess it means it's not completely, completely, completely out of the system. But what it does mean is that the virus will not rebound. It is not established. There's no active reservoirs of the virus. And the child will be able to live their life without the need for further ART, or anti-retroviral therapy.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. So we're not looking at some state of remission that's currently going on?<br />
<br />
S: Well, remission is not an unreasonable term to use. It's a remission without medication, without needing further medication or treatment. Functional cure is the specific term that they used. This is only the second case of any human being who was known to be infected with HIV who then was cured. The first one was a gentleman who got a bone marrow transplant in Germany from a donor who was HIV resistant. And they were apparently cured by that bone marrow transplant. Basically given a new immune system resistant to the HIV. This is now the second case.<br />
<br />
J: Does this help the world, Steve? Can we use this information in any way?<br />
<br />
B: Well, shit yeah. Look at the children born with AIDS like in Africa. I mean, the United States it's not so much of a huge deal as it is in Africa. But Jay, there's like, the statistic was crazy, it was like thousands of kids per pico-second in Africa.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, but my question is: does that case, the second case, of this child, does it actually help scientists figure out how to use that to make some type of cure?<br />
<br />
S: So here's the bottom line<br />
<br />
GH: We have to weaponize the baby, I think. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: The stats are about 130 children per year develop HIV from their mother in the United States. But it's about a thousand children per day world-wide in developing countries. So that's a lot. That's a thousand kids per day.<br />
<br />
GH: Why is that woman having so many children? ''(laughter)'' I'm sorry. Sorry.<br />
<br />
S: What this suggests is that the standard of care for treating newborns born of infected mothers might be, rather than giving prophylactic doses, but to give, would be to give therapeutic doses earlier, to try to prevent the virus from ever establishing an infection. Which seems to be the case here. The virus never got itself established. Here's the trick, though, is that, I mean, it's gotta be studied, is the case. This is an anecdote, right? It's interesting, but it's one case. And it's hard to extrapolate from that. So this will lead to research looking at this approach to show that it's safe, to show that it's effective. What's going to be tricky, so let's you get a hundred kids, or 200 kids, 100 you give the standard therapy. The other hundred you give this early aggressive therapy. You track 'em over a few years. To really know that the children have been functionally cured, you would want to actually stop their ART. That's gonna be tricky to do.<br />
<br />
E: That's tough.<br />
<br />
S: Ethically, how are you gonna do that? We're not gonna give you proof in therapy to see how you're doing. So, the best they could hope to do would be to follow a lot of children and then track those whose parents stopped giving them the medication due to non-compliance or whatever. Like in this case. You know, you can't randomly choose people not to get treatment just to see how they do. That's the definition of unethical research. But you may be able to track cases where the children stopped getting their drugs for one reason or another and see how they do. And maybe you can gather enough information from that to say okay, it's reasonable in these cases with these outcomes to reduce the medication, see how they do, maybe wean them off, tracking them carefully. So it's not gonna instantly lead to replicating this exact treatment paradigm, but it will, I think, probably it'll lead to studying this higher, more aggressive, early treatment, which may lead to curing infants who otherwise would have been infected with HIV. But this is using drugs that are already in existence to treat HIV. This is not a new treatment or a new cure. This is not a cure for people in whom infection is already established. You might think that maybe the same applies if you, let's say, get exposed to HIV. Again, instead of getting preventive doses, maybe even as an adult, you would be given therapeutic doses right away. <br />
<br />
''(inaudible comment by GH)''<br />
<br />
J: When you say "therapeutic doses" you mean a large, large amount. <br />
<br />
S: Well, the doses that are normally given to people with HIV infection, as opposed to preventive doses, which are doses given to people who have been exposed but who are not infected. In order to reduce the risk of the exposure resulting in an infection.<br />
<br />
GH: When I read the story, it was amazing. And I remember one of the first things that popped into my head was the idea that the kid at one point was outside of the care of the hospital, whether that was seven months, or whatever it was.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: And that someone is going to latch onto something the kid did in those seven months and say that ''that'' is the actual cure.<br />
<br />
B: Ohhhhh, wow.<br />
<br />
GH: You what I mean, like Fruit Loops or something. And they're gonna say "Yeah, the fact that she had Fruit Loops!" Forget the hospital. It was the Fruit Loops that cured. Here's proof! Like that was the first, the woo radar warning system that I have installed in my brain, was like, oh man, okay, let no one take advantage of those seven months where the kid was outside of supervised care to claim that that's some kind of secret cure.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah. I didn't even think of that.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I agree.<br />
<br />
S: I haven't heard anything about it yet, but that's always a risk. There was a lot of sensational reporting of this story.<br />
<br />
GH: Wh-a-a-t?<br />
<br />
S: It's fascinating enough as it is. What I always, my radar goes up, we talk about the skeptical radar, my skeptical radar always goes up whenever I see the word "cure" in the headline of any article. Especially when it's connected to AIDS or cancer or the common cold or whatever.<br />
<br />
B: Acne.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. There are certain things where it's like, really? You mean, no, we did not cure AIDS, I'm sorry, we did not cure HIV. This is a very interesting case and has implications for research and for treatment. But no, this isn't the discovery of a cure for HIV.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, so what if a parent has AIDS. They have a kid, and they're like, I want my kid to get a therapeutic dose asap? What can they do? 'Cause that's what I would do.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Enter a trial, enter a clinical trial in which that is being done and take your chance that you'll get randomized, getting it.<br />
<br />
J: Is it hard to get into a trial?<br />
<br />
S: Well, right now, none exists. But I'm sure<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that's just it.<br />
<br />
S: It'll take time to get them up and running. I don't know how many and how many people are gonna be introduced. So, probably in the U.S., given that the number is so low, number of kids who get infected this way because of pre-natal care, etc. 'Cause you know, normally what you would do is aggressively treat the mother, get the viral loads down as low as possible so the risk of the so-called vertical transmission from mother to child is minimized. This mother didn't do that, that's probably why the child was infected. So, this is the exact people who are going to end up infected as an infant are the ones that are going to be difficult to recruit, and there aren't that many of them. So it's probably gonna be more, it's gonna be hard to get people into this trial as opposed to people having a hard time getting into such trials. You know what I mean? If you're the kind of parent who is going to seek out that kind of aggressive care, you're probably not the kind of parent who is going to give birth to an infected child in the first place. Does that make sense?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah; where's the father through all this, I wonder?<br />
<br />
S: No mention in anything.<br />
<br />
GH: I wonder what his situation is.<br />
<br />
S: Obviously the doctors are being confidential, keeping confidential the personal details. They're just saying she had some life situation that intervened, but we have no idea what that was. But clearly she's troubled.<br />
<br />
B: It still won't be an outright cure because if you have the infection, this won't work, but for people who just get it, it will a cure for them. There—<br />
<br />
S: Well, remember, she was treated at 30 hours of life.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: How many people don't we even find out that they've been exposed until—<br />
<br />
B: That's it.<br />
<br />
S: --days later. So, one example would be a health care worker who stabs themself with an HIV-infected needle.<br />
<br />
B: Yup. Perfect example.<br />
<br />
S: You would be in the clinic in 15 minutes. In fact, I did that to myself once. Not with an HIV<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
E; Oh, my gosh.<br />
<br />
S: Not with an HIV-infected needle. But I stuck myself with a Hep C needle.<br />
<br />
J: How'd you do it?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, man, I hate when that happens.<br />
<br />
GH: Did you lose a bet?<br />
<br />
S: No. It was an accident. I did what I wasn't supposed to. I recapped the needle, the needle went right through the cap and into my finger.<br />
<br />
E: Geez.<br />
<br />
J: And you were right in front of a patient?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: What'd you do?<br />
<br />
S: I finished what I was doing. I went to the health services and got two huge needles of gamma globulin injected into my buttocks.<br />
<br />
E: Gamma globulin?<br />
<br />
J: Wait a second. Wait, wait, wait, wait.<br />
<br />
B: One per cheek?<br />
<br />
S: Yup.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, I have to ask more detail. Did you keep your composure?<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
J: Like, did you do "Oh, holy shit!!" Like run out of there. <br />
<br />
GH: Like ''We're all gonna die!!!''<br />
<br />
J: ''Give me those ass needles!!'' ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: On panic day? Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it was not panic day. Unlike today.<br />
<br />
J: Were you embarrassed? Were you shameful, like going to some guy sitting at a desk and you're like "Um…"<br />
<br />
S: Yes, I was stupid. Yea. It was dumb. I was a medical student.<br />
<br />
J: Did they say anything to you. Like did they make you feel really weird?<br />
<br />
S: No. No.<br />
<br />
B: Steve's heart rate increased by two beats per minute.<br />
<br />
E: Were they messing with you? "Oh, we gotta do a biopsy, and now we're gonna do this. Gotta do that."<br />
<br />
S: No. They're my physician now. They acted totally professional.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, put this in a little context. Hepatitis C. How bad we talkin'?<br />
<br />
S: That's bad. Like a chronic liver infection. It would be very bad. And yes, I got, the treatment for that is gamma globulin, so it like pooled antibodies. And it's a huge dose.<br />
<br />
B: Is it a bolus? They call that a bolus?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: If they give you enough of that gamma globulin, Steve, can you turn into the Hulk? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: The first injection was very painful. The second injection was ten times as painful. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, but ten times!<br />
<br />
S: It was so much more painful! And the reason for that probably<br />
<br />
GH: It's not supposed to go in your penis. That's the problem. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: We gotta get this in here!<br />
<br />
GH: A really long needle.<br />
<br />
S: When you get the first injection your body excretes chemicals which sort of prime it for pain, and so then when you get the second injection, it has a huge exaggerated local response to the injection.<br />
<br />
B: Thank you, body, isn't that convenient?<br />
<br />
E: Well, okay<br />
<br />
J: Why's that happening?<br />
<br />
E: They should give you both needles at once. One, two, three, jab.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I don't know what would be worse.<br />
<br />
J: That's crazy.<br />
<br />
E: Two at once. Two needles at once.<br />
<br />
S: But this was, whatever, twenty years ago, so, I know I'm out of the window. And never had a problem from it.<br />
<br />
GH: Are you sure?<br />
<br />
E: No Hep C.<br />
<br />
S: I could definitely imagine the panic of jabbing yourself with an HIV-infected needle. That would be panic time.<br />
<br />
J: It just shows you how dangerous health care is. I mean, these professionals—<br />
<br />
S: This was also, this was not in the early, early days, but, this was earlier in the whole HIV situation. So, you know, the protocols for preventing these things were not as well established. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: They had you rub garlic on the wound. Prayer beads and whatever.<br />
<br />
S: The needle that I was using at that time doesn't even exist now, really. Everything is made to prevent this from happening. Anyway, let's move on.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Mars Comet <small>(24:49)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/5349/20130304/newly-discovered-comet-hit-mars-watch-two-others-near-earth.htm Newly Discovered Comet May Hit Mars: Watch for Two Others Near Earth]<br />
<br />
=== Sirius UFO <small>(35:31)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp9aOb04e20&list=PL6E8B33D9279BEF7B&index=1 YouTube: Dr.Steven Greer - Sirius Documentary (Trailer) - New Movie Coming Soon ! 2012]<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(47:08)</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: STS 1<br />
<br />
A man from Ukraine had three sons. The first son was named Rab, and he became a lawyer. The second son was named Ymra, and he became a soldier. The 3rd son became a sailor, so what was his name? <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Question 1: Magnet Hill <small>(50:26)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>Dear Skeptic Rogues, I am a Software Engineer originally from Dominican Republic, I have been a listener of the show since 2010, and every week I am looking forward to a new SGU chapter. When I was a kid (I am 28) back in DR, a journalist made an investigation about a "Magnetic Pole" in one remote corner of the country, Barahona, in the south east of the island. It always puzzle me.The place looks like a hill, however, everything you place in the ground "rolls" in the opposite direction, uphill. All objects, no matter what material they are, the are pulled upwards.You can look at dozens of videos in youtube by searching the string "polo magnetico barahona" (Magnetic Pole Barahona)The common and most simple explanation is that the place is an optical illusion. Is not that I do not believe it, I do not understand it.I have been looking for explanations, but none of them satisfy my curiosity. In my little research, I did't find any other place where this phenomena is happening. If you find an explanation to this phenomena I will appreciate it. Thanks in advance for your kind responses!<br/><br />
Jonathan Nonon<br/><br />
New York </blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Question 2: Tourette <small>(56:27)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was recently in a discussion about Tourette Syndrome and, to get to get quickly to the point, minor forms of said syndrome. It was my assertion that minor forms where more akin to compulsion or in more extreme cases OCD, and that Tourette was specifically an extreme. I remember you touching shortly on this on the SGU and searched your Blogs to see if you had written anything more in depth, to no avail. I was hoping that you could give me a short rundown on the "mechanics" to help me better understand what is going on with this phenomenon. If you would like to answer on the air I would be honored, but a small Email response is really all I am after here. Faithful listener, keep up the good work, etc.<br/><br />
Woody</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:06:04)</small> ==<br />
[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/osoa-idh022613.php Item #1]: Greater than 60% of upstream traffic is comprised of torrent files, while Netflix by itself represents 1/3 of peak download traffic. [http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/photos/how-25-tech-companies-got-their-names-slideshow/amazon-holds-news-conference-photo--982673090.html Item #2]: Amazon.com benefitted from the popularity of the Yahoo search engine, which listed search results alphabetically. [http://royal.pingdom.com/2013/01/16/internet-2012-in-numbers/ Item #3]: North America has the highest internet penetration at 78.6%, while Africa has the lowest at 15.6%. [http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blemtax2.htm Item #4]: In 1999 Congressman Peter Schnell proposed House Bill 602P allowing the US postal service to charge a 5cent surcharge for each e-mail sent. The bill died in response to public outrage.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:22:01)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Neither evolution nor creation qualifies as a scientific theory.</blockquote><br />
Duane Gish<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS <small>(1:23:06)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_399&diff=6640SGU Episode 3992013-05-21T22:38:41Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 399<br />
|episodeDate = 9<sup>th</sup> March 2013<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mars-comet-NASA-JPL-600x328.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|guest1 = GH: George Hrab<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-09.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=399<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45268.0.html<br />
|qowText = Neither evolution nor creation qualifies as a scientific theory.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish Duane Gish]<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today March 6, 2013, and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: 400!<br />
<br />
S: Evan Bernstein,<br />
<br />
E: Good evening, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: And we have a special guest rogue with us this evening, George Hrab. George, welcome back.<br />
<br />
GH: This isn't ''The Price is Right''! Jay, you lied to me. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: What else is new?<br />
<br />
J: No, but this is our 400th!<br />
<br />
S: No, it's not, Jay. Next week is our 400th episode.<br />
<br />
GH: 399!<br />
<br />
J: 399!<br />
<br />
E: 399! And that's a bargain.<br />
<br />
S: We're not round number bigots here, anyway. That's all superstitious nonsense.<br />
<br />
GH: Roundists. You're all roundists.<br />
<br />
S: So, Rebecca's voice is still recovering from whatever infection she had. So she is again not with us this week. But George will be taking her place and speaking in falsetto the entire show.<br />
<br />
GH: ''(starting high pitched, dropping to low)'' Y-e-e-e-s. I'm so skeptical. ''(normal voice)'' It's not a Rebecca impression. It's not a Rebecca impression at all. ''(laughter)'' We got that. All right. Good.<br />
<br />
J: So we were just talking before the show, like, saying hi to George and everything, and it occurred to me I wanted to ask George this question. George, ever listening, you ever listen to a podcast—<br />
<br />
GH: ''(in a Russian accent)'' Ever listenink to ''(unintelligible)'' Oh, sorry. Go ahead. So, have I ever listened to what?<br />
<br />
J: Has this ever happened where you're listening to a show that you've recorded, and somebody says your name in the podcast, and you answer them in real time? Like, it just happened to me two days ago. I was listening to one of our shows, and Steve says "So, Jay," and I actually go "Yeah." I'm like wh-o-o-o-a. He's not in the car with me! I'm not on the phone with him. I'm hearing him in the podcast.<br />
<br />
GH: I don't listen to my show 'cause I don't really like my show.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: But sound effects that I've done before have scared the hell out of me. I'll forget that I inserted an airplane or something, and it'll scare the crap out of me. ''(laughter)'' Or like a doorbell sound or something, yeah. But I don't actually, because I'm the only person on my show, for me to respond to myself as if I was actually talking to myself, I think would be indicative of something really scary and awesome. <br />
<br />
J: All right, that is a good point.<br />
<br />
GH: But, I respond to ''(two people talking – undecipherable)'' And if I listen to this show, I'll make sure that every time you say "Hey, George" no matter where I am, I'll say "What? Oh, damn!" ''(laughter)'' What? Oh, damn!<br />
<br />
E: With a head turn, right?<br />
<br />
''(two people talking—inaudible – something about Scooby-Doo)''<br />
<br />
GH: ''(imitating Scooby)'' Erh?<br />
<br />
B: Scooby snack.<br />
<br />
S: Hey George!<br />
<br />
GH: Erh?<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(2:45)</small> ==<br />
March 9, 1851: Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted died. &Oslash;rsted was a Danish physicist and chemist who discovered current traveling along a wire could deflect a compass needle.<br />
<br />
S: Evan is gonna tell us about this day in skepticism.<br />
<br />
E: All right. So, March 9, and the year was 1851. Now, we all know who Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted was<br />
<br />
B: ''(singing)'' Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted.<br />
<br />
J: I have no idea who he is.<br />
<br />
E: Well, he was a Danish. Oh, I'm sorry, wait, he was a Danish physicist<br />
<br />
S: And delicious.<br />
<br />
GH: I sing.<br />
<br />
E: Who made a discovery. He discovered that an electric current in a wire causes a nearby magnetized compass needle to deflect, indicating the electric current in a wire induces a magnetic field around it.<br />
<br />
B: That is awesome.<br />
<br />
J: That is awesome.<br />
<br />
B: You could just retire after making that discovery. I'm done. I've made my contribution.<br />
<br />
E: A little electro-magnetic theory for you, then?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
GH: Yeah, but how do you monotize that. I mean, that's the problem. What d'ya do with that? What kind of invention could that possibly lead to? ''(people talking simultaneously)''<br />
<br />
B: It's just a laboratory curiosity. Nothing to see here.<br />
<br />
GH: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: It took like a hundred years for them to slap one of those suckers in a bracelet. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
GH: And then you get the real money.<br />
<br />
E: A bracelet made of, perhaps, aluminum. Hey! Speaking of aluminum<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so<br />
<br />
E and B: Aluminium.<br />
<br />
S: &Oslash;rsted also was the first one to produce metallic aluminum. Do you guys know how common—<br />
<br />
B: As opposed to rubber aluminum?<br />
<br />
S: No, as opposed an aluminum oxide or aluminum silicate. So, aluminum is the third most abundant element in the Earth's crust. And I know you guys all know that<br />
<br />
E: The third most?<br />
<br />
B: I used to know that, yes.<br />
<br />
S: After oxygen and silicon, which is why there's lots of aluminum oxides and aluminum silicate. And he figured out how to make metallic aluminum. Although it was up to later chemists to figure out how to really industrialize that process. If you recall, we talked about the fact that when aluminum was first available as a metal, it was more expensive than gold.<br />
<br />
B: I recall nothing.<br />
<br />
S: It was considered a rare and exotic metal and things made out of aluminum were like a status symbol. But then later chemists figured out how to make massive quantities of it, just from dirt, basically, and, you know, from bauxites, specifically.<br />
<br />
J: Did these scientists like cash in at that moment? Like, okay, I figured out how to make it, it's everywhere.<br />
<br />
E: Let's sell it now.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, did somebody become a trillionaire for like the first three years or what happened?<br />
<br />
S: American Aluminum, you know, I think was the company that became very wealthy mass producing aluminum. And the price went from hundreds of dollars an ounce to pennies a pound.<br />
<br />
J: Oof.<br />
<br />
GH: See, Alcoa shouldn't have waited.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, Alcoa, that's it.<br />
<br />
E: Bad investment.<br />
<br />
J: Guess I shouldn't have invested in that company early on.<br />
<br />
S: Well, you shouldn't have invested in aluminum. The company did quite well, actually. Now, did you also know that Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted was a very close friend of Hans Christian Andersen.<br />
<br />
B: Seriously?<br />
<br />
J: That's what I was gonna say.<br />
<br />
GH: No way.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, and I actually don't know exactly who Hans Christian Andersen is or was. What's his deal? Who's that guy?<br />
<br />
B: Come on, Jay.<br />
<br />
E: He wrote stories.<br />
<br />
B: It's Danny Kaye!<br />
<br />
E: That's right. Danny Kaye. He wrote Thumbelina,<br />
<br />
GH: The Little Mermaid.<br />
<br />
J: Did he sing The Little Mermaid?<br />
<br />
GH: I think he played the crab in the movie, actually. ''(laughter)'' Oh, aluminum.<br />
<br />
S: He wrote famous fairy tales. But, so, how did these guys meet? Like at a Hans Christian organization or something?<br />
<br />
E: Convention?<br />
<br />
B: I know. Famous People Named Hans Christian.<br />
<br />
GH: That was a Facebook page, wasn't it? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Did they get each other's mail, or what happened?<br />
<br />
J: My money's on the fact that maybe like half the population is just named Hans Christian something.<br />
<br />
S: Maybe.<br />
<br />
B: I think it's a coincidence.<br />
<br />
E: And March 9, 1851, was the day that we lost Hans &Oslash;rsted. Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted. So, we mourned Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted on this day. But thank you so much for all that electro-magnetism. It is doing us wonders these days.<br />
<br />
S: And aluminum. Yep.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that too.<br />
<br />
S: So George, before we go on to news items, what's new with you?<br />
<br />
GH: What's new? Goodness. Uh, what isn't? Actually, it's a short list. The newest thing is a number of you rogues were at the 21812 concert that happened last year.<br />
<br />
B: Yes! Loved it!<br />
<br />
GH: We are furiously, furiously editing and putting together what looks to be just an incredible DVD of that performance, which is audio mixing. I was at Slau's yesterday, as a matter of fact. So the audio mixing is done. A monumental effort, and now the video is being edited, and there's gonna be commentary and a documentary and it's gonna be really, really fantastic. So that is the thing which is occupying the most frontal part of my frontal creative lobe right now, is the 21812 concert.<br />
<br />
B: It only took you a year!<br />
<br />
J: When's it coming out?<br />
<br />
GH: I know, I know, I know, I know. Weeks. Months? Weeks. Well, I guess months are made up of weeks, so I'm not lying in either direction. But, weeks.<br />
<br />
S: As long as it's more than one month, right.<br />
<br />
GH: Hmm? Right.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== HIV Cure <small>(7:49)</small> ===<br />
[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/hiv-cure-game-changer/ Neurologica: HIV Cure "Game Changer"]<br />
<br />
=== Mars Comet <small>(24:49)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/5349/20130304/newly-discovered-comet-hit-mars-watch-two-others-near-earth.htm Newly Discovered Comet May Hit Mars: Watch for Two Others Near Earth]<br />
<br />
=== Sirius UFO <small>(35:31)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp9aOb04e20&list=PL6E8B33D9279BEF7B&index=1 YouTube: Dr.Steven Greer - Sirius Documentary (Trailer) - New Movie Coming Soon ! 2012]<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(47:08)</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: STS 1<br />
<br />
A man from Ukraine had three sons. The first son was named Rab, and he became a lawyer. The second son was named Ymra, and he became a soldier. The 3rd son became a sailor, so what was his name? <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Question 1: Magnet Hill <small>(50:26)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>Dear Skeptic Rogues, I am a Software Engineer originally from Dominican Republic, I have been a listener of the show since 2010, and every week I am looking forward to a new SGU chapter. When I was a kid (I am 28) back in DR, a journalist made an investigation about a "Magnetic Pole" in one remote corner of the country, Barahona, in the south east of the island. It always puzzle me.The place looks like a hill, however, everything you place in the ground "rolls" in the opposite direction, uphill. All objects, no matter what material they are, the are pulled upwards.You can look at dozens of videos in youtube by searching the string "polo magnetico barahona" (Magnetic Pole Barahona)The common and most simple explanation is that the place is an optical illusion. Is not that I do not believe it, I do not understand it.I have been looking for explanations, but none of them satisfy my curiosity. In my little research, I did't find any other place where this phenomena is happening. If you find an explanation to this phenomena I will appreciate it. Thanks in advance for your kind responses!<br/><br />
Jonathan Nonon<br/><br />
New York </blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Question 2: Tourette <small>(56:27)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was recently in a discussion about Tourette Syndrome and, to get to get quickly to the point, minor forms of said syndrome. It was my assertion that minor forms where more akin to compulsion or in more extreme cases OCD, and that Tourette was specifically an extreme. I remember you touching shortly on this on the SGU and searched your Blogs to see if you had written anything more in depth, to no avail. I was hoping that you could give me a short rundown on the "mechanics" to help me better understand what is going on with this phenomenon. If you would like to answer on the air I would be honored, but a small Email response is really all I am after here. Faithful listener, keep up the good work, etc.<br/><br />
Woody</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:06:04)</small> ==<br />
[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/osoa-idh022613.php Item #1]: Greater than 60% of upstream traffic is comprised of torrent files, while Netflix by itself represents 1/3 of peak download traffic. [http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/photos/how-25-tech-companies-got-their-names-slideshow/amazon-holds-news-conference-photo--982673090.html Item #2]: Amazon.com benefitted from the popularity of the Yahoo search engine, which listed search results alphabetically. [http://royal.pingdom.com/2013/01/16/internet-2012-in-numbers/ Item #3]: North America has the highest internet penetration at 78.6%, while Africa has the lowest at 15.6%. [http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blemtax2.htm Item #4]: In 1999 Congressman Peter Schnell proposed House Bill 602P allowing the US postal service to charge a 5cent surcharge for each e-mail sent. The bill died in response to public outrage.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:22:01)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Neither evolution nor creation qualifies as a scientific theory.</blockquote><br />
Duane Gish<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS <small>(1:23:06)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_399&diff=6637SGU Episode 3992013-05-19T23:58:32Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 399<br />
|episodeDate = 9<sup>th</sup> March 2013<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mars-comet-NASA-JPL-600x328.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|guest1 = GH: George Hrab<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-09.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=399<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45268.0.html<br />
|qowText = Neither evolution nor creation qualifies as a scientific theory.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish Duane Gish]<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today March 6, 2013, and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: 400!<br />
<br />
S: Evan Bernstein,<br />
<br />
E: Good evening, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: And we have a special guest rogue with us this evening, George Hrab. George, welcome back.<br />
<br />
GH: This isn't ''The Price is Right''! Jay, you lied to me. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: What else is new?<br />
<br />
J: No, but this is our 400th!<br />
<br />
S: No, it's not, Jay. Next week is our 400th episode.<br />
<br />
GH: 399!<br />
<br />
J: 399!<br />
<br />
E: 399! And that's a bargain.<br />
<br />
S: We're not round number bigots here, anyway. That's all superstitious nonsense.<br />
<br />
GH: Roundists. You're all roundists.<br />
<br />
S: So, Rebecca's voice is still recovering from whatever infection she had. So she is again not with us this week. But George will be taking her place and speaking in falsetto the entire show.<br />
<br />
GH: ''(starting high pitched, dropping to low)'' Y-e-e-e-s. I'm so skeptical. ''(normal voice)'' It's not a Rebecca impression. It's not a Rebecca impression at all. ''(laughter)'' We got that. All right. Good.<br />
<br />
J: So we were just talking before the show, like, saying hi to George and everything, and it occurred to me I wanted to ask George this question. George, ever listening, you ever listen to a podcast—<br />
<br />
GH: ''(in a Russian accent)'' Ever listenink to ''(unintelligible)'' Oh, sorry. Go ahead. So, have I ever listened to what?<br />
<br />
J: Has this ever happened where you're listening to a show that you've recorded, and somebody says your name in the podcast, and you answer them in real time? Like, it just happened to me two days ago. I was listening to one of our shows, and Steve says "So, Jay," and I actually go "Yeah." I'm like wh-o-o-o-a. He's not in the car with me! I'm not on the phone with him. I'm hearing him in the podcast.<br />
<br />
GH: I don't listen to my show 'cause I don't really like my show.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
GH: But sound effects that I've done before have scared the hell out of me. I'll forget that I inserted an airplane or something, and it'll scare the crap out of me. ''(laughter)'' Or like a doorbell sound or something, yeah. But I don't actually, because I'm the only person on my show, for me to respond to myself as if I was actually talking to myself, I think would be indicative of something really scary and awesome. <br />
<br />
J: All right, that is a good point.<br />
<br />
GH: But, I respond to ''(two people talking – undecipherable)'' And if I listen to this show, I'll make sure that every time you say "Hey, George" no matter where I am, I'll say "What? Oh, damn!" ''(laughter)'' What? Oh, damn!<br />
<br />
E: With a head turn, right?<br />
<br />
''(two people talking—inaudible – something about Scooby-Doo)''<br />
<br />
GH: ''(imitating Scooby)'' Erh?<br />
<br />
B: Scooby snack.<br />
<br />
S: Hey George!<br />
<br />
GH: Erh?<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(2:45)</small> ==<br />
March 9, 1851: Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted died. &Oslash;rsted was a Danish physicist and chemist who discovered current traveling along a wire could deflect a compass needle.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== HIV Cure <small>(7:49)</small> ===<br />
[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/hiv-cure-game-changer/ Neurologica: HIV Cure "Game Changer"]<br />
<br />
=== Mars Comet <small>(24:49)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/5349/20130304/newly-discovered-comet-hit-mars-watch-two-others-near-earth.htm Newly Discovered Comet May Hit Mars: Watch for Two Others Near Earth]<br />
<br />
=== Sirius UFO <small>(35:31)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp9aOb04e20&list=PL6E8B33D9279BEF7B&index=1 YouTube: Dr.Steven Greer - Sirius Documentary (Trailer) - New Movie Coming Soon ! 2012]<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(47:08)</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: STS 1<br />
<br />
A man from Ukraine had three sons. The first son was named Rab, and he became a lawyer. The second son was named Ymra, and he became a soldier. The 3rd son became a sailor, so what was his name? <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Question 1: Magnet Hill <small>(50:26)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>Dear Skeptic Rogues, I am a Software Engineer originally from Dominican Republic, I have been a listener of the show since 2010, and every week I am looking forward to a new SGU chapter. When I was a kid (I am 28) back in DR, a journalist made an investigation about a "Magnetic Pole" in one remote corner of the country, Barahona, in the south east of the island. It always puzzle me.The place looks like a hill, however, everything you place in the ground "rolls" in the opposite direction, uphill. All objects, no matter what material they are, the are pulled upwards.You can look at dozens of videos in youtube by searching the string "polo magnetico barahona" (Magnetic Pole Barahona)The common and most simple explanation is that the place is an optical illusion. Is not that I do not believe it, I do not understand it.I have been looking for explanations, but none of them satisfy my curiosity. In my little research, I did't find any other place where this phenomena is happening. If you find an explanation to this phenomena I will appreciate it. Thanks in advance for your kind responses!<br/><br />
Jonathan Nonon<br/><br />
New York </blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Question 2: Tourette <small>(56:27)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was recently in a discussion about Tourette Syndrome and, to get to get quickly to the point, minor forms of said syndrome. It was my assertion that minor forms where more akin to compulsion or in more extreme cases OCD, and that Tourette was specifically an extreme. I remember you touching shortly on this on the SGU and searched your Blogs to see if you had written anything more in depth, to no avail. I was hoping that you could give me a short rundown on the "mechanics" to help me better understand what is going on with this phenomenon. If you would like to answer on the air I would be honored, but a small Email response is really all I am after here. Faithful listener, keep up the good work, etc.<br/><br />
Woody</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:06:04)</small> ==<br />
[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/osoa-idh022613.php Item #1]: Greater than 60% of upstream traffic is comprised of torrent files, while Netflix by itself represents 1/3 of peak download traffic. [http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/photos/how-25-tech-companies-got-their-names-slideshow/amazon-holds-news-conference-photo--982673090.html Item #2]: Amazon.com benefitted from the popularity of the Yahoo search engine, which listed search results alphabetically. [http://royal.pingdom.com/2013/01/16/internet-2012-in-numbers/ Item #3]: North America has the highest internet penetration at 78.6%, while Africa has the lowest at 15.6%. [http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blemtax2.htm Item #4]: In 1999 Congressman Peter Schnell proposed House Bill 602P allowing the US postal service to charge a 5cent surcharge for each e-mail sent. The bill died in response to public outrage.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:22:01)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Neither evolution nor creation qualifies as a scientific theory.</blockquote><br />
Duane Gish<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS <small>(1:23:06)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SGU_episode_list&diff=6636Template:SGU episode list2013-05-19T22:38:31Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div><noinclude>This template is used to display the list of full-length episodes on the [[Main Page]] and the [[SGU Episodes]] page. Additions and amendments to this template will be reflected on those pages.<br />
<br />
Pages currently in progress should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{i}}</nowiki></code> to add the pencil icon, and pages that have sections open to other contributors to transcribe should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{Open}}</nowiki></code> to include the green arrow icon. <br />
<br />
Pages that have been proof-read and verified by a contributor other than the author should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{tick}}</nowiki></code> to include the green tick icon.</noinclude><br />
{|style="margin:1em 3em"<br />
|style="padding-right: 6em;white-space:nowrap" valign="top"|<span id="2013"><big>'''2013'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 409]], May 18 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 408]], May 11 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 407]], May 4 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 406]], Apr 27 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 405]], Apr 20 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 404]], Apr 13 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 403]], Apr 6 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 402]], Mar 30 2013 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 401]], Mar 23 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 400]], Mar 16 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 399]], Mar 9 2013 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 398]], Mar 2 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 397]], Feb 23 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 396]], Feb 16 2013<br />
* [[SGU Episode 395]], Feb 9 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 394]], Feb 2 2013<br />
* [[SGU Episode 393]], Jan 26 2013 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 392]], Jan 19 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 391]], Jan 12 2013 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 390]], Jan 5 2013<br />
<br />
<span id="2012"><big>'''2012'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 389]], Dec 29 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 388]], Dec 22 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 387]], Dec 15 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 386]], Dec 8 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 385]], Dec 1 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 384]], Nov 24 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 383]], Nov 17 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 382]], Nov 10 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 381]], Nov 3 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 380]], Oct 27 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 379]], Oct 20 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 378]], Oct 13 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 377]], Oct 6 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 376]], Sep 29 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 375]], Sep 22 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 374]], Sep 15 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 373]], Sep 8 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 372]], Sep 1 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 371]], Aug 25 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 370]], Aug 18 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 369]], Aug 11 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 368]], Aug 4 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 367]], Jul 28 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 366]], Jul 21 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 365]], Jul 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 364]], Jul 7 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 363]], Jun 30 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 362]], Jun 23 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 361]], Jun 16 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 360]], Jun 9 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 359]], Jun 2 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 358]], May 26 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 357]], May 19 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 356]], May 12 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 355]], May 5 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 354]], Apr 28 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 353]], Apr 21 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 352]], Apr 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 351]], Apr 7 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 350]], Mar 31 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 349]], Mar 24 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 348]], Mar 17 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 347]], Mar 10 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 346]], Mar 3 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 345]], Feb 25 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 341]], Jan 28 2012 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 340]], Jan 21 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 339]], Jan 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 338]], Jan 7 2012 {{tick}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2011"><big>'''2011'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 337]], Dec 31 2011 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 335]], Dec 17 2011 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 331]], Nov 19 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 330]], Nov 11 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 328]], Oct 29 2011<br />
* [[SGU 24hr]], Sep 23-24 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 320]], Aug 29 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 312]], Jul 5 2011 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 308]], Jun 08 2011 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 287]], Jan 12 2011 {{Open}}<br />
|valign="top" style=white-space:nowrap|<span id="2010"><big>'''2010'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 285]], Dec 29 2010 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 271]], Sep 22 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 260]], Jun 30 2010 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 257]], Jun 14 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 252]], May 12 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 247]], Apr 7 2010 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 245]], Mar 25 2010 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 232]], Jan 1 2010<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2009"><big>'''2009'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 220]], Oct 7 2009 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 216]], Sep 9 2009 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 185]], Feb 4 2009<br />
* [[SGU Episode 184]], Jan 28 2009<br />
* [[SGU Episode 183]], Jan 21 2009 {{i}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2008"><big>'''2008'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 165]], Sep 17 2008<br />
* [[SGU Episode 156]], Jul 16 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 152]], Jun 11 2008 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 146]], May 7 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 144]], Apr 23 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 141]], Apr 2 2008<br />
* [[SGU Episode 140]], Mar 26 2008 {{i}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2007"><big>'''2007'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 127]], Dec 26, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 123]], Nov 28, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 116]], Oct 10, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 113]], Sep 19, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 111]], Sep 5, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 110]], Aug 28, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 109]], Aug 24, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 105]], Jul 25, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 103]], Jul 11, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 102]], Jul 3, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 100]], June 19, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 98]], June 6, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 97]], May 30 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 89]], Apr 4, 2007 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 79]], Jan 24, 2007<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2006"><big>'''2006'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 73]], Dec 13 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 68]], Nov 8 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 62]], Sep 27 2006 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 61]], Sep 20 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 55]], Aug 9 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 49]], Jun 28 2006 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 47]], Jun 14 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 46]], Jun 7 2006 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 38]], Apr 12 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 31]], Feb 22 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 27]], Jan 25 2006 <br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2005"><big>'''2005'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 22]], Dec 14 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 21]], Dec 7 2005 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 20]], Nov 23 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 19]], Nov 16 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 18]], Nov 2 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 17]], Oct 26 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 16]], Oct 12 2005 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 15]], Oct 6 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 14]], Sep 28 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 13]], Sep 14 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 12]], Sep 7 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 11]], Aug 31 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 10]], Aug 23 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 9]], Aug 10 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 8]], Aug 2 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 7]], Jul 20 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 6]], Jul 7 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 5]], Jun 29 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 4]], Jun 15 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 3]], Jun 7 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 2]], Jun 1 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 1]], May 4 2005 {{tick}}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<noinclude><br />
[[Category: List templates]]<br />
</noinclude></div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_399&diff=6635SGU Episode 3992013-05-19T22:37:11Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 399<br />
|episodeDate = 9<sup>th</sup> March 2013<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mars-comet-NASA-JPL-600x328.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|guest1 = GH: George Hrab<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-09.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=399<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45268.0.html<br />
|qowText = Neither evolution nor creation qualifies as a scientific theory.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish Duane Gish]<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(2:45)</small> ==<br />
March 9, 1851: Hans Christian &Oslash;rsted died. &Oslash;rsted was a Danish physicist and chemist who discovered current traveling along a wire could deflect a compass needle.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== HIV Cure <small>(7:49)</small> ===<br />
[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/hiv-cure-game-changer/ Neurologica: HIV Cure "Game Changer"]<br />
<br />
=== Mars Comet <small>(24:49)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/5349/20130304/newly-discovered-comet-hit-mars-watch-two-others-near-earth.htm Newly Discovered Comet May Hit Mars: Watch for Two Others Near Earth]<br />
<br />
=== Sirius UFO <small>(35:31)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp9aOb04e20&list=PL6E8B33D9279BEF7B&index=1 YouTube: Dr.Steven Greer - Sirius Documentary (Trailer) - New Movie Coming Soon ! 2012]<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(47:08)</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: STS 1<br />
<br />
A man from Ukraine had three sons. The first son was named Rab, and he became a lawyer. The second son was named Ymra, and he became a soldier. The 3rd son became a sailor, so what was his name? <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Question 1: Magnet Hill <small>(50:26)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>Dear Skeptic Rogues, I am a Software Engineer originally from Dominican Republic, I have been a listener of the show since 2010, and every week I am looking forward to a new SGU chapter. When I was a kid (I am 28) back in DR, a journalist made an investigation about a "Magnetic Pole" in one remote corner of the country, Barahona, in the south east of the island. It always puzzle me.The place looks like a hill, however, everything you place in the ground "rolls" in the opposite direction, uphill. All objects, no matter what material they are, the are pulled upwards.You can look at dozens of videos in youtube by searching the string "polo magnetico barahona" (Magnetic Pole Barahona)The common and most simple explanation is that the place is an optical illusion. Is not that I do not believe it, I do not understand it.I have been looking for explanations, but none of them satisfy my curiosity. In my little research, I did't find any other place where this phenomena is happening. If you find an explanation to this phenomena I will appreciate it. Thanks in advance for your kind responses!<br/><br />
Jonathan Nonon<br/><br />
New York </blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Question 2: Tourette <small>(56:27)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was recently in a discussion about Tourette Syndrome and, to get to get quickly to the point, minor forms of said syndrome. It was my assertion that minor forms where more akin to compulsion or in more extreme cases OCD, and that Tourette was specifically an extreme. I remember you touching shortly on this on the SGU and searched your Blogs to see if you had written anything more in depth, to no avail. I was hoping that you could give me a short rundown on the "mechanics" to help me better understand what is going on with this phenomenon. If you would like to answer on the air I would be honored, but a small Email response is really all I am after here. Faithful listener, keep up the good work, etc.<br/><br />
Woody</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:06:04)</small> ==<br />
[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/osoa-idh022613.php Item #1]: Greater than 60% of upstream traffic is comprised of torrent files, while Netflix by itself represents 1/3 of peak download traffic. [http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/photos/how-25-tech-companies-got-their-names-slideshow/amazon-holds-news-conference-photo--982673090.html Item #2]: Amazon.com benefitted from the popularity of the Yahoo search engine, which listed search results alphabetically. [http://royal.pingdom.com/2013/01/16/internet-2012-in-numbers/ Item #3]: North America has the highest internet penetration at 78.6%, while Africa has the lowest at 15.6%. [http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blemtax2.htm Item #4]: In 1999 Congressman Peter Schnell proposed House Bill 602P allowing the US postal service to charge a 5cent surcharge for each e-mail sent. The bill died in response to public outrage.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:22:01)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Neither evolution nor creation qualifies as a scientific theory.</blockquote><br />
Duane Gish<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS <small>(1:23:06)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SGU_episode_list&diff=6625Template:SGU episode list2013-05-19T01:28:37Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div><noinclude>This template is used to display the list of full-length episodes on the [[Main Page]] and the [[SGU Episodes]] page. Additions and amendments to this template will be reflected on those pages.<br />
<br />
Pages currently in progress should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{i}}</nowiki></code> to add the pencil icon, and pages that have sections open to other contributors to transcribe should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{Open}}</nowiki></code> to include the green arrow icon. <br />
<br />
Pages that have been proof-read and verified by a contributor other than the author should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{tick}}</nowiki></code> to include the green tick icon.</noinclude><br />
{|style="margin:1em 3em"<br />
|style="padding-right: 6em;white-space:nowrap" valign="top"|<span id="2013"><big>'''2013'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 409]], May 18 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 408]], May 11 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 407]], May 4 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 406]], Apr 27 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 405]], Apr 20 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 404]], Apr 13 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 403]], Apr 6 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 402]], Mar 30 2013 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 401]], Mar 23 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 400]], Mar 16 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 399]], Mar 9 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 398]], Mar 2 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 397]], Feb 23 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 396]], Feb 16 2013<br />
* [[SGU Episode 395]], Feb 9 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 394]], Feb 2 2013<br />
* [[SGU Episode 393]], Jan 26 2013 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 392]], Jan 19 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 391]], Jan 12 2013 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 390]], Jan 5 2013<br />
<br />
<span id="2012"><big>'''2012'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 389]], Dec 29 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 388]], Dec 22 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 387]], Dec 15 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 386]], Dec 8 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 385]], Dec 1 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 384]], Nov 24 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 383]], Nov 17 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 382]], Nov 10 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 381]], Nov 3 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 380]], Oct 27 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 379]], Oct 20 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 378]], Oct 13 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 377]], Oct 6 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 376]], Sep 29 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 375]], Sep 22 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 374]], Sep 15 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 373]], Sep 8 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 372]], Sep 1 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 371]], Aug 25 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 370]], Aug 18 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 369]], Aug 11 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 368]], Aug 4 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 367]], Jul 28 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 366]], Jul 21 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 365]], Jul 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 364]], Jul 7 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 363]], Jun 30 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 362]], Jun 23 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 361]], Jun 16 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 360]], Jun 9 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 359]], Jun 2 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 358]], May 26 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 357]], May 19 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 356]], May 12 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 355]], May 5 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 354]], Apr 28 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 353]], Apr 21 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 352]], Apr 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 351]], Apr 7 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 350]], Mar 31 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 349]], Mar 24 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 348]], Mar 17 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 347]], Mar 10 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 346]], Mar 3 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 345]], Feb 25 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 341]], Jan 28 2012 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 340]], Jan 21 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 339]], Jan 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 338]], Jan 7 2012 {{tick}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2011"><big>'''2011'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 337]], Dec 31 2011 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 335]], Dec 17 2011 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 331]], Nov 19 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 330]], Nov 11 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 328]], Oct 29 2011<br />
* [[SGU 24hr]], Sep 23-24 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 320]], Aug 29 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 312]], Jul 5 2011 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 308]], Jun 08 2011 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 287]], Jan 12 2011 {{Open}}<br />
|valign="top" style=white-space:nowrap|<span id="2010"><big>'''2010'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 285]], Dec 29 2010 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 271]], Sep 22 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 260]], Jun 30 2010 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 257]], Jun 14 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 252]], May 12 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 247]], Apr 7 2010 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 245]], Mar 25 2010 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 232]], Jan 1 2010<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2009"><big>'''2009'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 220]], Oct 7 2009 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 216]], Sep 9 2009 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 185]], Feb 4 2009<br />
* [[SGU Episode 184]], Jan 28 2009<br />
* [[SGU Episode 183]], Jan 21 2009 {{i}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2008"><big>'''2008'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 165]], Sep 17 2008<br />
* [[SGU Episode 156]], Jul 16 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 152]], Jun 11 2008 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 146]], May 7 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 144]], Apr 23 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 141]], Apr 2 2008<br />
* [[SGU Episode 140]], Mar 26 2008 {{i}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2007"><big>'''2007'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 127]], Dec 26, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 123]], Nov 28, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 116]], Oct 10, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 113]], Sep 19, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 111]], Sep 5, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 110]], Aug 28, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 109]], Aug 24, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 105]], Jul 25, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 103]], Jul 11, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 102]], Jul 3, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 100]], June 19, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 98]], June 6, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 97]], May 30 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 89]], Apr 4, 2007 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 79]], Jan 24, 2007<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2006"><big>'''2006'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 73]], Dec 13 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 68]], Nov 8 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 62]], Sep 27 2006 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 61]], Sep 20 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 55]], Aug 9 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 49]], Jun 28 2006 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 47]], Jun 14 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 46]], Jun 7 2006 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 38]], Apr 12 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 31]], Feb 22 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 27]], Jan 25 2006 <br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2005"><big>'''2005'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 22]], Dec 14 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 21]], Dec 7 2005 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 20]], Nov 23 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 19]], Nov 16 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 18]], Nov 2 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 17]], Oct 26 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 16]], Oct 12 2005 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 15]], Oct 6 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 14]], Sep 28 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 13]], Sep 14 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 12]], Sep 7 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 11]], Aug 31 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 10]], Aug 23 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 9]], Aug 10 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 8]], Aug 2 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 7]], Jul 20 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 6]], Jul 7 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 5]], Jun 29 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 4]], Jun 15 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 3]], Jun 7 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 2]], Jun 1 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 1]], May 4 2005 {{tick}}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<noinclude><br />
[[Category: List templates]]<br />
</noinclude></div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_406&diff=6624SGU Episode 4062013-05-19T01:27:40Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 359<br />
|episodeDate = 34<sup>th</sup> May 2012<br />
|episodeIcon = File:bomb-detector.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-04-27.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=406<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=45826.0<br />
|qowText = Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.<br />
|qowAuthor = {{w|Mark Twain}}<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the {{SGU}}, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the {{SGU}}. Today is Tuesday, April 24, 2013, and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson,<br />
<br />
R: Hello, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: Hey, guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Mach-cho maroon.<br />
<br />
S: Thank you, Evan.<br />
<br />
J: That sounds very Game of Thrones-y.<br />
<br />
E: It's the first words I think I've ever spoken in Dothraki.<br />
<br />
J: And what does it mean?<br />
<br />
R: It means "Die, scum!" ''(laughter)'' ''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: It means: "Your horse is ugly."<br />
<br />
J: Does it mean Hello?<br />
<br />
R: It means hello.<br />
<br />
E: Yes. It's the long way of saying "hello."<br />
<br />
S: Or as close as you get to it in Dothraki.<br />
<br />
J: Game of Thrones is kicking ass. The latest episode was awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And that has nothing to do with science.<br />
<br />
E: Everything to do with pop culture. <br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:02)</small> ==<br />
April 27, 1791: Birth of Samuel Morse<br />
<br />
R: But you know what ''does'' have to do, slightly, with science is that today, April 27, is the birthday of Samuel Morse, who was born in 1791.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, happy birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Wait. I missed that segue. What's, how did you do that? Oh, never mind. Go ahead. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: You know, it was just so smooth, you missed it. Yeah, so, Samuel Morse, most people know as the inventor, or co-inventor, of Morse code. I found it really interesting, I was reading up on him, and apparently he got interested in telegraph systems because he was far away from his wife when she took ill, and he got a telegram saying that she was basically on her death bed. And by the time he was able to rush to see her, she was already dead and buried. And he was so angry about it <br />
<br />
E: Sad.<br />
<br />
R: that he gave up painting. He had been a painter. And he dedicated his life to finding a better way to communicate over long distances. So, yeah, a tragedy, but it was positive results for humanity.<br />
<br />
J: You know what he said when he got there and they said "Your wife is dead."? He said, "She's dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dead?"<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my, God. ''(groans and laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: That was bad.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: Guys, guys, come on.<br />
<br />
B: Please edit that out, Steve. ''(laughter continues)'' Imagine how awesome that was back then when you realize that, holy crap, we can communicate so fast over hundreds, thousands, of miles. It must have been like pure science fiction to them.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, I learned some interesting things about Samuel Morse. First of all, he graduated from Yale. So he's a Yale alum. Supported himself as a painter, as Rebecca said. He didn't just invent, actually co-invent, with Alfred Vail, Morse code. He actually developed the electrical telegraph. And he, one of the critical inventions for that was the relay. He invented the relay. You guys know how that works?<br />
<br />
J: Sure.<br />
<br />
S: Hit me.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, the re--, you mean the thing that boosts the signal so it can go over long distances.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So, 'cause the wires back then were so crappy, one signal could really only go not even a mile. It couldn't go very far at all. So he figured out a way of putting in a relay where the signal hits a relay circuit which essentially, a very weak signal, you have a very sensitive circuit, so that even a weak signal comes in, and it activates a magnet, which triggers an arm, which creates a new click, which then can go the next distance to the next relay. So very simple, very basic, but that was a critical invention to the functioning of the <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: over long distances.<br />
<br />
B: They had to set those up every mile? Wow, that's a lot.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, something like that, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Initially, at least.<br />
<br />
E: It's like fiber optic today; they have relay stations.<br />
<br />
S: Do you guys know what the first message sent across one of those telegraphs was?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: I used to know it.<br />
<br />
J: "Send more Chuck Berry."<br />
<br />
R: Well, I only know because I read it like an hour ago.<br />
<br />
J: Say it with authority.<br />
<br />
R: I know exactly what it was, Steve. It was "A patient waiter is no loser."<br />
<br />
S: Right. Which is interesting because it's not . . .<br />
<br />
B: That's kinda lame.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's kinda lame.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: But his father was <br />
<br />
R: It's no "What hath God wrought?"<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, "what hath God wrought?"<br />
<br />
E: Or "Watson, come here, I want you.<br />
<br />
S: That's what he said when he was transmitting from the Supreme Court chamber.<br />
<br />
E: Right.<br />
<br />
S: His father was a Calvinist preacher, so it's kind of, I guess, has the moralistic tone with which he was raised. His father was Jedidiah Morse. You gotta love that name, Jedidiah. Not many Jedidiahs around today. <br />
<br />
B: No.<br />
<br />
S: And Morse also was pro-slavery. And was active in resisting both Catholics and immigrants.<br />
<br />
E: Um hm.<br />
<br />
J: When you say "resisting," what do you mean "resist"?<br />
<br />
S: He was, he actively campaigned against immigrants and Catholics.<br />
<br />
R: Horrible person<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: who did some good stuff.<br />
<br />
J: I didn't know that.<br />
<br />
B: I like him a little less now.<br />
<br />
S: He was a product of his time and his father.<br />
<br />
B: True.<br />
<br />
S: Gotta cut him a little bit of slack.<br />
<br />
R: I don't know, there were plenty of people of his time who were vehemently anti-slavery.<br />
<br />
S: Um hm. I agree, I just said "a little bit." It's hard to look back 200 years and be too heavily moralizing.<br />
<br />
R: Eh. I find it easy. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Are you guys enjoying the first real days of spring that we've had so far?<br />
<br />
J: Awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, I'm lovin' it. 'Bout time.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, this 42 degree weather is wonderful.<br />
<br />
S: Well, hey, we had such a long winter; you're right, it's still a little on the cold side. Today there were all these various unmistakable signs of spring, sort of like all at once. So, first, the forsythia is in full bloom. Second, bluebirds have moved into our bluebird house. They're gonna make little baby bluebirds.<br />
<br />
R: How do the bluebirds know that the bluebird house is for them?<br />
<br />
S: That's a really good question.<br />
<br />
E: They use the GPS.<br />
<br />
J: They can fit in it.<br />
<br />
R: There's a sign.<br />
<br />
S: So a bluebird house has an opening of a certain size. But honestly, it's more about positioning. You need to place it three to five feet above the ground, in an open area, with nothing obscuring the ground beneath it. So, bluebirds wanna make sure they can see snakes and other things coming. So if you do that, if you hang it at the right height in a sort of openish area, bluebirds will move into it. I mean it's, <br />
<br />
R: And no other bird?<br />
<br />
S: Well, hang on. The other bird that will tend to steal a bluebird house from the bluebird is the house sparrow. We have plenty of house sparrows, but bluebirds always seem to move into our bluebird houses. So it's remarkably consistent.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, what do you think, like you have, the pair of bluebirds are flying around and the wife bluebird goes "What about this one, honey?" And the husband's like "Nope, that's only two feet off the gound." <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I mean they definitely have like a measuring tape and a list of wants. <br />
<br />
S: It works, it absolutely works.<br />
<br />
R: Good view of snakes, in-ground pool.<br />
<br />
B: My favorite sign of spring is that the White Walkers are retreating back north.<br />
<br />
S: Yup. ''(laughter and garbled comments)'' Nice call-back. The robins are more visible. As we learned previously they don't actually; they do migrate, but there are robins in the winter but they stay more in the forest. But the robins that are here come out and are more visible in the spring. And I actually grilled steaks on the grill on my deck today, for dinner.<br />
<br />
E: Delicious.<br />
<br />
R: Man, you went all out.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And, the single most profound marker that spring is here was<br />
<br />
E: Allergies.<br />
<br />
S: No. I don't have allergies luckily. Was, the ice cream truck came around.<br />
<br />
R: You have an ice cream truck?<br />
<br />
S: Yup. My daughters go insane. You know, they see the ice cream truck and they just go crazy.<br />
<br />
E: Come on, you go a little crazy, too. Admit it.<br />
<br />
J: Does the guy play music, Steve, or<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
J: Does he ring the bell, what is it?<br />
<br />
S: Of course, you've got the music and the bell and they just lose their minds.<br />
<br />
R: We never had an ice cream truck when I was a kid; it was too rural.<br />
<br />
B: We did.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah, we did.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, you were insane. I have a distinct memory of you, one night, sitting at the end of our driveway. You were a little shit, probably six or seven, crying your eyes out because the ice cream man didn't come, or you missed him, or something, and you were just like bawling 'cause you wanted your ice cream, and you missed it. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: I never forgave that guy, either.<br />
<br />
E: That bastard.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Mars One <small>(9:01)</small>===<br />
* http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/apply-now-one-way-trip-mars<br />
<br />
S: All right, well let's move on. Bob, you're gonna tell us about ''(imitating Schwarzenegger)'' "Get your ass to Mars." ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: You just totally took my opening line. Thank you so much.<br />
<br />
S: Bob, you gotta warn me if you're gonna do that.<br />
<br />
B: Whatever.<br />
<br />
S: It was a bit obvious<br />
<br />
B: I know, but I added a little flourish at the end. I said "Get your ass to Mars and never come back." Are you guys ready for an out-of-this-world reality TV show? I can't believe they're doing this. The company Mars One is planning on making a reality show that showcases the entire process of selecting and training astronauts, their trip to Mars, and the rest of their lives living on Mars. And like we said, it's a one-way trip. That's the real kicker that everybody's talking about. Would you guys do that? Would you guys actually consider that? Or would you want to hear the details first?<br />
<br />
R: No.<br />
<br />
E: I don't think so.<br />
<br />
R: I don't need the details. No. I don't wanna go on a reality show so people can watch me die in space. No. Thank you.<br />
<br />
''(speaking simultaneously – inaudible)''<br />
<br />
B: --when I'm 70 or 80, or what the hell. So, the first question is why are you doing a one-way trip? There's two good reasons. The scientists feel that it's feasible to send people to Mars pretty much now, but the tech just doesn't seem to exist to bring them back right now. I kind of thought that was a weird reason because even if we don't have it now, surely it'll exist at some point. And if we put resources into it it wouldn't take that long. I think one of the reasons that they're doing this is that it's a real attention grabber. Headlines.<br />
<br />
S: The think is though, what do you do, when to get to Mars, you find out that you don't like it there.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah, you're done. Game over.<br />
<br />
R: You'd kill yourself.<br />
<br />
E: You suck it, basically.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it'll make for a good episode. They're already talking about how they'll have a crematorium because people will of course die. But another good reason, probably the best reason that they're not gonna come back,<br />
<br />
E: What if you're the last one to die, though? How're you gonna get in that crematorium?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I wouldn't worry too much about it. So the best reason though why they're not coming back is that, imagine seven or eight months in space; astronauts, as we know, lose muscle mass, they lose bone mass; it's really, really horrific on the body. Even if you're exercising all the time, there's a huge hit that you take; and then time that you spend in Mars' weaker gravitational field, that's not gonna help much either. And scientists feel that readjusting to Earth's gravity after so much time, it's pretty much impossible, with today's technology anyway. After all that time, you're just not coming back. That's a really, really good reason.<br />
<br />
J: That sounds odd to me, Bob. What about people that suffer phenomenal injuries and have to be bedridden for six months or a year. You can't grow back the tissue that you lost, and the bone mass?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it's weird. It's not like if you become paralyzed, where your muscles just turn to mush and it's completely and utterly irrevocable.. .<br />
<br />
S: But people who are bedridden lose a lot of muscle mass. You could lose one to three percent of your muscle mass per day if you're sick and in the hospital and completely immobile. Especially for older people. So that's why they have weeks and months, sometimes, of rehab, just to recover from the debility that results, Jay.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, Jay, and that's also one of the big down sides to yo-yo weight loss, where you lose a lot of weight and inevitably a lot of muscle weight and then you gain back a lot of fat. At the end of the cycle you have much less muscle than you had, and that's a hit that your body could take for the rest of its life, 'cause it's just so hard to get back all that muscle that you lost. It's really bad. And that's a really good reason why once you're there you're gonna be committed. The gravitational pull on Mars is about 38% of Earth's. So that's really, really low. I mean things, it'd be easy to get around and things would be light and that's all great, but, man, your muscles just say we don't need all of this muscle, let's get rid of it. I'm very curious how walking will be accomplished on Mars. How similar to moon-walking will it be? Or will it be a fusion between the moon-hopping and the Earth-walking? I'd be curious to see that. <br />
<br />
J: Bob, what's their budget? How could they possibly afford to do this?<br />
<br />
B: That's actually one of the key problems, Jay, is funding. They figure it's gonna cost about six billion U.S. dollars to get there, just for the first group.<br />
<br />
S: How many bit coins is it gonna cost? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Seven. <br />
<br />
R: Oh, you know, if they send a big-time movie star, if they send like Julia Roberts, that should secure them at least one billion from the foreign markets.<br />
<br />
J: Why, 'cause they wanna get rid of her? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's a movie-making joke. You cast the right people, you get the funding. That's the way it works, in Hollywood.<br />
<br />
S: So who ''should'' we send to Mars on a one-way trip?<br />
<br />
B: Justin Bieber! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Wow, Bob.<br />
<br />
R: What did Justin Bieber ever do to you?<br />
<br />
B: Nothing, I just felt like it.<br />
<br />
J: It's not really him, it's more his haircut.<br />
<br />
S: Could we just send his haircut?<br />
<br />
J: So, look, there's a lot of things about this that I just don't have enough information on, or they're just not making enough sense. First of all, how do you get billions of dollars for a TV show? Second of all, who's developing the technology? How are they gonna live an extended period of time on a planet where they can't manufacture things, grow food, what's up?<br />
<br />
B: Let me go through some of this, then, Jay. What they're gonna need, more than a few astronauts: they're talking about 24 astronauts. So the idea is they're gonna have six groups of four astronauts, and every two years four astronauts are gonna be sent there, with the first one going in 2022. The selection process will be finalized in 2015; so it's only a couple years away. Then they're gonna go through seven years of training. And, think about it though, seven years of a reality show of astronauts training. That's gonna get so boring. There's no way they're gonna maintain a TV show for that long.<br />
<br />
S: I don't know, Bob. I mean, ghost hunter shows have lasted for that long. <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, ''The Real World'' has been going on for that long.<br />
<br />
B: I guess.<br />
<br />
R: It's crap, but people still watch it, I guess.<br />
<br />
B: Well, if they do a good job, they can make it interesting. But seven years of training?<br />
<br />
S: What they need to do is they need to vote people off the planet. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Well actually, what they're gonna, that's close, Steve. What they're gonna do, in true reality show style, is they're gonna vote four astronauts, the first four to go, who of course will be the most famous. Who doesn't wanna be the first ones to go? Except me. <br />
<br />
R: Anyone with a brain, doesn't wanna be the first to go.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, you mentioned technology. Space X, they're gonna work with Space X. And the idea is to use a slightly enlarged version of the Dragon capsule to get them there. And <br />
<br />
R: I never noticed before how much "Space X" sounds like "space sex." Because that was very confusing when you first said it.<br />
<br />
S: Space sex?<br />
<br />
R: Um hm.<br />
<br />
B: I never thought of that. Thank you. They're gonna use those really cool retro propulsion rockets to land it because of course parachutes aren't gonna cut it. Jay, to survive, they're gonna have solar panels, of course, for energy. They're gonna recycle and extract water from the soil if it's there, if they can actually find some. And food, and they're gonna grow their own food. That's another technology that I don't know how they're pull that off. And then of course, every two years they'll get a nice resupply of their Reese's Peanut Butter Cups from Earth when the next group arrives. But as you can imagine, right, there's gonna be tons of problems. One of them is the solar wind. Mars just does not have, a very thin atmosphere. It's about a hundredth, less than a hundredth the density of Earth's atmosphere. It's almost a friggin' vacuum. And Mars doesn't have a magnetosphere. I mean, damn.<br />
<br />
J: It doesn't seem like the survival of these people is going to be high. It's scaring me. <br />
<br />
S: They are gonna send supplies ahead of the first astronauts. So there should be material and food and everything they'll need there to get going. <br />
<br />
B; Well, they want to send a series of rovers to go there. And that's also one of the reasons why I'm pessimistic. They want to send a bunch of rovers. I mean, are they even working on these rovers? I mean, you know how long it takes to design and develop and test all that. I'm not even sure where they even are with that preliminary step right there. And so it's not just a magnetosphere that's not there, which is basically a shield for the solar wind and cosmic ray particles. It really is why there's lots of life on the surface of the planet. <br />
<br />
S: Their habitat will basically have to be under ground. <br />
<br />
B: yeah, they're gonna have to . . . maybe that's one of the things these rovers can do is help make these pits for their habitat. So if they're gonna have to be under many feet of dirt, then they'll be okay. But there's also no liquid water, really. None that they could really tap into that we've found. And then the radiation, not just the radiation on the planet, but the trip radiation, and we've talked about this on the show. It's nasty. Just going there, you've got these energetic particles in the solar wind; you've got cosmic rays. I mean, they won't kill you outright, necessarily, but they will greatly increase your chances of getting cancer. And the question is . . .<br />
<br />
R: These people are not gonna live long enough to get cancer. They don't need to worry about that.<br />
<br />
B: I guess.<br />
<br />
R: Like if they die of cancer, it'll be the greatest thing that ever happened to them. <br />
<br />
J: You know, there's social implications here, as well. What about laws?<br />
<br />
S: They're on their own. The whole idea is they can create their own civilization.<br />
<br />
E: The wild west. That's great. What if one of them goes nuts and starts to break down?<br />
<br />
S: Well they'll have seven years vet these people. They're gonna be . . . so part of the training . . . first of all, they're gonna be trained in emergency medicine, dentistry, engineering, all the skills they're gonna need to do everything they need on their own and they're gonna also spend extended periods of time in simulated Martian habitats, and have simulated emergencies. So, that's seven years of vetting for these people.<br />
<br />
E: What if these people don't pan out in year three or four, what . . . you're gonna have to have teams of people going through this process. I mean, imagine the hundreds of people that they're gonna have to select from.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. I would think they're gonna have maybe one or two backups. You know, you're talking fifty, sixty, seventy people, if they go that route, which isn't, I mean $6 billion will go a long way for that kind of stuff. NASA astronaut Stan Love had a great description of this. He, I think he described it really well. He just happened to come back from Antarctica, and he says "That place is a picnic compared to Mars." He says it's full of water, you can go outside and breathe the air. It's paradise compared to Mars, and yet nobody has moved there permanently. And you know, as nasty as that place is, Mars is ten hundred times worse and people are gonna spend the rest of their lives there. It's just crazy. <br />
<br />
R: What happens when the show is cancelled?<br />
<br />
E: That's a good point.<br />
<br />
R: You know, ratings are down, they need that time slot for something else.<br />
<br />
S: I think, let me go against the grain and say that I think this is a wonderful idea.<br />
<br />
B: No. You're full of shit. No. All right, I love the idea of a community off the Earth, and Stephen Hawking would really agree with us on that. But ''go to the moon first!'' It's only three days away. Vet all the technology and develop it on the moon. If there's a huge disaster, you can be there in mere days, rather than months and a billion dollars later. <br />
<br />
R: Good point.<br />
<br />
S: All right, that's a really good point.<br />
<br />
B: Moon Base Alpha first, then Mars.<br />
<br />
J: Well, wait, Bob. That might be part of their plan, though. As Rebecca says, let's say the show gets cancelled. The show's gonna probably get cancelled right around when everyone's gonna die. Right?<br />
<br />
E; That convenient.<br />
<br />
S: Well the show may be cancelled before they even . . . It's gonna be seven years of reality TV before they even blast off for Mars. Remember. So, this is highly risky in multiple ways. This is gonna be very difficult to pull off. But you gotta give it to them for the vision here, of trying to . . . If they pull this off, then you really have to give it to them for being bold and the amount of dedication it's going to take to usher this project to completion is going to be amazing. So, they will have to capture the imagination of the world with this project. The people that they select are going to have a lot to do with this. And they have ten years to work out the technological limitations. It's not impossible, it's just gonna be really, really hard. But if they're serious about this, I think that . . . I'd love to see them try; I wish them well; I would love to see them succeed, as long as they appreciate that they're not going into this thinking this is gonna be an easy endeavor. As long as they appreciate all the many ways this can fail, and they are doing everything they possibly can to deal with all of those hurdles, then, let's see what they do.<br />
<br />
R: Who's the "they" again? Who's actually doing this?<br />
<br />
S: Mars One, I guess, is the organization. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah, they're based out of Denmark. <br />
<br />
J: Steve, I don't disagree with that at all. I see what you're saying, and I like the idea of all these billions of dollars that go into entertainment that is really, at the end of the day, it doesn't achieve things like technology and pushing the limits of man's fortitude . . . <br />
<br />
S: You know what I think is likely to happen? If they get this off the ground, I think that they're going to have an interesting reality TV show that will be a dry run for a real colonization trip to either the moon or Mars. But they probably won't ever launch. If they ''do'' launch; if they're successful enough, in terms of raising money and keeping the whole project going to the point where they're ready to launch, that will be a huge success right there. Anything that happens after that, you know, I would still consider this to be a success. Of course it's high risk. They will have . . . basically like 2022 or 2023, they're gonna have to make a hard assessment of whether or not they actually have all the pieces in place to send people to Mars. Probably there's gonna be tons of delays and it will probably never happen. But . . .<br />
<br />
B: Oh, 2022 or 3, I'd say 2018 they'd be like, shit, we're not gonna make this. And to me, that's my biggest beef with this is that 2022 just seems way too soon to pull this off. There's too many hurdles.<br />
<br />
S: I like the idea that they're planning on using the Space X<br />
<br />
B: Oh, absolutely.<br />
<br />
S: So that may throw a lot of funding their way. <br />
<br />
B: That would be great.<br />
<br />
S: That would be a good consequence of all this.<br />
<br />
J: It's a lot of money they have to get, and that's gonna be a huge hurdle for them.<br />
<br />
B: I've got a quote on that as well. Dr. Chris Lintott, he's Oxford University, he thinks that it's technologically plausible, feasible. But in his mind funding is gonna be the biggest problem. He said "It's about having the political will and the financial muscle to make this happen. That's what nobody has been able to solve so far." So the undoing of this entire project might be just purely from funding, 'cause it's a lot of money. It's got a lot of sustained interest that you'd have to have for many, many years. And if you can pull that off, that might be the biggest hurdle of all.<br />
<br />
S: Hopefully this is a story we'll be reporting on over the years. I hope it doesn't die in the crib. It'll be interesting.<br />
<br />
B: And if anyone wants to register you have until August 31 of 2013, and they certainly have lots of volunteers. I've heard numbers over 40,000 requests already.<br />
<br />
R: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
B: It'll cost you money, though. I think it's 38 bucks for the United States. But depending on what country you're in, the prices will vary. But yeah, lots of people are interested in it.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Bomb Detector Fraud <small>(24:43)</small>===<br />
* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22266051<br />
<br />
S: Okay, Jay, there's some good news from the U.K. about a convicted con artist.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. Do you all remember the story we covered about James McCormick? He's the guy who sold the fake bomb detectors that were eventually used in real life situations in Iraq. Well, things didn't turn out so good for Mr. McCormick. This is a horrifying story with a possible good ending. It hasn't ended quite yet. I think it's going in the right direction, but this, let me give you the quick background. April 23, 2013, during a hearing in London at the Central Criminal Court of England and Wales, the Court was told that McCormick's fake detectors were 100% ineffectual. The harshest fact that came out was that McCormick knew they didn't work. So, this guy invents quote unquote invents, a detector that can do the following things: this is what he claims. The devices could bypass all forms of concealment. They can detect drugs and people along with explosives, would work under water, and of course, from the air. Would track an object up to one kilometer, or 320, sorry 3,280 feet below the ground. Below the ground. The bomb detectors came with cards which were programmed, quote unquote programmed, to detect a wide array of substances from ivory to $100 bank notes. Other substances could be detected. But, it was claimed if you put in a jar with a sticker which would absorb its vapors, so whatever it is, whatever you want, you put that item, or a piece of it, in a jar, and the sticker would absorb the vapors from that object. And then if you stuck that sticker to the thing, it could detect it. All right? Now. This is insane, and we talked about this already, so a lot of you already know that fact. The ADE651 detector. He made how much money? Fifty million pounds! 76 million US dollars from this scam. He sold 6,000 units to Iraq. Not a bad haul for a scam. Pretty damn good. Officials said the device was modeled after a novelty $20 golf ball finder. Oh, god, when I read that, I was so pissed off at the idea that this guy was basically flipping through a magazine on an airplane, say, I'm not sure if that was it, but you know the kind of junk that I'm talking about. This chachki crap, $20 golf ball finder that doesn't work. This hand-held device. He bought hundreds of those. Listen, Evan, he bought them. Hundreds of 'em. Put his own custom sticker on it and sold them as bomb detectors.<br />
<br />
S: He didn't even make 'em himself?<br />
<br />
J: Well, the first version of it, no. It was this crappy golf-ball finder. He sold them for 5K each. So then, when he sold them and it worked, he went out and made a much cooler looking one, and he sold those to the Iraqi government, and those he sold for up to 27,000 pounds, 40,000 US dollars each.<br />
<br />
E: Ironically, those don't detect golf balls<br />
<br />
S: It's basically a dousing rod.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's how it works.<br />
<br />
E; Very expensive one.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, and if you look at it, an antenna<br />
<br />
B: Well, not really.<br />
<br />
J: Yes, Bob, in a way. It is, Bob, it is. You have to see it.<br />
<br />
B: There's no ideomotor effect<br />
<br />
J: Yes, there is. Bob, Bob. Yes there is.<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, pay attention. Okay? You're in school now, I'm your teacher. All right, you hold the device in your hand and you pull the antenna out; it scopes out. And then it's on like a ball-bearing device, so it shifts with the person's hand that's using it. So, yeah, Bob, that's it. They're looking at the movement of that thing, and the people are, the people who are using it are coming up with the answers themselves: am I detecting something here? Yes or no. That's it. It is in essence a dowsing rod. So finally the U.K. government banned the sale of the detector in Iraq and Afghanistan in January 2010, and senior Iraqi officials that knew the device for a fake and some of them who were bribed to continue purchasing them. And when I say they were bribed, a lot of money exchanged hands. This guy bribed the hell out of<br />
<br />
B: Millions of dollars. Millions of dollars.<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely. Sadly, some of these devices are still active at some checkpoints in Iraq.<br />
<br />
E: Really?<br />
<br />
J: It's ridiculous. I don't know why or how that could possibly be happening. There was a very sad story. You know, to put a face on this whole thing. A woman named Henine Awan, who was an Iraqi woman, was pregnant at the time, and she lost her baby because a bomb went off that wasn't caught by the fake detector. She needed 59 operations after she was injured in January, 2009, and I saw a video of her talking, and I'm telling you, she was horribly, horribly burned. Another interesting thing, there's a detective inspector, Ed Heath, said "It is clear that both civilians and armed forces personnel were put at significant risk in relying upon the equipment. McCormick showed a complete disregard for the safety of those that used and relied upon the device for their own security and protection. He amassed many millions of pounds through his greed and criminal enterprise." And he's going to be sentenced on May 2 of 2013. There's no doubt that he knew that it didn't work. One of the salesmen that was working with him at one point asked him specifically, you know, I really need to know if this thing works, and he said "It is working. It's earning money."<br />
<br />
R: Ecchh<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
S: Do you have any idea of what possible sentence he's facing?<br />
<br />
J: I couldn't find anything, but it doesn't look good.<br />
<br />
B: I read he faces up to eight years in jail, which I think is pathetic.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Five to eight is what I read, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Up to eight years is a joke.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, sometimes laws just need an asshole clause. You know, where the judge has the discretion to just really dramatically increase the sentence.<br />
<br />
R: I don't know. I don't understand how they even come to that sentence, because, I mean, I don't think you even need a cause because he's endangering the lives of thousands, if not millions, of people.<br />
<br />
S: The law may not cover it.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: How? I don't understand.<br />
<br />
B: You know, guys, the other side of the story for me was the total lack of apparent effort to deal with this, to investigate this, to do something about it.<br />
<br />
S: Up front, oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: It's ridiculous. I read about a, that the police did a two-and-a-half year investigation, and they're talking about a University of Cambridge professor did a fully double-blind trial and he found it was no better than random chance, three out of twenty-five times. Two-and-a-half years to determine this? Really? I mean, we could set that experiment up in an afternoon. Two-and-a-half years. I'm sure there's lots of red tape and lots of things you gotta go through, but, that just seems an incredibly long period of time to come to those kind of conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: And it seemed like the government just <br />
<br />
S: Total failure.<br />
<br />
B: They didn't seem to want to investigate it or take any action. I mean this has been out there for not months, it's been years, right?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: I read 2008, 2009? It's 2013. What took so long? <br />
<br />
S: This exact kind of device has been sold multiple ways by multiple people. This was not unique.<br />
<br />
J: The real travesty here is the fact that they didn't vet this thing out. I mean you're really gonna take some unknown guy by his word? Didn't they test it? Didn't one person unbox one of these and test it with a few different bombs, or whatever? The claims he made are extreme. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, wasn't there one person in the chain who wasn't blatantly scientifically ignorant and saw that this was a total sham? Anybody with even a basic level of critical thinking should have been able to see that this was a total scam from the get-go, right? <br />
<br />
J: Yeah, and beyond that, Steve, isn't there a protocol in place? Doesn't the military have . . .<br />
<br />
S: Apparently not.<br />
<br />
J: Well, there you go. It's very revealing.<br />
<br />
E: You're right, Jay, it's very revealing.<br />
<br />
S: Well, we'll follow up when he gets sentenced. I just wanna see what kind of time this guys gets.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== TED and Chopra <small>(37:42)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/confusing-standards-for-censorship-chopra-edition/ Confusing Standards for Censorship &ndash; Chopra Edition]<br />
<br />
S: But let's move on for now. Are you guys aware of the whole TED fiasco that happened recently?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god. Unbelievable.<br />
<br />
R: Another one?<br />
<br />
J: Very disappointing.<br />
<br />
B: It's very believable.<br />
<br />
S: Well, I don't know which one you're referring to, but this is one, yeah, Deepak Chopra got involved. So the TED talks are a prestigious series of interesting, provocative lectures. TED, do you guys know what TED stands for, by the way?<br />
<br />
R: Technology, Entertainment, Design?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but the scope has expanded since then, but it was initially Technology, Entertainment, Design. And the tagline of the lecture series is Ideas Worth Spreading, and it became a very high profile, prestigious series of short, provocative lectures on topics in science and related things. TED spawned TEDx. TEDx are local, independently run and organized TED-branded lecture series that are supposed to strive for the same level of quality that TED itself has. And there are TEDx conferences all over the world. Well, apparently, some of the TEDx events have not been up to the standards of TED. There were a couple recent ones by Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock: you guys know who these guys are, right? Sheldrake is a big proponent of ESP. Graham Hancock is big into alternate history, ancient civilizations, etc. So, bottom line, both of these guys are crackpots, in my opinion. And they gave talks that were very unsettling to some people in the audience who have some knowledge of science, and there were complaints. There were complaints from people in the audience who said "What is TEDx doing promoting these lectures and these people?" This prompted a, and everything now gets a lot of attention in the blogosphere, etc., and social media. This prompted an open letter by some TEDx directors to all of the TEDx organizers. It's actually an excellent primer on how to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience. They go down a list of red flags for how to tell if a speaker is legitimate and they said "It's ''your'' job to vet them. It's not your audience's job to figure out if the speaker is offering legitimate science or not. It's ''your'' job, and this is how you do it. And if you're not sure, we'll help you, and here's the guideline." And it's a very excellent guideline. They actually reference Science-Based Medicine at one point.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, excellent.<br />
<br />
E: Well, there you go.<br />
<br />
J: How did they reference it?<br />
<br />
S: As a source you can go to to, for example, see if a medical claim is legitimate or not. And they reference other skeptical sources. Clearly, they were steeped in the skeptical culture, you know, movement. And they knew what they were talking about. This is the kind of thing that any experienced skeptic could have written or will find very familiar. So, excellent job. That provoked a backlash by Deepak Chopra. <br />
<br />
R: Surprise!<br />
<br />
S: And some of his cronies. So they wrote an article in the Huff Poo attacking the TEDx directors who wrote this open letter, and criticizing them for all the usual straw men, boogie men crap. It's really terrible. So, here's one quote from it:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>What the militant atheists and self-described skeptics hate is a certain brand of magical thinking that endangers science. In particular, there is a bugaboo of non-local consciousness which causes the hair on the back of their necks to stand on end. A layman would be forgiven for not grasping why such an innocent-sounding phrase could spell danger to good science. </blockquote><br />
<br />
So, thoughout the letter they're attacking quote, unquote, militant atheists, and every single time, just about, Chopra refers to Richard Dawkins, he calls him "militant atheist Richard Dawkins." <br />
<br />
R: I think he actually changed his first name to "militant atheist." ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: I'd like to say to Chopra, "I don't think you know what this word means."<br />
<br />
S: Well, I mean, he's trying to portray skeptics as the fanatics. Right? That we're the ones with an axe to grind; we're the ones on the extreme. And ''he's'' just talking about the cutting edge; we're just not aware. The other thing that's really funny—we've kind of been talking about Games of Thrones this episode—that the article is based upon this really lame, gratuitous analogy to the Games of Thrones. <br />
<br />
B: He got it so wrong, it was a joke.<br />
<br />
S: He gets everything wrong. So, he basically is trying to make this analogy that skeptics are like the Guardians on the Great Wall. <br />
<br />
R: There are no Guardians.<br />
<br />
S: I know. And, first he calls it a hereditary order, --it's not hereditary. ''(laughter)'' And the he says that the Guardians, meaning the Night Watch, but the Guardians defend the Empire from the monsters and the creatures on the other side of the Wall without ever going north of the Wall to see what's actually there. <br />
<br />
R: That's so . . . you just watch the first episode . . .<br />
<br />
S: I know. The very first scene are Rangers north of the Wall.<br />
<br />
R: Ya dummy. If Deepak can't even get this right . . . come on.<br />
<br />
B: You know, what's worse than a politician or a pseudoscientist misquoting or mis-referencing a bit of popular culture. Like, when –<br />
<br />
E: Oh, the Spock thing, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Spock, and they mix up ''Star Wars'' and ''Star Trek'' and all that, and it's like, oh, my god. Your advisors, your consultants should have been there for you when you wrote this.<br />
<br />
S: The whole article sort of revolves around this analogy, and he gets it horribly wrong. Sometimes in details that are not relevant to the point, but it just shows that he's not even aware. He didn't read the books or watch the series. Either that or he pays very poor attention to detail. But in one critical aspect, the analogy fails in a very meaningful way when he claims that the Guardians don't go north of the wall in the same way that skeptics don't actually investigate the topics that they dismiss in their militant atheism. And both are absolutely wrong. In fact, skeptics spend a great deal of time and energy carefully examining the claims of people like Chopra and Sheldrake and Hancock. We actually do what most mainstream scientists don't do. We're ''at'' the wall, we range north of the wall, we are investigating and we're trying to warn the Empire, "Hey, there's a bunch of nonsense up here!" <br />
<br />
R: And just to be clear, in Chopra's analogy here, in his metaphor, he is the zombie. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: That's right. He's the one ''(inaudible)''<br />
<br />
R: All right. Just making sure I've got that right.<br />
<br />
S: He also says there are dragons north of the wall—wrong!<br />
<br />
B: Wr- o-o-o-ng!<br />
<br />
R: God.<br />
<br />
E: Here be dragons.<br />
<br />
J: Is he getting like loaded before he watches this TV show?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughing)'' I don't he's, Jay, I think he has a vague notion of what's going on, and probably never really watched the show.<br />
<br />
R: He sat down to write those things, like, "What do the kids like these days?"<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, "What's popular these days?"<br />
<br />
B: No, not "the kids," the "kiddies." The kiddies.<br />
<br />
E: Well, you know Chopra. He's good at stealing a word here and a word there, and twisting into something he thinks is for his benefit—<br />
<br />
R: So, the wall is the new quantum.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but what he's really saying in his article is that there should be no standards. That anything should go. And that we're all adults, so any speculative thinking is all fine. Just leave us alone and let us say whatever we want.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, and let the audience decide, right?<br />
<br />
S: Let the audience decide. Which is funny because he triggers many of the red flags that the open letter specifically warned about. In his response. He's actually showing himself to be a pseudoscientist in his response to the open letter. By their own criteria. Without showing any awareness that he's doing so.<br />
<br />
B: That was wonderful. <br />
<br />
S: Oh, it was just terrible. And of course, that's exactly what the cranks and charlatans want, is for there to be no standards. And he pulled the Galileo gambit, by the way. I don't even know if I need to say what that is. Anybody who compares something to Galileo is automatically a crank, period. And he equated having some standards with censorship. Which again, that's a sign that, that's one of the red flags that they had in the open letter. If they try to say that they're being censored because you're trying to hold them to some standard, that's a red flag that they're a crank.<br />
<br />
B: Somebody replied to those comments specifically, and I love what they were saying about Galileo and how for every one true Galileo there's thousands of cranks, and also, if Galileo were alive today, he would recognize the need to do good research and not just throw it out there and see if it sticks on the wall, and to do good science. Something that they don't do.<br />
<br />
S: That was Chris Anderson from TED, responding to Deepak Chopra. Totally nailed it. He said<br />
<br />
<blockquote>No one here claims that mainstream science is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It isn't. But it is the best starting point we have for judging new information. Yes. A modern-day Galileo may be out there with paradigm shifting ideas that will at some point overturn huge pieces of existing science. But he or she should expect to face a robust standard of proof before their ideas take hold. And for every Galileo, there are thousands of people who just have bad unscientific ideas.</blockquote><br />
<br />
B: That was beautiful. He did a great job.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Chopra responded. Again. He responded again on the Huff Poo, on his blog. And this one is just, "Oh, you know, these scientists just don't understand the cutting edge." He's saying that they don't understand that the observer is in the equation. Right? That the universe is not just about what's being observed from a distance, but there's an observer in the mix as well. It's like, really? I mean . . .yeah, yeah, the physicists haven't been talking about this for the last twenty years? Come on. A total straw man. Again, I think someone said that Deepak Chopra should be banned from using the word "quantum" ever again. <br />
<br />
B: I'll send that!<br />
<br />
R: Censorship!<br />
<br />
S: At one of his debates, a physicist who was in the audience suggested that he attend a basic course, like monitor a basic class on quantum mechanics. 'Cause clearly he doesn't understand the first thing about it.<br />
<br />
R: Wasn't that Leonard Mlodinow?<br />
<br />
S: Was it? No, I know he . . . I think this was somebody in the audience. I don't think . . . I know Leonard Mlodinow has debated Chopra.<br />
<br />
R: I thought that's how he came to know Deepak Chopra, was that he spoke up in the audience.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, is that right? <br />
<br />
R: I might be getting this completely wrong.<br />
<br />
''(speaking simultaneously – inaudible)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca. <br />
<br />
S: But, this is the kind of pushback that we're going to get. I see this as a sign that we're being successful. That we are shining a light on the cranks and showing why what they're doing is nonsensical, and we're getting things like, you know, people who are actually directors of TEDx are writing very critical thinking, very skeptical open letters about the difference between science and pseudoscience. That's a huge victory for the skeptical movement. And we are forcing the cranks to try to attack us and to try to marginalize us, because we're having an impact. And we just have to keep the pressure back up against them. We can't let them define us. Of course they want to define us as the militant ones, right? I think what I'm gonna do is, every time I refer to Deepak Chopra from now on, I'm gonna refer to him as "militant crank Deepak Chopra." ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I like it.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I think that's fair.<br />
<br />
E: How do ya like that, Deepak?<br />
<br />
S: You think that's fair?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: We'll see how militant crank Deepak Chopra responds to that.<br />
<br />
J: This is one of those rare news items that is really exciting, it gives me some hope. This could have gone a much darker path. TED could have gone into a really bad place, and was allowing all this junk science in there.<br />
<br />
S: Well, hey, not that there aren't marginal and dubious TED talks. I'm not saying that that's a paragon. But maybe this will improve the quality of even TED by focusing a light on this issue of science versus pseudoscience.<br />
<br />
R: :Yeah, that's just it—<br />
<br />
E: Bring it to the forefront.<br />
<br />
R: That's what I meant by, when you said "problem with TED talks." I said another one. TEDx is just rife with B.S. But it's good that they've recognized that and are taking steps to solve it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and I think it's demonstrably because of skeptical watchdogs.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Creationism and Dinosaurs <small>(45:53)</small>===<br />
* http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/21/aclu-to-kansas-school-district-cancel-creationist-assemblies-about-dinosaurs/<br />
<br />
S: Speaking of militant cranks, Rebecca, you're gonna tell us about one who is going to be talking at a Kansas public school.<br />
<br />
R: Yes. Dr. G. Thomas Sharp has been hired to come to a small, a southwest Kansas school district to deliver two assemblies next week on the truth about dinosaurs. And I know about this because the ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union, is threatening the school district that they'll be taken to court if they continue on with these assemblies. The reason why is because Sharp is the founder of the Creation Truth Foundation. And when he is teaching the truth about dinosaurs, the things he teaches are things like dinosaurs were on the ark with Noah, and evolution is wrong. <br />
<br />
S: Did you watch his online video? <br />
<br />
R: I did, actually. There's an hour-long video in which he's, it's called ''The Truth About Dinosaurs'' and it's released by Sharp. So I have to assume that this is going to be at least similar to what he's going to be delivering to the Kansas school. I should mention that the ACLU, when they threatened the school district with court action, the superintendent of schools, Mark Crawford, responded to say that the assemblies were going to continue and that the, all the assemblies would be in line with the law. They would not actually be anything to do with creationism. And again, this is the founder of the Creation Truth Foundation. So I mean, it's right there in the name. And then, yeah, if you watch this horrible hour-long lecture he gives on YouTube, it's astounding the things he, I mean he's preaching, basically.<br />
<br />
J: Give us a few tidbits, like what were some of the crazier things he said?<br />
<br />
R: Well, like he refers to dinosaurs as god's lizards, and I mean, the Bible is sprinkled throughout. He accuses <br />
<br />
E: Godzilla, what?<br />
<br />
R: He refers to actual science as being done by secularists, and as though it's a filthy word.<br />
<br />
S: All right, then, let's say that he scrubs his talk of any biblical god or secular religious references,<br />
<br />
R: Then it'll be ten seconds long.<br />
<br />
S: It'll still be a mountain of absolute unscientific nonsense. Now, the approach that he takes, first of all, this is all nothing new. This is like 1970's style creationism.<br />
<br />
R: We should be clear, this is not intelligent design.<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
R: The thinly veiled creationism. This is creationism, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Retro-creationism.<br />
<br />
S: So he does the whole taking quote of scientists out of context, usually from public writing—writing meant for the lay public, not technical writing. And then he just completely mystery mongers. He tries to blow out of proportion what we don't know. Like, for example, and he's doing the whole, he doesn't really say evolution is wrong, he's doing the equivalency thing where evolution is one model and creation is another model, and the only way to interpret the evidence is through your preconceived notions. So if you assume evolution, then you'll interpret the evidence from an evolutionary perspective. But if you go with the biblical assumption that there was a flood and everything, then you could make sense of everything with the flood. And for example, he does the whole alternate geology, flood geology, and he said that there is no consensus that dinosaurs evolved from birds. And then he pulls some quote segment out of context from somebody, in a popular article, to make it sound like we have no idea what's going on. He's like, oh, the fossils are rare and they're in such poor condition and we have no idea what these dinosaurs were like, you know. Completely mis-characterizing the overwhelming evidence. There was just a study published this week showing that dinosaurs, that theropod dinosaurs that are closely related to early birds nested their eggs the same way that birds do. There's one more piece of evidence that birds evolved from a certain type of dinosaur.<br />
<br />
R: And while he's preaching that, he's implying heavily that scientists are outright lying to kids and using dinosaurs as some sort of enticing ploy to get them to come to their evil museums and lie to them. He says that scientists discount the flood and scientists disagree on dinosaurs, birds evolving from dinosaurs, and yet they continue to lie kids about it. I mean, it's, he's clearly implying nefarious purposes on the part of scientists.<br />
<br />
S: He's just accusing scientists of doing exactly what he's doing.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: He's dinosaurs as a lure so that he could lie through his teeth about the state of the scientific evidence about evolution and dinosaurs.<br />
<br />
E: And this superintendent of this school says it's completely and totally school-appropriate.<br />
<br />
B: I think he was, he seemed pretty clear and adamant that he would not allow creationism to be taught, and I think they got ahold of him and they convinced him, this is what we're gonna talk about, this is what we're gonna say. And I think what they're actually gonna do might be very different. Or, I kind of also think that they're gonna scrub the hell out of their talk and get very<br />
<br />
S: Yeah but Bob, he knows exactly what's going on. He knows, the point of this—<br />
<br />
R: The guy who started the Creation Truth Foundation, you don't invite him to give a lecture to students and then say that it's got nothing to do with creationism.<br />
<br />
S: This is deliberate stealth creationism in public schools, period. That's what this is.<br />
<br />
R: And I do want to mention that the assemblies are required for students to attend.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Mandatory. Mandatory.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
==Survey Announcement <small>(52:18)</small>==<br />
<br />
S: Evan, before we go to ''Who's That Noisy?'' a very quick announcement. We are doing a survey of our listeners. You can get to the survey, it's a quick demographic survey. We'd really appreciate if you'd take just a moment to fill it out so we could know more about our listeners. Go to theskepticsguide.org home page and you'll see it right on the home page, big white box with the survey in there. And again, we'd appreciate if you'd take a moment to fill that out.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(52:46)</small>==<br />
Puzzle for last week<br />
S: All right, well, Evan. We're now a couple of weeks behind on ''Who's That Noisy?''<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, well, we'll get caught up. Going back to March 30 it was when we asked the following puzzle:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Mark is visiting a psychic, the Great Griftina. The Great Griftina tells Mark to think of the number 1, 2 or 3. The Great Griftina tells Mark that she will ask one question of him, and must only reply with "yes," "no," or "I don't know." So what question should the Great Griftina ask Mark to find out exactly which number Mark has chosen.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: And I think there were a few different kinds of right answers to this.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, there was. A lot of the correct answers took the form, well, something like this, which I'm calling the standard solution, but I counted a lot of the solutions as correct that sort of had this premise in mind. So here's the answer, the standard solution: If I have the numbers one or two in mind, is the number that you have in mind larger than the numbers I have in mind? And a couple of variations on this that I found interesting are a little bit different from the standard solution. Someone posed, let's see, it was listener Brandon from Miami, Florida said that you could ask this question: If you subtracted two from your number, would the square root of the result be greater than zero?<br />
<br />
R: It's just really, if she's just dumb, it's always gonna be, I don't know. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: That's true. You have to assume that the people know math, and understand concepts like square roots and so forth.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And that works out. The winner this week is Yves von Gennip.<br />
<br />
S: And what have you got for this week?<br />
<br />
E: This week we're going back to the classic ''Who's That Noisy?'' I'm gonna play something for you. And you're gonna try to figure out exactly who is saying this. Are you ready?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>''(Woman speaking English with a foreign accent)'' You want to create weight loss, you can start using feng shui. The best way is to have black or blue plates, and actually making sure that you don't put too much on your plate at the same time.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: Feng shui to lose weight.<br />
<br />
J: Ev, you don't think it might something to do with the fact that she says "Don't put so much stuff on your plate"?<br />
<br />
E: ''(laughing)'' I was hoping you'd catch that, Jay. Yeah, that's exactly what I thought. What the hell does feng shui have to do with that? But I never heard that before. Feng shui as a weight loss program? That was new to me, so I thought I would share that with you, and go ahead and give us your guess. Sguforums.com is our forums. Go ahead and post your answer there or send your answer in to wtn@theskepticsguide.org and we'll do it again next week. Good luck, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, thanks, Evan.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(55:35)</small> ==<br />
=== Question 1 <small>(55:35)</small>===<br />
Bitcoin Follow Up<br />
Corrections and further analysis of Bitcoin<br />
<br />
S: Jay, on our live private recording that we put up last week, you had a segment on Bitcoin and that generated quite of feedback. We're not gonna read any one email because there were so many, but we definitely need to do a follow-up on the Bitcoin segment.<br />
<br />
J: I read a recent article about Bitcoin. I pitched it to Steve, thought it was a very interesting topic. I went to the Wikipedia page; I followed some links through the Wikipedia page. I ended up reading some conflicting sources of information. I thought that I had vetted things down to the point where I could have the discussion, because we want to be very careful that we're not, a lot of times news articles have one source, you know, you might have seen this—where you go to 50 different websites and it's all linking back to the single. There's lots of sources for Bitcoin on the web. Unfortunately, a lot of the information that I found was skewed and a couple of times was just flat-out wrong. What we found after re-investigating the Bitcoin information is, well, we'll give you the corrections, but, what Steve and I wanted to discuss tonight are the missteps of research. And we'll use my experience in the last week as an example of some of the things that may—now, I've been doing research for a long time. Steve has been helping me learn how to do high-end research. We talk about it on the show all the time.<br />
<br />
S: I do think it's interesting to talk about the process that we go through. A lot of people ask us about that process. This is a good opportunity to review it. We obviously don't always achieve the ideal that we shoot for. But what I like to see on every item; first of all, you have to find as many independent sources on the topic that you're researching as possible. And you have to follow each resource back to its original source, and that's how you discover sometimes that you may be reading twenty or thirty sources, but they're all linking to the same original source, and therefore you really only have one source. Wikipedia is a reasonable place to start just to get an overview but that's ''never'' your ultimate source for anything. You can follow those links back to the things that are sourcing Wikipedia, but ultimately you always want to get to primary sources and to multiple primary sources. One of the questions that you're trying answer early on—when Jay and I were talking about this earlier, I said "I do this basically every day when I write my blog." I spend my first fifteen or twenty minutes researching a topic just trying to figure out, first of all, how deep that well goes, how complicated is it? The second is, how much of a consensus is there on this? Am I going to be able to find a reference that's going to be definitive because the information is non-controversial and represents the consensus of scientific opinion. When a topic is controversial or has a lot of passion behind it, then it takes a lot more time, because you're going to be getting conflicting information and you're gonna have to sort which references are better, which arguments are better. You know, who really, you know, what we can know. It takes a long time to wrap your head around topics the more controversial they get. I think what happened with Bitcoin is that the whole topic was a lot more controversial than we realized, and a lot more awash in mythology and misinformation. So, I think that the thing that, Jay, that you should have done, was when you started to get conflicting information in the research, that should have been a big red flag that this is not as settled as it appeared to you at the time.<br />
<br />
J: And I figured it was just a matter of me finding a more definitive and trustworthy source.<br />
<br />
S: You know what else is interesting is that we've had, again, many emails pointing out some of the factual errors on the reporting of Bitcoin. But interestingly, the emails that we got, although they purported to be informative, they had a lot of conflicting information, too. They conflicted with each other. So, and then I've been researching this quite a bit in the last couple of weeks, and I found tons of conflicting information. But let's get to it, Jay. Tell us, what are the pretty clearly established factual bits of information that we need to correct?<br />
<br />
J: One mistake I made was I said that Bitcoins are divisible by Satoshi, that's like the pennies, say, in the Bitcoin world. I said that a Satoshi was worth fifty cents, and they're not. At all. Not even close. A Satoshi is a hundred millionth of one Bitcoin. So it’s a phenomenally small value. So, and to give you an idea, like right now, BItcoin value has been changing. But you know we're in the $150 per Bitcoin range, about, right now. Like I said, that goes up and down. I checked today a couple of times and I saw the value had changed even today. Another thing that I wanted to correct was we were interchanging the term "Bitcoin" with "Bitcoins." It is "Bitcoin." To be very pendantic about it, that's the correct way to say it.<br />
<br />
B: aaah.<br />
<br />
J: I'm never gonna say that word correct deliberately for the rest of my life.<br />
<br />
E: Ummm.<br />
<br />
J: Satoshi Nakamoto is not a person, he or she or the group of people, that's a pseudonym for the creaters of Bitcoin.<br />
<br />
S: Which, nobody really knows who that is.<br />
<br />
R: And they're not even positive that it's a pseudonym, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's just all shrouded in mystery, the identity of the creator or creators.<br />
<br />
E: Kind of like Shakespeare. Just kidding.<br />
<br />
J: A few legitimate organizations, news outlets and companies, tried to find out who the creator was, and they couldn't do it. So, we just don't know who they are.<br />
<br />
S: Jay, I found, when I was doing my research, I found a couple of things that conflicted with what you were finding. One was that, one site I read said that there is actually no "this one code equals this one Bitcoin." Rather, the code is all just tracking the transactions. So there's information that says you received a Bitcoin, but it's not like, oh, I have this bit of code here and this bit of code ''is'' my Bitcoin. But you said that you thought, that wasn't the impression that you had. You think that there is a code for each Bitcoin.<br />
<br />
J: I still am under the impression that a single unique Bitcoin has a single unique identifier. I do, I did read what you read that each transaction, the code to that Bitcoin changes and it grows with the transaction, so the transaction history is the input. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But, I'm telling you, Steve, I keep reading it, I think I get it and I read something else, and I'm like I'm not quite sure now. It's inherently a very complicated thing.<br />
<br />
S: The thing I read that was different from your understanding was that in mining, when you're like doing processing to mine for Bitcoins, that that processing is contributing to the distributed network that's tracking the transactions. It's not just some completely irrelevant side routine looking for numbers, it's actually contributing processing power to the Bitcoin phenomena.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, those servers become part of the cloud.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. What I also found interesting was that there's, again, the passionate writing on the internet. There's a lot of people criticizing Bitcoin, but they're coming from the metal currency enthusiast segment. So there is a subculture of people who don't like fiat money. Fiat money is basically what a government says, this is legal tender. We're gonna manufacture it and there you go. And as opposed to having a gold standard. And there are still people around who say nope, we should have a gold standard. Currency should be based on gold, silver, copper, not just government fiat, and these people ''really'' hate the idea of Bitcoin. Just digital grassroots fiat, if you will, being currency. I think they're generating a lot of the online criticism of Bitcoin and then the Bitcoin enthusiasts are responding to that, and I think we triggered some of that defensiveness when we were discussing Bitcoin, even though we were taking a pretty neutral approach, just trying to describe the phenomenon.<br />
<br />
R: William Jennings Bryan would use Bitcoin.<br />
<br />
S: You think so?<br />
<br />
R: I think so.<br />
<br />
E: On a cross of gold, yes.<br />
<br />
J: So a couple more quick points. We did mention also that a Bitcoin wallet company, and a wallet refers to a company you can start an account with online that will hold your virtual Bitcoins for you. We said that they got hacked. And we got into, me and Rebecca and an emailer were talking about the idea that like a DDOS attack is really not being hacked. Being hacked implies that they broke into your system, your information was compromised, and I agree with Rebecca. I think using the word "hack" for a DDOS attack, which is basically just pinging a website so often that it crashes 'cause it can't handle the server load. That's being hacked as well today, in general terms.<br />
<br />
S: In the vernacular. Yeah<br />
<br />
R: And also we were talking about several cases in which different efforts were being made to access Bitcoins and to disrupt Bitcoin. So, I think it's perfectly reasonable to use "hack" as the umbrella term for the various ways that people are using underhanded methods of disrupting the market.<br />
<br />
J: So, to sum up this whole thing, yeah, Bitcoin, the Bitcoin idea, and if you read about it you'll see; it's very complicated. It takes awhile to begin to wrap your head around the whole thing—<br />
<br />
S: And that's just the technology. The technology is complicated, but then there's an entirely separate economic discussion. Like, there are some people saying that Bitcoin isn't really currency. It's mainly not used as an exchange for goods, it's mainly hoarded, and it's actually traded like a commodity, more than just a currency. In other words currencies can be commodities, but, it's price fluctuates like a commodity, it's hoarded by speculators, like 99% or something of Bitcoins out there are being hoarded by speculators. So it really hasn't, some people are arguing, I mean I'm sure the enthusiasts are not gonna like this, but some people are arguing that it's not really behaving like a real currency. But maybe it just needs time to establish itself.<br />
<br />
J: But if anybody out there knows exactly what to do and wants to help, send us an email at info@theskepticsguide.org and it'd be fun. I wanna do it. I wanna see the system work. I wanna start a wallet account. I wanna go through the whole process and I'd really like someone that knows what they're doing to help me do it, so.<br />
<br />
R: Oh, but you know, I have some bad news. This news item went on so long that Bitcoin went out of business. Sorry. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Don't worry, Jay.<br />
<br />
J: I would like to formally announce the SGUCoin.<br />
<br />
S: The SGUCoin.<br />
<br />
R: Okay, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Our own currency! Oh, I like that.<br />
<br />
J: It's gonna be really easy. Super. It looks exactly like real U.S. currency.<br />
<br />
E: Backed by the full faith and credit of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. I love it.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:06:54)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, let's go on with ''Science or Fiction.'' <br />
<br />
''Voiceover: It's time for Science or Fiction''<br />
<br />
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious. And I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one they think is the fake. There is a sort of theme this week.<br />
<br />
R: Oooh, sort of.<br />
<br />
S: The theme is that each one of these items has a percentage in there somewhere. That's it. That's a very mild theme.<br />
<br />
R: It's a stupid theme.<br />
<br />
S: Well they all happened to have a percentage in there, so, whatever, spontaneous—<br />
<br />
R: That's not a theme, that's a coincidence. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: You call it a coincidence. I call it a theme. All right. Are you all ready for this week?<br />
<br />
E: Rebecca is.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. <br />
<br />
J: Do it. Do it.<br />
<br />
S: [http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2013/04/guelph_scientis_1.htmlItem #1]: Scientists have developed a vaccine that can reduce the risk of developing autism in high-risk infants by over 20%. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423135716.htm Item #2]: A study finds that medical interns spend only 12% of their time with patients, while spending 40% of their time on computers. And [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130418124907.htm Item #3]: A new study finds that over 50% of products recalled by the FDA between 2004 and 2012 because they probably would "cause serious adverse health consequences or death" were dietary supplements. Jay, go first.<br />
<br />
J: The first one, about the autism vaccine, wow. And I find that to be amazingly ironic. I would love to believe that that's true. But right out of the gate, I don't feel that this one is the truth, because I don't think we know enough about autism to actually create a vaccine for it. And it says by over 20%. That's a large number. So, tentatively that one is already my choice. The second one about the medical interns spending 12% of their time with the patients and 40% on computers, I can see that, but that seems like a huge amount of time to spend on the computer system and if they're actually working, which is one thing to be established, and when you say spending their time at computers, I'm hoping that that is work time and not just screwing off time. And if it is true, I wouldn't find it that unbelievable because I know how complicated and poorly developed a lot of these pieces of software are that hospitals and healthcare use. Every time I go to any of my doctors, they all complain about the software, almost every time. That one is believable. The third one about the FDA recalling, all the recalls, or 50% of the recalls between 2004 and 2012 were dietary supplements. That's another one, I could believe that. I mean there's a lot of dietary supplements. Now we say the FDA recalled them, Steve, see if you can answer this question, were these things that were approved by the FDA and then the FDA pulled them back, or did the FDA say "hey, you just can't sell that anymore because it's dangerous"? 'Cause I know that supplements don't have to be approved by the FDA.<br />
<br />
S: Well then you answered your own question.<br />
<br />
J: Now I'm even more confused than when I started. All right. So I'm gonna go under the idea the FDA just said "Hey you can't sell that anymore because it's hurting people," so I believe it. I think that's true. Therefore I'm going to say that the first one, about the autism vaccine is fake.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Bob? <br />
<br />
B: Jay made a lot of sense. I just can't buy the autism vaccine at all. I don't even, I'm not even sure why you would think we would, which now, of course, makes me think that there's some subtle thing in here that I’m missing that makes it science. So I'm really pissed. So, the medical interns, yeah. I can kind of see that. I don't know enough of what medical interns need to be doing during the day, and it kind of makes sense to me that 40% of the time at the computers. You know, there's so much that can be done. They can be doing so many other things besides. Like goofing off, as Jay suggested. Yeah, I can kind of buy that, too, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was wrong. And then, the FDA recall. I just don't have a good memory of lots of different things that have been recalled by the FDA between that time period. And the ones that do stick out are the few dietary supplements that caused issues. So, I think maybe there were so few actual recalls that the dietary supplements could amount to over 50%. So that kind of makes sense, too. I mean I just don't know how they're gonna come up with a vaccine when we're not even sure what the hell's going on. I just gotta say that that one's fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. I agree with what everybody's saying, that the FDA, I mean, I can think of several high profile recalls of things like spinach. Any e-coli problem that gets out there. Because they're high profile doesn't necessarily mean that they're dominating what the FDA's doing, because they still are pretty few and far between. So, yeah, I can believe 50%. And I would assume the other 50% are things like e-coli stuff happening in vegetables and meats. So, yeah, it makes sense. The computer thing, yeah, definitely. There's so much to do on computers. Jay said it all. It's fine. And I agree with Bob, the autism thing is ridiculous. A vaccine reduces the risk of developing autism in high-risk infants. It's ''ridiculous.'' I can't even . . . it would be great, but, no. I refuse to believe that's true.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Evan?<br />
<br />
E: I have to go with the team here. I'm sorry. Very vanilla, non-creative. But for all the same reasons. How is that possible? Vaccine, no.<br />
<br />
S: All right. So let's start with number two. A study finds that medical interns spend only 12% of their time with patients while spending 40% of their time at computers. You all think this one is science, and this one is . . . science.<br />
<br />
E: Well, they've gotta play ''Sky Rim'' right? And other things.<br />
<br />
S. Yeah. Mine Craft, or whatever. Sure. Yeah, it's stress release. Seriously, you guys are right. I mean Jay pretty much nailed it. Medicine is now run by computers, electronic medical records systems. Getting test results. Ordering tests. Everything you order, documenting all your notes. Everything is done on the computer, so all of the information surrounding taking care of patients is there, so it's not surprising that they spend that much time. I basically spend my entire day at a computer.<br />
<br />
R: Slacker.<br />
<br />
S: This is outpatient versus medical interns which are inpatient, but in the outpatient setting, I'm documenting the patient's note while I'm talking with them. I'm basically typing the whole time I'm talking with the patient. Then I examine them. I discuss other things with them, but you know, through all of that I'm ordering their tests. I'm looking up their test results. It's all on the computer. A seamless part of the visit now. There's just no way around it. So yeah, that's not a surprising figure. Interesting, this survey also found they spend 7% of their time just walking from one location to another. <br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' Awesome.<br />
<br />
S: Which also makes perfect sense.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: A round in the in the hospital, these huge sprawling buildings.<br />
<br />
R: Get those kids some roller skates!<br />
<br />
S: Seriously.<br />
<br />
R: --productivity.<br />
<br />
S: All right, let's go back to number one. Scientists have developed a vaccine that can reduce the risk of developing autism in high-risk infants by over 20%. You all think this one is ridiculous.<br />
<br />
R: Ridiculous!<br />
<br />
S: Just absolutely ridiculous.<br />
<br />
E: Ridiculous.<br />
<br />
S: Let me read you the headline of this news item. ''Guelph Scientists Develop First Vaccine to Help Control Autism Symptoms.''<br />
<br />
J: Twenty percent, though, Steve?<br />
<br />
R: That's symptoms.<br />
<br />
B: Symptoms!<br />
<br />
S: I was hoping to get you guys for reading this news item, but apparently . . . <br />
<br />
R: Well luckily we didn't.<br />
<br />
S: None of you read the news item.<br />
<br />
B: I would have quit if we were wrong. I would have been "game over." Outta here.<br />
<br />
J: Wouldn't it have been awesome if a vaccine cured autism? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: I know. The irony would be delicious.<br />
<br />
B: It would be great, but man, you kind of need to know what is actually happening first. There's probably a genetic component. What have they got, some viral factors in there of something?<br />
<br />
S: No, there's definitely an epigenetic component to autism, and that could be a target of a vaccine. So it's absolutely plausible.<br />
<br />
B: True.<br />
<br />
S: But this was a vaccine against Clostridium bolteae, which is a bacteria that causes diarrhea and and g.i. symptoms, which is very common in children with autism. About 75% have g.i. symptoms. So this is a vaccine that was developed, it's not, it's probably a decade away from actually getting approved. So potentially it could help treat g.i. symptoms, which is common in kids with autism, people with autism. So, it's not a treatment for autism itself. But the headline, I thought, was delicious. You know, the vaccine to help control autism symptoms. I wonder what the anti-vaxers will say?<br />
<br />
B: I was thinking about that.<br />
<br />
R: That's pretty good.<br />
<br />
B: That is pretty funny.<br />
<br />
R: It is still funny.<br />
<br />
S: It is. I tried to twist it into a real one, but I don't know. I like the other two ones for real ones. So let's go to number three, a news study finds that over 50% of products recalled by the FDA between 2004 and 2012 because they probably would cause serious adverse health consequences or death, in quotes, were dietary supplements, and that one is science. So Rebecca, these aren't food items, these are products, and the "cause serious adverse health consequences or death" is the wording for a Class 1 drug recall. So this is the percentage of Class 1 drug recalls between that period of time that were in fact dietary supplements. And yeah, Jay is right, the FDA does not have to approve supplements before they're on the market. That's thanks to the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, or DSHEA. Which is a crappy law that needs to be repealed.<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
S: What the study, is the study published in JAMA, what they found was, they looked at basically all the Class 1 drug recalls, and they found that 51%, just over 50%, were in fact dietary supplements, not drugs. And do you know which classes of dietary supplements were most likely to be recalled? <br />
<br />
R: Homeopathy.<br />
<br />
S: Nope. 'Cause there's nothing in homeopathy. So these are basically<br />
<br />
R: I think of like Xicam, that was a big recall.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, one.<br />
<br />
J: Megadose vitamins.<br />
<br />
S: Nope. So these are mainly for, so the FDA can't pull a product simply because it doesn't work, right? So homeopathy's safe. And it's difficult for the FDA to actually prove that harm has been done, but it can pull a product if it's adulterated with something that is a drug or something that's known to be hazardous. So most of these are dietary supplements that are adulterated. The single most common category representing 40%, for male enhancement. Male, you know, sexual enhancement. And followed by weight loss. A very common class of drug, of supplement. So not surprising. So essentially they're just putting stuff in there that's like real drugs, and they're not allowed to do that. So there are things that, you know, once the FDA shows that there's substances in there that shouldn't be there, they can pull it right away. They don't have to show that it's causing harm or anything.<br />
<br />
R: Which is a shame, because that's the first time those have a chance of working.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they only work when they actually put real drugs in there. So, good job, everyone.<br />
<br />
R: Thank you.<br />
<br />
J: ''(using upper class British accent)'' Good job, everyone!<br />
<br />
S: I guess it was kind of easy in retrospect, but, I was hoping to get anybody who might have read the headline and said "Ooo, vaccines, autism." <br />
<br />
R: Nope.<br />
<br />
E: Missed it. Thank goodness.<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>(1:19:10)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: Couple quick announcements before we go to the quote. We are getting started with the production of the Occ the Skeptical Caveman web series. If you live in New England and you want to help out in any way, then give us an email at info@theskepticsguide.org, referencing Occ the Skeptical Caveman. And we'll talk with you about what roles we have for volunteers. And it is time to get ready for the The Amazing Meeting, TAM 2013 is right around the corner now, July 11-14.<br />
<br />
J: In Las Vegas.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so TAM is the biggest conference, skepto-conference each year. We love it. We have a ton of fun. And there's a lot of SGU-related events going on at TAM this year. So we are gonna do our live show from the stage as we always do. In addition, we have, Friday night, the SGU dinner. This is a dinner where we, all the Rogues will be there, and sometimes some other skeptical celebrities show up as our guests, and we will make the rounds, talk to all of our listeners. And we hold an auction for certain select skeptical memorabilia.<br />
<br />
J: The auction is a fund-raiser for the SGU as well.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. That does sell out, so if you are going to TAM and you want to join us for the dinner, I suggest you register early. And, even more likely to sell out early is the SGU Skeptical Poker Tournament. <br />
<br />
J: Yeah, last year was our first year. We only had 60 seats last year, and we had such a demand that we moved that to a hundred seats for this year. I had a blast. I came in third. So, I mean, as you can imagine, I was shocked and in utter awe of myself and my card playing. I guarantee that's not gonna happen again this year. But the poker tournament is hosted by Joshie Berger, and we're playing Texas Hold 'Em. And it's, there's prizes. Some of the prizes we gave out last year were all-access passes to TAM and to NECSS. We're gonna be coming up with some new prizes this year. Probably use those two same prizes again, but it's just a ton of fun and it lasts a long time. It's definitely worth the entry fee. Every table has a skeptical celebrity sitting at it, so whenever you're at a table—so what we do is the skeptical celebrities change every 15 minutes or so. So you get a chance to sit with most of them, especially if you last halfway through, you're gonna sit with everybody.<br />
<br />
S: There'll always be a notable skeptic at every table and your goal is to knock them out, is to be the one to knock out the notable skeptic and if you do, you get some, you'll get some recognition that you did that. Last year we gave out cards.<br />
<br />
J: Signature cards.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, signed cards saying "I Knocked Steve Novella out of the Skeptical Poker Tournament." But, so we'll do something like that. Maybe even a little bit better this year. Lots of fun, we'll definitely sell out, so, if you're interested, sign up for that early. And, this is an awesome skeptical conference. There's going to be, the theme this year is "Fighting the Fakers." There's gonna be a science-based medicine workshop and panel, like there has been for the last couple of years. I'll be giving an individual talk as well. And Randi, of course, is there. George Hrab is hosting. They have an awesome line-up of speakers. Susan Blackmore, Jerry Coyne, Barbara Drescher, Max Maven, Massimo Pigliucci ''and'' Massimo Polidoro, you get two Massimos<br />
<br />
J: For the price of one ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Michael Shermer, Jamy Ian Swiss, Karen Stollznow, ''and'' they're not done. They have some other speakers that they, very high profile speakers they're looking to line up. We can't mention names until they're a hundred percent confirmed, but even with the speakers we have so far, and I should mentioned the keynote is Susan Jacoby. But even with the speakers we have so far, it is going to be an awesome conference and it can only get better as they confirm more high profile speakers. <br />
<br />
J: If you haven't gone to TAM you really need to go. It's essentially the skeptical Mecca. You need to go because you're gonna meet not only a ton of awesome people that are in the skeptical community. You're also gonna get access to any notable skeptics that are gonna be there. The speakers and a lot of people are just milling about and you can walk up and talk to whoever you'd like. We're gonna be at the SGU table. We typically have a table there where we sell swag, and we're, mostly, there to meet our listeners, and we're gonna spend a lot of time just waiting around to talk to people. <br />
<br />
S: So go to amazingmeeting.com to register for that event, and we hope to see a lot of you there.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:23:49)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: All right, Jay, do you have a quote for us this week?<br />
<br />
J: I have a quote. This quote was sent in by a listener named Ulrich Fisher from Canada. It's a Mark Twain quote. I love Mark Twain; I love quoting Mark Twain. I'm about to quote Mr. Mark Twain.<br />
<blockquote>Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.</blockquote><br />
<br />
''(shouting)'' Mr. Mark Twain! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Pithy quote. I like that. It's definitely better to be in miserable uncertainty.<br />
<br />
J: I'm so happily miserable.<br />
<br />
S: We can also call that spectrum from cocky ignorance to miserable certainty the Chopra to Dawkins spectrum. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. Very militant.<br />
<br />
S: You know, reference to militant crank Deepak Chopra. Well, thank you guys for joining me this week.<br />
<br />
R: Thank you, Steve.<br />
<br />
B: You're welcome.<br />
<br />
E: Thank you.<br />
<br />
J: Thanks, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: And until next week, this is your Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro404}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_406&diff=6623SGU Episode 4062013-05-19T01:25:30Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 359<br />
|episodeDate = 34<sup>th</sup> May 2012<br />
|episodeIcon = File:bomb-detector.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-04-27.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=406<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=45826.0<br />
|qowText = Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.<br />
|qowAuthor = {{w|Mark Twain}}<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the {{SGU}}, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the {{SGU}}. Today is Tuesday, April 24, 2013, and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson,<br />
<br />
R: Hello, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: Hey, guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Mach-cho maroon.<br />
<br />
S: Thank you, Evan.<br />
<br />
J: That sounds very Game of Thrones-y.<br />
<br />
E: It's the first words I think I've ever spoken in Dothraki.<br />
<br />
J: And what does it mean?<br />
<br />
R: It means "Die, scum!" ''(laughter)'' ''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: It means: "Your horse is ugly."<br />
<br />
J: Does it mean Hello?<br />
<br />
R: It means hello.<br />
<br />
E: Yes. It's the long way of saying "hello."<br />
<br />
S: Or as close as you get to it in Dothraki.<br />
<br />
J: Game of Thrones is kicking ass. The latest episode was awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And that has nothing to do with science.<br />
<br />
E: Everything to do with pop culture. <br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:02)</small> ==<br />
April 27, 1791: Birth of Samuel Morse<br />
<br />
R: But you know what ''does'' have to do, slightly, with science is that today, April 27, is the birthday of Samuel Morse, who was born in 1791.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, happy birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Wait. I missed that segue. What's, how did you do that? Oh, never mind. Go ahead. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: You know, it was just so smooth, you missed it. Yeah, so, Samuel Morse, most people know as the inventor, or co-inventor, of Morse code. I found it really interesting, I was reading up on him, and apparently he got interested in telegraph systems because he was far away from his wife when she took ill, and he got a telegram saying that she was basically on her death bed. And by the time he was able to rush to see her, she was already dead and buried. And he was so angry about it <br />
<br />
E: Sad.<br />
<br />
R: that he gave up painting. He had been a painter. And he dedicated his life to finding a better way to communicate over long distances. So, yeah, a tragedy, but it was positive results for humanity.<br />
<br />
J: You know what he said when he got there and they said "Your wife is dead."? He said, "She's dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dead?"<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my, God. ''(groans and laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: That was bad.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: Guys, guys, come on.<br />
<br />
B: Please edit that out, Steve. ''(laughter continues)'' Imagine how awesome that was back then when you realize that, holy crap, we can communicate so fast over hundreds, thousands, of miles. It must have been like pure science fiction to them.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, I learned some interesting things about Samuel Morse. First of all, he graduated from Yale. So he's a Yale alum. Supported himself as a painter, as Rebecca said. He didn't just invent, actually co-invent, with Alfred Vail, Morse code. He actually developed the electrical telegraph. And he, one of the critical inventions for that was the relay. He invented the relay. You guys know how that works?<br />
<br />
J: Sure.<br />
<br />
S: Hit me.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, the re--, you mean the thing that boosts the signal so it can go over long distances.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So, 'cause the wires back then were so crappy, one signal could really only go not even a mile. It couldn't go very far at all. So he figured out a way of putting in a relay where the signal hits a relay circuit which essentially, a very weak signal, you have a very sensitive circuit, so that even a weak signal comes in, and it activates a magnet, which triggers an arm, which creates a new click, which then can go the next distance to the next relay. So very simple, very basic, but that was a critical invention to the functioning of the <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: over long distances.<br />
<br />
B: They had to set those up every mile? Wow, that's a lot.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, something like that, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Initially, at least.<br />
<br />
E: It's like fiber optic today; they have relay stations.<br />
<br />
S: Do you guys know what the first message sent across one of those telegraphs was?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: I used to know it.<br />
<br />
J: "Send more Chuck Berry."<br />
<br />
R: Well, I only know because I read it like an hour ago.<br />
<br />
J: Say it with authority.<br />
<br />
R: I know exactly what it was, Steve. It was "A patient waiter is no loser."<br />
<br />
S: Right. Which is interesting because it's not . . .<br />
<br />
B: That's kinda lame.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's kinda lame.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: But his father was <br />
<br />
R: It's no "What hath God wrought?"<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, "what hath God wrought?"<br />
<br />
E: Or "Watson, come here, I want you.<br />
<br />
S: That's what he said when he was transmitting from the Supreme Court chamber.<br />
<br />
E: Right.<br />
<br />
S: His father was a Calvinist preacher, so it's kind of, I guess, has the moralistic tone with which he was raised. His father was Jedidiah Morse. You gotta love that name, Jedidiah. Not many Jedidiahs around today. <br />
<br />
B: No.<br />
<br />
S: And Morse also was pro-slavery. And was active in resisting both Catholics and immigrants.<br />
<br />
E: Um hm.<br />
<br />
J: When you say "resisting," what do you mean "resist"?<br />
<br />
S: He was, he actively campaigned against immigrants and Catholics.<br />
<br />
R: Horrible person<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: who did some good stuff.<br />
<br />
J: I didn't know that.<br />
<br />
B: I like him a little less now.<br />
<br />
S: He was a product of his time and his father.<br />
<br />
B: True.<br />
<br />
S: Gotta cut him a little bit of slack.<br />
<br />
R: I don't know, there were plenty of people of his time who were vehemently anti-slavery.<br />
<br />
S: Um hm. I agree, I just said "a little bit." It's hard to look back 200 years and be too heavily moralizing.<br />
<br />
R: Eh. I find it easy. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Are you guys enjoying the first real days of spring that we've had so far?<br />
<br />
J: Awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, I'm lovin' it. 'Bout time.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, this 42 degree weather is wonderful.<br />
<br />
S: Well, hey, we had such a long winter; you're right, it's still a little on the cold side. Today there were all these various unmistakable signs of spring, sort of like all at once. So, first, the forsythia is in full bloom. Second, bluebirds have moved into our bluebird house. They're gonna make little baby bluebirds.<br />
<br />
R: How do the bluebirds know that the bluebird house is for them?<br />
<br />
S: That's a really good question.<br />
<br />
E: They use the GPS.<br />
<br />
J: They can fit in it.<br />
<br />
R: There's a sign.<br />
<br />
S: So a bluebird house has an opening of a certain size. But honestly, it's more about positioning. You need to place it three to five feet above the ground, in an open area, with nothing obscuring the ground beneath it. So, bluebirds wanna make sure they can see snakes and other things coming. So if you do that, if you hang it at the right height in a sort of openish area, bluebirds will move into it. I mean it's, <br />
<br />
R: And no other bird?<br />
<br />
S: Well, hang on. The other bird that will tend to steal a bluebird house from the bluebird is the house sparrow. We have plenty of house sparrows, but bluebirds always seem to move into our bluebird houses. So it's remarkably consistent.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, what do you think, like you have, the pair of bluebirds are flying around and the wife bluebird goes "What about this one, honey?" And the husband's like "Nope, that's only two feet off the gound." <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I mean they definitely have like a measuring tape and a list of wants. <br />
<br />
S: It works, it absolutely works.<br />
<br />
R: Good view of snakes, in-ground pool.<br />
<br />
B: My favorite sign of spring is that the White Walkers are retreating back north.<br />
<br />
S: Yup. ''(laughter and garbled comments)'' Nice call-back. The robins are more visible. As we learned previously they don't actually; they do migrate, but there are robins in the winter but they stay more in the forest. But the robins that are here come out and are more visible in the spring. And I actually grilled steaks on the grill on my deck today, for dinner.<br />
<br />
E: Delicious.<br />
<br />
R: Man, you went all out.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And, the single most profound marker that spring is here was<br />
<br />
E: Allergies.<br />
<br />
S: No. I don't have allergies luckily. Was, the ice cream truck came around.<br />
<br />
R: You have an ice cream truck?<br />
<br />
S: Yup. My daughters go insane. You know, they see the ice cream truck and they just go crazy.<br />
<br />
E: Come on, you go a little crazy, too. Admit it.<br />
<br />
J: Does the guy play music, Steve, or<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
J: Does he ring the bell, what is it?<br />
<br />
S: Of course, you've got the music and the bell and they just lose their minds.<br />
<br />
R: We never had an ice cream truck when I was a kid; it was too rural.<br />
<br />
B: We did.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah, we did.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, you were insane. I have a distinct memory of you, one night, sitting at the end of our driveway. You were a little shit, probably six or seven, crying your eyes out because the ice cream man didn't come, or you missed him, or something, and you were just like bawling 'cause you wanted your ice cream, and you missed it. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: I never forgave that guy, either.<br />
<br />
E: That bastard.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Mars One <small>(9:01)</small>===<br />
* http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/apply-now-one-way-trip-mars<br />
<br />
S: All right, well let's move on. Bob, you're gonna tell us about ''(imitating Schwarzenegger)'' "Get your ass to Mars." ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: You just totally took my opening line. Thank you so much.<br />
<br />
S: Bob, you gotta warn me if you're gonna do that.<br />
<br />
B: Whatever.<br />
<br />
S: It was a bit obvious<br />
<br />
B: I know, but I added a little flourish at the end. I said "Get your ass to Mars and never come back." Are you guys ready for an out-of-this-world reality TV show? I can't believe they're doing this. The company Mars One is planning on making a reality show that showcases the entire process of selecting and training astronauts, their trip to Mars, and the rest of their lives living on Mars. And like we said, it's a one-way trip. That's the real kicker that everybody's talking about. Would you guys do that? Would you guys actually consider that? Or would you want to hear the details first?<br />
<br />
R: No.<br />
<br />
E: I don't think so.<br />
<br />
R: I don't need the details. No. I don't wanna go on a reality show so people can watch me die in space. No. Thank you.<br />
<br />
''(speaking simultaneously – inaudible)''<br />
<br />
B: --when I'm 70 or 80, or what the hell. So, the first question is why are you doing a one-way trip? There's two good reasons. The scientists feel that it's feasible to send people to Mars pretty much now, but the tech just doesn't seem to exist to bring them back right now. I kind of thought that was a weird reason because even if we don't have it now, surely it'll exist at some point. And if we put resources into it it wouldn't take that long. I think one of the reasons that they're doing this is that it's a real attention grabber. Headlines.<br />
<br />
S: The think is though, what do you do, when to get to Mars, you find out that you don't like it there.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah, you're done. Game over.<br />
<br />
R: You'd kill yourself.<br />
<br />
E: You suck it, basically.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it'll make for a good episode. They're already talking about how they'll have a crematorium because people will of course die. But another good reason, probably the best reason that they're not gonna come back,<br />
<br />
E: What if you're the last one to die, though? How're you gonna get in that crematorium?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I wouldn't worry too much about it. So the best reason though why they're not coming back is that, imagine seven or eight months in space; astronauts, as we know, lose muscle mass, they lose bone mass; it's really, really horrific on the body. Even if you're exercising all the time, there's a huge hit that you take; and then time that you spend in Mars' weaker gravitational field, that's not gonna help much either. And scientists feel that readjusting to Earth's gravity after so much time, it's pretty much impossible, with today's technology anyway. After all that time, you're just not coming back. That's a really, really good reason.<br />
<br />
J: That sounds odd to me, Bob. What about people that suffer phenomenal injuries and have to be bedridden for six months or a year. You can't grow back the tissue that you lost, and the bone mass?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it's weird. It's not like if you become paralyzed, where your muscles just turn to mush and it's completely and utterly irrevocable.. .<br />
<br />
S: But people who are bedridden lose a lot of muscle mass. You could lose one to three percent of your muscle mass per day if you're sick and in the hospital and completely immobile. Especially for older people. So that's why they have weeks and months, sometimes, of rehab, just to recover from the debility that results, Jay.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, Jay, and that's also one of the big down sides to yo-yo weight loss, where you lose a lot of weight and inevitably a lot of muscle weight and then you gain back a lot of fat. At the end of the cycle you have much less muscle than you had, and that's a hit that your body could take for the rest of its life, 'cause it's just so hard to get back all that muscle that you lost. It's really bad. And that's a really good reason why once you're there you're gonna be committed. The gravitational pull on Mars is about 38% of Earth's. So that's really, really low. I mean things, it'd be easy to get around and things would be light and that's all great, but, man, your muscles just say we don't need all of this muscle, let's get rid of it. I'm very curious how walking will be accomplished on Mars. How similar to moon-walking will it be? Or will it be a fusion between the moon-hopping and the Earth-walking? I'd be curious to see that. <br />
<br />
J: Bob, what's their budget? How could they possibly afford to do this?<br />
<br />
B: That's actually one of the key problems, Jay, is funding. They figure it's gonna cost about six billion U.S. dollars to get there, just for the first group.<br />
<br />
S: How many bit coins is it gonna cost? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Seven. <br />
<br />
R: Oh, you know, if they send a big-time movie star, if they send like Julia Roberts, that should secure them at least one billion from the foreign markets.<br />
<br />
J: Why, 'cause they wanna get rid of her? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's a movie-making joke. You cast the right people, you get the funding. That's the way it works, in Hollywood.<br />
<br />
S: So who ''should'' we send to Mars on a one-way trip?<br />
<br />
B: Justin Bieber! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Wow, Bob.<br />
<br />
R: What did Justin Bieber ever do to you?<br />
<br />
B: Nothing, I just felt like it.<br />
<br />
J: It's not really him, it's more his haircut.<br />
<br />
S: Could we just send his haircut?<br />
<br />
J: So, look, there's a lot of things about this that I just don't have enough information on, or they're just not making enough sense. First of all, how do you get billions of dollars for a TV show? Second of all, who's developing the technology? How are they gonna live an extended period of time on a planet where they can't manufacture things, grow food, what's up?<br />
<br />
B: Let me go through some of this, then, Jay. What they're gonna need, more than a few astronauts: they're talking about 24 astronauts. So the idea is they're gonna have six groups of four astronauts, and every two years four astronauts are gonna be sent there, with the first one going in 2022. The selection process will be finalized in 2015; so it's only a couple years away. Then they're gonna go through seven years of training. And, think about it though, seven years of a reality show of astronauts training. That's gonna get so boring. There's no way they're gonna maintain a TV show for that long.<br />
<br />
S: I don't know, Bob. I mean, ghost hunter shows have lasted for that long. <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, ''The Real World'' has been going on for that long.<br />
<br />
B: I guess.<br />
<br />
R: It's crap, but people still watch it, I guess.<br />
<br />
B: Well, if they do a good job, they can make it interesting. But seven years of training?<br />
<br />
S: What they need to do is they need to vote people off the planet. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Well actually, what they're gonna, that's close, Steve. What they're gonna do, in true reality show style, is they're gonna vote four astronauts, the first four to go, who of course will be the most famous. Who doesn't wanna be the first ones to go? Except me. <br />
<br />
R: Anyone with a brain, doesn't wanna be the first to go.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, you mentioned technology. Space X, they're gonna work with Space X. And the idea is to use a slightly enlarged version of the Dragon capsule to get them there. And <br />
<br />
R: I never noticed before how much "Space X" sounds like "space sex." Because that was very confusing when you first said it.<br />
<br />
S: Space sex?<br />
<br />
R: Um hm.<br />
<br />
B: I never thought of that. Thank you. They're gonna use those really cool retro propulsion rockets to land it because of course parachutes aren't gonna cut it. Jay, to survive, they're gonna have solar panels, of course, for energy. They're gonna recycle and extract water from the soil if it's there, if they can actually find some. And food, and they're gonna grow their own food. That's another technology that I don't know how they're pull that off. And then of course, every two years they'll get a nice resupply of their Reese's Peanut Butter Cups from Earth when the next group arrives. But as you can imagine, right, there's gonna be tons of problems. One of them is the solar wind. Mars just does not have, a very thin atmosphere. It's about a hundredth, less than a hundredth the density of Earth's atmosphere. It's almost a friggin' vacuum. And Mars doesn't have a magnetosphere. I mean, damn.<br />
<br />
J: It doesn't seem like the survival of these people is going to be high. It's scaring me. <br />
<br />
S: They are gonna send supplies ahead of the first astronauts. So there should be material and food and everything they'll need there to get going. <br />
<br />
B; Well, they want to send a series of rovers to go there. And that's also one of the reasons why I'm pessimistic. They want to send a bunch of rovers. I mean, are they even working on these rovers? I mean, you know how long it takes to design and develop and test all that. I'm not even sure where they even are with that preliminary step right there. And so it's not just a magnetosphere that's not there, which is basically a shield for the solar wind and cosmic ray particles. It really is why there's lots of life on the surface of the planet. <br />
<br />
S: Their habitat will basically have to be under ground. <br />
<br />
B: yeah, they're gonna have to . . . maybe that's one of the things these rovers can do is help make these pits for their habitat. So if they're gonna have to be under many feet of dirt, then they'll be okay. But there's also no liquid water, really. None that they could really tap into that we've found. And then the radiation, not just the radiation on the planet, but the trip radiation, and we've talked about this on the show. It's nasty. Just going there, you've got these energetic particles in the solar wind; you've got cosmic rays. I mean, they won't kill you outright, necessarily, but they will greatly increase your chances of getting cancer. And the question is . . .<br />
<br />
R: These people are not gonna live long enough to get cancer. They don't need to worry about that.<br />
<br />
B: I guess.<br />
<br />
R: Like if they die of cancer, it'll be the greatest thing that ever happened to them. <br />
<br />
J: You know, there's social implications here, as well. What about laws?<br />
<br />
S: They're on their own. The whole idea is they can create their own civilization.<br />
<br />
E: The wild west. That's great. What if one of them goes nuts and starts to break down?<br />
<br />
S: Well they'll have seven years vet these people. They're gonna be . . . so part of the training . . . first of all, they're gonna be trained in emergency medicine, dentistry, engineering, all the skills they're gonna need to do everything they need on their own and they're gonna also spend extended periods of time in simulated Martian habitats, and have simulated emergencies. So, that's seven years of vetting for these people.<br />
<br />
E: What if these people don't pan out in year three or four, what . . . you're gonna have to have teams of people going through this process. I mean, imagine the hundreds of people that they're gonna have to select from.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. I would think they're gonna have maybe one or two backups. You know, you're talking fifty, sixty, seventy people, if they go that route, which isn't, I mean $6 billion will go a long way for that kind of stuff. NASA astronaut Stan Love had a great description of this. He, I think he described it really well. He just happened to come back from Antarctica, and he says "That place is a picnic compared to Mars." He says it's full of water, you can go outside and breathe the air. It's paradise compared to Mars, and yet nobody has moved there permanently. And you know, as nasty as that place is, Mars is ten hundred times worse and people are gonna spend the rest of their lives there. It's just crazy. <br />
<br />
R: What happens when the show is cancelled?<br />
<br />
E: That's a good point.<br />
<br />
R: You know, ratings are down, they need that time slot for something else.<br />
<br />
S: I think, let me go against the grain and say that I think this is a wonderful idea.<br />
<br />
B: No. You're full of shit. No. All right, I love the idea of a community off the Earth, and Stephen Hawking would really agree with us on that. But ''go to the moon first!'' It's only three days away. Vet all the technology and develop it on the moon. If there's a huge disaster, you can be there in mere days, rather than months and a billion dollars later. <br />
<br />
R: Good point.<br />
<br />
S: All right, that's a really good point.<br />
<br />
B: Moon Base Alpha first, then Mars.<br />
<br />
J: Well, wait, Bob. That might be part of their plan, though. As Rebecca says, let's say the show gets cancelled. The show's gonna probably get cancelled right around when everyone's gonna die. Right?<br />
<br />
E; That convenient.<br />
<br />
S: Well the show may be cancelled before they even . . . It's gonna be seven years of reality TV before they even blast off for Mars. Remember. So, this is highly risky in multiple ways. This is gonna be very difficult to pull off. But you gotta give it to them for the vision here, of trying to . . . If they pull this off, then you really have to give it to them for being bold and the amount of dedication it's going to take to usher this project to completion is going to be amazing. So, they will have to capture the imagination of the world with this project. The people that they select are going to have a lot to do with this. And they have ten years to work out the technological limitations. It's not impossible, it's just gonna be really, really hard. But if they're serious about this, I think that . . . I'd love to see them try; I wish them well; I would love to see them succeed, as long as they appreciate that they're not going into this thinking this is gonna be an easy endeavor. As long as they appreciate all the many ways this can fail, and they are doing everything they possibly can to deal with all of those hurdles, then, let's see what they do.<br />
<br />
R: Who's the "they" again? Who's actually doing this?<br />
<br />
S: Mars One, I guess, is the organization. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah, they're based out of Denmark. <br />
<br />
J: Steve, I don't disagree with that at all. I see what you're saying, and I like the idea of all these billions of dollars that go into entertainment that is really, at the end of the day, it doesn't achieve things like technology and pushing the limits of man's fortitude . . . <br />
<br />
S: You know what I think is likely to happen? If they get this off the ground, I think that they're going to have an interesting reality TV show that will be a dry run for a real colonization trip to either the moon or Mars. But they probably won't ever launch. If they ''do'' launch; if they're successful enough, in terms of raising money and keeping the whole project going to the point where they're ready to launch, that will be a huge success right there. Anything that happens after that, you know, I would still consider this to be a success. Of course it's high risk. They will have . . . basically like 2022 or 2023, they're gonna have to make a hard assessment of whether or not they actually have all the pieces in place to send people to Mars. Probably there's gonna be tons of delays and it will probably never happen. But . . .<br />
<br />
B: Oh, 2022 or 3, I'd say 2018 they'd be like, shit, we're not gonna make this. And to me, that's my biggest beef with this is that 2022 just seems way too soon to pull this off. There's too many hurdles.<br />
<br />
S: I like the idea that they're planning on using the Space X<br />
<br />
B: Oh, absolutely.<br />
<br />
S: So that may throw a lot of funding their way. <br />
<br />
B: That would be great.<br />
<br />
S: That would be a good consequence of all this.<br />
<br />
J: It's a lot of money they have to get, and that's gonna be a huge hurdle for them.<br />
<br />
B: I've got a quote on that as well. Dr. Chris Lintott, he's Oxford University, he thinks that it's technologically plausible, feasible. But in his mind funding is gonna be the biggest problem. He said "It's about having the political will and the financial muscle to make this happen. That's what nobody has been able to solve so far." So the undoing of this entire project might be just purely from funding, 'cause it's a lot of money. It's got a lot of sustained interest that you'd have to have for many, many years. And if you can pull that off, that might be the biggest hurdle of all.<br />
<br />
S: Hopefully this is a story we'll be reporting on over the years. I hope it doesn't die in the crib. It'll be interesting.<br />
<br />
B: And if anyone wants to register you have until August 31 of 2013, and they certainly have lots of volunteers. I've heard numbers over 40,000 requests already.<br />
<br />
R: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
B: It'll cost you money, though. I think it's 38 bucks for the United States. But depending on what country you're in, the prices will vary. But yeah, lots of people are interested in it.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Bomb Detector Fraud <small>(24:43)</small>===<br />
* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22266051<br />
<br />
S: Okay, Jay, there's some good news from the U.K. about a convicted con artist.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. Do you all remember the story we covered about James McCormick? He's the guy who sold the fake bomb detectors that were eventually used in real life situations in Iraq. Well, things didn't turn out so good for Mr. McCormick. This is a horrifying story with a possible good ending. It hasn't ended quite yet. I think it's going in the right direction, but this, let me give you the quick background. April 23, 2013, during a hearing in London at the Central Criminal Court of England and Wales, the Court was told that McCormick's fake detectors were 100% ineffectual. The harshest fact that came out was that McCormick knew they didn't work. So, this guy invents quote unquote invents, a detector that can do the following things: this is what he claims. The devices could bypass all forms of concealment. They can detect drugs and people along with explosives, would work under water, and of course, from the air. Would track an object up to one kilometer, or 320, sorry 3,280 feet below the ground. Below the ground. The bomb detectors came with cards which were programmed, quote unquote programmed, to detect a wide array of substances from ivory to $100 bank notes. Other substances could be detected. But, it was claimed if you put in a jar with a sticker which would absorb its vapors, so whatever it is, whatever you want, you put that item, or a piece of it, in a jar, and the sticker would absorb the vapors from that object. And then if you stuck that sticker to the thing, it could detect it. All right? Now. This is insane, and we talked about this already, so a lot of you already know that fact. The ADE651 detector. He made how much money? Fifty million pounds! 76 million US dollars from this scam. He sold 6,000 units to Iraq. Not a bad haul for a scam. Pretty damn good. Officials said the device was modeled after a novelty $20 golf ball finder. Oh, god, when I read that, I was so pissed off at the idea that this guy was basically flipping through a magazine on an airplane, say, I'm not sure if that was it, but you know the kind of junk that I'm talking about. This chachki crap, $20 golf ball finder that doesn't work. This hand-held device. He bought hundreds of those. Listen, Evan, he bought them. Hundreds of 'em. Put his own custom sticker on it and sold them as bomb detectors.<br />
<br />
S: He didn't even make 'em himself?<br />
<br />
J: Well, the first version of it, no. It was this crappy golf-ball finder. He sold them for 5K each. So then, when he sold them and it worked, he went out and made a much cooler looking one, and he sold those to the Iraqi government, and those he sold for up to 27,000 pounds, 40,000 US dollars each.<br />
<br />
E: Ironically, those don't detect golf balls<br />
<br />
S: It's basically a dousing rod.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's how it works.<br />
<br />
E; Very expensive one.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, and if you look at it, an antenna<br />
<br />
B: Well, not really.<br />
<br />
J: Yes, Bob, in a way. It is, Bob, it is. You have to see it.<br />
<br />
B: There's no ideomotor effect<br />
<br />
J: Yes, there is. Bob, Bob. Yes there is.<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, pay attention. Okay? You're in school now, I'm your teacher. All right, you hold the device in your hand and you pull the antenna out; it scopes out. And then it's on like a ball-bearing device, so it shifts with the person's hand that's using it. So, yeah, Bob, that's it. They're looking at the movement of that thing, and the people are, the people who are using it are coming up with the answers themselves: am I detecting something here? Yes or no. That's it. It is in essence a dowsing rod. So finally the U.K. government banned the sale of the detector in Iraq and Afghanistan in January 2010, and senior Iraqi officials that knew the device for a fake and some of them who were bribed to continue purchasing them. And when I say they were bribed, a lot of money exchanged hands. This guy bribed the hell out of<br />
<br />
B: Millions of dollars. Millions of dollars.<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely. Sadly, some of these devices are still active at some checkpoints in Iraq.<br />
<br />
E: Really?<br />
<br />
J: It's ridiculous. I don't know why or how that could possibly be happening. There was a very sad story. You know, to put a face on this whole thing. A woman named Henine Awan, who was an Iraqi woman, was pregnant at the time, and she lost her baby because a bomb went off that wasn't caught by the fake detector. She needed 59 operations after she was injured in January, 2009, and I saw a video of her talking, and I'm telling you, she was horribly, horribly burned. Another interesting thing, there's a detective inspector, Ed Heath, said "It is clear that both civilians and armed forces personnel were put at significant risk in relying upon the equipment. McCormick showed a complete disregard for the safety of those that used and relied upon the device for their own security and protection. He amassed many millions of pounds through his greed and criminal enterprise." And he's going to be sentenced on May 2 of 2013. There's no doubt that he knew that it didn't work. One of the salesmen that was working with him at one point asked him specifically, you know, I really need to know if this thing works, and he said "It is working. It's earning money."<br />
<br />
R: Ecchh<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
S: Do you have any idea of what possible sentence he's facing?<br />
<br />
J: I couldn't find anything, but it doesn't look good.<br />
<br />
B: I read he faces up to eight years in jail, which I think is pathetic.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Five to eight is what I read, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Up to eight years is a joke.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, sometimes laws just need an asshole clause. You know, where the judge has the discretion to just really dramatically increase the sentence.<br />
<br />
R: I don't know. I don't understand how they even come to that sentence, because, I mean, I don't think you even need a cause because he's endangering the lives of thousands, if not millions, of people.<br />
<br />
S: The law may not cover it.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: How? I don't understand.<br />
<br />
B: You know, guys, the other side of the story for me was the total lack of apparent effort to deal with this, to investigate this, to do something about it.<br />
<br />
S: Up front, oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: It's ridiculous. I read about a, that the police did a two-and-a-half year investigation, and they're talking about a University of Cambridge professor did a fully double-blind trial and he found it was no better than random chance, three out of twenty-five times. Two-and-a-half years to determine this? Really? I mean, we could set that experiment up in an afternoon. Two-and-a-half years. I'm sure there's lots of red tape and lots of things you gotta go through, but, that just seems an incredibly long period of time to come to those kind of conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: And it seemed like the government just <br />
<br />
S: Total failure.<br />
<br />
B: They didn't seem to want to investigate it or take any action. I mean this has been out there for not months, it's been years, right?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: I read 2008, 2009? It's 2013. What took so long? <br />
<br />
S: This exact kind of device has been sold multiple ways by multiple people. This was not unique.<br />
<br />
J: The real travesty here is the fact that they didn't vet this thing out. I mean you're really gonna take some unknown guy by his word? Didn't they test it? Didn't one person unbox one of these and test it with a few different bombs, or whatever? The claims he made are extreme. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, wasn't there one person in the chain who wasn't blatantly scientifically ignorant and saw that this was a total sham? Anybody with even a basic level of critical thinking should have been able to see that this was a total scam from the get-go, right? <br />
<br />
J: Yeah, and beyond that, Steve, isn't there a protocol in place? Doesn't the military have . . .<br />
<br />
S: Apparently not.<br />
<br />
J: Well, there you go. It's very revealing.<br />
<br />
E: You're right, Jay, it's very revealing.<br />
<br />
S: Well, we'll follow up when he gets sentenced. I just wanna see what kind of time this guys gets.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== TED and Chopra <small>(37:42)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/confusing-standards-for-censorship-chopra-edition/ Confusing Standards for Censorship &ndash; Chopra Edition]<br />
<br />
S: But let's move on for now. Are you guys aware of the whole TED fiasco that happened recently?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god. Unbelievable.<br />
<br />
R: Another one?<br />
<br />
J: Very disappointing.<br />
<br />
B: It's very believable.<br />
<br />
S: Well, I don't know which one you're referring to, but this is one, yeah, Deepak Chopra got involved. So the TED talks are a prestigious series of interesting, provocative lectures. TED, do you guys know what TED stands for, by the way?<br />
<br />
R: Technology, Entertainment, Design?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but the scope has expanded since then, but it was initially Technology, Entertainment, Design. And the tagline of the lecture series is Ideas Worth Spreading, and it became a very high profile, prestigious series of short, provocative lectures on topics in science and related things. TED spawned TEDx. TEDx are local, independently run and organized TED-branded lecture series that are supposed to strive for the same level of quality that TED itself has. And there are TEDx conferences all over the world. Well, apparently, some of the TEDx events have not been up to the standards of TED. There were a couple recent ones by Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock: you guys know who these guys are, right? Sheldrake is a big proponent of ESP. Graham Hancock is big into alternate history, ancient civilizations, etc. So, bottom line, both of these guys are crackpots, in my opinion. And they gave talks that were very unsettling to some people in the audience who have some knowledge of science, and there were complaints. There were complaints from people in the audience who said "What is TEDx doing promoting these lectures and these people?" This prompted a, and everything now gets a lot of attention in the blogosphere, etc., and social media. This prompted an open letter by some TEDx directors to all of the TEDx organizers. It's actually an excellent primer on how to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience. They go down a list of red flags for how to tell if a speaker is legitimate and they said "It's ''your'' job to vet them. It's not your audience's job to figure out if the speaker is offering legitimate science or not. It's ''your'' job, and this is how you do it. And if you're not sure, we'll help you, and here's the guideline." And it's a very excellent guideline. They actually reference Science-Based Medicine at one point.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, excellent.<br />
<br />
E: Well, there you go.<br />
<br />
J: How did they reference it?<br />
<br />
S: As a source you can go to to, for example, see if a medical claim is legitimate or not. And they reference other skeptical sources. Clearly, they were steeped in the skeptical culture, you know, movement. And they knew what they were talking about. This is the kind of thing that any experienced skeptic could have written or will find very familiar. So, excellent job. That provoked a backlash by Deepak Chopra. <br />
<br />
R: Surprise!<br />
<br />
S: And some of his cronies. So they wrote an article in the Huff Poo attacking the TEDx directors who wrote this open letter, and criticizing them for all the usual straw men, boogie men crap. It's really terrible. So, here's one quote from it:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>What the militant atheists and self-described skeptics hate is a certain brand of magical thinking that endangers science. In particular, there is a bugaboo of non-local consciousness which causes the hair on the back of their necks to stand on end. A layman would be forgiven for not grasping why such an innocent-sounding phrase could spell danger to good science. </blockquote><br />
<br />
So, thoughout the letter they're attacking quote, unquote, militant atheists, and every single time, just about, Chopra refers to Richard Dawkins, he calls him "militant atheist Richard Dawkins." <br />
<br />
R: I think he actually changed his first name to "militant atheist." ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: I'd like to say to Chopra, "I don't think you know what this word means."<br />
<br />
S: Well, I mean, he's trying to portray skeptics as the fanatics. Right? That we're the ones with an axe to grind; we're the ones on the extreme. And ''he's'' just talking about the cutting edge; we're just not aware. The other thing that's really funny—we've kind of been talking about Games of Thrones this episode—that the article is based upon this really lame, gratuitous analogy to the Games of Thrones. <br />
<br />
B: He got it so wrong, it was a joke.<br />
<br />
S: He gets everything wrong. So, he basically is trying to make this analogy that skeptics are like the Guardians on the Great Wall. <br />
<br />
R: There are no Guardians.<br />
<br />
S: I know. And, first he calls it a hereditary order, --it's not hereditary. ''(laughter)'' And the he says that the Guardians, meaning the Night Watch, but the Guardians defend the Empire from the monsters and the creatures on the other side of the Wall without ever going north of the Wall to see what's actually there. <br />
<br />
R: That's so . . . you just watch the first episode . . .<br />
<br />
S: I know. The very first scene are Rangers north of the Wall.<br />
<br />
R: Ya dummy. If Deepak can't even get this right . . . come on.<br />
<br />
B: You know, what's worse than a politician or a pseudoscientist misquoting or mis-referencing a bit of popular culture. Like, when –<br />
<br />
E: Oh, the Spock thing, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Spock, and they mix up ''Star Wars'' and ''Star Trek'' and all that, and it's like, oh, my god. Your advisors, your consultants should have been there for you when you wrote this.<br />
<br />
S: The whole article sort of revolves around this analogy, and he gets it horribly wrong. Sometimes in details that are not relevant to the point, but it just shows that he's not even aware. He didn't read the books or watch the series. Either that or he pays very poor attention to detail. But in one critical aspect, the analogy fails in a very meaningful way when he claims that the Guardians don't go north of the wall in the same way that skeptics don't actually investigate the topics that they dismiss in their militant atheism. And both are absolutely wrong. In fact, skeptics spend a great deal of time and energy carefully examining the claims of people like Chopra and Sheldrake and Hancock. We actually do what most mainstream scientists don't do. We're ''at'' the wall, we range north of the wall, we are investigating and we're trying to warn the Empire, "Hey, there's a bunch of nonsense up here!" <br />
<br />
R: And just to be clear, in Chopra's analogy here, in his metaphor, he is the zombie. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: That's right. He's the one ''(inaudible)''<br />
<br />
R: All right. Just making sure I've got that right.<br />
<br />
S: He also says there are dragons north of the wall—wrong!<br />
<br />
B: Wr- o-o-o-ng!<br />
<br />
R: God.<br />
<br />
E: Here be dragons.<br />
<br />
J: Is he getting like loaded before he watches this TV show?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughing)'' I don't he's, Jay, I think he has a vague notion of what's going on, and probably never really watched the show.<br />
<br />
R: He sat down to write those things, like, "What do the kids like these days?"<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, "What's popular these days?"<br />
<br />
B: No, not "the kids," the "kiddies." The kiddies.<br />
<br />
E: Well, you know Chopra. He's good at stealing a word here and a word there, and twisting into something he thinks is for his benefit—<br />
<br />
R: So, the wall is the new quantum.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but what he's really saying in his article is that there should be no standards. That anything should go. And that we're all adults, so any speculative thinking is all fine. Just leave us alone and let us say whatever we want.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, and let the audience decide, right?<br />
<br />
S: Let the audience decide. Which is funny because he triggers many of the red flags that the open letter specifically warned about. In his response. He's actually showing himself to be a pseudoscientist in his response to the open letter. By their own criteria. Without showing any awareness that he's doing so.<br />
<br />
B: That was wonderful. <br />
<br />
S: Oh, it was just terrible. And of course, that's exactly what the cranks and charlatans want, is for there to be no standards. And he pulled the Galileo gambit, by the way. I don't even know if I need to say what that is. Anybody who compares something to Galileo is automatically a crank, period. And he equated having some standards with censorship. Which again, that's a sign that, that's one of the red flags that they had in the open letter. If they try to say that they're being censored because you're trying to hold them to some standard, that's a red flag that they're a crank.<br />
<br />
B: Somebody replied to those comments specifically, and I love what they were saying about Galileo and how for every one true Galileo there's thousands of cranks, and also, if Galileo were alive today, he would recognize the need to do good research and not just throw it out there and see if it sticks on the wall, and to do good science. Something that they don't do.<br />
<br />
S: That was Chris Anderson from TED, responding to Deepak Chopra. Totally nailed it. He said<br />
<br />
<blockquote>No one here claims that mainstream science is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It isn't. But it is the best starting point we have for judging new information. Yes. A modern-day Galileo may be out there with paradigm shifting ideas that will at some point overturn huge pieces of existing science. But he or she should expect to face a robust standard of proof before their ideas take hold. And for every Galileo, there are thousands of people who just have bad unscientific ideas.</blockquote><br />
<br />
B: That was beautiful. He did a great job.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Chopra responded. Again. He responded again on the Huff Poo, on his blog. And this one is just, "Oh, you know, these scientists just don't understand the cutting edge." He's saying that they don't understand that the observer is in the equation. Right? That the universe is not just about what's being observed from a distance, but there's an observer in the mix as well. It's like, really? I mean . . .yeah, yeah, the physicists haven't been talking about this for the last twenty years? Come on. A total straw man. Again, I think someone said that Deepak Chopra should be banned from using the word "quantum" ever again. <br />
<br />
B: I'll send that!<br />
<br />
R: Censorship!<br />
<br />
S: At one of his debates, a physicist who was in the audience suggested that he attend a basic course, like monitor a basic class on quantum mechanics. 'Cause clearly he doesn't understand the first thing about it.<br />
<br />
R: Wasn't that Leonard Mlodinow?<br />
<br />
S: Was it? No, I know he . . . I think this was somebody in the audience. I don't think . . . I know Leonard Mlodinow has debated Chopra.<br />
<br />
R: I thought that's how he came to know Deepak Chopra, was that he spoke up in the audience.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, is that right? <br />
<br />
R: I might be getting this completely wrong.<br />
<br />
''(speaking simultaneously – inaudible)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca. <br />
<br />
S: But, this is the kind of pushback that we're going to get. I see this as a sign that we're being successful. That we are shining a light on the cranks and showing why what they're doing is nonsensical, and we're getting things like, you know, people who are actually directors of TEDx are writing very critical thinking, very skeptical open letters about the difference between science and pseudoscience. That's a huge victory for the skeptical movement. And we are forcing the cranks to try to attack us and to try to marginalize us, because we're having an impact. And we just have to keep the pressure back up against them. We can't let them define us. Of course they want to define us as the militant ones, right? I think what I'm gonna do is, every time I refer to Deepak Chopra from now on, I'm gonna refer to him as "militant crank Deepak Chopra." ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I like it.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I think that's fair.<br />
<br />
E: How do ya like that, Deepak?<br />
<br />
S: You think that's fair?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: We'll see how militant crank Deepak Chopra responds to that.<br />
<br />
J: This is one of those rare news items that is really exciting, it gives me some hope. This could have gone a much darker path. TED could have gone into a really bad place, and was allowing all this junk science in there.<br />
<br />
S: Well, hey, not that there aren't marginal and dubious TED talks. I'm not saying that that's a paragon. But maybe this will improve the quality of even TED by focusing a light on this issue of science versus pseudoscience.<br />
<br />
R: :Yeah, that's just it—<br />
<br />
E: Bring it to the forefront.<br />
<br />
R: That's what I meant by, when you said "problem with TED talks." I said another one. TEDx is just rife with B.S. But it's good that they've recognized that and are taking steps to solve it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and I think it's demonstrably because of skeptical watchdogs.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Creationism and Dinosaurs <small>(45:53)</small>===<br />
* http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/21/aclu-to-kansas-school-district-cancel-creationist-assemblies-about-dinosaurs/<br />
<br />
S: Speaking of militant cranks, Rebecca, you're gonna tell us about one who is going to be talking at a Kansas public school.<br />
<br />
R: Yes. Dr. G. Thomas Sharp has been hired to come to a small, a southwest Kansas school district to deliver two assemblies next week on the truth about dinosaurs. And I know about this because the ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union, is threatening the school district that they'll be taken to court if they continue on with these assemblies. The reason why is because Sharp is the founder of the Creation Truth Foundation. And when he is teaching the truth about dinosaurs, the things he teaches are things like dinosaurs were on the ark with Noah, and evolution is wrong. <br />
<br />
S: Did you watch his online video? <br />
<br />
R: I did, actually. There's an hour-long video in which he's, it's called ''The Truth About Dinosaurs'' and it's released by Sharp. So I have to assume that this is going to be at least similar to what he's going to be delivering to the Kansas school. I should mention that the ACLU, when they threatened the school district with court action, the superintendent of schools, Mark Crawford, responded to say that the assemblies were going to continue and that the, all the assemblies would be in line with the law. They would not actually be anything to do with creationism. And again, this is the founder of the Creation Truth Foundation. So I mean, it's right there in the name. And then, yeah, if you watch this horrible hour-long lecture he gives on YouTube, it's astounding the things he, I mean he's preaching, basically.<br />
<br />
J: Give us a few tidbits, like what were some of the crazier things he said?<br />
<br />
R: Well, like he refers to dinosaurs as god's lizards, and I mean, the Bible is sprinkled throughout. He accuses <br />
<br />
E: Godzilla, what?<br />
<br />
R: He refers to actual science as being done by secularists, and as though it's a filthy word.<br />
<br />
S: All right, then, let's say that he scrubs his talk of any biblical god or secular religious references,<br />
<br />
R: Then it'll be ten seconds long.<br />
<br />
S: It'll still be a mountain of absolute unscientific nonsense. Now, the approach that he takes, first of all, this is all nothing new. This is like 1970's style creationism.<br />
<br />
R: We should be clear, this is not intelligent design.<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
R: The thinly veiled creationism. This is creationism, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Retro-creationism.<br />
<br />
S: So he does the whole taking quote of scientists out of context, usually from public writing—writing meant for the lay public, not technical writing. And then he just completely mystery mongers. He tries to blow out of proportion what we don't know. Like, for example, and he's doing the whole, he doesn't really say evolution is wrong, he's doing the equivalency thing where evolution is one model and creation is another model, and the only way to interpret the evidence is through your preconceived notions. So if you assume evolution, then you'll interpret the evidence from an evolutionary perspective. But if you go with the biblical assumption that there was a flood and everything, then you could make sense of everything with the flood. And for example, he does the whole alternate geology, flood geology, and he said that there is no consensus that dinosaurs evolved from birds. And then he pulls some quote segment out of context from somebody, in a popular article, to make it sound like we have no idea what's going on. He's like, oh, the fossils are rare and they're in such poor condition and we have no idea what these dinosaurs were like, you know. Completely mis-characterizing the overwhelming evidence. There was just a study published this week showing that dinosaurs, that theropod dinosaurs that are closely related to early birds nested their eggs the same way that birds do. There's one more piece of evidence that birds evolved from a certain type of dinosaur.<br />
<br />
R: And while he's preaching that, he's implying heavily that scientists are outright lying to kids and using dinosaurs as some sort of enticing ploy to get them to come to their evil museums and lie to them. He says that scientists discount the flood and scientists disagree on dinosaurs, birds evolving from dinosaurs, and yet they continue to lie kids about it. I mean, it's, he's clearly implying nefarious purposes on the part of scientists.<br />
<br />
S: He's just accusing scientists of doing exactly what he's doing.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: He's dinosaurs as a lure so that he could lie through his teeth about the state of the scientific evidence about evolution and dinosaurs.<br />
<br />
E: And this superintendent of this school says it's completely and totally school-appropriate.<br />
<br />
B: I think he was, he seemed pretty clear and adamant that he would not allow creationism to be taught, and I think they got ahold of him and they convinced him, this is what we're gonna talk about, this is what we're gonna say. And I think what they're actually gonna do might be very different. Or, I kind of also think that they're gonna scrub the hell out of their talk and get very<br />
<br />
S: Yeah but Bob, he knows exactly what's going on. He knows, the point of this—<br />
<br />
R: The guy who started the Creation Truth Foundation, you don't invite him to give a lecture to students and then say that it's got nothing to do with creationism.<br />
<br />
S: This is deliberate stealth creationism in public schools, period. That's what this is.<br />
<br />
R: And I do want to mention that the assemblies are required for students to attend.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Mandatory. Mandatory.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
==Survey Announcement <small>(52:18)</small>==<br />
<br />
S: Evan, before we go to ''Who's That Noisy?'' a very quick announcement. We are doing a survey of our listeners. You can get to the survey, it's a quick demographic survey. We'd really appreciate if you'd take just a moment to fill it out so we could know more about our listeners. Go to theskepticsguide.org home page and you'll see it right on the home page, big white box with the survey in there. And again, we'd appreciate if you'd take a moment to fill that out.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(52:46)</small>==<br />
Puzzle for last week<br />
S: All right, well, Evan. We're now a couple of weeks behind on ''Who's That Noisy?''<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, well, we'll get caught up. Going back to March 30 it was when we asked the following puzzle:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Mark is visiting a psychic, the Great Griftina. The Great Griftina tells Mark to think of the number 1, 2 or 3. The Great Griftina tells Mark that she will ask one question of him, and must only reply with "yes," "no," or "I don't know." So what question should the Great Griftina ask Mark to find out exactly which number Mark has chosen.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: And I think there were a few different kinds of right answers to this.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, there was. A lot of the correct answers took the form, well, something like this, which I'm calling the standard solution, but I counted a lot of the solutions as correct that sort of had this premise in mind. So here's the answer, the standard solution: If I have the numbers one or two in mind, is the number that you have in mind larger than the numbers I have in mind? And a couple of variations on this that I found interesting are a little bit different from the standard solution. Someone posed, let's see, it was listener Brandon from Miami, Florida said that you could ask this question: If you subtracted two from your number, would the square root of the result be greater than zero?<br />
<br />
R: It's just really, if she's just dumb, it's always gonna be, I don't know. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: That's true. You have to assume that the people know math, and understand concepts like square roots and so forth.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And that works out. The winner this week is Yves von Gennip.<br />
<br />
S: And what have you got for this week?<br />
<br />
E: This week we're going back to the classic ''Who's That Noisy?'' I'm gonna play something for you. And you're gonna try to figure out exactly who is saying this. Are you ready?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>''(Woman speaking English with a foreign accent)'' You want to create weight loss, you can start using feng shui. The best way is to have black or blue plates, and actually making sure that you don't put too much on your plate at the same time.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: Feng shui to lose weight.<br />
<br />
J: Ev, you don't think it might something to do with the fact that she says "Don't put so much stuff on your plate"?<br />
<br />
E: ''(laughing)'' I was hoping you'd catch that, Jay. Yeah, that's exactly what I thought. What the hell does feng shui have to do with that? But I never heard that before. Feng shui as a weight loss program? That was new to me, so I thought I would share that with you, and go ahead and give us your guess. Sguforums.com is our forums. Go ahead and post your answer there or send your answer in to wtn@theskepticsguide.org and we'll do it again next week. Good luck, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, thanks, Evan.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(55:35)</small> ==<br />
=== Question 1 <small>(55:35)</small>===<br />
Bitcoin Follow Up<br />
Corrections and further analysis of Bitcoin<br />
<br />
S: Jay, on our live private recording that we put up last week, you had a segment on Bitcoin and that generated quite of feedback. We're not gonna read any one email because there were so many, but we definitely need to do a follow-up on the Bitcoin segment.<br />
<br />
J: I read a recent article about Bitcoin. I pitched it to Steve, thought it was a very interesting topic. I went to the Wikipedia page; I followed some links through the Wikipedia page. I ended up reading some conflicting sources of information. I thought that I had vetted things down to the point where I could have the discussion, because we want to be very careful that we're not, a lot of times news articles have one source, you know, you might have seen this—where you go to 50 different websites and it's all linking back to the single. There's lots of sources for Bitcoin on the web. Unfortunately, a lot of the information that I found was skewed and a couple of times was just flat-out wrong. What we found after re-investigating the Bitcoin information is, well, we'll give you the corrections, but, what Steve and I wanted to discuss tonight are the missteps of research. And we'll use my experience in the last week as an example of some of the things that may—now, I've been doing research for a long time. Steve has been helping me learn how to do high-end research. We talk about it on the show all the time.<br />
<br />
S: I do think it's interesting to talk about the process that we go through. A lot of people ask us about that process. This is a good opportunity to review it. We obviously don't always achieve the ideal that we shoot for. But what I like to see on every item; first of all, you have to find as many independent sources on the topic that you're researching as possible. And you have to follow each resource back to its original source, and that's how you discover sometimes that you may be reading twenty or thirty sources, but they're all linking to the same original source, and therefore you really only have one source. Wikipedia is a reasonable place to start just to get an overview but that's ''never'' your ultimate source for anything. You can follow those links back to the things that are sourcing Wikipedia, but ultimately you always want to get to primary sources and to multiple primary sources. One of the questions that you're trying answer early on—when Jay and I were talking about this earlier, I said "I do this basically every day when I write my blog." I spend my first fifteen or twenty minutes researching a topic just trying to figure out, first of all, how deep that well goes, how complicated is it? The second is, how much of a consensus is there on this? Am I going to be able to find a reference that's going to be definitive because the information is non-controversial and represents the consensus of scientific opinion. When a topic is controversial or has a lot of passion behind it, then it takes a lot more time, because you're going to be getting conflicting information and you're gonna have to sort which references are better, which arguments are better. You know, who really, you know, what we can know. It takes a long time to wrap your head around topics the more controversial they get. I think what happened with Bitcoin is that the whole topic was a lot more controversial than we realized, and a lot more awash in mythology and misinformation. So, I think that the thing that, Jay, that you should have done, was when you started to get conflicting information in the research, that should have been a big red flag that this is not as settled as it appeared to you at the time.<br />
<br />
J: And I figured it was just a matter of me finding a more definitive and trustworthy source.<br />
<br />
S: You know what else is interesting is that we've had, again, many emails pointing out some of the factual errors on the reporting of Bitcoin. But interestingly, the emails that we got, although they purported to be informative, they had a lot of conflicting information, too. They conflicted with each other. So, and then I've been researching this quite a bit in the last couple of weeks, and I found tons of conflicting information. But let's get to it, Jay. Tell us, what are the pretty clearly established factual bits of information that we need to correct?<br />
<br />
J: One mistake I made was I said that Bitcoins are divisible by Satoshi, that's like the pennies, say, in the Bitcoin world. I said that a Satoshi was worth fifty cents, and they're not. At all. Not even close. A Satoshi is a hundred millionth of one Bitcoin. So it’s a phenomenally small value. So, and to give you an idea, like right now, BItcoin value has been changing. But you know we're in the $150 per Bitcoin range, about, right now. Like I said, that goes up and down. I checked today a couple of times and I saw the value had changed even today. Another thing that I wanted to correct was we were interchanging the term "Bitcoin" with "Bitcoins." It is "Bitcoin." To be very pendantic about it, that's the correct way to say it.<br />
<br />
B: aaah.<br />
<br />
J: I'm never gonna say that word correct deliberately for the rest of my life.<br />
<br />
E: Ummm.<br />
<br />
J: Satoshi Nakamoto is not a person, he or she or the group of people, that's a pseudonym for the creaters of Bitcoin.<br />
<br />
S: Which, nobody really knows who that is.<br />
<br />
R: And they're not even positive that it's a pseudonym, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's just all shrouded in mystery, the identity of the creator or creators.<br />
<br />
E: Kind of like Shakespeare. Just kidding.<br />
<br />
J: A few legitimate organizations, news outlets and companies, tried to find out who the creator was, and they couldn't do it. So, we just don't know who they are.<br />
<br />
S: Jay, I found, when I was doing my research, I found a couple of things that conflicted with what you were finding. One was that, one site I read said that there is actually no "this one code equals this one Bitcoin." Rather, the code is all just tracking the transactions. So there's information that says you received a Bitcoin, but it's not like, oh, I have this bit of code here and this bit of code ''is'' my Bitcoin. But you said that you thought, that wasn't the impression that you had. You think that there is a code for each Bitcoin.<br />
<br />
J: I still am under the impression that a single unique Bitcoin has a single unique identifier. I do, I did read what you read that each transaction, the code to that Bitcoin changes and it grows with the transaction, so the transaction history is the input. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But, I'm telling you, Steve, I keep reading it, I think I get it and I read something else, and I'm like I'm not quite sure now. It's inherently a very complicated thing.<br />
<br />
S: The thing I read that was different from your understanding was that in mining, when you're like doing processing to mine for Bitcoins, that that processing is contributing to the distributed network that's tracking the transactions. It's not just some completely irrelevant side routine looking for numbers, it's actually contributing processing power to the Bitcoin phenomena.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, those servers become part of the cloud.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. What I also found interesting was that there's, again, the passionate writing on the internet. There's a lot of people criticizing Bitcoin, but they're coming from the metal currency enthusiast segment. So there is a subculture of people who don't like fiat money. Fiat money is basically what a government says, this is legal tender. We're gonna manufacture it and there you go. And as opposed to having a gold standard. And there are still people around who say nope, we should have a gold standard. Currency should be based on gold, silver, copper, not just government fiat, and these people ''really'' hate the idea of Bitcoin. Just digital grassroots fiat, if you will, being currency. I think they're generating a lot of the online criticism of Bitcoin and then the Bitcoin enthusiasts are responding to that, and I think we triggered some of that defensiveness when we were discussing Bitcoin, even though we were taking a pretty neutral approach, just trying to describe the phenomenon.<br />
<br />
R: William Jennings Bryan would use Bitcoin.<br />
<br />
S: You think so?<br />
<br />
R: I think so.<br />
<br />
E: On a cross of gold, yes.<br />
<br />
J: So a couple more quick points. We did mention also that a Bitcoin wallet company, and a wallet refers to a company you can start an account with online that will hold your virtual Bitcoins for you. We said that they got hacked. And we got into, me and Rebecca and an emailer were talking about the idea that like a DDOS attack is really not being hacked. Being hacked implies that they broke into your system, your information was compromised, and I agree with Rebecca. I think using the word "hack" for a DDOS attack, which is basically just pinging a website so often that it crashes 'cause it can't handle the server load. That's being hacked as well today, in general terms.<br />
<br />
S: In the vernacular. Yeah<br />
<br />
R: And also we were talking about several cases in which different efforts were being made to access Bitcoins and to disrupt Bitcoin. So, I think it's perfectly reasonable to use "hack" as the umbrella term for the various ways that people are using underhanded methods of disrupting the market.<br />
<br />
J: So, to sum up this whole thing, yeah, Bitcoin, the Bitcoin idea, and if you read about it you'll see; it's very complicated. It takes awhile to begin to wrap your head around the whole thing—<br />
<br />
S: And that's just the technology. The technology is complicated, but then there's an entirely separate economic discussion. Like, there are some people saying that Bitcoin isn't really currency. It's mainly not used as an exchange for goods, it's mainly hoarded, and it's actually traded like a commodity, more than just a currency. In other words currencies can be commodities, but, it's price fluctuates like a commodity, it's hoarded by speculators, like 99% or something of Bitcoins out there are being hoarded by speculators. So it really hasn't, some people are arguing, I mean I'm sure the enthusiasts are not gonna like this, but some people are arguing that it's not really behaving like a real currency. But maybe it just needs time to establish itself.<br />
<br />
J: But if anybody out there knows exactly what to do and wants to help, send us an email at info@theskepticsguide.org and it'd be fun. I wanna do it. I wanna see the system work. I wanna start a wallet account. I wanna go through the whole process and I'd really like someone that knows what they're doing to help me do it, so.<br />
<br />
R: Oh, but you know, I have some bad news. This news item went on so long that Bitcoin went out of business. Sorry. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Don't worry, Jay.<br />
<br />
J: I would like to formally announce the SGUCoin.<br />
<br />
S: The SGUCoin.<br />
<br />
R: Okay, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Our own currency! Oh, I like that.<br />
<br />
J: It's gonna be really easy. Super. It looks exactly like real U.S. currency.<br />
<br />
E: Backed by the full faith and credit of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. I love it.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:06:54)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, let's go on with ''Science or Fiction.'' <br />
<br />
''Voiceover: It's time for Science or Fiction''<br />
<br />
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious. And I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one they think is the fake. There is a sort of theme this week.<br />
<br />
R: Oooh, sort of.<br />
<br />
S: The theme is that each one of these items has a percentage in there somewhere. That's it. That's a very mild theme.<br />
<br />
R: It's a stupid theme.<br />
<br />
S: Well they all happened to have a percentage in there, so, whatever, spontaneous—<br />
<br />
R: That's not a theme, that's a coincidence. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: You call it a coincidence. I call it a theme. All right. Are you all ready for this week?<br />
<br />
E: Rebecca is.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. <br />
<br />
J: Do it. Do it.<br />
<br />
S: [http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2013/04/guelph_scientis_1.htmlItem #1]: Scientists have developed a vaccine that can reduce the risk of developing autism in high-risk infants by over 20%. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423135716.htm Item #2]: A study finds that medical interns spend only 12% of their time with patients, while spending 40% of their time on computers. And [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130418124907.htm Item #3]: A new study finds that over 50% of products recalled by the FDA between 2004 and 2012 because they probably would "cause serious adverse health consequences or death" were dietary supplements. Jay, go first.<br />
<br />
J: The first one, about the autism vaccine, wow. And I find that to be amazingly ironic. I would love to believe that that's true. But right out of the gate, I don't feel that this one is the truth, because I don't think we know enough about autism to actually create a vaccine for it. And it says by over 20%. That's a large number. So, tentatively that one is already my choice. The second one about the medical interns spending 12% of their time with the patients and 40% on computers, I can see that, but that seems like a huge amount of time to spend on the computer system and if they're actually working, which is one thing to be established, and when you say spending their time at computers, I'm hoping that that is work time and not just screwing off time. And if it is true, I wouldn't find it that unbelievable because I know how complicated and poorly developed a lot of these pieces of software are that hospitals and healthcare use. Every time I go to any of my doctors, they all complain about the software, almost every time. That one is believable. The third one about the FDA recalling, all the recalls, or 50% of the recalls between 2004 and 2012 were dietary supplements. That's another one, I could believe that. I mean there's a lot of dietary supplements. Now we say the FDA recalled them, Steve, see if you can answer this question, were these things that were approved by the FDA and then the FDA pulled them back, or did the FDA say "hey, you just can't sell that anymore because it's dangerous"? 'Cause I know that supplements don't have to be approved by the FDA.<br />
<br />
S: Well then you answered your own question.<br />
<br />
J: Now I'm even more confused than when I started. All right. So I'm gonna go under the idea the FDA just said "Hey you can't sell that anymore because it's hurting people," so I believe it. I think that's true. Therefore I'm going to say that the first one, about the autism vaccine is fake.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Bob? <br />
<br />
B: Jay made a lot of sense. I just can't buy the autism vaccine at all. I don't even, I'm not even sure why you would think we would, which now, of course, makes me think that there's some subtle thing in here that I’m missing that makes it science. So I'm really pissed. So, the medical interns, yeah. I can kind of see that. I don't know enough of what medical interns need to be doing during the day, and it kind of makes sense to me that 40% of the time at the computers. You know, there's so much that can be done. They can be doing so many other things besides. Like goofing off, as Jay suggested. Yeah, I can kind of buy that, too, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was wrong. And then, the FDA recall. I just don't have a good memory of lots of different things that have been recalled by the FDA between that time period. And the ones that do stick out are the few dietary supplements that caused issues. So, I think maybe there were so few actual recalls that the dietary supplements could amount to over 50%. So that kind of makes sense, too. I mean I just don't know how they're gonna come up with a vaccine when we're not even sure what the hell's going on. I just gotta say that that one's fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. I agree with what everybody's saying, that the FDA, I mean, I can think of several high profile recalls of things like spinach. Any e-coli problem that gets out there. Because they're high profile doesn't necessarily mean that they're dominating what the FDA's doing, because they still are pretty few and far between. So, yeah, I can believe 50%. And I would assume the other 50% are things like e-coli stuff happening in vegetables and meats. So, yeah, it makes sense. The computer thing, yeah, definitely. There's so much to do on computers. Jay said it all. It's fine. And I agree with Bob, the autism thing is ridiculous. A vaccine reduces the risk of developing autism in high-risk infants. It's ''ridiculous.'' I can't even . . . it would be great, but, no. I refuse to believe that's true.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Evan?<br />
<br />
E: I have to go with the team here. I'm sorry. Very vanilla, non-creative. But for all the same reasons. How is that possible? Vaccine, no.<br />
<br />
S: All right. So let's start with number two. A study finds that medical interns spend only 12% of their time with patients while spending 40% of their time at computers. You all think this one is science, and this one is . . . science.<br />
<br />
E: Well, they've gotta play ''Sky Rim'' right? And other things.<br />
<br />
S. Yeah. Mine Craft, or whatever. Sure. Yeah, it's stress release. Seriously, you guys are right. I mean Jay pretty much nailed it. Medicine is now run by computers, electronic medical records systems. Getting test results. Ordering tests. Everything you order, documenting all your notes. Everything is done on the computer, so all of the information surrounding taking care of patients is there, so it's not surprising that they spend that much time. I basically spend my entire day at a computer.<br />
<br />
R: Slacker.<br />
<br />
S: This is outpatient versus medical interns which are inpatient, but in the outpatient setting, I'm documenting the patient's note while I'm talking with them. I'm basically typing the whole time I'm talking with the patient. Then I examine them. I discuss other things with them, but you know, through all of that I'm ordering their tests. I'm looking up their test results. It's all on the computer. A seamless part of the visit now. There's just no way around it. So yeah, that's not a surprising figure. Interesting, this survey also found they spend 7% of their time just walking from one location to another. <br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' Awesome.<br />
<br />
S: Which also makes perfect sense.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: A round in the in the hospital, these huge sprawling buildings.<br />
<br />
R: Get those kids some roller skates!<br />
<br />
S: Seriously.<br />
<br />
R: --productivity.<br />
<br />
S: All right, let's go back to number one. Scientists have developed a vaccine that can reduce the risk of developing autism in high-risk infants by over 20%. You all think this one is ridiculous.<br />
<br />
R: Ridiculous!<br />
<br />
S: Just absolutely ridiculous.<br />
<br />
E: Ridiculous.<br />
<br />
S: Let me read you the headline of this news item. ''Guelph Scientists Develop First Vaccine to Help Control Autism Symptoms.''<br />
<br />
J: Twenty percent, though, Steve?<br />
<br />
R: That's symptoms.<br />
<br />
B: Symptoms!<br />
<br />
S: I was hoping to get you guys for reading this news item, but apparently . . . <br />
<br />
R: Well luckily we didn't.<br />
<br />
S: None of you read the news item.<br />
<br />
B: I would have quit if we were wrong. I would have been "game over." Outta here.<br />
<br />
J: Wouldn't it have been awesome if a vaccine cured autism? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: I know. The irony would be delicious.<br />
<br />
B: It would be great, but man, you kind of need to know what is actually happening first. There's probably a genetic component. What have they got, some viral factors in there of something?<br />
<br />
S: No, there's definitely an epigenetic component to autism, and that could be a target of a vaccine. So it's absolutely plausible.<br />
<br />
B: True.<br />
<br />
S: But this was a vaccine against Clostridium bolteae, which is a bacteria that causes diarrhea and and g.i. symptoms, which is very common in children with autism. About 75% have g.i. symptoms. So this is a vaccine that was developed, it's not, it's probably a decade away from actually getting approved. So potentially it could help treat g.i. symptoms, which is common in kids with autism, people with autism. So, it's not a treatment for autism itself. But the headline, I thought, was delicious. You know, the vaccine to help control autism symptoms. I wonder what the anti-vaxers will say?<br />
<br />
B: I was thinking about that.<br />
<br />
R: That's pretty good.<br />
<br />
B: That is pretty funny.<br />
<br />
R: It is still funny.<br />
<br />
S: It is. I tried to twist it into a real one, but I don't know. I like the other two ones for real ones. So let's go to number three, a news study finds that over 50% of products recalled by the FDA between 2004 and 2012 because they probably would cause serious adverse health consequences or death, in quotes, were dietary supplements, and that one is science. So Rebecca, these aren't food items, these are products, and the "cause serious adverse health consequences or death" is the wording for a Class 1 drug recall. So this is the percentage of Class 1 drug recalls between that period of time that were in fact dietary supplements. And yeah, Jay is right, the FDA does not have to approve supplements before they're on the market. That's thanks to the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, or DSHEA. Which is a crappy law that needs to be repealed.<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
S: What the study, is the study published in JAMA, what they found was, they looked at basically all the Class 1 drug recalls, and they found that 51%, just over 50%, were in fact dietary supplements, not drugs. And do you know which classes of dietary supplements were most likely to be recalled? <br />
<br />
R: Homeopathy.<br />
<br />
S: Nope. 'Cause there's nothing in homeopathy. So these are basically<br />
<br />
R: I think of like Xicam, that was a big recall.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, one.<br />
<br />
J: Megadose vitamins.<br />
<br />
S: Nope. So these are mainly for, so the FDA can't pull a product simply because it doesn't work, right? So homeopathy's safe. And it's difficult for the FDA to actually prove that harm has been done, but it can pull a product if it's adulterated with something that is a drug or something that's known to be hazardous. So most of these are dietary supplements that are adulterated. The single most common category representing 40%, for male enhancement. Male, you know, sexual enhancement. And followed by weight loss. A very common class of drug, of supplement. So not surprising. So essentially they're just putting stuff in there that's like real drugs, and they're not allowed to do that. So there are things that, you know, once the FDA shows that there's substances in there that shouldn't be there, they can pull it right away. They don't have to show that it's causing harm or anything.<br />
<br />
R: Which is a shame, because that's the first time those have a chance of working.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they only work when they actually put real drugs in there. So, good job, everyone.<br />
<br />
R: Thank you.<br />
<br />
J: ''(using upper class British accent)'' Good job, everyone!<br />
<br />
S: I guess it was kind of easy in retrospect, but, I was hoping to get anybody who might have read the headline and said "Ooo, vaccines, autism." <br />
<br />
R: Nope.<br />
<br />
E: Missed it. Thank goodness.<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: Couple quick announcements before we go to the quote. We are getting started with the production of the Occ the Skeptical Caveman web series. If you live in New England and you want to help out in any way, then give us an email at info@theskepticsguide.org, referencing Occ the Skeptical Caveman. And we'll talk with you about what roles we have for volunteers. And it is time to get ready for the The Amazing Meeting, TAM 2013 is right around the corner now, July 11-14.<br />
<br />
J: In Las Vegas.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so TAM is the biggest conference, skepto-conference each year. We love it. We have a ton of fun. And there's a lot of SGU-related events going on at TAM this year. So we are gonna do our live show from the stage as we always do. In addition, we have, Friday night, the SGU dinner. This is a dinner where we, all the Rogues will be there, and sometimes some other skeptical celebrities show up as our guests, and we will make the rounds, talk to all of our listeners. And we hold an auction for certain select skeptical memorabilia.<br />
<br />
J: The auction is a fund-raiser for the SGU as well.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. That does sell out, so if you are going to TAM and you want to join us for the dinner, I suggest you register early. And, even more likely to sell out early is the SGU Skeptical Poker Tournament. <br />
<br />
J: Yeah, last year was our first year. We only had 60 seats last year, and we had such a demand that we moved that to a hundred seats for this year. I had a blast. I came in third. So, I mean, as you can imagine, I was shocked and in utter awe of myself and my card playing. I guarantee that's not gonna happen again this year. But the poker tournament is hosted by Joshie Berger, and we're playing Texas Hold 'Em. And it's, there's prizes. Some of the prizes we gave out last year were all-access passes to TAM and to NECSS. We're gonna be coming up with some new prizes this year. Probably use those two same prizes again, but it's just a ton of fun and it lasts a long time. It's definitely worth the entry fee. Every table has a skeptical celebrity sitting at it, so whenever you're at a table—so what we do is the skeptical celebrities change every 15 minutes or so. So you get a chance to sit with most of them, especially if you last halfway through, you're gonna sit with everybody.<br />
<br />
S: There'll always be a notable skeptic at every table and your goal is to knock them out, is to be the one to knock out the notable skeptic and if you do, you get some, you'll get some recognition that you did that. Last year we gave out cards.<br />
<br />
J: Signature cards.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, signed cards saying "I Knocked Steve Novella out of the Skeptical Poker Tournament." But, so we'll do something like that. Maybe even a little bit better this year. Lots of fun, we'll definitely sell out, so, if you're interested, sign up for that early. And, this is an awesome skeptical conference. There's going to be, the theme this year is "Fighting the Fakers." There's gonna be a science-based medicine workshop and panel, like there has been for the last couple of years. I'll be giving an individual talk as well. And Randi, of course, is there. George Hrab is hosting. They have an awesome line-up of speakers. Susan Blackmore, Jerry Coyne, Barbara Drescher, Max Maven, Massimo Pigliucci ''and'' Massimo Polidoro, you get two Massimos<br />
<br />
J: For the price of one ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Michael Shermer, Jamy Ian Swiss, Karen Stollznow, ''and'' they're not done. They have some other speakers that they, very high profile speakers they're looking to line up. We can't mention names until they're a hundred percent confirmed, but even with the speakers we have so far, and I should mentioned the keynote is Susan Jacoby. But even with the speakers we have so far, it is going to be an awesome conference and it can only get better as they confirm more high profile speakers. <br />
<br />
J: If you haven't gone to TAM you really need to go. It's essentially the skeptical Mecca. You need to go because you're gonna meet not only a ton of awesome people that are in the skeptical community. You're also gonna get access to any notable skeptics that are gonna be there. The speakers and a lot of people are just milling about and you can walk up and talk to whoever you'd like. We're gonna be at the SGU table. We typically have a table there where we sell swag, and we're, mostly, there to meet our listeners, and we're gonna spend a lot of time just waiting around to talk to people. <br />
<br />
S: So go to amazingmeeting.com to register for that event, and we hope to see a lot of you there.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:23:49)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: All right, Jay, do you have a quote for us this week?<br />
<br />
J: I have a quote. This quote was sent in by a listener named Ulrich Fisher from Canada. It's a Mark Twain quote. I love Mark Twain; I love quoting Mark Twain. I'm about to quote Mr. Mark Twain.<br />
<blockquote>Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.</blockquote><br />
<br />
''(shouting)'' Mr. Mark Twain! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Pithy quote. I like that. It's definitely better to be in miserable uncertainty.<br />
<br />
J: I'm so happily miserable.<br />
<br />
S: We can also call that spectrum from cocky ignorance to miserable certainty the Chopra to Dawkins spectrum. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. Very militant.<br />
<br />
S: You know, reference to militant crank Deepak Chopra. Well, thank you guys for joining me this week.<br />
<br />
R: Thank you, Steve.<br />
<br />
B: You're welcome.<br />
<br />
E: Thank you.<br />
<br />
J: Thanks, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: And until next week, this is your Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro404}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_406&diff=6622SGU Episode 4062013-05-18T22:23:03Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 359<br />
|episodeDate = 34<sup>th</sup> May 2012<br />
|episodeIcon = File:bomb-detector.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-04-27.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=406<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=45826.0<br />
|qowText = Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.<br />
|qowAuthor = {{w|Mark Twain}}<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the {{SGU}}, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the {{SGU}}. Today is Tuesday, April 24, 2013, and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson,<br />
<br />
R: Hello, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: Hey, guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Mach-cho maroon.<br />
<br />
S: Thank you, Evan.<br />
<br />
J: That sounds very Game of Thrones-y.<br />
<br />
E: It's the first words I think I've ever spoken in Dothraki.<br />
<br />
J: And what does it mean?<br />
<br />
R: It means "Die, scum!" ''(laughter)'' ''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: It means: "Your horse is ugly."<br />
<br />
J: Does it mean Hello?<br />
<br />
R: It means hello.<br />
<br />
E: Yes. It's the long way of saying "hello."<br />
<br />
S: Or as close as you get to it in Dothraki.<br />
<br />
J: Game of Thrones is kicking ass. The latest episode was awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And that has nothing to do with science.<br />
<br />
E: Everything to do with pop culture. <br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:02)</small> ==<br />
April 27, 1791: Birth of Samuel Morse<br />
<br />
R: But you know what ''does'' have to do, slightly, with science is that today, April 27, is the birthday of Samuel Morse, who was born in 1791.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, happy birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Wait. I missed that segue. What's, how did you do that? Oh, never mind. Go ahead. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: You know, it was just so smooth, you missed it. Yeah, so, Samuel Morse, most people know as the inventor, or co-inventor, of Morse code. I found it really interesting, I was reading up on him, and apparently he got interested in telegraph systems because he was far away from his wife when she took ill, and he got a telegram saying that she was basically on her death bed. And by the time he was able to rush to see her, she was already dead and buried. And he was so angry about it <br />
<br />
E: Sad.<br />
<br />
R: that he gave up painting. He had been a painter. And he dedicated his life to finding a better way to communicate over long distances. So, yeah, a tragedy, but it was positive results for humanity.<br />
<br />
J: You know what he said when he got there and they said "Your wife is dead."? He said, "She's dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dead?"<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my, God. ''(groans and laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: That was bad.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: Guys, guys, come on.<br />
<br />
B: Please edit that out, Steve. ''(laughter continues)'' Imagine how awesome that was back then when you realize that, holy crap, we can communicate so fast over hundreds, thousands, of miles. It must have been like pure science fiction to them.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, I learned some interesting things about Samuel Morse. First of all, he graduated from Yale. So he's a Yale alum. Supported himself as a painter, as Rebecca said. He didn't just invent, actually co-invent, with Alfred Vail, Morse code. He actually developed the electrical telegraph. And he, one of the critical inventions for that was the relay. He invented the relay. You guys know how that works?<br />
<br />
J: Sure.<br />
<br />
S: Hit me.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, the re--, you mean the thing that boosts the signal so it can go over long distances.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So, 'cause the wires back then were so crappy, one signal could really only go not even a mile. It couldn't go very far at all. So he figured out a way of putting in a relay where the signal hits a relay circuit which essentially, a very weak signal, you have a very sensitive circuit, so that even a weak signal comes in, and it activates a magnet, which triggers an arm, which creates a new click, which then can go the next distance to the next relay. So very simple, very basic, but that was a critical invention to the functioning of the <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: over long distances.<br />
<br />
B: They had to set those up every mile? Wow, that's a lot.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, something like that, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Initially, at least.<br />
<br />
E: It's like fiber optic today; they have relay stations.<br />
<br />
S: Do you guys know what the first message sent across one of those telegraphs was?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: I used to know it.<br />
<br />
J: "Send more Chuck Berry."<br />
<br />
R: Well, I only know because I read it like an hour ago.<br />
<br />
J: Say it with authority.<br />
<br />
R: I know exactly what it was, Steve. It was "A patient waiter is no loser."<br />
<br />
S: Right. Which is interesting because it's not . . .<br />
<br />
B: That's kinda lame.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's kinda lame.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: But his father was <br />
<br />
R: It's no "What hath God wrought?"<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, "what hath God wrought?"<br />
<br />
E: Or "Watson, come here, I want you.<br />
<br />
S: That's what he said when he was transmitting from the Supreme Court chamber.<br />
<br />
E: Right.<br />
<br />
S: His father was a Calvinist preacher, so it's kind of, I guess, has the moralistic tone with which he was raised. His father was Jedidiah Morse. You gotta love that name, Jedidiah. Not many Jedidiahs around today. <br />
<br />
B: No.<br />
<br />
S: And Morse also was pro-slavery. And was active in resisting both Catholics and immigrants.<br />
<br />
E: Um hm.<br />
<br />
J: When you say "resisting," what do you mean "resist"?<br />
<br />
S: He was, he actively campaigned against immigrants and Catholics.<br />
<br />
R: Horrible person<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: who did some good stuff.<br />
<br />
J: I didn't know that.<br />
<br />
B: I like him a little less now.<br />
<br />
S: He was a product of his time and his father.<br />
<br />
B: True.<br />
<br />
S: Gotta cut him a little bit of slack.<br />
<br />
R: I don't know, there were plenty of people of his time who were vehemently anti-slavery.<br />
<br />
S: Um hm. I agree, I just said "a little bit." It's hard to look back 200 years and be too heavily moralizing.<br />
<br />
R: Eh. I find it easy. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Are you guys enjoying the first real days of spring that we've had so far?<br />
<br />
J: Awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, I'm lovin' it. 'Bout time.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, this 42 degree weather is wonderful.<br />
<br />
S: Well, hey, we had such a long winter; you're right, it's still a little on the cold side. Today there were all these various unmistakable signs of spring, sort of like all at once. So, first, the forsythia is in full bloom. Second, bluebirds have moved into our bluebird house. They're gonna make little baby bluebirds.<br />
<br />
R: How do the bluebirds know that the bluebird house is for them?<br />
<br />
S: That's a really good question.<br />
<br />
E: They use the GPS.<br />
<br />
J: They can fit in it.<br />
<br />
R: There's a sign.<br />
<br />
S: So a bluebird house has an opening of a certain size. But honestly, it's more about positioning. You need to place it three to five feet above the ground, in an open area, with nothing obscuring the ground beneath it. So, bluebirds wanna make sure they can see snakes and other things coming. So if you do that, if you hang it at the right height in a sort of openish area, bluebirds will move into it. I mean it's, <br />
<br />
R: And no other bird?<br />
<br />
S: Well, hang on. The other bird that will tend to steal a bluebird house from the bluebird is the house sparrow. We have plenty of house sparrows, but bluebirds always seem to move into our bluebird houses. So it's remarkably consistent.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, what do you think, like you have, the pair of bluebirds are flying around and the wife bluebird goes "What about this one, honey?" And the husband's like "Nope, that's only two feet off the gound." <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I mean they definitely have like a measuring tape and a list of wants. <br />
<br />
S: It works, it absolutely works.<br />
<br />
R: Good view of snakes, in-ground pool.<br />
<br />
B: My favorite sign of spring is that the White Walkers are retreating back north.<br />
<br />
S: Yup. ''(laughter and garbled comments)'' Nice call-back. The robins are more visible. As we learned previously they don't actually; they do migrate, but there are robins in the winter but they stay more in the forest. But the robins that are here come out and are more visible in the spring. And I actually grilled steaks on the grill on my deck today, for dinner.<br />
<br />
E: Delicious.<br />
<br />
R: Man, you went all out.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And, the single most profound marker that spring is here was<br />
<br />
E: Allergies.<br />
<br />
S: No. I don't have allergies luckily. Was, the ice cream truck came around.<br />
<br />
R: You have an ice cream truck?<br />
<br />
S: Yup. My daughters go insane. You know, they see the ice cream truck and they just go crazy.<br />
<br />
E: Come on, you go a little crazy, too. Admit it.<br />
<br />
J: Does the guy play music, Steve, or<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
J: Does he ring the bell, what is it?<br />
<br />
S: Of course, you've got the music and the bell and they just lose their minds.<br />
<br />
R: We never had an ice cream truck when I was a kid; it was too rural.<br />
<br />
B: We did.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah, we did.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, you were insane. I have a distinct memory of you, one night, sitting at the end of our driveway. You were a little shit, probably six or seven, crying your eyes out because the ice cream man didn't come, or you missed him, or something, and you were just like bawling 'cause you wanted your ice cream, and you missed it. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: I never forgave that guy, either.<br />
<br />
E: That bastard.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Mars One <small>(9:01)</small>===<br />
* http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/apply-now-one-way-trip-mars<br />
<br />
S: All right, well let's move on. Bob, you're gonna tell us about ''(imitating Schwarzenegger)'' "Get your ass to Mars." ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: You just totally took my opening line. Thank you so much.<br />
<br />
S: Bob, you gotta warn me if you're gonna do that.<br />
<br />
B: Whatever.<br />
<br />
S: It was a bit obvious<br />
<br />
B: I know, but I added a little flourish at the end. I said "Get your ass to Mars and never come back." Are you guys ready for an out-of-this-world reality TV show? I can't believe they're doing this. The company Mars One is planning on making a reality show that showcases the entire process of selecting and training astronauts, their trip to Mars, and the rest of their lives living on Mars. And like we said, it's a one-way trip. That's the real kicker that everybody's talking about. Would you guys do that? Would you guys actually consider that? Or would you want to hear the details first?<br />
<br />
R: No.<br />
<br />
E: I don't think so.<br />
<br />
R: I don't need the details. No. I don't wanna go on a reality show so people can watch me die in space. No. Thank you.<br />
<br />
''(speaking simultaneously – inaudible)''<br />
<br />
B: --when I'm 70 or 80, or what the hell. So, the first question is why are you doing a one-way trip? There's two good reasons. The scientists feel that it's feasible to send people to Mars pretty much now, but the tech just doesn't seem to exist to bring them back right now. I kind of thought that was a weird reason because even if we don't have it now, surely it'll exist at some point. And if we put resources into it it wouldn't take that long. I think one of the reasons that they're doing this is that it's a real attention grabber. Headlines.<br />
<br />
S: The think is though, what do you do, when to get to Mars, you find out that you don't like it there.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah, you're done. Game over.<br />
<br />
R: You'd kill yourself.<br />
<br />
E: You suck it, basically.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it'll make for a good episode. They're already talking about how they'll have a crematorium because people will of course die. But another good reason, probably the best reason that they're not gonna come back,<br />
<br />
E: What if you're the last one to die, though? How're you gonna get in that crematorium?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I wouldn't worry too much about it. So the best reason though why they're not coming back is that, imagine seven or eight months in space; astronauts, as we know, lose muscle mass, they lose bone mass; it's really, really horrific on the body. Even if you're exercising all the time, there's a huge hit that you take; and then time that you spend in Mars' weaker gravitational field, that's not gonna help much either. And scientists feel that readjusting to Earth's gravity after so much time, it's pretty much impossible, with today's technology anyway. After all that time, you're just not coming back. That's a really, really good reason.<br />
<br />
J: That sounds odd to me, Bob. What about people that suffer phenomenal injuries and have to be bedridden for six months or a year. You can't grow back the tissue that you lost, and the bone mass?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it's weird. It's not like if you become paralyzed, where your muscles just turn to mush and it's completely and utterly irrevocable.. .<br />
<br />
S: But people who are bedridden lose a lot of muscle mass. You could lose one to three percent of your muscle mass per day if you're sick and in the hospital and completely immobile. Especially for older people. So that's why they have weeks and months, sometimes, of rehab, just to recover from the debility that results, Jay.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, Jay, and that's also one of the big down sides to yo-yo weight loss, where you lose a lot of weight and inevitably a lot of muscle weight and then you gain back a lot of fat. At the end of the cycle you have much less muscle than you had, and that's a hit that your body could take for the rest of its life, 'cause it's just so hard to get back all that muscle that you lost. It's really bad. And that's a really good reason why once you're there you're gonna be committed. The gravitational pull on Mars is about 38% of Earth's. So that's really, really low. I mean things, it'd be easy to get around and things would be light and that's all great, but, man, your muscles just say we don't need all of this muscle, let's get rid of it. I'm very curious how walking will be accomplished on Mars. How similar to moon-walking will it be? Or will it be a fusion between the moon-hopping and the Earth-walking? I'd be curious to see that. <br />
<br />
J: Bob, what's their budget? How could they possibly afford to do this?<br />
<br />
B: That's actually one of the key problems, Jay, is funding. They figure it's gonna cost about six billion U.S. dollars to get there, just for the first group.<br />
<br />
S: How many bit coins is it gonna cost? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Seven. <br />
<br />
R: Oh, you know, if they send a big-time movie star, if they send like Julia Roberts, that should secure them at least one billion from the foreign markets.<br />
<br />
J: Why, 'cause they wanna get rid of her? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's a movie-making joke. You cast the right people, you get the funding. That's the way it works, in Hollywood.<br />
<br />
S: So who ''should'' we send to Mars on a one-way trip?<br />
<br />
B: Justin Bieber! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Wow, Bob.<br />
<br />
R: What did Justin Bieber ever do to you?<br />
<br />
B: Nothing, I just felt like it.<br />
<br />
J: It's not really him, it's more his haircut.<br />
<br />
S: Could we just send his haircut?<br />
<br />
J: So, look, there's a lot of things about this that I just don't have enough information on, or they're just not making enough sense. First of all, how do you get billions of dollars for a TV show? Second of all, who's developing the technology? How are they gonna live an extended period of time on a planet where they can't manufacture things, grow food, what's up?<br />
<br />
B: Let me go through some of this, then, Jay. What they're gonna need, more than a few astronauts: they're talking about 24 astronauts. So the idea is they're gonna have six groups of four astronauts, and every two years four astronauts are gonna be sent there, with the first one going in 2022. The selection process will be finalized in 2015; so it's only a couple years away. Then they're gonna go through seven years of training. And, think about it though, seven years of a reality show of astronauts training. That's gonna get so boring. There's no way they're gonna maintain a TV show for that long.<br />
<br />
S: I don't know, Bob. I mean, ghost hunter shows have lasted for that long. <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, ''The Real World'' has been going on for that long.<br />
<br />
B: I guess.<br />
<br />
R: It's crap, but people still watch it, I guess.<br />
<br />
B: Well, if they do a good job, they can make it interesting. But seven years of training?<br />
<br />
S: What they need to do is they need to vote people off the planet. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Well actually, what they're gonna, that's close, Steve. What they're gonna do, in true reality show style, is they're gonna vote four astronauts, the first four to go, who of course will be the most famous. Who doesn't wanna be the first ones to go? Except me. <br />
<br />
R: Anyone with a brain, doesn't wanna be the first to go.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, you mentioned technology. Space X, they're gonna work with Space X. And the idea is to use a slightly enlarged version of the Dragon capsule to get them there. And <br />
<br />
R: I never noticed before how much "Space X" sounds like "space sex." Because that was very confusing when you first said it.<br />
<br />
S: Space sex?<br />
<br />
R: Um hm.<br />
<br />
B: I never thought of that. Thank you. They're gonna use those really cool retro propulsion rockets to land it because of course parachutes aren't gonna cut it. Jay, to survive, they're gonna have solar panels, of course, for energy. They're gonna recycle and extract water from the soil if it's there, if they can actually find some. And food, and they're gonna grow their own food. That's another technology that I don't know how they're pull that off. And then of course, every two years they'll get a nice resupply of their Reese's Peanut Butter Cups from Earth when the next group arrives. But as you can imagine, right, there's gonna be tons of problems. One of them is the solar wind. Mars just does not have, a very thin atmosphere. It's about a hundredth, less than a hundredth the density of Earth's atmosphere. It's almost a friggin' vacuum. And Mars doesn't have a magnetosphere. I mean, damn.<br />
<br />
J: It doesn't seem like the survival of these people is going to be high. It's scaring me. <br />
<br />
S: They are gonna send supplies ahead of the first astronauts. So there should be material and food and everything they'll need there to get going. <br />
<br />
B; Well, they want to send a series of rovers to go there. And that's also one of the reasons why I'm pessimistic. They want to send a bunch of rovers. I mean, are they even working on these rovers? I mean, you know how long it takes to design and develop and test all that. I'm not even sure where they even are with that preliminary step right there. And so it's not just a magnetosphere that's not there, which is basically a shield for the solar wind and cosmic ray particles. It really is why there's lots of life on the surface of the planet. <br />
<br />
S: Their habitat will basically have to be under ground. <br />
<br />
B: yeah, they're gonna have to . . . maybe that's one of the things these rovers can do is help make these pits for their habitat. So if they're gonna have to be under many feet of dirt, then they'll be okay. But there's also no liquid water, really. None that they could really tap into that we've found. And then the radiation, not just the radiation on the planet, but the trip radiation, and we've talked about this on the show. It's nasty. Just going there, you've got these energetic particles in the solar wind; you've got cosmic rays. I mean, they won't kill you outright, necessarily, but they will greatly increase your chances of getting cancer. And the question is . . .<br />
<br />
R: These people are not gonna live long enough to get cancer. They don't need to worry about that.<br />
<br />
B: I guess.<br />
<br />
R: Like if they die of cancer, it'll be the greatest thing that ever happened to them. <br />
<br />
J: You know, there's social implications here, as well. What about laws?<br />
<br />
S: They're on their own. The whole idea is they can create their own civilization.<br />
<br />
E: The wild west. That's great. What if one of them goes nuts and starts to break down?<br />
<br />
S: Well they'll have seven years vet these people. They're gonna be . . . so part of the training . . . first of all, they're gonna be trained in emergency medicine, dentistry, engineering, all the skills they're gonna need to do everything they need on their own and they're gonna also spend extended periods of time in simulated Martian habitats, and have simulated emergencies. So, that's seven years of vetting for these people.<br />
<br />
E: What if these people don't pan out in year three or four, what . . . you're gonna have to have teams of people going through this process. I mean, imagine the hundreds of people that they're gonna have to select from.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. I would think they're gonna have maybe one or two backups. You know, you're talking fifty, sixty, seventy people, if they go that route, which isn't, I mean $6 billion will go a long way for that kind of stuff. NASA astronaut Stan Love had a great description of this. He, I think he described it really well. He just happened to come back from Antarctica, and he says "That place is a picnic compared to Mars." He says it's full of water, you can go outside and breathe the air. It's paradise compared to Mars, and yet nobody has moved there permanently. And you know, as nasty as that place is, Mars is ten hundred times worse and people are gonna spend the rest of their lives there. It's just crazy. <br />
<br />
R: What happens when the show is cancelled?<br />
<br />
E: That's a good point.<br />
<br />
R: You know, ratings are down, they need that time slot for something else.<br />
<br />
S: I think, let me go against the grain and say that I think this is a wonderful idea.<br />
<br />
B: No. You're full of shit. No. All right, I love the idea of a community off the Earth, and Stephen Hawking would really agree with us on that. But ''go to the moon first!'' It's only three days away. Vet all the technology and develop it on the moon. If there's a huge disaster, you can be there in mere days, rather than months and a billion dollars later. <br />
<br />
R: Good point.<br />
<br />
S: All right, that's a really good point.<br />
<br />
B: Moon Base Alpha first, then Mars.<br />
<br />
J: Well, wait, Bob. That might be part of their plan, though. As Rebecca says, let's say the show gets cancelled. The show's gonna probably get cancelled right around when everyone's gonna die. Right?<br />
<br />
E; That convenient.<br />
<br />
S: Well the show may be cancelled before they even . . . It's gonna be seven years of reality TV before they even blast off for Mars. Remember. So, this is highly risky in multiple ways. This is gonna be very difficult to pull off. But you gotta give it to them for the vision here, of trying to . . . If they pull this off, then you really have to give it to them for being bold and the amount of dedication it's going to take to usher this project to completion is going to be amazing. So, they will have to capture the imagination of the world with this project. The people that they select are going to have a lot to do with this. And they have ten years to work out the technological limitations. It's not impossible, it's just gonna be really, really hard. But if they're serious about this, I think that . . . I'd love to see them try; I wish them well; I would love to see them succeed, as long as they appreciate that they're not going into this thinking this is gonna be an easy endeavor. As long as they appreciate all the many ways this can fail, and they are doing everything they possibly can to deal with all of those hurdles, then, let's see what they do.<br />
<br />
R: Who's the "they" again? Who's actually doing this?<br />
<br />
S: Mars One, I guess, is the organization. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah, they're based out of Denmark. <br />
<br />
J: Steve, I don't disagree with that at all. I see what you're saying, and I like the idea of all these billions of dollars that go into entertainment that is really, at the end of the day, it doesn't achieve things like technology and pushing the limits of man's fortitude . . . <br />
<br />
S: You know what I think is likely to happen? If they get this off the ground, I think that they're going to have an interesting reality TV show that will be a dry run for a real colonization trip to either the moon or Mars. But they probably won't ever launch. If they ''do'' launch; if they're successful enough, in terms of raising money and keeping the whole project going to the point where they're ready to launch, that will be a huge success right there. Anything that happens after that, you know, I would still consider this to be a success. Of course it's high risk. They will have . . . basically like 2022 or 2023, they're gonna have to make a hard assessment of whether or not they actually have all the pieces in place to send people to Mars. Probably there's gonna be tons of delays and it will probably never happen. But . . .<br />
<br />
B: Oh, 2022 or 3, I'd say 2018 they'd be like, shit, we're not gonna make this. And to me, that's my biggest beef with this is that 2022 just seems way too soon to pull this off. There's too many hurdles.<br />
<br />
S: I like the idea that they're planning on using the Space X<br />
<br />
B: Oh, absolutely.<br />
<br />
S: So that may throw a lot of funding their way. <br />
<br />
B: That would be great.<br />
<br />
S: That would be a good consequence of all this.<br />
<br />
J: It's a lot of money they have to get, and that's gonna be a huge hurdle for them.<br />
<br />
B: I've got a quote on that as well. Dr. Chris Lintott, he's Oxford University, he thinks that it's technologically plausible, feasible. But in his mind funding is gonna be the biggest problem. He said "It's about having the political will and the financial muscle to make this happen. That's what nobody has been able to solve so far." So the undoing of this entire project might be just purely from funding, 'cause it's a lot of money. It's got a lot of sustained interest that you'd have to have for many, many years. And if you can pull that off, that might be the biggest hurdle of all.<br />
<br />
S: Hopefully this is a story we'll be reporting on over the years. I hope it doesn't die in the crib. It'll be interesting.<br />
<br />
B: And if anyone wants to register you have until August 31 of 2013, and they certainly have lots of volunteers. I've heard numbers over 40,000 requests already.<br />
<br />
R: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
B: It'll cost you money, though. I think it's 38 bucks for the United States. But depending on what country you're in, the prices will vary. But yeah, lots of people are interested in it.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Bomb Detector Fraud <small>(24:43)</small>===<br />
* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22266051<br />
<br />
S: Okay, Jay, there's some good news from the U.K. about a convicted con artist.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. Do you all remember the story we covered about James McCormick? He's the guy who sold the fake bomb detectors that were eventually used in real life situations in Iraq. Well, things didn't turn out so good for Mr. McCormick. This is a horrifying story with a possible good ending. It hasn't ended quite yet. I think it's going in the right direction, but this, let me give you the quick background. April 23, 2013, during a hearing in London at the Central Criminal Court of England and Wales, the Court was told that McCormick's fake detectors were 100% ineffectual. The harshest fact that came out was that McCormick knew they didn't work. So, this guy invents quote unquote invents, a detector that can do the following things: this is what he claims. The devices could bypass all forms of concealment. They can detect drugs and people along with explosives, would work under water, and of course, from the air. Would track an object up to one kilometer, or 320, sorry 3,280 feet below the ground. Below the ground. The bomb detectors came with cards which were programmed, quote unquote programmed, to detect a wide array of substances from ivory to $100 bank notes. Other substances could be detected. But, it was claimed if you put in a jar with a sticker which would absorb its vapors, so whatever it is, whatever you want, you put that item, or a piece of it, in a jar, and the sticker would absorb the vapors from that object. And then if you stuck that sticker to the thing, it could detect it. All right? Now. This is insane, and we talked about this already, so a lot of you already know that fact. The ADE651 detector. He made how much money? Fifty million pounds! 76 million US dollars from this scam. He sold 6,000 units to Iraq. Not a bad haul for a scam. Pretty damn good. Officials said the device was modeled after a novelty $20 golf ball finder. Oh, god, when I read that, I was so pissed off at the idea that this guy was basically flipping through a magazine on an airplane, say, I'm not sure if that was it, but you know the kind of junk that I'm talking about. This chachki crap, $20 golf ball finder that doesn't work. This hand-held device. He bought hundreds of those. Listen, Evan, he bought them. Hundreds of 'em. Put his own custom sticker on it and sold them as bomb detectors.<br />
<br />
S: He didn't even make 'em himself?<br />
<br />
J: Well, the first version of it, no. It was this crappy golf-ball finder. He sold them for 5K each. So then, when he sold them and it worked, he went out and made a much cooler looking one, and he sold those to the Iraqi government, and those he sold for up to 27,000 pounds, 40,000 US dollars each.<br />
<br />
E: Ironically, those don't detect golf balls<br />
<br />
S: It's basically a dousing rod.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's how it works.<br />
<br />
E; Very expensive one.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, and if you look at it, an antenna<br />
<br />
B: Well, not really.<br />
<br />
J: Yes, Bob, in a way. It is, Bob, it is. You have to see it.<br />
<br />
B: There's no ideomotor effect<br />
<br />
J: Yes, there is. Bob, Bob. Yes there is.<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, pay attention. Okay? You're in school now, I'm your teacher. All right, you hold the device in your hand and you pull the antenna out; it scopes out. And then it's on like a ball-bearing device, so it shifts with the person's hand that's using it. So, yeah, Bob, that's it. They're looking at the movement of that thing, and the people are, the people who are using it are coming up with the answers themselves: am I detecting something here? Yes or no. That's it. It is in essence a dowsing rod. So finally the U.K. government banned the sale of the detector in Iraq and Afghanistan in January 2010, and senior Iraqi officials that knew the device for a fake and some of them who were bribed to continue purchasing them. And when I say they were bribed, a lot of money exchanged hands. This guy bribed the hell out of<br />
<br />
B: Millions of dollars. Millions of dollars.<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely. Sadly, some of these devices are still active at some checkpoints in Iraq.<br />
<br />
E: Really?<br />
<br />
J: It's ridiculous. I don't know why or how that could possibly be happening. There was a very sad story. You know, to put a face on this whole thing. A woman named Henine Awan, who was an Iraqi woman, was pregnant at the time, and she lost her baby because a bomb went off that wasn't caught by the fake detector. She needed 59 operations after she was injured in January, 2009, and I saw a video of her talking, and I'm telling you, she was horribly, horribly burned. Another interesting thing, there's a detective inspector, Ed Heath, said "It is clear that both civilians and armed forces personnel were put at significant risk in relying upon the equipment. McCormick showed a complete disregard for the safety of those that used and relied upon the device for their own security and protection. He amassed many millions of pounds through his greed and criminal enterprise." And he's going to be sentenced on May 2 of 2013. There's no doubt that he knew that it didn't work. One of the salesmen that was working with him at one point asked him specifically, you know, I really need to know if this thing works, and he said "It is working. It's earning money."<br />
<br />
R: Ecchh<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
S: Do you have any idea of what possible sentence he's facing?<br />
<br />
J: I couldn't find anything, but it doesn't look good.<br />
<br />
B: I read he faces up to eight years in jail, which I think is pathetic.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Five to eight is what I read, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Up to eight years is a joke.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, sometimes laws just need an asshole clause. You know, where the judge has the discretion to just really dramatically increase the sentence.<br />
<br />
R: I don't know. I don't understand how they even come to that sentence, because, I mean, I don't think you even need a cause because he's endangering the lives of thousands, if not millions, of people.<br />
<br />
S: The law may not cover it.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: How? I don't understand.<br />
<br />
B: You know, guys, the other side of the story for me was the total lack of apparent effort to deal with this, to investigate this, to do something about it.<br />
<br />
S: Up front, oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: It's ridiculous. I read about a, that the police did a two-and-a-half year investigation, and they're talking about a University of Cambridge professor did a fully double-blind trial and he found it was no better than random chance, three out of twenty-five times. Two-and-a-half years to determine this? Really? I mean, we could set that experiment up in an afternoon. Two-and-a-half years. I'm sure there's lots of red tape and lots of things you gotta go through, but, that just seems an incredibly long period of time to come to those kind of conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: And it seemed like the government just <br />
<br />
S: Total failure.<br />
<br />
B: They didn't seem to want to investigate it or take any action. I mean this has been out there for not months, it's been years, right?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: I read 2008, 2009? It's 2013. What took so long? <br />
<br />
S: This exact kind of device has been sold multiple ways by multiple people. This was not unique.<br />
<br />
J: The real travesty here is the fact that they didn't vet this thing out. I mean you're really gonna take some unknown guy by his word? Didn't they test it? Didn't one person unbox one of these and test it with a few different bombs, or whatever? The claims he made are extreme. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, wasn't there one person in the chain who wasn't blatantly scientifically ignorant and saw that this was a total sham? Anybody with even a basic level of critical thinking should have been able to see that this was a total scam from the get-go, right? <br />
<br />
J: Yeah, and beyond that, Steve, isn't there a protocol in place? Doesn't the military have . . .<br />
<br />
S: Apparently not.<br />
<br />
J: Well, there you go. It's very revealing.<br />
<br />
E: You're right, Jay, it's very revealing.<br />
<br />
S: Well, we'll follow up when he gets sentenced. I just wanna see what kind of time this guys gets.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== TED and Chopra <small>(37:42)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/confusing-standards-for-censorship-chopra-edition/ Confusing Standards for Censorship &ndash; Chopra Edition]<br />
<br />
S: But let's move on for now. Are you guys aware of the whole TED fiasco that happened recently?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god. Unbelievable.<br />
<br />
R: Another one?<br />
<br />
J: Very disappointing.<br />
<br />
B: It's very believable.<br />
<br />
S: Well, I don't know which one you're referring to, but this is one, yeah, Deepak Chopra got involved. So the TED talks are a prestigious series of interesting, provocative lectures. TED, do you guys know what TED stands for, by the way?<br />
<br />
R: Technology, Entertainment, Design?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but the scope has expanded since then, but it was initially Technology, Entertainment, Design. And the tagline of the lecture series is Ideas Worth Spreading, and it became a very high profile, prestigious series of short, provocative lectures on topics in science and related things. TED spawned TEDx. TEDx are local, independently run and organized TED-branded lecture series that are supposed to strive for the same level of quality that TED itself has. And there are TEDx conferences all over the world. Well, apparently, some of the TEDx events have not been up to the standards of TED. There were a couple recent ones by Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock: you guys know who these guys are, right? Sheldrake is a big proponent of ESP. Graham Hancock is big into alternate history, ancient civilizations, etc. So, bottom line, both of these guys are crackpots, in my opinion. And they gave talks that were very unsettling to some people in the audience who have some knowledge of science, and there were complaints. There were complaints from people in the audience who said "What is TEDx doing promoting these lectures and these people?" This prompted a, and everything now gets a lot of attention in the blogosphere, etc., and social media. This prompted an open letter by some TEDx directors to all of the TEDx organizers. It's actually an excellent primer on how to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience. They go down a list of red flags for how to tell if a speaker is legitimate and they said "It's ''your'' job to vet them. It's not your audience's job to figure out if the speaker is offering legitimate science or not. It's ''your'' job, and this is how you do it. And if you're not sure, we'll help you, and here's the guideline." And it's a very excellent guideline. They actually reference Science-Based Medicine at one point.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, excellent.<br />
<br />
E: Well, there you go.<br />
<br />
J: How did they reference it?<br />
<br />
S: As a source you can go to to, for example, see if a medical claim is legitimate or not. And they reference other skeptical sources. Clearly, they were steeped in the skeptical culture, you know, movement. And they knew what they were talking about. This is the kind of thing that any experienced skeptic could have written or will find very familiar. So, excellent job. That provoked a backlash by Deepak Chopra. <br />
<br />
R: Surprise!<br />
<br />
S: And some of his cronies. So they wrote an article in the Huff Poo attacking the TEDx directors who wrote this open letter, and criticizing them for all the usual straw men, boogie men crap. It's really terrible. So, here's one quote from it:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>What the militant atheists and self-described skeptics hate is a certain brand of magical thinking that endangers science. In particular, there is a bugaboo of non-local consciousness which causes the hair on the back of their necks to stand on end. A layman would be forgiven for not grasping why such an innocent-sounding phrase could spell danger to good science. </blockquote><br />
<br />
So, thoughout the letter they're attacking quote, unquote, militant atheists, and every single time, just about, Chopra refers to Richard Dawkins, he calls him "militant atheist Richard Dawkins." <br />
<br />
R: I think he actually changed his first name to "militant atheist." ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: I'd like to say to Chopra, "I don't think you know what this word means."<br />
<br />
S: Well, I mean, he's trying to portray skeptics as the fanatics. Right? That we're the ones with an axe to grind; we're the ones on the extreme. And ''he's'' just talking about the cutting edge; we're just not aware. The other thing that's really funny—we've kind of been talking about Games of Thrones this episode—that the article is based upon this really lame, gratuitous analogy to the Games of Thrones. <br />
<br />
B: He got it so wrong, it was a joke.<br />
<br />
S: He gets everything wrong. So, he basically is trying to make this analogy that skeptics are like the Guardians on the Great Wall. <br />
<br />
R: There are no Guardians.<br />
<br />
S: I know. And, first he calls it a hereditary order, --it's not hereditary. ''(laughter)'' And the he says that the Guardians, meaning the Night Watch, but the Guardians defend the Empire from the monsters and the creatures on the other side of the Wall without ever going north of the Wall to see what's actually there. <br />
<br />
R: That's so . . . you just watch the first episode . . .<br />
<br />
S: I know. The very first scene are Rangers north of the Wall.<br />
<br />
R: Ya dummy. If Deepak can't even get this right . . . come on.<br />
<br />
B: You know, what's worse than a politician or a pseudoscientist misquoting or mis-referencing a bit of popular culture. Like, when –<br />
<br />
E: Oh, the Spock thing, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Spock, and they mix up ''Star Wars'' and ''Star Trek'' and all that, and it's like, oh, my god. Your advisors, your consultants should have been there for you when you wrote this.<br />
<br />
S: The whole article sort of revolves around this analogy, and he gets it horribly wrong. Sometimes in details that are not relevant to the point, but it just shows that he's not even aware. He didn't read the books or watch the series. Either that or he pays very poor attention to detail. But in one critical aspect, the analogy fails in a very meaningful way when he claims that the Guardians don't go north of the wall in the same way that skeptics don't actually investigate the topics that they dismiss in their militant atheism. And both are absolutely wrong. In fact, skeptics spend a great deal of time and energy carefully examining the claims of people like Chopra and Sheldrake and Hancock. We actually do what most mainstream scientists don't do. We're ''at'' the wall, we range north of the wall, we are investigating and we're trying to warn the Empire, "Hey, there's a bunch of nonsense up here!" <br />
<br />
R: And just to be clear, in Chopra's analogy here, in his metaphor, he is the zombie. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: That's right. He's the one ''(inaudible)''<br />
<br />
R: All right. Just making sure I've got that right.<br />
<br />
S: He also says there are dragons north of the wall—wrong!<br />
<br />
B: Wr- o-o-o-ng!<br />
<br />
R: God.<br />
<br />
E: Here be dragons.<br />
<br />
J: Is he getting like loaded before he watches this TV show?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughing)'' I don't he's, Jay, I think he has a vague notion of what's going on, and probably never really watched the show.<br />
<br />
R: He sat down to write those things, like, "What do the kids like these days?"<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, "What's popular these days?"<br />
<br />
B: No, not "the kids," the "kiddies." The kiddies.<br />
<br />
E: Well, you know Chopra. He's good at stealing a word here and a word there, and twisting into something he thinks is for his benefit—<br />
<br />
R: So, the wall is the new quantum.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but what he's really saying in his article is that there should be no standards. That anything should go. And that we're all adults, so any speculative thinking is all fine. Just leave us alone and let us say whatever we want.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, and let the audience decide, right?<br />
<br />
S: Let the audience decide. Which is funny because he triggers many of the red flags that the open letter specifically warned about. In his response. He's actually showing himself to be a pseudoscientist in his response to the open letter. By their own criteria. Without showing any awareness that he's doing so.<br />
<br />
B: That was wonderful. <br />
<br />
S: Oh, it was just terrible. And of course, that's exactly what the cranks and charlatans want, is for there to be no standards. And he pulled the Galileo gambit, by the way. I don't even know if I need to say what that is. Anybody who compares something to Galileo is automatically a crank, period. And he equated having some standards with censorship. Which again, that's a sign that, that's one of the red flags that they had in the open letter. If they try to say that they're being censored because you're trying to hold them to some standard, that's a red flag that they're a crank.<br />
<br />
B: Somebody replied to those comments specifically, and I love what they were saying about Galileo and how for every one true Galileo there's thousands of cranks, and also, if Galileo were alive today, he would recognize the need to do good research and not just throw it out there and see if it sticks on the wall, and to do good science. Something that they don't do.<br />
<br />
S: That was Chris Anderson from TED, responding to Deepak Chopra. Totally nailed it. He said<br />
<br />
<blockquote>No one here claims that mainstream science is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It isn't. But it is the best starting point we have for judging new information. Yes. A modern-day Galileo may be out there with paradigm shifting ideas that will at some point overturn huge pieces of existing science. But he or she should expect to face a robust standard of proof before their ideas take hold. And for every Galileo, there are thousands of people who just have bad unscientific ideas.</blockquote><br />
<br />
B: That was beautiful. He did a great job.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Chopra responded. Again. He responded again on the Huff Poo, on his blog. And this one is just, "Oh, you know, these scientists just don't understand the cutting edge." He's saying that they don't understand that the observer is in the equation. Right? That the universe is not just about what's being observed from a distance, but there's an observer in the mix as well. It's like, really? I mean . . .yeah, yeah, the physicists haven't been talking about this for the last twenty years? Come on. A total straw man. Again, I think someone said that Deepak Chopra should be banned from using the word "quantum" ever again. <br />
<br />
B: I'll send that!<br />
<br />
R: Censorship!<br />
<br />
S: At one of his debates, a physicist who was in the audience suggested that he attend a basic course, like monitor a basic class on quantum mechanics. 'Cause clearly he doesn't understand the first thing about it.<br />
<br />
R: Wasn't that Leonard Mlodinow?<br />
<br />
S: Was it? No, I know he . . . I think this was somebody in the audience. I don't think . . . I know Leonard Mlodinow has debated Chopra.<br />
<br />
R: I thought that's how he came to know Deepak Chopra, was that he spoke up in the audience.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, is that right? <br />
<br />
R: I might be getting this completely wrong.<br />
<br />
''(speaking simultaneously – inaudible)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca. <br />
<br />
S: But, this is the kind of pushback that we're going to get. I see this as a sign that we're being successful. That we are shining a light on the cranks and showing why what they're doing is nonsensical, and we're getting things like, you know, people who are actually directors of TEDx are writing very critical thinking, very skeptical open letters about the difference between science and pseudoscience. That's a huge victory for the skeptical movement. And we are forcing the cranks to try to attack us and to try to marginalize us, because we're having an impact. And we just have to keep the pressure back up against them. We can't let them define us. Of course they want to define us as the militant ones, right? I think what I'm gonna do is, every time I refer to Deepak Chopra from now on, I'm gonna refer to him as "militant crank Deepak Chopra." ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I like it.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I think that's fair.<br />
<br />
E: How do ya like that, Deepak?<br />
<br />
S: You think that's fair?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: We'll see how militant crank Deepak Chopra responds to that.<br />
<br />
J: This is one of those rare news items that is really exciting, it gives me some hope. This could have gone a much darker path. TED could have gone into a really bad place, and was allowing all this junk science in there.<br />
<br />
S: Well, hey, not that there aren't marginal and dubious TED talks. I'm not saying that that's a paragon. But maybe this will improve the quality of even TED by focusing a light on this issue of science versus pseudoscience.<br />
<br />
R: :Yeah, that's just it—<br />
<br />
E: Bring it to the forefront.<br />
<br />
R: That's what I meant by, when you said "problem with TED talks." I said another one. TEDx is just rife with B.S. But it's good that they've recognized that and are taking steps to solve it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and I think it's demonstrably because of skeptical watchdogs.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Creationism and Dinosaurs <small>(45:53)</small>===<br />
* http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/21/aclu-to-kansas-school-district-cancel-creationist-assemblies-about-dinosaurs/<br />
<br />
S: Speaking of militant cranks, Rebecca, you're gonna tell us about one who is going to be talking at a Kansas public school.<br />
<br />
R: Yes. Dr. G. Thomas Sharp has been hired to come to a small, a southwest Kansas school district to deliver two assemblies next week on the truth about dinosaurs. And I know about this because the ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union, is threatening the school district that they'll be taken to court if they continue on with these assemblies. The reason why is because Sharp is the founder of the Creation Truth Foundation. And when he is teaching the truth about dinosaurs, the things he teaches are things like dinosaurs were on the ark with Noah, and evolution is wrong. <br />
<br />
S: Did you watch his online video? <br />
<br />
R: I did, actually. There's an hour-long video in which he's, it's called ''The Truth About Dinosaurs'' and it's released by Sharp. So I have to assume that this is going to be at least similar to what he's going to be delivering to the Kansas school. I should mention that the ACLU, when they threatened the school district with court action, the superintendent of schools, Mark Crawford, responded to say that the assemblies were going to continue and that the, all the assemblies would be in line with the law. They would not actually be anything to do with creationism. And again, this is the founder of the Creation Truth Foundation. So I mean, it's right there in the name. And then, yeah, if you watch this horrible hour-long lecture he gives on YouTube, it's astounding the things he, I mean he's preaching, basically.<br />
<br />
J: Give us a few tidbits, like what were some of the crazier things he said?<br />
<br />
R: Well, like he refers to dinosaurs as god's lizards, and I mean, the Bible is sprinkled throughout. He accuses <br />
<br />
E: Godzilla, what?<br />
<br />
R: He refers to actual science as being done by secularists, and as though it's a filthy word.<br />
<br />
S: All right, then, let's say that he scrubs his talk of any biblical god or secular religious references,<br />
<br />
R: Then it'll be ten seconds long.<br />
<br />
S: It'll still be a mountain of absolute unscientific nonsense. Now, the approach that he takes, first of all, this is all nothing new. This is like 1970's style creationism.<br />
<br />
R: We should be clear, this is not intelligent design.<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
R: The thinly veiled creationism. This is creationism, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Retro-creationism.<br />
<br />
S: So he does the whole taking quote of scientists out of context, usually from public writing—writing meant for the lay public, not technical writing. And then he just completely mystery mongers. He tries to blow out of proportion what we don't know. Like, for example, and he's doing the whole, he doesn't really say evolution is wrong, he's doing the equivalency thing where evolution is one model and creation is another model, and the only way to interpret the evidence is through your preconceived notions. So if you assume evolution, then you'll interpret the evidence from an evolutionary perspective. But if you go with the biblical assumption that there was a flood and everything, then you could make sense of everything with the flood. And for example, he does the whole alternate geology, flood geology, and he said that there is no consensus that dinosaurs evolved from birds. And then he pulls some quote segment out of context from somebody, in a popular article, to make it sound like we have no idea what's going on. He's like, oh, the fossils are rare and they're in such poor condition and we have no idea what these dinosaurs were like, you know. Completely mis-characterizing the overwhelming evidence. There was just a study published this week showing that dinosaurs, that theropod dinosaurs that are closely related to early birds nested their eggs the same way that birds do. There's one more piece of evidence that birds evolved from a certain type of dinosaur.<br />
<br />
R: And while he's preaching that, he's implying heavily that scientists are outright lying to kids and using dinosaurs as some sort of enticing ploy to get them to come to their evil museums and lie to them. He says that scientists discount the flood and scientists disagree on dinosaurs, birds evolving from dinosaurs, and yet they continue to lie kids about it. I mean, it's, he's clearly implying nefarious purposes on the part of scientists.<br />
<br />
S: He's just accusing scientists of doing exactly what he's doing.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: He's dinosaurs as a lure so that he could lie through his teeth about the state of the scientific evidence about evolution and dinosaurs.<br />
<br />
E: And this superintendent of this school says it's completely and totally school-appropriate.<br />
<br />
B: I think he was, he seemed pretty clear and adamant that he would not allow creationism to be taught, and I think they got ahold of him and they convinced him, this is what we're gonna talk about, this is what we're gonna say. And I think what they're actually gonna do might be very different. Or, I kind of also think that they're gonna scrub the hell out of their talk and get very<br />
<br />
S: Yeah but Bob, he knows exactly what's going on. He knows, the point of this—<br />
<br />
R: The guy who started the Creation Truth Foundation, you don't invite him to give a lecture to students and then say that it's got nothing to do with creationism.<br />
<br />
S: This is deliberate stealth creationism in public schools, period. That's what this is.<br />
<br />
R: And I do want to mention that the assemblies are required for students to attend.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Mandatory. Mandatory.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
==Survey Announcement <small>(52:18)</small>==<br />
<br />
S: Evan, before we go to ''Who's That Noisy?'' a very quick announcement. We are doing a survey of our listeners. You can get to the survey, it's a quick demographic survey. We'd really appreciate if you'd take just a moment to fill it out so we could know more about our listeners. Go to theskepticsguide.org home page and you'll see it right on the home page, big white box with the survey in there. And again, we'd appreciate if you'd take a moment to fill that out.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(52:46)</small>==<br />
Puzzle for last week<br />
S: All right, well, Evan. We're now a couple of weeks behind on ''Who's That Noisy?''<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, well, we'll get caught up. Going back to March 30 it was when we asked the following puzzle:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Mark is visiting a psychic, the Great Griftina. The Great Griftina tells Mark to think of the number 1, 2 or 3. The Great Griftina tells Mark that she will ask one question of him, and must only reply with "yes," "no," or "I don't know." So what question should the Great Griftina ask Mark to find out exactly which number Mark has chosen.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: And I think there were a few different kinds of right answers to this.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, there was. A lot of the correct answers took the form, well, something like this, which I'm calling the standard solution, but I counted a lot of the solutions as correct that sort of had this premise in mind. So here's the answer, the standard solution: If I have the numbers one or two in mind, is the number that you have in mind larger than the numbers I have in mind? And a couple of variations on this that I found interesting are a little bit different from the standard solution. Someone posed, let's see, it was listener Brandon from Miami, Florida said that you could ask this question: If you subtracted two from your number, would the square root of the result be greater than zero?<br />
<br />
R: It's just really, if she's just dumb, it's always gonna be, I don't know. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: That's true. You have to assume that the people know math, and understand concepts like square roots and so forth.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And that works out. The winner this week is Yves von Gennip.<br />
<br />
S: And what have you got for this week?<br />
<br />
E: This week we're going back to the classic ''Who's That Noisy?'' I'm gonna play something for you. And you're gonna try to figure out exactly who is saying this. Are you ready?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>''(Woman speaking English with a foreign accent)'' You want to create weight loss, you can start using feng shui. The best way is to have black or blue plates, and actually making sure that you don't put too much on your plate at the same time.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: Feng shui to lose weight.<br />
<br />
J: Ev, you don't think it might something to do with the fact that she says "Don't put so much stuff on your plate"?<br />
<br />
E: ''(laughing)'' I was hoping you'd catch that, Jay. Yeah, that's exactly what I thought. What the hell does feng shui have to do with that? But I never heard that before. Feng shui as a weight loss program? That was new to me, so I thought I would share that with you, and go ahead and give us your guess. Sguforums.com is our forums. Go ahead and post your answer there or send your answer in to wtn@theskepticsguide.org and we'll do it again next week. Good luck, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, thanks, Evan.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(55:35)</small> ==<br />
=== Question 1 <small>(55:35)</small>===<br />
Bitcoin Follow Up<br />
Corrections and further analysis of Bitcoin<br />
<br />
S: Jay, on our live private recording that we put up last week, you had a segment on Bitcoin and that generated quite of feedback. We're not gonna read any one email because there were so many, but we definitely need to do a follow-up on the Bitcoin segment.<br />
<br />
J: I read a recent article about Bitcoin. I pitched it to Steve, thought it was a very interesting topic. I went to the Wikipedia page; I followed some links through the Wikipedia page. I ended up reading some conflicting sources of information. I thought that I had vetted things down to the point where I could have the discussion, because we want to be very careful that we're not, a lot of times news articles have one source, you know, you might have seen this—where you go to 50 different websites and it's all linking back to the single. There's lots of sources for Bitcoin on the web. Unfortunately, a lot of the information that I found was skewed and a couple of times was just flat-out wrong. What we found after re-investigating the Bitcoin information is, well, we'll give you the corrections, but, what Steve and I wanted to discuss tonight are the missteps of research. And we'll use my experience in the last week as an example of some of the things that may—now, I've been doing research for a long time. Steve has been helping me learn how to do high-end research. We talk about it on the show all the time.<br />
<br />
S: I do think it's interesting to talk about the process that we go through. A lot of people ask us about that process. This is a good opportunity to review it. We obviously don't always achieve the ideal that we shoot for. But what I like to see on every item; first of all, you have to find as many independent sources on the topic that you're researching as possible. And you have to follow each resource back to its original source, and that's how you discover sometimes that you may be reading twenty or thirty sources, but they're all linking to the same original source, and therefore you really only have one source. Wikipedia is a reasonable place to start just to get an overview but that's ''never'' your ultimate source for anything. You can follow those links back to the things that are sourcing Wikipedia, but ultimately you always want to get to primary sources and to multiple primary sources. One of the questions that you're trying answer early on—when Jay and I were talking about this earlier, I said "I do this basically every day when I write my blog." I spend my first fifteen or twenty minutes researching a topic just trying to figure out, first of all, how deep that well goes, how complicated is it? The second is, how much of a consensus is there on this? Am I going to be able to find a reference that's going to be definitive because the information is non-controversial and represents the consensus of scientific opinion. When a topic is controversial or has a lot of passion behind it, then it takes a lot more time, because you're going to be getting conflicting information and you're gonna have to sort which references are better, which arguments are better. You know, who really, you know, what we can know. It takes a long time to wrap your head around topics the more controversial they get. I think what happened with Bitcoin is that the whole topic was a lot more controversial than we realized, and a lot more awash in mythology and misinformation. So, I think that the thing that, Jay, that you should have done, was when you started to get conflicting information in the research, that should have been a big red flag that this is not as settled as it appeared to you at the time.<br />
<br />
J: And I figured it was just a matter of me finding a more definitive and trustworthy source.<br />
<br />
S: You know what else is interesting is that we've had, again, many emails pointing out some of the factual errors on the reporting of Bitcoin. But interestingly, the emails that we got, although they purported to be informative, they had a lot of conflicting information, too. They conflicted with each other. So, and then I've been researching this quite a bit in the last couple of weeks, and I found tons of conflicting information. But let's get to it, Jay. Tell us, what are the pretty clearly established factual bits of information that we need to correct?<br />
<br />
J: One mistake I made was I said that Bitcoins are divisible by Satoshi, that's like the pennies, say, in the Bitcoin world. I said that a Satoshi was worth fifty cents, and they're not. At all. Not even close. A Satoshi is a hundred millionth of one Bitcoin. So it’s a phenomenally small value. So, and to give you an idea, like right now, BItcoin value has been changing. But you know we're in the $150 per Bitcoin range, about, right now. Like I said, that goes up and down. I checked today a couple of times and I saw the value had changed even today. Another thing that I wanted to correct was we were interchanging the term "Bitcoin" with "Bitcoins." It is "Bitcoin." To be very pendantic about it, that's the correct way to say it.<br />
<br />
B: aaah.<br />
<br />
J: I'm never gonna say that word correct deliberately for the rest of my life.<br />
<br />
E: Ummm.<br />
<br />
J: Satoshi Nakamoto is not a person, he or she or the group of people, that's a pseudonym for the creaters of Bitcoin.<br />
<br />
S: Which, nobody really knows who that is.<br />
<br />
R: And they're not even positive that it's a pseudonym, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's just all shrouded in mystery, the identity of the creator or creators.<br />
<br />
E: Kind of like Shakespeare. Just kidding.<br />
<br />
J: A few legitimate organizations, news outlets and companies, tried to find out who the creator was, and they couldn't do it. So, we just don't know who they are.<br />
<br />
S: Jay, I found, when I was doing my research, I found a couple of things that conflicted with what you were finding. One was that, one site I read said that there is actually no "this one code equals this one Bitcoin." Rather, the code is all just tracking the transactions. So there's information that says you received a Bitcoin, but it's not like, oh, I have this bit of code here and this bit of code ''is'' my Bitcoin. But you said that you thought, that wasn't the impression that you had. You think that there is a code for each Bitcoin.<br />
<br />
J: I still am under the impression that a single unique Bitcoin has a single unique identifier. I do, I did read what you read that each transaction, the code to that Bitcoin changes and it grows with the transaction, so the transaction history is the input. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But, I'm telling you, Steve, I keep reading it, I think I get it and I read something else, and I'm like I'm not quite sure now. It's inherently a very complicated thing.<br />
<br />
S: The thing I read that was different from your understanding was that in mining, when you're like doing processing to mine for Bitcoins, that that processing is contributing to the distributed network that's tracking the transactions. It's not just some completely irrelevant side routine looking for numbers, it's actually contributing processing power to the Bitcoin phenomena.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, those servers become part of the cloud.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. What I also found interesting was that there's, again, the passionate writing on the internet. There's a lot of people criticizing Bitcoin, but they're coming from the metal currency enthusiast segment. So there is a subculture of people who don't like fiat money. Fiat money is basically what a government says, this is legal tender. We're gonna manufacture it and there you go. And as opposed to having a gold standard. And there are still people around who say nope, we should have a gold standard. Currency should be based on gold, silver, copper, not just government fiat, and these people ''really'' hate the idea of Bitcoin. Just digital grassroots fiat, if you will, being currency. I think they're generating a lot of the online criticism of Bitcoin and then the Bitcoin enthusiasts are responding to that, and I think we triggered some of that defensiveness when we were discussing Bitcoin, even though we were taking a pretty neutral approach, just trying to describe the phenomenon.<br />
<br />
R: William Jennings Bryan would use Bitcoin.<br />
<br />
S: You think so?<br />
<br />
R: I think so.<br />
<br />
E: On a cross of gold, yes.<br />
<br />
J: So a couple more quick points. We did mention also that a Bitcoin wallet company, and a wallet refers to a company you can start an account with online that will hold your virtual Bitcoins for you. We said that they got hacked. And we got into, me and Rebecca and an emailer were talking about the idea that like a DDOS attack is really not being hacked. Being hacked implies that they broke into your system, your information was compromised, and I agree with Rebecca. I think using the word "hack" for a DDOS attack, which is basically just pinging a website so often that it crashes 'cause it can't handle the server load. That's being hacked as well today, in general terms.<br />
<br />
S: In the vernacular. Yeah<br />
<br />
R: And also we were talking about several cases in which different efforts were being made to access Bitcoins and to disrupt Bitcoin. So, I think it's perfectly reasonable to use "hack" as the umbrella term for the various ways that people are using underhanded methods of disrupting the market.<br />
<br />
J: So, to sum up this whole thing, yeah, Bitcoin, the Bitcoin idea, and if you read about it you'll see; it's very complicated. It takes awhile to begin to wrap your head around the whole thing—<br />
<br />
S: And that's just the technology. The technology is complicated, but then there's an entirely separate economic discussion. Like, there are some people saying that Bitcoin isn't really currency. It's mainly not used as an exchange for goods, it's mainly hoarded, and it's actually traded like a commodity, more than just a currency. In other words currencies can be commodities, but, it's price fluctuates like a commodity, it's hoarded by speculators, like 99% or something of Bitcoins out there are being hoarded by speculators. So it really hasn't, some people are arguing, I mean I'm sure the enthusiasts are not gonna like this, but some people are arguing that it's not really behaving like a real currency. But maybe it just needs time to establish itself.<br />
<br />
J: But if anybody out there knows exactly what to do and wants to help, send us an email at info@theskepticsguide.org and it'd be fun. I wanna do it. I wanna see the system work. I wanna start a wallet account. I wanna go through the whole process and I'd really like someone that knows what they're doing to help me do it, so.<br />
<br />
R: Oh, but you know, I have some bad news. This news item went on so long that Bitcoin went out of business. Sorry. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Don't worry, Jay.<br />
<br />
J: I would like to formally announce the SGUCoin.<br />
<br />
S: The SGUCoin.<br />
<br />
R: Okay, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Our own currency! Oh, I like that.<br />
<br />
J: It's gonna be really easy. Super. It looks exactly like real U.S. currency.<br />
<br />
E: Backed by the full faith and credit of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. I love it.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:06:54)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, let's go on with ''Science or Fiction.'' <br />
<br />
''Voiceover: It's time for Science or Fiction''<br />
<br />
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious. And I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one they think is the fake. There is a sort of theme this week.<br />
<br />
R: Oooh, sort of.<br />
<br />
S: The theme is that each one of these items has a percentage in there somewhere. That's it. That's a very mild theme.<br />
<br />
R: It's a stupid theme.<br />
<br />
S: Well they all happened to have a percentage in there, so, whatever, spontaneous—<br />
<br />
R: That's not a theme, that's a coincidence. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: You call it a coincidence. I call it a theme. All right. Are you all ready for this week?<br />
<br />
E: Rebecca is.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. <br />
<br />
J: Do it. Do it.<br />
<br />
S: [http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2013/04/guelph_scientis_1.htmlItem #1]: Scientists have developed a vaccine that can reduce the risk of developing autism in high-risk infants by over 20%. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423135716.htm Item #2]: A study finds that medical interns spend only 12% of their time with patients, while spending 40% of their time on computers. And [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130418124907.htm Item #3]: A new study finds that over 50% of products recalled by the FDA between 2004 and 2012 because they probably would "cause serious adverse health consequences or death" were dietary supplements. Jay, go first.<br />
<br />
J: The first one, about the autism vaccine, wow. And I find that to be amazingly ironic. I would love to believe that that's true. But right out of the gate, I don't feel that this one is the truth, because I don't think we know enough about autism to actually create a vaccine for it. And it says by over 20%. That's a large number. So, tentatively that one is already my choice. The second one about the medical interns spending 12% of their time with the patients and 40% on computers, I can see that, but that seems like a huge amount of time to spend on the computer system and if they're actually working, which is one thing to be established, and when you say spending their time at computers, I'm hoping that that is work time and not just screwing off time. And if it is true, I wouldn't find it that unbelievable because I know how complicated and poorly developed a lot of these pieces of software are that hospitals and healthcare use. Every time I go to any of my doctors, they all complain about the software, almost every time. That one is believable. The third one about the FDA recalling, all the recalls, or 50% of the recalls between 2004 and 2012 were dietary supplements. That's another one, I could believe that. I mean there's a lot of dietary supplements. Now we say the FDA recalled them, Steve, see if you can answer this question, were these things that were approved by the FDA and then the FDA pulled them back, or did the FDA say "hey, you just can't sell that anymore because it's dangerous"? 'Cause I know that supplements don't have to be approved by the FDA.<br />
<br />
S: Well then you answered your own question.<br />
<br />
J: Now I'm even more confused than when I started. All right. So I'm gonna go under the idea the FDA just said "Hey you can't sell that anymore because it's hurting people," so I believe it. I think that's true. Therefore I'm going to say that the first one, about the autism vaccine is fake.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Bob? <br />
<br />
B: Jay made a lot of sense. I just can't buy the autism vaccine at all. I don't even, I'm not even sure why you would think we would, which now, of course, makes me think that there's some subtle thing in here that I’m missing that makes it science. So I'm really pissed. So, the medical interns, yeah. I can kind of see that. I don't know enough of what medical interns need to be doing during the day, and it kind of makes sense to me that 40% of the time at the computers. You know, there's so much that can be done. They can be doing so many other things besides. Like goofing off, as Jay suggested. Yeah, I can kind of buy that, too, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was wrong. And then, the FDA recall. I just don't have a good memory of lots of different things that have been recalled by the FDA between that time period. And the ones that do stick out are the few dietary supplements that caused issues. So, I think maybe there were so few actual recalls that the dietary supplements could amount to over 50%. So that kind of makes sense, too. I mean I just don't know how they're gonna come up with a vaccine when we're not even sure what the hell's going on. I just gotta say that that one's fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. I agree with what everybody's saying, that the FDA, I mean, I can think of several high profile recalls of things like spinach. Any e-coli problem that gets out there. Because they're high profile doesn't necessarily mean that they're dominating what the FDA's doing, because they still are pretty few and far between. So, yeah, I can believe 50%. And I would assume the other 50% are things like e-coli stuff happening in vegetables and meats. So, yeah, it makes sense. The computer thing, yeah, definitely. There's so much to do on computers. Jay said it all. It's fine. And I agree with Bob, the autism thing is ridiculous. A vaccine reduces the risk of developing autism in high-risk infants. It's ''ridiculous.'' I can't even . . . it would be great, but, no. I refuse to believe that's true.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Evan?<br />
<br />
E: I have to go with the team here. I'm sorry. Very vanilla, non-creative. But for all the same reasons. How is that possible? Vaccine, no.<br />
<br />
S: All right. So let's start with number two. A study finds that medical interns spend only 12% of their time with patients while spending 40% of their time at computers. You all think this one is science, and this one is . . . science.<br />
<br />
E: Well, they've gotta play ''Sky Rim'' right? And other things.<br />
<br />
S. Yeah. Mine Craft, or whatever. Sure. Yeah, it's stress release. Seriously, you guys are right. I mean Jay pretty much nailed it. Medicine is now run by computers, electronic medical records systems. Getting test results. Ordering tests. Everything you order, documenting all your notes. Everything is done on the computer, so all of the information surrounding taking care of patients is there, so it's not surprising that they spend that much time. I basically spend my entire day at a computer.<br />
<br />
R: Slacker.<br />
<br />
S: This is outpatient versus medical interns which are inpatient, but in the outpatient setting, I'm documenting the patient's note while I'm talking with them. I'm basically typing the whole time I'm talking with the patient. Then I examine them. I discuss other things with them, but you know, through all of that I'm ordering their tests. I'm looking up their test results. It's all on the computer. A seamless part of the visit now. There's just no way around it. So yeah, that's not a surprising figure. Interesting, this survey also found they spend 7% of their time just walking from one location to another. <br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' Awesome.<br />
<br />
S: Which also makes perfect sense.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: A round in the in the hospital, these huge sprawling buildings.<br />
<br />
R: Get those kids some roller skates!<br />
<br />
S: Seriously.<br />
<br />
R: --productivity.<br />
<br />
S: All right, let's go back to number one. Scientists have developed a vaccine that can reduce the risk of developing autism in high-risk infants by over 20%. You all think this one is ridiculous.<br />
<br />
R: Ridiculous!<br />
<br />
S: Just absolutely ridiculous.<br />
<br />
E: Ridiculous.<br />
<br />
S: Let me read you the headline of this news item. ''Guelph Scientists Develop First Vaccine to Help Control Autism Symptoms.''<br />
<br />
J: Twenty percent, though, Steve?<br />
<br />
R: That's symptoms.<br />
<br />
B: Symptoms!<br />
<br />
S: I was hoping to get you guys for reading this news item, but apparently . . . <br />
<br />
R: Well luckily we didn't.<br />
<br />
S: None of you read the news item.<br />
<br />
B: I would have quit if we were wrong. I would have been "game over." Outta here.<br />
<br />
J: Wouldn't it have been awesome if a vaccine cured autism? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: I know. The irony would be delicious.<br />
<br />
B: It would be great, but man, you kind of need to know what is actually happening first. There's probably a genetic component. What have they got, some viral factors in there of something?<br />
<br />
S: No, there's definitely an epigenetic component to autism, and that could be a target of a vaccine. So it's absolutely plausible.<br />
<br />
B: True.<br />
<br />
S: But this was a vaccine against Clostridium bolteae, which is a bacteria that causes diarrhea and and g.i. symptoms, which is very common in children with autism. About 75% have g.i. symptoms. So this is a vaccine that was developed, it's not, it's probably a decade away from actually getting approved. So potentially it could help treat g.i. symptoms, which is common in kids with autism, people with autism. So, it's not a treatment for autism itself. But the headline, I thought, was delicious. You know, the vaccine to help control autism symptoms. I wonder what the anti-vaxers will say?<br />
<br />
B: I was thinking about that.<br />
<br />
R: That's pretty good.<br />
<br />
B: That is pretty funny.<br />
<br />
R: It is still funny.<br />
<br />
S: It is. I tried to twist it into a real one, but I don't know. I like the other two ones for real ones. So let's go to number three, a news study finds that over 50% of products recalled by the FDA between 2004 and 2012 because they probably would cause serious adverse health consequences or death, in quotes, were dietary supplements, and that one is science. So Rebecca, these aren't food items, these are products, and the "cause serious adverse health consequences or death" is the wording for a Class 1 drug recall. So this is the percentage of Class 1 drug recalls between that period of time that were in fact dietary supplements. And yeah, Jay is right, the FDA does not have to approve supplements before they're on the market. That's thanks to the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, or DSHEA. Which is a crappy law that needs to be repealed.<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
S: What the study, is the study published in JAMA, what they found was, they looked at basically all the Class 1 drug recalls, and they found that 51%, just over 50%, were in fact dietary supplements, not drugs. And do you know which classes of dietary supplements were most likely to be recalled? <br />
<br />
R: Homeopathy.<br />
<br />
S: Nope. 'Cause there's nothing in homeopathy. So these are basically<br />
<br />
R: I think of like Xicam, that was a big recall.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, one.<br />
<br />
J: Megadose vitamins.<br />
<br />
S: Nope. So these are mainly for, so the FDA can't pull a product simply because it doesn't work, right? So homeopathy's safe. And it's difficult for the FDA to actually prove that harm has been done, but it can pull a product if it's adulterated with something that is a drug or something that's known to be hazardous. So most of these are dietary supplements that are adulterated. The single most common category representing 40%, for male enhancement. Male, you know, sexual enhancement. And followed by weight loss. A very common class of drug, of supplement. So not surprising. So essentially they're just putting stuff in there that's like real drugs, and they're not allowed to do that. So there are things that, you know, once the FDA shows that there's substances in there that shouldn't be there, they can pull it right away. They don't have to show that it's causing harm or anything.<br />
<br />
R: Which is a shame, because that's the first time those have a chance of working.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they only work when they actually put real drugs in there. So, good job, everyone.<br />
<br />
R: Thank you.<br />
<br />
J: ''(using upper class British accent)'' Good job, everyone!<br />
<br />
S: I guess it was kind of easy in retrospect, but, I was hoping to get anybody who might have read the headline and said "Ooo, vaccines, autism." <br />
<br />
R: Nope.<br />
<br />
E: Missed it. Thank goodness.<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro404}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_406&diff=6617SGU Episode 4062013-05-16T23:27:54Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 359<br />
|episodeDate = 34<sup>th</sup> May 2012<br />
|episodeIcon = File:bomb-detector.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-04-27.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=406<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=45826.0<br />
|qowText = Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.<br />
|qowAuthor = {{w|Mark Twain}}<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the {{SGU}}, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the {{SGU}}. Today is Tuesday, April 24, 2013, and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson,<br />
<br />
R: Hello, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: Hey, guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Mach-cho maroon.<br />
<br />
S: Thank you, Evan.<br />
<br />
J: That sounds very Game of Thrones-y.<br />
<br />
E: It's the first words I think I've ever spoken in Dothraki.<br />
<br />
J: And what does it mean?<br />
<br />
R: It means "Die, scum!" ''(laughter)'' ''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: It means: "Your horse is ugly."<br />
<br />
J: Does it mean Hello?<br />
<br />
R: It means hello.<br />
<br />
E: Yes. It's the long way of saying "hello."<br />
<br />
S: Or as close as you get to it in Dothraki.<br />
<br />
J: Game of Thrones is kicking ass. The latest episode was awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And that has nothing to do with science.<br />
<br />
E: Everything to do with pop culture. <br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:02)</small> ==<br />
April 27, 1791: Birth of Samuel Morse<br />
<br />
R: But you know what ''does'' have to do, slightly, with science is that today, April 27, is the birthday of Samuel Morse, who was born in 1791.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, happy birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Wait. I missed that segue. What's, how did you do that? Oh, never mind. Go ahead. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: You know, it was just so smooth, you missed it. Yeah, so, Samuel Morse, most people know as the inventor, or co-inventor, of Morse code. I found it really interesting, I was reading up on him, and apparently he got interested in telegraph systems because he was far away from his wife when she took ill, and he got a telegram saying that she was basically on her death bed. And by the time he was able to rush to see her, she was already dead and buried. And he was so angry about it <br />
<br />
E: Sad.<br />
<br />
R: that he gave up painting. He had been a painter. And he dedicated his life to finding a better way to communicate over long distances. So, yeah, a tragedy, but it was positive results for humanity.<br />
<br />
J: You know what he said when he got there and they said "Your wife is dead."? He said, "She's dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dead?"<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my, God. ''(groans and laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: That was bad.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: Guys, guys, come on.<br />
<br />
B: Please edit that out, Steve. ''(laughter continues)'' Imagine how awesome that was back then when you realize that, holy crap, we can communicate so fast over hundreds, thousands, of miles. It must have been like pure science fiction to them.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, I learned some interesting things about Samuel Morse. First of all, he graduated from Yale. So he's a Yale alum. Supported himself as a painter, as Rebecca said. He didn't just invent, actually co-invent, with Alfred Vail, Morse code. He actually developed the electrical telegraph. And he, one of the critical inventions for that was the relay. He invented the relay. You guys know how that works?<br />
<br />
J: Sure.<br />
<br />
S: Hit me.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, the re--, you mean the thing that boosts the signal so it can go over long distances.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So, 'cause the wires back then were so crappy, one signal could really only go not even a mile. It couldn't go very far at all. So he figured out a way of putting in a relay where the signal hits a relay circuit which essentially, a very weak signal, you have a very sensitive circuit, so that even a weak signal comes in, and it activates a magnet, which triggers an arm, which creates a new click, which then can go the next distance to the next relay. So very simple, very basic, but that was a critical invention to the functioning of the <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: over long distances.<br />
<br />
B: They had to set those up every mile? Wow, that's a lot.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, something like that, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Initially, at least.<br />
<br />
E: It's like fiber optic today; they have relay stations.<br />
<br />
S: Do you guys know what the first message sent across one of those telegraphs was?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: I used to know it.<br />
<br />
J: "Send more Chuck Berry."<br />
<br />
R: Well, I only know because I read it like an hour ago.<br />
<br />
J: Say it with authority.<br />
<br />
R: I know exactly what it was, Steve. It was "A patient waiter is no loser."<br />
<br />
S: Right. Which is interesting because it's not . . .<br />
<br />
B: That's kinda lame.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's kinda lame.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: But his father was <br />
<br />
R: It's no "What hath God wrought?"<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, "what hath God wrought?"<br />
<br />
E: Or "Watson, come here, I want you.<br />
<br />
S: That's what he said when he was transmitting from the Supreme Court chamber.<br />
<br />
E: Right.<br />
<br />
S: His father was a Calvinist preacher, so it's kind of, I guess, has the moralistic tone with which he was raised. His father was Jedidiah Morse. You gotta love that name, Jedidiah. Not many Jedidiahs around today. <br />
<br />
B: No.<br />
<br />
S: And Morse also was pro-slavery. And was active in resisting both Catholics and immigrants.<br />
<br />
E: Um hm.<br />
<br />
J: When you say "resisting," what do you mean "resist"?<br />
<br />
S: He was, he actively campaigned against immigrants and Catholics.<br />
<br />
R: Horrible person<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: who did some good stuff.<br />
<br />
J: I didn't know that.<br />
<br />
B: I like him a little less now.<br />
<br />
S: He was a product of his time and his father.<br />
<br />
B: True.<br />
<br />
S: Gotta cut him a little bit of slack.<br />
<br />
R: I don't know, there were plenty of people of his time who were vehemently anti-slavery.<br />
<br />
S: Um hm. I agree, I just said "a little bit." It's hard to look back 200 years and be too heavily moralizing.<br />
<br />
R: Eh. I find it easy. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Are you guys enjoying the first real days of spring that we've had so far?<br />
<br />
J: Awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, I'm lovin' it. 'Bout time.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, this 42 degree weather is wonderful.<br />
<br />
S: Well, hey, we had such a long winter; you're right, it's still a little on the cold side. Today there were all these various unmistakable signs of spring, sort of like all at once. So, first, the forsythia is in full bloom. Second, bluebirds have moved into our bluebird house. They're gonna make little baby bluebirds.<br />
<br />
R: How do the bluebirds know that the bluebird house is for them?<br />
<br />
S: That's a really good question.<br />
<br />
E: They use the GPS.<br />
<br />
J: They can fit in it.<br />
<br />
R: There's a sign.<br />
<br />
S: So a bluebird house has an opening of a certain size. But honestly, it's more about positioning. You need to place it three to five feet above the ground, in an open area, with nothing obscuring the ground beneath it. So, bluebirds wanna make sure they can see snakes and other things coming. So if you do that, if you hang it at the right height in a sort of openish area, bluebirds will move into it. I mean it's, <br />
<br />
R: And no other bird?<br />
<br />
S: Well, hang on. The other bird that will tend to steal a bluebird house from the bluebird is the house sparrow. We have plenty of house sparrows, but bluebirds always seem to move into our bluebird houses. So it's remarkably consistent.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, what do you think, like you have, the pair of bluebirds are flying around and the wife bluebird goes "What about this one, honey?" And the husband's like "Nope, that's only two feet off the gound." <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I mean they definitely have like a measuring tape and a list of wants. <br />
<br />
S: It works, it absolutely works.<br />
<br />
R: Good view of snakes, in-ground pool.<br />
<br />
B: My favorite sign of spring is that the White Walkers are retreating back north.<br />
<br />
S: Yup. ''(laughter and garbled comments)'' Nice call-back. The robins are more visible. As we learned previously they don't actually; they do migrate, but there are robins in the winter but they stay more in the forest. But the robins that are here come out and are more visible in the spring. And I actually grilled steaks on the grill on my deck today, for dinner.<br />
<br />
E: Delicious.<br />
<br />
R: Man, you went all out.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And, the single most profound marker that spring is here was<br />
<br />
E: Allergies.<br />
<br />
S: No. I don't have allergies luckily. Was, the ice cream truck came around.<br />
<br />
R: You have an ice cream truck?<br />
<br />
S: Yup. My daughters go insane. You know, they see the ice cream truck and they just go crazy.<br />
<br />
E: Come on, you go a little crazy, too. Admit it.<br />
<br />
J: Does the guy play music, Steve, or<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
J: Does he ring the bell, what is it?<br />
<br />
S: Of course, you've got the music and the bell and they just lose their minds.<br />
<br />
R: We never had an ice cream truck when I was a kid; it was too rural.<br />
<br />
B: We did.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah, we did.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, you were insane. I have a distinct memory of you, one night, sitting at the end of our driveway. You were a little shit, probably six or seven, crying your eyes out because the ice cream man didn't come, or you missed him, or something, and you were just like bawling 'cause you wanted your ice cream, and you missed it. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: I never forgave that guy, either.<br />
<br />
E: That bastard.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Mars One <small>(9:01)</small>===<br />
* http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/apply-now-one-way-trip-mars<br />
<br />
S: All right, well let's move on. Bob, you're gonna tell us about ''(imitating Schwarzenegger)'' "Get your ass to Mars." ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: You just totally took my opening line. Thank you so much.<br />
<br />
S: Bob, you gotta warn me if you're gonna do that.<br />
<br />
B: Whatever.<br />
<br />
S: It was a bit obvious<br />
<br />
B: I know, but I added a little flourish at the end. I said "Get your ass to Mars and never come back." Are you guys ready for an out-of-this-world reality TV show? I can't believe they're doing this. The company Mars One is planning on making a reality show that showcases the entire process of selecting and training astronauts, their trip to Mars, and the rest of their lives living on Mars. And like we said, it's a one-way trip. That's the real kicker that everybody's talking about. Would you guys do that? Would you guys actually consider that? Or would you want to hear the details first?<br />
<br />
R: No.<br />
<br />
E: I don't think so.<br />
<br />
R: I don't need the details. No. I don't wanna go on a reality show so people can watch me die in space. No. Thank you.<br />
<br />
''(speaking simultaneously – inaudible)''<br />
<br />
B: --when I'm 70 or 80, or what the hell. So, the first question is why are you doing a one-way trip? There's two good reasons. The scientists feel that it's feasible to send people to Mars pretty much now, but the tech just doesn't seem to exist to bring them back right now. I kind of thought that was a weird reason because even if we don't have it now, surely it'll exist at some point. And if we put resources into it it wouldn't take that long. I think one of the reasons that they're doing this is that it's a real attention grabber. Headlines.<br />
<br />
S: The think is though, what do you do, when to get to Mars, you find out that you don't like it there.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah, you're done. Game over.<br />
<br />
R: You'd kill yourself.<br />
<br />
E: You suck it, basically.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it'll make for a good episode. They're already talking about how they'll have a crematorium because people will of course die. But another good reason, probably the best reason that they're not gonna come back,<br />
<br />
E: What if you're the last one to die, though? How're you gonna get in that crematorium?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I wouldn't worry too much about it. So the best reason though why they're not coming back is that, imagine seven or eight months in space; astronauts, as we know, lose muscle mass, they lose bone mass; it's really, really horrific on the body. Even if you're exercising all the time, there's a huge hit that you take; and then time that you spend in Mars' weaker gravitational field, that's not gonna help much either. And scientists feel that readjusting to Earth's gravity after so much time, it's pretty much impossible, with today's technology anyway. After all that time, you're just not coming back. That's a really, really good reason.<br />
<br />
J: That sounds odd to me, Bob. What about people that suffer phenomenal injuries and have to be bedridden for six months or a year. You can't grow back the tissue that you lost, and the bone mass?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it's weird. It's not like if you become paralyzed, where your muscles just turn to mush and it's completely and utterly irrevocable.. .<br />
<br />
S: But people who are bedridden lose a lot of muscle mass. You could lose one to three percent of your muscle mass per day if you're sick and in the hospital and completely immobile. Especially for older people. So that's why they have weeks and months, sometimes, of rehab, just to recover from the debility that results, Jay.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, Jay, and that's also one of the big down sides to yo-yo weight loss, where you lose a lot of weight and inevitably a lot of muscle weight and then you gain back a lot of fat. At the end of the cycle you have much less muscle than you had, and that's a hit that your body could take for the rest of its life, 'cause it's just so hard to get back all that muscle that you lost. It's really bad. And that's a really good reason why once you're there you're gonna be committed. The gravitational pull on Mars is about 38% of Earth's. So that's really, really low. I mean things, it'd be easy to get around and things would be light and that's all great, but, man, your muscles just say we don't need all of this muscle, let's get rid of it. I'm very curious how walking will be accomplished on Mars. How similar to moon-walking will it be? Or will it be a fusion between the moon-hopping and the Earth-walking? I'd be curious to see that. <br />
<br />
J: Bob, what's their budget? How could they possibly afford to do this?<br />
<br />
B: That's actually one of the key problems, Jay, is funding. They figure it's gonna cost about six billion U.S. dollars to get there, just for the first group.<br />
<br />
S: How many bit coins is it gonna cost? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Seven. <br />
<br />
R: Oh, you know, if they send a big-time movie star, if they send like Julia Roberts, that should secure them at least one billion from the foreign markets.<br />
<br />
J: Why, 'cause they wanna get rid of her? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's a movie-making joke. You cast the right people, you get the funding. That's the way it works, in Hollywood.<br />
<br />
S: So who ''should'' we send to Mars on a one-way trip?<br />
<br />
B: Justin Bieber! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Wow, Bob.<br />
<br />
R: What did Justin Bieber ever do to you?<br />
<br />
B: Nothing, I just felt like it.<br />
<br />
J: It's not really him, it's more his haircut.<br />
<br />
S: Could we just send his haircut?<br />
<br />
J: So, look, there's a lot of things about this that I just don't have enough information on, or they're just not making enough sense. First of all, how do you get billions of dollars for a TV show? Second of all, who's developing the technology? How are they gonna live an extended period of time on a planet where they can't manufacture things, grow food, what's up?<br />
<br />
B: Let me go through some of this, then, Jay. What they're gonna need, more than a few astronauts: they're talking about 24 astronauts. So the idea is they're gonna have six groups of four astronauts, and every two years four astronauts are gonna be sent there, with the first one going in 2022. The selection process will be finalized in 2015; so it's only a couple years away. Then they're gonna go through seven years of training. And, think about it though, seven years of a reality show of astronauts training. That's gonna get so boring. There's no way they're gonna maintain a TV show for that long.<br />
<br />
S: I don't know, Bob. I mean, ghost hunter shows have lasted for that long. <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, ''The Real World'' has been going on for that long.<br />
<br />
B: I guess.<br />
<br />
R: It's crap, but people still watch it, I guess.<br />
<br />
B: Well, if they do a good job, they can make it interesting. But seven years of training?<br />
<br />
S: What they need to do is they need to vote people off the planet. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Well actually, what they're gonna, that's close, Steve. What they're gonna do, in true reality show style, is they're gonna vote four astronauts, the first four to go, who of course will be the most famous. Who doesn't wanna be the first ones to go? Except me. <br />
<br />
R: Anyone with a brain, doesn't wanna be the first to go.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, you mentioned technology. Space X, they're gonna work with Space X. And the idea is to use a slightly enlarged version of the Dragon capsule to get them there. And <br />
<br />
R: I never noticed before how much "Space X" sounds like "space sex." Because that was very confusing when you first said it.<br />
<br />
S: Space sex?<br />
<br />
R: Um hm.<br />
<br />
B: I never thought of that. Thank you. They're gonna use those really cool retro propulsion rockets to land it because of course parachutes aren't gonna cut it. Jay, to survive, they're gonna have solar panels, of course, for energy. They're gonna recycle and extract water from the soil if it's there, if they can actually find some. And food, and they're gonna grow their own food. That's another technology that I don't know how they're pull that off. And then of course, every two years they'll get a nice resupply of their Reese's Peanut Butter Cups from Earth when the next group arrives. But as you can imagine, right, there's gonna be tons of problems. One of them is the solar wind. Mars just does not have, a very thin atmosphere. It's about a hundredth, less than a hundredth the density of Earth's atmosphere. It's almost a friggin' vacuum. And Mars doesn't have a magnetosphere. I mean, damn.<br />
<br />
J: It doesn't seem like the survival of these people is going to be high. It's scaring me. <br />
<br />
S: They are gonna send supplies ahead of the first astronauts. So there should be material and food and everything they'll need there to get going. <br />
<br />
B; Well, they want to send a series of rovers to go there. And that's also one of the reasons why I'm pessimistic. They want to send a bunch of rovers. I mean, are they even working on these rovers? I mean, you know how long it takes to design and develop and test all that. I'm not even sure where they even are with that preliminary step right there. And so it's not just a magnetosphere that's not there, which is basically a shield for the solar wind and cosmic ray particles. It really is why there's lots of life on the surface of the planet. <br />
<br />
S: Their habitat will basically have to be under ground. <br />
<br />
B: yeah, they're gonna have to . . . maybe that's one of the things these rovers can do is help make these pits for their habitat. So if they're gonna have to be under many feet of dirt, then they'll be okay. But there's also no liquid water, really. None that they could really tap into that we've found. And then the radiation, not just the radiation on the planet, but the trip radiation, and we've talked about this on the show. It's nasty. Just going there, you've got these energetic particles in the solar wind; you've got cosmic rays. I mean, they won't kill you outright, necessarily, but they will greatly increase your chances of getting cancer. And the question is . . .<br />
<br />
R: These people are not gonna live long enough to get cancer. They don't need to worry about that.<br />
<br />
B: I guess.<br />
<br />
R: Like if they die of cancer, it'll be the greatest thing that ever happened to them. <br />
<br />
J: You know, there's social implications here, as well. What about laws?<br />
<br />
S: They're on their own. The whole idea is they can create their own civilization.<br />
<br />
E: The wild west. That's great. What if one of them goes nuts and starts to break down?<br />
<br />
S: Well they'll have seven years vet these people. They're gonna be . . . so part of the training . . . first of all, they're gonna be trained in emergency medicine, dentistry, engineering, all the skills they're gonna need to do everything they need on their own and they're gonna also spend extended periods of time in simulated Martian habitats, and have simulated emergencies. So, that's seven years of vetting for these people.<br />
<br />
E: What if these people don't pan out in year three or four, what . . . you're gonna have to have teams of people going through this process. I mean, imagine the hundreds of people that they're gonna have to select from.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. I would think they're gonna have maybe one or two backups. You know, you're talking fifty, sixty, seventy people, if they go that route, which isn't, I mean $6 billion will go a long way for that kind of stuff. NASA astronaut Stan Love had a great description of this. He, I think he described it really well. He just happened to come back from Antarctica, and he says "That place is a picnic compared to Mars." He says it's full of water, you can go outside and breathe the air. It's paradise compared to Mars, and yet nobody has moved there permanently. And you know, as nasty as that place is, Mars is ten hundred times worse and people are gonna spend the rest of their lives there. It's just crazy. <br />
<br />
R: What happens when the show is cancelled?<br />
<br />
E: That's a good point.<br />
<br />
R: You know, ratings are down, they need that time slot for something else.<br />
<br />
S: I think, let me go against the grain and say that I think this is a wonderful idea.<br />
<br />
B: No. You're full of shit. No. All right, I love the idea of a community off the Earth, and Stephen Hawking would really agree with us on that. But ''go to the moon first!'' It's only three days away. Vet all the technology and develop it on the moon. If there's a huge disaster, you can be there in mere days, rather than months and a billion dollars later. <br />
<br />
R: Good point.<br />
<br />
S: All right, that's a really good point.<br />
<br />
B: Moon Base Alpha first, then Mars.<br />
<br />
J: Well, wait, Bob. That might be part of their plan, though. As Rebecca says, let's say the show gets cancelled. The show's gonna probably get cancelled right around when everyone's gonna die. Right?<br />
<br />
E; That convenient.<br />
<br />
S: Well the show may be cancelled before they even . . . It's gonna be seven years of reality TV before they even blast off for Mars. Remember. So, this is highly risky in multiple ways. This is gonna be very difficult to pull off. But you gotta give it to them for the vision here, of trying to . . . If they pull this off, then you really have to give it to them for being bold and the amount of dedication it's going to take to usher this project to completion is going to be amazing. So, they will have to capture the imagination of the world with this project. The people that they select are going to have a lot to do with this. And they have ten years to work out the technological limitations. It's not impossible, it's just gonna be really, really hard. But if they're serious about this, I think that . . . I'd love to see them try; I wish them well; I would love to see them succeed, as long as they appreciate that they're not going into this thinking this is gonna be an easy endeavor. As long as they appreciate all the many ways this can fail, and they are doing everything they possibly can to deal with all of those hurdles, then, let's see what they do.<br />
<br />
R: Who's the "they" again? Who's actually doing this?<br />
<br />
S: Mars One, I guess, is the organization. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah, they're based out of Denmark. <br />
<br />
J: Steve, I don't disagree with that at all. I see what you're saying, and I like the idea of all these billions of dollars that go into entertainment that is really, at the end of the day, it doesn't achieve things like technology and pushing the limits of man's fortitude . . . <br />
<br />
S: You know what I think is likely to happen? If they get this off the ground, I think that they're going to have an interesting reality TV show that will be a dry run for a real colonization trip to either the moon or Mars. But they probably won't ever launch. If they ''do'' launch; if they're successful enough, in terms of raising money and keeping the whole project going to the point where they're ready to launch, that will be a huge success right there. Anything that happens after that, you know, I would still consider this to be a success. Of course it's high risk. They will have . . . basically like 2022 or 2023, they're gonna have to make a hard assessment of whether or not they actually have all the pieces in place to send people to Mars. Probably there's gonna be tons of delays and it will probably never happen. But . . .<br />
<br />
B: Oh, 2022 or 3, I'd say 2018 they'd be like, shit, we're not gonna make this. And to me, that's my biggest beef with this is that 2022 just seems way too soon to pull this off. There's too many hurdles.<br />
<br />
S: I like the idea that they're planning on using the Space X<br />
<br />
B: Oh, absolutely.<br />
<br />
S: So that may throw a lot of funding their way. <br />
<br />
B: That would be great.<br />
<br />
S: That would be a good consequence of all this.<br />
<br />
J: It's a lot of money they have to get, and that's gonna be a huge hurdle for them.<br />
<br />
B: I've got a quote on that as well. Dr. Chris Lintott, he's Oxford University, he thinks that it's technologically plausible, feasible. But in his mind funding is gonna be the biggest problem. He said "It's about having the political will and the financial muscle to make this happen. That's what nobody has been able to solve so far." So the undoing of this entire project might be just purely from funding, 'cause it's a lot of money. It's got a lot of sustained interest that you'd have to have for many, many years. And if you can pull that off, that might be the biggest hurdle of all.<br />
<br />
S: Hopefully this is a story we'll be reporting on over the years. I hope it doesn't die in the crib. It'll be interesting.<br />
<br />
B: And if anyone wants to register you have until August 31 of 2013, and they certainly have lots of volunteers. I've heard numbers over 40,000 requests already.<br />
<br />
R: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
B: It'll cost you money, though. I think it's 38 bucks for the United States. But depending on what country you're in, the prices will vary. But yeah, lots of people are interested in it.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Bomb Detector Fraud <small>(24:43)</small>===<br />
* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22266051<br />
<br />
S: Okay, Jay, there's some good news from the U.K. about a convicted con artist.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. Do you all remember the story we covered about James McCormick? He's the guy who sold the fake bomb detectors that were eventually used in real life situations in Iraq. Well, things didn't turn out so good for Mr. McCormick. This is a horrifying story with a possible good ending. It hasn't ended quite yet. I think it's going in the right direction, but this, let me give you the quick background. April 23, 2013, during a hearing in London at the Central Criminal Court of England and Wales, the Court was told that McCormick's fake detectors were 100% ineffectual. The harshest fact that came out was that McCormick knew they didn't work. So, this guy invents quote unquote invents, a detector that can do the following things: this is what he claims. The devices could bypass all forms of concealment. They can detect drugs and people along with explosives, would work under water, and of course, from the air. Would track an object up to one kilometer, or 320, sorry 3,280 feet below the ground. Below the ground. The bomb detectors came with cards which were programmed, quote unquote programmed, to detect a wide array of substances from ivory to $100 bank notes. Other substances could be detected. But, it was claimed if you put in a jar with a sticker which would absorb its vapors, so whatever it is, whatever you want, you put that item, or a piece of it, in a jar, and the sticker would absorb the vapors from that object. And then if you stuck that sticker to the thing, it could detect it. All right? Now. This is insane, and we talked about this already, so a lot of you already know that fact. The ADE651 detector. He made how much money? Fifty million pounds! 76 million US dollars from this scam. He sold 6,000 units to Iraq. Not a bad haul for a scam. Pretty damn good. Officials said the device was modeled after a novelty $20 golf ball finder. Oh, god, when I read that, I was so pissed off at the idea that this guy was basically flipping through a magazine on an airplane, say, I'm not sure if that was it, but you know the kind of junk that I'm talking about. This chachki crap, $20 golf ball finder that doesn't work. This hand-held device. He bought hundreds of those. Listen, Evan, he bought them. Hundreds of 'em. Put his own custom sticker on it and sold them as bomb detectors.<br />
<br />
S: He didn't even make 'em himself?<br />
<br />
J: Well, the first version of it, no. It was this crappy golf-ball finder. He sold them for 5K each. So then, when he sold them and it worked, he went out and made a much cooler looking one, and he sold those to the Iraqi government, and those he sold for up to 27,000 pounds, 40,000 US dollars each.<br />
<br />
E: Ironically, those don't detect golf balls<br />
<br />
S: It's basically a dousing rod.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's how it works.<br />
<br />
E; Very expensive one.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, and if you look at it, an antenna<br />
<br />
B: Well, not really.<br />
<br />
J: Yes, Bob, in a way. It is, Bob, it is. You have to see it.<br />
<br />
B: There's no ideomotor effect<br />
<br />
J: Yes, there is. Bob, Bob. Yes there is.<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, pay attention. Okay? You're in school now, I'm your teacher. All right, you hold the device in your hand and you pull the antenna out; it scopes out. And then it's on like a ball-bearing device, so it shifts with the person's hand that's using it. So, yeah, Bob, that's it. They're looking at the movement of that thing, and the people are, the people who are using it are coming up with the answers themselves: am I detecting something here? Yes or no. That's it. It is in essence a dowsing rod. So finally the U.K. government banned the sale of the detector in Iraq and Afghanistan in January 2010, and senior Iraqi officials that knew the device for a fake and some of them who were bribed to continue purchasing them. And when I say they were bribed, a lot of money exchanged hands. This guy bribed the hell out of<br />
<br />
B: Millions of dollars. Millions of dollars.<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely. Sadly, some of these devices are still active at some checkpoints in Iraq.<br />
<br />
E: Really?<br />
<br />
J: It's ridiculous. I don't know why or how that could possibly be happening. There was a very sad story. You know, to put a face on this whole thing. A woman named Henine Awan, who was an Iraqi woman, was pregnant at the time, and she lost her baby because a bomb went off that wasn't caught by the fake detector. She needed 59 operations after she was injured in January, 2009, and I saw a video of her talking, and I'm telling you, she was horribly, horribly burned. Another interesting thing, there's a detective inspector, Ed Heath, said "It is clear that both civilians and armed forces personnel were put at significant risk in relying upon the equipment. McCormick showed a complete disregard for the safety of those that used and relied upon the device for their own security and protection. He amassed many millions of pounds through his greed and criminal enterprise." And he's going to be sentenced on May 2 of 2013. There's no doubt that he knew that it didn't work. One of the salesmen that was working with him at one point asked him specifically, you know, I really need to know if this thing works, and he said "It is working. It's earning money."<br />
<br />
R: Ecchh<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
S: Do you have any idea of what possible sentence he's facing?<br />
<br />
J: I couldn't find anything, but it doesn't look good.<br />
<br />
B: I read he faces up to eight years in jail, which I think is pathetic.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Five to eight is what I read, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Up to eight years is a joke.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, sometimes laws just need an asshole clause. You know, where the judge has the discretion to just really dramatically increase the sentence.<br />
<br />
R: I don't know. I don't understand how they even come to that sentence, because, I mean, I don't think you even need a cause because he's endangering the lives of thousands, if not millions, of people.<br />
<br />
S: The law may not cover it.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: How? I don't understand.<br />
<br />
B: You know, guys, the other side of the story for me was the total lack of apparent effort to deal with this, to investigate this, to do something about it.<br />
<br />
S: Up front, oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: It's ridiculous. I read about a, that the police did a two-and-a-half year investigation, and they're talking about a University of Cambridge professor did a fully double-blind trial and he found it was no better than random chance, three out of twenty-five times. Two-and-a-half years to determine this? Really? I mean, we could set that experiment up in an afternoon. Two-and-a-half years. I'm sure there's lots of red tape and lots of things you gotta go through, but, that just seems an incredibly long period of time to come to those kind of conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: And it seemed like the government just <br />
<br />
S: Total failure.<br />
<br />
B: They didn't seem to want to investigate it or take any action. I mean this has been out there for not months, it's been years, right?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: I read 2008, 2009? It's 2013. What took so long? <br />
<br />
S: This exact kind of device has been sold multiple ways by multiple people. This was not unique.<br />
<br />
J: The real travesty here is the fact that they didn't vet this thing out. I mean you're really gonna take some unknown guy by his word? Didn't they test it? Didn't one person unbox one of these and test it with a few different bombs, or whatever? The claims he made are extreme. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, wasn't there one person in the chain who wasn't blatantly scientifically ignorant and saw that this was a total sham? Anybody with even a basic level of critical thinking should have been able to see that this was a total scam from the get-go, right? <br />
<br />
J: Yeah, and beyond that, Steve, isn't there a protocol in place? Doesn't the military have . . .<br />
<br />
S: Apparently not.<br />
<br />
J: Well, there you go. It's very revealing.<br />
<br />
E: You're right, Jay, it's very revealing.<br />
<br />
S: Well, we'll follow up when he gets sentenced. I just wanna see what kind of time this guys gets.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== TED and Chopra <small>(37:42)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/confusing-standards-for-censorship-chopra-edition/ Confusing Standards for Censorship &ndash; Chopra Edition]<br />
<br />
S: But let's move on for now. Are you guys aware of the whole TED fiasco that happened recently?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god. Unbelievable.<br />
<br />
R: Another one?<br />
<br />
J: Very disappointing.<br />
<br />
B: It's very believable.<br />
<br />
S: Well, I don't know which one you're referring to, but this is one, yeah, Deepak Chopra got involved. So the TED talks are a prestigious series of interesting, provocative lectures. TED, do you guys know what TED stands for, by the way?<br />
<br />
R: Technology, Entertainment, Design?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but the scope has expanded since then, but it was initially Technology, Entertainment, Design. And the tagline of the lecture series is Ideas Worth Spreading, and it became a very high profile, prestigious series of short, provocative lectures on topics in science and related things. TED spawned TEDx. TEDx are local, independently run and organized TED-branded lecture series that are supposed to strive for the same level of quality that TED itself has. And there are TEDx conferences all over the world. Well, apparently, some of the TEDx events have not been up to the standards of TED. There were a couple recent ones by Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock: you guys know who these guys are, right? Sheldrake is a big proponent of ESP. Graham Hancock is big into alternate history, ancient civilizations, etc. So, bottom line, both of these guys are crackpots, in my opinion. And they gave talks that were very unsettling to some people in the audience who have some knowledge of science, and there were complaints. There were complaints from people in the audience who said "What is TEDx doing promoting these lectures and these people?" This prompted a, and everything now gets a lot of attention in the blogosphere, etc., and social media. This prompted an open letter by some TEDx directors to all of the TEDx organizers. It's actually an excellent primer on how to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience. They go down a list of red flags for how to tell if a speaker is legitimate and they said "It's ''your'' job to vet them. It's not your audience's job to figure out if the speaker is offering legitimate science or not. It's ''your'' job, and this is how you do it. And if you're not sure, we'll help you, and here's the guideline." And it's a very excellent guideline. They actually reference Science-Based Medicine at one point.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, excellent.<br />
<br />
E: Well, there you go.<br />
<br />
J: How did they reference it?<br />
<br />
S: As a source you can go to to, for example, see if a medical claim is legitimate or not. And they reference other skeptical sources. Clearly, they were steeped in the skeptical culture, you know, movement. And they knew what they were talking about. This is the kind of thing that any experienced skeptic could have written or will find very familiar. So, excellent job. That provoked a backlash by Deepak Chopra. <br />
<br />
R: Surprise!<br />
<br />
S: And some of his cronies. So they wrote an article in the Huff Poo attacking the TEDx directors who wrote this open letter, and criticizing them for all the usual straw men, boogie men crap. It's really terrible. So, here's one quote from it:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>What the militant atheists and self-described skeptics hate is a certain brand of magical thinking that endangers science. In particular, there is a bugaboo of non-local consciousness which causes the hair on the back of their necks to stand on end. A layman would be forgiven for not grasping why such an innocent-sounding phrase could spell danger to good science. </blockquote><br />
<br />
So, thoughout the letter they're attacking quote, unquote, militant atheists, and every single time, just about, Chopra refers to Richard Dawkins, he calls him "militant atheist Richard Dawkins." <br />
<br />
R: I think he actually changed his first name to "militant atheist." ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: I'd like to say to Chopra, "I don't think you know what this word means."<br />
<br />
S: Well, I mean, he's trying to portray skeptics as the fanatics. Right? That we're the ones with an axe to grind; we're the ones on the extreme. And ''he's'' just talking about the cutting edge; we're just not aware. The other thing that's really funny—we've kind of been talking about Games of Thrones this episode—that the article is based upon this really lame, gratuitous analogy to the Games of Thrones. <br />
<br />
B: He got it so wrong, it was a joke.<br />
<br />
S: He gets everything wrong. So, he basically is trying to make this analogy that skeptics are like the Guardians on the Great Wall. <br />
<br />
R: There are no Guardians.<br />
<br />
S: I know. And, first he calls it a hereditary order, --it's not hereditary. ''(laughter)'' And the he says that the Guardians, meaning the Night Watch, but the Guardians defend the Empire from the monsters and the creatures on the other side of the Wall without ever going north of the Wall to see what's actually there. <br />
<br />
R: That's so . . . you just watch the first episode . . .<br />
<br />
S: I know. The very first scene are Rangers north of the Wall.<br />
<br />
R: Ya dummy. If Deepak can't even get this right . . . come on.<br />
<br />
B: You know, what's worse than a politician or a pseudoscientist misquoting or mis-referencing a bit of popular culture. Like, when –<br />
<br />
E: Oh, the Spock thing, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Spock, and they mix up ''Star Wars'' and ''Star Trek'' and all that, and it's like, oh, my god. Your advisors, your consultants should have been there for you when you wrote this.<br />
<br />
S: The whole article sort of revolves around this analogy, and he gets it horribly wrong. Sometimes in details that are not relevant to the point, but it just shows that he's not even aware. He didn't read the books or watch the series. Either that or he pays very poor attention to detail. But in one critical aspect, the analogy fails in a very meaningful way when he claims that the Guardians don't go north of the wall in the same way that skeptics don't actually investigate the topics that they dismiss in their militant atheism. And both are absolutely wrong. In fact, skeptics spend a great deal of time and energy carefully examining the claims of people like Chopra and Sheldrake and Hancock. We actually do what most mainstream scientists don't do. We're ''at'' the wall, we range north of the wall, we are investigating and we're trying to warn the Empire, "Hey, there's a bunch of nonsense up here!" <br />
<br />
R: And just to be clear, in Chopra's analogy here, in his metaphor, he is the zombie. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: That's right. He's the one ''(inaudible)''<br />
<br />
R: All right. Just making sure I've got that right.<br />
<br />
S: He also says there are dragons north of the wall—wrong!<br />
<br />
B: Wr- o-o-o-ng!<br />
<br />
R: God.<br />
<br />
E: Here be dragons.<br />
<br />
J: Is he getting like loaded before he watches this TV show?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughing)'' I don't he's, Jay, I think he has a vague notion of what's going on, and probably never really watched the show.<br />
<br />
R: He sat down to write those things, like, "What do the kids like these days?"<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, "What's popular these days?"<br />
<br />
B: No, not "the kids," the "kiddies." The kiddies.<br />
<br />
E: Well, you know Chopra. He's good at stealing a word here and a word there, and twisting into something he thinks is for his benefit—<br />
<br />
R: So, the wall is the new quantum.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but what he's really saying in his article is that there should be no standards. That anything should go. And that we're all adults, so any speculative thinking is all fine. Just leave us alone and let us say whatever we want.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, and let the audience decide, right?<br />
<br />
S: Let the audience decide. Which is funny because he triggers many of the red flags that the open letter specifically warned about. In his response. He's actually showing himself to be a pseudoscientist in his response to the open letter. By their own criteria. Without showing any awareness that he's doing so.<br />
<br />
B: That was wonderful. <br />
<br />
S: Oh, it was just terrible. And of course, that's exactly what the cranks and charlatans want, is for there to be no standards. And he pulled the Galileo gambit, by the way. I don't even know if I need to say what that is. Anybody who compares something to Galileo is automatically a crank, period. And he equated having some standards with censorship. Which again, that's a sign that, that's one of the red flags that they had in the open letter. If they try to say that they're being censored because you're trying to hold them to some standard, that's a red flag that they're a crank.<br />
<br />
B: Somebody replied to those comments specifically, and I love what they were saying about Galileo and how for every one true Galileo there's thousands of cranks, and also, if Galileo were alive today, he would recognize the need to do good research and not just throw it out there and see if it sticks on the wall, and to do good science. Something that they don't do.<br />
<br />
S: That was Chris Anderson from TED, responding to Deepak Chopra. Totally nailed it. He said<br />
<br />
<blockquote>No one here claims that mainstream science is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It isn't. But it is the best starting point we have for judging new information. Yes. A modern-day Galileo may be out there with paradigm shifting ideas that will at some point overturn huge pieces of existing science. But he or she should expect to face a robust standard of proof before their ideas take hold. And for every Galileo, there are thousands of people who just have bad unscientific ideas.</blockquote><br />
<br />
B: That was beautiful. He did a great job.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Chopra responded. Again. He responded again on the Huff Poo, on his blog. And this one is just, "Oh, you know, these scientists just don't understand the cutting edge." He's saying that they don't understand that the observer is in the equation. Right? That the universe is not just about what's being observed from a distance, but there's an observer in the mix as well. It's like, really? I mean . . .yeah, yeah, the physicists haven't been talking about this for the last twenty years? Come on. A total straw man. Again, I think someone said that Deepak Chopra should be banned from using the word "quantum" ever again. <br />
<br />
B: I'll send that!<br />
<br />
R: Censorship!<br />
<br />
S: At one of his debates, a physicist who was in the audience suggested that he attend a basic course, like monitor a basic class on quantum mechanics. 'Cause clearly he doesn't understand the first thing about it.<br />
<br />
R: Wasn't that Leonard Mlodinow?<br />
<br />
S: Was it? No, I know he . . . I think this was somebody in the audience. I don't think . . . I know Leonard Mlodinow has debated Chopra.<br />
<br />
R: I thought that's how he came to know Deepak Chopra, was that he spoke up in the audience.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, is that right? <br />
<br />
R: I might be getting this completely wrong.<br />
<br />
''(speaking simultaneously – inaudible)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca. <br />
<br />
S: But, this is the kind of pushback that we're going to get. I see this as a sign that we're being successful. That we are shining a light on the cranks and showing why what they're doing is nonsensical, and we're getting things like, you know, people who are actually directors of TEDx are writing very critical thinking, very skeptical open letters about the difference between science and pseudoscience. That's a huge victory for the skeptical movement. And we are forcing the cranks to try to attack us and to try to marginalize us, because we're having an impact. And we just have to keep the pressure back up against them. We can't let them define us. Of course they want to define us as the militant ones, right? I think what I'm gonna do is, every time I refer to Deepak Chopra from now on, I'm gonna refer to him as "militant crank Deepak Chopra." ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I like it.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I think that's fair.<br />
<br />
E: How do ya like that, Deepak?<br />
<br />
S: You think that's fair?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: We'll see how militant crank Deepak Chopra responds to that.<br />
<br />
J: This is one of those rare news items that is really exciting, it gives me some hope. This could have gone a much darker path. TED could have gone into a really bad place, and was allowing all this junk science in there.<br />
<br />
S: Well, hey, not that there aren't marginal and dubious TED talks. I'm not saying that that's a paragon. But maybe this will improve the quality of even TED by focusing a light on this issue of science versus pseudoscience.<br />
<br />
R: :Yeah, that's just it—<br />
<br />
E: Bring it to the forefront.<br />
<br />
R: That's what I meant by, when you said "problem with TED talks." I said another one. TEDx is just rife with B.S. But it's good that they've recognized that and are taking steps to solve it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and I think it's demonstrably because of skeptical watchdogs.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Creationism and Dinosaurs <small>(45:53)</small>===<br />
* http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/21/aclu-to-kansas-school-district-cancel-creationist-assemblies-about-dinosaurs/<br />
<br />
S: Speaking of militant cranks, Rebecca, you're gonna tell us about one who is going to be talking at a Kansas public school.<br />
<br />
R: Yes. Dr. G. Thomas Sharp has been hired to come to a small, a southwest Kansas school district to deliver two assemblies next week on the truth about dinosaurs. And I know about this because the ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union, is threatening the school district that they'll be taken to court if they continue on with these assemblies. The reason why is because Sharp is the founder of the Creation Truth Foundation. And when he is teaching the truth about dinosaurs, the things he teaches are things like dinosaurs were on the ark with Noah, and evolution is wrong. <br />
<br />
S: Did you watch his online video? <br />
<br />
R: I did, actually. There's an hour-long video in which he's, it's called ''The Truth About Dinosaurs'' and it's released by Sharp. So I have to assume that this is going to be at least similar to what he's going to be delivering to the Kansas school. I should mention that the ACLU, when they threatened the school district with court action, the superintendent of schools, Mark Crawford, responded to say that the assemblies were going to continue and that the, all the assemblies would be in line with the law. They would not actually be anything to do with creationism. And again, this is the founder of the Creation Truth Foundation. So I mean, it's right there in the name. And then, yeah, if you watch this horrible hour-long lecture he gives on YouTube, it's astounding the things he, I mean he's preaching, basically.<br />
<br />
J: Give us a few tidbits, like what were some of the crazier things he said?<br />
<br />
R: Well, like he refers to dinosaurs as god's lizards, and I mean, the Bible is sprinkled throughout. He accuses <br />
<br />
E: Godzilla, what?<br />
<br />
R: He refers to actual science as being done by secularists, and as though it's a filthy word.<br />
<br />
S: All right, then, let's say that he scrubs his talk of any biblical god or secular religious references,<br />
<br />
R: Then it'll be ten seconds long.<br />
<br />
S: It'll still be a mountain of absolute unscientific nonsense. Now, the approach that he takes, first of all, this is all nothing new. This is like 1970's style creationism.<br />
<br />
R: We should be clear, this is not intelligent design.<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
R: The thinly veiled creationism. This is creationism, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Retro-creationism.<br />
<br />
S: So he does the whole taking quote of scientists out of context, usually from public writing—writing meant for the lay public, not technical writing. And then he just completely mystery mongers. He tries to blow out of proportion what we don't know. Like, for example, and he's doing the whole, he doesn't really say evolution is wrong, he's doing the equivalency thing where evolution is one model and creation is another model, and the only way to interpret the evidence is through your preconceived notions. So if you assume evolution, then you'll interpret the evidence from an evolutionary perspective. But if you go with the biblical assumption that there was a flood and everything, then you could make sense of everything with the flood. And for example, he does the whole alternate geology, flood geology, and he said that there is no consensus that dinosaurs evolved from birds. And then he pulls some quote segment out of context from somebody, in a popular article, to make it sound like we have no idea what's going on. He's like, oh, the fossils are rare and they're in such poor condition and we have no idea what these dinosaurs were like, you know. Completely mis-characterizing the overwhelming evidence. There was just a study published this week showing that dinosaurs, that theropod dinosaurs that are closely related to early birds nested their eggs the same way that birds do. There's one more piece of evidence that birds evolved from a certain type of dinosaur.<br />
<br />
R: And while he's preaching that, he's implying heavily that scientists are outright lying to kids and using dinosaurs as some sort of enticing ploy to get them to come to their evil museums and lie to them. He says that scientists discount the flood and scientists disagree on dinosaurs, birds evolving from dinosaurs, and yet they continue to lie kids about it. I mean, it's, he's clearly implying nefarious purposes on the part of scientists.<br />
<br />
S: He's just accusing scientists of doing exactly what he's doing.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: He's dinosaurs as a lure so that he could lie through his teeth about the state of the scientific evidence about evolution and dinosaurs.<br />
<br />
E: And this superintendent of this school says it's completely and totally school-appropriate.<br />
<br />
B: I think he was, he seemed pretty clear and adamant that he would not allow creationism to be taught, and I think they got ahold of him and they convinced him, this is what we're gonna talk about, this is what we're gonna say. And I think what they're actually gonna do might be very different. Or, I kind of also think that they're gonna scrub the hell out of their talk and get very<br />
<br />
S: Yeah but Bob, he knows exactly what's going on. He knows, the point of this—<br />
<br />
R: The guy who started the Creation Truth Foundation, you don't invite him to give a lecture to students and then say that it's got nothing to do with creationism.<br />
<br />
S: This is deliberate stealth creationism in public schools, period. That's what this is.<br />
<br />
R: And I do want to mention that the assemblies are required for students to attend.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Mandatory. Mandatory.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
==Survey Announcement <small>(52:18)</small>==<br />
<br />
S: Evan, before we go to ''Who's That Noisy?'' a very quick announcement. We are doing a survey of our listeners. You can get to the survey, it's a quick demographic survey. We'd really appreciate if you'd take just a moment to fill it out so we could know more about our listeners. Go to theskepticsguide.org home page and you'll see it right on the home page, big white box with the survey in there. And again, we'd appreciate if you'd take a moment to fill that out.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(52:46)</small>==<br />
Puzzle for last week<br />
S: All right, well, Evan. We're now a couple of weeks behind on ''Who's That Noisy?''<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, well, we'll get caught up. Going back to March 30 it was when we asked the following puzzle:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Mark is visiting a psychic, the Great Griftina. The Great Griftina tells Mark to think of the number 1, 2 or 3. The Great Griftina tells Mark that she will ask one question of him, and must only reply with "yes," "no," or "I don't know." So what question should the Great Griftina ask Mark to find out exactly which number Mark has chosen.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: And I think there were a few different kinds of right answers to this.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, there was. A lot of the correct answers took the form, well, something like this, which I'm calling the standard solution, but I counted a lot of the solutions as correct that sort of had this premise in mind. So here's the answer, the standard solution: If I have the numbers one or two in mind, is the number that you have in mind larger than the numbers I have in mind? And a couple of variations on this that I found interesting are a little bit different from the standard solution. Someone posed, let's see, it was listener Brandon from Miami, Florida said that you could ask this question: If you subtracted two from your number, would the square root of the result be greater than zero?<br />
<br />
R: It's just really, if she's just dumb, it's always gonna be, I don't know. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: That's true. You have to assume that the people know math, and understand concepts like square roots and so forth.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And that works out. The winner this week is Yves von Gennip.<br />
<br />
S: And what have you got for this week?<br />
<br />
E: This week we're going back to the classic ''Who's That Noisy?'' I'm gonna play something for you. And you're gonna try to figure out exactly who is saying this. Are you ready?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>''(Woman speaking English with a foreign accent)'' You want to create weight loss, you can start using feng shui. The best way is to have black or blue plates, and actually making sure that you don't put too much on your plate at the same time.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: Feng shui to lose weight.<br />
<br />
J: Ev, you don't think it might something to do with the fact that she says "Don't put so much stuff on your plate"?<br />
<br />
E: ''(laughing)'' I was hoping you'd catch that, Jay. Yeah, that's exactly what I thought. What the hell does feng shui have to do with that? But I never heard that before. Feng shui as a weight loss program? That was new to me, so I thought I would share that with you, and go ahead and give us your guess. Sguforums.com is our forums. Go ahead and post your answer there or send your answer in to wtn@theskepticsguide.org and we'll do it again next week. Good luck, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, thanks, Evan.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(55:35)</small> ==<br />
=== Question 1 <small>(55:35)</small>===<br />
Bitcoin Follow Up<br />
Corrections and further analysis of Bitcoin<br />
<br />
S: Jay, on our live private recording that we put up last week, you had a segment on Bitcoin and that generated quite of feedback. We're not gonna read any one email because there were so many, but we definitely need to do a follow-up on the Bitcoin segment.<br />
<br />
J: I read a recent article about Bitcoin. I pitched it to Steve, thought it was a very interesting topic. I went to the Wikipedia page; I followed some links through the Wikipedia page. I ended up reading some conflicting sources of information. I thought that I had vetted things down to the point where I could have the discussion, because we want to be very careful that we're not, a lot of times news articles have one source, you know, you might have seen this—where you go to 50 different websites and it's all linking back to the single. There's lots of sources for Bitcoin on the web. Unfortunately, a lot of the information that I found was skewed and a couple of times was just flat-out wrong. What we found after re-investigating the Bitcoin information is, well, we'll give you the corrections, but, what Steve and I wanted to discuss tonight are the missteps of research. And we'll use my experience in the last week as an example of some of the things that may—now, I've been doing research for a long time. Steve has been helping me learn how to do high-end research. We talk about it on the show all the time.<br />
<br />
S: I do think it's interesting to talk about the process that we go through. A lot of people ask us about that process. This is a good opportunity to review it. We obviously don't always achieve the ideal that we shoot for. But what I like to see on every item; first of all, you have to find as many independent sources on the topic that you're researching as possible. And you have to follow each resource back to its original source, and that's how you discover sometimes that you may be reading twenty or thirty sources, but they're all linking to the same original source, and therefore you really only have one source. Wikipedia is a reasonable place to start just to get an overview but that's ''never'' your ultimate source for anything. You can follow those links back to the things that are sourcing Wikipedia, but ultimately you always want to get to primary sources and to multiple primary sources. One of the questions that you're trying answer early on—when Jay and I were talking about this earlier, I said "I do this basically every day when I write my blog." I spend my first fifteen or twenty minutes researching a topic just trying to figure out, first of all, how deep that well goes, how complicated is it? The second is, how much of a consensus is there on this? Am I going to be able to find a reference that's going to be definitive because the information is non-controversial and represents the consensus of scientific opinion. When a topic is controversial or has a lot of passion behind it, then it takes a lot more time, because you're going to be getting conflicting information and you're gonna have to sort which references are better, which arguments are better. You know, who really, you know, what we can know. It takes a long time to wrap your head around topics the more controversial they get. I think what happened with Bitcoin is that the whole topic was a lot more controversial than we realized, and a lot more awash in mythology and misinformation. So, I think that the thing that, Jay, that you should have done, was when you started to get conflicting information in the research, that should have been a big red flag that this is not as settled as it appeared to you at the time.<br />
<br />
J: And I figured it was just a matter of me finding a more definitive and trustworthy source.<br />
<br />
S: You know what else is interesting is that we've had, again, many emails pointing out some of the factual errors on the reporting of Bitcoin. But interestingly, the emails that we got, although they purported to be informative, they had a lot of conflicting information, too. They conflicted with each other. So, and then I've been researching this quite a bit in the last couple of weeks, and I found tons of conflicting information. But let's get to it, Jay. Tell us, what are the pretty clearly established factual bits of information that we need to correct?<br />
<br />
J: One mistake I made was I said that Bitcoins are divisible by Satoshi, that's like the pennies, say, in the Bitcoin world. I said that a Satoshi was worth fifty cents, and they're not. At all. Not even close. A Satoshi is a hundred millionth of one Bitcoin. So it’s a phenomenally small value. So, and to give you an idea, like right now, BItcoin value has been changing. But you know we're in the $150 per Bitcoin range, about, right now. Like I said, that goes up and down. I checked today a couple of times and I saw the value had changed even today. Another thing that I wanted to correct was we were interchanging the term "Bitcoin" with "Bitcoins." It is "Bitcoin." To be very pendantic about it, that's the correct way to say it.<br />
<br />
B: aaah.<br />
<br />
J: I'm never gonna say that word correct deliberately for the rest of my life.<br />
<br />
E: Ummm.<br />
<br />
J: Satoshi Nakamoto is not a person, he or she or the group of people, that's a pseudonym for the creaters of Bitcoin.<br />
<br />
S: Which, nobody really knows who that is.<br />
<br />
R: And they're not even positive that it's a pseudonym, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's just all shrouded in mystery, the identity of the creator or creators.<br />
<br />
E: Kind of like Shakespeare. Just kidding.<br />
<br />
J: A few legitimate organizations, news outlets and companies, tried to find out who the creator was, and they couldn't do it. So, we just don't know who they are.<br />
<br />
S: Jay, I found, when I was doing my research, I found a couple of things that conflicted with what you were finding. One was that, one site I read said that there is actually no "this one code equals this one Bitcoin." Rather, the code is all just tracking the transactions. So there's information that says you received a Bitcoin, but it's not like, oh, I have this bit of code here and this bit of code ''is'' my Bitcoin. But you said that you thought, that wasn't the impression that you had. You think that there is a code for each Bitcoin.<br />
<br />
J: I still am under the impression that a single unique Bitcoin has a single unique identifier. I do, I did read what you read that each transaction, the code to that Bitcoin changes and it grows with the transaction, so the transaction history is the input. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But, I'm telling you, Steve, I keep reading it, I think I get it and I read something else, and I'm like I'm not quite sure now. It's inherently a very complicated thing.<br />
<br />
S: The thing I read that was different from your understanding was that in mining, when you're like doing processing to mine for Bitcoins, that that processing is contributing to the distributed network that's tracking the transactions. It's not just some completely irrelevant side routine looking for numbers, it's actually contributing processing power to the Bitcoin phenomena.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, those servers become part of the cloud.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. What I also found interesting was that there's, again, the passionate writing on the internet. There's a lot of people criticizing Bitcoin, but they're coming from the metal currency enthusiast segment. So there is a subculture of people who don't like fiat money. Fiat money is basically what a government says, this is legal tender. We're gonna manufacture it and there you go. And as opposed to having a gold standard. And there are still people around who say nope, we should have a gold standard. Currency should be based on gold, silver, copper, not just government fiat, and these people ''really'' hate the idea of Bitcoin. Just digital grassroots fiat, if you will, being currency. I think they're generating a lot of the online criticism of Bitcoin and then the Bitcoin enthusiasts are responding to that, and I think we triggered some of that defensiveness when we were discussing Bitcoin, even though we were taking a pretty neutral approach, just trying to describe the phenomenon.<br />
<br />
R: William Jennings Bryan would use Bitcoin.<br />
<br />
S: You think so?<br />
<br />
R: I think so.<br />
<br />
E: On a cross of gold, yes.<br />
<br />
J: So a couple more quick points. We did mention also that a Bitcoin wallet company, and a wallet refers to a company you can start an account with online that will hold your virtual Bitcoins for you. We said that they got hacked. And we got into, me and Rebecca and an emailer were talking about the idea that like a DDOS attack is really not being hacked. Being hacked implies that they broke into your system, your information was compromised, and I agree with Rebecca. I think using the word "hack" for a DDOS attack, which is basically just pinging a website so often that it crashes 'cause it can't handle the server load. That's being hacked as well today, in general terms.<br />
<br />
S: In the vernacular. Yeah<br />
<br />
R: And also we were talking about several cases in which different efforts were being made to access Bitcoins and to disrupt Bitcoin. So, I think it's perfectly reasonable to use "hack" as the umbrella term for the various ways that people are using underhanded methods of disrupting the market.<br />
<br />
J: So, to sum up this whole thing, yeah, Bitcoin, the Bitcoin idea, and if you read about it you'll see; it's very complicated. It takes awhile to begin to wrap your head around the whole thing—<br />
<br />
S: And that's just the technology. The technology is complicated, but then there's an entirely separate economic discussion. Like, there are some people saying that Bitcoin isn't really currency. It's mainly not used as an exchange for goods, it's mainly hoarded, and it's actually traded like a commodity, more than just a currency. In other words currencies can be commodities, but, it's price fluctuates like a commodity, it's hoarded by speculators, like 99% or something of Bitcoins out there are being hoarded by speculators. So it really hasn't, some people are arguing, I mean I'm sure the enthusiasts are not gonna like this, but some people are arguing that it's not really behaving like a real currency. But maybe it just needs time to establish itself.<br />
<br />
J: But if anybody out there knows exactly what to do and wants to help, send us an email at info@theskepticsguide.org and it'd be fun. I wanna do it. I wanna see the system work. I wanna start a wallet account. I wanna go through the whole process and I'd really like someone that knows what they're doing to help me do it, so.<br />
<br />
R: Oh, but you know, I have some bad news. This news item went on so long that Bitcoin went out of business. Sorry. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Don't worry, Jay.<br />
<br />
J: I would like to formally announce the SGUCoin.<br />
<br />
S: The SGUCoin.<br />
<br />
R: Okay, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Our own currency! Oh, I like that.<br />
<br />
J: It's gonna be really easy. Super. It looks exactly like real U.S. currency.<br />
<br />
E: Backed by the full faith and credit of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. I love it.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:06:54)</small> ==<br />
[http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2013/04/guelph_scientis_1.htmlItem #1]: Scientists have developed a vaccine that can reduce the risk of developing autism in high-risk infants by over 20%. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423135716.htm Item #2]: A study finds that medical interns spend only 12% of their time with patients, while spending 40% of their time at computers. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130418124907.htm Item #3]: A new study finds that over 50% of products recalled by the FDA between 2004 and 2012 because they probably would "cause serious adverse health consequences or death" were dietary supplements. <br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro404}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_406&diff=6605SGU Episode 4062013-05-15T00:33:13Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 359<br />
|episodeDate = 34<sup>th</sup> May 2012<br />
|episodeIcon = File:bomb-detector.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-04-27.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=406<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=45826.0<br />
|qowText = Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.<br />
|qowAuthor = {{w|Mark Twain}}<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the {{SGU}}, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the {{SGU}}. Today is Tuesday, April 24, 2013, and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson,<br />
<br />
R: Hello, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: Hey, guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Mach-cho maroon.<br />
<br />
S: Thank you, Evan.<br />
<br />
J: That sounds very Game of Thrones-y.<br />
<br />
E: It's the first words I think I've ever spoken in Dothraki.<br />
<br />
J: And what does it mean?<br />
<br />
R: It means "Die, scum!" ''(laughter)'' ''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: It means: "Your horse is ugly."<br />
<br />
J: Does it mean Hello?<br />
<br />
R: It means hello.<br />
<br />
E: Yes. It's the long way of saying "hello."<br />
<br />
S: Or as close as you get to it in Dothraki.<br />
<br />
J: Game of Thrones is kicking ass. The latest episode was awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And that has nothing to do with science.<br />
<br />
E: Everything to do with pop culture. <br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:02)</small> ==<br />
April 27, 1791: Birth of Samuel Morse<br />
<br />
R: But you know what ''does'' have to do, slightly, with science is that today, April 27, is the birthday of Samuel Morse, who was born in 1791.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, happy birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Wait. I missed that segue. What's, how did you do that? Oh, never mind. Go ahead. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: You know, it was just so smooth, you missed it. Yeah, so, Samuel Morse, most people know as the inventor, or co-inventor, of Morse code. I found it really interesting, I was reading up on him, and apparently he got interested in telegraph systems because he was far away from his wife when she took ill, and he got a telegram saying that she was basically on her death bed. And by the time he was able to rush to see her, she was already dead and buried. And he was so angry about it <br />
<br />
E: Sad.<br />
<br />
R: that he gave up painting. He had been a painter. And he dedicated his life to finding a better way to communicate over long distances. So, yeah, a tragedy, but it was positive results for humanity.<br />
<br />
J: You know what he said when he got there and they said "Your wife is dead."? He said, "She's dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dead?"<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my, God. ''(groans and laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: That was bad.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: Guys, guys, come on.<br />
<br />
B: Please edit that out, Steve. ''(laughter continues)'' Imagine how awesome that was back then when you realize that, holy crap, we can communicate so fast over hundreds, thousands, of miles. It must have been like pure science fiction to them.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, I learned some interesting things about Samuel Morse. First of all, he graduated from Yale. So he's a Yale alum. Supported himself as a painter, as Rebecca said. He didn't just invent, actually co-invent, with Alfred Vail, Morse code. He actually developed the electrical telegraph. And he, one of the critical inventions for that was the relay. He invented the relay. You guys know how that works?<br />
<br />
J: Sure.<br />
<br />
S: Hit me.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, the re--, you mean the thing that boosts the signal so it can go over long distances.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So, 'cause the wires back then were so crappy, one signal could really only go not even a mile. It couldn't go very far at all. So he figured out a way of putting in a relay where the signal hits a relay circuit which essentially, a very weak signal, you have a very sensitive circuit, so that even a weak signal comes in, and it activates a magnet, which triggers an arm, which creates a new click, which then can go the next distance to the next relay. So very simple, very basic, but that was a critical invention to the functioning of the <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: over long distances.<br />
<br />
B: They had to set those up every mile? Wow, that's a lot.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, something like that, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Initially, at least.<br />
<br />
E: It's like fiber optic today; they have relay stations.<br />
<br />
S: Do you guys know what the first message sent across one of those telegraphs was?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: I used to know it.<br />
<br />
J: "Send more Chuck Berry."<br />
<br />
R: Well, I only know because I read it like an hour ago.<br />
<br />
J: Say it with authority.<br />
<br />
R: I know exactly what it was, Steve. It was "A patient waiter is no loser."<br />
<br />
S: Right. Which is interesting because it's not . . .<br />
<br />
B: That's kinda lame.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's kinda lame.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: But his father was <br />
<br />
R: It's no "What hath God wrought?"<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, "what hath God wrought?"<br />
<br />
E: Or "Watson, come here, I want you.<br />
<br />
S: That's what he said when he was transmitting from the Supreme Court chamber.<br />
<br />
E: Right.<br />
<br />
S: His father was a Calvinist preacher, so it's kind of, I guess, has the moralistic tone with which he was raised. His father was Jedidiah Morse. You gotta love that name, Jedidiah. Not many Jedidiahs around today. <br />
<br />
B: No.<br />
<br />
S: And Morse also was pro-slavery. And was active in resisting both Catholics and immigrants.<br />
<br />
E: Um hm.<br />
<br />
J: When you say "resisting," what do you mean "resist"?<br />
<br />
S: He was, he actively campaigned against immigrants and Catholics.<br />
<br />
R: Horrible person<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: who did some good stuff.<br />
<br />
J: I didn't know that.<br />
<br />
B: I like him a little less now.<br />
<br />
S: He was a product of his time and his father.<br />
<br />
B: True.<br />
<br />
S: Gotta cut him a little bit of slack.<br />
<br />
R: I don't know, there were plenty of people of his time who were vehemently anti-slavery.<br />
<br />
S: Um hm. I agree, I just said "a little bit." It's hard to look back 200 years and be too heavily moralizing.<br />
<br />
R: Eh. I find it easy. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Are you guys enjoying the first real days of spring that we've had so far?<br />
<br />
J: Awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, I'm lovin' it. 'Bout time.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, this 42 degree weather is wonderful.<br />
<br />
S: Well, hey, we had such a long winter; you're right, it's still a little on the cold side. Today there were all these various unmistakable signs of spring, sort of like all at once. So, first, the forsythia is in full bloom. Second, bluebirds have moved into our bluebird house. They're gonna make little baby bluebirds.<br />
<br />
R: How do the bluebirds know that the bluebird house is for them?<br />
<br />
S: That's a really good question.<br />
<br />
E: They use the GPS.<br />
<br />
J: They can fit in it.<br />
<br />
R: There's a sign.<br />
<br />
S: So a bluebird house has an opening of a certain size. But honestly, it's more about positioning. You need to place it three to five feet above the ground, in an open area, with nothing obscuring the ground beneath it. So, bluebirds wanna make sure they can see snakes and other things coming. So if you do that, if you hang it at the right height in a sort of openish area, bluebirds will move into it. I mean it's, <br />
<br />
R: And no other bird?<br />
<br />
S: Well, hang on. The other bird that will tend to steal a bluebird house from the bluebird is the house sparrow. We have plenty of house sparrows, but bluebirds always seem to move into our bluebird houses. So it's remarkably consistent.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, what do you think, like you have, the pair of bluebirds are flying around and the wife bluebird goes "What about this one, honey?" And the husband's like "Nope, that's only two feet off the gound." <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I mean they definitely have like a measuring tape and a list of wants. <br />
<br />
S: It works, it absolutely works.<br />
<br />
R: Good view of snakes, in-ground pool.<br />
<br />
B: My favorite sign of spring is that the White Walkers are retreating back north.<br />
<br />
S: Yup. ''(laughter and garbled comments)'' Nice call-back. The robins are more visible. As we learned previously they don't actually; they do migrate, but there are robins in the winter but they stay more in the forest. But the robins that are here come out and are more visible in the spring. And I actually grilled steaks on the grill on my deck today, for dinner.<br />
<br />
E: Delicious.<br />
<br />
R: Man, you went all out.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And, the single most profound marker that spring is here was<br />
<br />
E: Allergies.<br />
<br />
S: No. I don't have allergies luckily. Was, the ice cream truck came around.<br />
<br />
R: You have an ice cream truck?<br />
<br />
S: Yup. My daughters go insane. You know, they see the ice cream truck and they just go crazy.<br />
<br />
E: Come on, you go a little crazy, too. Admit it.<br />
<br />
J: Does the guy play music, Steve, or<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
J: Does he ring the bell, what is it?<br />
<br />
S: Of course, you've got the music and the bell and they just lose their minds.<br />
<br />
R: We never had an ice cream truck when I was a kid; it was too rural.<br />
<br />
B: We did.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah, we did.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, you were insane. I have a distinct memory of you, one night, sitting at the end of our driveway. You were a little shit, probably six or seven, crying your eyes out because the ice cream man didn't come, or you missed him, or something, and you were just like bawling 'cause you wanted your ice cream, and you missed it. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: I never forgave that guy, either.<br />
<br />
E: That bastard.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Mars One <small>(9:01)</small>===<br />
* http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/apply-now-one-way-trip-mars<br />
<br />
S: All right, well let's move on. Bob, you're gonna tell us about ''(imitating Schwarzenegger)'' "Get your ass to Mars." ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: You just totally took my opening line. Thank you so much.<br />
<br />
S: Bob, you gotta warn me if you're gonna do that.<br />
<br />
B: Whatever.<br />
<br />
S: It was a bit obvious<br />
<br />
B: I know, but I added a little flourish at the end. I said "Get your ass to Mars and never come back." Are you guys ready for an out-of-this-world reality TV show? I can't believe they're doing this. The company Mars One is planning on making a reality show that showcases the entire process of selecting and training astronauts, their trip to Mars, and the rest of their lives living on Mars. And like we said, it's a one-way trip. That's the real kicker that everybody's talking about. Would you guys do that? Would you guys actually consider that? Or would you want to hear the details first?<br />
<br />
R: No.<br />
<br />
E: I don't think so.<br />
<br />
R: I don't need the details. No. I don't wanna go on a reality show so people can watch me die in space. No. Thank you.<br />
<br />
''(speaking simultaneously – inaudible)''<br />
<br />
B: --when I'm 70 or 80, or what the hell. So, the first question is why are you doing a one-way trip? There's two good reasons. The scientists feel that it's feasible to send people to Mars pretty much now, but the tech just doesn't seem to exist to bring them back right now. I kind of thought that was a weird reason because even if we don't have it now, surely it'll exist at some point. And if we put resources into it it wouldn't take that long. I think one of the reasons that they're doing this is that it's a real attention grabber. Headlines.<br />
<br />
S: The think is though, what do you do, when to get to Mars, you find out that you don't like it there.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah, you're done. Game over.<br />
<br />
R: You'd kill yourself.<br />
<br />
E: You suck it, basically.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it'll make for a good episode. They're already talking about how they'll have a crematorium because people will of course die. But another good reason, probably the best reason that they're not gonna come back,<br />
<br />
E: What if you're the last one to die, though? How're you gonna get in that crematorium?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I wouldn't worry too much about it. So the best reason though why they're not coming back is that, imagine seven or eight months in space; astronauts, as we know, lose muscle mass, they lose bone mass; it's really, really horrific on the body. Even if you're exercising all the time, there's a huge hit that you take; and then time that you spend in Mars' weaker gravitational field, that's not gonna help much either. And scientists feel that readjusting to Earth's gravity after so much time, it's pretty much impossible, with today's technology anyway. After all that time, you're just not coming back. That's a really, really good reason.<br />
<br />
J: That sounds odd to me, Bob. What about people that suffer phenomenal injuries and have to be bedridden for six months or a year. You can't grow back the tissue that you lost, and the bone mass?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it's weird. It's not like if you become paralyzed, where your muscles just turn to mush and it's completely and utterly irrevocable.. .<br />
<br />
S: But people who are bedridden lose a lot of muscle mass. You could lose one to three percent of your muscle mass per day if you're sick and in the hospital and completely immobile. Especially for older people. So that's why they have weeks and months, sometimes, of rehab, just to recover from the debility that results, Jay.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, Jay, and that's also one of the big down sides to yo-yo weight loss, where you lose a lot of weight and inevitably a lot of muscle weight and then you gain back a lot of fat. At the end of the cycle you have much less muscle than you had, and that's a hit that your body could take for the rest of its life, 'cause it's just so hard to get back all that muscle that you lost. It's really bad. And that's a really good reason why once you're there you're gonna be committed. The gravitational pull on Mars is about 38% of Earth's. So that's really, really low. I mean things, it'd be easy to get around and things would be light and that's all great, but, man, your muscles just say we don't need all of this muscle, let's get rid of it. I'm very curious how walking will be accomplished on Mars. How similar to moon-walking will it be? Or will it be a fusion between the moon-hopping and the Earth-walking? I'd be curious to see that. <br />
<br />
J: Bob, what's their budget? How could they possibly afford to do this?<br />
<br />
B: That's actually one of the key problems, Jay, is funding. They figure it's gonna cost about six billion U.S. dollars to get there, just for the first group.<br />
<br />
S: How many bit coins is it gonna cost? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Seven. <br />
<br />
R: Oh, you know, if they send a big-time movie star, if they send like Julia Roberts, that should secure them at least one billion from the foreign markets.<br />
<br />
J: Why, 'cause they wanna get rid of her? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's a movie-making joke. You cast the right people, you get the funding. That's the way it works, in Hollywood.<br />
<br />
S: So who ''should'' we send to Mars on a one-way trip?<br />
<br />
B: Justin Bieber! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Wow, Bob.<br />
<br />
R: What did Justin Bieber ever do to you?<br />
<br />
B: Nothing, I just felt like it.<br />
<br />
J: It's not really him, it's more his haircut.<br />
<br />
S: Could we just send his haircut?<br />
<br />
J: So, look, there's a lot of things about this that I just don't have enough information on, or they're just not making enough sense. First of all, how do you get billions of dollars for a TV show? Second of all, who's developing the technology? How are they gonna live an extended period of time on a planet where they can't manufacture things, grow food, what's up?<br />
<br />
B: Let me go through some of this, then, Jay. What they're gonna need, more than a few astronauts: they're talking about 24 astronauts. So the idea is they're gonna have six groups of four astronauts, and every two years four astronauts are gonna be sent there, with the first one going in 2022. The selection process will be finalized in 2015; so it's only a couple years away. Then they're gonna go through seven years of training. And, think about it though, seven years of a reality show of astronauts training. That's gonna get so boring. There's no way they're gonna maintain a TV show for that long.<br />
<br />
S: I don't know, Bob. I mean, ghost hunter shows have lasted for that long. <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, ''The Real World'' has been going on for that long.<br />
<br />
B: I guess.<br />
<br />
R: It's crap, but people still watch it, I guess.<br />
<br />
B: Well, if they do a good job, they can make it interesting. But seven years of training?<br />
<br />
S: What they need to do is they need to vote people off the planet. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Well actually, what they're gonna, that's close, Steve. What they're gonna do, in true reality show style, is they're gonna vote four astronauts, the first four to go, who of course will be the most famous. Who doesn't wanna be the first ones to go? Except me. <br />
<br />
R: Anyone with a brain, doesn't wanna be the first to go.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, you mentioned technology. Space X, they're gonna work with Space X. And the idea is to use a slightly enlarged version of the Dragon capsule to get them there. And <br />
<br />
R: I never noticed before how much "Space X" sounds like "space sex." Because that was very confusing when you first said it.<br />
<br />
S: Space sex?<br />
<br />
R: Um hm.<br />
<br />
B: I never thought of that. Thank you. They're gonna use those really cool retro propulsion rockets to land it because of course parachutes aren't gonna cut it. Jay, to survive, they're gonna have solar panels, of course, for energy. They're gonna recycle and extract water from the soil if it's there, if they can actually find some. And food, and they're gonna grow their own food. That's another technology that I don't know how they're pull that off. And then of course, every two years they'll get a nice resupply of their Reese's Peanut Butter Cups from Earth when the next group arrives. But as you can imagine, right, there's gonna be tons of problems. One of them is the solar wind. Mars just does not have, a very thin atmosphere. It's about a hundredth, less than a hundredth the density of Earth's atmosphere. It's almost a friggin' vacuum. And Mars doesn't have a magnetosphere. I mean, damn.<br />
<br />
J: It doesn't seem like the survival of these people is going to be high. It's scaring me. <br />
<br />
S: They are gonna send supplies ahead of the first astronauts. So there should be material and food and everything they'll need there to get going. <br />
<br />
B; Well, they want to send a series of rovers to go there. And that's also one of the reasons why I'm pessimistic. They want to send a bunch of rovers. I mean, are they even working on these rovers? I mean, you know how long it takes to design and develop and test all that. I'm not even sure where they even are with that preliminary step right there. And so it's not just a magnetosphere that's not there, which is basically a shield for the solar wind and cosmic ray particles. It really is why there's lots of life on the surface of the planet. <br />
<br />
S: Their habitat will basically have to be under ground. <br />
<br />
B: yeah, they're gonna have to . . . maybe that's one of the things these rovers can do is help make these pits for their habitat. So if they're gonna have to be under many feet of dirt, then they'll be okay. But there's also no liquid water, really. None that they could really tap into that we've found. And then the radiation, not just the radiation on the planet, but the trip radiation, and we've talked about this on the show. It's nasty. Just going there, you've got these energetic particles in the solar wind; you've got cosmic rays. I mean, they won't kill you outright, necessarily, but they will greatly increase your chances of getting cancer. And the question is . . .<br />
<br />
R: These people are not gonna live long enough to get cancer. They don't need to worry about that.<br />
<br />
B: I guess.<br />
<br />
R: Like if they die of cancer, it'll be the greatest thing that ever happened to them. <br />
<br />
J: You know, there's social implications here, as well. What about laws?<br />
<br />
S: They're on their own. The whole idea is they can create their own civilization.<br />
<br />
E: The wild west. That's great. What if one of them goes nuts and starts to break down?<br />
<br />
S: Well they'll have seven years vet these people. They're gonna be . . . so part of the training . . . first of all, they're gonna be trained in emergency medicine, dentistry, engineering, all the skills they're gonna need to do everything they need on their own and they're gonna also spend extended periods of time in simulated Martian habitats, and have simulated emergencies. So, that's seven years of vetting for these people.<br />
<br />
E: What if these people don't pan out in year three or four, what . . . you're gonna have to have teams of people going through this process. I mean, imagine the hundreds of people that they're gonna have to select from.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. I would think they're gonna have maybe one or two backups. You know, you're talking fifty, sixty, seventy people, if they go that route, which isn't, I mean $6 billion will go a long way for that kind of stuff. NASA astronaut Stan Love had a great description of this. He, I think he described it really well. He just happened to come back from Antarctica, and he says "That place is a picnic compared to Mars." He says it's full of water, you can go outside and breathe the air. It's paradise compared to Mars, and yet nobody has moved there permanently. And you know, as nasty as that place is, Mars is ten hundred times worse and people are gonna spend the rest of their lives there. It's just crazy. <br />
<br />
R: What happens when the show is cancelled?<br />
<br />
E: That's a good point.<br />
<br />
R: You know, ratings are down, they need that time slot for something else.<br />
<br />
S: I think, let me go against the grain and say that I think this is a wonderful idea.<br />
<br />
B: No. You're full of shit. No. All right, I love the idea of a community off the Earth, and Stephen Hawking would really agree with us on that. But ''go to the moon first!'' It's only three days away. Vet all the technology and develop it on the moon. If there's a huge disaster, you can be there in mere days, rather than months and a billion dollars later. <br />
<br />
R: Good point.<br />
<br />
S: All right, that's a really good point.<br />
<br />
B: Moon Base Alpha first, then Mars.<br />
<br />
J: Well, wait, Bob. That might be part of their plan, though. As Rebecca says, let's say the show gets cancelled. The show's gonna probably get cancelled right around when everyone's gonna die. Right?<br />
<br />
E; That convenient.<br />
<br />
S: Well the show may be cancelled before they even . . . It's gonna be seven years of reality TV before they even blast off for Mars. Remember. So, this is highly risky in multiple ways. This is gonna be very difficult to pull off. But you gotta give it to them for the vision here, of trying to . . . If they pull this off, then you really have to give it to them for being bold and the amount of dedication it's going to take to usher this project to completion is going to be amazing. So, they will have to capture the imagination of the world with this project. The people that they select are going to have a lot to do with this. And they have ten years to work out the technological limitations. It's not impossible, it's just gonna be really, really hard. But if they're serious about this, I think that . . . I'd love to see them try; I wish them well; I would love to see them succeed, as long as they appreciate that they're not going into this thinking this is gonna be an easy endeavor. As long as they appreciate all the many ways this can fail, and they are doing everything they possibly can to deal with all of those hurdles, then, let's see what they do.<br />
<br />
R: Who's the "they" again? Who's actually doing this?<br />
<br />
S: Mars One, I guess, is the organization. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah, they're based out of Denmark. <br />
<br />
J: Steve, I don't disagree with that at all. I see what you're saying, and I like the idea of all these billions of dollars that go into entertainment that is really, at the end of the day, it doesn't achieve things like technology and pushing the limits of man's fortitude . . . <br />
<br />
S: You know what I think is likely to happen? If they get this off the ground, I think that they're going to have an interesting reality TV show that will be a dry run for a real colonization trip to either the moon or Mars. But they probably won't ever launch. If they ''do'' launch; if they're successful enough, in terms of raising money and keeping the whole project going to the point where they're ready to launch, that will be a huge success right there. Anything that happens after that, you know, I would still consider this to be a success. Of course it's high risk. They will have . . . basically like 2022 or 2023, they're gonna have to make a hard assessment of whether or not they actually have all the pieces in place to send people to Mars. Probably there's gonna be tons of delays and it will probably never happen. But . . .<br />
<br />
B: Oh, 2022 or 3, I'd say 2018 they'd be like, shit, we're not gonna make this. And to me, that's my biggest beef with this is that 2022 just seems way too soon to pull this off. There's too many hurdles.<br />
<br />
S: I like the idea that they're planning on using the Space X<br />
<br />
B: Oh, absolutely.<br />
<br />
S: So that may throw a lot of funding their way. <br />
<br />
B: That would be great.<br />
<br />
S: That would be a good consequence of all this.<br />
<br />
J: It's a lot of money they have to get, and that's gonna be a huge hurdle for them.<br />
<br />
B: I've got a quote on that as well. Dr. Chris Lintott, he's Oxford University, he thinks that it's technologically plausible, feasible. But in his mind funding is gonna be the biggest problem. He said "It's about having the political will and the financial muscle to make this happen. That's what nobody has been able to solve so far." So the undoing of this entire project might be just purely from funding, 'cause it's a lot of money. It's got a lot of sustained interest that you'd have to have for many, many years. And if you can pull that off, that might be the biggest hurdle of all.<br />
<br />
S: Hopefully this is a story we'll be reporting on over the years. I hope it doesn't die in the crib. It'll be interesting.<br />
<br />
B: And if anyone wants to register you have until August 31 of 2013, and they certainly have lots of volunteers. I've heard numbers over 40,000 requests already.<br />
<br />
R: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
B: It'll cost you money, though. I think it's 38 bucks for the United States. But depending on what country you're in, the prices will vary. But yeah, lots of people are interested in it.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Bomb Detector Fraud <small>(24:43)</small>===<br />
* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22266051<br />
<br />
S: Okay, Jay, there's some good news from the U.K. about a convicted con artist.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. Do you all remember the story we covered about James McCormick? He's the guy who sold the fake bomb detectors that were eventually used in real life situations in Iraq. Well, things didn't turn out so good for Mr. McCormick. This is a horrifying story with a possible good ending. It hasn't ended quite yet. I think it's going in the right direction, but this, let me give you the quick background. April 23, 2013, during a hearing in London at the Central Criminal Court of England and Wales, the Court was told that McCormick's fake detectors were 100% ineffectual. The harshest fact that came out was that McCormick knew they didn't work. So, this guy invents quote unquote invents, a detector that can do the following things: this is what he claims. The devices could bypass all forms of concealment. They can detect drugs and people along with explosives, would work under water, and of course, from the air. Would track an object up to one kilometer, or 320, sorry 3,280 feet below the ground. Below the ground. The bomb detectors came with cards which were programmed, quote unquote programmed, to detect a wide array of substances from ivory to $100 bank notes. Other substances could be detected. But, it was claimed if you put in a jar with a sticker which would absorb its vapors, so whatever it is, whatever you want, you put that item, or a piece of it, in a jar, and the sticker would absorb the vapors from that object. And then if you stuck that sticker to the thing, it could detect it. All right? Now. This is insane, and we talked about this already, so a lot of you already know that fact. The ADE651 detector. He made how much money? Fifty million pounds! 76 million US dollars from this scam. He sold 6,000 units to Iraq. Not a bad haul for a scam. Pretty damn good. Officials said the device was modeled after a novelty $20 golf ball finder. Oh, god, when I read that, I was so pissed off at the idea that this guy was basically flipping through a magazine on an airplane, say, I'm not sure if that was it, but you know the kind of junk that I'm talking about. This chachki crap, $20 golf ball finder that doesn't work. This hand-held device. He bought hundreds of those. Listen, Evan, he bought them. Hundreds of 'em. Put his own custom sticker on it and sold them as bomb detectors.<br />
<br />
S: He didn't even make 'em himself?<br />
<br />
J: Well, the first version of it, no. It was this crappy golf-ball finder. He sold them for 5K each. So then, when he sold them and it worked, he went out and made a much cooler looking one, and he sold those to the Iraqi government, and those he sold for up to 27,000 pounds, 40,000 US dollars each.<br />
<br />
E: Ironically, those don't detect golf balls<br />
<br />
S: It's basically a dousing rod.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's how it works.<br />
<br />
E; Very expensive one.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, and if you look at it, an antenna<br />
<br />
B: Well, not really.<br />
<br />
J: Yes, Bob, in a way. It is, Bob, it is. You have to see it.<br />
<br />
B: There's no ideomotor effect<br />
<br />
J: Yes, there is. Bob, Bob. Yes there is.<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, pay attention. Okay? You're in school now, I'm your teacher. All right, you hold the device in your hand and you pull the antenna out; it scopes out. And then it's on like a ball-bearing device, so it shifts with the person's hand that's using it. So, yeah, Bob, that's it. They're looking at the movement of that thing, and the people are, the people who are using it are coming up with the answers themselves: am I detecting something here? Yes or no. That's it. It is in essence a dowsing rod. So finally the U.K. government banned the sale of the detector in Iraq and Afghanistan in January 2010, and senior Iraqi officials that knew the device for a fake and some of them who were bribed to continue purchasing them. And when I say they were bribed, a lot of money exchanged hands. This guy bribed the hell out of<br />
<br />
B: Millions of dollars. Millions of dollars.<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely. Sadly, some of these devices are still active at some checkpoints in Iraq.<br />
<br />
E: Really?<br />
<br />
J: It's ridiculous. I don't know why or how that could possibly be happening. There was a very sad story. You know, to put a face on this whole thing. A woman named Henine Awan, who was an Iraqi woman, was pregnant at the time, and she lost her baby because a bomb went off that wasn't caught by the fake detector. She needed 59 operations after she was injured in January, 2009, and I saw a video of her talking, and I'm telling you, she was horribly, horribly burned. Another interesting thing, there's a detective inspector, Ed Heath, said "It is clear that both civilians and armed forces personnel were put at significant risk in relying upon the equipment. McCormick showed a complete disregard for the safety of those that used and relied upon the device for their own security and protection. He amassed many millions of pounds through his greed and criminal enterprise." And he's going to be sentenced on May 2 of 2013. There's no doubt that he knew that it didn't work. One of the salesmen that was working with him at one point asked him specifically, you know, I really need to know if this thing works, and he said "It is working. It's earning money."<br />
<br />
R: Ecchh<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
S: Do you have any idea of what possible sentence he's facing?<br />
<br />
J: I couldn't find anything, but it doesn't look good.<br />
<br />
B: I read he faces up to eight years in jail, which I think is pathetic.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Five to eight is what I read, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Up to eight years is a joke.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, sometimes laws just need an asshole clause. You know, where the judge has the discretion to just really dramatically increase the sentence.<br />
<br />
R: I don't know. I don't understand how they even come to that sentence, because, I mean, I don't think you even need a cause because he's endangering the lives of thousands, if not millions, of people.<br />
<br />
S: The law may not cover it.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: How? I don't understand.<br />
<br />
B: You know, guys, the other side of the story for me was the total lack of apparent effort to deal with this, to investigate this, to do something about it.<br />
<br />
S: Up front, oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: It's ridiculous. I read about a, that the police did a two-and-a-half year investigation, and they're talking about a University of Cambridge professor did a fully double-blind trial and he found it was no better than random chance, three out of twenty-five times. Two-and-a-half years to determine this? Really? I mean, we could set that experiment up in an afternoon. Two-and-a-half years. I'm sure there's lots of red tape and lots of things you gotta go through, but, that just seems an incredibly long period of time to come to those kind of conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: And it seemed like the government just <br />
<br />
S: Total failure.<br />
<br />
B: They didn't seem to want to investigate it or take any action. I mean this has been out there for not months, it's been years, right?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: I read 2008, 2009? It's 2013. What took so long? <br />
<br />
S: This exact kind of device has been sold multiple ways by multiple people. This was not unique.<br />
<br />
J: The real travesty here is the fact that they didn't vet this thing out. I mean you're really gonna take some unknown guy by his word? Didn't they test it? Didn't one person unbox one of these and test it with a few different bombs, or whatever? The claims he made are extreme. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, wasn't there one person in the chain who wasn't blatantly scientifically ignorant and saw that this was a total sham? Anybody with even a basic level of critical thinking should have been able to see that this was a total scam from the get-go, right? <br />
<br />
J: Yeah, and beyond that, Steve, isn't there a protocol in place? Doesn't the military have . . .<br />
<br />
S: Apparently not.<br />
<br />
J: Well, there you go. It's very revealing.<br />
<br />
E: You're right, Jay, it's very revealing.<br />
<br />
S: Well, we'll follow up when he gets sentenced. I just wanna see what kind of time this guys gets.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== TED and Chopra <small>(37:42)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/confusing-standards-for-censorship-chopra-edition/ Confusing Standards for Censorship &ndash; Chopra Edition]<br />
<br />
S: But let's move on for now. Are you guys aware of the whole TED fiasco that happened recently?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god. Unbelievable.<br />
<br />
R: Another one?<br />
<br />
J: Very disappointing.<br />
<br />
B: It's very believable.<br />
<br />
S: Well, I don't know which one you're referring to, but this is one, yeah, Deepak Chopra got involved. So the TED talks are a prestigious series of interesting, provocative lectures. TED, do you guys know what TED stands for, by the way?<br />
<br />
R: Technology, Entertainment, Design?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but the scope has expanded since then, but it was initially Technology, Entertainment, Design. And the tagline of the lecture series is Ideas Worth Spreading, and it became a very high profile, prestigious series of short, provocative lectures on topics in science and related things. TED spawned TEDx. TEDx are local, independently run and organized TED-branded lecture series that are supposed to strive for the same level of quality that TED itself has. And there are TEDx conferences all over the world. Well, apparently, some of the TEDx events have not been up to the standards of TED. There were a couple recent ones by Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock: you guys know who these guys are, right? Sheldrake is a big proponent of ESP. Graham Hancock is big into alternate history, ancient civilizations, etc. So, bottom line, both of these guys are crackpots, in my opinion. And they gave talks that were very unsettling to some people in the audience who have some knowledge of science, and there were complaints. There were complaints from people in the audience who said "What is TEDx doing promoting these lectures and these people?" This prompted a, and everything now gets a lot of attention in the blogosphere, etc., and social media. This prompted an open letter by some TEDx directors to all of the TEDx organizers. It's actually an excellent primer on how to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience. They go down a list of red flags for how to tell if a speaker is legitimate and they said "It's ''your'' job to vet them. It's not your audience's job to figure out if the speaker is offering legitimate science or not. It's ''your'' job, and this is how you do it. And if you're not sure, we'll help you, and here's the guideline." And it's a very excellent guideline. They actually reference Science-Based Medicine at one point.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, excellent.<br />
<br />
E: Well, there you go.<br />
<br />
J: How did they reference it?<br />
<br />
S: As a source you can go to to, for example, see if a medical claim is legitimate or not. And they reference other skeptical sources. Clearly, they were steeped in the skeptical culture, you know, movement. And they knew what they were talking about. This is the kind of thing that any experienced skeptic could have written or will find very familiar. So, excellent job. That provoked a backlash by Deepak Chopra. <br />
<br />
R: Surprise!<br />
<br />
S: And some of his cronies. So they wrote an article in the Huff Poo attacking the TEDx directors who wrote this open letter, and criticizing them for all the usual straw men, boogie men crap. It's really terrible. So, here's one quote from it:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>What the militant atheists and self-described skeptics hate is a certain brand of magical thinking that endangers science. In particular, there is a bugaboo of non-local consciousness which causes the hair on the back of their necks to stand on end. A layman would be forgiven for not grasping why such an innocent-sounding phrase could spell danger to good science. </blockquote><br />
<br />
So, thoughout the letter they're attacking quote, unquote, militant atheists, and every single time, just about, Chopra refers to Richard Dawkins, he calls him "militant atheist Richard Dawkins." <br />
<br />
R: I think he actually changed his first name to "militant atheist." ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: I'd like to say to Chopra, "I don't think you know what this word means."<br />
<br />
S: Well, I mean, he's trying to portray skeptics as the fanatics. Right? That we're the ones with an axe to grind; we're the ones on the extreme. And ''he's'' just talking about the cutting edge; we're just not aware. The other thing that's really funny—we've kind of been talking about Games of Thrones this episode—that the article is based upon this really lame, gratuitous analogy to the Games of Thrones. <br />
<br />
B: He got it so wrong, it was a joke.<br />
<br />
S: He gets everything wrong. So, he basically is trying to make this analogy that skeptics are like the Guardians on the Great Wall. <br />
<br />
R: There are no Guardians.<br />
<br />
S: I know. And, first he calls it a hereditary order, --it's not hereditary. ''(laughter)'' And the he says that the Guardians, meaning the Night Watch, but the Guardians defend the Empire from the monsters and the creatures on the other side of the Wall without ever going north of the Wall to see what's actually there. <br />
<br />
R: That's so . . . you just watch the first episode . . .<br />
<br />
S: I know. The very first scene are Rangers north of the Wall.<br />
<br />
R: Ya dummy. If Deepak can't even get this right . . . come on.<br />
<br />
B: You know, what's worse than a politician or a pseudoscientist misquoting or mis-referencing a bit of popular culture. Like, when –<br />
<br />
E: Oh, the Spock thing, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Spock, and they mix up ''Star Wars'' and ''Star Trek'' and all that, and it's like, oh, my god. Your advisors, your consultants should have been there for you when you wrote this.<br />
<br />
S: The whole article sort of revolves around this analogy, and he gets it horribly wrong. Sometimes in details that are not relevant to the point, but it just shows that he's not even aware. He didn't read the books or watch the series. Either that or he pays very poor attention to detail. But in one critical aspect, the analogy fails in a very meaningful way when he claims that the Guardians don't go north of the wall in the same way that skeptics don't actually investigate the topics that they dismiss in their militant atheism. And both are absolutely wrong. In fact, skeptics spend a great deal of time and energy carefully examining the claims of people like Chopra and Sheldrake and Hancock. We actually do what most mainstream scientists don't do. We're ''at'' the wall, we range north of the wall, we are investigating and we're trying to warn the Empire, "Hey, there's a bunch of nonsense up here!" <br />
<br />
R: And just to be clear, in Chopra's analogy here, in his metaphor, he is the zombie. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: That's right. He's the one ''(inaudible)''<br />
<br />
R: All right. Just making sure I've got that right.<br />
<br />
S: He also says there are dragons north of the wall—wrong!<br />
<br />
B: Wr- o-o-o-ng!<br />
<br />
R: God.<br />
<br />
E: Here be dragons.<br />
<br />
J: Is he getting like loaded before he watches this TV show?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughing)'' I don't he's, Jay, I think he has a vague notion of what's going on, and probably never really watched the show.<br />
<br />
R: He sat down to write those things, like, "What do the kids like these days?"<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, "What's popular these days?"<br />
<br />
B: No, not "the kids," the "kiddies." The kiddies.<br />
<br />
E: Well, you know Chopra. He's good at stealing a word here and a word there, and twisting into something he thinks is for his benefit—<br />
<br />
R: So, the wall is the new quantum.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but what he's really saying in his article is that there should be no standards. That anything should go. And that we're all adults, so any speculative thinking is all fine. Just leave us alone and let us say whatever we want.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, and let the audience decide, right?<br />
<br />
S: Let the audience decide. Which is funny because he triggers many of the red flags that the open letter specifically warned about. In his response. He's actually showing himself to be a pseudoscientist in his response to the open letter. By their own criteria. Without showing any awareness that he's doing so.<br />
<br />
B: That was wonderful. <br />
<br />
S: Oh, it was just terrible. And of course, that's exactly what the cranks and charlatans want, is for there to be no standards. And he pulled the Galileo gambit, by the way. I don't even know if I need to say what that is. Anybody who compares something to Galileo is automatically a crank, period. And he equated having some standards with censorship. Which again, that's a sign that, that's one of the red flags that they had in the open letter. If they try to say that they're being censored because you're trying to hold them to some standard, that's a red flag that they're a crank.<br />
<br />
B: Somebody replied to those comments specifically, and I love what they were saying about Galileo and how for every one true Galileo there's thousands of cranks, and also, if Galileo were alive today, he would recognize the need to do good research and not just throw it out there and see if it sticks on the wall, and to do good science. Something that they don't do.<br />
<br />
S: That was Chris Anderson from TED, responding to Deepak Chopra. Totally nailed it. He said<br />
<br />
<blockquote>No one here claims that mainstream science is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It isn't. But it is the best starting point we have for judging new information. Yes. A modern-day Galileo may be out there with paradigm shifting ideas that will at some point overturn huge pieces of existing science. But he or she should expect to face a robust standard of proof before their ideas take hold. And for every Galileo, there are thousands of people who just have bad unscientific ideas.</blockquote><br />
<br />
B: That was beautiful. He did a great job.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Chopra responded. Again. He responded again on the Huff Poo, on his blog. And this one is just, "Oh, you know, these scientists just don't understand the cutting edge." He's saying that they don't understand that the observer is in the equation. Right? That the universe is not just about what's being observed from a distance, but there's an observer in the mix as well. It's like, really? I mean . . .yeah, yeah, the physicists haven't been talking about this for the last twenty years? Come on. A total straw man. Again, I think someone said that Deepak Chopra should be banned from using the word "quantum" ever again. <br />
<br />
B: I'll send that!<br />
<br />
R: Censorship!<br />
<br />
S: At one of his debates, a physicist who was in the audience suggested that he attend a basic course, like monitor a basic class on quantum mechanics. 'Cause clearly he doesn't understand the first thing about it.<br />
<br />
R: Wasn't that Leonard Mlodinow?<br />
<br />
S: Was it? No, I know he . . . I think this was somebody in the audience. I don't think . . . I know Leonard Mlodinow has debated Chopra.<br />
<br />
R: I thought that's how he came to know Deepak Chopra, was that he spoke up in the audience.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, is that right? <br />
<br />
R: I might be getting this completely wrong.<br />
<br />
''(speaking simultaneously – inaudible)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca. <br />
<br />
S: But, this is the kind of pushback that we're going to get. I see this as a sign that we're being successful. That we are shining a light on the cranks and showing why what they're doing is nonsensical, and we're getting things like, you know, people who are actually directors of TEDx are writing very critical thinking, very skeptical open letters about the difference between science and pseudoscience. That's a huge victory for the skeptical movement. And we are forcing the cranks to try to attack us and to try to marginalize us, because we're having an impact. And we just have to keep the pressure back up against them. We can't let them define us. Of course they want to define us as the militant ones, right? I think what I'm gonna do is, every time I refer to Deepak Chopra from now on, I'm gonna refer to him as "militant crank Deepak Chopra." ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I like it.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I think that's fair.<br />
<br />
E: How do ya like that, Deepak?<br />
<br />
S: You think that's fair?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: We'll see how militant crank Deepak Chopra responds to that.<br />
<br />
J: This is one of those rare news items that is really exciting, it gives me some hope. This could have gone a much darker path. TED could have gone into a really bad place, and was allowing all this junk science in there.<br />
<br />
S: Well, hey, not that there aren't marginal and dubious TED talks. I'm not saying that that's a paragon. But maybe this will improve the quality of even TED by focusing a light on this issue of science versus pseudoscience.<br />
<br />
R: :Yeah, that's just it—<br />
<br />
E: Bring it to the forefront.<br />
<br />
R: That's what I meant by, when you said "problem with TED talks." I said another one. TEDx is just rife with B.S. But it's good that they've recognized that and are taking steps to solve it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and I think it's demonstrably because of skeptical watchdogs.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Creationism and Dinosaurs <small>(45:53)</small>===<br />
* http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/21/aclu-to-kansas-school-district-cancel-creationist-assemblies-about-dinosaurs/<br />
<br />
S: Speaking of militant cranks, Rebecca, you're gonna tell us about one who is going to be talking at a Kansas public school.<br />
<br />
R: Yes. Dr. G. Thomas Sharp has been hired to come to a small, a southwest Kansas school district to deliver two assemblies next week on the truth about dinosaurs. And I know about this because the ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union, is threatening the school district that they'll be taken to court if they continue on with these assemblies. The reason why is because Sharp is the founder of the Creation Truth Foundation. And when he is teaching the truth about dinosaurs, the things he teaches are things like dinosaurs were on the ark with Noah, and evolution is wrong. <br />
<br />
S: Did you watch his online video? <br />
<br />
R: I did, actually. There's an hour-long video in which he's, it's called ''The Truth About Dinosaurs'' and it's released by Sharp. So I have to assume that this is going to be at least similar to what he's going to be delivering to the Kansas school. I should mention that the ACLU, when they threatened the school district with court action, the superintendent of schools, Mark Crawford, responded to say that the assemblies were going to continue and that the, all the assemblies would be in line with the law. They would not actually be anything to do with creationism. And again, this is the founder of the Creation Truth Foundation. So I mean, it's right there in the name. And then, yeah, if you watch this horrible hour-long lecture he gives on YouTube, it's astounding the things he, I mean he's preaching, basically.<br />
<br />
J: Give us a few tidbits, like what were some of the crazier things he said?<br />
<br />
R: Well, like he refers to dinosaurs as god's lizards, and I mean, the Bible is sprinkled throughout. He accuses <br />
<br />
E: Godzilla, what?<br />
<br />
R: He refers to actual science as being done by secularists, and as though it's a filthy word.<br />
<br />
S: All right, then, let's say that he scrubs his talk of any biblical god or secular religious references,<br />
<br />
R: Then it'll be ten seconds long.<br />
<br />
S: It'll still be a mountain of absolute unscientific nonsense. Now, the approach that he takes, first of all, this is all nothing new. This is like 1970's style creationism.<br />
<br />
R: We should be clear, this is not intelligent design.<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
R: The thinly veiled creationism. This is creationism, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Retro-creationism.<br />
<br />
S: So he does the whole taking quote of scientists out of context, usually from public writing—writing meant for the lay public, not technical writing. And then he just completely mystery mongers. He tries to blow out of proportion what we don't know. Like, for example, and he's doing the whole, he doesn't really say evolution is wrong, he's doing the equivalency thing where evolution is one model and creation is another model, and the only way to interpret the evidence is through your preconceived notions. So if you assume evolution, then you'll interpret the evidence from an evolutionary perspective. But if you go with the biblical assumption that there was a flood and everything, then you could make sense of everything with the flood. And for example, he does the whole alternate geology, flood geology, and he said that there is no consensus that dinosaurs evolved from birds. And then he pulls some quote segment out of context from somebody, in a popular article, to make it sound like we have no idea what's going on. He's like, oh, the fossils are rare and they're in such poor condition and we have no idea what these dinosaurs were like, you know. Completely mis-characterizing the overwhelming evidence. There was just a study published this week showing that dinosaurs, that theropod dinosaurs that are closely related to early birds nested their eggs the same way that birds do. There's one more piece of evidence that birds evolved from a certain type of dinosaur.<br />
<br />
R: And while he's preaching that, he's implying heavily that scientists are outright lying to kids and using dinosaurs as some sort of enticing ploy to get them to come to their evil museums and lie to them. He says that scientists discount the flood and scientists disagree on dinosaurs, birds evolving from dinosaurs, and yet they continue to lie kids about it. I mean, it's, he's clearly implying nefarious purposes on the part of scientists.<br />
<br />
S: He's just accusing scientists of doing exactly what he's doing.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: He's dinosaurs as a lure so that he could lie through his teeth about the state of the scientific evidence about evolution and dinosaurs.<br />
<br />
E: And this superintendent of this school says it's completely and totally school-appropriate.<br />
<br />
B: I think he was, he seemed pretty clear and adamant that he would not allow creationism to be taught, and I think they got ahold of him and they convinced him, this is what we're gonna talk about, this is what we're gonna say. And I think what they're actually gonna do might be very different. Or, I kind of also think that they're gonna scrub the hell out of their talk and get very<br />
<br />
S: Yeah but Bob, he knows exactly what's going on. He knows, the point of this—<br />
<br />
R: The guy who started the Creation Truth Foundation, you don't invite him to give a lecture to students and then say that it's got nothing to do with creationism.<br />
<br />
S: This is deliberate stealth creationism in public schools, period. That's what this is.<br />
<br />
R: And I do want to mention that the assemblies are required for students to attend.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Mandatory. Mandatory.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
==Survey Announcement <small>(52:18)</small>==<br />
<br />
S: Evan, before we go to ''Who's That Noisy?'' a very quick announcement. We are doing a survey of our listeners. You can get to the survey, it's a quick demographic survey. We'd really appreciate if you'd take just a moment to fill it out so we could know more about our listeners. Go to theskepticsguide.org home page and you'll see it right on the home page, big white box with the survey in there. And again, we'd appreciate if you'd take a moment to fill that out.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(52:46)</small>==<br />
Puzzle for last week<br />
S: All right, well, Evan. We're now a couple of weeks behind on ''Who's That Noisy?''<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, well, we'll get caught up. Going back to March 30 it was when we asked the following puzzle:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Mark is visiting a psychic, the Great Griftina. The Great Griftina tells Mark to think of the number 1, 2 or 3. The Great Griftina tells Mark that she will ask one question of him, and must only reply with "yes," "no," or "I don't know." So what question should the Great Griftina ask Mark to find out exactly which number Mark has chosen.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: And I think there were a few different kinds of right answers to this.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, there was. A lot of the correct answers took the form, well, something like this, which I'm calling the standard solution, but I counted a lot of the solutions as correct that sort of had this premise in mind. So here's the answer, the standard solution: If I have the numbers one or two in mind, is the number that you have in mind larger than the numbers I have in mind? And a couple of variations on this that I found interesting are a little bit different from the standard solution. Someone posed, let's see, it was listener Brandon from Miami, Florida said that you could ask this question: If you subtracted two from your number, would the square root of the result be greater than zero?<br />
<br />
R: It's just really, if she's just dumb, it's always gonna be, I don't know. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: That's true. You have to assume that the people know math, and understand concepts like square roots and so forth.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And that works out. The winner this week is Yves von Gennip.<br />
<br />
S: And what have you got for this week?<br />
<br />
E: This week we're going back to the classic ''Who's That Noisy?'' I'm gonna play something for you. And you're gonna try to figure out exactly who is saying this. Are you ready?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>''(Woman speaking English with a foreign accent)'' You want to create weight loss, you can start using feng shui. The best way is to have black or blue plates, and actually making sure that you don't put too much on your plate at the same time.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: Feng shui to lose weight.<br />
<br />
J: Ev, you don't think it might something to do with the fact that she says "Don't put so much stuff on your plate"?<br />
<br />
E: ''(laughing)'' I was hoping you'd catch that, Jay. Yeah, that's exactly what I thought. What the hell does feng shui have to do with that? But I never heard that before. Feng shui as a weight loss program? That was new to me, so I thought I would share that with you, and go ahead and give us your guess. Sguforums.com is our forums. Go ahead and post your answer there or send your answer in to wtn@theskepticsguide.org and we'll do it again next week. Good luck, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, thanks, Evan.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(55:35)</small> ==<br />
=== Question 1 <small>(55:35)</small>===<br />
Bitcoin Follow Up<br />
Corrections and further analysis of Bitcoin<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2013/04/guelph_scientis_1.htmlItem #1]: Scientists have developed a vaccine that can reduce the risk of developing autism in high-risk infants by over 20%. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423135716.htm Item #2]: A study finds that medical interns spend only 12% of their time with patients, while spending 40% of their time at computers. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130418124907.htm Item #3]: A new study finds that over 50% of products recalled by the FDA between 2004 and 2012 because they probably would "cause serious adverse health consequences or death" were dietary supplements. <br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro404}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_406&diff=6603SGU Episode 4062013-05-14T01:46:28Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 359<br />
|episodeDate = 34<sup>th</sup> May 2012<br />
|episodeIcon = File:bomb-detector.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-04-27.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=406<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=45826.0<br />
|qowText = Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.<br />
|qowAuthor = {{w|Mark Twain}}<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the {{SGU}}, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the {{SGU}}. Today is Tuesday, April 24, 2013, and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson,<br />
<br />
R: Hello, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: Hey, guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Mach-cho maroon.<br />
<br />
S: Thank you, Evan.<br />
<br />
J: That sounds very Game of Thrones-y.<br />
<br />
E: It's the first words I think I've ever spoken in Dothraki.<br />
<br />
J: And what does it mean?<br />
<br />
R: It means "Die, scum!" ''(laughter)'' ''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: It means: "Your horse is ugly."<br />
<br />
J: Does it mean Hello?<br />
<br />
R: It means hello.<br />
<br />
E: Yes. It's the long way of saying "hello."<br />
<br />
S: Or as close as you get to it in Dothraki.<br />
<br />
J: Game of Thrones is kicking ass. The latest episode was awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And that has nothing to do with science.<br />
<br />
E: Everything to do with pop culture. <br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:02)</small> ==<br />
April 27, 1791: Birth of Samuel Morse<br />
<br />
R: But you know what ''does'' have to do, slightly, with science is that today, April 27, is the birthday of Samuel Morse, who was born in 1791.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, happy birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Wait. I missed that segue. What's, how did you do that? Oh, never mind. Go ahead. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: You know, it was just so smooth, you missed it. Yeah, so, Samuel Morse, most people know as the inventor, or co-inventor, of Morse code. I found it really interesting, I was reading up on him, and apparently he got interested in telegraph systems because he was far away from his wife when she took ill, and he got a telegram saying that she was basically on her death bed. And by the time he was able to rush to see her, she was already dead and buried. And he was so angry about it <br />
<br />
E: Sad.<br />
<br />
R: that he gave up painting. He had been a painter. And he dedicated his life to finding a better way to communicate over long distances. So, yeah, a tragedy, but it was positive results for humanity.<br />
<br />
J: You know what he said when he got there and they said "Your wife is dead."? He said, "She's dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dead?"<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my, God. ''(groans and laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: That was bad.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: Guys, guys, come on.<br />
<br />
B: Please edit that out, Steve. ''(laughter continues)'' Imagine how awesome that was back then when you realize that, holy crap, we can communicate so fast over hundreds, thousands, of miles. It must have been like pure science fiction to them.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, I learned some interesting things about Samuel Morse. First of all, he graduated from Yale. So he's a Yale alum. Supported himself as a painter, as Rebecca said. He didn't just invent, actually co-invent, with Alfred Vail, Morse code. He actually developed the electrical telegraph. And he, one of the critical inventions for that was the relay. He invented the relay. You guys know how that works?<br />
<br />
J: Sure.<br />
<br />
S: Hit me.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, the re--, you mean the thing that boosts the signal so it can go over long distances.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So, 'cause the wires back then were so crappy, one signal could really only go not even a mile. It couldn't go very far at all. So he figured out a way of putting in a relay where the signal hits a relay circuit which essentially, a very weak signal, you have a very sensitive circuit, so that even a weak signal comes in, and it activates a magnet, which triggers an arm, which creates a new click, which then can go the next distance to the next relay. So very simple, very basic, but that was a critical invention to the functioning of the <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: over long distances.<br />
<br />
B: They had to set those up every mile? Wow, that's a lot.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, something like that, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Initially, at least.<br />
<br />
E: It's like fiber optic today; they have relay stations.<br />
<br />
S: Do you guys know what the first message sent across one of those telegraphs was?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: I used to know it.<br />
<br />
J: "Send more Chuck Berry."<br />
<br />
R: Well, I only know because I read it like an hour ago.<br />
<br />
J: Say it with authority.<br />
<br />
R: I know exactly what it was, Steve. It was "A patient waiter is no loser."<br />
<br />
S: Right. Which is interesting because it's not . . .<br />
<br />
B: That's kinda lame.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's kinda lame.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: But his father was <br />
<br />
R: It's no "What hath God wrought?"<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, "what hath God wrought?"<br />
<br />
E: Or "Watson, come here, I want you.<br />
<br />
S: That's what he said when he was transmitting from the Supreme Court chamber.<br />
<br />
E: Right.<br />
<br />
S: His father was a Calvinist preacher, so it's kind of, I guess, has the moralistic tone with which he was raised. His father was Jedidiah Morse. You gotta love that name, Jedidiah. Not many Jedidiahs around today. <br />
<br />
B: No.<br />
<br />
S: And Morse also was pro-slavery. And was active in resisting both Catholics and immigrants.<br />
<br />
E: Um hm.<br />
<br />
J: When you say "resisting," what do you mean "resist"?<br />
<br />
S: He was, he actively campaigned against immigrants and Catholics.<br />
<br />
R: Horrible person<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: who did some good stuff.<br />
<br />
J: I didn't know that.<br />
<br />
B: I like him a little less now.<br />
<br />
S: He was a product of his time and his father.<br />
<br />
B: True.<br />
<br />
S: Gotta cut him a little bit of slack.<br />
<br />
R: I don't know, there were plenty of people of his time who were vehemently anti-slavery.<br />
<br />
S: Um hm. I agree, I just said "a little bit." It's hard to look back 200 years and be too heavily moralizing.<br />
<br />
R: Eh. I find it easy. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Are you guys enjoying the first real days of spring that we've had so far?<br />
<br />
J: Awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, I'm lovin' it. 'Bout time.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, this 42 degree weather is wonderful.<br />
<br />
S: Well, hey, we had such a long winter; you're right, it's still a little on the cold side. Today there were all these various unmistakable signs of spring, sort of like all at once. So, first, the forsythia is in full bloom. Second, bluebirds have moved into our bluebird house. They're gonna make little baby bluebirds.<br />
<br />
R: How do the bluebirds know that the bluebird house is for them?<br />
<br />
S: That's a really good question.<br />
<br />
E: They use the GPS.<br />
<br />
J: They can fit in it.<br />
<br />
R: There's a sign.<br />
<br />
S: So a bluebird house has an opening of a certain size. But honestly, it's more about positioning. You need to place it three to five feet above the ground, in an open area, with nothing obscuring the ground beneath it. So, bluebirds wanna make sure they can see snakes and other things coming. So if you do that, if you hang it at the right height in a sort of openish area, bluebirds will move into it. I mean it's, <br />
<br />
R: And no other bird?<br />
<br />
S: Well, hang on. The other bird that will tend to steal a bluebird house from the bluebird is the house sparrow. We have plenty of house sparrows, but bluebirds always seem to move into our bluebird houses. So it's remarkably consistent.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, what do you think, like you have, the pair of bluebirds are flying around and the wife bluebird goes "What about this one, honey?" And the husband's like "Nope, that's only two feet off the gound." <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I mean they definitely have like a measuring tape and a list of wants. <br />
<br />
S: It works, it absolutely works.<br />
<br />
R: Good view of snakes, in-ground pool.<br />
<br />
B: My favorite sign of spring is that the White Walkers are retreating back north.<br />
<br />
S: Yup. ''(laughter and garbled comments)'' Nice call-back. The robins are more visible. As we learned previously they don't actually; they do migrate, but there are robins in the winter but they stay more in the forest. But the robins that are here come out and are more visible in the spring. And I actually grilled steaks on the grill on my deck today, for dinner.<br />
<br />
E: Delicious.<br />
<br />
R: Man, you went all out.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And, the single most profound marker that spring is here was<br />
<br />
E: Allergies.<br />
<br />
S: No. I don't have allergies luckily. Was, the ice cream truck came around.<br />
<br />
R: You have an ice cream truck?<br />
<br />
S: Yup. My daughters go insane. You know, they see the ice cream truck and they just go crazy.<br />
<br />
E: Come on, you go a little crazy, too. Admit it.<br />
<br />
J: Does the guy play music, Steve, or<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
J: Does he ring the bell, what is it?<br />
<br />
S: Of course, you've got the music and the bell and they just lose their minds.<br />
<br />
R: We never had an ice cream truck when I was a kid; it was too rural.<br />
<br />
B: We did.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah, we did.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, you were insane. I have a distinct memory of you, one night, sitting at the end of our driveway. You were a little shit, probably six or seven, crying your eyes out because the ice cream man didn't come, or you missed him, or something, and you were just like bawling 'cause you wanted your ice cream, and you missed it. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: I never forgave that guy, either.<br />
<br />
E: That bastard.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Mars One <small>(9:01)</small>===<br />
* http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/apply-now-one-way-trip-mars<br />
<br />
S: All right, well let's move on. Bob, you're gonna tell us about ''(imitating Schwarzenegger)'' "Get your ass to Mars." ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: You just totally took my opening line. Thank you so much.<br />
<br />
S: Bob, you gotta warn me if you're gonna do that.<br />
<br />
B: Whatever.<br />
<br />
S: It was a bit obvious<br />
<br />
B: I know, but I added a little flourish at the end. I said "Get your ass to Mars and never come back." Are you guys ready for an out-of-this-world reality TV show? I can't believe they're doing this. The company Mars One is planning on making a reality show that showcases the entire process of selecting and training astronauts, their trip to Mars, and the rest of their lives living on Mars. And like we said, it's a one-way trip. That's the real kicker that everybody's talking about. Would you guys do that? Would you guys actually consider that? Or would you want to hear the details first?<br />
<br />
R: No.<br />
<br />
E: I don't think so.<br />
<br />
R: I don't need the details. No. I don't wanna go on a reality show so people can watch me die in space. No. Thank you.<br />
<br />
''(speaking simultaneously – inaudible)''<br />
<br />
B: --when I'm 70 or 80, or what the hell. So, the first question is why are you doing a one-way trip? There's two good reasons. The scientists feel that it's feasible to send people to Mars pretty much now, but the tech just doesn't seem to exist to bring them back right now. I kind of thought that was a weird reason because even if we don't have it now, surely it'll exist at some point. And if we put resources into it it wouldn't take that long. I think one of the reasons that they're doing this is that it's a real attention grabber. Headlines.<br />
<br />
S: The think is though, what do you do, when to get to Mars, you find out that you don't like it there.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah, you're done. Game over.<br />
<br />
R: You'd kill yourself.<br />
<br />
E: You suck it, basically.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it'll make for a good episode. They're already talking about how they'll have a crematorium because people will of course die. But another good reason, probably the best reason that they're not gonna come back,<br />
<br />
E: What if you're the last one to die, though? How're you gonna get in that crematorium?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I wouldn't worry too much about it. So the best reason though why they're not coming back is that, imagine seven or eight months in space; astronauts, as we know, lose muscle mass, they lose bone mass; it's really, really horrific on the body. Even if you're exercising all the time, there's a huge hit that you take; and then time that you spend in Mars' weaker gravitational field, that's not gonna help much either. And scientists feel that readjusting to Earth's gravity after so much time, it's pretty much impossible, with today's technology anyway. After all that time, you're just not coming back. That's a really, really good reason.<br />
<br />
J: That sounds odd to me, Bob. What about people that suffer phenomenal injuries and have to be bedridden for six months or a year. You can't grow back the tissue that you lost, and the bone mass?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it's weird. It's not like if you become paralyzed, where your muscles just turn to mush and it's completely and utterly irrevocable.. .<br />
<br />
S: But people who are bedridden lose a lot of muscle mass. You could lose one to three percent of your muscle mass per day if you're sick and in the hospital and completely immobile. Especially for older people. So that's why they have weeks and months, sometimes, of rehab, just to recover from the debility that results, Jay.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, Jay, and that's also one of the big down sides to yo-yo weight loss, where you lose a lot of weight and inevitably a lot of muscle weight and then you gain back a lot of fat. At the end of the cycle you have much less muscle than you had, and that's a hit that your body could take for the rest of its life, 'cause it's just so hard to get back all that muscle that you lost. It's really bad. And that's a really good reason why once you're there you're gonna be committed. The gravitational pull on Mars is about 38% of Earth's. So that's really, really low. I mean things, it'd be easy to get around and things would be light and that's all great, but, man, your muscles just say we don't need all of this muscle, let's get rid of it. I'm very curious how walking will be accomplished on Mars. How similar to moon-walking will it be? Or will it be a fusion between the moon-hopping and the Earth-walking? I'd be curious to see that. <br />
<br />
J: Bob, what's their budget? How could they possibly afford to do this?<br />
<br />
B: That's actually one of the key problems, Jay, is funding. They figure it's gonna cost about six billion U.S. dollars to get there, just for the first group.<br />
<br />
S: How many bit coins is it gonna cost? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Seven. <br />
<br />
R: Oh, you know, if they send a big-time movie star, if they send like Julia Roberts, that should secure them at least one billion from the foreign markets.<br />
<br />
J: Why, 'cause they wanna get rid of her? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's a movie-making joke. You cast the right people, you get the funding. That's the way it works, in Hollywood.<br />
<br />
S: So who ''should'' we send to Mars on a one-way trip?<br />
<br />
B: Justin Bieber! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Wow, Bob.<br />
<br />
R: What did Justin Bieber ever do to you?<br />
<br />
B: Nothing, I just felt like it.<br />
<br />
J: It's not really him, it's more his haircut.<br />
<br />
S: Could we just send his haircut?<br />
<br />
J: So, look, there's a lot of things about this that I just don't have enough information on, or they're just not making enough sense. First of all, how do you get billions of dollars for a TV show? Second of all, who's developing the technology? How are they gonna live an extended period of time on a planet where they can't manufacture things, grow food, what's up?<br />
<br />
B: Let me go through some of this, then, Jay. What they're gonna need, more than a few astronauts: they're talking about 24 astronauts. So the idea is they're gonna have six groups of four astronauts, and every two years four astronauts are gonna be sent there, with the first one going in 2022. The selection process will be finalized in 2015; so it's only a couple years away. Then they're gonna go through seven years of training. And, think about it though, seven years of a reality show of astronauts training. That's gonna get so boring. There's no way they're gonna maintain a TV show for that long.<br />
<br />
S: I don't know, Bob. I mean, ghost hunter shows have lasted for that long. <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, ''The Real World'' has been going on for that long.<br />
<br />
B: I guess.<br />
<br />
R: It's crap, but people still watch it, I guess.<br />
<br />
B: Well, if they do a good job, they can make it interesting. But seven years of training?<br />
<br />
S: What they need to do is they need to vote people off the planet. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Well actually, what they're gonna, that's close, Steve. What they're gonna do, in true reality show style, is they're gonna vote four astronauts, the first four to go, who of course will be the most famous. Who doesn't wanna be the first ones to go? Except me. <br />
<br />
R: Anyone with a brain, doesn't wanna be the first to go.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, you mentioned technology. Space X, they're gonna work with Space X. And the idea is to use a slightly enlarged version of the Dragon capsule to get them there. And <br />
<br />
R: I never noticed before how much "Space X" sounds like "space sex." Because that was very confusing when you first said it.<br />
<br />
S: Space sex?<br />
<br />
R: Um hm.<br />
<br />
B: I never thought of that. Thank you. They're gonna use those really cool retro propulsion rockets to land it because of course parachutes aren't gonna cut it. Jay, to survive, they're gonna have solar panels, of course, for energy. They're gonna recycle and extract water from the soil if it's there, if they can actually find some. And food, and they're gonna grow their own food. That's another technology that I don't know how they're pull that off. And then of course, every two years they'll get a nice resupply of their Reese's Peanut Butter Cups from Earth when the next group arrives. But as you can imagine, right, there's gonna be tons of problems. One of them is the solar wind. Mars just does not have, a very thin atmosphere. It's about a hundredth, less than a hundredth the density of Earth's atmosphere. It's almost a friggin' vacuum. And Mars doesn't have a magnetosphere. I mean, damn.<br />
<br />
J: It doesn't seem like the survival of these people is going to be high. It's scaring me. <br />
<br />
S: They are gonna send supplies ahead of the first astronauts. So there should be material and food and everything they'll need there to get going. <br />
<br />
B; Well, they want to send a series of rovers to go there. And that's also one of the reasons why I'm pessimistic. They want to send a bunch of rovers. I mean, are they even working on these rovers? I mean, you know how long it takes to design and develop and test all that. I'm not even sure where they even are with that preliminary step right there. And so it's not just a magnetosphere that's not there, which is basically a shield for the solar wind and cosmic ray particles. It really is why there's lots of life on the surface of the planet. <br />
<br />
S: Their habitat will basically have to be under ground. <br />
<br />
B: yeah, they're gonna have to . . . maybe that's one of the things these rovers can do is help make these pits for their habitat. So if they're gonna have to be under many feet of dirt, then they'll be okay. But there's also no liquid water, really. None that they could really tap into that we've found. And then the radiation, not just the radiation on the planet, but the trip radiation, and we've talked about this on the show. It's nasty. Just going there, you've got these energetic particles in the solar wind; you've got cosmic rays. I mean, they won't kill you outright, necessarily, but they will greatly increase your chances of getting cancer. And the question is . . .<br />
<br />
R: These people are not gonna live long enough to get cancer. They don't need to worry about that.<br />
<br />
B: I guess.<br />
<br />
R: Like if they die of cancer, it'll be the greatest thing that ever happened to them. <br />
<br />
J: You know, there's social implications here, as well. What about laws?<br />
<br />
S: They're on their own. The whole idea is they can create their own civilization.<br />
<br />
E: The wild west. That's great. What if one of them goes nuts and starts to break down?<br />
<br />
S: Well they'll have seven years vet these people. They're gonna be . . . so part of the training . . . first of all, they're gonna be trained in emergency medicine, dentistry, engineering, all the skills they're gonna need to do everything they need on their own and they're gonna also spend extended periods of time in simulated Martian habitats, and have simulated emergencies. So, that's seven years of vetting for these people.<br />
<br />
E: What if these people don't pan out in year three or four, what . . . you're gonna have to have teams of people going through this process. I mean, imagine the hundreds of people that they're gonna have to select from.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. I would think they're gonna have maybe one or two backups. You know, you're talking fifty, sixty, seventy people, if they go that route, which isn't, I mean $6 billion will go a long way for that kind of stuff. NASA astronaut Stan Love had a great description of this. He, I think he described it really well. He just happened to come back from Antarctica, and he says "That place is a picnic compared to Mars." He says it's full of water, you can go outside and breathe the air. It's paradise compared to Mars, and yet nobody has moved there permanently. And you know, as nasty as that place is, Mars is ten hundred times worse and people are gonna spend the rest of their lives there. It's just crazy. <br />
<br />
R: What happens when the show is cancelled?<br />
<br />
E: That's a good point.<br />
<br />
R: You know, ratings are down, they need that time slot for something else.<br />
<br />
S: I think, let me go against the grain and say that I think this is a wonderful idea.<br />
<br />
B: No. You're full of shit. No. All right, I love the idea of a community off the Earth, and Stephen Hawking would really agree with us on that. But ''go to the moon first!'' It's only three days away. Vet all the technology and develop it on the moon. If there's a huge disaster, you can be there in mere days, rather than months and a billion dollars later. <br />
<br />
R: Good point.<br />
<br />
S: All right, that's a really good point.<br />
<br />
B: Moon Base Alpha first, then Mars.<br />
<br />
J: Well, wait, Bob. That might be part of their plan, though. As Rebecca says, let's say the show gets cancelled. The show's gonna probably get cancelled right around when everyone's gonna die. Right?<br />
<br />
E; That convenient.<br />
<br />
S: Well the show may be cancelled before they even . . . It's gonna be seven years of reality TV before they even blast off for Mars. Remember. So, this is highly risky in multiple ways. This is gonna be very difficult to pull off. But you gotta give it to them for the vision here, of trying to . . . If they pull this off, then you really have to give it to them for being bold and the amount of dedication it's going to take to usher this project to completion is going to be amazing. So, they will have to capture the imagination of the world with this project. The people that they select are going to have a lot to do with this. And they have ten years to work out the technological limitations. It's not impossible, it's just gonna be really, really hard. But if they're serious about this, I think that . . . I'd love to see them try; I wish them well; I would love to see them succeed, as long as they appreciate that they're not going into this thinking this is gonna be an easy endeavor. As long as they appreciate all the many ways this can fail, and they are doing everything they possibly can to deal with all of those hurdles, then, let's see what they do.<br />
<br />
R: Who's the "they" again? Who's actually doing this?<br />
<br />
S: Mars One, I guess, is the organization. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah, they're based out of Denmark. <br />
<br />
J: Steve, I don't disagree with that at all. I see what you're saying, and I like the idea of all these billions of dollars that go into entertainment that is really, at the end of the day, it doesn't achieve things like technology and pushing the limits of man's fortitude . . . <br />
<br />
S: You know what I think is likely to happen? If they get this off the ground, I think that they're going to have an interesting reality TV show that will be a dry run for a real colonization trip to either the moon or Mars. But they probably won't ever launch. If they ''do'' launch; if they're successful enough, in terms of raising money and keeping the whole project going to the point where they're ready to launch, that will be a huge success right there. Anything that happens after that, you know, I would still consider this to be a success. Of course it's high risk. They will have . . . basically like 2022 or 2023, they're gonna have to make a hard assessment of whether or not they actually have all the pieces in place to send people to Mars. Probably there's gonna be tons of delays and it will probably never happen. But . . .<br />
<br />
B: Oh, 2022 or 3, I'd say 2018 they'd be like, shit, we're not gonna make this. And to me, that's my biggest beef with this is that 2022 just seems way too soon to pull this off. There's too many hurdles.<br />
<br />
S: I like the idea that they're planning on using the Space X<br />
<br />
B: Oh, absolutely.<br />
<br />
S: So that may throw a lot of funding their way. <br />
<br />
B: That would be great.<br />
<br />
S: That would be a good consequence of all this.<br />
<br />
J: It's a lot of money they have to get, and that's gonna be a huge hurdle for them.<br />
<br />
B: I've got a quote on that as well. Dr. Chris Lintott, he's Oxford University, he thinks that it's technologically plausible, feasible. But in his mind funding is gonna be the biggest problem. He said "It's about having the political will and the financial muscle to make this happen. That's what nobody has been able to solve so far." So the undoing of this entire project might be just purely from funding, 'cause it's a lot of money. It's got a lot of sustained interest that you'd have to have for many, many years. And if you can pull that off, that might be the biggest hurdle of all.<br />
<br />
S: Hopefully this is a story we'll be reporting on over the years. I hope it doesn't die in the crib. It'll be interesting.<br />
<br />
B: And if anyone wants to register you have until August 31 of 2013, and they certainly have lots of volunteers. I've heard numbers over 40,000 requests already.<br />
<br />
R: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
B: It'll cost you money, though. I think it's 38 bucks for the United States. But depending on what country you're in, the prices will vary. But yeah, lots of people are interested in it.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Bomb Detector Fraud <small>(24:43)</small>===<br />
* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22266051<br />
<br />
S: Okay, Jay, there's some good news from the U.K. about a convicted con artist.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. Do you all remember the story we covered about James McCormick? He's the guy who sold the fake bomb detectors that were eventually used in real life situations in Iraq. Well, things didn't turn out so good for Mr. McCormick. This is a horrifying story with a possible good ending. It hasn't ended quite yet. I think it's going in the right direction, but this, let me give you the quick background. April 23, 2013, during a hearing in London at the Central Criminal Court of England and Wales, the Court was told that McCormick's fake detectors were 100% ineffectual. The harshest fact that came out was that McCormick knew they didn't work. So, this guy invents quote unquote invents, a detector that can do the following things: this is what he claims. The devices could bypass all forms of concealment. They can detect drugs and people along with explosives, would work under water, and of course, from the air. Would track an object up to one kilometer, or 320, sorry 3,280 feet below the ground. Below the ground. The bomb detectors came with cards which were programmed, quote unquote programmed, to detect a wide array of substances from ivory to $100 bank notes. Other substances could be detected. But, it was claimed if you put in a jar with a sticker which would absorb its vapors, so whatever it is, whatever you want, you put that item, or a piece of it, in a jar, and the sticker would absorb the vapors from that object. And then if you stuck that sticker to the thing, it could detect it. All right? Now. This is insane, and we talked about this already, so a lot of you already know that fact. The ADE651 detector. He made how much money? Fifty million pounds! 76 million US dollars from this scam. He sold 6,000 units to Iraq. Not a bad haul for a scam. Pretty damn good. Officials said the device was modeled after a novelty $20 golf ball finder. Oh, god, when I read that, I was so pissed off at the idea that this guy was basically flipping through a magazine on an airplane, say, I'm not sure if that was it, but you know the kind of junk that I'm talking about. This chachki crap, $20 golf ball finder that doesn't work. This hand-held device. He bought hundreds of those. Listen, Evan, he bought them. Hundreds of 'em. Put his own custom sticker on it and sold them as bomb detectors.<br />
<br />
S: He didn't even make 'em himself?<br />
<br />
J: Well, the first version of it, no. It was this crappy golf-ball finder. He sold them for 5K each. So then, when he sold them and it worked, he went out and made a much cooler looking one, and he sold those to the Iraqi government, and those he sold for up to 27,000 pounds, 40,000 US dollars each.<br />
<br />
E: Ironically, those don't detect golf balls<br />
<br />
S: It's basically a dousing rod.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's how it works.<br />
<br />
E; Very expensive one.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, and if you look at it, an antenna<br />
<br />
B: Well, not really.<br />
<br />
J: Yes, Bob, in a way. It is, Bob, it is. You have to see it.<br />
<br />
B: There's no ideomotor effect<br />
<br />
J: Yes, there is. Bob, Bob. Yes there is.<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, pay attention. Okay? You're in school now, I'm your teacher. All right, you hold the device in your hand and you pull the antenna out; it scopes out. And then it's on like a ball-bearing device, so it shifts with the person's hand that's using it. So, yeah, Bob, that's it. They're looking at the movement of that thing, and the people are, the people who are using it are coming up with the answers themselves: am I detecting something here? Yes or no. That's it. It is in essence a dowsing rod. So finally the U.K. government banned the sale of the detector in Iraq and Afghanistan in January 2010, and senior Iraqi officials that knew the device for a fake and some of them who were bribed to continue purchasing them. And when I say they were bribed, a lot of money exchanged hands. This guy bribed the hell out of<br />
<br />
B: Millions of dollars. Millions of dollars.<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely. Sadly, some of these devices are still active at some checkpoints in Iraq.<br />
<br />
E: Really?<br />
<br />
J: It's ridiculous. I don't know why or how that could possibly be happening. There was a very sad story. You know, to put a face on this whole thing. A woman named Henine Awan, who was an Iraqi woman, was pregnant at the time, and she lost her baby because a bomb went off that wasn't caught by the fake detector. She needed 59 operations after she was injured in January, 2009, and I saw a video of her talking, and I'm telling you, she was horribly, horribly burned. Another interesting thing, there's a detective inspector, Ed Heath, said "It is clear that both civilians and armed forces personnel were put at significant risk in relying upon the equipment. McCormick showed a complete disregard for the safety of those that used and relied upon the device for their own security and protection. He amassed many millions of pounds through his greed and criminal enterprise." And he's going to be sentenced on May 2 of 2013. There's no doubt that he knew that it didn't work. One of the salesmen that was working with him at one point asked him specifically, you know, I really need to know if this thing works, and he said "It is working. It's earning money."<br />
<br />
R: Ecchh<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
S: Do you have any idea of what possible sentence he's facing?<br />
<br />
J: I couldn't find anything, but it doesn't look good.<br />
<br />
B: I read he faces up to eight years in jail, which I think is pathetic.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Five to eight is what I read, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Up to eight years is a joke.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, sometimes laws just need an asshole clause. You know, where the judge has the discretion to just really dramatically increase the sentence.<br />
<br />
R: I don't know. I don't understand how they even come to that sentence, because, I mean, I don't think you even need a cause because he's endangering the lives of thousands, if not millions, of people.<br />
<br />
S: The law may not cover it.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: How? I don't understand.<br />
<br />
B: You know, guys, the other side of the story for me was the total lack of apparent effort to deal with this, to investigate this, to do something about it.<br />
<br />
S: Up front, oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: It's ridiculous. I read about a, that the police did a two-and-a-half year investigation, and they're talking about a University of Cambridge professor did a fully double-blind trial and he found it was no better than random chance, three out of twenty-five times. Two-and-a-half years to determine this? Really? I mean, we could set that experiment up in an afternoon. Two-and-a-half years. I'm sure there's lots of red tape and lots of things you gotta go through, but, that just seems an incredibly long period of time to come to those kind of conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: And it seemed like the government just <br />
<br />
S: Total failure.<br />
<br />
B: They didn't seem to want to investigate it or take any action. I mean this has been out there for not months, it's been years, right?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: I read 2008, 2009? It's 2013. What took so long? <br />
<br />
S: This exact kind of device has been sold multiple ways by multiple people. This was not unique.<br />
<br />
J: The real travesty here is the fact that they didn't vet this thing out. I mean you're really gonna take some unknown guy by his word? Didn't they test it? Didn't one person unbox one of these and test it with a few different bombs, or whatever? The claims he made are extreme. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, wasn't there one person in the chain who wasn't blatantly scientifically ignorant and saw that this was a total sham? Anybody with even a basic level of critical thinking should have been able to see that this was a total scam from the get-go, right? <br />
<br />
J: Yeah, and beyond that, Steve, isn't there a protocol in place? Doesn't the military have . . .<br />
<br />
S: Apparently not.<br />
<br />
J: Well, there you go. It's very revealing.<br />
<br />
E: You're right, Jay, it's very revealing.<br />
<br />
S: Well, we'll follow up when he gets sentenced. I just wanna see what kind of time this guys gets.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== TED and Chopra <small>(37:42)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/confusing-standards-for-censorship-chopra-edition/ Confusing Standards for Censorship &ndash; Chopra Edition]<br />
<br />
S: But let's move on for now. Are you guys aware of the whole TED fiasco that happened recently?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god. Unbelievable.<br />
<br />
R: Another one?<br />
<br />
J: Very disappointing.<br />
<br />
B: It's very believable.<br />
<br />
S: Well, I don't know which one you're referring to, but this is one, yeah, Deepak Chopra got involved. So the TED talks are a prestigious series of interesting, provocative lectures. TED, do you guys know what TED stands for, by the way?<br />
<br />
R: Technology, Entertainment, Design?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but the scope has expanded since then, but it was initially Technology, Entertainment, Design. And the tagline of the lecture series is Ideas Worth Spreading, and it became a very high profile, prestigious series of short, provocative lectures on topics in science and related things. TED spawned TEDx. TEDx are local, independently run and organized TED-branded lecture series that are supposed to strive for the same level of quality that TED itself has. And there are TEDx conferences all over the world. Well, apparently, some of the TEDx events have not been up to the standards of TED. There were a couple recent ones by Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock: you guys know who these guys are, right? Sheldrake is a big proponent of ESP. Graham Hancock is big into alternate history, ancient civilizations, etc. So, bottom line, both of these guys are crackpots, in my opinion. And they gave talks that were very unsettling to some people in the audience who have some knowledge of science, and there were complaints. There were complaints from people in the audience who said "What is TEDx doing promoting these lectures and these people?" This prompted a, and everything now gets a lot of attention in the blogosphere, etc., and social media. This prompted an open letter by some TEDx directors to all of the TEDx organizers. It's actually an excellent primer on how to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience. They go down a list of red flags for how to tell if a speaker is legitimate and they said "It's ''your'' job to vet them. It's not your audience's job to figure out if the speaker is offering legitimate science or not. It's ''your'' job, and this is how you do it. And if you're not sure, we'll help you, and here's the guideline." And it's a very excellent guideline. They actually reference Science-Based Medicine at one point.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, excellent.<br />
<br />
E: Well, there you go.<br />
<br />
J: How did they reference it?<br />
<br />
S: As a source you can go to to, for example, see if a medical claim is legitimate or not. And they reference other skeptical sources. Clearly, they were steeped in the skeptical culture, you know, movement. And they knew what they were talking about. This is the kind of thing that any experienced skeptic could have written or will find very familiar. So, excellent job. That provoked a backlash by Deepak Chopra. <br />
<br />
R: Surprise!<br />
<br />
S: And some of his cronies. So they wrote an article in the Huff Poo attacking the TEDx directors who wrote this open letter, and criticizing them for all the usual straw men, boogie men crap. It's really terrible. So, here's one quote from it:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>What the militant atheists and self-described skeptics hate is a certain brand of magical thinking that endangers science. In particular, there is a bugaboo of non-local consciousness which causes the hair on the back of their necks to stand on end. A layman would be forgiven for not grasping why such an innocent-sounding phrase could spell danger to good science. </blockquote><br />
<br />
So, thoughout the letter they're attacking quote, unquote, militant atheists, and every single time, just about, Chopra refers to Richard Dawkins, he calls him "militant atheist Richard Dawkins." <br />
<br />
R: I think he actually changed his first name to "militant atheist." ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: I'd like to say to Chopra, "I don't think you know what this word means."<br />
<br />
S: Well, I mean, he's trying to portray skeptics as the fanatics. Right? That we're the ones with an axe to grind; we're the ones on the extreme. And ''he's'' just talking about the cutting edge; we're just not aware. The other thing that's really funny—we've kind of been talking about Games of Thrones this episode—that the article is based upon this really lame, gratuitous analogy to the Games of Thrones. <br />
<br />
B: He got it so wrong, it was a joke.<br />
<br />
S: He gets everything wrong. So, he basically is trying to make this analogy that skeptics are like the Guardians on the Great Wall. <br />
<br />
R: There are no Guardians.<br />
<br />
S: I know. And, first he calls it a hereditary order, --it's not hereditary. ''(laughter)'' And the he says that the Guardians, meaning the Night Watch, but the Guardians defend the Empire from the monsters and the creatures on the other side of the Wall without ever going north of the Wall to see what's actually there. <br />
<br />
R: That's so . . . you just watch the first episode . . .<br />
<br />
S: I know. The very first scene are Rangers north of the Wall.<br />
<br />
R: Ya dummy. If Deepak can't even get this right . . . come on.<br />
<br />
B: You know, what's worse than a politician or a pseudoscientist misquoting or mis-referencing a bit of popular culture. Like, when –<br />
<br />
E: Oh, the Spock thing, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Spock, and they mix up ''Star Wars'' and ''Star Trek'' and all that, and it's like, oh, my god. Your advisors, your consultants should have been there for you when you wrote this.<br />
<br />
S: The whole article sort of revolves around this analogy, and he gets it horribly wrong. Sometimes in details that are not relevant to the point, but it just shows that he's not even aware. He didn't read the books or watch the series. Either that or he pays very poor attention to detail. But in one critical aspect, the analogy fails in a very meaningful way when he claims that the Guardians don't go north of the wall in the same way that skeptics don't actually investigate the topics that they dismiss in their militant atheism. And both are absolutely wrong. In fact, skeptics spend a great deal of time and energy carefully examining the claims of people like Chopra and Sheldrake and Hancock. We actually do what most mainstream scientists don't do. We're ''at'' the wall, we range north of the wall, we are investigating and we're trying to warn the Empire, "Hey, there's a bunch of nonsense up here!" <br />
<br />
R: And just to be clear, in Chopra's analogy here, in his metaphor, he is the zombie. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: That's right. He's the one ''(inaudible)''<br />
<br />
R: All right. Just making sure I've got that right.<br />
<br />
S: He also says there are dragons north of the wall—wrong!<br />
<br />
B: Wr- o-o-o-ng!<br />
<br />
R: God.<br />
<br />
E: Here be dragons.<br />
<br />
J: Is he getting like loaded before he watches this TV show?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughing)'' I don't he's, Jay, I think he has a vague notion of what's going on, and probably never really watched the show.<br />
<br />
R: He sat down to write those things, like, "What do the kids like these days?"<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, "What's popular these days?"<br />
<br />
B: No, not "the kids," the "kiddies." The kiddies.<br />
<br />
E: Well, you know Chopra. He's good at stealing a word here and a word there, and twisting into something he thinks is for his benefit—<br />
<br />
R: So, the wall is the new quantum.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but what he's really saying in his article is that there should be no standards. That anything should go. And that we're all adults, so any speculative thinking is all fine. Just leave us alone and let us say whatever we want.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, and let the audience decide, right?<br />
<br />
S: Let the audience decide. Which is funny because he triggers many of the red flags that the open letter specifically warned about. In his response. He's actually showing himself to be a pseudoscientist in his response to the open letter. By their own criteria. Without showing any awareness that he's doing so.<br />
<br />
B: That was wonderful. <br />
<br />
S: Oh, it was just terrible. And of course, that's exactly what the cranks and charlatans want, is for there to be no standards. And he pulled the Galileo gambit, by the way. I don't even know if I need to say what that is. Anybody who compares something to Galileo is automatically a crank, period. And he equated having some standards with censorship. Which again, that's a sign that, that's one of the red flags that they had in the open letter. If they try to say that they're being censored because you're trying to hold them to some standard, that's a red flag that they're a crank.<br />
<br />
B: Somebody replied to those comments specifically, and I love what they were saying about Galileo and how for every one true Galileo there's thousands of cranks, and also, if Galileo were alive today, he would recognize the need to do good research and not just throw it out there and see if it sticks on the wall, and to do good science. Something that they don't do.<br />
<br />
S: That was Chris Anderson from TED, responding to Deepak Chopra. Totally nailed it. He said<br />
<br />
<blockquote>No one here claims that mainstream science is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It isn't. But it is the best starting point we have for judging new information. Yes. A modern-day Galileo may be out there with paradigm shifting ideas that will at some point overturn huge pieces of existing science. But he or she should expect to face a robust standard of proof before their ideas take hold. And for every Galileo, there are thousands of people who just have bad unscientific ideas.</blockquote><br />
<br />
B: That was beautiful. He did a great job.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Chopra responded. Again. He responded again on the Huff Poo, on his blog. And this one is just, "Oh, you know, these scientists just don't understand the cutting edge." He's saying that they don't understand that the observer is in the equation. Right? That the universe is not just about what's being observed from a distance, but there's an observer in the mix as well. It's like, really? I mean . . .yeah, yeah, the physicists haven't been talking about this for the last twenty years? Come on. A total straw man. Again, I think someone said that Deepak Chopra should be banned from using the word "quantum" ever again. <br />
<br />
B: I'll send that!<br />
<br />
R: Censorship!<br />
<br />
S: At one of his debates, a physicist who was in the audience suggested that he attend a basic course, like monitor a basic class on quantum mechanics. 'Cause clearly he doesn't understand the first thing about it.<br />
<br />
R: Wasn't that Leonard Mlodinow?<br />
<br />
S: Was it? No, I know he . . . I think this was somebody in the audience. I don't think . . . I know Leonard Mlodinow has debated Chopra.<br />
<br />
R: I thought that's how he came to know Deepak Chopra, was that he spoke up in the audience.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, is that right? <br />
<br />
R: I might be getting this completely wrong.<br />
<br />
''(speaking simultaneously – inaudible)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca. <br />
<br />
S: But, this is the kind of pushback that we're going to get. I see this as a sign that we're being successful. That we are shining a light on the cranks and showing why what they're doing is nonsensical, and we're getting things like, you know, people who are actually directors of TEDx are writing very critical thinking, very skeptical open letters about the difference between science and pseudoscience. That's a huge victory for the skeptical movement. And we are forcing the cranks to try to attack us and to try to marginalize us, because we're having an impact. And we just have to keep the pressure back up against them. We can't let them define us. Of course they want to define us as the militant ones, right? I think what I'm gonna do is, every time I refer to Deepak Chopra from now on, I'm gonna refer to him as "militant crank Deepak Chopra." ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I like it.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I think that's fair.<br />
<br />
E: How do ya like that, Deepak?<br />
<br />
S: You think that's fair?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: We'll see how militant crank Deepak Chopra responds to that.<br />
<br />
J: This is one of those rare news items that is really exciting, it gives me some hope. This could have gone a much darker path. TED could have gone into a really bad place, and was allowing all this junk science in there.<br />
<br />
S: Well, hey, not that there aren't marginal and dubious TED talks. I'm not saying that that's a paragon. But maybe this will improve the quality of even TED by focusing a light on this issue of science versus pseudoscience.<br />
<br />
R: :Yeah, that's just it—<br />
<br />
E: Bring it to the forefront.<br />
<br />
R: That's what I meant by, when you said "problem with TED talks." I said another one. TEDx is just rife with B.S. But it's good that they've recognized that and are taking steps to solve it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and I think it's demonstrably because of skeptical watchdogs.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Creationism and Dinosaurs <small>(45:53)</small>===<br />
* http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/21/aclu-to-kansas-school-district-cancel-creationist-assemblies-about-dinosaurs/<br />
<br />
S: Speaking of militant cranks, Rebecca, you're gonna tell us about one who is going to be talking at a Kansas public school.<br />
<br />
R: Yes. Dr. G. Thomas Sharp has been hired to come to a small, a southwest Kansas school district to deliver two assemblies next week on the truth about dinosaurs. And I know about this because the ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union, is threatening the school district that they'll be taken to court if they continue on with these assemblies. The reason why is because Sharp is the founder of the Creation Truth Foundation. And when he is teaching the truth about dinosaurs, the things he teaches are things like dinosaurs were on the ark with Noah, and evolution is wrong. <br />
<br />
S: Did you watch his online video? <br />
<br />
R: I did, actually. There's an hour-long video in which he's, it's called ''The Truth About Dinosaurs'' and it's released by Sharp. So I have to assume that this is going to be at least similar to what he's going to be delivering to the Kansas school. I should mention that the ACLU, when they threatened the school district with court action, the superintendent of schools, Mark Crawford, responded to say that the assemblies were going to continue and that the, all the assemblies would be in line with the law. They would not actually be anything to do with creationism. And again, this is the founder of the Creation Truth Foundation. So I mean, it's right there in the name. And then, yeah, if you watch this horrible hour-long lecture he gives on YouTube, it's astounding the things he, I mean he's preaching, basically.<br />
<br />
J: Give us a few tidbits, like what were some of the crazier things he said?<br />
<br />
R: Well, like he refers to dinosaurs as god's lizards, and I mean, the Bible is sprinkled throughout. He accuses <br />
<br />
E: Godzilla, what?<br />
<br />
R: He refers to actual science as being done by secularists, and as though it's a filthy word.<br />
<br />
S: All right, then, let's say that he scrubs his talk of any biblical god or secular religious references,<br />
<br />
R: Then it'll be ten seconds long.<br />
<br />
S: It'll still be a mountain of absolute unscientific nonsense. Now, the approach that he takes, first of all, this is all nothing new. This is like 1970's style creationism.<br />
<br />
R: We should be clear, this is not intelligent design.<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
R: The thinly veiled creationism. This is creationism, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Retro-creationism.<br />
<br />
S: So he does the whole taking quote of scientists out of context, usually from public writing—writing meant for the lay public, not technical writing. And then he just completely mystery mongers. He tries to blow out of proportion what we don't know. Like, for example, and he's doing the whole, he doesn't really say evolution is wrong, he's doing the equivalency thing where evolution is one model and creation is another model, and the only way to interpret the evidence is through your preconceived notions. So if you assume evolution, then you'll interpret the evidence from an evolutionary perspective. But if you go with the biblical assumption that there was a flood and everything, then you could make sense of everything with the flood. And for example, he does the whole alternate geology, flood geology, and he said that there is no consensus that dinosaurs evolved from birds. And then he pulls some quote segment out of context from somebody, in a popular article, to make it sound like we have no idea what's going on. He's like, oh, the fossils are rare and they're in such poor condition and we have no idea what these dinosaurs were like, you know. Completely mis-characterizing the overwhelming evidence. There was just a study published this week showing that dinosaurs, that theropod dinosaurs that are closely related to early birds nested their eggs the same way that birds do. There's one more piece of evidence that birds evolved from a certain type of dinosaur.<br />
<br />
R: And while he's preaching that, he's implying heavily that scientists are outright lying to kids and using dinosaurs as some sort of enticing ploy to get them to come to their evil museums and lie to them. He says that scientists discount the flood and scientists disagree on dinosaurs, birds evolving from dinosaurs, and yet they continue to lie kids about it. I mean, it's, he's clearly implying nefarious purposes on the part of scientists.<br />
<br />
S: He's just accusing scientists of doing exactly what he's doing.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: He's dinosaurs as a lure so that he could lie through his teeth about the state of the scientific evidence about evolution and dinosaurs.<br />
<br />
E: And this superintendent of this school says it's completely and totally school-appropriate.<br />
<br />
B: I think he was, he seemed pretty clear and adamant that he would not allow creationism to be taught, and I think they got ahold of him and they convinced him, this is what we're gonna talk about, this is what we're gonna say. And I think what they're actually gonna do might be very different. Or, I kind of also think that they're gonna scrub the hell out of their talk and get very<br />
<br />
S: Yeah but Bob, he knows exactly what's going on. He knows, the point of this—<br />
<br />
R: The guy who started the Creation Truth Foundation, you don't invite him to give a lecture to students and then say that it's got nothing to do with creationism.<br />
<br />
S: This is deliberate stealth creationism in public schools, period. That's what this is.<br />
<br />
R: And I do want to mention that the assemblies are required for students to attend.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Mandatory. Mandatory.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
==Survey Announcement <small>(52:18)</small>==<br />
<br />
S: Evan, before we go to ''Who's That Noisy?'' a very quick announcement. We are doing a survey of our listeners. You can get to the survey, it's a quick demographic survey. We'd really appreciate if you'd take just a moment to fill it out so we could know more about our listeners. Go to theskepticsguide.org home page and you'll see it right on the home page, big white box with the survey in there. And again, we'd appreciate if you'd take a moment to fill that out.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(52:46)</small>==<br />
Puzzle for last week<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Question 1 <small>()</small>===<br />
Bitcoin Follow Up<br />
Corrections and further analysis of Bitcoin<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2013/04/guelph_scientis_1.htmlItem #1]: Scientists have developed a vaccine that can reduce the risk of developing autism in high-risk infants by over 20%. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423135716.htm Item #2]: A study finds that medical interns spend only 12% of their time with patients, while spending 40% of their time at computers. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130418124907.htm Item #3]: A new study finds that over 50% of products recalled by the FDA between 2004 and 2012 because they probably would "cause serious adverse health consequences or death" were dietary supplements. <br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro404}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_406&diff=6598SGU Episode 4062013-05-12T01:02:02Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 359<br />
|episodeDate = 34<sup>th</sup> May 2012<br />
|episodeIcon = File:bomb-detector.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-04-27.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=406<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=45826.0<br />
|qowText = Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.<br />
|qowAuthor = {{w|Mark Twain}}<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the {{SGU}}, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the {{SGU}}. Today is Tuesday, April 24, 2013, and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson,<br />
<br />
R: Hello, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: Hey, guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Mach-cho maroon.<br />
<br />
S: Thank you, Evan.<br />
<br />
J: That sounds very Game of Thrones-y.<br />
<br />
E: It's the first words I think I've ever spoken in Dothraki.<br />
<br />
J: And what does it mean?<br />
<br />
R: It means "Die, scum!" ''(laughter)'' ''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: It means: "Your horse is ugly."<br />
<br />
J: Does it mean Hello?<br />
<br />
R: It means hello.<br />
<br />
E: Yes. It's the long way of saying "hello."<br />
<br />
S: Or as close as you get to it in Dothraki.<br />
<br />
J: Game of Thrones is kicking ass. The latest episode was awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And that has nothing to do with science.<br />
<br />
E: Everything to do with pop culture. <br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:02)</small> ==<br />
April 27, 1791: Birth of Samuel Morse<br />
<br />
R: But you know what ''does'' have to do, slightly, with science is that today, April 27, is the birthday of Samuel Morse, who was born in 1791.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, happy birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Wait. I missed that segue. What's, how did you do that? Oh, never mind. Go ahead. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: You know, it was just so smooth, you missed it. Yeah, so, Samuel Morse, most people know as the inventor, or co-inventor, of Morse code. I found it really interesting, I was reading up on him, and apparently he got interested in telegraph systems because he was far away from his wife when she took ill, and he got a telegram saying that she was basically on her death bed. And by the time he was able to rush to see her, she was already dead and buried. And he was so angry about it <br />
<br />
E: Sad.<br />
<br />
R: that he gave up painting. He had been a painter. And he dedicated his life to finding a better way to communicate over long distances. So, yeah, a tragedy, but it was positive results for humanity.<br />
<br />
J: You know what he said when he got there and they said "Your wife is dead."? He said, "She's dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dead?"<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my, God. ''(groans and laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: That was bad.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: Guys, guys, come on.<br />
<br />
B: Please edit that out, Steve. ''(laughter continues)'' Imagine how awesome that was back then when you realize that, holy crap, we can communicate so fast over hundreds, thousands, of miles. It must have been like pure science fiction to them.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, I learned some interesting things about Samuel Morse. First of all, he graduated from Yale. So he's a Yale alum. Supported himself as a painter, as Rebecca said. He didn't just invent, actually co-invent, with Alfred Vail, Morse code. He actually developed the electrical telegraph. And he, one of the critical inventions for that was the relay. He invented the relay. You guys know how that works?<br />
<br />
J: Sure.<br />
<br />
S: Hit me.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, the re--, you mean the thing that boosts the signal so it can go over long distances.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So, 'cause the wires back then were so crappy, one signal could really only go not even a mile. It couldn't go very far at all. So he figured out a way of putting in a relay where the signal hits a relay circuit which essentially, a very weak signal, you have a very sensitive circuit, so that even a weak signal comes in, and it activates a magnet, which triggers an arm, which creates a new click, which then can go the next distance to the next relay. So very simple, very basic, but that was a critical invention to the functioning of the <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: over long distances.<br />
<br />
B: They had to set those up every mile? Wow, that's a lot.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, something like that, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Initially, at least.<br />
<br />
E: It's like fiber optic today; they have relay stations.<br />
<br />
S: Do you guys know what the first message sent across one of those telegraphs was?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: I used to know it.<br />
<br />
J: "Send more Chuck Berry."<br />
<br />
R: Well, I only know because I read it like an hour ago.<br />
<br />
J: Say it with authority.<br />
<br />
R: I know exactly what it was, Steve. It was "A patient waiter is no loser."<br />
<br />
S: Right. Which is interesting because it's not . . .<br />
<br />
B: That's kinda lame.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's kinda lame.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: But his father was <br />
<br />
R: It's no "What hath God wrought?"<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, "what hath God wrought?"<br />
<br />
E: Or "Watson, come here, I want you.<br />
<br />
S: That's what he said when he was transmitting from the Supreme Court chamber.<br />
<br />
E: Right.<br />
<br />
S: His father was a Calvinist preacher, so it's kind of, I guess, has the moralistic tone with which he was raised. His father was Jedidiah Morse. You gotta love that name, Jedidiah. Not many Jedidiahs around today. <br />
<br />
B: No.<br />
<br />
S: And Morse also was pro-slavery. And was active in resisting both Catholics and immigrants.<br />
<br />
E: Um hm.<br />
<br />
J: When you say "resisting," what do you mean "resist"?<br />
<br />
S: He was, he actively campaigned against immigrants and Catholics.<br />
<br />
R: Horrible person<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: who did some good stuff.<br />
<br />
J: I didn't know that.<br />
<br />
B: I like him a little less now.<br />
<br />
S: He was a product of his time and his father.<br />
<br />
B: True.<br />
<br />
S: Gotta cut him a little bit of slack.<br />
<br />
R: I don't know, there were plenty of people of his time who were vehemently anti-slavery.<br />
<br />
S: Um hm. I agree, I just said "a little bit." It's hard to look back 200 years and be too heavily moralizing.<br />
<br />
R: Eh. I find it easy. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Are you guys enjoying the first real days of spring that we've had so far?<br />
<br />
J: Awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, I'm lovin' it. 'Bout time.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, this 42 degree weather is wonderful.<br />
<br />
S: Well, hey, we had such a long winter; you're right, it's still a little on the cold side. Today there were all these various unmistakable signs of spring, sort of like all at once. So, first, the forsythia is in full bloom. Second, bluebirds have moved into our bluebird house. They're gonna make little baby bluebirds.<br />
<br />
R: How do the bluebirds know that the bluebird house is for them?<br />
<br />
S: That's a really good question.<br />
<br />
E: They use the GPS.<br />
<br />
J: They can fit in it.<br />
<br />
R: There's a sign.<br />
<br />
S: So a bluebird house has an opening of a certain size. But honestly, it's more about positioning. You need to place it three to five feet above the ground, in an open area, with nothing obscuring the ground beneath it. So, bluebirds wanna make sure they can see snakes and other things coming. So if you do that, if you hang it at the right height in a sort of openish area, bluebirds will move into it. I mean it's, <br />
<br />
R: And no other bird?<br />
<br />
S: Well, hang on. The other bird that will tend to steal a bluebird house from the bluebird is the house sparrow. We have plenty of house sparrows, but bluebirds always seem to move into our bluebird houses. So it's remarkably consistent.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, what do you think, like you have, the pair of bluebirds are flying around and the wife bluebird goes "What about this one, honey?" And the husband's like "Nope, that's only two feet off the gound." <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I mean they definitely have like a measuring tape and a list of wants. <br />
<br />
S: It works, it absolutely works.<br />
<br />
R: Good view of snakes, in-ground pool.<br />
<br />
B: My favorite sign of spring is that the White Walkers are retreating back north.<br />
<br />
S: Yup. ''(laughter and garbled comments)'' Nice call-back. The robins are more visible. As we learned previously they don't actually; they do migrate, but there are robins in the winter but they stay more in the forest. But the robins that are here come out and are more visible in the spring. And I actually grilled steaks on the grill on my deck today, for dinner.<br />
<br />
E: Delicious.<br />
<br />
R: Man, you went all out.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And, the single most profound marker that spring is here was<br />
<br />
E: Allergies.<br />
<br />
S: No. I don't have allergies luckily. Was, the ice cream truck came around.<br />
<br />
R: You have an ice cream truck?<br />
<br />
S: Yup. My daughters go insane. You know, they see the ice cream truck and they just go crazy.<br />
<br />
E: Come on, you go a little crazy, too. Admit it.<br />
<br />
J: Does the guy play music, Steve, or<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
J: Does he ring the bell, what is it?<br />
<br />
S: Of course, you've got the music and the bell and they just lose their minds.<br />
<br />
R: We never had an ice cream truck when I was a kid; it was too rural.<br />
<br />
B: We did.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah, we did.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, you were insane. I have a distinct memory of you, one night, sitting at the end of our driveway. You were a little shit, probably six or seven, crying your eyes out because the ice cream man didn't come, or you missed him, or something, and you were just like bawling 'cause you wanted your ice cream, and you missed it. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: I never forgave that guy, either.<br />
<br />
E: That bastard.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Mars One <small>(9:01)</small>===<br />
* http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/apply-now-one-way-trip-mars<br />
<br />
S: All right, well let's move on. Bob, you're gonna tell us about ''(imitating Schwarzenegger)'' "Get your ass to Mars." ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: You just totally took my opening line. Thank you so much.<br />
<br />
S: Bob, you gotta warn me if you're gonna do that.<br />
<br />
B: Whatever.<br />
<br />
S: It was a bit obvious<br />
<br />
B: I know, but I added a little flourish at the end. I said "Get your ass to Mars and never come back." Are you guys ready for an out-of-this-world reality TV show? I can't believe they're doing this. The company Mars One is planning on making a reality show that showcases the entire process of selecting and training astronauts, their trip to Mars, and the rest of their lives living on Mars. And like we said, it's a one-way trip. That's the real kicker that everybody's talking about. Would you guys do that? Would you guys actually consider that? Or would you want to hear the details first?<br />
<br />
R: No.<br />
<br />
E: I don't think so.<br />
<br />
R: I don't need the details. No. I don't wanna go on a reality show so people can watch me die in space. No. Thank you.<br />
<br />
''(speaking simultaneously – inaudible)''<br />
<br />
B: --when I'm 70 or 80, or what the hell. So, the first question is why are you doing a one-way trip? There's two good reasons. The scientists feel that it's feasible to send people to Mars pretty much now, but the tech just doesn't seem to exist to bring them back right now. I kind of thought that was a weird reason because even if we don't have it now, surely it'll exist at some point. And if we put resources into it it wouldn't take that long. I think one of the reasons that they're doing this is that it's a real attention grabber. Headlines.<br />
<br />
S: The think is though, what do you do, when to get to Mars, you find out that you don't like it there.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah, you're done. Game over.<br />
<br />
R: You'd kill yourself.<br />
<br />
E: You suck it, basically.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it'll make for a good episode. They're already talking about how they'll have a crematorium because people will of course die. But another good reason, probably the best reason that they're not gonna come back,<br />
<br />
E: What if you're the last one to die, though? How're you gonna get in that crematorium?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I wouldn't worry too much about it. So the best reason though why they're not coming back is that, imagine seven or eight months in space; astronauts, as we know, lose muscle mass, they lose bone mass; it's really, really horrific on the body. Even if you're exercising all the time, there's a huge hit that you take; and then time that you spend in Mars' weaker gravitational field, that's not gonna help much either. And scientists feel that readjusting to Earth's gravity after so much time, it's pretty much impossible, with today's technology anyway. After all that time, you're just not coming back. That's a really, really good reason.<br />
<br />
J: That sounds odd to me, Bob. What about people that suffer phenomenal injuries and have to be bedridden for six months or a year. You can't grow back the tissue that you lost, and the bone mass?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it's weird. It's not like if you become paralyzed, where your muscles just turn to mush and it's completely and utterly irrevocable.. .<br />
<br />
S: But people who are bedridden lose a lot of muscle mass. You could lose one to three percent of your muscle mass per day if you're sick and in the hospital and completely immobile. Especially for older people. So that's why they have weeks and months, sometimes, of rehab, just to recover from the debility that results, Jay.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, Jay, and that's also one of the big down sides to yo-yo weight loss, where you lose a lot of weight and inevitably a lot of muscle weight and then you gain back a lot of fat. At the end of the cycle you have much less muscle than you had, and that's a hit that your body could take for the rest of its life, 'cause it's just so hard to get back all that muscle that you lost. It's really bad. And that's a really good reason why once you're there you're gonna be committed. The gravitational pull on Mars is about 38% of Earth's. So that's really, really low. I mean things, it'd be easy to get around and things would be light and that's all great, but, man, your muscles just say we don't need all of this muscle, let's get rid of it. I'm very curious how walking will be accomplished on Mars. How similar to moon-walking will it be? Or will it be a fusion between the moon-hopping and the Earth-walking? I'd be curious to see that. <br />
<br />
J: Bob, what's their budget? How could they possibly afford to do this?<br />
<br />
B: That's actually one of the key problems, Jay, is funding. They figure it's gonna cost about six billion U.S. dollars to get there, just for the first group.<br />
<br />
S: How many bit coins is it gonna cost? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Seven. <br />
<br />
R: Oh, you know, if they send a big-time movie star, if they send like Julia Roberts, that should secure them at least one billion from the foreign markets.<br />
<br />
J: Why, 'cause they wanna get rid of her? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's a movie-making joke. You cast the right people, you get the funding. That's the way it works, in Hollywood.<br />
<br />
S: So who ''should'' we send to Mars on a one-way trip?<br />
<br />
B: Justin Bieber! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Wow, Bob.<br />
<br />
R: What did Justin Bieber ever do to you?<br />
<br />
B: Nothing, I just felt like it.<br />
<br />
J: It's not really him, it's more his haircut.<br />
<br />
S: Could we just send his haircut?<br />
<br />
J: So, look, there's a lot of things about this that I just don't have enough information on, or they're just not making enough sense. First of all, how do you get billions of dollars for a TV show? Second of all, who's developing the technology? How are they gonna live an extended period of time on a planet where they can't manufacture things, grow food, what's up?<br />
<br />
B: Let me go through some of this, then, Jay. What they're gonna need, more than a few astronauts: they're talking about 24 astronauts. So the idea is they're gonna have six groups of four astronauts, and every two years four astronauts are gonna be sent there, with the first one going in 2022. The selection process will be finalized in 2015; so it's only a couple years away. Then they're gonna go through seven years of training. And, think about it though, seven years of a reality show of astronauts training. That's gonna get so boring. There's no way they're gonna maintain a TV show for that long.<br />
<br />
S: I don't know, Bob. I mean, ghost hunter shows have lasted for that long. <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, ''The Real World'' has been going on for that long.<br />
<br />
B: I guess.<br />
<br />
R: It's crap, but people still watch it, I guess.<br />
<br />
B: Well, if they do a good job, they can make it interesting. But seven years of training?<br />
<br />
S: What they need to do is they need to vote people off the planet. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Well actually, what they're gonna, that's close, Steve. What they're gonna do, in true reality show style, is they're gonna vote four astronauts, the first four to go, who of course will be the most famous. Who doesn't wanna be the first ones to go? Except me. <br />
<br />
R: Anyone with a brain, doesn't wanna be the first to go.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, you mentioned technology. Space X, they're gonna work with Space X. And the idea is to use a slightly enlarged version of the Dragon capsule to get them there. And <br />
<br />
R: I never noticed before how much "Space X" sounds like "space sex." Because that was very confusing when you first said it.<br />
<br />
S: Space sex?<br />
<br />
R: Um hm.<br />
<br />
B: I never thought of that. Thank you. They're gonna use those really cool retro propulsion rockets to land it because of course parachutes aren't gonna cut it. Jay, to survive, they're gonna have solar panels, of course, for energy. They're gonna recycle and extract water from the soil if it's there, if they can actually find some. And food, and they're gonna grow their own food. That's another technology that I don't know how they're pull that off. And then of course, every two years they'll get a nice resupply of their Reese's Peanut Butter Cups from Earth when the next group arrives. But as you can imagine, right, there's gonna be tons of problems. One of them is the solar wind. Mars just does not have, a very thin atmosphere. It's about a hundredth, less than a hundredth the density of Earth's atmosphere. It's almost a friggin' vacuum. And Mars doesn't have a magnetosphere. I mean, damn.<br />
<br />
J: It doesn't seem like the survival of these people is going to be high. It's scaring me. <br />
<br />
S: They are gonna send supplies ahead of the first astronauts. So there should be material and food and everything they'll need there to get going. <br />
<br />
B; Well, they want to send a series of rovers to go there. And that's also one of the reasons why I'm pessimistic. They want to send a bunch of rovers. I mean, are they even working on these rovers? I mean, you know how long it takes to design and develop and test all that. I'm not even sure where they even are with that preliminary step right there. And so it's not just a magnetosphere that's not there, which is basically a shield for the solar wind and cosmic ray particles. It really is why there's lots of life on the surface of the planet. <br />
<br />
S: Their habitat will basically have to be under ground. <br />
<br />
B: yeah, they're gonna have to . . . maybe that's one of the things these rovers can do is help make these pits for their habitat. So if they're gonna have to be under many feet of dirt, then they'll be okay. But there's also no liquid water, really. None that they could really tap into that we've found. And then the radiation, not just the radiation on the planet, but the trip radiation, and we've talked about this on the show. It's nasty. Just going there, you've got these energetic particles in the solar wind; you've got cosmic rays. I mean, they won't kill you outright, necessarily, but they will greatly increase your chances of getting cancer. And the question is . . .<br />
<br />
R: These people are not gonna live long enough to get cancer. They don't need to worry about that.<br />
<br />
B: I guess.<br />
<br />
R: Like if they die of cancer, it'll be the greatest thing that ever happened to them. <br />
<br />
J: You know, there's social implications here, as well. What about laws?<br />
<br />
S: They're on their own. The whole idea is they can create their own civilization.<br />
<br />
E: The wild west. That's great. What if one of them goes nuts and starts to break down?<br />
<br />
S: Well they'll have seven years vet these people. They're gonna be . . . so part of the training . . . first of all, they're gonna be trained in emergency medicine, dentistry, engineering, all the skills they're gonna need to do everything they need on their own and they're gonna also spend extended periods of time in simulated Martian habitats, and have simulated emergencies. So, that's seven years of vetting for these people.<br />
<br />
E: What if these people don't pan out in year three or four, what . . . you're gonna have to have teams of people going through this process. I mean, imagine the hundreds of people that they're gonna have to select from.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. I would think they're gonna have maybe one or two backups. You know, you're talking fifty, sixty, seventy people, if they go that route, which isn't, I mean $6 billion will go a long way for that kind of stuff. NASA astronaut Stan Love had a great description of this. He, I think he described it really well. He just happened to come back from Antarctica, and he says "That place is a picnic compared to Mars." He says it's full of water, you can go outside and breathe the air. It's paradise compared to Mars, and yet nobody has moved there permanently. And you know, as nasty as that place is, Mars is ten hundred times worse and people are gonna spend the rest of their lives there. It's just crazy. <br />
<br />
R: What happens when the show is cancelled?<br />
<br />
E: That's a good point.<br />
<br />
R: You know, ratings are down, they need that time slot for something else.<br />
<br />
S: I think, let me go against the grain and say that I think this is a wonderful idea.<br />
<br />
B: No. You're full of shit. No. All right, I love the idea of a community off the Earth, and Stephen Hawking would really agree with us on that. But ''go to the moon first!'' It's only three days away. Vet all the technology and develop it on the moon. If there's a huge disaster, you can be there in mere days, rather than months and a billion dollars later. <br />
<br />
R: Good point.<br />
<br />
S: All right, that's a really good point.<br />
<br />
B: Moon Base Alpha first, then Mars.<br />
<br />
J: Well, wait, Bob. That might be part of their plan, though. As Rebecca says, let's say the show gets cancelled. The show's gonna probably get cancelled right around when everyone's gonna die. Right?<br />
<br />
E; That convenient.<br />
<br />
S: Well the show may be cancelled before they even . . . It's gonna be seven years of reality TV before they even blast off for Mars. Remember. So, this is highly risky in multiple ways. This is gonna be very difficult to pull off. But you gotta give it to them for the vision here, of trying to . . . If they pull this off, then you really have to give it to them for being bold and the amount of dedication it's going to take to usher this project to completion is going to be amazing. So, they will have to capture the imagination of the world with this project. The people that they select are going to have a lot to do with this. And they have ten years to work out the technological limitations. It's not impossible, it's just gonna be really, really hard. But if they're serious about this, I think that . . . I'd love to see them try; I wish them well; I would love to see them succeed, as long as they appreciate that they're not going into this thinking this is gonna be an easy endeavor. As long as they appreciate all the many ways this can fail, and they are doing everything they possibly can to deal with all of those hurdles, then, let's see what they do.<br />
<br />
R: Who's the "they" again? Who's actually doing this?<br />
<br />
S: Mars One, I guess, is the organization. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah, they're based out of Denmark. <br />
<br />
J: Steve, I don't disagree with that at all. I see what you're saying, and I like the idea of all these billions of dollars that go into entertainment that is really, at the end of the day, it doesn't achieve things like technology and pushing the limits of man's fortitude . . . <br />
<br />
S: You know what I think is likely to happen? If they get this off the ground, I think that they're going to have an interesting reality TV show that will be a dry run for a real colonization trip to either the moon or Mars. But they probably won't ever launch. If they ''do'' launch; if they're successful enough, in terms of raising money and keeping the whole project going to the point where they're ready to launch, that will be a huge success right there. Anything that happens after that, you know, I would still consider this to be a success. Of course it's high risk. They will have . . . basically like 2022 or 2023, they're gonna have to make a hard assessment of whether or not they actually have all the pieces in place to send people to Mars. Probably there's gonna be tons of delays and it will probably never happen. But . . .<br />
<br />
B: Oh, 2022 or 3, I'd say 2018 they'd be like, shit, we're not gonna make this. And to me, that's my biggest beef with this is that 2022 just seems way too soon to pull this off. There's too many hurdles.<br />
<br />
S: I like the idea that they're planning on using the Space X<br />
<br />
B: Oh, absolutely.<br />
<br />
S: So that may throw a lot of funding their way. <br />
<br />
B: That would be great.<br />
<br />
S: That would be a good consequence of all this.<br />
<br />
J: It's a lot of money they have to get, and that's gonna be a huge hurdle for them.<br />
<br />
B: I've got a quote on that as well. Dr. Chris Lintott, he's Oxford University, he thinks that it's technologically plausible, feasible. But in his mind funding is gonna be the biggest problem. He said "It's about having the political will and the financial muscle to make this happen. That's what nobody has been able to solve so far." So the undoing of this entire project might be just purely from funding, 'cause it's a lot of money. It's got a lot of sustained interest that you'd have to have for many, many years. And if you can pull that off, that might be the biggest hurdle of all.<br />
<br />
S: Hopefully this is a story we'll be reporting on over the years. I hope it doesn't die in the crib. It'll be interesting.<br />
<br />
B: And if anyone wants to register you have until August 31 of 2013, and they certainly have lots of volunteers. I've heard numbers over 40,000 requests already.<br />
<br />
R: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
B: It'll cost you money, though. I think it's 38 bucks for the United States. But depending on what country you're in, the prices will vary. But yeah, lots of people are interested in it.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Bomb Detector Fraud <small>(24:43)</small>===<br />
* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22266051<br />
<br />
S: Okay, Jay, there's some good news from the U.K. about a convicted con artist.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. Do you all remember the story we covered about James McCormick? He's the guy who sold the fake bomb detectors that were eventually used in real life situations in Iraq. Well, things didn't turn out so good for Mr. McCormick. This is a horrifying story with a possible good ending. It hasn't ended quite yet. I think it's going in the right direction, but this, let me give you the quick background. April 23, 2013, during a hearing in London at the Central Criminal Court of England and Wales, the Court was told that McCormick's fake detectors were 100% ineffectual. The harshest fact that came out was that McCormick knew they didn't work. So, this guy invents quote unquote invents, a detector that can do the following things: this is what he claims. The devices could bypass all forms of concealment. They can detect drugs and people along with explosives, would work under water, and of course, from the air. Would track an object up to one kilometer, or 320, sorry 3,280 feet below the ground. Below the ground. The bomb detectors came with cards which were programmed, quote unquote programmed, to detect a wide array of substances from ivory to $100 bank notes. Other substances could be detected. But, it was claimed if you put in a jar with a sticker which would absorb its vapors, so whatever it is, whatever you want, you put that item, or a piece of it, in a jar, and the sticker would absorb the vapors from that object. And then if you stuck that sticker to the thing, it could detect it. All right? Now. This is insane, and we talked about this already, so a lot of you already know that fact. The ADE651 detector. He made how much money? Fifty million pounds! 76 million US dollars from this scam. He sold 6,000 units to Iraq. Not a bad haul for a scam. Pretty damn good. Officials said the device was modeled after a novelty $20 golf ball finder. Oh, god, when I read that, I was so pissed off at the idea that this guy was basically flipping through a magazine on an airplane, say, I'm not sure if that was it, but you know the kind of junk that I'm talking about. This chachki crap, $20 golf ball finder that doesn't work. This hand-held device. He bought hundreds of those. Listen, Evan, he bought them. Hundreds of 'em. Put his own custom sticker on it and sold them as bomb detectors.<br />
<br />
S: He didn't even make 'em himself?<br />
<br />
J: Well, the first version of it, no. It was this crappy golf-ball finder. He sold them for 5K each. So then, when he sold them and it worked, he went out and made a much cooler looking one, and he sold those to the Iraqi government, and those he sold for up to 27,000 pounds, 40,000 US dollars each.<br />
<br />
E: Ironically, those don't detect golf balls<br />
<br />
S: It's basically a dousing rod.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's how it works.<br />
<br />
E; Very expensive one.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, and if you look at it, an antenna<br />
<br />
B: Well, not really.<br />
<br />
J: Yes, Bob, in a way. It is, Bob, it is. You have to see it.<br />
<br />
B: There's no ideomotor effect<br />
<br />
J: Yes, there is. Bob, Bob. Yes there is.<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, pay attention. Okay? You're in school now, I'm your teacher. All right, you hold the device in your hand and you pull the antenna out; it scopes out. And then it's on like a ball-bearing device, so it shifts with the person's hand that's using it. So, yeah, Bob, that's it. They're looking at the movement of that thing, and the people are, the people who are using it are coming up with the answers themselves: am I detecting something here? Yes or no. That's it. It is in essence a dowsing rod. So finally the U.K. government banned the sale of the detector in Iraq and Afghanistan in January 2010, and senior Iraqi officials that knew the device for a fake and some of them who were bribed to continue purchasing them. And when I say they were bribed, a lot of money exchanged hands. This guy bribed the hell out of<br />
<br />
B: Millions of dollars. Millions of dollars.<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely. Sadly, some of these devices are still active at some checkpoints in Iraq.<br />
<br />
E: Really?<br />
<br />
J: It's ridiculous. I don't know why or how that could possibly be happening. There was a very sad story. You know, to put a face on this whole thing. A woman named Henine Awan, who was an Iraqi woman, was pregnant at the time, and she lost her baby because a bomb went off that wasn't caught by the fake detector. She needed 59 operations after she was injured in January, 2009, and I saw a video of her talking, and I'm telling you, she was horribly, horribly burned. Another interesting thing, there's a detective inspector, Ed Heath, said "It is clear that both civilians and armed forces personnel were put at significant risk in relying upon the equipment. McCormick showed a complete disregard for the safety of those that used and relied upon the device for their own security and protection. He amassed many millions of pounds through his greed and criminal enterprise." And he's going to be sentenced on May 2 of 2013. There's no doubt that he knew that it didn't work. One of the salesmen that was working with him at one point asked him specifically, you know, I really need to know if this thing works, and he said "It is working. It's earning money."<br />
<br />
R: Ecchh<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
S: Do you have any idea of what possible sentence he's facing?<br />
<br />
J: I couldn't find anything, but it doesn't look good.<br />
<br />
B: I read he faces up to eight years in jail, which I think is pathetic.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Five to eight is what I read, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Up to eight years is a joke.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, sometimes laws just need an asshole clause. You know, where the judge has the discretion to just really dramatically increase the sentence.<br />
<br />
R: I don't know. I don't understand how they even come to that sentence, because, I mean, I don't think you even need a cause because he's endangering the lives of thousands, if not millions, of people.<br />
<br />
S: The law may not cover it.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: How? I don't understand.<br />
<br />
B: You know, guys, the other side of the story for me was the total lack of apparent effort to deal with this, to investigate this, to do something about it.<br />
<br />
S: Up front, oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: It's ridiculous. I read about a, that the police did a two-and-a-half year investigation, and they're talking about a University of Cambridge professor did a fully double-blind trial and he found it was no better than random chance, three out of twenty-five times. Two-and-a-half years to determine this? Really? I mean, we could set that experiment up in an afternoon. Two-and-a-half years. I'm sure there's lots of red tape and lots of things you gotta go through, but, that just seems an incredibly long period of time to come to those kind of conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: And it seemed like the government just <br />
<br />
S: Total failure.<br />
<br />
B: They didn't seem to want to investigate it or take any action. I mean this has been out there for not months, it's been years, right?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: I read 2008, 2009? It's 2013. What took so long? <br />
<br />
S: This exact kind of device has been sold multiple ways by multiple people. This was not unique.<br />
<br />
J: The real travesty here is the fact that they didn't vet this thing out. I mean you're really gonna take some unknown guy by his word? Didn't they test it? Didn't one person unbox one of these and test it with a few different bombs, or whatever? The claims he made are extreme. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, wasn't there one person in the chain who wasn't blatantly scientifically ignorant and saw that this was a total sham? Anybody with even a basic level of critical thinking should have been able to see that this was a total scam from the get-go, right? <br />
<br />
J: Yeah, and beyond that, Steve, isn't there a protocol in place? Doesn't the military have . . .<br />
<br />
S: Apparently not.<br />
<br />
J: Well, there you go. It's very revealing.<br />
<br />
E: You're right, Jay, it's very revealing.<br />
<br />
S: Well, we'll follow up when he gets sentenced. I just wanna see what kind of time this guys gets.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== TED and Chopra <small>(37:42)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/confusing-standards-for-censorship-chopra-edition/ Confusing Standards for Censorship &ndash; Chopra Edition]<br />
<br />
S: But let's move on for now. Are you guys aware of the whole TED fiasco that happened recently?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god. Unbelievable.<br />
<br />
R: Another one?<br />
<br />
J: Very disappointing.<br />
<br />
B: It's very believable.<br />
<br />
S: Well, I don't know which one you're referring to, but this is one, yeah, Deepak Chopra got involved. So the TED talks are a prestigious series of interesting, provocative lectures. TED, do you guys know what TED stands for, by the way?<br />
<br />
R: Technology, Entertainment, Design?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but the scope has expanded since then, but it was initially Technology, Entertainment, Design. And the tagline of the lecture series is Ideas Worth Spreading, and it became a very high profile, prestigious series of short, provocative lectures on topics in science and related things. TED spawned TEDx. TEDx are local, independently run and organized TED-branded lecture series that are supposed to strive for the same level of quality that TED itself has. And there are TEDx conferences all over the world. Well, apparently, some of the TEDx events have not been up to the standards of TED. There were a couple recent ones by Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock: you guys know who these guys are, right? Sheldrake is a big proponent of ESP. Graham Hancock is big into alternate history, ancient civilizations, etc. So, bottom line, both of these guys are crackpots, in my opinion. And they gave talks that were very unsettling to some people in the audience who have some knowledge of science, and there were complaints. There were complaints from people in the audience who said "What is TEDx doing promoting these lectures and these people?" This prompted a, and everything now gets a lot of attention in the blogosphere, etc., and social media. This prompted an open letter by some TEDx directors to all of the TEDx organizers. It's actually an excellent primer on how to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience. They go down a list of red flags for how to tell if a speaker is legitimate and they said "It's ''your'' job to vet them. It's not your audience's job to figure out if the speaker is offering legitimate science or not. It's ''your'' job, and this is how you do it. And if you're not sure, we'll help you, and here's the guideline." And it's a very excellent guideline. They actually reference Science-Based Medicine at one point.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, excellent.<br />
<br />
E: Well, there you go.<br />
<br />
J: How did they reference it?<br />
<br />
S: As a source you can go to to, for example, see if a medical claim is legitimate or not. And they reference other skeptical sources. Clearly, they were steeped in the skeptical culture, you know, movement. And they knew what they were talking about. This is the kind of thing that any experienced skeptic could have written or will find very familiar. So, excellent job. That provoked a backlash by Deepak Chopra. <br />
<br />
R: Surprise!<br />
<br />
S: And some of his cronies. So they wrote an article in the Huff Poo attacking the TEDx directors who wrote this open letter, and criticizing them for all the usual straw men, boogie men crap. It's really terrible. So, here's one quote from it:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>What the militant atheists and self-described skeptics hate is a certain brand of magical thinking that endangers science. In particular, there is a bugaboo of non-local consciousness which causes the hair on the back of their necks to stand on end. A layman would be forgiven for not grasping why such an innocent-sounding phrase could spell danger to good science. </blockquote><br />
<br />
So, thoughout the letter they're attacking quote, unquote, militant atheists, and every single time, just about, Chopra refers to Richard Dawkins, he calls him "militant atheist Richard Dawkins." <br />
<br />
R: I think he actually changed his first name to "militant atheist." ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: I'd like to say to Chopra, "I don't think you know what this word means."<br />
<br />
S: Well, I mean, he's trying to portray skeptics as the fanatics. Right? That we're the ones with an axe to grind; we're the ones on the extreme. And ''he's'' just talking about the cutting edge; we're just not aware. The other thing that's really funny—we've kind of been talking about Games of Thrones this episode—that the article is based upon this really lame, gratuitous analogy to the Games of Thrones. <br />
<br />
B: He got it so wrong, it was a joke.<br />
<br />
S: He gets everything wrong. So, he basically is trying to make this analogy that skeptics are like the Guardians on the Great Wall. <br />
<br />
R: There are no Guardians.<br />
<br />
S: I know. And, first he calls it a hereditary order, --it's not hereditary. ''(laughter)'' And the he says that the Guardians, meaning the Night Watch, but the Guardians defend the Empire from the monsters and the creatures on the other side of the Wall without ever going north of the Wall to see what's actually there. <br />
<br />
R: That's so . . . you just watch the first episode . . .<br />
<br />
S: I know. The very first scene are Rangers north of the Wall.<br />
<br />
R: Ya dummy. If Deepak can't even get this right . . . come on.<br />
<br />
B: You know, what's worse than a politician or a pseudoscientist misquoting or mis-referencing a bit of popular culture. Like, when –<br />
<br />
E: Oh, the Spock thing, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Spock, and they mix up ''Star Wars'' and ''Star Trek'' and all that, and it's like, oh, my god. Your advisors, your consultants should have been there for you when you wrote this.<br />
<br />
S: The whole article sort of revolves around this analogy, and he gets it horribly wrong. Sometimes in details that are not relevant to the point, but it just shows that he's not even aware. He didn't read the books or watch the series. Either that or he pays very poor attention to detail. But in one critical aspect, the analogy fails in a very meaningful way when he claims that the Guardians don't go north of the wall in the same way that skeptics don't actually investigate the topics that they dismiss in their militant atheism. And both are absolutely wrong. In fact, skeptics spend a great deal of time and energy carefully examining the claims of people like Chopra and Sheldrake and Hancock. We actually do what most mainstream scientists don't do. We're ''at'' the wall, we range north of the wall, we are investigating and we're trying to warn the Empire, "Hey, there's a bunch of nonsense up here!" <br />
<br />
R: And just to be clear, in Chopra's analogy here, in his metaphor, he is the zombie. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: That's right. He's the one ''(inaudible)''<br />
<br />
R: All right. Just making sure I've got that right.<br />
<br />
S: He also says there are dragons north of the wall—wrong!<br />
<br />
B: Wr- o-o-o-ng!<br />
<br />
R: God.<br />
<br />
E: Here be dragons.<br />
<br />
J: Is he getting like loaded before he watches this TV show?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughing)'' I don't he's, Jay, I think he has a vague notion of what's going on, and probably never really watched the show.<br />
<br />
R: He sat down to write those things, like, "What do the kids like these days?"<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, "What's popular these days?"<br />
<br />
B: No, not "the kids," the "kiddies." The kiddies.<br />
<br />
E: Well, you know Chopra. He's good at stealing a word here and a word there, and twisting into something he thinks is for his benefit—<br />
<br />
R: So, the wall is the new quantum.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but what he's really saying in his article is that there should be no standards. That anything should go. And that we're all adults, so any speculative thinking is all fine. Just leave us alone and let us say whatever we want.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, and let the audience decide, right?<br />
<br />
S: Let the audience decide. Which is funny because he triggers many of the red flags that the open letter specifically warned about. In his response. He's actually showing himself to be a pseudoscientist in his response to the open letter. By their own criteria. Without showing any awareness that he's doing so.<br />
<br />
B: That was wonderful. <br />
<br />
S: Oh, it was just terrible. And of course, that's exactly what the cranks and charlatans want, is for there to be no standards. And he pulled the Galileo gambit, by the way. I don't even know if I need to say what that is. Anybody who compares something to Galileo is automatically a crank, period. And he equated having some standards with censorship. Which again, that's a sign that, that's one of the red flags that they had in the open letter. If they try to say that they're being censored because you're trying to hold them to some standard, that's a red flag that they're a crank.<br />
<br />
B: Somebody replied to those comments specifically, and I love what they were saying about Galileo and how for every one true Galileo there's thousands of cranks, and also, if Galileo were alive today, he would recognize the need to do good research and not just throw it out there and see if it sticks on the wall, and to do good science. Something that they don't do.<br />
<br />
S: That was Chris Anderson from TED, responding to Deepak Chopra. Totally nailed it. He said<br />
<br />
<blockquote>No one here claims that mainstream science is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It isn't. But it is the best starting point we have for judging new information. Yes. A modern-day Galileo may be out there with paradigm shifting ideas that will at some point overturn huge pieces of existing science. But he or she should expect to face a robust standard of proof before their ideas take hold. And for every Galileo, there are thousands of people who just have bad unscientific ideas.</blockquote><br />
<br />
B: That was beautiful. He did a great job.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Chopra responded. Again. He responded again on the Huff Poo, on his blog. And this one is just, "Oh, you know, these scientists just don't understand the cutting edge." He's saying that they don't understand that the observer is in the equation. Right? That the universe is not just about what's being observed from a distance, but there's an observer in the mix as well. It's like, really? I mean . . .yeah, yeah, the physicists haven't been talking about this for the last twenty years? Come on. A total straw man. Again, I think someone said that Deepak Chopra should be banned from using the word "quantum" ever again. <br />
<br />
B: I'll send that!<br />
<br />
R: Censorship!<br />
<br />
S: At one of his debates, a physicist who was in the audience suggested that he attend a basic course, like monitor a basic class on quantum mechanics. 'Cause clearly he doesn't understand the first thing about it.<br />
<br />
R: Wasn't that Leonard Mlodinow?<br />
<br />
S: Was it? No, I know he . . . I think this was somebody in the audience. I don't think . . . I know Leonard Mlodinow has debated Chopra.<br />
<br />
R: I thought that's how he came to know Deepak Chopra, was that he spoke up in the audience.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, is that right? <br />
<br />
R: I might be getting this completely wrong.<br />
<br />
''(speaking simultaneously – inaudible)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca. <br />
<br />
S: But, this is the kind of pushback that we're going to get. I see this as a sign that we're being successful. That we are shining a light on the cranks and showing why what they're doing is nonsensical, and we're getting things like, you know, people who are actually directors of TEDx are writing very critical thinking, very skeptical open letters about the difference between science and pseudoscience. That's a huge victory for the skeptical movement. And we are forcing the cranks to try to attack us and to try to marginalize us, because we're having an impact. And we just have to keep the pressure back up against them. We can't let them define us. Of course they want to define us as the militant ones, right? I think what I'm gonna do is, every time I refer to Deepak Chopra from now on, I'm gonna refer to him as "militant crank Deepak Chopra." ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I like it.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I think that's fair.<br />
<br />
E: How do ya like that, Deepak?<br />
<br />
S: You think that's fair?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: We'll see how militant crank Deepak Chopra responds to that.<br />
<br />
J: This is one of those rare news items that is really exciting, it gives me some hope. This could have gone a much darker path. TED could have gone into a really bad place, and was allowing all this junk science in there.<br />
<br />
S: Well, hey, not that there aren't marginal and dubious TED talks. I'm not saying that that's a paragon. But maybe this will improve the quality of even TED by focusing a light on this issue of science versus pseudoscience.<br />
<br />
R: :Yeah, that's just it—<br />
<br />
E: Bring it to the forefront.<br />
<br />
R: That's what I meant by, when you said "problem with TED talks." I said another one. TEDx is just rife with B.S. But it's good that they've recognized that and are taking steps to solve it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and I think it's demonstrably because of skeptical watchdogs.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Creationism and Dinosaurs <small>(45:53)</small>===<br />
* http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/21/aclu-to-kansas-school-district-cancel-creationist-assemblies-about-dinosaurs/<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Puzzle for last week<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Question 1 <small>()</small>===<br />
Bitcoin Follow Up<br />
Corrections and further analysis of Bitcoin<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2013/04/guelph_scientis_1.htmlItem #1]: Scientists have developed a vaccine that can reduce the risk of developing autism in high-risk infants by over 20%. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423135716.htm Item #2]: A study finds that medical interns spend only 12% of their time with patients, while spending 40% of their time at computers. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130418124907.htm Item #3]: A new study finds that over 50% of products recalled by the FDA between 2004 and 2012 because they probably would "cause serious adverse health consequences or death" were dietary supplements. <br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro404}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_406&diff=6576SGU Episode 4062013-05-08T00:21:15Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 359<br />
|episodeDate = 34<sup>th</sup> May 2012<br />
|episodeIcon = File:bomb-detector.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-04-27.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=406<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=45826.0<br />
|qowText = Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.<br />
|qowAuthor = {{w|Mark Twain}}<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the {{SGU}}, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the {{SGU}}. Today is Tuesday, April 24, 2013, and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson,<br />
<br />
R: Hello, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: Hey, guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Mach-cho maroon.<br />
<br />
S: Thank you, Evan.<br />
<br />
J: That sounds very Game of Thrones-y.<br />
<br />
E: It's the first words I think I've ever spoken in Dothraki.<br />
<br />
J: And what does it mean?<br />
<br />
R: It means "Die, scum!" ''(laughter)'' ''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: It means: "Your horse is ugly."<br />
<br />
J: Does it mean Hello?<br />
<br />
R: It means hello.<br />
<br />
E: Yes. It's the long way of saying "hello."<br />
<br />
S: Or as close as you get to it in Dothraki.<br />
<br />
J: Game of Thrones is kicking ass. The latest episode was awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And that has nothing to do with science.<br />
<br />
E: Everything to do with pop culture. <br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:02)</small> ==<br />
April 27, 1791: Birth of Samuel Morse<br />
<br />
R: But you know what ''does'' have to do, slightly, with science is that today, April 27, is the birthday of Samuel Morse, who was born in 1791.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, happy birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Wait. I missed that segue. What's, how did you do that? Oh, never mind. Go ahead. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: You know, it was just so smooth, you missed it. Yeah, so, Samuel Morse, most people know as the inventor, or co-inventor, of Morse code. I found it really interesting, I was reading up on him, and apparently he got interested in telegraph systems because he was far away from his wife when she took ill, and he got a telegram saying that she was basically on her death bed. And by the time he was able to rush to see her, she was already dead and buried. And he was so angry about it <br />
<br />
E: Sad.<br />
<br />
R: that he gave up painting. He had been a painter. And he dedicated his life to finding a better way to communicate over long distances. So, yeah, a tragedy, but it was positive results for humanity.<br />
<br />
J: You know what he said when he got there and they said "Your wife is dead."? He said, "She's dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dead?"<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my, God. ''(groans and laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: That was bad.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: Guys, guys, come on.<br />
<br />
B: Please edit that out, Steve. ''(laughter continues)'' Imagine how awesome that was back then when you realize that, holy crap, we can communicate so fast over hundreds, thousands, of miles. It must have been like pure science fiction to them.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, I learned some interesting things about Samuel Morse. First of all, he graduated from Yale. So he's a Yale alum. Supported himself as a painter, as Rebecca said. He didn't just invent, actually co-invent, with Alfred Vail, Morse code. He actually developed the electrical telegraph. And he, one of the critical inventions for that was the relay. He invented the relay. You guys know how that works?<br />
<br />
J: Sure.<br />
<br />
S: Hit me.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, the re--, you mean the thing that boosts the signal so it can go over long distances.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So, 'cause the wires back then were so crappy, one signal could really only go not even a mile. It couldn't go very far at all. So he figured out a way of putting in a relay where the signal hits a relay circuit which essentially, a very weak signal, you have a very sensitive circuit, so that even a weak signal comes in, and it activates a magnet, which triggers an arm, which creates a new click, which then can go the next distance to the next relay. So very simple, very basic, but that was a critical invention to the functioning of the <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: over long distances.<br />
<br />
B: They had to set those up every mile? Wow, that's a lot.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, something like that, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Initially, at least.<br />
<br />
E: It's like fiber optic today; they have relay stations.<br />
<br />
S: Do you guys know what the first message sent across one of those telegraphs was?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: I used to know it.<br />
<br />
J: "Send more Chuck Berry."<br />
<br />
R: Well, I only know because I read it like an hour ago.<br />
<br />
J: Say it with authority.<br />
<br />
R: I know exactly what it was, Steve. It was "A patient waiter is no loser."<br />
<br />
S: Right. Which is interesting because it's not . . .<br />
<br />
B: That's kinda lame.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's kinda lame.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: But his father was <br />
<br />
R: It's no "What hath God wrought?"<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, "what hath God wrought?"<br />
<br />
E: Or "Watson, come here, I want you.<br />
<br />
S: That's what he said when he was transmitting from the Supreme Court chamber.<br />
<br />
E: Right.<br />
<br />
S: His father was a Calvinist preacher, so it's kind of, I guess, has the moralistic tone with which he was raised. His father was Jedidiah Morse. You gotta love that name, Jedidiah. Not many Jedidiahs around today. <br />
<br />
B: No.<br />
<br />
S: And Morse also was pro-slavery. And was active in resisting both Catholics and immigrants.<br />
<br />
E: Um hm.<br />
<br />
J: When you say "resisting," what do you mean "resist"?<br />
<br />
S: He was, he actively campaigned against immigrants and Catholics.<br />
<br />
R: Horrible person<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: who did some good stuff.<br />
<br />
J: I didn't know that.<br />
<br />
B: I like him a little less now.<br />
<br />
S: He was a product of his time and his father.<br />
<br />
B: True.<br />
<br />
S: Gotta cut him a little bit of slack.<br />
<br />
R: I don't know, there were plenty of people of his time who were vehemently anti-slavery.<br />
<br />
S: Um hm. I agree, I just said "a little bit." It's hard to look back 200 years and be too heavily moralizing.<br />
<br />
R: Eh. I find it easy. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Are you guys enjoying the first real days of spring that we've had so far?<br />
<br />
J: Awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, I'm lovin' it. 'Bout time.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, this 42 degree weather is wonderful.<br />
<br />
S: Well, hey, we had such a long winter; you're right, it's still a little on the cold side. Today there were all these various unmistakable signs of spring, sort of like all at once. So, first, the forsythia is in full bloom. Second, bluebirds have moved into our bluebird house. They're gonna make little baby bluebirds.<br />
<br />
R: How do the bluebirds know that the bluebird house is for them?<br />
<br />
S: That's a really good question.<br />
<br />
E: They use the GPS.<br />
<br />
J: They can fit in it.<br />
<br />
R: There's a sign.<br />
<br />
S: So a bluebird house has an opening of a certain size. But honestly, it's more about positioning. You need to place it three to five feet above the ground, in an open area, with nothing obscuring the ground beneath it. So, bluebirds wanna make sure they can see snakes and other things coming. So if you do that, if you hang it at the right height in a sort of openish area, bluebirds will move into it. I mean it's, <br />
<br />
R: And no other bird?<br />
<br />
S: Well, hang on. The other bird that will tend to steal a bluebird house from the bluebird is the house sparrow. We have plenty of house sparrows, but bluebirds always seem to move into our bluebird houses. So it's remarkably consistent.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, what do you think, like you have, the pair of bluebirds are flying around and the wife bluebird goes "What about this one, honey?" And the husband's like "Nope, that's only two feet off the gound." <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I mean they definitely have like a measuring tape and a list of wants. <br />
<br />
S: It works, it absolutely works.<br />
<br />
R: Good view of snakes, in-ground pool.<br />
<br />
B: My favorite sign of spring is that the White Walkers are retreating back north.<br />
<br />
S: Yup. ''(laughter and garbled comments)'' Nice call-back. The robins are more visible. As we learned previously they don't actually; they do migrate, but there are robins in the winter but they stay more in the forest. But the robins that are here come out and are more visible in the spring. And I actually grilled steaks on the grill on my deck today, for dinner.<br />
<br />
E: Delicious.<br />
<br />
R: Man, you went all out.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And, the single most profound marker that spring is here was<br />
<br />
E: Allergies.<br />
<br />
S: No. I don't have allergies luckily. Was, the ice cream truck came around.<br />
<br />
R: You have an ice cream truck?<br />
<br />
S: Yup. My daughters go insane. You know, they see the ice cream truck and they just go crazy.<br />
<br />
E: Come on, you go a little crazy, too. Admit it.<br />
<br />
J: Does the guy play music, Steve, or<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
J: Does he ring the bell, what is it?<br />
<br />
S: Of course, you've got the music and the bell and they just lose their minds.<br />
<br />
R: We never had an ice cream truck when I was a kid; it was too rural.<br />
<br />
B: We did.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah, we did.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, you were insane. I have a distinct memory of you, one night, sitting at the end of our driveway. You were a little shit, probably six or seven, crying your eyes out because the ice cream man didn't come, or you missed him, or something, and you were just like bawling 'cause you wanted your ice cream, and you missed it. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: I never forgave that guy, either.<br />
<br />
E: That bastard.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Mars One <small>(9:01)</small>===<br />
* http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/apply-now-one-way-trip-mars<br />
<br />
S: All right, well let's move on. Bob, you're gonna tell us about ''(imitating Schwarzenegger)'' "Get your ass to Mars." ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: You just totally took my opening line. Thank you so much.<br />
<br />
S: Bob, you gotta warn me if you're gonna do that.<br />
<br />
B: Whatever.<br />
<br />
S: It was a bit obvious<br />
<br />
B: I know, but I added a little flourish at the end. I said "Get your ass to Mars and never come back." Are you guys ready for an out-of-this-world reality TV show? I can't believe they're doing this. The company Mars One is planning on making a reality show that showcases the entire process of selecting and training astronauts, their trip to Mars, and the rest of their lives living on Mars. And like we said, it's a one-way trip. That's the real kicker that everybody's talking about. Would you guys do that? Would you guys actually consider that? Or would you want to hear the details first?<br />
<br />
R: No.<br />
<br />
E: I don't think so.<br />
<br />
R: I don't need the details. No. I don't wanna go on a reality show so people can watch me die in space. No. Thank you.<br />
<br />
''(speaking simultaneously – inaudible)''<br />
<br />
B: --when I'm 70 or 80, or what the hell. So, the first question is why are you doing a one-way trip? There's two good reasons. The scientists feel that it's feasible to send people to Mars pretty much now, but the tech just doesn't seem to exist to bring them back right now. I kind of thought that was a weird reason because even if we don't have it now, surely it'll exist at some point. And if we put resources into it it wouldn't take that long. I think one of the reasons that they're doing this is that it's a real attention grabber. Headlines.<br />
<br />
S: The think is though, what do you do, when to get to Mars, you find out that you don't like it there.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah, you're done. Game over.<br />
<br />
R: You'd kill yourself.<br />
<br />
E: You suck it, basically.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it'll make for a good episode. They're already talking about how they'll have a crematorium because people will of course die. But another good reason, probably the best reason that they're not gonna come back,<br />
<br />
E: What if you're the last one to die, though? How're you gonna get in that crematorium?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I wouldn't worry too much about it. So the best reason though why they're not coming back is that, imagine seven or eight months in space; astronauts, as we know, lose muscle mass, they lose bone mass; it's really, really horrific on the body. Even if you're exercising all the time, there's a huge hit that you take; and then time that you spend in Mars' weaker gravitational field, that's not gonna help much either. And scientists feel that readjusting to Earth's gravity after so much time, it's pretty much impossible, with today's technology anyway. After all that time, you're just not coming back. That's a really, really good reason.<br />
<br />
J: That sounds odd to me, Bob. What about people that suffer phenomenal injuries and have to be bedridden for six months or a year. You can't grow back the tissue that you lost, and the bone mass?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it's weird. It's not like if you become paralyzed, where your muscles just turn to mush and it's completely and utterly irrevocable.. .<br />
<br />
S: But people who are bedridden lose a lot of muscle mass. You could lose one to three percent of your muscle mass per day if you're sick and in the hospital and completely immobile. Especially for older people. So that's why they have weeks and months, sometimes, of rehab, just to recover from the debility that results, Jay.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, Jay, and that's also one of the big down sides to yo-yo weight loss, where you lose a lot of weight and inevitably a lot of muscle weight and then you gain back a lot of fat. At the end of the cycle you have much less muscle than you had, and that's a hit that your body could take for the rest of its life, 'cause it's just so hard to get back all that muscle that you lost. It's really bad. And that's a really good reason why once you're there you're gonna be committed. The gravitational pull on Mars is about 38% of Earth's. So that's really, really low. I mean things, it'd be easy to get around and things would be light and that's all great, but, man, your muscles just say we don't need all of this muscle, let's get rid of it. I'm very curious how walking will be accomplished on Mars. How similar to moon-walking will it be? Or will it be a fusion between the moon-hopping and the Earth-walking? I'd be curious to see that. <br />
<br />
J: Bob, what's their budget? How could they possibly afford to do this?<br />
<br />
B: That's actually one of the key problems, Jay, is funding. They figure it's gonna cost about six billion U.S. dollars to get there, just for the first group.<br />
<br />
S: How many bit coins is it gonna cost? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Seven. <br />
<br />
R: Oh, you know, if they send a big-time movie star, if they send like Julia Roberts, that should secure them at least one billion from the foreign markets.<br />
<br />
J: Why, 'cause they wanna get rid of her? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's a movie-making joke. You cast the right people, you get the funding. That's the way it works, in Hollywood.<br />
<br />
S: So who ''should'' we send to Mars on a one-way trip?<br />
<br />
B: Justin Bieber! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Wow, Bob.<br />
<br />
R: What did Justin Bieber ever do to you?<br />
<br />
B: Nothing, I just felt like it.<br />
<br />
J: It's not really him, it's more his haircut.<br />
<br />
S: Could we just send his haircut?<br />
<br />
J: So, look, there's a lot of things about this that I just don't have enough information on, or they're just not making enough sense. First of all, how do you get billions of dollars for a TV show? Second of all, who's developing the technology? How are they gonna live an extended period of time on a planet where they can't manufacture things, grow food, what's up?<br />
<br />
B: Let me go through some of this, then, Jay. What they're gonna need, more than a few astronauts: they're talking about 24 astronauts. So the idea is they're gonna have six groups of four astronauts, and every two years four astronauts are gonna be sent there, with the first one going in 2022. The selection process will be finalized in 2015; so it's only a couple years away. Then they're gonna go through seven years of training. And, think about it though, seven years of a reality show of astronauts training. That's gonna get so boring. There's no way they're gonna maintain a TV show for that long.<br />
<br />
S: I don't know, Bob. I mean, ghost hunter shows have lasted for that long. <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, ''The Real World'' has been going on for that long.<br />
<br />
B: I guess.<br />
<br />
R: It's crap, but people still watch it, I guess.<br />
<br />
B: Well, if they do a good job, they can make it interesting. But seven years of training?<br />
<br />
S: What they need to do is they need to vote people off the planet. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Well actually, what they're gonna, that's close, Steve. What they're gonna do, in true reality show style, is they're gonna vote four astronauts, the first four to go, who of course will be the most famous. Who doesn't wanna be the first ones to go? Except me. <br />
<br />
R: Anyone with a brain, doesn't wanna be the first to go.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, you mentioned technology. Space X, they're gonna work with Space X. And the idea is to use a slightly enlarged version of the Dragon capsule to get them there. And <br />
<br />
R: I never noticed before how much "Space X" sounds like "space sex." Because that was very confusing when you first said it.<br />
<br />
S: Space sex?<br />
<br />
R: Um hm.<br />
<br />
B: I never thought of that. Thank you. They're gonna use those really cool retro propulsion rockets to land it because of course parachutes aren't gonna cut it. Jay, to survive, they're gonna have solar panels, of course, for energy. They're gonna recycle and extract water from the soil if it's there, if they can actually find some. And food, and they're gonna grow their own food. That's another technology that I don't know how they're pull that off. And then of course, every two years they'll get a nice resupply of their Reese's Peanut Butter Cups from Earth when the next group arrives. But as you can imagine, right, there's gonna be tons of problems. One of them is the solar wind. Mars just does not have, a very thin atmosphere. It's about a hundredth, less than a hundredth the density of Earth's atmosphere. It's almost a friggin' vacuum. And Mars doesn't have a magnetosphere. I mean, damn.<br />
<br />
J: It doesn't seem like the survival of these people is going to be high. It's scaring me. <br />
<br />
S: They are gonna send supplies ahead of the first astronauts. So there should be material and food and everything they'll need there to get going. <br />
<br />
B; Well, they want to send a series of rovers to go there. And that's also one of the reasons why I'm pessimistic. They want to send a bunch of rovers. I mean, are they even working on these rovers? I mean, you know how long it takes to design and develop and test all that. I'm not even sure where they even are with that preliminary step right there. And so it's not just a magnetosphere that's not there, which is basically a shield for the solar wind and cosmic ray particles. It really is why there's lots of life on the surface of the planet. <br />
<br />
S: Their habitat will basically have to be under ground. <br />
<br />
B: yeah, they're gonna have to . . . maybe that's one of the things these rovers can do is help make these pits for their habitat. So if they're gonna have to be under many feet of dirt, then they'll be okay. But there's also no liquid water, really. None that they could really tap into that we've found. And then the radiation, not just the radiation on the planet, but the trip radiation, and we've talked about this on the show. It's nasty. Just going there, you've got these energetic particles in the solar wind; you've got cosmic rays. I mean, they won't kill you outright, necessarily, but they will greatly increase your chances of getting cancer. And the question is . . .<br />
<br />
R: These people are not gonna live long enough to get cancer. They don't need to worry about that.<br />
<br />
B: I guess.<br />
<br />
R: Like if they die of cancer, it'll be the greatest thing that ever happened to them. <br />
<br />
J: You know, there's social implications here, as well. What about laws?<br />
<br />
S: They're on their own. The whole idea is they can create their own civilization.<br />
<br />
E: The wild west. That's great. What if one of them goes nuts and starts to break down?<br />
<br />
S: Well they'll have seven years vet these people. They're gonna be . . . so part of the training . . . first of all, they're gonna be trained in emergency medicine, dentistry, engineering, all the skills they're gonna need to do everything they need on their own and they're gonna also spend extended periods of time in simulated Martian habitats, and have simulated emergencies. So, that's seven years of vetting for these people.<br />
<br />
E: What if these people don't pan out in year three or four, what . . . you're gonna have to have teams of people going through this process. I mean, imagine the hundreds of people that they're gonna have to select from.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. I would think they're gonna have maybe one or two backups. You know, you're talking fifty, sixty, seventy people, if they go that route, which isn't, I mean $6 billion will go a long way for that kind of stuff. NASA astronaut Stan Love had a great description of this. He, I think he described it really well. He just happened to come back from Antarctica, and he says "That place is a picnic compared to Mars." He says it's full of water, you can go outside and breathe the air. It's paradise compared to Mars, and yet nobody has moved there permanently. And you know, as nasty as that place is, Mars is ten hundred times worse and people are gonna spend the rest of their lives there. It's just crazy. <br />
<br />
R: What happens when the show is cancelled?<br />
<br />
E: That's a good point.<br />
<br />
R: You know, ratings are down, they need that time slot for something else.<br />
<br />
S: I think, let me go against the grain and say that I think this is a wonderful idea.<br />
<br />
B: No. You're full of shit. No. All right, I love the idea of a community off the Earth, and Stephen Hawking would really agree with us on that. But ''go to the moon first!'' It's only three days away. Vet all the technology and develop it on the moon. If there's a huge disaster, you can be there in mere days, rather than months and a billion dollars later. <br />
<br />
R: Good point.<br />
<br />
S: All right, that's a really good point.<br />
<br />
B: Moon Base Alpha first, then Mars.<br />
<br />
J: Well, wait, Bob. That might be part of their plan, though. As Rebecca says, let's say the show gets cancelled. The show's gonna probably get cancelled right around when everyone's gonna die. Right?<br />
<br />
E; That convenient.<br />
<br />
S: Well the show may be cancelled before they even . . . It's gonna be seven years of reality TV before they even blast off for Mars. Remember. So, this is highly risky in multiple ways. This is gonna be very difficult to pull off. But you gotta give it to them for the vision here, of trying to . . . If they pull this off, then you really have to give it to them for being bold and the amount of dedication it's going to take to usher this project to completion is going to be amazing. So, they will have to capture the imagination of the world with this project. The people that they select are going to have a lot to do with this. And they have ten years to work out the technological limitations. It's not impossible, it's just gonna be really, really hard. But if they're serious about this, I think that . . . I'd love to see them try; I wish them well; I would love to see them succeed, as long as they appreciate that they're not going into this thinking this is gonna be an easy endeavor. As long as they appreciate all the many ways this can fail, and they are doing everything they possibly can to deal with all of those hurdles, then, let's see what they do.<br />
<br />
R: Who's the "they" again? Who's actually doing this?<br />
<br />
S: Mars One, I guess, is the organization. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah, they're based out of Denmark. <br />
<br />
J: Steve, I don't disagree with that at all. I see what you're saying, and I like the idea of all these billions of dollars that go into entertainment that is really, at the end of the day, it doesn't achieve things like technology and pushing the limits of man's fortitude . . . <br />
<br />
S: You know what I think is likely to happen? If they get this off the ground, I think that they're going to have an interesting reality TV show that will be a dry run for a real colonization trip to either the moon or Mars. But they probably won't ever launch. If they ''do'' launch; if they're successful enough, in terms of raising money and keeping the whole project going to the point where they're ready to launch, that will be a huge success right there. Anything that happens after that, you know, I would still consider this to be a success. Of course it's high risk. They will have . . . basically like 2022 or 2023, they're gonna have to make a hard assessment of whether or not they actually have all the pieces in place to send people to Mars. Probably there's gonna be tons of delays and it will probably never happen. But . . .<br />
<br />
B: Oh, 2022 or 3, I'd say 2018 they'd be like, shit, we're not gonna make this. And to me, that's my biggest beef with this is that 2022 just seems way too soon to pull this off. There's too many hurdles.<br />
<br />
S: I like the idea that they're planning on using the Space X<br />
<br />
B: Oh, absolutely.<br />
<br />
S: So that may throw a lot of funding their way. <br />
<br />
B: That would be great.<br />
<br />
S: That would be a good consequence of all this.<br />
<br />
J: It's a lot of money they have to get, and that's gonna be a huge hurdle for them.<br />
<br />
B: I've got a quote on that as well. Dr. Chris Lintott, he's Oxford University, he thinks that it's technologically plausible, feasible. But in his mind funding is gonna be the biggest problem. He said "It's about having the political will and the financial muscle to make this happen. That's what nobody has been able to solve so far." So the undoing of this entire project might be just purely from funding, 'cause it's a lot of money. It's got a lot of sustained interest that you'd have to have for many, many years. And if you can pull that off, that might be the biggest hurdle of all.<br />
<br />
S: Hopefully this is a story we'll be reporting on over the years. I hope it doesn't die in the crib. It'll be interesting.<br />
<br />
B: And if anyone wants to register you have until August 31 of 2013, and they certainly have lots of volunteers. I've heard numbers over 40,000 requests already.<br />
<br />
R: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
B: It'll cost you money, though. I think it's 38 bucks for the United States. But depending on what country you're in, the prices will vary. But yeah, lots of people are interested in it.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Bomb Detector Fraud <small>(24:43)</small>===<br />
* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22266051<br />
<br />
S: Okay, Jay, there's some good news from the U.K. about a convicted con artist.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. Do you all remember the story we covered about James McCormick? He's the guy who sold the fake bomb detectors that were eventually used in real life situations in Iraq. Well, things didn't turn out so good for Mr. McCormick. This is a horrifying story with a possible good ending. It hasn't ended quite yet. I think it's going in the right direction, but this, let me give you the quick background. April 23, 2013, during a hearing in London at the Central Criminal Court of England and Wales, the Court was told that McCormick's fake detectors were 100% ineffectual. The harshest fact that came out was that McCormick knew they didn't work. So, this guy invents quote unquote invents, a detector that can do the following things: this is what he claims. The devices could bypass all forms of concealment. They can detect drugs and people along with explosives, would work under water, and of course, from the air. Would track an object up to one kilometer, or 320, sorry 3,280 feet below the ground. Below the ground. The bomb detectors came with cards which were programmed, quote unquote programmed, to detect a wide array of substances from ivory to $100 bank notes. Other substances could be detected. But, it was claimed if you put in a jar with a sticker which would absorb its vapors, so whatever it is, whatever you want, you put that item, or a piece of it, in a jar, and the sticker would absorb the vapors from that object. And then if you stuck that sticker to the thing, it could detect it. All right? Now. This is insane, and we talked about this already, so a lot of you already know that fact. The ADE651 detector. He made how much money? Fifty million pounds! 76 million US dollars from this scam. He sold 6,000 units to Iraq. Not a bad haul for a scam. Pretty damn good. Officials said the device was modeled after a novelty $20 golf ball finder. Oh, god, when I read that, I was so pissed off at the idea that this guy was basically flipping through a magazine on an airplane, say, I'm not sure if that was it, but you know the kind of junk that I'm talking about. This chachki crap, $20 golf ball finder that doesn't work. This hand-held device. He bought hundreds of those. Listen, Evan, he bought them. Hundreds of 'em. Put his own custom sticker on it and sold them as bomb detectors.<br />
<br />
S: He didn't even make 'em himself?<br />
<br />
J: Well, the first version of it, no. It was this crappy golf-ball finder. He sold them for 5K each. So then, when he sold them and it worked, he went out and made a much cooler looking one, and he sold those to the Iraqi government, and those he sold for up to 27,000 pounds, 40,000 US dollars each.<br />
<br />
E: Ironically, those don't detect golf balls<br />
<br />
S: It's basically a dousing rod.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's how it works.<br />
<br />
E; Very expensive one.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, and if you look at it, an antenna<br />
<br />
B: Well, not really.<br />
<br />
J: Yes, Bob, in a way. It is, Bob, it is. You have to see it.<br />
<br />
B: There's no ideomotor effect<br />
<br />
J: Yes, there is. Bob, Bob. Yes there is.<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, pay attention. Okay? You're in school now, I'm your teacher. All right, you hold the device in your hand and you pull the antenna out; it scopes out. And then it's on like a ball-bearing device, so it shifts with the person's hand that's using it. So, yeah, Bob, that's it. They're looking at the movement of that thing, and the people are, the people who are using it are coming up with the answers themselves: am I detecting something here? Yes or no. That's it. It is in essence a dowsing rod. So finally the U.K. government banned the sale of the detector in Iraq and Afghanistan in January 2010, and senior Iraqi officials that knew the device for a fake and some of them who were bribed to continue purchasing them. And when I say they were bribed, a lot of money exchanged hands. This guy bribed the hell out of<br />
<br />
B: Millions of dollars. Millions of dollars.<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely. Sadly, some of these devices are still active at some checkpoints in Iraq.<br />
<br />
E: Really?<br />
<br />
J: It's ridiculous. I don't know why or how that could possibly be happening. There was a very sad story. You know, to put a face on this whole thing. A woman named Henine Awan, who was an Iraqi woman, was pregnant at the time, and she lost her baby because a bomb went off that wasn't caught by the fake detector. She needed 59 operations after she was injured in January, 2009, and I saw a video of her talking, and I'm telling you, she was horribly, horribly burned. Another interesting thing, there's a detective inspector, Ed Heath, said "It is clear that both civilians and armed forces personnel were put at significant risk in relying upon the equipment. McCormick showed a complete disregard for the safety of those that used and relied upon the device for their own security and protection. He amassed many millions of pounds through his greed and criminal enterprise." And he's going to be sentenced on May 2 of 2013. There's no doubt that he knew that it didn't work. One of the salesmen that was working with him at one point asked him specifically, you know, I really need to know if this thing works, and he said "It is working. It's earning money."<br />
<br />
R: Ecchh<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
S: Do you have any idea of what possible sentence he's facing?<br />
<br />
J: I couldn't find anything, but it doesn't look good.<br />
<br />
B: I read he faces up to eight years in jail, which I think is pathetic.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Five to eight is what I read, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Up to eight years is a joke.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, sometimes laws just need an asshole clause. You know, where the judge has the discretion to just really dramatically increase the sentence.<br />
<br />
R: I don't know. I don't understand how they even come to that sentence, because, I mean, I don't think you even need a cause because he's endangering the lives of thousands, if not millions, of people.<br />
<br />
S: The law may not cover it.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: How? I don't understand.<br />
<br />
B: You know, guys, the other side of the story for me was the total lack of apparent effort to deal with this, to investigate this, to do something about it.<br />
<br />
S: Up front, oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: It's ridiculous. I read about a, that the police did a two-and-a-half year investigation, and they're talking about a University of Cambridge professor did a fully double-blind trial and he found it was no better than random chance, three out of twenty-five times. Two-and-a-half years to determine this? Really? I mean, we could set that experiment up in an afternoon. Two-and-a-half years. I'm sure there's lots of red tape and lots of things you gotta go through, but, that just seems an incredibly long period of time to come to those kind of conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: And it seemed like the government just <br />
<br />
S: Total failure.<br />
<br />
B: They didn't seem to want to investigate it or take any action. I mean this has been out there for not months, it's been years, right?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: I read 2008, 2009? It's 2013. What took so long? <br />
<br />
S: This exact kind of device has been sold multiple ways by multiple people. This was not unique.<br />
<br />
J: The real travesty here is the fact that they didn't vet this thing out. I mean you're really gonna take some unknown guy by his word? Didn't they test it? Didn't one person unbox one of these and test it with a few different bombs, or whatever? The claims he made are extreme. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, wasn't there one person in the chain who wasn't blatantly scientifically ignorant and saw that this was a total sham? Anybody with even a basic level of critical thinking should have been able to see that this was a total scam from the get-go, right? <br />
<br />
J: Yeah, and beyond that, Steve, isn't there a protocol in place? Doesn't the military have . . .<br />
<br />
S: Apparently not.<br />
<br />
J: Well, there you go. It's very revealing.<br />
<br />
E: You're right, Jay, it's very revealing.<br />
<br />
S: Well, we'll follow up when he gets sentenced. I just wanna see what kind of time this guys gets.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== TED and Chopra <small>(37:42)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/confusing-standards-for-censorship-chopra-edition/ Confusing Standards for Censorship &ndash; Chopra Edition]<br />
<br />
=== Creationism and Dinosaurs <small>()</small>===<br />
* http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/21/aclu-to-kansas-school-district-cancel-creationist-assemblies-about-dinosaurs/<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Puzzle for last week<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Question 1 <small>()</small>===<br />
Bitcoin Follow Up<br />
Corrections and further analysis of Bitcoin<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2013/04/guelph_scientis_1.htmlItem #1]: Scientists have developed a vaccine that can reduce the risk of developing autism in high-risk infants by over 20%. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423135716.htm Item #2]: A study finds that medical interns spend only 12% of their time with patients, while spending 40% of their time at computers. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130418124907.htm Item #3]: A new study finds that over 50% of products recalled by the FDA between 2004 and 2012 because they probably would "cause serious adverse health consequences or death" were dietary supplements. <br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro404}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_406&diff=6559SGU Episode 4062013-05-05T21:28:28Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 359<br />
|episodeDate = 34<sup>th</sup> May 2012<br />
|episodeIcon = File:bomb-detector.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-04-27.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=406<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=45826.0<br />
|qowText = Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.<br />
|qowAuthor = {{w|Mark Twain}}<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the {{SGU}}, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the {{SGU}}. Today is Tuesday, April 24, 2013, and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson,<br />
<br />
R: Hello, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: Hey, guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Mach-cho maroon.<br />
<br />
S: Thank you, Evan.<br />
<br />
J: That sounds very Game of Thrones-y.<br />
<br />
E: It's the first words I think I've ever spoken in Dothraki.<br />
<br />
J: And what does it mean?<br />
<br />
R: It means "Die, scum!" ''(laughter)'' ''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: It means: "Your horse is ugly."<br />
<br />
J: Does it mean Hello?<br />
<br />
R: It means hello.<br />
<br />
E: Yes. It's the long way of saying "hello."<br />
<br />
S: Or as close as you get to it in Dothraki.<br />
<br />
J: Game of Thrones is kicking ass. The latest episode was awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And that has nothing to do with science.<br />
<br />
E: Everything to do with pop culture. <br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:02)</small> ==<br />
April 27, 1791: Birth of Samuel Morse<br />
<br />
R: But you know what ''does'' have to do, slightly, with science is that today, April 27, is the birthday of Samuel Morse, who was born in 1791.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, happy birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Wait. I missed that segue. What's, how did you do that? Oh, never mind. Go ahead. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: You know, it was just so smooth, you missed it. Yeah, so, Samuel Morse, most people know as the inventor, or co-inventor, of Morse code. I found it really interesting, I was reading up on him, and apparently he got interested in telegraph systems because he was far away from his wife when she took ill, and he got a telegram saying that she was basically on her death bed. And by the time he was able to rush to see her, she was already dead and buried. And he was so angry about it <br />
<br />
E: Sad.<br />
<br />
R: that he gave up painting. He had been a painter. And he dedicated his life to finding a better way to communicate over long distances. So, yeah, a tragedy, but it was positive results for humanity.<br />
<br />
J: You know what he said when he got there and they said "Your wife is dead."? He said, "She's dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dead?"<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my, God. ''(groans and laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: That was bad.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: Guys, guys, come on.<br />
<br />
B: Please edit that out, Steve. ''(laughter continues)'' Imagine how awesome that was back then when you realize that, holy crap, we can communicate so fast over hundreds, thousands, of miles. It must have been like pure science fiction to them.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, I learned some interesting things about Samuel Morse. First of all, he graduated from Yale. So he's a Yale alum. Supported himself as a painter, as Rebecca said. He didn't just invent, actually co-invent, with Alfred Vail, Morse code. He actually developed the electrical telegraph. And he, one of the critical inventions for that was the relay. He invented the relay. You guys know how that works?<br />
<br />
J: Sure.<br />
<br />
S: Hit me.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, the re--, you mean the thing that boosts the signal so it can go over long distances.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So, 'cause the wires back then were so crappy, one signal could really only go not even a mile. It couldn't go very far at all. So he figured out a way of putting in a relay where the signal hits a relay circuit which essentially, a very weak signal, you have a very sensitive circuit, so that even a weak signal comes in, and it activates a magnet, which triggers an arm, which creates a new click, which then can go the next distance to the next relay. So very simple, very basic, but that was a critical invention to the functioning of the <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: over long distances.<br />
<br />
B: They had to set those up every mile? Wow, that's a lot.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, something like that, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Initially, at least.<br />
<br />
E: It's like fiber optic today; they have relay stations.<br />
<br />
S: Do you guys know what the first message sent across one of those telegraphs was?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: I used to know it.<br />
<br />
J: "Send more Chuck Berry."<br />
<br />
R: Well, I only know because I read it like an hour ago.<br />
<br />
J: Say it with authority.<br />
<br />
R: I know exactly what it was, Steve. It was "A patient waiter is no loser."<br />
<br />
S: Right. Which is interesting because it's not . . .<br />
<br />
B: That's kinda lame.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's kinda lame.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: But his father was <br />
<br />
R: It's no "What hath God wrought?"<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, "what hath God wrought?"<br />
<br />
E: Or "Watson, come here, I want you.<br />
<br />
S: That's what he said when he was transmitting from the Supreme Court chamber.<br />
<br />
E: Right.<br />
<br />
S: His father was a Calvinist preacher, so it's kind of, I guess, has the moralistic tone with which he was raised. His father was Jedidiah Morse. You gotta love that name, Jedidiah. Not many Jedidiahs around today. <br />
<br />
B: No.<br />
<br />
S: And Morse also was pro-slavery. And was active in resisting both Catholics and immigrants.<br />
<br />
E: Um hm.<br />
<br />
J: When you say "resisting," what do you mean "resist"?<br />
<br />
S: He was, he actively campaigned against immigrants and Catholics.<br />
<br />
R: Horrible person<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: who did some good stuff.<br />
<br />
J: I didn't know that.<br />
<br />
B: I like him a little less now.<br />
<br />
S: He was a product of his time and his father.<br />
<br />
B: True.<br />
<br />
S: Gotta cut him a little bit of slack.<br />
<br />
R: I don't know, there were plenty of people of his time who were vehemently anti-slavery.<br />
<br />
S: Um hm. I agree, I just said "a little bit." It's hard to look back 200 years and be too heavily moralizing.<br />
<br />
R: Eh. I find it easy. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Are you guys enjoying the first real days of spring that we've had so far?<br />
<br />
J: Awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, I'm lovin' it. 'Bout time.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, this 42 degree weather is wonderful.<br />
<br />
S: Well, hey, we had such a long winter; you're right, it's still a little on the cold side. Today there were all these various unmistakable signs of spring, sort of like all at once. So, first, the forsythia is in full bloom. Second, bluebirds have moved into our bluebird house. They're gonna make little baby bluebirds.<br />
<br />
R: How do the bluebirds know that the bluebird house is for them?<br />
<br />
S: That's a really good question.<br />
<br />
E: They use the GPS.<br />
<br />
J: They can fit in it.<br />
<br />
R: There's a sign.<br />
<br />
S: So a bluebird house has an opening of a certain size. But honestly, it's more about positioning. You need to place it three to five feet above the ground, in an open area, with nothing obscuring the ground beneath it. So, bluebirds wanna make sure they can see snakes and other things coming. So if you do that, if you hang it at the right height in a sort of openish area, bluebirds will move into it. I mean it's, <br />
<br />
R: And no other bird?<br />
<br />
S: Well, hang on. The other bird that will tend to steal a bluebird house from the bluebird is the house sparrow. We have plenty of house sparrows, but bluebirds always seem to move into our bluebird houses. So it's remarkably consistent.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, what do you think, like you have, the pair of bluebirds are flying around and the wife bluebird goes "What about this one, honey?" And the husband's like "Nope, that's only two feet off the gound." <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I mean they definitely have like a measuring tape and a list of wants. <br />
<br />
S: It works, it absolutely works.<br />
<br />
R: Good view of snakes, in-ground pool.<br />
<br />
B: My favorite sign of spring is that the White Walkers are retreating back north.<br />
<br />
S: Yup. ''(laughter and garbled comments)'' Nice call-back. The robins are more visible. As we learned previously they don't actually; they do migrate, but there are robins in the winter but they stay more in the forest. But the robins that are here come out and are more visible in the spring. And I actually grilled steaks on the grill on my deck today, for dinner.<br />
<br />
E: Delicious.<br />
<br />
R: Man, you went all out.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And, the single most profound marker that spring is here was<br />
<br />
E: Allergies.<br />
<br />
S: No. I don't have allergies luckily. Was, the ice cream truck came around.<br />
<br />
R: You have an ice cream truck?<br />
<br />
S: Yup. My daughters go insane. You know, they see the ice cream truck and they just go crazy.<br />
<br />
E: Come on, you go a little crazy, too. Admit it.<br />
<br />
J: Does the guy play music, Steve, or<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
J: Does he ring the bell, what is it?<br />
<br />
S: Of course, you've got the music and the bell and they just lose their minds.<br />
<br />
R: We never had an ice cream truck when I was a kid; it was too rural.<br />
<br />
B: We did.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah, we did.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, you were insane. I have a distinct memory of you, one night, sitting at the end of our driveway. You were a little shit, probably six or seven, crying your eyes out because the ice cream man didn't come, or you missed him, or something, and you were just like bawling 'cause you wanted your ice cream, and you missed it. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: I never forgave that guy, either.<br />
<br />
E: That bastard.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Mars One <small>(9:01)</small>===<br />
* http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/apply-now-one-way-trip-mars<br />
<br />
S: All right, well let's move on. Bob, you're gonna tell us about ''(imitating Schwarzenegger)'' "Get your ass to Mars." ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: You just totally took my opening line. Thank you so much.<br />
<br />
S: Bob, you gotta warn me if you're gonna do that.<br />
<br />
B: Whatever.<br />
<br />
S: It was a bit obvious<br />
<br />
B: I know, but I added a little flourish at the end. I said "Get your ass to Mars and never come back." Are you guys ready for an out-of-this-world reality TV show? I can't believe they're doing this. The company Mars One is planning on making a reality show that showcases the entire process of selecting and training astronauts, their trip to Mars, and the rest of their lives living on Mars. And like we said, it's a one-way trip. That's the real kicker that everybody's talking about. Would you guys do that? Would you guys actually consider that? Or would you want to hear the details first?<br />
<br />
R: No.<br />
<br />
E: I don't think so.<br />
<br />
R: I don't need the details. No. I don't wanna go on a reality show so people can watch me die in space. No. Thank you.<br />
<br />
''(speaking simultaneously – inaudible)''<br />
<br />
B: --when I'm 70 or 80, or what the hell. So, the first question is why are you doing a one-way trip? There's two good reasons. The scientists feel that it's feasible to send people to Mars pretty much now, but the tech just doesn't seem to exist to bring them back right now. I kind of thought that was a weird reason because even if we don't have it now, surely it'll exist at some point. And if we put resources into it it wouldn't take that long. I think one of the reasons that they're doing this is that it's a real attention grabber. Headlines.<br />
<br />
S: The think is though, what do you do, when to get to Mars, you find out that you don't like it there.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah, you're done. Game over.<br />
<br />
R: You'd kill yourself.<br />
<br />
E: You suck it, basically.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it'll make for a good episode. They're already talking about how they'll have a crematorium because people will of course die. But another good reason, probably the best reason that they're not gonna come back,<br />
<br />
E: What if you're the last one to die, though? How're you gonna get in that crematorium?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I wouldn't worry too much about it. So the best reason though why they're not coming back is that, imagine seven or eight months in space; astronauts, as we know, lose muscle mass, they lose bone mass; it's really, really horrific on the body. Even if you're exercising all the time, there's a huge hit that you take; and then time that you spend in Mars' weaker gravitational field, that's not gonna help much either. And scientists feel that readjusting to Earth's gravity after so much time, it's pretty much impossible, with today's technology anyway. After all that time, you're just not coming back. That's a really, really good reason.<br />
<br />
J: That sounds odd to me, Bob. What about people that suffer phenomenal injuries and have to be bedridden for six months or a year. You can't grow back the tissue that you lost, and the bone mass?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it's weird. It's not like if you become paralyzed, where your muscles just turn to mush and it's completely and utterly irrevocable.. .<br />
<br />
S: But people who are bedridden lose a lot of muscle mass. You could lose one to three percent of your muscle mass per day if you're sick and in the hospital and completely immobile. Especially for older people. So that's why they have weeks and months, sometimes, of rehab, just to recover from the debility that results, Jay.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, Jay, and that's also one of the big down sides to yo-yo weight loss, where you lose a lot of weight and inevitably a lot of muscle weight and then you gain back a lot of fat. At the end of the cycle you have much less muscle than you had, and that's a hit that your body could take for the rest of its life, 'cause it's just so hard to get back all that muscle that you lost. It's really bad. And that's a really good reason why once you're there you're gonna be committed. The gravitational pull on Mars is about 38% of Earth's. So that's really, really low. I mean things, it'd be easy to get around and things would be light and that's all great, but, man, your muscles just say we don't need all of this muscle, let's get rid of it. I'm very curious how walking will be accomplished on Mars. How similar to moon-walking will it be? Or will it be a fusion between the moon-hopping and the Earth-walking? I'd be curious to see that. <br />
<br />
J: Bob, what's their budget? How could they possibly afford to do this?<br />
<br />
B: That's actually one of the key problems, Jay, is funding. They figure it's gonna cost about six billion U.S. dollars to get there, just for the first group.<br />
<br />
S: How many bit coins is it gonna cost? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Seven. <br />
<br />
R: Oh, you know, if they send a big-time movie star, if they send like Julia Roberts, that should secure them at least one billion from the foreign markets.<br />
<br />
J: Why, 'cause they wanna get rid of her? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's a movie-making joke. You cast the right people, you get the funding. That's the way it works, in Hollywood.<br />
<br />
S: So who ''should'' we send to Mars on a one-way trip?<br />
<br />
B: Justin Bieber! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Wow, Bob.<br />
<br />
R: What did Justin Bieber ever do to you?<br />
<br />
B: Nothing, I just felt like it.<br />
<br />
J: It's not really him, it's more his haircut.<br />
<br />
S: Could we just send his haircut?<br />
<br />
J: So, look, there's a lot of things about this that I just don't have enough information on, or they're just not making enough sense. First of all, how do you get billions of dollars for a TV show? Second of all, who's developing the technology? How are they gonna live an extended period of time on a planet where they can't manufacture things, grow food, what's up?<br />
<br />
B: Let me go through some of this, then, Jay. What they're gonna need, more than a few astronauts: they're talking about 24 astronauts. So the idea is they're gonna have six groups of four astronauts, and every two years four astronauts are gonna be sent there, with the first one going in 2022. The selection process will be finalized in 2015; so it's only a couple years away. Then they're gonna go through seven years of training. And, think about it though, seven years of a reality show of astronauts training. That's gonna get so boring. There's no way they're gonna maintain a TV show for that long.<br />
<br />
S: I don't know, Bob. I mean, ghost hunter shows have lasted for that long. <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, ''The Real World'' has been going on for that long.<br />
<br />
B: I guess.<br />
<br />
R: It's crap, but people still watch it, I guess.<br />
<br />
B: Well, if they do a good job, they can make it interesting. But seven years of training?<br />
<br />
S: What they need to do is they need to vote people off the planet. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Well actually, what they're gonna, that's close, Steve. What they're gonna do, in true reality show style, is they're gonna vote four astronauts, the first four to go, who of course will be the most famous. Who doesn't wanna be the first ones to go? Except me. <br />
<br />
R: Anyone with a brain, doesn't wanna be the first to go.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, you mentioned technology. Space X, they're gonna work with Space X. And the idea is to use a slightly enlarged version of the Dragon capsule to get them there. And <br />
<br />
R: I never noticed before how much "Space X" sounds like "space sex." Because that was very confusing when you first said it.<br />
<br />
S: Space sex?<br />
<br />
R: Um hm.<br />
<br />
B: I never thought of that. Thank you. They're gonna use those really cool retro propulsion rockets to land it because of course parachutes aren't gonna cut it. Jay, to survive, they're gonna have solar panels, of course, for energy. They're gonna recycle and extract water from the soil if it's there, if they can actually find some. And food, and they're gonna grow their own food. That's another technology that I don't know how they're pull that off. And then of course, every two years they'll get a nice resupply of their Reese's Peanut Butter Cups from Earth when the next group arrives. But as you can imagine, right, there's gonna be tons of problems. One of them is the solar wind. Mars just does not have, a very thin atmosphere. It's about a hundredth, less than a hundredth the density of Earth's atmosphere. It's almost a friggin' vacuum. And Mars doesn't have a magnetosphere. I mean, damn.<br />
<br />
J: It doesn't seem like the survival of these people is going to be high. It's scaring me. <br />
<br />
S: They are gonna send supplies ahead of the first astronauts. So there should be material and food and everything they'll need there to get going. <br />
<br />
B; Well, they want to send a series of rovers to go there. And that's also one of the reasons why I'm pessimistic. They want to send a bunch of rovers. I mean, are they even working on these rovers? I mean, you know how long it takes to design and develop and test all that. I'm not even sure where they even are with that preliminary step right there. And so it's not just a magnetosphere that's not there, which is basically a shield for the solar wind and cosmic ray particles. It really is why there's lots of life on the surface of the planet. <br />
<br />
S: Their habitat will basically have to be under ground. <br />
<br />
B: yeah, they're gonna have to . . . maybe that's one of the things these rovers can do is help make these pits for their habitat. So if they're gonna have to be under many feet of dirt, then they'll be okay. But there's also no liquid water, really. None that they could really tap into that we've found. And then the radiation, not just the radiation on the planet, but the trip radiation, and we've talked about this on the show. It's nasty. Just going there, you've got these energetic particles in the solar wind; you've got cosmic rays. I mean, they won't kill you outright, necessarily, but they will greatly increase your chances of getting cancer. And the question is . . .<br />
<br />
R: These people are not gonna live long enough to get cancer. They don't need to worry about that.<br />
<br />
B: I guess.<br />
<br />
R: Like if they die of cancer, it'll be the greatest thing that ever happened to them. <br />
<br />
J: You know, there's social implications here, as well. What about laws?<br />
<br />
S: They're on their own. The whole idea is they can create their own civilization.<br />
<br />
E: The wild west. That's great. What if one of them goes nuts and starts to break down?<br />
<br />
S: Well they'll have seven years vet these people. They're gonna be . . . so part of the training . . . first of all, they're gonna be trained in emergency medicine, dentistry, engineering, all the skills they're gonna need to do everything they need on their own and they're gonna also spend extended periods of time in simulated Martian habitats, and have simulated emergencies. So, that's seven years of vetting for these people.<br />
<br />
E: What if these people don't pan out in year three or four, what . . . you're gonna have to have teams of people going through this process. I mean, imagine the hundreds of people that they're gonna have to select from.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. I would think they're gonna have maybe one or two backups. You know, you're talking fifty, sixty, seventy people, if they go that route, which isn't, I mean $6 billion will go a long way for that kind of stuff. NASA astronaut Stan Love had a great description of this. He, I think he described it really well. He just happened to come back from Antarctica, and he says "That place is a picnic compared to Mars." He says it's full of water, you can go outside and breathe the air. It's paradise compared to Mars, and yet nobody has moved there permanently. And you know, as nasty as that place is, Mars is ten hundred times worse and people are gonna spend the rest of their lives there. It's just crazy. <br />
<br />
R: What happens when the show is cancelled?<br />
<br />
E: That's a good point.<br />
<br />
R: You know, ratings are down, they need that time slot for something else.<br />
<br />
S: I think, let me go against the grain and say that I think this is a wonderful idea.<br />
<br />
B: No. You're full of shit. No. All right, I love the idea of a community off the Earth, and Stephen Hawking would really agree with us on that. But ''go to the moon first!'' It's only three days away. Vet all the technology and develop it on the moon. If there's a huge disaster, you can be there in mere days, rather than months and a billion dollars later. <br />
<br />
R: Good point.<br />
<br />
S: All right, that's a really good point.<br />
<br />
B: Moon Base Alpha first, then Mars.<br />
<br />
J: Well, wait, Bob. That might be part of their plan, though. As Rebecca says, let's say the show gets cancelled. The show's gonna probably get cancelled right around when everyone's gonna die. Right?<br />
<br />
E; That convenient.<br />
<br />
S: Well the show may be cancelled before they even . . . It's gonna be seven years of reality TV before they even blast off for Mars. Remember. So, this is highly risky in multiple ways. This is gonna be very difficult to pull off. But you gotta give it to them for the vision here, of trying to . . . If they pull this off, then you really have to give it to them for being bold and the amount of dedication it's going to take to usher this project to completion is going to be amazing. So, they will have to capture the imagination of the world with this project. The people that they select are going to have a lot to do with this. And they have ten years to work out the technological limitations. It's not impossible, it's just gonna be really, really hard. But if they're serious about this, I think that . . . I'd love to see them try; I wish them well; I would love to see them succeed, as long as they appreciate that they're not going into this thinking this is gonna be an easy endeavor. As long as they appreciate all the many ways this can fail, and they are doing everything they possibly can to deal with all of those hurdles, then, let's see what they do.<br />
<br />
R: Who's the "they" again? Who's actually doing this?<br />
<br />
S: Mars One, I guess, is the organization. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah, they're based out of Denmark. <br />
<br />
J: Steve, I don't disagree with that at all. I see what you're saying, and I like the idea of all these billions of dollars that go into entertainment that is really, at the end of the day, it doesn't achieve things like technology and pushing the limits of man's fortitude . . . <br />
<br />
S: You know what I think is likely to happen? If they get this off the ground, I think that they're going to have an interesting reality TV show that will be a dry run for a real colonization trip to either the moon or Mars. But they probably won't ever launch. If they ''do'' launch; if they're successful enough, in terms of raising money and keeping the whole project going to the point where they're ready to launch, that will be a huge success right there. Anything that happens after that, you know, I would still consider this to be a success. Of course it's high risk. They will have . . . basically like 2022 or 2023, they're gonna have to make a hard assessment of whether or not they actually have all the pieces in place to send people to Mars. Probably there's gonna be tons of delays and it will probably never happen. But . . .<br />
<br />
B: Oh, 2022 or 3, I'd say 2018 they'd be like, shit, we're not gonna make this. And to me, that's my biggest beef with this is that 2022 just seems way too soon to pull this off. There's too many hurdles.<br />
<br />
S: I like the idea that they're planning on using the Space X<br />
<br />
B: Oh, absolutely.<br />
<br />
S: So that may throw a lot of funding their way. <br />
<br />
B: That would be great.<br />
<br />
S: That would be a good consequence of all this.<br />
<br />
J: It's a lot of money they have to get, and that's gonna be a huge hurdle for them.<br />
<br />
B: I've got a quote on that as well. Dr. Chris Lintott, he's Oxford University, he thinks that it's technologically plausible, feasible. But in his mind funding is gonna be the biggest problem. He said "It's about having the political will and the financial muscle to make this happen. That's what nobody has been able to solve so far." So the undoing of this entire project might be just purely from funding, 'cause it's a lot of money. It's got a lot of sustained interest that you'd have to have for many, many years. And if you can pull that off, that might be the biggest hurdle of all.<br />
<br />
S: Hopefully this is a story we'll be reporting on over the years. I hope it doesn't die in the crib. It'll be interesting.<br />
<br />
B: And if anyone wants to register you have until August 31 of 2013, and they certainly have lots of volunteers. I've heard numbers over 40,000 requests already.<br />
<br />
R: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
B: It'll cost you money, though. I think it's 38 bucks for the United States. But depending on what country you're in, the prices will vary. But yeah, lots of people are interested in it.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Bomb Detector Fraud <small>(24:43)</small>===<br />
* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22266051<br />
<br />
=== TED and Chopra <small>()</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/confusing-standards-for-censorship-chopra-edition/ Confusing Standards for Censorship &ndash; Chopra Edition]<br />
<br />
=== Creationism and Dinosaurs <small>()</small>===<br />
* http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/21/aclu-to-kansas-school-district-cancel-creationist-assemblies-about-dinosaurs/<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Puzzle for last week<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Question 1 <small>()</small>===<br />
Bitcoin Follow Up<br />
Corrections and further analysis of Bitcoin<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2013/04/guelph_scientis_1.htmlItem #1]: Scientists have developed a vaccine that can reduce the risk of developing autism in high-risk infants by over 20%. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423135716.htm Item #2]: A study finds that medical interns spend only 12% of their time with patients, while spending 40% of their time at computers. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130418124907.htm Item #3]: A new study finds that over 50% of products recalled by the FDA between 2004 and 2012 because they probably would "cause serious adverse health consequences or death" were dietary supplements. <br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro404}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_406&diff=6558SGU Episode 4062013-05-05T21:26:50Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 359<br />
|episodeDate = 34<sup>th</sup> May 2012<br />
|episodeIcon = File:bomb-detector.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-04-27.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=406<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=45826.0<br />
|qowText = Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.<br />
|qowAuthor = {{w|Mark Twain}}<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the {{SGU}}, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the {{SGU}}. Today is Tuesday, April 24, 2013, and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson,<br />
<br />
R: Hello, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: Hey, guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Mach-cho maroon.<br />
<br />
S: Thank you, Evan.<br />
<br />
J: That sounds very Game of Thrones-y.<br />
<br />
E: It's the first words I think I've ever spoken in Dothraki.<br />
<br />
J: And what does it mean?<br />
<br />
R: It means "Die, scum!" ''(laughter)'' ''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: It means: "Your horse is ugly."<br />
<br />
J: Does it mean Hello?<br />
<br />
R: It means hello.<br />
<br />
E: Yes. It's the long way of saying "hello."<br />
<br />
S: Or as close as you get to it in Dothraki.<br />
<br />
J: Game of Thrones is kicking ass. The latest episode was awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And that has nothing to do with science.<br />
<br />
E: Everything to do with pop culture. <br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:02)</small> ==<br />
April 27, 1791: Birth of Samuel Morse<br />
<br />
R: But you know what ''does'' have to do, slightly, with science is that today, April 27, is the birthday of Samuel Morse, who was born in 1791.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, happy birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Wait. I missed that segue. What's, how did you do that? Oh, never mind. Go ahead. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: You know, it was just so smooth, you missed it. Yeah, so, Samuel Morse, most people know as the inventor, or co-inventor, of Morse code. I found it really interesting, I was reading up on him, and apparently he got interested in telegraph systems because he was far away from his wife when she took ill, and he got a telegram saying that she was basically on her death bed. And by the time he was able to rush to see her, she was already dead and buried. And he was so angry about it <br />
<br />
E: Sad.<br />
<br />
R: that he gave up painting. He had been a painter. And he dedicated his life to finding a better way to communicate over long distances. So, yeah, a tragedy, but it was positive results for humanity.<br />
<br />
J: You know what he said when he got there and they said "Your wife is dead."? He said, "She's dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dead?"<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my, God. ''(groans and laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: That was bad.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: Guys, guys, come on.<br />
<br />
B: Please edit that out, Steve. ''(laughter continues)'' Imagine how awesome that was back then when you realize that, holy crap, we can communicate so fast over hundreds, thousands, of miles. It must have been like pure science fiction to them.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, I learned some interesting things about Samuel Morse. First of all, he graduated from Yale. So he's a Yale alum. Supported himself as a painter, as Rebecca said. He didn't just invent, actually co-invent, with Alfred Vail, Morse code. He actually developed the electrical telegraph. And he, one of the critical inventions for that was the relay. He invented the relay. You guys know how that works?<br />
<br />
J: Sure.<br />
<br />
S: Hit me.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, the re--, you mean the thing that boosts the signal so it can go over long distances.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So, 'cause the wires back then were so crappy, one signal could really only go not even a mile. It couldn't go very far at all. So he figured out a way of putting in a relay where the signal hits a relay circuit which essentially, a very weak signal, you have a very sensitive circuit, so that even a weak signal comes in, and it activates a magnet, which triggers an arm, which creates a new click, which then can go the next distance to the next relay. So very simple, very basic, but that was a critical invention to the functioning of the <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: over long distances.<br />
<br />
B: They had to set those up every mile? Wow, that's a lot.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, something like that, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Initially, at least.<br />
<br />
E: It's like fiber optic today; they have relay stations.<br />
<br />
S: Do you guys know what the first message sent across one of those telegraphs was?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: I used to know it.<br />
<br />
J: "Send more Chuck Berry."<br />
<br />
R: Well, I only know because I read it like an hour ago.<br />
<br />
J: Say it with authority.<br />
<br />
R: I know exactly what it was, Steve. It was "A patient waiter is no loser."<br />
<br />
S: Right. Which is interesting because it's not . . .<br />
<br />
B: That's kinda lame.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's kinda lame.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: But his father was <br />
<br />
R: It's no "What hath God wrought?"<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, "what hath God wrought?"<br />
<br />
E: Or "Watson, come here, I want you.<br />
<br />
S: That's what he said when he was transmitting from the Supreme Court chamber.<br />
<br />
E: Right.<br />
<br />
S: His father was a Calvinist preacher, so it's kind of, I guess, has the moralistic tone with which he was raised. His father was Jedidiah Morse. You gotta love that name, Jedidiah. Not many Jedidiahs around today. <br />
<br />
B: No.<br />
<br />
S: And Morse also was pro-slavery. And was active in resisting both Catholics and immigrants.<br />
<br />
E: Um hm.<br />
<br />
J: When you say "resisting," what do you mean "resist"?<br />
<br />
S: He was, he actively campaigned against immigrants and Catholics.<br />
<br />
R: Horrible person<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: who did some good stuff.<br />
<br />
J: I didn't know that.<br />
<br />
B: I like him a little less now.<br />
<br />
S: He was a product of his time and his father.<br />
<br />
B: True.<br />
<br />
S: Gotta cut him a little bit of slack.<br />
<br />
R: I don't know, there were plenty of people of his time who were vehemently anti-slavery.<br />
<br />
S: Um hm. I agree, I just said "a little bit." It's hard to look back 200 years and be too heavily moralizing.<br />
<br />
R: Eh. I find it easy. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Are you guys enjoying the first real days of spring that we've had so far?<br />
<br />
J: Awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, I'm lovin' it. 'Bout time.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, this 42 degree weather is wonderful.<br />
<br />
S: Well, hey, we had such a long winter; you're right, it's still a little on the cold side. Today there were all these various unmistakable signs of spring, sort of like all at once. So, first, the forsythia is in full bloom. Second, bluebirds have moved into our bluebird house. They're gonna make little baby bluebirds.<br />
<br />
R: How do the bluebirds know that the bluebird house is for them?<br />
<br />
S: That's a really good question.<br />
<br />
E: They use the GPS.<br />
<br />
J: They can fit in it.<br />
<br />
R: There's a sign.<br />
<br />
S: So a bluebird house has an opening of a certain size. But honestly, it's more about positioning. You need to place it three to five feet above the ground, in an open area, with nothing obscuring the ground beneath it. So, bluebirds wanna make sure they can see snakes and other things coming. So if you do that, if you hang it at the right height in a sort of openish area, bluebirds will move into it. I mean it's, <br />
<br />
R: And no other bird?<br />
<br />
S: Well, hang on. The other bird that will tend to steal a bluebird house from the bluebird is the house sparrow. We have plenty of house sparrows, but bluebirds always seem to move into our bluebird houses. So it's remarkably consistent.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, what do you think, like you have, the pair of bluebirds are flying around and the wife bluebird goes "What about this one, honey?" And the husband's like "Nope, that's only two feet off the gound." <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I mean they definitely have like a measuring tape and a list of wants. <br />
<br />
S: It works, it absolutely works.<br />
<br />
R: Good view of snakes, in-ground pool.<br />
<br />
B: My favorite sign of spring is that the White Walkers are retreating back north.<br />
<br />
S: Yup. ''(laughter and garbled comments)'' Nice call-back. The robins are more visible. As we learned previously they don't actually; they do migrate, but there are robins in the winter but they stay more in the forest. But the robins that are here come out and are more visible in the spring. And I actually grilled steaks on the grill on my deck today, for dinner.<br />
<br />
E: Delicious.<br />
<br />
R: Man, you went all out.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And, the single most profound marker that spring is here was<br />
<br />
E: Allergies.<br />
<br />
S: No. I don't have allergies luckily. Was, the ice cream truck came around.<br />
<br />
R: You have an ice cream truck?<br />
<br />
S: Yup. My daughters go insane. You know, they see the ice cream truck and they just go crazy.<br />
<br />
E: Come on, you go a little crazy, too. Admit it.<br />
<br />
J: Does the guy play music, Steve, or<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
J: Does he ring the bell, what is it?<br />
<br />
S: Of course, you've got the music and the bell and they just lose their minds.<br />
<br />
R: We never had an ice cream truck when I was a kid; it was too rural.<br />
<br />
B: We did.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah, we did.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, you were insane. I have a distinct memory of you, one night, sitting at the end of our driveway. You were a little shit, probably six or seven, crying your eyes out because the ice cream man didn't come, or you missed him, or something, and you were just like bawling 'cause you wanted your ice cream, and you missed it. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: I never forgave that guy, either.<br />
<br />
E: That bastard.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Mars One <small>(9:01)</small>===<br />
* http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/apply-now-one-way-trip-mars<br />
<br />
S: All right, well let's move on. Bob, you're gonna tell us about ''(imitating Schwarzenegger)'' "Get your ass to Mars." ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: You just totally took my opening line. Thank you so much.<br />
<br />
S: Bob, you gotta warn me if you're gonna do that.<br />
<br />
B: Whatever.<br />
<br />
S: It was a bit obvious<br />
<br />
B: I know, but I added a little flourish at the end. I said "Get your ass to Mars and never come back." Are you guys ready for an out-of-this-world reality TV show? I can't believe they're doing this. The company Mars One is planning on making a reality show that showcases the entire process of selecting and training astronauts, their trip to Mars, and the rest of their lives living on Mars. And like we said, it's a one-way trip. That's the real kicker that everybody's talking about. Would you guys do that? Would you guys actually consider that? Or would you want to hear the details first?<br />
<br />
R: No.<br />
<br />
E: I don't think so.<br />
<br />
R: I don't need the details. No. I don't wanna go on a reality show so people can watch me die in space. No. Thank you.<br />
<br />
''(speaking simultaneously – inaudible)''<br />
<br />
B: --when I'm 70 or 80, or what the hell. So, the first question is why are you doing a one-way trip? There's two good reasons. The scientists feel that it's feasible to send people to Mars pretty much now, but the tech just doesn't seem to exist to bring them back right now. I kind of thought that was a weird reason because even if we don't have it now, surely it'll exist at some point. And if we put resources into it it wouldn't take that long. I think one of the reasons that they're doing this is that it's a real attention grabber. Headlines.<br />
<br />
S: The think is though, what do you do, when to get to Mars, you find out that you don't like it there.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah, you're done. Game over.<br />
<br />
R: You'd kill yourself.<br />
<br />
E: You suck it, basically.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it'll make for a good episode. They're already talking about how they'll have a crematorium because people will of course die. But another good reason, probably the best reason that they're not gonna come back,<br />
<br />
E: What if you're the last one to die, though? How're you gonna get in that crematorium?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I wouldn't worry too much about it. So the best reason though why they're not coming back is that, imagine seven or eight months in space; astronauts, as we know, lose muscle mass, they lose bone mass; it's really, really horrific on the body. Even if you're exercising all the time, there's a huge hit that you take; and then time that you spend in Mars' weaker gravitational field, that's not gonna help much either. And scientists feel that readjusting to Earth's gravity after so much time, it's pretty much impossible, with today's technology anyway. After all that time, you're just not coming back. That's a really, really good reason.<br />
<br />
J: That sounds odd to me, Bob. What about people that suffer phenomenal injuries and have to be bedridden for six months or a year. You can't grow back the tissue that you lost, and the bone mass?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it's weird. It's not like if you become paralyzed, where your muscles just turn to mush and it's completely and utterly irrevocable.. .<br />
<br />
S: But people who are bedridden lose a lot of muscle mass. You could lose one to three percent of your muscle mass per day if you're sick and in the hospital and completely immobile. Especially for older people. So that's why they have weeks and months, sometimes, of rehab, just to recover from the debility that results, Jay.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, Jay, and that's also one of the big down sides to yo-yo weight loss, where you lose a lot of weight and inevitably a lot of muscle weight and then you gain back a lot of fat. At the end of the cycle you have much less muscle than you had, and that's a hit that your body could take for the rest of its life, 'cause it's just so hard to get back all that muscle that you lost. It's really bad. And that's a really good reason why once you're there you're gonna be committed. The gravitational pull on Mars is about 38% of Earth's. So that's really, really low. I mean things, it'd be easy to get around and things would be light and that's all great, but, man, your muscles just say we don't need all of this muscle, let's get rid of it. I'm very curious how walking will be accomplished on Mars. How similar to moon-walking will it be? Or will it be a fusion between the moon-hopping and the Earth-walking? I'd be curious to see that. <br />
<br />
J: Bob, what's their budget? How could they possibly afford to do this?<br />
<br />
B: That's actually one of the key problems, Jay, is funding. They figure it's gonna cost about six billion U.S. dollars to get there, just for the first group.<br />
<br />
S: How many bit coins is it gonna cost? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Seven. <br />
<br />
R: Oh, you know, if they send a big-time movie star, if they send like Julia Roberts, that should secure them at least one billion from the foreign markets.<br />
<br />
J: Why, 'cause they wanna get rid of her? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's a movie-making joke. You cast the right people, you get the funding. That's the way it works, in Hollywood.<br />
<br />
S: So who ''should'' we send to Mars on a one-way trip?<br />
<br />
B: Justin Bieber! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Wow, Bob.<br />
<br />
R: What did Justin Bieber ever do to you?<br />
<br />
B: Nothing, I just felt like it.<br />
<br />
J: It's not really him, it's more his haircut.<br />
<br />
S: Could we just send his haircut?<br />
<br />
J: So, look, there's a lot of things about this that I just don't have enough information on, or they're just not making enough sense. First of all, how do you get billions of dollars for a TV show? Second of all, who's developing the technology? How are they gonna live an extended period of time on a planet where they can't manufacture things, grow food, what's up?<br />
<br />
B: Let me go through some of this, then, Jay. What they're gonna need, more than a few astronauts: they're talking about 24 astronauts. So the idea is they're gonna have six groups of four astronauts, and every two years four astronauts are gonna be sent there, with the first one going in 2022. The selection process will be finalized in 2015; so it's only a couple years away. Then they're gonna go through seven years of training. And, think about it though, seven years of a reality show of astronauts training. That's gonna get so boring. There's no way they're gonna maintain a TV show for that long.<br />
<br />
S: I don't know, Bob. I mean, ghost hunter shows have lasted for that long. <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, ''The Real World'' has been going on for that long.<br />
<br />
B: I guess.<br />
<br />
R: It's crap, but people still watch it, I guess.<br />
<br />
B: Well, if they do a good job, they can make it interesting. But seven years of training?<br />
<br />
S: What they need to do is they need to vote people off the planet. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Well actually, what they're gonna, that's close, Steve. What they're gonna do, in true reality show style, is they're gonna vote four astronauts, the first four to go, who of course will be the most famous. Who doesn't wanna be the first ones to go? Except me. <br />
<br />
R: Anyone with a brain, doesn't wanna be the first to go.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, you mentioned technology. Space X, they're gonna work with Space X. And the idea is to use a slightly enlarged version of the Dragon capsule to get them there. And <br />
<br />
R: I never noticed before how much "Space X" sounds like "space sex." Because that was very confusing when you first said it.<br />
<br />
S: Space sex?<br />
<br />
R: Um hm.<br />
<br />
B: I never thought of that. Thank you. They're gonna use those really cool retro propulsion rockets to land it because of course parachutes aren't gonna cut it. Jay, to survive, they're gonna have solar panels, of course, for energy. They're gonna recycle and extract water from the soil if it's there, if they can actually find some. And food, and they're gonna grow their own food. That's another technology that I don't know how they're pull that off. And then of course, every two years they'll get a nice resupply of their Reese's Peanut Butter Cups from Earth when the next group arrives. But as you can imagine, right, there's gonna be tons of problems. One of them is the solar wind. Mars just does not have, a very thin atmosphere. It's about a hundredth, less than a hundredth the density of Earth's atmosphere. It's almost a friggin' vacuum. And Mars doesn't have a magnetosphere. I mean, damn.<br />
<br />
J: It doesn't seem like the survival of these people is going to be high. It's scaring me. <br />
<br />
S: They are gonna send supplies ahead of the first astronauts. So there should be material and food and everything they'll need there to get going. <br />
<br />
B; Well, they want to send a series of rovers to go there. And that's also one of the reasons why I'm pessimistic. They want to send a bunch of rovers. I mean, are they even working on these rovers? I mean, you know how long it takes to design and develop and test all that. I'm not even sure where they even are with that preliminary step right there. And so it's not just a magnetosphere that's not there, which is basically a shield for the solar wind and cosmic ray particles. It really is why there's lots of life on the surface of the planet. <br />
<br />
S: Their habitat will basically have to be under ground. <br />
<br />
B: yeah, they're gonna have to . . . maybe that's one of the things these rovers can do is help make these pits for their habitat. So if they're gonna have to be under many feet of dirt, then they'll be okay. But there's also no liquid water, really. None that they could really tap into that we've found. And then the radiation, not just the radiation on the planet, but the trip radiation, and we've talked about this on the show. It's nasty. Just going there, you've got these energetic particles in the solar wind; you've got cosmic rays. I mean, they won't kill you outright, necessarily, but they will greatly increase your chances of getting cancer. And the question is . . .<br />
<br />
R: These people are not gonna live long enough to get cancer. They don't need to worry about that.<br />
<br />
B: I guess.<br />
<br />
R: Like if they die of cancer, it'll be the greatest thing that ever happened to them. <br />
<br />
J: You know, there's social implications here, as well. What about laws?<br />
<br />
S: They're on their own. The whole idea is they can create their own civilization.<br />
<br />
E: The wild west. That's great. What if one of them goes nuts and starts to break down?<br />
<br />
S: Well they'll have seven years vet these people. They're gonna be . . . so part of the training . . . first of all, they're gonna be trained in emergency medicine, dentistry, engineering, all the skills they're gonna need to do everything they need on their own and they're gonna also spend extended periods of time in simulated Martian habitats, and have simulated emergencies. So, that's seven years of vetting for these people.<br />
<br />
E: What if these people don't pan out in year three or four, what . . . you're gonna have to have teams of people going through this process. I mean, imagine the hundreds of people that they're gonna have to select from.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. I would think they're gonna have maybe one or two backups. You know, you're talking fifty, sixty, seventy people, if they go that route, which isn't, I mean $6 billion will go a long way for that kind of stuff. NASA astronaut Stan Love had a great description of this. He, I think he described it really well. He just happened to come back from Antarctica, and he says "That place is a picnic compared to Mars." He says it's full of water, you can go outside and breathe the air. It's paradise compared to Mars, and yet nobody has moved there permanently. And you know, as nasty as that place is, Mars is ten hundred times worse and people are gonna spend the rest of their lives there. It's just crazy. <br />
<br />
R: What happens when the show is cancelled?<br />
<br />
E: That's a good point.<br />
<br />
R: You know, ratings are down, they need that time slot for something else.<br />
<br />
S: I think, let me go against the grain and say that I think this is a wonderful idea.<br />
<br />
B: No. You're full of shit. No. All right, I love the idea of a community off the Earth, and Stephen Hawking would really agree with us on that. But ''go to the moon first!'' It's only three days away. Vet all the technology and develop it on the moon. If there's a huge disaster, you can be there in mere days, rather than months and a billion dollars later. <br />
<br />
R: Good point.<br />
<br />
S: All right, that's a really good point.<br />
<br />
B: Moon Base Alpha first, then Mars.<br />
<br />
J: Well, wait, Bob. That might be part of their plan, though. As Rebecca says, let's say the show gets cancelled. The show's gonna probably get cancelled right around when everyone's gonna die. Right?<br />
<br />
E; That convenient.<br />
<br />
S: Well the show may be cancelled before they even . . . It's gonna be seven years of reality TV before they even blast off for Mars. Remember. So, this is highly risky in multiple ways. This is gonna be very difficult to pull off. But you gotta give it to them for the vision here, of trying to . . . If they pull this off, then you really have to give it to them for being bold and the amount of dedication it's going to take to usher this project to completion is going to be amazing. So, they will have to capture the imagination of the world with this project. The people that they select are going to have a lot to do with this. And they have ten years to work out the technological limitations. It's not impossible, it's just gonna be really, really hard. But if they're serious about this, I think that . . . I'd love to see them try; I wish them well; I would love to see them succeed, as long as they appreciate that they're not going into this thinking this is gonna be an easy endeavor. As long as they appreciate all the many ways this can fail, and they are doing everything they possibly can to deal with all of those hurdles, then, let's see what they do.<br />
<br />
R: Who's the "they" again? Who's actually doing this?<br />
<br />
S: Mars One, I guess, is the organization. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah, they're based out of Denmark. <br />
<br />
J: Steve, I don't disagree with that at all. I see what you're saying, and I like the idea of all these billions of dollars that go into entertainment that is really, at the end of the day, it doesn't achieve things like technology and pushing the limits of man's fortitude . . . <br />
<br />
S: You know what I think is likely to happen? If they get this off the ground, I think that they're going to have an interesting reality TV show that will be a dry run for a real colonization trip to either the moon or Mars. But they probably won't ever launch. If they ''do'' launch; if they're successful enough, in terms of raising money and keeping the whole project going to the point where they're ready to launch, that will be a huge success right there. Anything that happens after that, you know, I would still consider this to be a success. Of course it's high risk. They will have . . . basically like 2022 or 2023, they're gonna have to make a hard assessment of whether or not they actually have all the pieces in place to send people to Mars. Probably there's gonna be tons of delays and it will probably never happen. But . . .<br />
<br />
B: Oh, 2022 or 3, I'd say 2018 they'd be like, shit, we're not gonna make this. And to me, that's my biggest beef with this is that 2022 just seems way too soon to pull this off. There's too many hurdles.<br />
<br />
S: I like the idea that they're planning on using the Space X<br />
<br />
B: Oh, absolutely.<br />
<br />
S: So that may throw a lot of funding their way. <br />
<br />
B: That would be great.<br />
<br />
S: That would be a good consequence of all this.<br />
<br />
J: It's a lot of money they have to get, and that's gonna be a huge hurdle for them.<br />
<br />
B: I've got a quote on that as well. Dr. Chris Lintott, he's Oxford University, he thinks that it's technologically plausible, feasible. But in his mind funding is gonna be the biggest problem. He said "It's about having the political will and the financial muscle to make this happen. That's what nobody has been able to solve so far." So the undoing of this entire project might be just purely from funding, 'cause it's a lot of money. It's got a lot of sustained interest that you'd have to have for many, many years. And if you can pull that off, that might be the biggest hurdle of all.<br />
<br />
S: Hopefully this is a story we'll be reporting on over the years. I hope it doesn't die in the crib. It'll be interesting.<br />
<br />
B: And if anyone wants to register you have until August 31 of 2013, and they certainly have lots of volunteers. I've heard numbers over 40,000 requests already.<br />
<br />
R: Oh, my god.<br />
<br />
B: It'll cost you money, though. I think it's 38 bucks for the United States. But depending on what country you're in, the prices will vary. But yeah, lots of people are interested in it.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Bomb Detector Fraud <small>()</small>===<br />
* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22266051<br />
<br />
=== TED and Chopra <small>()</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/confusing-standards-for-censorship-chopra-edition/ Confusing Standards for Censorship &ndash; Chopra Edition]<br />
<br />
=== Creationism and Dinosaurs <small>()</small>===<br />
* http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/21/aclu-to-kansas-school-district-cancel-creationist-assemblies-about-dinosaurs/<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Puzzle for last week<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Question 1 <small>()</small>===<br />
Bitcoin Follow Up<br />
Corrections and further analysis of Bitcoin<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2013/04/guelph_scientis_1.htmlItem #1]: Scientists have developed a vaccine that can reduce the risk of developing autism in high-risk infants by over 20%. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423135716.htm Item #2]: A study finds that medical interns spend only 12% of their time with patients, while spending 40% of their time at computers. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130418124907.htm Item #3]: A new study finds that over 50% of products recalled by the FDA between 2004 and 2012 because they probably would "cause serious adverse health consequences or death" were dietary supplements. <br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro404}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_406&diff=6494SGU Episode 4062013-04-30T02:13:49Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{LatestEpisode}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 359<br />
|episodeDate = 34<sup>th</sup> May 2012<br />
|episodeIcon = File:bomb-detector.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-04-27.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=406<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=45826.0<br />
|qowText = Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.<br />
|qowAuthor = {{w|Mark Twain}}<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the {{SGU}}, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the {{SGU}}. Today is Tuesday, April 24, 2013, and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson,<br />
<br />
R: Hello, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: Hey, guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Mach-cho maroon.<br />
<br />
S: Thank you, Evan.<br />
<br />
J: That sounds very Game of Thrones-y.<br />
<br />
E: It's the first words I think I've ever spoken in Dothraki.<br />
<br />
J: And what does it mean?<br />
<br />
R: It means "Die, scum!" ''(laughter)'' ''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: It means: "Your horse is ugly."<br />
<br />
J: Does it mean Hello?<br />
<br />
R: It means hello.<br />
<br />
E: Yes. It's the long way of saying "hello."<br />
<br />
S: Or as close as you get to it in Dothraki.<br />
<br />
J: Game of Thrones is kicking ass. The latest episode was awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And that has nothing to do with science.<br />
<br />
E: Everything to do with pop culture. <br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:02)</small> ==<br />
April 27, 1791: Birth of Samuel Morse<br />
<br />
R: But you know what ''does'' have to do, slightly, with science is that today, April 27, is the birthday of Samuel Morse, who was born in 1791.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, happy birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Wait. I missed that segue. What's, how did you do that? Oh, never mind. Go ahead. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: You know, it was just so smooth, you missed it. Yeah, so, Samuel Morse, most people know as the inventor, or co-inventor, of Morse code. I found it really interesting, I was reading up on him, and apparently he got interested in telegraph systems because he was far away from his wife when she took ill, and he got a telegram saying that she was basically on her death bed. And by the time he was able to rush to see her, she was already dead and buried. And he was so angry about it <br />
<br />
E: Sad.<br />
<br />
R: that he gave up painting. He had been a painter. And he dedicated his life to finding a better way to communicate over long distances. So, yeah, a tragedy, but it was positive results for humanity.<br />
<br />
J: You know what he said when he got there and they said "Your wife is dead."? He said, "She's dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dead?"<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my, God. ''(groans and laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: That was bad.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: Guys, guys, come on.<br />
<br />
B: Please edit that out, Steve. ''(laughter continues)'' Imagine how awesome that was back then when you realize that, holy crap, we can communicate so fast over hundreds, thousands, of miles. It must have been like pure science fiction to them.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, I learned some interesting things about Samuel Morse. First of all, he graduated from Yale. So he's a Yale alum. Supported himself as a painter, as Rebecca said. He didn't just invent, actually co-invent, with Alfred Vail, Morse code. He actually developed the electrical telegraph. And he, one of the critical inventions for that was the relay. He invented the relay. You guys know how that works?<br />
<br />
J: Sure.<br />
<br />
S: Hit me.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, the re--, you mean the thing that boosts the signal so it can go over long distances.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So, 'cause the wires back then were so crappy, one signal could really only go not even a mile. It couldn't go very far at all. So he figured out a way of putting in a relay where the signal hits a relay circuit which essentially, a very weak signal, you have a very sensitive circuit, so that even a weak signal comes in, and it activates a magnet, which triggers an arm, which creates a new click, which then can go the next distance to the next relay. So very simple, very basic, but that was a critical invention to the functioning of the <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: over long distances.<br />
<br />
B: They had to set those up every mile? Wow, that's a lot.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, something like that, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Initially, at least.<br />
<br />
E: It's like fiber optic today; they have relay stations.<br />
<br />
S: Do you guys know what the first message sent across one of those telegraphs was?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: I used to know it.<br />
<br />
J: "Send more Chuck Berry."<br />
<br />
R: Well, I only know because I read it like an hour ago.<br />
<br />
J: Say it with authority.<br />
<br />
R: I know exactly what it was, Steve. It was "A patient waiter is no loser."<br />
<br />
S: Right. Which is interesting because it's not . . .<br />
<br />
B: That's kinda lame.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's kinda lame.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: But his father was <br />
<br />
R: It's no "What hath God wrought?"<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, "what hath God wrought?"<br />
<br />
E: Or "Watson, come here, I want you.<br />
<br />
S: That's what he said when he was transmitting from the Supreme Court chamber.<br />
<br />
E: Right.<br />
<br />
S: His father was a Calvinist preacher, so it's kind of, I guess, has the moralistic tone with which he was raised. His father was Jedidiah Morse. You gotta love that name, Jedidiah. Not many Jedidiahs around today. <br />
<br />
B: No.<br />
<br />
S: And Morse also was pro-slavery. And was active in resisting both Catholics and immigrants.<br />
<br />
E: Um hm.<br />
<br />
J: When you say "resisting," what do you mean "resist"?<br />
<br />
S: He was, he actively campaigned against immigrants and Catholics.<br />
<br />
R: Horrible person<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: who did some good stuff.<br />
<br />
J: I didn't know that.<br />
<br />
B: I like him a little less now.<br />
<br />
S: He was a product of his time and his father.<br />
<br />
B: True.<br />
<br />
S: Gotta cut him a little bit of slack.<br />
<br />
R: I don't know, there were plenty of people of his time who were vehemently anti-slavery.<br />
<br />
S: Um hm. I agree, I just said "a little bit." It's hard to look back 200 years and be too heavily moralizing.<br />
<br />
R: Eh. I find it easy. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Are you guys enjoying the first real days of spring that we've had so far?<br />
<br />
J: Awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, I'm lovin' it. 'Bout time.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, this 42 degree weather is wonderful.<br />
<br />
S: Well, hey, we had such a long winter; you're right, it's still a little on the cold side. Today there were all these various unmistakable signs of spring, sort of like all at once. So, first, the forsythia is in full bloom. Second, bluebirds have moved into our bluebird house. They're gonna make little baby bluebirds.<br />
<br />
R: How do the bluebirds know that the bluebird house is for them?<br />
<br />
S: That's a really good question.<br />
<br />
E: They use the GPS.<br />
<br />
J: They can fit in it.<br />
<br />
R: There's a sign.<br />
<br />
S: So a bluebird house has an opening of a certain size. But honestly, it's more about positioning. You need to place it three to five feet above the ground, in an open area, with nothing obscuring the ground beneath it. So, bluebirds wanna make sure they can see snakes and other things coming. So if you do that, if you hang it at the right height in a sort of openish area, bluebirds will move into it. I mean it's, <br />
<br />
R: And no other bird?<br />
<br />
S: Well, hang on. The other bird that will tend to steal a bluebird house from the bluebird is the house sparrow. We have plenty of house sparrows, but bluebirds always seem to move into our bluebird houses. So it's remarkably consistent.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, what do you think, like you have, the pair of bluebirds are flying around and the wife bluebird goes "What about this one, honey?" And the husband's like "Nope, that's only two feet off the gound." <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I mean they definitely have like a measuring tape and a list of wants. <br />
<br />
S: It works, it absolutely works.<br />
<br />
R: Good view of snakes, in-ground pool.<br />
<br />
B: My favorite sign of spring is that the White Walkers are retreating back north.<br />
<br />
S: Yup. ''(laughter and garbled comments)'' Nice call-back. The robins are more visible. As we learned previously they don't actually; they do migrate, but there are robins in the winter but they stay more in the forest. But the robins that are here come out and are more visible in the spring. And I actually grilled steaks on the grill on my deck today, for dinner.<br />
<br />
E: Delicious.<br />
<br />
R: Man, you went all out.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And, the single most profound marker that spring is here was<br />
<br />
E: Allergies.<br />
<br />
S: No. I don't have allergies luckily. Was, the ice cream truck came around.<br />
<br />
R: You have an ice cream truck?<br />
<br />
S: Yup. My daughters go insane. You know, they see the ice cream truck and they just go crazy.<br />
<br />
E: Come on, you go a little crazy, too. Admit it.<br />
<br />
J: Does the guy play music, Steve, or<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
J: Does he ring the bell, what is it?<br />
<br />
S: Of course, you've got the music and the bell and they just lose their minds.<br />
<br />
R: We never had an ice cream truck when I was a kid; it was too rural.<br />
<br />
B: We did.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah, we did.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, you were insane. I have a distinct memory of you, one night, sitting at the end of our driveway. You were a little shit, probably six or seven, crying your eyes out because the ice cream man didn't come, or you missed him, or something, and you were just like bawling 'cause you wanted your ice cream, and you missed it. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: I never forgave that guy, either.<br />
<br />
E: That bastard.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Mars One <small>()</small>===<br />
* http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/apply-now-one-way-trip-mars<br />
<br />
=== Bomb Detector Fraud <small>()</small>===<br />
* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22266051<br />
<br />
=== TED and Chopra <small>()</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/confusing-standards-for-censorship-chopra-edition/ Confusing Standards for Censorship &ndash; Chopra Edition]<br />
<br />
=== Creationism and Dinosaurs <small>()</small>===<br />
* http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/21/aclu-to-kansas-school-district-cancel-creationist-assemblies-about-dinosaurs/<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Puzzle for last week<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Question 1 <small>()</small>===<br />
Bitcoin Follow Up<br />
Corrections and further analysis of Bitcoin<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2013/04/guelph_scientis_1.htmlItem #1]: Scientists have developed a vaccine that can reduce the risk of developing autism in high-risk infants by over 20%. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423135716.htm Item #2]: A study finds that medical interns spend only 12% of their time with patients, while spending 40% of their time at computers. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130418124907.htm Item #3]: A new study finds that over 50% of products recalled by the FDA between 2004 and 2012 because they probably would "cause serious adverse health consequences or death" were dietary supplements. <br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro404}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_406&diff=6485SGU Episode 4062013-04-29T02:16:02Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{LatestEpisode}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 359<br />
|episodeDate = 34<sup>th</sup> May 2012<br />
|episodeIcon = File:bomb-detector.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-04-27.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=406<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=45826.0<br />
|qowText = Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.<br />
|qowAuthor = {{w|Mark Twain}}<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the {{SGU}}, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the {{SGU}}. Today is Tuesday, April 24, 2013, and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson,<br />
<br />
R: Hello, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: Hey, guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Mach-cho maroon.<br />
<br />
S: Thank you, Evan.<br />
<br />
J: That sounds very Game of Thrones-y.<br />
<br />
E: It's the first words I think I've ever spoken in Dothraki.<br />
<br />
J: And what does it mean?<br />
<br />
R: It means "Die, scum!" ''(laughter)'' ''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: It means: "Your horse is ugly."<br />
<br />
J: Does it mean Hello?<br />
<br />
R: It means hello.<br />
<br />
E: Yes. It's the long way of saying "hello."<br />
<br />
S: Or as close as you get to it in Dothraki.<br />
<br />
J: Game of Thrones is kicking ass. The latest episode was awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And that has nothing to do with science.<br />
<br />
E: Everything to do with pop culture. <br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:02)</small> ==<br />
April 27, 1791: Birth of Samuel Morse<br />
<br />
R: But you know what ''does'' have to do, slightly, with science is that today, April 27, is the birthday of Samuel Morse, who was born in 1791.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, happy birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Wait. I missed that segue. What's, how did you do that? Oh, never mind. Go ahead. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: You know, it was just so smooth, you missed it. Yeah, so, Samuel Morse, most people know as the inventor, or co-inventor, of Morse code. I found it really interesting, I was reading up on him, and apparently he got interested in telegraph systems because he was far away from his wife when she took ill, and he got a telegram saying that she was basically on her death bed. And by the time he was able to rush to see her, she was already dead and buried. And he was so angry about it <br />
<br />
E: Sad.<br />
<br />
R: that he gave up painting. He had been a painter. And he dedicated his life to finding a better way to communicate over long distances. So, yeah, a tragedy, but it was positive results for humanity.<br />
<br />
J: You know what he said when he got there and they said "Your wife is dead."? He said, "She's dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dead?"<br />
<br />
B: Oh, my, God. ''(groans and laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: That was bad.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: Guys, guys, come on.<br />
<br />
B: Please edit that out, Steve. ''(laughter continues)'' Imagine how awesome that was back then when you realize that, holy crap, we can communicate so fast over hundreds, thousands, of miles. It must have been like pure science fiction to them.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, I learned some interesting things about Samuel Morse. First of all, he graduated from Yale. So he's a Yale alum. Supported himself as a painter, as Rebecca said. He didn't just invent, actually co-invent, with Alfred Vail, Morse code. He actually developed the electrical telegraph. And he, one of the critical inventions for that was the relay. He invented the relay. You guys know how that works?<br />
<br />
J: Sure.<br />
<br />
S: Hit me.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, the re--, you mean the thing that boosts the signal so it can go over long distances.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So, 'cause the wires back then were so crappy, one signal could really only go not even a mile. It couldn't go very far at all. So he figured out a way of putting in a relay where the signal hits a relay circuit which essentially, a very weak signal, you have a very sensitive circuit, so that even a weak signal comes in, and it activates a magnet, which triggers an arm, which creates a new click, which then can go the next distance to the next relay. So very simple, very basic, but that was a critical invention to the functioning of the <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: over long distances.<br />
<br />
B: They had to set those up every mile? Wow, that's a lot.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, something like that, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Initially, at least.<br />
<br />
E: It's like fiber optic today; they have relay stations.<br />
<br />
S: Do you guys know what the first message sent across one of those telegraphs was?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: I used to know it.<br />
<br />
J: "Send more Chuck Berry."<br />
<br />
R: Well, I only know because I read it like an hour ago.<br />
<br />
J: Say it with authority.<br />
<br />
R: I know exactly what it was, Steve. It was "A patient waiter is no loser."<br />
<br />
S: Right. Which is interesting because it's not . . .<br />
<br />
B: That's kinda lame.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's kinda lame.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: But his father was <br />
<br />
R: It's no "What hath God wrought?"<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, "what hath God wrought?"<br />
<br />
E: Or "Watson, come here, I want you.<br />
<br />
S: That's what he said when he was transmitting from the Supreme Court chamber.<br />
<br />
E: Right.<br />
<br />
S: His father was a Calvinist preacher, so it's kind of, I guess, has the moralistic tone with which he was raised. His father was Jedidiah Morse. You gotta love that name, Jedidiah. Not many Jedidiahs around today. <br />
<br />
B: No.<br />
<br />
S: And Morse also was pro-slavery. And was active in resisting both Catholics and immigrants.<br />
<br />
E: Um hm.<br />
<br />
J: When you say "resisting," what do you mean "resist"?<br />
<br />
S: He was, he actively campaigned against immigrants and Catholics.<br />
<br />
R: Horrible person<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: who did some good stuff.<br />
<br />
J: I didn't know that.<br />
<br />
B: I like him a little less now.<br />
<br />
S: He was a product of his time and his father.<br />
<br />
B: True.<br />
<br />
S: Gotta cut him a little bit of slack.<br />
<br />
R: I don't know, there were plenty of people of his time who were vehemently anti-slavery.<br />
<br />
S: Um hm. I agree, I just said "a little bit." It's hard to look back 200 years and be too heavily moralizing.<br />
<br />
R: Eh. I find it easy. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Mars One <small>()</small>===<br />
* http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/apply-now-one-way-trip-mars<br />
<br />
=== Bomb Detector Fraud <small>()</small>===<br />
* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22266051<br />
<br />
=== TED and Chopra <small>()</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/confusing-standards-for-censorship-chopra-edition/ Confusing Standards for Censorship &ndash; Chopra Edition]<br />
<br />
=== Creationism and Dinosaurs <small>()</small>===<br />
* http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/21/aclu-to-kansas-school-district-cancel-creationist-assemblies-about-dinosaurs/<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Puzzle for last week<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Question 1 <small>()</small>===<br />
Bitcoin Follow Up<br />
Corrections and further analysis of Bitcoin<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2013/04/guelph_scientis_1.htmlItem #1]: Scientists have developed a vaccine that can reduce the risk of developing autism in high-risk infants by over 20%. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423135716.htm Item #2]: A study finds that medical interns spend only 12% of their time with patients, while spending 40% of their time at computers. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130418124907.htm Item #3]: A new study finds that over 50% of products recalled by the FDA between 2004 and 2012 because they probably would "cause serious adverse health consequences or death" were dietary supplements. <br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro404}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_406&diff=6484SGU Episode 4062013-04-28T22:11:01Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{LatestEpisode}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 359<br />
|episodeDate = 34<sup>th</sup> May 2012<br />
|episodeIcon = File:bomb-detector.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-04-27.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=406<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=45826.0<br />
|qowText = Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.<br />
|qowAuthor = {{w|Mark Twain}}<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the {{SGU}}, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the {{SGU}}. Today is Tuesday, April 24, 2013, and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson,<br />
<br />
R: Hello, everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: Hey, guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Mach-cho maroon.<br />
<br />
S: Thank you, Evan.<br />
<br />
J: That sounds very Game of Thrones-y.<br />
<br />
E: It's the first words I think I've ever spoken in Dothraki.<br />
<br />
J: And what does it mean?<br />
<br />
R: It means "Die, scum!" ''(laughter)'' ''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: It means: "Your horse is ugly."<br />
<br />
J: Does it mean Hello?<br />
<br />
R: It means hello.<br />
<br />
E: Yes. It's the long way of saying "hello."<br />
<br />
S: Or as close as you get to it in Dothraki.<br />
<br />
J: Game of Thrones is kicking ass. The latest episode was awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And that has nothing to do with science.<br />
<br />
E: Everything to do with pop culture. <br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>()</small> ==<br />
April 27, 1791: Birth of Samuel Morse<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Mars One <small>()</small>===<br />
* http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/apply-now-one-way-trip-mars<br />
<br />
=== Bomb Detector Fraud <small>()</small>===<br />
* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22266051<br />
<br />
=== TED and Chopra <small>()</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/confusing-standards-for-censorship-chopra-edition/ Confusing Standards for Censorship &ndash; Chopra Edition]<br />
<br />
=== Creationism and Dinosaurs <small>()</small>===<br />
* http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/21/aclu-to-kansas-school-district-cancel-creationist-assemblies-about-dinosaurs/<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Puzzle for last week<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Question 1 <small>()</small>===<br />
Bitcoin Follow Up<br />
Corrections and further analysis of Bitcoin<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2013/04/guelph_scientis_1.htmlItem #1]: Scientists have developed a vaccine that can reduce the risk of developing autism in high-risk infants by over 20%. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423135716.htm Item #2]: A study finds that medical interns spend only 12% of their time with patients, while spending 40% of their time at computers. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130418124907.htm Item #3]: A new study finds that over 50% of products recalled by the FDA between 2004 and 2012 because they probably would "cause serious adverse health consequences or death" were dietary supplements. <br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro404}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SGU_episode_list&diff=6483Template:SGU episode list2013-04-28T21:57:26Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div><noinclude>This template is used to display the list of full-length episodes on the [[Main Page]] and the [[SGU Episodes]] page. Additions and amendments to this template will be reflected on those pages.<br />
<br />
Pages currently in progress should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{i}}</nowiki></code> to add the pencil icon, and pages that have sections open to other contributors to transcribe should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{Open}}</nowiki></code> to include the green arrow icon. <br />
<br />
Pages that have been proof-read and verified by a contributor other than the author should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{tick}}</nowiki></code> to include the green tick icon.</noinclude><br />
{|style="margin:1em 3em"<br />
|style="padding-right: 6em;white-space:nowrap" valign="top"|<span id="2013"><big>'''2013'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 406]], Apr 27 2013 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 405]], Apr 20 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 404]], Apr 13 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 403]], Apr 6 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 402]], Mar 30 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 401]], Mar 23 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 400]], Mar 16 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 399]], Mar 9 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 398]], Mar 2 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 397]], Feb 23 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 396]], Feb 16 2013<br />
* [[SGU Episode 395]], Feb 9 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 394]], Feb 2 2013<br />
* [[SGU Episode 393]], Jan 26 2013 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 392]], Jan 19 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 391]], Jan 12 2013 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 390]], Jan 5 2013<br />
<br />
<span id="2012"><big>'''2012'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 389]], Dec 29 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 388]], Dec 22 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 387]], Dec 15 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 386]], Dec 8 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 385]], Dec 1 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 384]], Nov 24 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 383]], Nov 17 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 382]], Nov 10 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 381]], Nov 3 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 380]], Oct 27 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 379]], Oct 20 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 378]], Oct 13 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 377]], Oct 6 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 376]], Sep 29 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 375]], Sep 22 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 374]], Sep 15 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 373]], Sep 8 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 372]], Sep 1 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 371]], Aug 25 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 370]], Aug 18 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 369]], Aug 11 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 368]], Aug 4 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 367]], Jul 28 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 366]], Jul 21 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 365]], Jul 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 364]], Jul 7 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 363]], Jun 30 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 362]], Jun 23 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 361]], Jun 16 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 360]], Jun 9 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 359]], Jun 2 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 358]], May 26 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 357]], May 19 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 356]], May 12 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 355]], May 5 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 354]], Apr 28 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 353]], Apr 21 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 352]], Apr 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 351]], Apr 7 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 350]], Mar 31 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 349]], Mar 24 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 348]], Mar 17 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 347]], Mar 10 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 346]], Mar 3 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 345]], Feb 25 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 341]], Jan 28 2012 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 340]], Jan 21 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 339]], Jan 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 338]], Jan 7 2012 {{tick}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2011"><big>'''2011'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 337]], Dec 31 2011 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 335]], Dec 17 2011 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 331]], Nov 19 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 330]], Nov 11 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 328]], Oct 29 2011<br />
* [[SGU 24hr]], Sep 23-24 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 320]], Aug 29 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 312]], Jul 5 2011 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 308]], Jun 08 2011 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 287]], Jan 12 2011 {{Open}}<br />
|valign="top" style=white-space:nowrap|<span id="2010"><big>'''2010'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 285]], Dec 29 2010 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 271]], Sep 22 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 260]], Jun 30 2010 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 257]], Jun 14 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 252]], May 12 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 247]], Apr 7 2010 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 245]], Mar 25 2010 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 232]], Jan 1 2010<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2009"><big>'''2009'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 220]], Oct 7 2009 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 216]], Sep 9 2009 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 185]], Feb 4 2009<br />
* [[SGU Episode 184]], Jan 28 2009<br />
* [[SGU Episode 183]], Jan 21 2009 {{i}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2008"><big>'''2008'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 165]], Sep 17 2008<br />
* [[SGU Episode 156]], Jul 16 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 152]], Jun 11 2008 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 146]], May 7 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 144]], Apr 23 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 141]], Apr 2 2008<br />
* [[SGU Episode 140]], Mar 26 2008 {{i}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2007"><big>'''2007'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 127]], Dec 26, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 123]], Nov 28, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 116]], Oct 10, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 113]], Sep 19, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 111]], Sep 5, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 110]], Aug 28, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 109]], Aug 24, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 105]], Jul 25, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 103]], Jul 11, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 102]], Jul 3, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 100]], June 19, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 98]], June 6, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 97]], May 30 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 89]], Apr 4, 2007 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 79]], Jan 24, 2007<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2006"><big>'''2006'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 73]], Dec 13 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 68]], Nov 8 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 62]], Sep 27 2006 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 61]], Sep 20 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 55]], Aug 9 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 49]], Jun 28 2006 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 47]], Jun 14 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 46]], Jun 7 2006 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 38]], Apr 12 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 31]], Feb 22 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 27]], Jan 25 2006 <br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2005"><big>'''2005'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 22]], Dec 14 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 21]], Dec 7 2005 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 20]], Nov 23 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 19]], Nov 16 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 18]], Nov 2 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 17]], Oct 26 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 16]], Oct 12 2005 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 15]], Oct 6 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 14]], Sep 28 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 13]], Sep 14 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 12]], Sep 7 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 11]], Aug 31 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 10]], Aug 23 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 9]], Aug 10 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 8]], Aug 2 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 7]], Jul 20 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 6]], Jul 7 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 5]], Jun 29 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 4]], Jun 15 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 3]], Jun 7 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 2]], Jun 1 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 1]], May 4 2005 {{tick}}<br />
|}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_406&diff=6482SGU Episode 4062013-04-28T21:56:07Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{LatestEpisode}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 359<br />
|episodeDate = 34<sup>th</sup> May 2012<br />
|episodeIcon = File:bomb-detector.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-04-27.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=406<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=45826.0<br />
|qowText = Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.<br />
|qowAuthor = {{w|Mark Twain}}<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the {{SGU}}, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>()</small> ==<br />
April 27, 1791: Birth of Samuel Morse<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Mars One <small>()</small>===<br />
* http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/apply-now-one-way-trip-mars<br />
<br />
=== Bomb Detector Fraud <small>()</small>===<br />
* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22266051<br />
<br />
=== TED and Chopra <small>()</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/confusing-standards-for-censorship-chopra-edition/ Confusing Standards for Censorship &ndash; Chopra Edition]<br />
<br />
=== Creationism and Dinosaurs <small>()</small>===<br />
* http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/21/aclu-to-kansas-school-district-cancel-creationist-assemblies-about-dinosaurs/<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Puzzle for last week<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Question 1 <small>()</small>===<br />
Bitcoin Follow Up<br />
Corrections and further analysis of Bitcoin<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2013/04/guelph_scientis_1.htmlItem #1]: Scientists have developed a vaccine that can reduce the risk of developing autism in high-risk infants by over 20%. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423135716.htm Item #2]: A study finds that medical interns spend only 12% of their time with patients, while spending 40% of their time at computers. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130418124907.htm Item #3]: A new study finds that over 50% of products recalled by the FDA between 2004 and 2012 because they probably would "cause serious adverse health consequences or death" were dietary supplements. <br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro404}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_398&diff=6441SGU Episode 3982013-04-27T01:51:36Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 398<br />
|episodeDate = 2<sup>nd</sup> March 2013<br />
|episodeIcon = File:E-tattoo.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|guest1 = JR: Jon Ronson<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-02.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=398<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45209.0.html<br />
|qowText = The world is much more interesting than any one discipline.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tufte Edward Tufte]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, February 27, 2013 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: Hey, guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Ah. Kum bah wa, everyone.<br />
<br />
B: Kum bah yay, what was that?<br />
<br />
E: Kum bah ya, no. Kum bah wa. Japanese for good evening.<br />
<br />
S: Good evening.<br />
<br />
E: Lots of SGU listeners in Japan. We know a few. <br />
<br />
S: So apparently Rebecca has some kind of phlegm situation going on. <br />
<br />
E: I didn't know she was Amish.<br />
<br />
S: We're trying to decide if she has the flu, whooping cough, or strep throat.<br />
<br />
J: Well, get this, guys. So Rebecca emails us and says that she's not feeling well; that she woke up really late today, and she's been basically zonked all day. And at the same time, we have a little whooping cough scare going on over here with the newborn. This is what happened. My sister-in-law came to visit from Denver. And in the Midwest you know that the whooping cough incidences are higher and everything and I just didn't really think much of it other than everyone in the family got the tdap vaccination, which is the whooping cough<br />
<br />
S: Did she and her family get the tdap?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, they did. What I found out today was that, like many of the vaccines that we get, you know they're guessing at which strain is gonna be the one that's gonna hit that year,<br />
<br />
S: No, hang on a minute, Jay. What you're describing is relevant for the flu. With the whooping cough, it's not that there's like a different strain hitting every year, it's just that tdap covers only a very narrow number of strains and the virus has mutated. You know, it just, new strains are developing. But it's not like there's a seasonal strain like the flu. It's a little bit different.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I didn't mean to confuse that. I know, like, exactly what you said, that there is a newer version of it that just wasn't covered by that particular vaccination that we got. <br />
<br />
S: yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So, her sister left on Monday morning. She called us up today, we're recording on Wednesday. She said "Guys, I had a bad cold on my way home, and now it's turning into something that's very, what I would consider to be whooping cough-like.<br />
<br />
E: Yeesh.<br />
<br />
J: So we called up our doctor, you know, I have a three-and-a-half-week-old in the house now, and you know, like, very dialed into this. And we called up the doctor up and me like "What's up? Like what do we do? What happens?" And pertussis is a bacteria, it's not a virus. So they have an anti-biotic for it. <br />
<br />
E: Anti-biotic. Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So, what do you call it, Steve? Erythromycin? <br />
<br />
S: Erythromycin, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Erythromycin, yeah. So that's the one that they use for it. And it's the mega-dose, like two pills the first day and then you take like this mega-dose thing for four days. Of course the baby's taking the liquid form and everything. But I'm sitting there tonight with my wife and we're giving the baby its first medication, and it's freakin' whooping cough medication! Like I wanted to strangle people. Thank you everybody for not . . .<br />
<br />
S: Anyone who has never gotten vaccinated for whooping cough, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Something that we could<br />
<br />
E: Way to blow the herd immunity; way to go.<br />
<br />
J: We could get rid of it. Did you guys see the info-graphic of . . . the CDC puts out information every year, and somebody made an info-graphic of the incidence of morbidity before and after the vaccination for a particular disease came and went. Right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And right out of the gate, things like smallpox and stuff, I don't remember the exact numbers, but we have certain diseases where there was like a half a million people dying a year, down to zero. After the vaccination. And there's like, in this info-graphic, I think there was more than a dozen of them. It was incredible. Like you see the numbers, how dramatically different they are. Right there. That's a hundred percent proof. They work. And yet people are walking around out there ''today'' and they don't care; that information is meaningless to them. How? Why?<br />
<br />
B: Well what is the worst-case scenario with pertussis? I mean, how bad could it get? <br />
<br />
J: It can kill you, Bob; it can kill a baby.<br />
<br />
E: Death.<br />
<br />
B: That's bad.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there was that famous case in Australia where a baby caught, Dana McCaffery, caught whooping cough in a community that had very low vaccination rates because of the Australian anti-vaccination network preaching against vaccines, and, the baby caught it from unvaccinated people. And died. 'Cause the child was too young to be vaccinated. It's one of the populations that need to be protected by herd immunity.<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(4:33)</small> ==<br />
* March 2, 1983: Compact Disc players and discs are released for the first time in the United States and other markets. They had been available only in Japan before then.<br />
<br />
S: Evan, so you're filling in for Rebecca this week for This Day in Skepticism.<br />
<br />
E: I said "Good evening" in Japanese to start the show. And I did so because the compact disc, you guys remember what compact discs are, CDs,<br />
<br />
S: They're still, they're still used today.<br />
<br />
E: They are. Their first, most common usage was of course for music storage, right? Playing music. Put 80 minutes of uncompressed audio on one of those things. That's 737 megabytes of data. What do you think of that? So in Japan, is where the CDs were first, widely became available, in October of '82. However, on March 2nd of 1983, compact discs and their players were released for the first time in the United States and other markets around the world, whereas they'd only been available in Japan before but finally they came to the United States, and I remember this vividly. It was a big f'ing deal, for me and my 13-year-old friends and stuff who were all, in our own opinions, very big into music. And it was a rush to see who would get the first CD, who would be able to afford the first CD player. It was kind of bragging rights, in a sense. Do you guys remember?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah. Instantly replaced tapes, records; 8-tracks had already died by then.<br />
<br />
E: Thank goodness.<br />
<br />
S: Buy, yeah, and think about it, guys. Thirty years! And they're still a perfectly acceptable technology. I still buy CDs for music. <br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
S: Sure.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, man. I just download it all.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but think about it. A CD, you can then rip it into any quality MP3 you want, which you own, without any DRM, and you have the CD for a backup. And it's still cost-effective. It's not like you're saving money by downloading. So it's still a perfectly viable technology. It's had a lot of longevity.<br />
<br />
B: It's all right, I guess. I like, I hear a song that I like. Like, oh boy, that sounds really good. And I buy it. Within literally four minutes I have it on my iPhone and I'm listening to it. That's awesome.<br />
<br />
S: I do that, too, but, if there's an album coming out and I know I want the whole album, I'll get it on a CD. <br />
<br />
E: Something to remember, guys, is that when you purchase a CD, you're purchasing something physical that you actually own. And when you purchase a license to get a music or something you download through iTunes or something, there's a question, there's debates going on right now in the courts as to how much ownership do you actually have over that thing? In other words, can you put it into your estate and leave it to your heirs?<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And they are fighting that. You know, the record industry, or industries, don't want those rights to be transferred on to descendents. Where, but with a CD you're guaranteed. That is yours, it's physical, you can do whatever the heck you want with it. So, keep that in mind also in the debate about, you know, what medium, what format you're gonna use for your music.<br />
<br />
B: That's messed up.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Life Around Dying Stars <small>(7:32)</small>===<br />
http://phys.org/news/2013-02-future-evidence-extraterrestrial-life-dying.html#ajTabs<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Bob, talk about looking for life around dying stars.<br />
<br />
B: If you insist.<br />
<br />
S: I do.<br />
<br />
B: So guys, <br />
<br />
E: Like Mickey Rooney, are we talking? What are we talking here, dying stars?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, boy. Guys, when you think of an extraterrestrial planet, especially one that supports life, what do you think of? Do you think of, you've got this planet orbiting a parent star that's kind of like our sun, right? Maybe it's a little bit bigger than our sun, maybe it's a little bit smaller. And of course, if that's the case, the habitable zone around the star changes because of how big and bright the star is.<br />
<br />
S: Now, Bob, I think of Tatooine with two suns. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Nice orchestral music playing.<br />
<br />
S: Or Rigel 7 with a big planet in the distance with rings around it.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but, still, it's like a, it's a real star, it's like a star that <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, not a fake star.<br />
<br />
B: It's fusing hydrogen into helium. No, but it's not a ''dead'' star, and that's the point here. There's a new theoretical study that finds that the most likely place possibly to find life on another planet may be around a dead star. More specifically, of course, a white dwarf. You know, I'm not talking about a neutron star or black hole. But not only that, they think they might be able to actually find one of these planets in the next ten years. Which seems like a pretty bold prediction.<br />
<br />
E: But Bob, isn't a white dwarf after the star went through its initial sort of expansion then came back in on itself. Wouldn't it have kind of destroyed things on that<br />
<br />
B: Well, exactly. And that's the huge problem. That's the first thing I thought of, well how can that be? A white dwarf is a dead star. It's a corpse of a sun-like star, at the end of its, you know in its old age it swells into a red giant and it totally crisps any of the planets that were nearby, but before it expels a lot of its mass, making the beautifully misnomered planetary nebula. So what's left is this collapsed core. It's about as big as the earth, but it's got the mass, it could have a mass of more than the sun. 1.4 solar masses, I think, is the ________________________ limit for that. So that's a lot of mass in a really tiny place. So clearly it's unbelievably dense, right? If you had a ton of white dwarf matter, if you could do that, you could fit it into a matchbox. I mean it's super, super tiny. You can thank the electron degeneracy pressure for that. But there's no nuclear reactions going on to produce energy, but because it's relatively small it could radiate it's remaining heat for literally billions of years. So clearly, then, this thing could have its own little Goldilocks zone to support life, even though it's really not even a star anymore. It's not creating energy, but it's just radiating away the energy that's contained in it for many, many, many eons. So then the next question then, Evan, which ties into your comment, was how does the planet get there, because the red giant's gonna wipe out anything that's nearby. Probably anything that's in the Goldilocks zone. So there's actually two ways that could happen. One might, you might predict, a planet can migrate in from the outskirts of a solar system; we've seen that with hot Jupiters: Jupiter-sized planets that have orbits closer than Mercury. How the hell did they get there? Well they can actually migrate in through the solar system. But there's another way. A planet can also form from the leftover dust and gas; and that, of course, would be a second-generation world, which I think is pretty cool. Now of course, though, this planet would have to get pretty damned close, since the heat source is so small and dim compared to regular living stars . . .<br />
<br />
S: Bob, do we know that either of those can actually happen around a white dwarf, though?<br />
<br />
B: The thing here, though, with this theoretical study, Steve, is that they ran these really sophisticated simulations and they've pretty much shown in the simulation everything that I'm talking about.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
T<br />
B: That this can happen; they're incredibly confident that it could happen. They can think of no reason why it wouldn't happen. Now, it's not like every white dwarf is gonna have one these. They're saying that among the 500 closest white dwarves to the sun, they might find one or two that have planetary bodies in orbit around it that could support life. So, you know, one or two in 500 isn't great odds, but there's lots of stars and we can look at a lot of different things.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
B: So, the interesting thing is, as you could imagine, these planets would have to be very close to the white dwarf in order to get enough heat to have liquid water and life evolve. So that turns out to be only about a million miles away, which is what one over ninety-three, wait, sorry. And that's, our orbit's 93 million miles, so it's way, way, way close to it. And it's year, of course, would only be about ten hours long, which is an amazingly fast orbit so that would, I cal . . .<br />
<br />
E: That's a party every ten hours, oh my gosh.<br />
<br />
B: I calculated Rebecca would be over 30,000 years old if she lived on that planet. ''(laughter)'' So, all right. So we've got this dead star that could conceivably keep a nearby planet warm enough for life, so we've got that. We've got a couple different ways for a planet to arrive or form nearby. So then the next interesting question is, how do we detect this thing? And, if you regularly listen to this show, I think you probably know: the transit method, right? A planet moves between us and their star. The output, the light output dips, and bam! You've detected a planet. Of course, it's a little bit more complicated than that, but that's essentially the idea. Now in this scenario it's actually even better. Now think of this system, though. You've got a planet real close to a white dwarf and the white dwarf is so tiny, I mean they could be comparable in size, so that when this planet eclipses the white dwarf, you're gonna have a huge dip in the light output. It would be an obvious signal. It would leap out and say "whoa!" This starlight almost completely disappeared.<br />
<br />
S: But the plane of that system would have to be perfectly aligned with us.<br />
<br />
B: Yes, it would have to be. But even if it wasn't, you could still occlude half the star or 33 percent, and that still would be really really good. That's not even the best part. The real icing on the cake for this is that the white dwarf emits so much less light it becomes much easier to determine the composition of the atmosphere of the planet in orbit around it. And it turns out that after the simulation I was talking about, they showed that after just a few hours of observation instead of something like hundreds of hours, we would know that the planet has perhaps water vapor or maybe oxygen in it. And oxygen would, that would be gargantuan news. That would be huge because, on earth anyway, oxygen is created by life. You take away life from the planet earth and it would slowly diminish, the oxygen would just disappear. It would dissolve into the oceans, it would oxidize the surface, and if we found a sizable amount of oxygen on a planet, I think it'd be pretty solid indication that there's probably some kind of life on the planet producing that oxygen. And if not, maybe it's some kind of alien machine that's creating and it wouldn't matter 'cause in that case we would find life anyway. So, either way, it's a win-win!<br />
<br />
S: So now we've just gotta look for them.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, and the James Webb, the James Webb's a big thing, that once that guy comes online, that telescope comes online, I think, jees, I'm not sure when, but within a few years or so.<br />
<br />
S: They plan on a 2018 launch date.<br />
<br />
B: That is gonna have what it needs to really survey these white dwarves and find these planets and maybe find a planet that most likely has life on it. And how huge would that be; talk about the science story of the millennia, let alone the year!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we'll probably cover that one.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, maybe. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Ancient Lost Continent <small>(15:06)</small>===<br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21551149<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Evan, I read<br />
<br />
E: Yeah!<br />
<br />
S: that geologists claim they have found a lost sunken continent.<br />
<br />
E: You read correctly, Steve. And courtesy of the BBC, their headline reads "Fragments of ancient continent buried under the Indian Ocean."" So, what do you think? Is this it? They finally found Atlantis? Is the evidence incontrovertible?<br />
<br />
S: It's in the Indian Ocean so it wouldn't be Atlantis, it would be Indiana.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, I suppose that would be more accurate.<br />
<br />
B: No – Indianis.<br />
<br />
S: Indianis<br />
<br />
E: Indianis. <br />
<br />
B: I kinda like it.<br />
<br />
E: There are a few outlets out there; not exactly of BBC quality, with their own headlines, including "Fragments of ancient continent Atlantis found." And Atlantis is all in caps with an exclamation point and the word "found" is as well. And another one that says "Is this the real Atlantis?"<br />
<br />
S: Nobody knows.<br />
<br />
E: So, you know. Jees, that was not predictable at all that some people would be jumping all over the Atlantis part of the story. But, it has nothing to do with Atlantis whatsoever.<br />
<br />
S: Zip. Zero. Nada.<br />
<br />
E: Nada. Nope. This article's focus is on the study published in the journal Nature Geoscience. And like you said, Steve, the researchers have found evidence for the land mass that would have existed up to about 85 million years ago. Can I give you a quick little story to set this all up? So, a long time ago in a galaxy called the Milky Way, almost a billion years ago, and that was before iTunes and compact discs and vaccinations, on the earth there existed a super-continent. A super-continent is one very large continent. While at the same time, there are no other significant land masses anywhere on the earth. There have been many super-continents that have existed on the earth over the history of the earth.<br />
<br />
S: A few.<br />
<br />
E: Just a few. Well, about a dozen or so that they have listed online. But the super-continent from this particular period of time was called Rodinia. You guys may remember learning, I remember learning in grade school, about the super-continent called Pangaea, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. The most recent one, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: But, <br />
<br />
B: And Gondwana land is the other one, right?<br />
<br />
E: That one, Gondwanaland.<br />
<br />
J: Was that Guanaland? What is that, made of bat poop? The whole island?<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Pangaea, about 300 million years ago. No, Rodinia was well before that, about 750, maybe 800 million years ago. So we're talking a long time ago. As far as this particular new land mass that was discovered goes: picture in your mind a world map, and look in your mind for the country India. Okay? And then, to the south, the island nation of Madagascar. All right. Well, these areas were once connected, a part of Rodinia, and they were smashed up right next to each other. And researchers believe they've found evidence of a sliver of a continent known as, well they call it a microcontinent, that was once tucked between these two masses. But not only have they found the evidence, they're already calling it something. They're calling it Mauritia, named after the tiny island of Mauritius, which is the place where they actually discovered the evidence. So what kind of evidence did they find? Well, they collected samples from a volcanic eruption that took place estimated 9 million years ago, and within the samples of those sands and grains that they took in, were mixed in some much older minerals. They uncovered zircons. Now, zircons are known in geological circles for being found on the continental shelf and they are very, very old. These particular zircons that they found are estimated to be at least 600 million years old. And I read some estimates in some places that they could be almost 2 billion years old. The nearest known outcrop of continental crust that could have produced these zircons is on, well, Madagascar. But it's still very far away. And it's unlikely, they're trying to come up with scenarios by which, how could these zircons have gotten there by other means? They think that this is evidence for a land mass that actually, you know, believes a microcontinent that actually exists out there below the Indian Ocean. And they're going to be doing more studying about it. They're hoping to do more research and being a more detailed mapping of the floor of the Indian Ocean, and continue this research and try to find the sunken continent.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I read the paper itself, and I think what they demonstrated is pretty solid. But the notion that the source of these grains of sands that they examining is this sunken microcontinent that existed between India and Madagascar. That's really just a hypothesis at this point. It's not like they're found the continent or they're proven that it exists. It's just that it would be one possible explanation for why this ancient zircon would be where it is. It sounds plausible, sounds like a reasonable story, but again, I think just a hypothesis.<br />
<br />
B: In this context you always hear them saying "lost" or "sunken" continent. What the hell does "sunken" mean in this context?<br />
<br />
S; Below the water. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah, but<br />
<br />
E: You're right, Bob, it's a mystery.<br />
<br />
B: What's the mechanism? I mean, is it just erosion, like the islands near Hawaii that have been eroded into the sea after they moved off of the volcanic hot spot? I mean, or would some cataclysm happen that actually made it, that shifted the crust and made it sink because of that? I mean . . .<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I think it's more to do with when two land, a land mass breaks apart into two land masses, the piece in, you know, there may be some of it in between the two pieces that breaks apart and sinks under the ocean. That's essentially what they're saying. Just the way the crust broke apart. One interesting thing about the whole supercontinents, et cetera, is that we're still not really sure why continents even exist.<br />
<br />
J: Why? What do you mean? We don't know why they're there?<br />
<br />
S: Actually what happens with plate tectonics is you have, the oceans are constantly turning over like a conveyor belt. So no part of the ocean is any older than a couple hundred million years. Parts of the ocean diving down below a continental plate, and you have rifts in the middle where new ocean floors emerging and spreading. Yeah, so you have this spreading zone and then subduction zone. But the continents are always floating on top of these oceanic plates. So how did that happen in the first place? Once it established itself to be that way, then you could see how it's self-perpetuating. But we're not really sure how that happened to begin with. Which is interesting.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's cool.<br />
<br />
E: It is interesting.<br />
<br />
S: The other thing that's interesting is the result of that is that continents are ancient. That's why stuff that's ancient has to be continental, right, 'cause anything from the ocean can only be a couple hundred million years old. If something's a billion years old, it had to come from a continent. Only the continents are that old.<br />
<br />
E: Yes. Right, right. That's why the zircon's important.<br />
<br />
S: Which is kind of nice. 'Cause if the continents were also occasionally diving underneath other plates and recycling, there wouldn't be fossils.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. We'd lose a lot of information.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Electronic Tattoos <small>(22:36)</small>===<br />
http://www.businessinsider.com/temporary-tattoos-could-make-electronic-telepathy-telekinesis-possible-2013-2<br />
<br />
S: All right. Let's move on. I'm gonna talk about electronic tattoos.<br />
<br />
B: What the hell's that about?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, it has something to do with Fantasy Island.<br />
<br />
S: Here's the headline. You guys tell me what you think about this. "Temporary tattoos could make electronic telepathy possible."<br />
<br />
E: Telepathy!<br />
<br />
''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: I know, I know. If somebody didn't send this to me, I would have used it as a Science or Fiction item.<br />
<br />
E: Sorry!<br />
<br />
S: Evan, you sent me several things I was gonna use for Science or Fiction. But anyway, <br />
<br />
E: Oh, I undermined you totally.<br />
<br />
S: This would have, I would have had Bob going. It's like "Now you're talking about telepathy??" ''(laughter)'' But, yeah. No. No telepathy. So what the technology is is they're essentially flexible electronics that you can apply to skin. And because they're flexible they could move around, they could bend. They're very thin, and they can serve a few functions. One primary function would be that they would essentially be an electrode. No big deal. So it could pick up electrical signals from the skin. So for example, if placed on the scalp, they could detect brain waves. But because this is, like, an electronic circuit, it's not just a dumb electrode, it's an actual circuit, you can build other functionality into it, including a transmitter to transmit signals to, say, a device. It could be used as very small, thin, flexible monitors. And so the technology seems very practical, very useful. I'm sure that this kind of thing is going to find a lot of applications. What I found amusing, maybe irritating, was the reporting of this technology, this, these devices in terms of what the possible applications would be. Because these are electrodes, that could read electrical signals from the brain, they started speculating wildly about the most advanced applications of the brain machine interface. Now we've chatted about this too, but I mean, that's something that would be far enough in the future we cannot say how long it's going to be; that we cannot extrapolate. The brain machine interface we have now are actually very good at, and getting better, at reading movements. So because we can map out the motor strip, you know, the motor cortex, and you know, you can put a lot of electrodes along the motor cortex and then people can learn how to use a robotic arm, for example, just by thinking about what they want it to do because it's interpreting the signals in their motor cortex. So that's about where the technology is now. But telepathy would require being able to read somebody's thoughts. And there the limiting factor isn't the electrodes, you know, it's not the signal.<br />
<br />
B: It's the brain in the skull.<br />
<br />
S: It's interpreting, although even if you had brain surface electrodes that were in incredibly high fidelity reading the EEG, the electrical signals from the brain, we still wouldn't know how to translate it into thoughts.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, how do you turn thought into a digital signal? What's the interpretation? And everybody's would be different. That's the real problem.<br />
<br />
S: Well you'd have to calibrate, you know. And partly the machine would have to calibrate to you but also the user could learn how to use it, you know. But this will not allow for telepathy. That's the bottom line. This doesn't really get us any closer to telepathy. <br />
<br />
E: But the headline! Look at the headline!<br />
<br />
S: The researchers admitted that brain surface electrodes would work better than these. These skin surface electrodes are probably never going to have the fidelity, the discrimination, to be able to read thoughts.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It just makes more sense that they, let's say they surgically implant something that is the analog to digital interface for the brain, then it transmits it to another device and let all the computer power happen somewhere else. It doesn't have to happen on the surface of your skin.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well that's what this would do, too. This would just read signals transmitted to your smart phone and then you could communicate through your smart phone or operate your smart phone with thoughts alone.<br />
<br />
E: Like, if I were to think, dial my home number. It would activate the phone to do something like that?<br />
<br />
S: We're not at that point yet with this. But this could be useful for, like, paraplegic people who want to control a computer screen, or control a robotic device. Because these are very thin and small you could probably have a lot of them. But still, the signal is not as clear as the brain surface's invasive electrodes. So it remains to be seen how much utility these would have. But because these are, the advance here, is that the electrodes are integrated with other elements, such as transmitters, and that they're thin and flexible. You know, so you can put a lot of them on the scalp. You don't have to wear this big massive cap or something that's very unwieldy. So, it does expand the number of possible uses, but it doesn't get over the problem of reading the EEG from the scalp, and therefore telepathy is not one of the applications of this technology in my opinion. However, having said that, they did bring up the notion of sub-vocalizations. Are you guys familiar with that?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, yeah; that's cool stuff.<br />
<br />
J: I don't think we've talked about it on the show, but we, off the show, have talked about it. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, when you are saying words inside your mind, you tend to move your face, tongue and throat muscles in the way that you would if you were speaking them, just much more subtly. And there's actually been some research; I looked; there's not a lot, but there is some published research looking at detecting with skin surface electrodes, the muscle movements in the throat and the face and interpreting these sub-vocalizations. I'm reading some conflicting things, though. You know, some reviews say that being able to go from detecting these sub-vocalizations to actual words has been elusive. But other studies claim that they've been able to distinguish a number of different words from the EMG signals. But it's possible from, a limited set of words, that they can then know which one of those words that the person was thinking. So that's, actually, though . . .<br />
<br />
E: Interesting.<br />
<br />
S: That is plausible and that may just be a matter of incremental progress, and these electrodes, so these tattoos, might apply to that technology. Right? So if you're using this as a way of detecting sub-vocalizations, and the detection and analysis algorithm get sophisticated enough, and the user may be able to learn how to do that. 'Cause you can, I was doing this before the show, I was just thinking to myself and paying attention to what I was doing. And then also tried to maximize my movement, my sub-vocalization movements. You know what I mean? Like you can deliberately accentuate them. <br />
<br />
E: Can you shut them off entirely if you think about it? Or is it just so subtle that you really don't have that level of control over it?<br />
<br />
S: Well in researching this I did find lots of websites, and even some published studies, looking at the question of suppressing sub-vocalizations in order to improve or increase your reading speed. 'Cause apparently the sub-vocalizations slow you down.<br />
<br />
J: So to clarify, Steve, if words are going through my head; if I'm sitting here saying to myself, oh, I've gotta get up early tomorrow morning, or whatever it is, I am having some type of muscular reaction in my throat? Every time?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: If you're reading.<br />
<br />
S: No, even if you're just thinking, words.<br />
<br />
E: Even if you're just thinking the words!<br />
<br />
S: You're saying the words in your head, you are sub-vocalizing those words. Yes.<br />
<br />
E: Right. Okay.<br />
<br />
S: But the question is just, can we detect and interpret those muscle movements with enough precision and discrimination that we could translate that into the words that are in your head, that you're thinking. And this could give you like a fake telepathy. Like a pseudo-telepathy. It's not really telepathy 'cause it's through actual muscle movements. But that could still be really powerful. It still could functionally be telepathy.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: It's really not telepathy. It's probably better termed silent communication.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, imagine the military being able to communicate with each other without having to make any noise. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Or spies. Just it's silent communication. You can imagine dictating in a crowded room without having to speak aloud.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Google Glass <small>(31:25)</small>===<br />
http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/<br />
<br />
S: All right, Jay, let's move on. You're gonna tell us about Google glass.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, baby.<br />
<br />
J: So, yeah, Steve, this is a real milestone. This is one of the pieces of technology that I've been waiting for for a long time. This is the beginning of real augmented reality. To give you a quick definition of what augmented reality is: so imagine a car mechanic that's wearing a pair of sunglasses and a computer is projecting onto the inside of those sunglasses a schematic so that the car mechanic is looking at the car engine and the computer's projecting say, the wiring system. So wherever he turns his head, the, it'll look like it's in 3D so he can see, or he or she can see things that aren't actually visible to the naked eye because the computer is laying that on top of reality. It's like another layer, or putting layers of information on top of reality. Or, a surgeon performing open-heart surgery would be able to see the heart in a 3D view unobstructed by the rest of the tissue surrounding it, or the rib cage, or whatever. You know, having that vantage point gives people the opportunity to achieve things much faster, more precisely and with much greater success overall. Now, I'm not saying that Google glass is offering that to us right now, but what Google is offering is the very first step in true augmented reality. So let me give you a quick list of the features of what it is, and I'll describe to you the actual component that you're wearing is, it's like taking a pair of sunglasses, removing the lenses and then on one side, on one eye, they'll put a, it's like a little module there that has a piece of glass that's hovering in front of one of your eyes. It'll project into your vision onto that piece of glass you're looking through that piece of glass, one of your eyes. It'll project a computer screen that looks like it's floating three or four feet in front of you, that doesn't have any borders or anything of course. And there's simply information there. You know, there's text, there's however, they're showing this information, it's gonna be a varying degree of different things. And you're gonna be talking to it. You're not gonna be using keyboard or a mouse or anything, that you're primarily gonna be using vocalization to turn it on, to tell it what you need it to do. And some of the features that it's launching with are it's gonna be able to record video. What you see, it's gonna record. It's gonna take pictures. You're gonna be able to start Google-Plus hangouts with people. You're gonna be able to search. You're gonna be able to also search photos, which is cool. You're gonna be able to do translations, you're gonna be able to get directions; you're gonna be able to use the Google Now software, which is like iPhone's Siri, where you can ask more complicated questions and actually tell it to do certain things, like take notes, put something in my address book, in my calendar, whatever. You can send messages to people and you can get flight, or there'll be a flight detail database attached, so you can call that up when you need it. You would start each command with "Okay, Glass," as if you were talking to someone. "Okay, Glass, I want you to start recording video right now." "Okay, Glass, stop recording video." The really cool thing about this though, is you take it with you, it connects into your iPhone or to your Android operating system, and it is based off of the Android operating system. And you wear it and you just put it on and you forget that it's there and it just becomes another interface for you. The big thing here is, guys, it truly is the beginning of the next way that we're gonna be interacting and experiencing reality. And it's going to be augmented by computers in a way now that we've really never experienced it before. We're all gonna be able to do things that we normally wouldn't be able to do, even simple things. Like let's say you went to Ikea and you bought a bookshelf. Everybody knows that directions that come from companies like Ikea or whatever, some are better than other, but for the most part having to construct something is a complete and total pain in the ass. This would be showing you what to do. It would be giving you visual cues using the actual things that you're looking at. Like, showing you what pieces connect to each other and where.<br />
<br />
B: And that's the key, Jay. To me that's the key. It's contextual information. It's not, you're not just surfing web pages. You are seeing overlays on reality and it knows what you're looking at, and gives you information based on your environment and what you're interacting with. And that's one of the reasons why this is gonna be so powerful.<br />
<br />
S: All right, Bob, Bob, what would be the porn application?<br />
<br />
J: Oh, my god. Don't even go there.<br />
<br />
B: God. Come on.<br />
<br />
J: Well, Bob's talking about what it will be like down the road, and <br />
<br />
B: I ''have'' to talk about that.<br />
<br />
J: Maybe a future use of this would be that you could tell Google glass "When I'm sitting at my work desk, I want my monitor to appear as if it's here where a physical monitor would be" but when you turn your head away, it stays in that three-dimensional space; you know, if you're looking at your computer monitor and you turn your head to the left, you don't see the monitor anymore, you wouldn't in real life.<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: Now let me be the wet-blanket skeptic. <br />
<br />
E: ''(laughing)'' I was gonna mention something about that.<br />
<br />
S: To bring things down a little bit. So everything that you guys are saying may come to pass at some point, but the thing that we have to keep in mind is that until we put this technology in the hands of lots of people, it's really hard to predict how people will want to use it.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, absolutely.<br />
<br />
S: And what it will be useful for. So all the things that you guys are speculating about, are speculation. So we don't know if this is going to be the smart phone, where everyone's gonna want to have 'em and it's gonna be much more useful than anyone ever thought, or if it's gonna be the Segue. You know, where it's not gonna be so revolutionary. But it'll have a niche where people use it for certain specific things, or, guys, remember the high-definition, high-frame rate situation where there just was something annoying about it, that people have a hard time adapting to.<br />
<br />
B: Ah, you're so full of it<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, adaptation.<br />
<br />
B: That's a horrible analogy. ''(laughter)'' Because this, this isn't, it's not a segue. People were gonna build cities around segue. That was a ridiculous prediction. It's not like a segue at all. This is an improvement on the computer interfaces. I mean computer interfaces, they're not going anywhere. That's a proven technology. It's just another way, it's another type of monitor, Steve. <br />
<br />
S: I know, Bob. I'm just saying, until people start using we won't know, it's like a video phone. We talked about the fact, oh video phones are coming. Well, why wouldn't you use a video phone? And it turns out that for a lot of things you don't wanna be looking at somebody. Why is texting so popular? The use of technology is hard to predict.<br />
<br />
B: I agree. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:06)</small>== <br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Evan. Tell us about last week's Who's That Noisy?<br />
<br />
E: I'll do one better and play for you last week's Who's That Noisy? Who could forget this, this wonderful little sound. Here we go.<br />
<br />
''Bird-like tweeting. The tweet song is repeated several times, pretty much the same each time.''<br />
<br />
E: Definitely not a bird, definitely not a plane. <br />
<br />
S: What is it?<br />
<br />
E: Superman. ''(laughs)'' That is . . . the whistlepig.<br />
<br />
S: The whistlepig.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' The whistlepig. <br />
<br />
''(numerous garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
B: What the hell is a whistlepig?<br />
<br />
E: A groundhog!<br />
<br />
S: Remember, from ''Groundhog's Day''?<br />
<br />
E: We only covered it a few weeks ago.<br />
<br />
J: That's an actual pig?<br />
<br />
S: No, it's a groundhog. The whistlepig is another name for the groundhog.<br />
<br />
E: Right. Woodchuck, is another name for the groundhog. Some people call it a land beaver. And they're all over the place, especially in North America. Very common in northeastern parts of the continent, and in the central United States. Several guesses; only a few correct answers this week came in to us. Congratulations to Wayne Heller. Your name was drawn. You are the winner this week. You're in the drawing for the end-of-the-year contest by which we will put all names in the hat from the week winners and that grand-prize winner will join us on the SGU to play a round of Science or Fiction. All right, so. You guys ready for this week?<br />
<br />
S: Always.<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: It is another noisy we have this week. It's short. Here we go:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Men's voices speaking on some kind of communicators:<br />
Person 1: You're looking a little hot and all your calls will be a little early. (Beep) Person 2: Okay. Person 3: And that looks good here.</blockquote><br />
<br />
J: Isn't that when they made the Six-Million-Dollar Man, and he was about to crash? No?<br />
<br />
E: That's an interesting guess, Jay. No, that's not correct.<br />
<br />
J: I hope at some point in my life I'm gonna be talking to someone and that whistle will comment like the<br />
<br />
S: That call-tone?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I love that.<br />
<br />
E: What I would like to see in the answer for this week is not a generic idea of what you think the noise is. I would like to know pretty exactly where you recognize that noise from. Send us your guess. wtn@theskepticsguide.org; that's the email address for Who's That Noisy submissions. Or you can post it on our forums, sguforums.com. Every week I wish you all the best of <br />
<br />
J: ''(shouting)'' Good luck everybody!<br />
<br />
E: Thank you, Jay. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: I was getting very excited, Evan.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== "Ow!" <small>(40:36)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: All right, we have one question this week. This comes from Joe Shoults. And this is the shortest question we 've ever had.<br />
<br />
J: The answer is six inches.<br />
<br />
E: Four foot one.<br />
<br />
S: Joe writes "Why do we say "ow"? <br />
<br />
B: Wow! What a good question! Holy crap!<br />
<br />
J: Steve, can I try to answer it and see if I'm anywhere near correct?<br />
<br />
S: You can try.<br />
<br />
E: Okay.<br />
<br />
J: The first thing that occurred to me when I read that email when it came in was, well, first, the word is cultural. I'm sure that in other cultures they don't say "ow," they say other things.<br />
<br />
S: Are you sure?<br />
<br />
J: I'm guessing. I'm guessing. <br />
<br />
B: That's my guess as well.<br />
<br />
J: The other thing is I think we're giving a cue to the other mammals around us that we're injured.<br />
<br />
E: Here's my guess. My guess is ow is short for ouch.<br />
<br />
S: Why do we say ouch?<br />
<br />
J: 'Cause ouch is short for ouch-a-daisy.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: He didn't say "why do we say ouch?"; that wasn't the question. Said "why do we say 'ow'?" ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: Don't split hairs. Why do we make a vocalization when we get hurt?<br />
<br />
S: Do you think there's any published scientific research that might enlighten us on that question?<br />
<br />
J: I'm sure you know.<br />
<br />
E: If there is, you have it, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: All of the evolutionary psychological answers, there's no answer to that. ''(laughter)'' This is all hand waving. We don't know. No one knows. You could make up any kind of plausible sounding answer that you like for that. <br />
<br />
J: So I'm right!<br />
<br />
S: The answer is we don't know. That's what the answer is. But I did look at this from a couple of angles, just to see what I could find. One was, 'cause I remember reading this study but I wanted just to see what all the literature was, about swearing and pain perception. I couldn't find anything published about saying "ow" or "ouch," but I could find swearing. And, the research does show that if you swear when you have, like stub your toe, or have physical pain, that your perception of the pain is decreased. It does help.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: However, get this, if you swear all the time, then the benefit of swearing goes down. <br />
<br />
J: Fuck that!<br />
<br />
E: 'Cause you've numbed yourself.<br />
<br />
B: I could see that.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so you have to keep your swearing in reserve for when you stub your toe.<br />
<br />
J: Save it for the pain.<br />
<br />
S: Save it for the pain.<br />
<br />
B: How 'bout, now, what about instead of physical pain, what about emotional pain?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well, we also use it in lots of related ways, like, when somebody says something bad that happened, you might say, "ooo, ouch" as a way of saying, expressing sympathy or if somebody insults you really bad you might say "ouch" like sarcastically. Try to say like, oh you hurt me. I also had the same question, what is the, how international or cross-cultural is "ow" or "ouch." So I looked it up. Here's a smattering of what other cultures say instead of ouch. Ayee. So "ayee" or "ow" are the two main things that cultures say. In French, "ayee"; Thai, "oi"; Spanish, "ai"; Polish, "ouch"; Maltese, "ach"; Iran, "ai" or "ach" or "oof"; Afghanistan, "oof"; Germany, it's a-u-a, "Aua"; Dutch is "ow"; Norwegian, "ow"; Danish, it says a-v, I'm not sure if that's supposed to also be pronounced "ow"; <br />
<br />
E: Probably.<br />
<br />
S: Chinese, the only two-syllable one I came across, "ayo" or "ayah"; Turkish, "ach" or "ai"; so very similar across the cultures. It's mainly a lot of "ai" "ach" "oof" "ow." Very similar.<br />
<br />
J: That's interesting, too, and they're all short.<br />
<br />
S: A lot of a's, o's, yeah, they're all short. The Chinese one was the only one I found that was two syllables.<br />
<br />
J: Very cool. That's so interesting. I love that.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Interview with Jon Ronson <small>(44:20)</small> ==<br />
* Interview with Jon Ronson, recorded at CSICon 2012.<br />
<br />
S: All right, we have a very interesting interview that we recorded last October at CSICon with Jon Ronson.<br />
<br />
''(Music)''<br />
<br />
S: We're sitting here now with Jon Ronson. Jon, welcome back to the Skeptics' Guide.<br />
<br />
JR: It's good to be back. Thank you , Steve. And it's nice to meet you all after I've heard 400 episodes of you.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: Only 381.<br />
<br />
J: Jon, I believe you owe us an apology.<br />
<br />
JR: I do. Last time I was on, it was to talk about my book ''The Psychopath Test'' and it was on my birthday. And it was quite late, it was like 11:00 at night. And unlike me, I was drunk. And I, it turns out that I am a befuddled and slightly angry drunk.<br />
<br />
S: 'Cause we couldn't tell the difference.<br />
<br />
''(garbled comments and laughter)''<br />
<br />
JR: When I listened back I was ashamed. I was ashamed. Mid-sentence I would drift off. I didn't know what I was talking about.<br />
<br />
E: We said "Jon was sharp as ever tonight, wasn't he?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
JR: Well, actually, after the podcast, I accidentally typed my name into Google and I saw somebody saying "God, Jon Ronson sounded weird on Skeptics' Guide." ''(laughter)'' But the reason why was because it was my birthday and I'd been out with my family and I was drunk.<br />
<br />
S: I don't think you told us it was your birthday.<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, it was my birthday. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Warn us next time, okay?<br />
<br />
JR: Yes.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
JR: But yes, you can see now I'm as sharp as a pin. <br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
E: Ouch!<br />
<br />
S: Pithy. Much more pithy.<br />
<br />
JR: Pithy as a pin.<br />
<br />
J: So, Jon, can you please say to me: ''(in a English accent)'' "But of course I was drunk at the time."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
JR: I don't talk like that. Like somebody, like a buffoon from Downton Abbey. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Now you sound like the first of the reboot of the Doctors Who.<br />
<br />
JR: Right. The Doctors Who.<br />
<br />
''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: It was, what was the actor's name? Not David Tennant.<br />
<br />
R: Christopher Eccleston?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, Christopher Eccleston. What kind of accent does he have? Northern.<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, I believe he's from the Northeast. I see him jogging maniacally in a park in North London. <br />
<br />
S: You do?<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, he's a big jogger.<br />
<br />
S: Interesting.<br />
<br />
JR: Maniacal. Like he's really running away something. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Demons . . .<br />
<br />
E: May be.<br />
<br />
R: Personal demons . . . <br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, or . . . Daleks. "(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: Jon, what are you working on now?<br />
<br />
JR: Now I'm starting to write a new book on the subject . . . I don't want to talk too much about it because I don't wanna talk it all out. It always helps me to kind of internalize the thing that I'm writing about. It's kind of on the subject of humiliation. I always like to start with a word. So ''The Psychopath Test'' the word, I guess, was "madness." About how madness is a more powerful engine in our lives than rationality. And in ''The Men Who Stare at Goats'' I guess the word was a phrase, and it was "irrationality at the heart of power." And ''Them'' was like, paranoia at the fringes of society, and the new word is "humiliation." I'm very interested. I was really surprised, actually, I've just brought out this collection called ''Lost at Sea,'' and I was reading it; it's an audiobook, and I was amazed at fifteen years of adventure stories, how often the subject of humiliation comes up. How often people said to me, my greatest fear in life was being humiliated, and here it was coming true. It seems to be a running theme in my stories. <br />
<br />
R: And what about people who don't get humiliated? Are there any people who just . . . <br />
<br />
JR: Well that's another interesting thing. I mean, psychopaths don't get humilitated. <br />
<br />
S: Meaning they're immune to humilitation.<br />
<br />
JR: I think so, yeah. So it seems. They get annoyed, as you know. They get very cross if they feel slighted. So they've got terrible grandiosity issues. But, when they're caught in a lie, they don't feel bad about it. That's one of _________________ big things, feeling unembarrassed about being caught lying. But other people don't get humiliated, too. And I'm really interested in those people.<br />
<br />
J: It's interesting to think, is the most powerful source of humiliation for the average person being caught in a lie, or is it, like, a lot of people will do the default "oh, I'm naked in public, I would be humiliated." That wouldn't bother me at all. <br />
<br />
E: It would bother everyone else.<br />
<br />
J: But I definitely think being caught in a social lie, when people know. Especially like stealing somebody else's work type of lie, would be horrible. That would be horrible, right?<br />
<br />
JR; I can't think of anything worse than being the recipient of some kind of storm like that. Like Jonah Lehrer or Mike Daisey, those people. To me that's like, that's the kind of thing that would wake me up sweating.<br />
<br />
R: And there's so many people right now in what I feel is your field, in a way, like the people who are writing these sometimes slightly fictionalized accounts, but of truthful stories, you know, and David Sedaris went through this. And it's kind of sad, like they're all people I love, and to see that happening. . . <br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, I feel a bit sorry for Jonah Lehrer, because his big crime was inflating Bob Dylan quotes. Or, in fact, inventing them. And as somebody pointed out in the wake of that storm, Bob Dylan's autobiography is full of made-up stuff. Yet, nobody goes for Dylan. It does feel slightly subjective.<br />
<br />
R: Also, you know, sometimes you can't tell what Dylan's saying anyway. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Can't tell what he's ''singing.''<br />
<br />
JR: Another thing that worried me was, before Jonah Lehrer got done for that, he was done for self-plagiarism.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
JR: And I . . . I've never . . .<br />
<br />
S: What is self-plagiarism?<br />
<br />
JR: Well, it's basically using the same material like say in an article for the ''New Yorker'' and a blog for ''Wired.''<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Lifting like word-for-word, same paragraph, and dropping into a different article, usually.<br />
<br />
JR: When I heard that, I thought . . . so he wasn't stealing somebody else's work, he was repeating his own work.<br />
<br />
E: Repeating his own.<br />
<br />
JR: And when I heard that, I thought, Frank Sinatra would sing ''My Way'' every night! You know? Is that the worst crime in the world? I used to do that, and not worry. If I had like a really great line, there's a line in ''The Psychopath Test'' where I say . . . yes, there's a line in ''The Psychopath Test'' where I say, I'm talking about how bankers weren't, were kind of ignored, like the wickedness of hedge-fund managers and stuff, was kind of ignored for a long time and they were getting away with it. And I said the reason why they were getting away with it was because they were boring, and journalists don't like to write about boring people because the more colorful the prose, the better it looks for the journalist. So I said if you want to get away with wielding true malevolent power, be boring. And I'd actually written something very very similar to that a couple years ago in a column for the ''Guardian'' and it was completely ignored, and I thought, this is like a really interesting point. So I was happy to give it another shot in ''The Psychopath Test.'' And sure enough, it's become one of the more popular quotes in that book.<br />
<br />
R: The problem with that, I mean, 'cause what else are you gonna say, every single time? "As I once said." I mean, no.<br />
<br />
JR: I was surprised actually, when that came up as an issue for Jonah, and it worried me that people were gonna start going for journalistic misdeeds too much. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it becomes a witch hunt. And I think some people are doing it because they can. Because we have the technology, if you will, to sift through everything everyone's written. I know Gerald Posner faced that, where someone thought that he had plagiarized part of his book. And then somebody decided to cross reference everything he ever wrote with searching algorithms, where you could search everything he wrote and come up with all these other instances where lines from his research found their way into his books, or his articles without being properly referenced. And he admitted, clearly my process has broken down here and I haven't been keeping track of where these lines were coming from. So he admitted that inadvertently things have crept in, but I don't know who can withstand that kind of really thorough scrutiny. I mean we all have things rattling around in our head that we heard from other people, and if you write a lot, that stuff is gonna end up in what you write. <br />
<br />
JR: Absolutely. It did worry me. It seems to be kind of drifting off a little bit now. The funny thing about Mike Daisey, you know his story; he went to China and<br />
<br />
R: Foxconn.<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, to Foxconn, and was writing about the abuses that Foxconn were . . . everything he wrote was true. But his grave error of judgment was he said he witnessed it all first-hand. The tragedy of Mike Daisey is if he'd stayed in China for a couple of weeks longer, he could have actually got everything that he purported to get. All he had to do was get on a few more planes and go and meet a few more people. And it would have been the greatest expose of Apple of all time. But he didn't.<br />
<br />
R: But I think even if he had, though, he still would have messed with the narrative, because he, that was another huge thing; was not just that it didn't happen to him, but then he was screwing with the narrative not in a way that just makes better story arc but in a way that drastically altered events: where they happened, how they happened. And I feel like even if he had stayed there a few weeks; because what he is at heart is a storyteller, and that's what he values. He doesn't value truth.<br />
<br />
S: But isn't that the problem with journalism in general, is that ultimately it's a storytelling endeavor, and the truth, or the facts, becomes second in importance to that?<br />
<br />
R: Well no, because it's possible, I think, to balance those things; to know how to take what you're seeing . . . it's like taking a photo. You know, you could take a photo; I could take a photo of something out the window right now and then we could have a professional photographer come in and come up with something that's amazingly better. We're both representing the truth, but one of us has a better eye for how to capture it. It's exactly the same.<br />
<br />
S: Well, I think a better analogy there would be then you take it onto to PhotoShop and maybe you color correct it a little bit, or you enhance the contrast. Or then maybe you said, you know what, a tree instead of this building would work a little bit better. That building's ugly. I wanna put a tree there so that it doesn't ruin . . .<br />
<br />
R: Well, yeah, that would be the . . . yeah.<br />
<br />
S: And then there's a slippery slope. I'm talking more about this slippery slope. Of course all good journalism is storytelling. You know, Jon, you know this obviously better than any of us, you're a journalist and an author. You've written, obviously, you've listed your most recent successful books, screenplays, et cetera. And you have to tell a good story. But at the same time you're trying to convey an accurate portrayal of the subject matter. But isn't there this temptation to always tweak it to make the story a little bit better, even if it's not exactly true?<br />
<br />
JR: Well, I always try and make it true. And, a rather good thing about, you know, it's good to, it's, I feel sorry for the likes of Jonah Lehrer for being the one who's thrown into the bonfire. But I guess a good thing about that is it does keep everybody in check. But, I always try to keep a ___________, I have never been, nothing bad's ever happened, you know, I've never . . . <br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Yeah, yeah.<br />
<br />
JR: You know, so I've always been all right. Yeah, but you think about this every time you write something. It's really important. I always think it's the fact that I suffer from anxiety that stops me from transgressing. Like for instance if I was tempted to shape something too much, to shape something so it was no longer accurate, no longer truthful, I would immediately envisage a horrific future. <br />
<br />
E: Right. You play out a worst-case scenario in your head.<br />
<br />
JR: Exactly. Where it begins with Twitter, and it ends with, you know, jumping off a building.<br />
<br />
J: And that gets back to what we were saying earlier though, where a psychopath, or someone that doesn't have those built-in social meters and thresholds is gonna be capable of doing things that people like us won't be.<br />
<br />
JR: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: And you're editing yourself in a way to limit your own anxiety. I do the same thing. I have a very similar process where I'm always thinking about my actions and projecting then into the future. And it happens very seamlessly, right? You don't actually have to put a lot of energy into it. It's just part of your, the way your brain works.<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, absolutely. It's "what-if" scenarios that haunt people with OCD and so on. Yes. Psychopaths don't have that, which makes me suspect that psychopathy is the most pleasant feeling of all the mental disorders. So all of the things that keep us good, anxiety, guilt, remorse and so on, is, am I right in saying, Steven, shift to the amygdala and the central nervous system.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well, the amygdala is part of the central nervous system. But you mean, the frontal cortex is where all of the social mores are, the social morals, the things that give you anxiety so that you internally police yourself and you don't do things because you're afraid of social humiliation. That emotion exists so that we can exist in a society. And in fact what social psychology is showing is that people will essentially cheat exactly as much as they think they'll get away with. And it is, more than anyone else, the fear of social humiliation that keeps us from doing things which are inherently greedy or self-serving. We are totally self-serving unless we think that other people's perception of us being self-serving is no longer in our best interest. So it's ultimately still self-serving.<br />
<br />
J: There's something so unraveling about that.<br />
<br />
S: But that's, we're chimpanzees; that's how we behave. Just in a very sophisticated way. But then again in psychopaths they sort of lack that . . . it must be very freeing. I think that's why they're very charismatic, very compelling characters, 'cause it's like, wow, imagine having the freedom to just really do whatever you want .<br />
<br />
JR: And so difficult to treat, too, because there's no incentive to change. People with anxiety disorders want to get better.<br />
<br />
S: That ties into what you were saying about not liking the haughtiness of skepticism. And that's, I think, one of the challenges that we have. It's hard to tell people they're wrong about something without coming off as being haughty. So . . .<br />
<br />
JR: I mean the way I get away with it is to be very open about my own irrationalities; my anxieties; and people can sort of connect to that, on a sort of flawed level, I guess. People connect to me on a flawed level, and I think that helps. And, I think, yeah, that's a good way around that, is to be . . . . but you do that, Steven. You talk about everybody's rationality. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
JR: You don't say skeptics are perfect.<br />
<br />
S: No, no.<br />
<br />
JR: And that's very likable to do that.<br />
<br />
S: I don't think anyone really does that. I think it's an inadvertent thing that it comes across . . . I think people are looking for a reason to dismiss what the skeptics are saying because they don't like the conclusions. Like, oh, you're just being closed minded and haughty, and it's kind of a cheap shot, I think, oftentimes.<br />
<br />
JR: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: I do think that skeptics have evolved as a community to the point where we realize that that finger-wagging, haughty skeptic is completely ineffectual. If we wanna actually change people's minds. And in fact it's not even really true that, you know . . . we are all irrational. It's a matter of having a process that deals with that and understanding it.<br />
<br />
JR. Yeah. Also, you talked at the beginning about this kind of humiliation idea, and the more open you are about your weaknesses and so on, the less humiliatable you are. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, yeah . . .<br />
<br />
JR: It's like, these things kind of only exist when you're keeping them a secret, keeping them in the darkness.<br />
<br />
S: It is all part of the human narrative, right? So I think that's what you're, Jon, excellent at, as an investigative journalist and a writer, is making your, you are a good storyteller, and the are very human, and you're very much in the stories. But the process comes out, in that, still.<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah. But to me . . . I think this, where I disagreed with what you said was the I think self-deception, so these kind of more serious aspects of things, not the kind of, let's say for want of a better phrase, the sort of, the confirmation bias you find in the corpse instead of the confirmation bias you find in a haunted honty-tonk . . . I actually think people really are interested in this, 'cause I think psychology books are really popular and, you know, Richard Wiseman's books sell a lot of copies, and I think people ''do'' want to know about their own<br />
<br />
S: Yeah<br />
<br />
JR: flawed thought processes, actually. I think. Pleasure to see you all in the flesh. It's strange to actually hear these voices coming out of actual human faces. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: We do have actual human faces.<br />
<br />
E: We've shattered your illusion apparently. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Thanks, Jon.<br />
<br />
JR: Thank you.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:50)</small> ==<br />
''Voiceover: It's time for Science or Fiction''<br />
<br />
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious and I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. You guys ready for this week?<br />
<br />
J: We are ready.<br />
<br />
E: Time to play.<br />
<br />
S: You'll find these are interesting.<br />
<br />
E: Always.<br />
<br />
S: Here we go. [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/osoa-idh022613.php Item number one]. Scientists have developed an imaging system that can look through walls into a burning building and identify survivors that need rescuing. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130225092040.htm Item number two]. A new analysis finds that Spiderman’s webbing would have been strong enough to stop the commuter trains as depicted in the Spiderman 2 movie. [http://now.tufts.edu/news-releases/new-study-shows-viruses-can-have-immune-syste And item number three]. Researchers discover a virus with an adaptive immune system. <br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: Jay, you spoke first, so you get to go first.<br />
<br />
J: The first one about scientists developing an imaging system that can look through walls into a burning building.<br />
<br />
E: Let me guess. Google glasses. <br />
<br />
J: I don't see why I should doubt this. I think that of course it's using temperature difference, I'd imagine, to see where the survivors might be, or, you know, we already have, they already have devices like this where they can see through a hundred smoke-filled room. You know, they go in with the face mask and the oxygen and they're walking through and they hold this thing up and it's, looks like a really big flashlight but it has a viewfinder on it that will show them the heat differences. I just don't see why this one is that big of a leap. So I'm just gonna take that initially right off the list as that's a, that is science. The second one about Spiderman's webbing being strong enough to stop a commuter train, or it would have been, Spiderman's webbing would be that strong if he was using that much spider web, I'm assuming, right Steve? If that were real spider web and there was that much of it, it could do those things?<br />
<br />
S: Yes. That's what the analysis showed.<br />
<br />
J: I would just imagine that that's a yes, if anything I'd like to say I think it would be a lot stronger than that as well because of the things I do know about spider webbing. I don't know if all spider webbing is created equal, if every spider produces the same exact type of thing, I'd imagine there's huge variances in there, but that one seems completely legitimate to me as well. So, I'm left with this last one that researchers discovered a virus with an adaptive immune system. I don't see why that sounds too crazy either. You know, we're talking viruses here, which are these very small, small litter critters that, like bacteria, why should I doubt it? But I'm really gonna go with that last one as the fake 'cause the other two just seem very plausible to me. And here's the roll. And it came up a two. And so, once, me and randomness do not agree.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. All right. Bob?<br />
<br />
B: Let's see, I'll start with 3. The adaptive immune system. That's wicked, if a virus . . . I assume it's somehow grabbing what it needs to create its own immune system. That's pretty amazing. But considering that it can, I mean it's designed to penetrate a cell, and take over genetic machinery, I guess that seems somewhat plausible that it could, that it can somehow, that they found one with an immune system . . . I'm just assuming that it somehow co-opted it from another organization. That just kind of makes sense to me. I really hope that that's true. Let's see, the second one, Spiderman's webbing, yeah, I can totally see that. We all have heard over and over and over just how strong spider web is, and Jay, you're right. There is a huge variance. There's a specific type of spider that creates the strongest drag line silk. If you scale that up, I could see how it would actually work. I mean, Jay, we're talking about a huge amount of momentum. Huge amount of kinetic energy that it has to deal with. But considering that spider silk is also very good at maintaining its stength and stretching, I really believe that this would work. I really hope it does. The first one, this is the one I've got problems with. Yeah, I myself have talked about this specific type of technology where they could actually see through walls and buildings. And it's really amazing, but the technology is a little bit immature, I think, at this stage. It's got tons of potential, but the thing that's throwing me a little bit is the burning building and you've got fire, you've got heat; it can distort images <br />
<br />
J: FIRE!<br />
<br />
B: incredibly. ''(laughter)'' And I think that throwing the fire in the mix is what would make this not a viable technology. Not yet anyway. That's a little bit too advanced. See through a wall? Yeah. But when you throw a fire into the mix, and heat, and the distorting effects that that has. I think you tweaked this one a little bit, so I think that one is the fiction.<br />
<br />
S: And Evan.<br />
<br />
E: Bob and Jay each touched on really good things here on the two that they chose as the fiction, and I was kind of thinking the same thing, so I'm kind of split between those. As far as Spiderman's webbing, strong enough to stop the train. Yeah, I guess if you have enough of it it's, some webs that are produced by spiders are pretty durable material. Pretty strong in their own right. And you just need, I think, it's a matter of quantity at that point. So therefore I'm down to this virus with an adaptive immune system. I don't know, in a way, would that be unfortunate? ''(laughter)'' Would this make viruses more difficult and cause more problems for human beings? The first one about looking though the walls into the burning building and then find the survivors. So, maybe it's not so much about the fire, maybe it's more about finding the survivors and the heat that they're giving off. I'm in a burning building, right? Chances are I'm not in there kind of running around like a chicken with my head cut off, I'm probably just doing whatever I can to find shelter, or maybe I've gone unconscious but not have died from the smoke inhalation. And perhaps that's a key to this, as to how they're able to detect a person who is alive and needs rescuing. So, that means I have to sort of lean towards this virus with the adaptive immune system. I'm gonna go with Jay and say that one is the fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. So you all agree that a new analysis finds that Spiderman's webbing would have been strong enough to stop the commuter train, as depicted in the Spiderman 2 movie. All think that one is science, and that one . . . is . . . science.<br />
<br />
J: All right!<br />
<br />
B: Sweet!<br />
<br />
S: Good job so far, guys.<br />
<br />
E: Thank you.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, this is a project by some physics students and they did all the calculations. Would the webbing have had the strength to stop the momentum plus the engine, they include that as well 'cause it was still running, you know, it wasn't just in<br />
<br />
B: Coasting, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: It wasn't coasting. Would it have been enough to stop the train, and they concluded that it would have been more than strong, more than powerful enough.<br />
<br />
E: More than enough, wow.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it is very, very strong. It's stronger than steel, so if you just imagine steel cables, it kind of visually makes a little bit more sense. But, I would say though, I didn't point this out during . . . 'cause nobody asked, but you know how in that movie where Spiderman just sort of shot the webbing to either side, and then stopped the train. That would have ripped him apart. Even if the webbing wouldn't have been the weak<br />
<br />
B: Right. ''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: But that made him like Superman. I mean, I understand Spiderman is tough, but that, I thought, was ridiculous. He should have shot the web from one side to the other.<br />
<br />
E: Right.<br />
<br />
S: So just the web itself stopped the train. And I think that's the calculation that the physicists did. The students did.<br />
<br />
B: I forgot that Spidey did that. Yeah, that was a little silly, but . . .<br />
<br />
S: So this is students from the University of Leicester, published in the ''Journal of Physics,'' special topics. This was James Forester, Mark Brian and Alex Stone, came up with a fun idea for their senior project. But yeah, not surprising. Spider webbing is ridiculously strong. And some spider webs are stronger than others. They did use webbing from the toughest spider silk that is known. Do you guys know what spider that's from?<br />
<br />
B: I think it's got "bark" in the name, doesn't it?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Darwin's bark spider. Good job.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Strongest known webbing of any spider, Darwin's bark spider.<br />
<br />
E: Damn right.<br />
<br />
S: All right. Let's go back to number one. Scientists have developed an imaging system that look through walls into a burning building and identiy survivors that need rescuing. Bob thinks, is alone in thinking that this one is the fiction. Jay and Evan think this one is science. And this one . . . is . . . the fiction.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, baby.<br />
<br />
S: Good job, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: wow.<br />
<br />
S: Although, Bob, you're right for the exact wrong reason.<br />
<br />
B: Whaa?<br />
<br />
S: Because scientists have developed an infrared digital holography that allows fire fighters to see through flames and image people. So they, they <br />
<br />
B: Well, yes of course, yes.<br />
<br />
S: Not through smoke but through flames.<br />
<br />
B: No, no, no, no, Steve. In my equation was the wall.<br />
<br />
S: Well, the wall was<br />
<br />
B: and the fire. That's what made it difficult. Not the fire. I totally believe they've developed it through fire, but not wall and fire.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. I thought you just said through smoke, but the fire was the problem. All right, fine. But the smoke, that, as you guys all said, that's, infrared imagers will see body heat through smoke. No problem. But the problem has been when there's fire, the heat from the fire obscures the heat from the body and it overwhelms it. Because you have heat sensitive detectors and you have this bright heat source. Especially if you have to zoom in to try to find the person, zooming in will completely overwhelm the sensors. So they developed an instrument that uses digital holography and uses an imaging system without focusing lenses, so that it deals with that problem of getting too much heat, too much, you know, radiation into the system overwhelming the sensors. And they were able to use it to separate the image of a person from the background noise of flame. <br />
<br />
B: That's awesome.<br />
<br />
S: But this, you have to be inside the building with the person. So the bit that I changed was imaging from the outside. And you're right, there is, we talked about this too, technology for looking through walls. But it's not nearly, at this point, where you could look at a burning building, go Oh, there's a person on the second floor, in the closet, or whatever. This means that researchers discover a virus with an adaptive immune system is science. This one's pretty cool.<br />
<br />
B: Cool. Yeah, that's really cool.<br />
<br />
J: Awesome.<br />
<br />
S: Do you know what the virus is, Bob? <br />
<br />
B: No. The, no, I don't know what the, I don't know.<br />
<br />
S: It's a bacteriophage.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, a phage, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: It's a virus that eats bacteria, that infects and kills bacteria.<br />
<br />
E: That's good.<br />
<br />
S: And the virus has adopted the adaptive immune system from a cholera bacteria. Interestingly, they think that it is, over its history it incorporated genes from bacteria in order to co-opt its adaptive immune even though<br />
<br />
B: Tricky bastard.<br />
<br />
S: the modern cholera that it infects doesn't have those genes anymore.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' Oh, awesome. A blast from the past.<br />
<br />
S: So this makes this bacteriophage, this virus, much more deadly to the bacteria. It's much more effective. It infects it, kills it, replicates, spreads, goes into more bacteria, infects them, kills them, very effective. Evan, this would, if anything, it would be a good thing. These are viruses that do not infect people. They infect bacteria, and <br />
<br />
E: I was hoping, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: And it's actually possible to use them as a way of fighting off a bacterial infection. If you think about it, they're little machines, bacteria-killing machines. This is being developed as a bacteria-fighting technology. This bit about having an adaptive immune system actually can make them more effective. So it would be nice if it comes to fruition because of the problems we're facing with anti-bac, with antibiotic resistance. Pretty cool. All right, well, good job, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: Finally.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:13:44)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: Jay, do you have a quote for us this week?<br />
<br />
J: Um hm. Steve, I have a great quote. It was sent in by a co-host named Steven No- No-vel-lo.<br />
<br />
?: Novelli.<br />
<br />
B: NAH-vela.<br />
<br />
J: From a – oh, he lives in Connecticut, Evan. Did you ever hear of this guy?<br />
<br />
S: I'm vaguely familiar with him, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, he lives in your house! Get out!! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Look behind you!<br />
<br />
J: And another coincidence, this is a Yale professor. So Steve, a Yale professor sent a quote from a Yale professor. Did this guy give you like five bucks? What's the deal, Steve? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: I think your identity's been stolen.<br />
<br />
S: I just found the quote and thought it was appropriate.<br />
<br />
J: This is Edward Tufte, and he said or wrote:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The world is much more interesting than any one discipline.</blockquote><br />
<br />
That's from Yale professor, Mr. ''(shouting)'' Edward Tufte!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I like that because we talk about that all the time. Everyone has their little perspective on reality based upon whatever their expertise is, but the world is so much more complicated that no one discipline can capture it all, you know?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, we brought this up many, many times. I think even last week I said there are scientists who are great at something, whatever their specialty is, but when it comes down to a lot of the other things that they're interested in that they don't have a specialty in, they think that they can apply their same level of assurance to those things as their specialty, and they fall flat. It's a deadly combination of being intelligent and blind to critical thinking.<br />
<br />
B: Hey, what about the corollary to that – the universe is much more interesting than any one world. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's a <br />
<br />
E: Polyverse. Multiverse. Yay multiverse.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>(1:15:27)</small> ==<br />
<br />
B: Guys, I'm so excited about NECSS. I cannot wait to go. It's gonna be such a fun weekend. I'm especially excited, not only for Steven and George's little workshop that they're gonna do, I think that's on Friday, right?<br />
<br />
S: Little workshop? ''(laughter)'' ''(garbled comments)'' The little workshop of horrors. ''(more garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
B: There's only two people in that workshop. But I'm most excited about the keynote, physicist Leonard Mlodinow. He's gonna be so fascinating. I've read some of his stuff and seen some of what he's done, and I'm just so excited to see and meet this guy and see what he's got to say. It's just gonna be such an incredible weekend. I can't wait!<br />
<br />
S: He wrote ''The Drunkard's Walk.''<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Classic.<br />
<br />
S: And also, I didn't know this, he co-wrote ''A Briefer History of Time'' with Stephen Hawking.<br />
<br />
J: I said that. Yeah, I told you guys about it. You don't remember?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah, that's right; that was him. Oh wow.<br />
<br />
S: He's a great speaker. And we haven't met him or interviewed him before, so it's gonna be awesome.<br />
<br />
J: Also, Steve, what about Jon Ronson? He's going.<br />
<br />
S: Jon Ronson's now on the lineup as well. He's hilarious. I love that guy. He has that perfect dry sense of humor.<br />
<br />
E: British wit. It's wonderful.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. I love it.<br />
<br />
J: Very humble guy, too. <br />
<br />
S: Self-deprecating.<br />
<br />
J: So happy that he just didn't have an ego attached. Like, he's just a great guy.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Guys, also, before we go, I want to mention briefly that the Science-Based Medicine crew has published a series of twelve e-books which are compilations of our best posts on specific topics. So you have the Science-Based Medicine's Guide to Homeopathy, Guide to Naturopathy, Guide to Acupuncture, et cetera. Twelve topics. You can get these through Kindle, through iBooks, or through, or for the Nook, through Barnes & Noble. The JREF, the James Randi Educational Foundation, is being kind enough to be the publisher of these for us. So this is a way of supporting Science-Based Medicine and the JREF at the same time. I understand they make fabulous gifts. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: I'll take four!<br />
<br />
S: You can take twelve. So check it out. You can go to the Science-Based Medicine website, and there are permalinks on the website for them, but also the post describing them will be at the top for awhile, just so people can find it easily. So check 'em out. And, thanks for joining me this week everyone.<br />
<br />
B: You're welcome, Steve.<br />
<br />
J: Thanks, Steve.<br />
<br />
E: Thank you, Dr. N.<br />
<br />
S: And until next week, this is your Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SGU_episode_list&diff=6440Template:SGU episode list2013-04-27T01:50:23Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div><noinclude>This template is used to display the list of full-length episodes on the [[Main Page]] and the [[SGU Episodes]] page. Additions and amendments to this template will be reflected on those pages.<br />
<br />
Pages currently in progress should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{i}}</nowiki></code> to add the pencil icon, and pages that have sections open to other contributors to transcribe should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{Open}}</nowiki></code> to include the green arrow icon. <br />
<br />
Pages that have been proof-read and verified by a contributor other than the author should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{tick}}</nowiki></code> to include the green tick icon.</noinclude><br />
{|style="margin:1em 3em"<br />
|style="padding-right: 6em;white-space:nowrap" valign="top"|<span id="2013"><big>'''2013'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 405]], Apr 20 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 404]], Apr 13 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 403]], Apr 6 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 402]], Mar 30 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 401]], Mar 23 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 400]], Mar 16 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 399]], Mar 9 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 398]], Mar 2 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 397]], Feb 23 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 396]], Feb 16 2013<br />
* [[SGU Episode 395]], Feb 9 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 394]], Feb 2 2013<br />
* [[SGU Episode 393]], Jan 26 2013 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 392]], Jan 19 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 391]], Jan 12 2013 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 390]], Jan 5 2013<br />
<br />
<span id="2012"><big>'''2012'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 389]], Dec 29 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 388]], Dec 22 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 387]], Dec 15 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 386]], Dec 8 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 385]], Dec 1 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 384]], Nov 24 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 383]], Nov 17 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 382]], Nov 10 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 381]], Nov 3 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 380]], Oct 27 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 379]], Oct 20 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 378]], Oct 13 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 377]], Oct 6 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 376]], Sep 29 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 375]], Sep 22 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 374]], Sep 15 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 373]], Sep 8 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 372]], Sep 1 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 371]], Aug 25 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 370]], Aug 18 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 369]], Aug 11 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 368]], Aug 4 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 367]], Jul 28 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 366]], Jul 21 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 365]], Jul 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 364]], Jul 7 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 363]], Jun 30 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 362]], Jun 23 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 361]], Jun 16 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 360]], Jun 9 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 359]], Jun 2 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 358]], May 26 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 357]], May 19 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 356]], May 12 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 355]], May 5 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 354]], Apr 28 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 353]], Apr 21 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 352]], Apr 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 351]], Apr 7 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 350]], Mar 31 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 349]], Mar 24 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 348]], Mar 17 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 347]], Mar 10 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 346]], Mar 3 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 345]], Feb 25 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 341]], Jan 28 2012 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 340]], Jan 21 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 339]], Jan 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 338]], Jan 7 2012 {{tick}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2011"><big>'''2011'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 337]], Dec 31 2011 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 335]], Dec 17 2011 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 331]], Nov 19 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 330]], Nov 11 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 328]], Oct 29 2011<br />
* [[SGU 24hr]], Sep 23-24 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 320]], Aug 29 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 312]], Jul 5 2011 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 308]], Jun 08 2011 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 287]], Jan 12 2011 {{Open}}<br />
|valign="top" style=white-space:nowrap|<span id="2010"><big>'''2010'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 285]], Dec 29 2010 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 271]], Sep 22 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 260]], Jun 30 2010 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 257]], Jun 14 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 252]], May 12 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 247]], Apr 7 2010 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 245]], Mar 25 2010 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 232]], Jan 1 2010<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2009"><big>'''2009'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 220]], Oct 7 2009 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 216]], Sep 9 2009 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 185]], Feb 4 2009<br />
* [[SGU Episode 184]], Jan 28 2009<br />
* [[SGU Episode 183]], Jan 21 2009 {{i}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2008"><big>'''2008'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 165]], Sep 17 2008<br />
* [[SGU Episode 156]], Jul 16 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 152]], Jun 11 2008 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 146]], May 7 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 144]], Apr 23 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 141]], Apr 2 2008<br />
* [[SGU Episode 140]], Mar 26 2008 {{i}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2007"><big>'''2007'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 127]], Dec 26, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 123]], Nov 28, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 116]], Oct 10, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 113]], Sep 19, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 111]], Sep 5, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 110]], Aug 28, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 109]], Aug 24, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 105]], Jul 25, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 103]], Jul 11, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 102]], Jul 3, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 100]], June 19, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 98]], June 6, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 97]], May 30 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 89]], Apr 4, 2007 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 79]], Jan 24, 2007<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2006"><big>'''2006'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 73]], Dec 13 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 68]], Nov 8 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 62]], Sep 27 2006 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 61]], Sep 20 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 55]], Aug 9 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 49]], Jun 28 2006 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 47]], Jun 14 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 46]], Jun 7 2006 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 38]], Apr 12 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 31]], Feb 22 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 27]], Jan 25 2006 <br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2005"><big>'''2005'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 22]], Dec 14 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 21]], Dec 7 2005 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 20]], Nov 23 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 19]], Nov 16 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 18]], Nov 2 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 17]], Oct 26 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 16]], Oct 12 2005 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 15]], Oct 6 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 14]], Sep 28 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 13]], Sep 14 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 12]], Sep 7 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 11]], Aug 31 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 10]], Aug 23 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 9]], Aug 10 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 8]], Aug 2 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 7]], Jul 20 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 6]], Jul 7 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 5]], Jun 29 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 4]], Jun 15 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 3]], Jun 7 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 2]], Jun 1 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 1]], May 4 2005 {{tick}}<br />
|}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_398&diff=6439SGU Episode 3982013-04-27T01:48:59Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 398<br />
|episodeDate = 2<sup>nd</sup> March 2013<br />
|episodeIcon = File:E-tattoo.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|guest1 = JR: Jon Ronson<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-02.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=398<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45209.0.html<br />
|qowText = The world is much more interesting than any one discipline.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tufte Edward Tufte]<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine <br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, February 27, 2013 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: Hey, guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Ah. Kum bah wa, everyone.<br />
<br />
B: Kum bah yay, what was that?<br />
<br />
E: Kum bah ya, no. Kum bah wa. Japanese for good evening.<br />
<br />
S: Good evening.<br />
<br />
E: Lots of SGU listeners in Japan. We know a few. <br />
<br />
S: So apparently Rebecca has some kind of phlegm situation going on. <br />
<br />
E: I didn't know she was Amish.<br />
<br />
S: We're trying to decide if she has the flu, whooping cough, or strep throat.<br />
<br />
J: Well, get this, guys. So Rebecca emails us and says that she's not feeling well; that she woke up really late today, and she's been basically zonked all day. And at the same time, we have a little whooping cough scare going on over here with the newborn. This is what happened. My sister-in-law came to visit from Denver. And in the Midwest you know that the whooping cough incidences are higher and everything and I just didn't really think much of it other than everyone in the family got the tdap vaccination, which is the whooping cough<br />
<br />
S: Did she and her family get the tdap?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, they did. What I found out today was that, like many of the vaccines that we get, you know they're guessing at which strain is gonna be the one that's gonna hit that year,<br />
<br />
S: No, hang on a minute, Jay. What you're describing is relevant for the flu. With the whooping cough, it's not that there's like a different strain hitting every year, it's just that tdap covers only a very narrow number of strains and the virus has mutated. You know, it just, new strains are developing. But it's not like there's a seasonal strain like the flu. It's a little bit different.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I didn't mean to confuse that. I know, like, exactly what you said, that there is a newer version of it that just wasn't covered by that particular vaccination that we got. <br />
<br />
S: yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So, her sister left on Monday morning. She called us up today, we're recording on Wednesday. She said "Guys, I had a bad cold on my way home, and now it's turning into something that's very, what I would consider to be whooping cough-like.<br />
<br />
E: Yeesh.<br />
<br />
J: So we called up our doctor, you know, I have a three-and-a-half-week-old in the house now, and you know, like, very dialed into this. And we called up the doctor up and me like "What's up? Like what do we do? What happens?" And pertussis is a bacteria, it's not a virus. So they have an anti-biotic for it. <br />
<br />
E: Anti-biotic. Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So, what do you call it, Steve? Erythromycin? <br />
<br />
S: Erythromycin, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Erythromycin, yeah. So that's the one that they use for it. And it's the mega-dose, like two pills the first day and then you take like this mega-dose thing for four days. Of course the baby's taking the liquid form and everything. But I'm sitting there tonight with my wife and we're giving the baby its first medication, and it's freakin' whooping cough medication! Like I wanted to strangle people. Thank you everybody for not . . .<br />
<br />
S: Anyone who has never gotten vaccinated for whooping cough, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Something that we could<br />
<br />
E: Way to blow the herd immunity; way to go.<br />
<br />
J: We could get rid of it. Did you guys see the info-graphic of . . . the CDC puts out information every year, and somebody made an info-graphic of the incidence of morbidity before and after the vaccination for a particular disease came and went. Right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And right out of the gate, things like smallpox and stuff, I don't remember the exact numbers, but we have certain diseases where there was like a half a million people dying a year, down to zero. After the vaccination. And there's like, in this info-graphic, I think there was more than a dozen of them. It was incredible. Like you see the numbers, how dramatically different they are. Right there. That's a hundred percent proof. They work. And yet people are walking around out there ''today'' and they don't care; that information is meaningless to them. How? Why?<br />
<br />
B: Well what is the worst-case scenario with pertussis? I mean, how bad could it get? <br />
<br />
J: It can kill you, Bob; it can kill a baby.<br />
<br />
E: Death.<br />
<br />
B: That's bad.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there was that famous case in Australia where a baby caught, Dana McCaffery, caught whooping cough in a community that had very low vaccination rates because of the Australian anti-vaccination network preaching against vaccines, and, the baby caught it from unvaccinated people. And died. 'Cause the child was too young to be vaccinated. It's one of the populations that need to be protected by herd immunity.<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(4:33)</small> ==<br />
* March 2, 1983: Compact Disc players and discs are released for the first time in the United States and other markets. They had been available only in Japan before then.<br />
<br />
S: Evan, so you're filling in for Rebecca this week for This Day in Skepticism.<br />
<br />
E: I said "Good evening" in Japanese to start the show. And I did so because the compact disc, you guys remember what compact discs are, CDs,<br />
<br />
S: They're still, they're still used today.<br />
<br />
E: They are. Their first, most common usage was of course for music storage, right? Playing music. Put 80 minutes of uncompressed audio on one of those things. That's 737 megabytes of data. What do you think of that? So in Japan, is where the CDs were first, widely became available, in October of '82. However, on March 2nd of 1983, compact discs and their players were released for the first time in the United States and other markets around the world, whereas they'd only been available in Japan before but finally they came to the United States, and I remember this vividly. It was a big f'ing deal, for me and my 13-year-old friends and stuff who were all, in our own opinions, very big into music. And it was a rush to see who would get the first CD, who would be able to afford the first CD player. It was kind of bragging rights, in a sense. Do you guys remember?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah. Instantly replaced tapes, records; 8-tracks had already died by then.<br />
<br />
E: Thank goodness.<br />
<br />
S: Buy, yeah, and think about it, guys. Thirty years! And they're still a perfectly acceptable technology. I still buy CDs for music. <br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
S: Sure.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, man. I just download it all.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but think about it. A CD, you can then rip it into any quality MP3 you want, which you own, without any DRM, and you have the CD for a backup. And it's still cost-effective. It's not like you're saving money by downloading. So it's still a perfectly viable technology. It's had a lot of longevity.<br />
<br />
B: It's all right, I guess. I like, I hear a song that I like. Like, oh boy, that sounds really good. And I buy it. Within literally four minutes I have it on my iPhone and I'm listening to it. That's awesome.<br />
<br />
S: I do that, too, but, if there's an album coming out and I know I want the whole album, I'll get it on a CD. <br />
<br />
E: Something to remember, guys, is that when you purchase a CD, you're purchasing something physical that you actually own. And when you purchase a license to get a music or something you download through iTunes or something, there's a question, there's debates going on right now in the courts as to how much ownership do you actually have over that thing? In other words, can you put it into your estate and leave it to your heirs?<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And they are fighting that. You know, the record industry, or industries, don't want those rights to be transferred on to descendents. Where, but with a CD you're guaranteed. That is yours, it's physical, you can do whatever the heck you want with it. So, keep that in mind also in the debate about, you know, what medium, what format you're gonna use for your music.<br />
<br />
B: That's messed up.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Life Around Dying Stars <small>(7:32)</small>===<br />
http://phys.org/news/2013-02-future-evidence-extraterrestrial-life-dying.html#ajTabs<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Bob, talk about looking for life around dying stars.<br />
<br />
B: If you insist.<br />
<br />
S: I do.<br />
<br />
B: So guys, <br />
<br />
E: Like Mickey Rooney, are we talking? What are we talking here, dying stars?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, boy. Guys, when you think of an extraterrestrial planet, especially one that supports life, what do you think of? Do you think of, you've got this planet orbiting a parent star that's kind of like our sun, right? Maybe it's a little bit bigger than our sun, maybe it's a little bit smaller. And of course, if that's the case, the habitable zone around the star changes because of how big and bright the star is.<br />
<br />
S: Now, Bob, I think of Tatooine with two suns. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Nice orchestral music playing.<br />
<br />
S: Or Rigel 7 with a big planet in the distance with rings around it.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but, still, it's like a, it's a real star, it's like a star that <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, not a fake star.<br />
<br />
B: It's fusing hydrogen into helium. No, but it's not a ''dead'' star, and that's the point here. There's a new theoretical study that finds that the most likely place possibly to find life on another planet may be around a dead star. More specifically, of course, a white dwarf. You know, I'm not talking about a neutron star or black hole. But not only that, they think they might be able to actually find one of these planets in the next ten years. Which seems like a pretty bold prediction.<br />
<br />
E: But Bob, isn't a white dwarf after the star went through its initial sort of expansion then came back in on itself. Wouldn't it have kind of destroyed things on that<br />
<br />
B: Well, exactly. And that's the huge problem. That's the first thing I thought of, well how can that be? A white dwarf is a dead star. It's a corpse of a sun-like star, at the end of its, you know in its old age it swells into a red giant and it totally crisps any of the planets that were nearby, but before it expels a lot of its mass, making the beautifully misnomered planetary nebula. So what's left is this collapsed core. It's about as big as the earth, but it's got the mass, it could have a mass of more than the sun. 1.4 solar masses, I think, is the ________________________ limit for that. So that's a lot of mass in a really tiny place. So clearly it's unbelievably dense, right? If you had a ton of white dwarf matter, if you could do that, you could fit it into a matchbox. I mean it's super, super tiny. You can thank the electron degeneracy pressure for that. But there's no nuclear reactions going on to produce energy, but because it's relatively small it could radiate it's remaining heat for literally billions of years. So clearly, then, this thing could have its own little Goldilocks zone to support life, even though it's really not even a star anymore. It's not creating energy, but it's just radiating away the energy that's contained in it for many, many, many eons. So then the next question then, Evan, which ties into your comment, was how does the planet get there, because the red giant's gonna wipe out anything that's nearby. Probably anything that's in the Goldilocks zone. So there's actually two ways that could happen. One might, you might predict, a planet can migrate in from the outskirts of a solar system; we've seen that with hot Jupiters: Jupiter-sized planets that have orbits closer than Mercury. How the hell did they get there? Well they can actually migrate in through the solar system. But there's another way. A planet can also form from the leftover dust and gas; and that, of course, would be a second-generation world, which I think is pretty cool. Now of course, though, this planet would have to get pretty damned close, since the heat source is so small and dim compared to regular living stars . . .<br />
<br />
S: Bob, do we know that either of those can actually happen around a white dwarf, though?<br />
<br />
B: The thing here, though, with this theoretical study, Steve, is that they ran these really sophisticated simulations and they've pretty much shown in the simulation everything that I'm talking about.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
T<br />
B: That this can happen; they're incredibly confident that it could happen. They can think of no reason why it wouldn't happen. Now, it's not like every white dwarf is gonna have one these. They're saying that among the 500 closest white dwarves to the sun, they might find one or two that have planetary bodies in orbit around it that could support life. So, you know, one or two in 500 isn't great odds, but there's lots of stars and we can look at a lot of different things.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
B: So, the interesting thing is, as you could imagine, these planets would have to be very close to the white dwarf in order to get enough heat to have liquid water and life evolve. So that turns out to be only about a million miles away, which is what one over ninety-three, wait, sorry. And that's, our orbit's 93 million miles, so it's way, way, way close to it. And it's year, of course, would only be about ten hours long, which is an amazingly fast orbit so that would, I cal . . .<br />
<br />
E: That's a party every ten hours, oh my gosh.<br />
<br />
B: I calculated Rebecca would be over 30,000 years old if she lived on that planet. ''(laughter)'' So, all right. So we've got this dead star that could conceivably keep a nearby planet warm enough for life, so we've got that. We've got a couple different ways for a planet to arrive or form nearby. So then the next interesting question is, how do we detect this thing? And, if you regularly listen to this show, I think you probably know: the transit method, right? A planet moves between us and their star. The output, the light output dips, and bam! You've detected a planet. Of course, it's a little bit more complicated than that, but that's essentially the idea. Now in this scenario it's actually even better. Now think of this system, though. You've got a planet real close to a white dwarf and the white dwarf is so tiny, I mean they could be comparable in size, so that when this planet eclipses the white dwarf, you're gonna have a huge dip in the light output. It would be an obvious signal. It would leap out and say "whoa!" This starlight almost completely disappeared.<br />
<br />
S: But the plane of that system would have to be perfectly aligned with us.<br />
<br />
B: Yes, it would have to be. But even if it wasn't, you could still occlude half the star or 33 percent, and that still would be really really good. That's not even the best part. The real icing on the cake for this is that the white dwarf emits so much less light it becomes much easier to determine the composition of the atmosphere of the planet in orbit around it. And it turns out that after the simulation I was talking about, they showed that after just a few hours of observation instead of something like hundreds of hours, we would know that the planet has perhaps water vapor or maybe oxygen in it. And oxygen would, that would be gargantuan news. That would be huge because, on earth anyway, oxygen is created by life. You take away life from the planet earth and it would slowly diminish, the oxygen would just disappear. It would dissolve into the oceans, it would oxidize the surface, and if we found a sizable amount of oxygen on a planet, I think it'd be pretty solid indication that there's probably some kind of life on the planet producing that oxygen. And if not, maybe it's some kind of alien machine that's creating and it wouldn't matter 'cause in that case we would find life anyway. So, either way, it's a win-win!<br />
<br />
S: So now we've just gotta look for them.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, and the James Webb, the James Webb's a big thing, that once that guy comes online, that telescope comes online, I think, jees, I'm not sure when, but within a few years or so.<br />
<br />
S: They plan on a 2018 launch date.<br />
<br />
B: That is gonna have what it needs to really survey these white dwarves and find these planets and maybe find a planet that most likely has life on it. And how huge would that be; talk about the science story of the millennia, let alone the year!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we'll probably cover that one.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, maybe. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Ancient Lost Continent <small>(15:06)</small>===<br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21551149<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Evan, I read<br />
<br />
E: Yeah!<br />
<br />
S: that geologists claim they have found a lost sunken continent.<br />
<br />
E: You read correctly, Steve. And courtesy of the BBC, their headline reads "Fragments of ancient continent buried under the Indian Ocean."" So, what do you think? Is this it? They finally found Atlantis? Is the evidence incontrovertible?<br />
<br />
S: It's in the Indian Ocean so it wouldn't be Atlantis, it would be Indiana.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, I suppose that would be more accurate.<br />
<br />
B: No – Indianis.<br />
<br />
S: Indianis<br />
<br />
E: Indianis. <br />
<br />
B: I kinda like it.<br />
<br />
E: There are a few outlets out there; not exactly of BBC quality, with their own headlines, including "Fragments of ancient continent Atlantis found." And Atlantis is all in caps with an exclamation point and the word "found" is as well. And another one that says "Is this the real Atlantis?"<br />
<br />
S: Nobody knows.<br />
<br />
E: So, you know. Jees, that was not predictable at all that some people would be jumping all over the Atlantis part of the story. But, it has nothing to do with Atlantis whatsoever.<br />
<br />
S: Zip. Zero. Nada.<br />
<br />
E: Nada. Nope. This article's focus is on the study published in the journal Nature Geoscience. And like you said, Steve, the researchers have found evidence for the land mass that would have existed up to about 85 million years ago. Can I give you a quick little story to set this all up? So, a long time ago in a galaxy called the Milky Way, almost a billion years ago, and that was before iTunes and compact discs and vaccinations, on the earth there existed a super-continent. A super-continent is one very large continent. While at the same time, there are no other significant land masses anywhere on the earth. There have been many super-continents that have existed on the earth over the history of the earth.<br />
<br />
S: A few.<br />
<br />
E: Just a few. Well, about a dozen or so that they have listed online. But the super-continent from this particular period of time was called Rodinia. You guys may remember learning, I remember learning in grade school, about the super-continent called Pangaea, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. The most recent one, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: But, <br />
<br />
B: And Gondwana land is the other one, right?<br />
<br />
E: That one, Gondwanaland.<br />
<br />
J: Was that Guanaland? What is that, made of bat poop? The whole island?<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Pangaea, about 300 million years ago. No, Rodinia was well before that, about 750, maybe 800 million years ago. So we're talking a long time ago. As far as this particular new land mass that was discovered goes: picture in your mind a world map, and look in your mind for the country India. Okay? And then, to the south, the island nation of Madagascar. All right. Well, these areas were once connected, a part of Rodinia, and they were smashed up right next to each other. And researchers believe they've found evidence of a sliver of a continent known as, well they call it a microcontinent, that was once tucked between these two masses. But not only have they found the evidence, they're already calling it something. They're calling it Mauritia, named after the tiny island of Mauritius, which is the place where they actually discovered the evidence. So what kind of evidence did they find? Well, they collected samples from a volcanic eruption that took place estimated 9 million years ago, and within the samples of those sands and grains that they took in, were mixed in some much older minerals. They uncovered zircons. Now, zircons are known in geological circles for being found on the continental shelf and they are very, very old. These particular zircons that they found are estimated to be at least 600 million years old. And I read some estimates in some places that they could be almost 2 billion years old. The nearest known outcrop of continental crust that could have produced these zircons is on, well, Madagascar. But it's still very far away. And it's unlikely, they're trying to come up with scenarios by which, how could these zircons have gotten there by other means? They think that this is evidence for a land mass that actually, you know, believes a microcontinent that actually exists out there below the Indian Ocean. And they're going to be doing more studying about it. They're hoping to do more research and being a more detailed mapping of the floor of the Indian Ocean, and continue this research and try to find the sunken continent.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I read the paper itself, and I think what they demonstrated is pretty solid. But the notion that the source of these grains of sands that they examining is this sunken microcontinent that existed between India and Madagascar. That's really just a hypothesis at this point. It's not like they're found the continent or they're proven that it exists. It's just that it would be one possible explanation for why this ancient zircon would be where it is. It sounds plausible, sounds like a reasonable story, but again, I think just a hypothesis.<br />
<br />
B: In this context you always hear them saying "lost" or "sunken" continent. What the hell does "sunken" mean in this context?<br />
<br />
S; Below the water. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah, but<br />
<br />
E: You're right, Bob, it's a mystery.<br />
<br />
B: What's the mechanism? I mean, is it just erosion, like the islands near Hawaii that have been eroded into the sea after they moved off of the volcanic hot spot? I mean, or would some cataclysm happen that actually made it, that shifted the crust and made it sink because of that? I mean . . .<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I think it's more to do with when two land, a land mass breaks apart into two land masses, the piece in, you know, there may be some of it in between the two pieces that breaks apart and sinks under the ocean. That's essentially what they're saying. Just the way the crust broke apart. One interesting thing about the whole supercontinents, et cetera, is that we're still not really sure why continents even exist.<br />
<br />
J: Why? What do you mean? We don't know why they're there?<br />
<br />
S: Actually what happens with plate tectonics is you have, the oceans are constantly turning over like a conveyor belt. So no part of the ocean is any older than a couple hundred million years. Parts of the ocean diving down below a continental plate, and you have rifts in the middle where new ocean floors emerging and spreading. Yeah, so you have this spreading zone and then subduction zone. But the continents are always floating on top of these oceanic plates. So how did that happen in the first place? Once it established itself to be that way, then you could see how it's self-perpetuating. But we're not really sure how that happened to begin with. Which is interesting.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's cool.<br />
<br />
E: It is interesting.<br />
<br />
S: The other thing that's interesting is the result of that is that continents are ancient. That's why stuff that's ancient has to be continental, right, 'cause anything from the ocean can only be a couple hundred million years old. If something's a billion years old, it had to come from a continent. Only the continents are that old.<br />
<br />
E: Yes. Right, right. That's why the zircon's important.<br />
<br />
S: Which is kind of nice. 'Cause if the continents were also occasionally diving underneath other plates and recycling, there wouldn't be fossils.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. We'd lose a lot of information.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Electronic Tattoos <small>(22:36)</small>===<br />
http://www.businessinsider.com/temporary-tattoos-could-make-electronic-telepathy-telekinesis-possible-2013-2<br />
<br />
S: All right. Let's move on. I'm gonna talk about electronic tattoos.<br />
<br />
B: What the hell's that about?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, it has something to do with Fantasy Island.<br />
<br />
S: Here's the headline. You guys tell me what you think about this. "Temporary tattoos could make electronic telepathy possible."<br />
<br />
E: Telepathy!<br />
<br />
''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: I know, I know. If somebody didn't send this to me, I would have used it as a Science or Fiction item.<br />
<br />
E: Sorry!<br />
<br />
S: Evan, you sent me several things I was gonna use for Science or Fiction. But anyway, <br />
<br />
E: Oh, I undermined you totally.<br />
<br />
S: This would have, I would have had Bob going. It's like "Now you're talking about telepathy??" ''(laughter)'' But, yeah. No. No telepathy. So what the technology is is they're essentially flexible electronics that you can apply to skin. And because they're flexible they could move around, they could bend. They're very thin, and they can serve a few functions. One primary function would be that they would essentially be an electrode. No big deal. So it could pick up electrical signals from the skin. So for example, if placed on the scalp, they could detect brain waves. But because this is, like, an electronic circuit, it's not just a dumb electrode, it's an actual circuit, you can build other functionality into it, including a transmitter to transmit signals to, say, a device. It could be used as very small, thin, flexible monitors. And so the technology seems very practical, very useful. I'm sure that this kind of thing is going to find a lot of applications. What I found amusing, maybe irritating, was the reporting of this technology, this, these devices in terms of what the possible applications would be. Because these are electrodes, that could read electrical signals from the brain, they started speculating wildly about the most advanced applications of the brain machine interface. Now we've chatted about this too, but I mean, that's something that would be far enough in the future we cannot say how long it's going to be; that we cannot extrapolate. The brain machine interface we have now are actually very good at, and getting better, at reading movements. So because we can map out the motor strip, you know, the motor cortex, and you know, you can put a lot of electrodes along the motor cortex and then people can learn how to use a robotic arm, for example, just by thinking about what they want it to do because it's interpreting the signals in their motor cortex. So that's about where the technology is now. But telepathy would require being able to read somebody's thoughts. And there the limiting factor isn't the electrodes, you know, it's not the signal.<br />
<br />
B: It's the brain in the skull.<br />
<br />
S: It's interpreting, although even if you had brain surface electrodes that were in incredibly high fidelity reading the EEG, the electrical signals from the brain, we still wouldn't know how to translate it into thoughts.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, how do you turn thought into a digital signal? What's the interpretation? And everybody's would be different. That's the real problem.<br />
<br />
S: Well you'd have to calibrate, you know. And partly the machine would have to calibrate to you but also the user could learn how to use it, you know. But this will not allow for telepathy. That's the bottom line. This doesn't really get us any closer to telepathy. <br />
<br />
E: But the headline! Look at the headline!<br />
<br />
S: The researchers admitted that brain surface electrodes would work better than these. These skin surface electrodes are probably never going to have the fidelity, the discrimination, to be able to read thoughts.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It just makes more sense that they, let's say they surgically implant something that is the analog to digital interface for the brain, then it transmits it to another device and let all the computer power happen somewhere else. It doesn't have to happen on the surface of your skin.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well that's what this would do, too. This would just read signals transmitted to your smart phone and then you could communicate through your smart phone or operate your smart phone with thoughts alone.<br />
<br />
E: Like, if I were to think, dial my home number. It would activate the phone to do something like that?<br />
<br />
S: We're not at that point yet with this. But this could be useful for, like, paraplegic people who want to control a computer screen, or control a robotic device. Because these are very thin and small you could probably have a lot of them. But still, the signal is not as clear as the brain surface's invasive electrodes. So it remains to be seen how much utility these would have. But because these are, the advance here, is that the electrodes are integrated with other elements, such as transmitters, and that they're thin and flexible. You know, so you can put a lot of them on the scalp. You don't have to wear this big massive cap or something that's very unwieldy. So, it does expand the number of possible uses, but it doesn't get over the problem of reading the EEG from the scalp, and therefore telepathy is not one of the applications of this technology in my opinion. However, having said that, they did bring up the notion of sub-vocalizations. Are you guys familiar with that?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, yeah; that's cool stuff.<br />
<br />
J: I don't think we've talked about it on the show, but we, off the show, have talked about it. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, when you are saying words inside your mind, you tend to move your face, tongue and throat muscles in the way that you would if you were speaking them, just much more subtly. And there's actually been some research; I looked; there's not a lot, but there is some published research looking at detecting with skin surface electrodes, the muscle movements in the throat and the face and interpreting these sub-vocalizations. I'm reading some conflicting things, though. You know, some reviews say that being able to go from detecting these sub-vocalizations to actual words has been elusive. But other studies claim that they've been able to distinguish a number of different words from the EMG signals. But it's possible from, a limited set of words, that they can then know which one of those words that the person was thinking. So that's, actually, though . . .<br />
<br />
E: Interesting.<br />
<br />
S: That is plausible and that may just be a matter of incremental progress, and these electrodes, so these tattoos, might apply to that technology. Right? So if you're using this as a way of detecting sub-vocalizations, and the detection and analysis algorithm get sophisticated enough, and the user may be able to learn how to do that. 'Cause you can, I was doing this before the show, I was just thinking to myself and paying attention to what I was doing. And then also tried to maximize my movement, my sub-vocalization movements. You know what I mean? Like you can deliberately accentuate them. <br />
<br />
E: Can you shut them off entirely if you think about it? Or is it just so subtle that you really don't have that level of control over it?<br />
<br />
S: Well in researching this I did find lots of websites, and even some published studies, looking at the question of suppressing sub-vocalizations in order to improve or increase your reading speed. 'Cause apparently the sub-vocalizations slow you down.<br />
<br />
J: So to clarify, Steve, if words are going through my head; if I'm sitting here saying to myself, oh, I've gotta get up early tomorrow morning, or whatever it is, I am having some type of muscular reaction in my throat? Every time?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: If you're reading.<br />
<br />
S: No, even if you're just thinking, words.<br />
<br />
E: Even if you're just thinking the words!<br />
<br />
S: You're saying the words in your head, you are sub-vocalizing those words. Yes.<br />
<br />
E: Right. Okay.<br />
<br />
S: But the question is just, can we detect and interpret those muscle movements with enough precision and discrimination that we could translate that into the words that are in your head, that you're thinking. And this could give you like a fake telepathy. Like a pseudo-telepathy. It's not really telepathy 'cause it's through actual muscle movements. But that could still be really powerful. It still could functionally be telepathy.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: It's really not telepathy. It's probably better termed silent communication.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, imagine the military being able to communicate with each other without having to make any noise. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Or spies. Just it's silent communication. You can imagine dictating in a crowded room without having to speak aloud.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Google Glass <small>(31:25)</small>===<br />
http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/<br />
<br />
S: All right, Jay, let's move on. You're gonna tell us about Google glass.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, baby.<br />
<br />
J: So, yeah, Steve, this is a real milestone. This is one of the pieces of technology that I've been waiting for for a long time. This is the beginning of real augmented reality. To give you a quick definition of what augmented reality is: so imagine a car mechanic that's wearing a pair of sunglasses and a computer is projecting onto the inside of those sunglasses a schematic so that the car mechanic is looking at the car engine and the computer's projecting say, the wiring system. So wherever he turns his head, the, it'll look like it's in 3D so he can see, or he or she can see things that aren't actually visible to the naked eye because the computer is laying that on top of reality. It's like another layer, or putting layers of information on top of reality. Or, a surgeon performing open-heart surgery would be able to see the heart in a 3D view unobstructed by the rest of the tissue surrounding it, or the rib cage, or whatever. You know, having that vantage point gives people the opportunity to achieve things much faster, more precisely and with much greater success overall. Now, I'm not saying that Google glass is offering that to us right now, but what Google is offering is the very first step in true augmented reality. So let me give you a quick list of the features of what it is, and I'll describe to you the actual component that you're wearing is, it's like taking a pair of sunglasses, removing the lenses and then on one side, on one eye, they'll put a, it's like a little module there that has a piece of glass that's hovering in front of one of your eyes. It'll project into your vision onto that piece of glass you're looking through that piece of glass, one of your eyes. It'll project a computer screen that looks like it's floating three or four feet in front of you, that doesn't have any borders or anything of course. And there's simply information there. You know, there's text, there's however, they're showing this information, it's gonna be a varying degree of different things. And you're gonna be talking to it. You're not gonna be using keyboard or a mouse or anything, that you're primarily gonna be using vocalization to turn it on, to tell it what you need it to do. And some of the features that it's launching with are it's gonna be able to record video. What you see, it's gonna record. It's gonna take pictures. You're gonna be able to start Google-Plus hangouts with people. You're gonna be able to search. You're gonna be able to also search photos, which is cool. You're gonna be able to do translations, you're gonna be able to get directions; you're gonna be able to use the Google Now software, which is like iPhone's Siri, where you can ask more complicated questions and actually tell it to do certain things, like take notes, put something in my address book, in my calendar, whatever. You can send messages to people and you can get flight, or there'll be a flight detail database attached, so you can call that up when you need it. You would start each command with "Okay, Glass," as if you were talking to someone. "Okay, Glass, I want you to start recording video right now." "Okay, Glass, stop recording video." The really cool thing about this though, is you take it with you, it connects into your iPhone or to your Android operating system, and it is based off of the Android operating system. And you wear it and you just put it on and you forget that it's there and it just becomes another interface for you. The big thing here is, guys, it truly is the beginning of the next way that we're gonna be interacting and experiencing reality. And it's going to be augmented by computers in a way now that we've really never experienced it before. We're all gonna be able to do things that we normally wouldn't be able to do, even simple things. Like let's say you went to Ikea and you bought a bookshelf. Everybody knows that directions that come from companies like Ikea or whatever, some are better than other, but for the most part having to construct something is a complete and total pain in the ass. This would be showing you what to do. It would be giving you visual cues using the actual things that you're looking at. Like, showing you what pieces connect to each other and where.<br />
<br />
B: And that's the key, Jay. To me that's the key. It's contextual information. It's not, you're not just surfing web pages. You are seeing overlays on reality and it knows what you're looking at, and gives you information based on your environment and what you're interacting with. And that's one of the reasons why this is gonna be so powerful.<br />
<br />
S: All right, Bob, Bob, what would be the porn application?<br />
<br />
J: Oh, my god. Don't even go there.<br />
<br />
B: God. Come on.<br />
<br />
J: Well, Bob's talking about what it will be like down the road, and <br />
<br />
B: I ''have'' to talk about that.<br />
<br />
J: Maybe a future use of this would be that you could tell Google glass "When I'm sitting at my work desk, I want my monitor to appear as if it's here where a physical monitor would be" but when you turn your head away, it stays in that three-dimensional space; you know, if you're looking at your computer monitor and you turn your head to the left, you don't see the monitor anymore, you wouldn't in real life.<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: Now let me be the wet-blanket skeptic. <br />
<br />
E: ''(laughing)'' I was gonna mention something about that.<br />
<br />
S: To bring things down a little bit. So everything that you guys are saying may come to pass at some point, but the thing that we have to keep in mind is that until we put this technology in the hands of lots of people, it's really hard to predict how people will want to use it.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, absolutely.<br />
<br />
S: And what it will be useful for. So all the things that you guys are speculating about, are speculation. So we don't know if this is going to be the smart phone, where everyone's gonna want to have 'em and it's gonna be much more useful than anyone ever thought, or if it's gonna be the Segue. You know, where it's not gonna be so revolutionary. But it'll have a niche where people use it for certain specific things, or, guys, remember the high-definition, high-frame rate situation where there just was something annoying about it, that people have a hard time adapting to.<br />
<br />
B: Ah, you're so full of it<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, adaptation.<br />
<br />
B: That's a horrible analogy. ''(laughter)'' Because this, this isn't, it's not a segue. People were gonna build cities around segue. That was a ridiculous prediction. It's not like a segue at all. This is an improvement on the computer interfaces. I mean computer interfaces, they're not going anywhere. That's a proven technology. It's just another way, it's another type of monitor, Steve. <br />
<br />
S: I know, Bob. I'm just saying, until people start using we won't know, it's like a video phone. We talked about the fact, oh video phones are coming. Well, why wouldn't you use a video phone? And it turns out that for a lot of things you don't wanna be looking at somebody. Why is texting so popular? The use of technology is hard to predict.<br />
<br />
B: I agree. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:06)</small>== <br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Evan. Tell us about last week's Who's That Noisy?<br />
<br />
E: I'll do one better and play for you last week's Who's That Noisy? Who could forget this, this wonderful little sound. Here we go.<br />
<br />
''Bird-like tweeting. The tweet song is repeated several times, pretty much the same each time.''<br />
<br />
E: Definitely not a bird, definitely not a plane. <br />
<br />
S: What is it?<br />
<br />
E: Superman. ''(laughs)'' That is . . . the whistlepig.<br />
<br />
S: The whistlepig.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' The whistlepig. <br />
<br />
''(numerous garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
B: What the hell is a whistlepig?<br />
<br />
E: A groundhog!<br />
<br />
S: Remember, from ''Groundhog's Day''?<br />
<br />
E: We only covered it a few weeks ago.<br />
<br />
J: That's an actual pig?<br />
<br />
S: No, it's a groundhog. The whistlepig is another name for the groundhog.<br />
<br />
E: Right. Woodchuck, is another name for the groundhog. Some people call it a land beaver. And they're all over the place, especially in North America. Very common in northeastern parts of the continent, and in the central United States. Several guesses; only a few correct answers this week came in to us. Congratulations to Wayne Heller. Your name was drawn. You are the winner this week. You're in the drawing for the end-of-the-year contest by which we will put all names in the hat from the week winners and that grand-prize winner will join us on the SGU to play a round of Science or Fiction. All right, so. You guys ready for this week?<br />
<br />
S: Always.<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: It is another noisy we have this week. It's short. Here we go:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Men's voices speaking on some kind of communicators:<br />
Person 1: You're looking a little hot and all your calls will be a little early. (Beep) Person 2: Okay. Person 3: And that looks good here.</blockquote><br />
<br />
J: Isn't that when they made the Six-Million-Dollar Man, and he was about to crash? No?<br />
<br />
E: That's an interesting guess, Jay. No, that's not correct.<br />
<br />
J: I hope at some point in my life I'm gonna be talking to someone and that whistle will comment like the<br />
<br />
S: That call-tone?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I love that.<br />
<br />
E: What I would like to see in the answer for this week is not a generic idea of what you think the noise is. I would like to know pretty exactly where you recognize that noise from. Send us your guess. wtn@theskepticsguide.org; that's the email address for Who's That Noisy submissions. Or you can post it on our forums, sguforums.com. Every week I wish you all the best of <br />
<br />
J: ''(shouting)'' Good luck everybody!<br />
<br />
E: Thank you, Jay. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: I was getting very excited, Evan.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== "Ow!" <small>(40:36)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: All right, we have one question this week. This comes from Joe Shoults. And this is the shortest question we 've ever had.<br />
<br />
J: The answer is six inches.<br />
<br />
E: Four foot one.<br />
<br />
S: Joe writes "Why do we say "ow"? <br />
<br />
B: Wow! What a good question! Holy crap!<br />
<br />
J: Steve, can I try to answer it and see if I'm anywhere near correct?<br />
<br />
S: You can try.<br />
<br />
E: Okay.<br />
<br />
J: The first thing that occurred to me when I read that email when it came in was, well, first, the word is cultural. I'm sure that in other cultures they don't say "ow," they say other things.<br />
<br />
S: Are you sure?<br />
<br />
J: I'm guessing. I'm guessing. <br />
<br />
B: That's my guess as well.<br />
<br />
J: The other thing is I think we're giving a cue to the other mammals around us that we're injured.<br />
<br />
E: Here's my guess. My guess is ow is short for ouch.<br />
<br />
S: Why do we say ouch?<br />
<br />
J: 'Cause ouch is short for ouch-a-daisy.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: He didn't say "why do we say ouch?"; that wasn't the question. Said "why do we say 'ow'?" ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: Don't split hairs. Why do we make a vocalization when we get hurt?<br />
<br />
S: Do you think there's any published scientific research that might enlighten us on that question?<br />
<br />
J: I'm sure you know.<br />
<br />
E: If there is, you have it, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: All of the evolutionary psychological answers, there's no answer to that. ''(laughter)'' This is all hand waving. We don't know. No one knows. You could make up any kind of plausible sounding answer that you like for that. <br />
<br />
J: So I'm right!<br />
<br />
S: The answer is we don't know. That's what the answer is. But I did look at this from a couple of angles, just to see what I could find. One was, 'cause I remember reading this study but I wanted just to see what all the literature was, about swearing and pain perception. I couldn't find anything published about saying "ow" or "ouch," but I could find swearing. And, the research does show that if you swear when you have, like stub your toe, or have physical pain, that your perception of the pain is decreased. It does help.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: However, get this, if you swear all the time, then the benefit of swearing goes down. <br />
<br />
J: Fuck that!<br />
<br />
E: 'Cause you've numbed yourself.<br />
<br />
B: I could see that.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so you have to keep your swearing in reserve for when you stub your toe.<br />
<br />
J: Save it for the pain.<br />
<br />
S: Save it for the pain.<br />
<br />
B: How 'bout, now, what about instead of physical pain, what about emotional pain?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well, we also use it in lots of related ways, like, when somebody says something bad that happened, you might say, "ooo, ouch" as a way of saying, expressing sympathy or if somebody insults you really bad you might say "ouch" like sarcastically. Try to say like, oh you hurt me. I also had the same question, what is the, how international or cross-cultural is "ow" or "ouch." So I looked it up. Here's a smattering of what other cultures say instead of ouch. Ayee. So "ayee" or "ow" are the two main things that cultures say. In French, "ayee"; Thai, "oi"; Spanish, "ai"; Polish, "ouch"; Maltese, "ach"; Iran, "ai" or "ach" or "oof"; Afghanistan, "oof"; Germany, it's a-u-a, "Aua"; Dutch is "ow"; Norwegian, "ow"; Danish, it says a-v, I'm not sure if that's supposed to also be pronounced "ow"; <br />
<br />
E: Probably.<br />
<br />
S: Chinese, the only two-syllable one I came across, "ayo" or "ayah"; Turkish, "ach" or "ai"; so very similar across the cultures. It's mainly a lot of "ai" "ach" "oof" "ow." Very similar.<br />
<br />
J: That's interesting, too, and they're all short.<br />
<br />
S: A lot of a's, o's, yeah, they're all short. The Chinese one was the only one I found that was two syllables.<br />
<br />
J: Very cool. That's so interesting. I love that.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Interview with Jon Ronson <small>(44:20)</small> ==<br />
* Interview with Jon Ronson, recorded at CSICon 2012.<br />
<br />
S: All right, we have a very interesting interview that we recorded last October at CSICon with Jon Ronson.<br />
<br />
''(Music)''<br />
<br />
S: We're sitting here now with Jon Ronson. Jon, welcome back to the Skeptics' Guide.<br />
<br />
JR: It's good to be back. Thank you , Steve. And it's nice to meet you all after I've heard 400 episodes of you.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: Only 381.<br />
<br />
J: Jon, I believe you owe us an apology.<br />
<br />
JR: I do. Last time I was on, it was to talk about my book ''The Psychopath Test'' and it was on my birthday. And it was quite late, it was like 11:00 at night. And unlike me, I was drunk. And I, it turns out that I am a befuddled and slightly angry drunk.<br />
<br />
S: 'Cause we couldn't tell the difference.<br />
<br />
''(garbled comments and laughter)''<br />
<br />
JR: When I listened back I was ashamed. I was ashamed. Mid-sentence I would drift off. I didn't know what I was talking about.<br />
<br />
E: We said "Jon was sharp as ever tonight, wasn't he?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
JR: Well, actually, after the podcast, I accidentally typed my name into Google and I saw somebody saying "God, Jon Ronson sounded weird on Skeptics' Guide." ''(laughter)'' But the reason why was because it was my birthday and I'd been out with my family and I was drunk.<br />
<br />
S: I don't think you told us it was your birthday.<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, it was my birthday. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Warn us next time, okay?<br />
<br />
JR: Yes.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
JR: But yes, you can see now I'm as sharp as a pin. <br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
E: Ouch!<br />
<br />
S: Pithy. Much more pithy.<br />
<br />
JR: Pithy as a pin.<br />
<br />
J: So, Jon, can you please say to me: ''(in a English accent)'' "But of course I was drunk at the time."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
JR: I don't talk like that. Like somebody, like a buffoon from Downton Abbey. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Now you sound like the first of the reboot of the Doctors Who.<br />
<br />
JR: Right. The Doctors Who.<br />
<br />
''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: It was, what was the actor's name? Not David Tennant.<br />
<br />
R: Christopher Eccleston?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, Christopher Eccleston. What kind of accent does he have? Northern.<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, I believe he's from the Northeast. I see him jogging maniacally in a park in North London. <br />
<br />
S: You do?<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, he's a big jogger.<br />
<br />
S: Interesting.<br />
<br />
JR: Maniacal. Like he's really running away something. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Demons . . .<br />
<br />
E: May be.<br />
<br />
R: Personal demons . . . <br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, or . . . Daleks. "(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: Jon, what are you working on now?<br />
<br />
JR: Now I'm starting to write a new book on the subject . . . I don't want to talk too much about it because I don't wanna talk it all out. It always helps me to kind of internalize the thing that I'm writing about. It's kind of on the subject of humiliation. I always like to start with a word. So ''The Psychopath Test'' the word, I guess, was "madness." About how madness is a more powerful engine in our lives than rationality. And in ''The Men Who Stare at Goats'' I guess the word was a phrase, and it was "irrationality at the heart of power." And ''Them'' was like, paranoia at the fringes of society, and the new word is "humiliation." I'm very interested. I was really surprised, actually, I've just brought out this collection called ''Lost at Sea,'' and I was reading it; it's an audiobook, and I was amazed at fifteen years of adventure stories, how often the subject of humiliation comes up. How often people said to me, my greatest fear in life was being humiliated, and here it was coming true. It seems to be a running theme in my stories. <br />
<br />
R: And what about people who don't get humiliated? Are there any people who just . . . <br />
<br />
JR: Well that's another interesting thing. I mean, psychopaths don't get humilitated. <br />
<br />
S: Meaning they're immune to humilitation.<br />
<br />
JR: I think so, yeah. So it seems. They get annoyed, as you know. They get very cross if they feel slighted. So they've got terrible grandiosity issues. But, when they're caught in a lie, they don't feel bad about it. That's one of _________________ big things, feeling unembarrassed about being caught lying. But other people don't get humiliated, too. And I'm really interested in those people.<br />
<br />
J: It's interesting to think, is the most powerful source of humiliation for the average person being caught in a lie, or is it, like, a lot of people will do the default "oh, I'm naked in public, I would be humiliated." That wouldn't bother me at all. <br />
<br />
E: It would bother everyone else.<br />
<br />
J: But I definitely think being caught in a social lie, when people know. Especially like stealing somebody else's work type of lie, would be horrible. That would be horrible, right?<br />
<br />
JR; I can't think of anything worse than being the recipient of some kind of storm like that. Like Jonah Lehrer or Mike Daisey, those people. To me that's like, that's the kind of thing that would wake me up sweating.<br />
<br />
R: And there's so many people right now in what I feel is your field, in a way, like the people who are writing these sometimes slightly fictionalized accounts, but of truthful stories, you know, and David Sedaris went through this. And it's kind of sad, like they're all people I love, and to see that happening. . . <br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, I feel a bit sorry for Jonah Lehrer, because his big crime was inflating Bob Dylan quotes. Or, in fact, inventing them. And as somebody pointed out in the wake of that storm, Bob Dylan's autobiography is full of made-up stuff. Yet, nobody goes for Dylan. It does feel slightly subjective.<br />
<br />
R: Also, you know, sometimes you can't tell what Dylan's saying anyway. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Can't tell what he's ''singing.''<br />
<br />
JR: Another thing that worried me was, before Jonah Lehrer got done for that, he was done for self-plagiarism.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
JR: And I . . . I've never . . .<br />
<br />
S: What is self-plagiarism?<br />
<br />
JR: Well, it's basically using the same material like say in an article for the ''New Yorker'' and a blog for ''Wired.''<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Lifting like word-for-word, same paragraph, and dropping into a different article, usually.<br />
<br />
JR: When I heard that, I thought . . . so he wasn't stealing somebody else's work, he was repeating his own work.<br />
<br />
E: Repeating his own.<br />
<br />
JR: And when I heard that, I thought, Frank Sinatra would sing ''My Way'' every night! You know? Is that the worst crime in the world? I used to do that, and not worry. If I had like a really great line, there's a line in ''The Psychopath Test'' where I say . . . yes, there's a line in ''The Psychopath Test'' where I say, I'm talking about how bankers weren't, were kind of ignored, like the wickedness of hedge-fund managers and stuff, was kind of ignored for a long time and they were getting away with it. And I said the reason why they were getting away with it was because they were boring, and journalists don't like to write about boring people because the more colorful the prose, the better it looks for the journalist. So I said if you want to get away with wielding true malevolent power, be boring. And I'd actually written something very very similar to that a couple years ago in a column for the ''Guardian'' and it was completely ignored, and I thought, this is like a really interesting point. So I was happy to give it another shot in ''The Psychopath Test.'' And sure enough, it's become one of the more popular quotes in that book.<br />
<br />
R: The problem with that, I mean, 'cause what else are you gonna say, every single time? "As I once said." I mean, no.<br />
<br />
JR: I was surprised actually, when that came up as an issue for Jonah, and it worried me that people were gonna start going for journalistic misdeeds too much. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it becomes a witch hunt. And I think some people are doing it because they can. Because we have the technology, if you will, to sift through everything everyone's written. I know Gerald Posner faced that, where someone thought that he had plagiarized part of his book. And then somebody decided to cross reference everything he ever wrote with searching algorithms, where you could search everything he wrote and come up with all these other instances where lines from his research found their way into his books, or his articles without being properly referenced. And he admitted, clearly my process has broken down here and I haven't been keeping track of where these lines were coming from. So he admitted that inadvertently things have crept in, but I don't know who can withstand that kind of really thorough scrutiny. I mean we all have things rattling around in our head that we heard from other people, and if you write a lot, that stuff is gonna end up in what you write. <br />
<br />
JR: Absolutely. It did worry me. It seems to be kind of drifting off a little bit now. The funny thing about Mike Daisey, you know his story; he went to China and<br />
<br />
R: Foxconn.<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, to Foxconn, and was writing about the abuses that Foxconn were . . . everything he wrote was true. But his grave error of judgment was he said he witnessed it all first-hand. The tragedy of Mike Daisey is if he'd stayed in China for a couple of weeks longer, he could have actually got everything that he purported to get. All he had to do was get on a few more planes and go and meet a few more people. And it would have been the greatest expose of Apple of all time. But he didn't.<br />
<br />
R: But I think even if he had, though, he still would have messed with the narrative, because he, that was another huge thing; was not just that it didn't happen to him, but then he was screwing with the narrative not in a way that just makes better story arc but in a way that drastically altered events: where they happened, how they happened. And I feel like even if he had stayed there a few weeks; because what he is at heart is a storyteller, and that's what he values. He doesn't value truth.<br />
<br />
S: But isn't that the problem with journalism in general, is that ultimately it's a storytelling endeavor, and the truth, or the facts, becomes second in importance to that?<br />
<br />
R: Well no, because it's possible, I think, to balance those things; to know how to take what you're seeing . . . it's like taking a photo. You know, you could take a photo; I could take a photo of something out the window right now and then we could have a professional photographer come in and come up with something that's amazingly better. We're both representing the truth, but one of us has a better eye for how to capture it. It's exactly the same.<br />
<br />
S: Well, I think a better analogy there would be then you take it onto to PhotoShop and maybe you color correct it a little bit, or you enhance the contrast. Or then maybe you said, you know what, a tree instead of this building would work a little bit better. That building's ugly. I wanna put a tree there so that it doesn't ruin . . .<br />
<br />
R: Well, yeah, that would be the . . . yeah.<br />
<br />
S: And then there's a slippery slope. I'm talking more about this slippery slope. Of course all good journalism is storytelling. You know, Jon, you know this obviously better than any of us, you're a journalist and an author. You've written, obviously, you've listed your most recent successful books, screenplays, et cetera. And you have to tell a good story. But at the same time you're trying to convey an accurate portrayal of the subject matter. But isn't there this temptation to always tweak it to make the story a little bit better, even if it's not exactly true?<br />
<br />
JR: Well, I always try and make it true. And, a rather good thing about, you know, it's good to, it's, I feel sorry for the likes of Jonah Lehrer for being the one who's thrown into the bonfire. But I guess a good thing about that is it does keep everybody in check. But, I always try to keep a ___________, I have never been, nothing bad's ever happened, you know, I've never . . . <br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Yeah, yeah.<br />
<br />
JR: You know, so I've always been all right. Yeah, but you think about this every time you write something. It's really important. I always think it's the fact that I suffer from anxiety that stops me from transgressing. Like for instance if I was tempted to shape something too much, to shape something so it was no longer accurate, no longer truthful, I would immediately envisage a horrific future. <br />
<br />
E: Right. You play out a worst-case scenario in your head.<br />
<br />
JR: Exactly. Where it begins with Twitter, and it ends with, you know, jumping off a building.<br />
<br />
J: And that gets back to what we were saying earlier though, where a psychopath, or someone that doesn't have those built-in social meters and thresholds is gonna be capable of doing things that people like us won't be.<br />
<br />
JR: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: And you're editing yourself in a way to limit your own anxiety. I do the same thing. I have a very similar process where I'm always thinking about my actions and projecting then into the future. And it happens very seamlessly, right? You don't actually have to put a lot of energy into it. It's just part of your, the way your brain works.<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, absolutely. It's "what-if" scenarios that haunt people with OCD and so on. Yes. Psychopaths don't have that, which makes me suspect that psychopathy is the most pleasant feeling of all the mental disorders. So all of the things that keep us good, anxiety, guilt, remorse and so on, is, am I right in saying, Steven, shift to the amygdala and the central nervous system.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well, the amygdala is part of the central nervous system. But you mean, the frontal cortex is where all of the social mores are, the social morals, the things that give you anxiety so that you internally police yourself and you don't do things because you're afraid of social humiliation. That emotion exists so that we can exist in a society. And in fact what social psychology is showing is that people will essentially cheat exactly as much as they think they'll get away with. And it is, more than anyone else, the fear of social humiliation that keeps us from doing things which are inherently greedy or self-serving. We are totally self-serving unless we think that other people's perception of us being self-serving is no longer in our best interest. So it's ultimately still self-serving.<br />
<br />
J: There's something so unraveling about that.<br />
<br />
S: But that's, we're chimpanzees; that's how we behave. Just in a very sophisticated way. But then again in psychopaths they sort of lack that . . . it must be very freeing. I think that's why they're very charismatic, very compelling characters, 'cause it's like, wow, imagine having the freedom to just really do whatever you want .<br />
<br />
JR: And so difficult to treat, too, because there's no incentive to change. People with anxiety disorders want to get better.<br />
<br />
S: That ties into what you were saying about not liking the haughtiness of skepticism. And that's, I think, one of the challenges that we have. It's hard to tell people they're wrong about something without coming off as being haughty. So . . .<br />
<br />
JR: I mean the way I get away with it is to be very open about my own irrationalities; my anxieties; and people can sort of connect to that, on a sort of flawed level, I guess. People connect to me on a flawed level, and I think that helps. And, I think, yeah, that's a good way around that, is to be . . . . but you do that, Steven. You talk about everybody's rationality. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
JR: You don't say skeptics are perfect.<br />
<br />
S: No, no.<br />
<br />
JR: And that's very likable to do that.<br />
<br />
S: I don't think anyone really does that. I think it's an inadvertent thing that it comes across . . . I think people are looking for a reason to dismiss what the skeptics are saying because they don't like the conclusions. Like, oh, you're just being closed minded and haughty, and it's kind of a cheap shot, I think, oftentimes.<br />
<br />
JR: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: I do think that skeptics have evolved as a community to the point where we realize that that finger-wagging, haughty skeptic is completely ineffectual. If we wanna actually change people's minds. And in fact it's not even really true that, you know . . . we are all irrational. It's a matter of having a process that deals with that and understanding it.<br />
<br />
JR. Yeah. Also, you talked at the beginning about this kind of humiliation idea, and the more open you are about your weaknesses and so on, the less humiliatable you are. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, yeah . . .<br />
<br />
JR: It's like, these things kind of only exist when you're keeping them a secret, keeping them in the darkness.<br />
<br />
S: It is all part of the human narrative, right? So I think that's what you're, Jon, excellent at, as an investigative journalist and a writer, is making your, you are a good storyteller, and the are very human, and you're very much in the stories. But the process comes out, in that, still.<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah. But to me . . . I think this, where I disagreed with what you said was the I think self-deception, so these kind of more serious aspects of things, not the kind of, let's say for want of a better phrase, the sort of, the confirmation bias you find in the corpse instead of the confirmation bias you find in a haunted honty-tonk . . . I actually think people really are interested in this, 'cause I think psychology books are really popular and, you know, Richard Wiseman's books sell a lot of copies, and I think people ''do'' want to know about their own<br />
<br />
S: Yeah<br />
<br />
JR: flawed thought processes, actually. I think. Pleasure to see you all in the flesh. It's strange to actually hear these voices coming out of actual human faces. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: We do have actual human faces.<br />
<br />
E: We've shattered your illusion apparently. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Thanks, Jon.<br />
<br />
JR: Thank you.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:50)</small> ==<br />
''Voiceover: It's time for Science or Fiction''<br />
<br />
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious and I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. You guys ready for this week?<br />
<br />
J: We are ready.<br />
<br />
E: Time to play.<br />
<br />
S: You'll find these are interesting.<br />
<br />
E: Always.<br />
<br />
S: Here we go. [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/osoa-idh022613.php Item number one]. Scientists have developed an imaging system that can look through walls into a burning building and identify survivors that need rescuing. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130225092040.htm Item number two]. A new analysis finds that Spiderman’s webbing would have been strong enough to stop the commuter trains as depicted in the Spiderman 2 movie. [http://now.tufts.edu/news-releases/new-study-shows-viruses-can-have-immune-syste And item number three]. Researchers discover a virus with an adaptive immune system. <br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: Jay, you spoke first, so you get to go first.<br />
<br />
J: The first one about scientists developing an imaging system that can look through walls into a burning building.<br />
<br />
E: Let me guess. Google glasses. <br />
<br />
J: I don't see why I should doubt this. I think that of course it's using temperature difference, I'd imagine, to see where the survivors might be, or, you know, we already have, they already have devices like this where they can see through a hundred smoke-filled room. You know, they go in with the face mask and the oxygen and they're walking through and they hold this thing up and it's, looks like a really big flashlight but it has a viewfinder on it that will show them the heat differences. I just don't see why this one is that big of a leap. So I'm just gonna take that initially right off the list as that's a, that is science. The second one about Spiderman's webbing being strong enough to stop a commuter train, or it would have been, Spiderman's webbing would be that strong if he was using that much spider web, I'm assuming, right Steve? If that were real spider web and there was that much of it, it could do those things?<br />
<br />
S: Yes. That's what the analysis showed.<br />
<br />
J: I would just imagine that that's a yes, if anything I'd like to say I think it would be a lot stronger than that as well because of the things I do know about spider webbing. I don't know if all spider webbing is created equal, if every spider produces the same exact type of thing, I'd imagine there's huge variances in there, but that one seems completely legitimate to me as well. So, I'm left with this last one that researchers discovered a virus with an adaptive immune system. I don't see why that sounds too crazy either. You know, we're talking viruses here, which are these very small, small litter critters that, like bacteria, why should I doubt it? But I'm really gonna go with that last one as the fake 'cause the other two just seem very plausible to me. And here's the roll. And it came up a two. And so, once, me and randomness do not agree.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. All right. Bob?<br />
<br />
B: Let's see, I'll start with 3. The adaptive immune system. That's wicked, if a virus . . . I assume it's somehow grabbing what it needs to create its own immune system. That's pretty amazing. But considering that it can, I mean it's designed to penetrate a cell, and take over genetic machinery, I guess that seems somewhat plausible that it could, that it can somehow, that they found one with an immune system . . . I'm just assuming that it somehow co-opted it from another organization. That just kind of makes sense to me. I really hope that that's true. Let's see, the second one, Spiderman's webbing, yeah, I can totally see that. We all have heard over and over and over just how strong spider web is, and Jay, you're right. There is a huge variance. There's a specific type of spider that creates the strongest drag line silk. If you scale that up, I could see how it would actually work. I mean, Jay, we're talking about a huge amount of momentum. Huge amount of kinetic energy that it has to deal with. But considering that spider silk is also very good at maintaining its stength and stretching, I really believe that this would work. I really hope it does. The first one, this is the one I've got problems with. Yeah, I myself have talked about this specific type of technology where they could actually see through walls and buildings. And it's really amazing, but the technology is a little bit immature, I think, at this stage. It's got tons of potential, but the thing that's throwing me a little bit is the burning building and you've got fire, you've got heat; it can distort images <br />
<br />
J: FIRE!<br />
<br />
B: incredibly. ''(laughter)'' And I think that throwing the fire in the mix is what would make this not a viable technology. Not yet anyway. That's a little bit too advanced. See through a wall? Yeah. But when you throw a fire into the mix, and heat, and the distorting effects that that has. I think you tweaked this one a little bit, so I think that one is the fiction.<br />
<br />
S: And Evan.<br />
<br />
E: Bob and Jay each touched on really good things here on the two that they chose as the fiction, and I was kind of thinking the same thing, so I'm kind of split between those. As far as Spiderman's webbing, strong enough to stop the train. Yeah, I guess if you have enough of it it's, some webs that are produced by spiders are pretty durable material. Pretty strong in their own right. And you just need, I think, it's a matter of quantity at that point. So therefore I'm down to this virus with an adaptive immune system. I don't know, in a way, would that be unfortunate? ''(laughter)'' Would this make viruses more difficult and cause more problems for human beings? The first one about looking though the walls into the burning building and then find the survivors. So, maybe it's not so much about the fire, maybe it's more about finding the survivors and the heat that they're giving off. I'm in a burning building, right? Chances are I'm not in there kind of running around like a chicken with my head cut off, I'm probably just doing whatever I can to find shelter, or maybe I've gone unconscious but not have died from the smoke inhalation. And perhaps that's a key to this, as to how they're able to detect a person who is alive and needs rescuing. So, that means I have to sort of lean towards this virus with the adaptive immune system. I'm gonna go with Jay and say that one is the fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. So you all agree that a new analysis finds that Spiderman's webbing would have been strong enough to stop the commuter train, as depicted in the Spiderman 2 movie. All think that one is science, and that one . . . is . . . science.<br />
<br />
J: All right!<br />
<br />
B: Sweet!<br />
<br />
S: Good job so far, guys.<br />
<br />
E: Thank you.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, this is a project by some physics students and they did all the calculations. Would the webbing have had the strength to stop the momentum plus the engine, they include that as well 'cause it was still running, you know, it wasn't just in<br />
<br />
B: Coasting, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: It wasn't coasting. Would it have been enough to stop the train, and they concluded that it would have been more than strong, more than powerful enough.<br />
<br />
E: More than enough, wow.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it is very, very strong. It's stronger than steel, so if you just imagine steel cables, it kind of visually makes a little bit more sense. But, I would say though, I didn't point this out during . . . 'cause nobody asked, but you know how in that movie where Spiderman just sort of shot the webbing to either side, and then stopped the train. That would have ripped him apart. Even if the webbing wouldn't have been the weak<br />
<br />
B: Right. ''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: But that made him like Superman. I mean, I understand Spiderman is tough, but that, I thought, was ridiculous. He should have shot the web from one side to the other.<br />
<br />
E: Right.<br />
<br />
S: So just the web itself stopped the train. And I think that's the calculation that the physicists did. The students did.<br />
<br />
B: I forgot that Spidey did that. Yeah, that was a little silly, but . . .<br />
<br />
S: So this is students from the University of Leicester, published in the ''Journal of Physics,'' special topics. This was James Forester, Mark Brian and Alex Stone, came up with a fun idea for their senior project. But yeah, not surprising. Spider webbing is ridiculously strong. And some spider webs are stronger than others. They did use webbing from the toughest spider silk that is known. Do you guys know what spider that's from?<br />
<br />
B: I think it's got "bark" in the name, doesn't it?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Darwin's bark spider. Good job.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Strongest known webbing of any spider, Darwin's bark spider.<br />
<br />
E: Damn right.<br />
<br />
S: All right. Let's go back to number one. Scientists have developed an imaging system that look through walls into a burning building and identiy survivors that need rescuing. Bob thinks, is alone in thinking that this one is the fiction. Jay and Evan think this one is science. And this one . . . is . . . the fiction.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, baby.<br />
<br />
S: Good job, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: wow.<br />
<br />
S: Although, Bob, you're right for the exact wrong reason.<br />
<br />
B: Whaa?<br />
<br />
S: Because scientists have developed an infrared digital holography that allows fire fighters to see through flames and image people. So they, they <br />
<br />
B: Well, yes of course, yes.<br />
<br />
S: Not through smoke but through flames.<br />
<br />
B: No, no, no, no, Steve. In my equation was the wall.<br />
<br />
S: Well, the wall was<br />
<br />
B: and the fire. That's what made it difficult. Not the fire. I totally believe they've developed it through fire, but not wall and fire.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. I thought you just said through smoke, but the fire was the problem. All right, fine. But the smoke, that, as you guys all said, that's, infrared imagers will see body heat through smoke. No problem. But the problem has been when there's fire, the heat from the fire obscures the heat from the body and it overwhelms it. Because you have heat sensitive detectors and you have this bright heat source. Especially if you have to zoom in to try to find the person, zooming in will completely overwhelm the sensors. So they developed an instrument that uses digital holography and uses an imaging system without focusing lenses, so that it deals with that problem of getting too much heat, too much, you know, radiation into the system overwhelming the sensors. And they were able to use it to separate the image of a person from the background noise of flame. <br />
<br />
B: That's awesome.<br />
<br />
S: But this, you have to be inside the building with the person. So the bit that I changed was imaging from the outside. And you're right, there is, we talked about this too, technology for looking through walls. But it's not nearly, at this point, where you could look at a burning building, go Oh, there's a person on the second floor, in the closet, or whatever. This means that researchers discover a virus with an adaptive immune system is science. This one's pretty cool.<br />
<br />
B: Cool. Yeah, that's really cool.<br />
<br />
J: Awesome.<br />
<br />
S: Do you know what the virus is, Bob? <br />
<br />
B: No. The, no, I don't know what the, I don't know.<br />
<br />
S: It's a bacteriophage.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, a phage, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: It's a virus that eats bacteria, that infects and kills bacteria.<br />
<br />
E: That's good.<br />
<br />
S: And the virus has adopted the adaptive immune system from a cholera bacteria. Interestingly, they think that it is, over its history it incorporated genes from bacteria in order to co-opt its adaptive immune even though<br />
<br />
B: Tricky bastard.<br />
<br />
S: the modern cholera that it infects doesn't have those genes anymore.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' Oh, awesome. A blast from the past.<br />
<br />
S: So this makes this bacteriophage, this virus, much more deadly to the bacteria. It's much more effective. It infects it, kills it, replicates, spreads, goes into more bacteria, infects them, kills them, very effective. Evan, this would, if anything, it would be a good thing. These are viruses that do not infect people. They infect bacteria, and <br />
<br />
E: I was hoping, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: And it's actually possible to use them as a way of fighting off a bacterial infection. If you think about it, they're little machines, bacteria-killing machines. This is being developed as a bacteria-fighting technology. This bit about having an adaptive immune system actually can make them more effective. So it would be nice if it comes to fruition because of the problems we're facing with anti-bac, with antibiotic resistance. Pretty cool. All right, well, good job, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: Finally.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:13:44)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: Jay, do you have a quote for us this week?<br />
<br />
J: Um hm. Steve, I have a great quote. It was sent in by a co-host named Steven No- No-vel-lo.<br />
<br />
?: Novelli.<br />
<br />
B: NAH-vela.<br />
<br />
J: From a – oh, he lives in Connecticut, Evan. Did you ever hear of this guy?<br />
<br />
S: I'm vaguely familiar with him, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, he lives in your house! Get out!! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Look behind you!<br />
<br />
J: And another coincidence, this is a Yale professor. So Steve, a Yale professor sent a quote from a Yale professor. Did this guy give you like five bucks? What's the deal, Steve? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: I think your identity's been stolen.<br />
<br />
S: I just found the quote and thought it was appropriate.<br />
<br />
J: This is Edward Tufte, and he said or wrote:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The world is much more interesting than any one discipline.</blockquote><br />
<br />
That's from Yale professor, Mr. ''(shouting)'' Edward Tufte!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I like that because we talk about that all the time. Everyone has their little perspective on reality based upon whatever their expertise is, but the world is so much more complicated that no one discipline can capture it all, you know?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, we brought this up many, many times. I think even last week I said there are scientists who are great at something, whatever their specialty is, but when it comes down to a lot of the other things that they're interested in that they don't have a specialty in, they think that they can apply their same level of assurance to those things as their specialty, and they fall flat. It's a deadly combination of being intelligent and blind to critical thinking.<br />
<br />
B: Hey, what about the corollary to that – the universe is much more interesting than any one world. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's a <br />
<br />
E: Polyverse. Multiverse. Yay multiverse.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>(1:15:27)</small> ==<br />
<br />
B: Guys, I'm so excited about NECSS. I cannot wait to go. It's gonna be such a fun weekend. I'm especially excited, not only for Steven and George's little workshop that they're gonna do, I think that's on Friday, right?<br />
<br />
S: Little workshop? ''(laughter)'' ''(garbled comments)'' The little workshop of horrors. ''(more garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
B: There's only two people in that workshop. But I'm most excited about the keynote, physicist Leonard Mlodinow. He's gonna be so fascinating. I've read some of his stuff and seen some of what he's done, and I'm just so excited to see and meet this guy and see what he's got to say. It's just gonna be such an incredible weekend. I can't wait!<br />
<br />
S: He wrote ''The Drunkard's Walk.''<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Classic.<br />
<br />
S: And also, I didn't know this, he co-wrote ''A Briefer History of Time'' with Stephen Hawking.<br />
<br />
J: I said that. Yeah, I told you guys about it. You don't remember?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah, that's right; that was him. Oh wow.<br />
<br />
S: He's a great speaker. And we haven't met him or interviewed him before, so it's gonna be awesome.<br />
<br />
J: Also, Steve, what about Jon Ronson? He's going.<br />
<br />
S: Jon Ronson's now on the lineup as well. He's hilarious. I love that guy. He has that perfect dry sense of humor.<br />
<br />
E: British wit. It's wonderful.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. I love it.<br />
<br />
J: Very humble guy, too. <br />
<br />
S: Self-deprecating.<br />
<br />
J: So happy that he just didn't have an ego attached. Like, he's just a great guy.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Guys, also, before we go, I want to mention briefly that the Science-Based Medicine crew has published a series of twelve e-books which are compilations of our best posts on specific topics. So you have the Science-Based Medicine's Guide to Homeopathy, Guide to Naturopathy, Guide to Acupuncture, et cetera. Twelve topics. You can get these through Kindle, through iBooks, or through, or for the Nook, through Barnes & Noble. The JREF, the James Randi Educational Foundation, is being kind enough to be the publisher of these for us. So this is a way of supporting Science-Based Medicine and the JREF at the same time. I understand they make fabulous gifts. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: I'll take four!<br />
<br />
S: You can take twelve. So check it out. You can go to the Science-Based Medicine website, and there are permalinks on the website for them, but also the post describing them will be at the top for awhile, just so people can find it easily. So check 'em out. And, thanks for joining me this week everyone.<br />
<br />
B: You're welcome, Steve.<br />
<br />
J: Thanks, Steve.<br />
<br />
E: Thank you, Dr. N.<br />
<br />
S: And until next week, this is your Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_398&diff=6422SGU Episode 3982013-04-26T00:06:47Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 398<br />
|episodeDate = 2<sup>nd</sup> March 2013<br />
|episodeIcon = File:E-tattoo.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|guest1 = JR: Jon Ronson<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-02.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=398<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45209.0.html<br />
|qowText = The world is much more interesting than any one discipline.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tufte Edward Tufte]<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine <br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, February 27, 2013 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: Hey, guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Ah. Kum bah wa, everyone.<br />
<br />
B: Kum bah yay, what was that?<br />
<br />
E: Kum bah ya, no. Kum bah wa. Japanese for good evening.<br />
<br />
S: Good evening.<br />
<br />
E: Lots of SGU listeners in Japan. We know a few. <br />
<br />
S: So apparently Rebecca has some kind of phlegm situation going on. <br />
<br />
E: I didn't know she was Amish.<br />
<br />
S: We're trying to decide if she has the flu, whooping cough, or strep throat.<br />
<br />
J: Well, get this, guys. So Rebecca emails us and says that she's not feeling well; that she woke up really late today, and she's been basically zonked all day. And at the same time, we have a little whooping cough scare going on over here with the newborn. This is what happened. My sister-in-law came to visit from Denver. And in the Midwest you know that the whooping cough incidences are higher and everything and I just didn't really think much of it other than everyone in the family got the tdap vaccination, which is the whooping cough<br />
<br />
S: Did she and her family get the tdap?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, they did. What I found out today was that, like many of the vaccines that we get, you know they're guessing at which strain is gonna be the one that's gonna hit that year,<br />
<br />
S: No, hang on a minute, Jay. What you're describing is relevant for the flu. With the whooping cough, it's not that there's like a different strain hitting every year, it's just that tdap covers only a very narrow number of strains and the virus has mutated. You know, it just, new strains are developing. But it's not like there's a seasonal strain like the flu. It's a little bit different.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I didn't mean to confuse that. I know, like, exactly what you said, that there is a newer version of it that just wasn't covered by that particular vaccination that we got. <br />
<br />
S: yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So, her sister left on Monday morning. She called us up today, we're recording on Wednesday. She said "Guys, I had a bad cold on my way home, and now it's turning into something that's very, what I would consider to be whooping cough-like.<br />
<br />
E: Yeesh.<br />
<br />
J: So we called up our doctor, you know, I have a three-and-a-half-week-old in the house now, and you know, like, very dialed into this. And we called up the doctor up and me like "What's up? Like what do we do? What happens?" And pertussis is a bacteria, it's not a virus. So they have an anti-biotic for it. <br />
<br />
E: Anti-biotic. Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So, what do you call it, Steve? Erythromycin? <br />
<br />
S: Erythromycin, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Erythromycin, yeah. So that's the one that they use for it. And it's the mega-dose, like two pills the first day and then you take like this mega-dose thing for four days. Of course the baby's taking the liquid form and everything. But I'm sitting there tonight with my wife and we're giving the baby its first medication, and it's freakin' whooping cough medication! Like I wanted to strangle people. Thank you everybody for not . . .<br />
<br />
S: Anyone who has never gotten vaccinated for whooping cough, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Something that we could<br />
<br />
E: Way to blow the herd immunity; way to go.<br />
<br />
J: We could get rid of it. Did you guys see the info-graphic of . . . the CDC puts out information every year, and somebody made an info-graphic of the incidence of morbidity before and after the vaccination for a particular disease came and went. Right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And right out of the gate, things like smallpox and stuff, I don't remember the exact numbers, but we have certain diseases where there was like a half a million people dying a year, down to zero. After the vaccination. And there's like, in this info-graphic, I think there was more than a dozen of them. It was incredible. Like you see the numbers, how dramatically different they are. Right there. That's a hundred percent proof. They work. And yet people are walking around out there ''today'' and they don't care; that information is meaningless to them. How? Why?<br />
<br />
B: Well what is the worst-case scenario with pertussis? I mean, how bad could it get? <br />
<br />
J: It can kill you, Bob; it can kill a baby.<br />
<br />
E: Death.<br />
<br />
B: That's bad.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there was that famous case in Australia where a baby caught, Dana McCaffery, caught whooping cough in a community that had very low vaccination rates because of the Australian anti-vaccination network preaching against vaccines, and, the baby caught it from unvaccinated people. And died. 'Cause the child was too young to be vaccinated. It's one of the populations that need to be protected by herd immunity.<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(4:33)</small> ==<br />
* March 2, 1983: Compact Disc players and discs are released for the first time in the United States and other markets. They had been available only in Japan before then.<br />
<br />
S: Evan, so you're filling in for Rebecca this week for This Day in Skepticism.<br />
<br />
E: I said "Good evening" in Japanese to start the show. And I did so because the compact disc, you guys remember what compact discs are, CDs,<br />
<br />
S: They're still, they're still used today.<br />
<br />
E: They are. Their first, most common usage was of course for music storage, right? Playing music. Put 80 minutes of uncompressed audio on one of those things. That's 737 megabytes of data. What do you think of that? So in Japan, is where the CDs were first, widely became available, in October of '82. However, on March 2nd of 1983, compact discs and their players were released for the first time in the United States and other markets around the world, whereas they'd only been available in Japan before but finally they came to the United States, and I remember this vividly. It was a big f'ing deal, for me and my 13-year-old friends and stuff who were all, in our own opinions, very big into music. And it was a rush to see who would get the first CD, who would be able to afford the first CD player. It was kind of bragging rights, in a sense. Do you guys remember?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah. Instantly replaced tapes, records; 8-tracks had already died by then.<br />
<br />
E: Thank goodness.<br />
<br />
S: Buy, yeah, and think about it, guys. Thirty years! And they're still a perfectly acceptable technology. I still buy CDs for music. <br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
S: Sure.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, man. I just download it all.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but think about it. A CD, you can then rip it into any quality MP3 you want, which you own, without any DRM, and you have the CD for a backup. And it's still cost-effective. It's not like you're saving money by downloading. So it's still a perfectly viable technology. It's had a lot of longevity.<br />
<br />
B: It's all right, I guess. I like, I hear a song that I like. Like, oh boy, that sounds really good. And I buy it. Within literally four minutes I have it on my iPhone and I'm listening to it. That's awesome.<br />
<br />
S: I do that, too, but, if there's an album coming out and I know I want the whole album, I'll get it on a CD. <br />
<br />
E: Something to remember, guys, is that when you purchase a CD, you're purchasing something physical that you actually own. And when you purchase a license to get a music or something you download through iTunes or something, there's a question, there's debates going on right now in the courts as to how much ownership do you actually have over that thing? In other words, can you put it into your estate and leave it to your heirs?<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And they are fighting that. You know, the record industry, or industries, don't want those rights to be transferred on to descendents. Where, but with a CD you're guaranteed. That is yours, it's physical, you can do whatever the heck you want with it. So, keep that in mind also in the debate about, you know, what medium, what format you're gonna use for your music.<br />
<br />
B: That's messed up.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Life Around Dying Stars <small>(7:32)</small>===<br />
http://phys.org/news/2013-02-future-evidence-extraterrestrial-life-dying.html#ajTabs<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Bob, talk about looking for life around dying stars.<br />
<br />
B: If you insist.<br />
<br />
S: I do.<br />
<br />
B: So guys, <br />
<br />
E: Like Mickey Rooney, are we talking? What are we talking here, dying stars?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, boy. Guys, when you think of an extraterrestrial planet, especially one that supports life, what do you think of? Do you think of, you've got this planet orbiting a parent star that's kind of like our sun, right? Maybe it's a little bit bigger than our sun, maybe it's a little bit smaller. And of course, if that's the case, the habitable zone around the star changes because of how big and bright the star is.<br />
<br />
S: Now, Bob, I think of Tatooine with two suns. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Nice orchestral music playing.<br />
<br />
S: Or Rigel 7 with a big planet in the distance with rings around it.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but, still, it's like a, it's a real star, it's like a star that <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, not a fake star.<br />
<br />
B: It's fusing hydrogen into helium. No, but it's not a ''dead'' star, and that's the point here. There's a new theoretical study that finds that the most likely place possibly to find life on another planet may be around a dead star. More specifically, of course, a white dwarf. You know, I'm not talking about a neutron star or black hole. But not only that, they think they might be able to actually find one of these planets in the next ten years. Which seems like a pretty bold prediction.<br />
<br />
E: But Bob, isn't a white dwarf after the star went through its initial sort of expansion then came back in on itself. Wouldn't it have kind of destroyed things on that<br />
<br />
B: Well, exactly. And that's the huge problem. That's the first thing I thought of, well how can that be? A white dwarf is a dead star. It's a corpse of a sun-like star, at the end of its, you know in its old age it swells into a red giant and it totally crisps any of the planets that were nearby, but before it expels a lot of its mass, making the beautifully misnomered planetary nebula. So what's left is this collapsed core. It's about as big as the earth, but it's got the mass, it could have a mass of more than the sun. 1.4 solar masses, I think, is the ________________________ limit for that. So that's a lot of mass in a really tiny place. So clearly it's unbelievably dense, right? If you had a ton of white dwarf matter, if you could do that, you could fit it into a matchbox. I mean it's super, super tiny. You can thank the electron degeneracy pressure for that. But there's no nuclear reactions going on to produce energy, but because it's relatively small it could radiate it's remaining heat for literally billions of years. So clearly, then, this thing could have its own little Goldilocks zone to support life, even though it's really not even a star anymore. It's not creating energy, but it's just radiating away the energy that's contained in it for many, many, many eons. So then the next question then, Evan, which ties into your comment, was how does the planet get there, because the red giant's gonna wipe out anything that's nearby. Probably anything that's in the Goldilocks zone. So there's actually two ways that could happen. One might, you might predict, a planet can migrate in from the outskirts of a solar system; we've seen that with hot Jupiters: Jupiter-sized planets that have orbits closer than Mercury. How the hell did they get there? Well they can actually migrate in through the solar system. But there's another way. A planet can also form from the leftover dust and gas; and that, of course, would be a second-generation world, which I think is pretty cool. Now of course, though, this planet would have to get pretty damned close, since the heat source is so small and dim compared to regular living stars . . .<br />
<br />
S: Bob, do we know that either of those can actually happen around a white dwarf, though?<br />
<br />
B: The thing here, though, with this theoretical study, Steve, is that they ran these really sophisticated simulations and they've pretty much shown in the simulation everything that I'm talking about.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
T<br />
B: That this can happen; they're incredibly confident that it could happen. They can think of no reason why it wouldn't happen. Now, it's not like every white dwarf is gonna have one these. They're saying that among the 500 closest white dwarves to the sun, they might find one or two that have planetary bodies in orbit around it that could support life. So, you know, one or two in 500 isn't great odds, but there's lots of stars and we can look at a lot of different things.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
B: So, the interesting thing is, as you could imagine, these planets would have to be very close to the white dwarf in order to get enough heat to have liquid water and life evolve. So that turns out to be only about a million miles away, which is what one over ninety-three, wait, sorry. And that's, our orbit's 93 million miles, so it's way, way, way close to it. And it's year, of course, would only be about ten hours long, which is an amazingly fast orbit so that would, I cal . . .<br />
<br />
E: That's a party every ten hours, oh my gosh.<br />
<br />
B: I calculated Rebecca would be over 30,000 years old if she lived on that planet. ''(laughter)'' So, all right. So we've got this dead star that could conceivably keep a nearby planet warm enough for life, so we've got that. We've got a couple different ways for a planet to arrive or form nearby. So then the next interesting question is, how do we detect this thing? And, if you regularly listen to this show, I think you probably know: the transit method, right? A planet moves between us and their star. The output, the light output dips, and bam! You've detected a planet. Of course, it's a little bit more complicated than that, but that's essentially the idea. Now in this scenario it's actually even better. Now think of this system, though. You've got a planet real close to a white dwarf and the white dwarf is so tiny, I mean they could be comparable in size, so that when this planet eclipses the white dwarf, you're gonna have a huge dip in the light output. It would be an obvious signal. It would leap out and say "whoa!" This starlight almost completely disappeared.<br />
<br />
S: But the plane of that system would have to be perfectly aligned with us.<br />
<br />
B: Yes, it would have to be. But even if it wasn't, you could still occlude half the star or 33 percent, and that still would be really really good. That's not even the best part. The real icing on the cake for this is that the white dwarf emits so much less light it becomes much easier to determine the composition of the atmosphere of the planet in orbit around it. And it turns out that after the simulation I was talking about, they showed that after just a few hours of observation instead of something like hundreds of hours, we would know that the planet has perhaps water vapor or maybe oxygen in it. And oxygen would, that would be gargantuan news. That would be huge because, on earth anyway, oxygen is created by life. You take away life from the planet earth and it would slowly diminish, the oxygen would just disappear. It would dissolve into the oceans, it would oxidize the surface, and if we found a sizable amount of oxygen on a planet, I think it'd be pretty solid indication that there's probably some kind of life on the planet producing that oxygen. And if not, maybe it's some kind of alien machine that's creating and it wouldn't matter 'cause in that case we would find life anyway. So, either way, it's a win-win!<br />
<br />
S: So now we've just gotta look for them.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, and the James Webb, the James Webb's a big thing, that once that guy comes online, that telescope comes online, I think, jees, I'm not sure when, but within a few years or so.<br />
<br />
S: They plan on a 2018 launch date.<br />
<br />
B: That is gonna have what it needs to really survey these white dwarves and find these planets and maybe find a planet that most likely has life on it. And how huge would that be; talk about the science story of the millennia, let alone the year!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we'll probably cover that one.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, maybe. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Ancient Lost Continent <small>(15:06)</small>===<br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21551149<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Evan, I read<br />
<br />
E: Yeah!<br />
<br />
S: that geologists claim they have found a lost sunken continent.<br />
<br />
E: You read correctly, Steve. And courtesy of the BBC, their headline reads "Fragments of ancient continent buried under the Indian Ocean."" So, what do you think? Is this it? They finally found Atlantis? Is the evidence incontrovertible?<br />
<br />
S: It's in the Indian Ocean so it wouldn't be Atlantis, it would be Indiana.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, I suppose that would be more accurate.<br />
<br />
B: No – Indianis.<br />
<br />
S: Indianis<br />
<br />
E: Indianis. <br />
<br />
B: I kinda like it.<br />
<br />
E: There are a few outlets out there; not exactly of BBC quality, with their own headlines, including "Fragments of ancient continent Atlantis found." And Atlantis is all in caps with an exclamation point and the word "found" is as well. And another one that says "Is this the real Atlantis?"<br />
<br />
S: Nobody knows.<br />
<br />
E: So, you know. Jees, that was not predictable at all that some people would be jumping all over the Atlantis part of the story. But, it has nothing to do with Atlantis whatsoever.<br />
<br />
S: Zip. Zero. Nada.<br />
<br />
E: Nada. Nope. This article's focus is on the study published in the journal Nature Geoscience. And like you said, Steve, the researchers have found evidence for the land mass that would have existed up to about 85 million years ago. Can I give you a quick little story to set this all up? So, a long time ago in a galaxy called the Milky Way, almost a billion years ago, and that was before iTunes and compact discs and vaccinations, on the earth there existed a super-continent. A super-continent is one very large continent. While at the same time, there are no other significant land masses anywhere on the earth. There have been many super-continents that have existed on the earth over the history of the earth.<br />
<br />
S: A few.<br />
<br />
E: Just a few. Well, about a dozen or so that they have listed online. But the super-continent from this particular period of time was called Rodinia. You guys may remember learning, I remember learning in grade school, about the super-continent called Pangaea, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. The most recent one, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: But, <br />
<br />
B: And Gondwana land is the other one, right?<br />
<br />
E: That one, Gondwanaland.<br />
<br />
J: Was that Guanaland? What is that, made of bat poop? The whole island?<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Pangaea, about 300 million years ago. No, Rodinia was well before that, about 750, maybe 800 million years ago. So we're talking a long time ago. As far as this particular new land mass that was discovered goes: picture in your mind a world map, and look in your mind for the country India. Okay? And then, to the south, the island nation of Madagascar. All right. Well, these areas were once connected, a part of Rodinia, and they were smashed up right next to each other. And researchers believe they've found evidence of a sliver of a continent known as, well they call it a microcontinent, that was once tucked between these two masses. But not only have they found the evidence, they're already calling it something. They're calling it Mauritia, named after the tiny island of Mauritius, which is the place where they actually discovered the evidence. So what kind of evidence did they find? Well, they collected samples from a volcanic eruption that took place estimated 9 million years ago, and within the samples of those sands and grains that they took in, were mixed in some much older minerals. They uncovered zircons. Now, zircons are known in geological circles for being found on the continental shelf and they are very, very old. These particular zircons that they found are estimated to be at least 600 million years old. And I read some estimates in some places that they could be almost 2 billion years old. The nearest known outcrop of continental crust that could have produced these zircons is on, well, Madagascar. But it's still very far away. And it's unlikely, they're trying to come up with scenarios by which, how could these zircons have gotten there by other means? They think that this is evidence for a land mass that actually, you know, believes a microcontinent that actually exists out there below the Indian Ocean. And they're going to be doing more studying about it. They're hoping to do more research and being a more detailed mapping of the floor of the Indian Ocean, and continue this research and try to find the sunken continent.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I read the paper itself, and I think what they demonstrated is pretty solid. But the notion that the source of these grains of sands that they examining is this sunken microcontinent that existed between India and Madagascar. That's really just a hypothesis at this point. It's not like they're found the continent or they're proven that it exists. It's just that it would be one possible explanation for why this ancient zircon would be where it is. It sounds plausible, sounds like a reasonable story, but again, I think just a hypothesis.<br />
<br />
B: In this context you always hear them saying "lost" or "sunken" continent. What the hell does "sunken" mean in this context?<br />
<br />
S; Below the water. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah, but<br />
<br />
E: You're right, Bob, it's a mystery.<br />
<br />
B: What's the mechanism? I mean, is it just erosion, like the islands near Hawaii that have been eroded into the sea after they moved off of the volcanic hot spot? I mean, or would some cataclysm happen that actually made it, that shifted the crust and made it sink because of that? I mean . . .<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I think it's more to do with when two land, a land mass breaks apart into two land masses, the piece in, you know, there may be some of it in between the two pieces that breaks apart and sinks under the ocean. That's essentially what they're saying. Just the way the crust broke apart. One interesting thing about the whole supercontinents, et cetera, is that we're still not really sure why continents even exist.<br />
<br />
J: Why? What do you mean? We don't know why they're there?<br />
<br />
S: Actually what happens with plate tectonics is you have, the oceans are constantly turning over like a conveyor belt. So no part of the ocean is any older than a couple hundred million years. Parts of the ocean diving down below a continental plate, and you have rifts in the middle where new ocean floors emerging and spreading. Yeah, so you have this spreading zone and then subduction zone. But the continents are always floating on top of these oceanic plates. So how did that happen in the first place? Once it established itself to be that way, then you could see how it's self-perpetuating. But we're not really sure how that happened to begin with. Which is interesting.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's cool.<br />
<br />
E: It is interesting.<br />
<br />
S: The other thing that's interesting is the result of that is that continents are ancient. That's why stuff that's ancient has to be continental, right, 'cause anything from the ocean can only be a couple hundred million years old. If something's a billion years old, it had to come from a continent. Only the continents are that old.<br />
<br />
E: Yes. Right, right. That's why the zircon's important.<br />
<br />
S: Which is kind of nice. 'Cause if the continents were also occasionally diving underneath other plates and recycling, there wouldn't be fossils.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. We'd lose a lot of information.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Electronic Tattoos <small>(22:36)</small>===<br />
http://www.businessinsider.com/temporary-tattoos-could-make-electronic-telepathy-telekinesis-possible-2013-2<br />
<br />
S: All right. Let's move on. I'm gonna talk about electronic tattoos.<br />
<br />
B: What the hell's that about?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, it has something to do with Fantasy Island.<br />
<br />
S: Here's the headline. You guys tell me what you think about this. "Temporary tattoos could make electronic telepathy possible."<br />
<br />
E: Telepathy!<br />
<br />
''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: I know, I know. If somebody didn't send this to me, I would have used it as a Science or Fiction item.<br />
<br />
E: Sorry!<br />
<br />
S: Evan, you sent me several things I was gonna use for Science or Fiction. But anyway, <br />
<br />
E: Oh, I undermined you totally.<br />
<br />
S: This would have, I would have had Bob going. It's like "Now you're talking about telepathy??" ''(laughter)'' But, yeah. No. No telepathy. So what the technology is is they're essentially flexible electronics that you can apply to skin. And because they're flexible they could move around, they could bend. They're very thin, and they can serve a few functions. One primary function would be that they would essentially be an electrode. No big deal. So it could pick up electrical signals from the skin. So for example, if placed on the scalp, they could detect brain waves. But because this is, like, an electronic circuit, it's not just a dumb electrode, it's an actual circuit, you can build other functionality into it, including a transmitter to transmit signals to, say, a device. It could be used as very small, thin, flexible monitors. And so the technology seems very practical, very useful. I'm sure that this kind of thing is going to find a lot of applications. What I found amusing, maybe irritating, was the reporting of this technology, this, these devices in terms of what the possible applications would be. Because these are electrodes, that could read electrical signals from the brain, they started speculating wildly about the most advanced applications of the brain machine interface. Now we've chatted about this too, but I mean, that's something that would be far enough in the future we cannot say how long it's going to be; that we cannot extrapolate. The brain machine interface we have now are actually very good at, and getting better, at reading movements. So because we can map out the motor strip, you know, the motor cortex, and you know, you can put a lot of electrodes along the motor cortex and then people can learn how to use a robotic arm, for example, just by thinking about what they want it to do because it's interpreting the signals in their motor cortex. So that's about where the technology is now. But telepathy would require being able to read somebody's thoughts. And there the limiting factor isn't the electrodes, you know, it's not the signal.<br />
<br />
B: It's the brain in the skull.<br />
<br />
S: It's interpreting, although even if you had brain surface electrodes that were in incredibly high fidelity reading the EEG, the electrical signals from the brain, we still wouldn't know how to translate it into thoughts.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, how do you turn thought into a digital signal? What's the interpretation? And everybody's would be different. That's the real problem.<br />
<br />
S: Well you'd have to calibrate, you know. And partly the machine would have to calibrate to you but also the user could learn how to use it, you know. But this will not allow for telepathy. That's the bottom line. This doesn't really get us any closer to telepathy. <br />
<br />
E: But the headline! Look at the headline!<br />
<br />
S: The researchers admitted that brain surface electrodes would work better than these. These skin surface electrodes are probably never going to have the fidelity, the discrimination, to be able to read thoughts.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It just makes more sense that they, let's say they surgically implant something that is the analog to digital interface for the brain, then it transmits it to another device and let all the computer power happen somewhere else. It doesn't have to happen on the surface of your skin.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well that's what this would do, too. This would just read signals transmitted to your smart phone and then you could communicate through your smart phone or operate your smart phone with thoughts alone.<br />
<br />
E: Like, if I were to think, dial my home number. It would activate the phone to do something like that?<br />
<br />
S: We're not at that point yet with this. But this could be useful for, like, paraplegic people who want to control a computer screen, or control a robotic device. Because these are very thin and small you could probably have a lot of them. But still, the signal is not as clear as the brain surface's invasive electrodes. So it remains to be seen how much utility these would have. But because these are, the advance here, is that the electrodes are integrated with other elements, such as transmitters, and that they're thin and flexible. You know, so you can put a lot of them on the scalp. You don't have to wear this big massive cap or something that's very unwieldy. So, it does expand the number of possible uses, but it doesn't get over the problem of reading the EEG from the scalp, and therefore telepathy is not one of the applications of this technology in my opinion. However, having said that, they did bring up the notion of sub-vocalizations. Are you guys familiar with that?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, yeah; that's cool stuff.<br />
<br />
J: I don't think we've talked about it on the show, but we, off the show, have talked about it. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, when you are saying words inside your mind, you tend to move your face, tongue and throat muscles in the way that you would if you were speaking them, just much more subtly. And there's actually been some research; I looked; there's not a lot, but there is some published research looking at detecting with skin surface electrodes, the muscle movements in the throat and the face and interpreting these sub-vocalizations. I'm reading some conflicting things, though. You know, some reviews say that being able to go from detecting these sub-vocalizations to actual words has been elusive. But other studies claim that they've been able to distinguish a number of different words from the EMG signals. But it's possible from, a limited set of words, that they can then know which one of those words that the person was thinking. So that's, actually, though . . .<br />
<br />
E: Interesting.<br />
<br />
S: That is plausible and that may just be a matter of incremental progress, and these electrodes, so these tattoos, might apply to that technology. Right? So if you're using this as a way of detecting sub-vocalizations, and the detection and analysis algorithm get sophisticated enough, and the user may be able to learn how to do that. 'Cause you can, I was doing this before the show, I was just thinking to myself and paying attention to what I was doing. And then also tried to maximize my movement, my sub-vocalization movements. You know what I mean? Like you can deliberately accentuate them. <br />
<br />
E: Can you shut them off entirely if you think about it? Or is it just so subtle that you really don't have that level of control over it?<br />
<br />
S: Well in researching this I did find lots of websites, and even some published studies, looking at the question of suppressing sub-vocalizations in order to improve or increase your reading speed. 'Cause apparently the sub-vocalizations slow you down.<br />
<br />
J: So to clarify, Steve, if words are going through my head; if I'm sitting here saying to myself, oh, I've gotta get up early tomorrow morning, or whatever it is, I am having some type of muscular reaction in my throat? Every time?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: If you're reading.<br />
<br />
S: No, even if you're just thinking, words.<br />
<br />
E: Even if you're just thinking the words!<br />
<br />
S: You're saying the words in your head, you are sub-vocalizing those words. Yes.<br />
<br />
E: Right. Okay.<br />
<br />
S: But the question is just, can we detect and interpret those muscle movements with enough precision and discrimination that we could translate that into the words that are in your head, that you're thinking. And this could give you like a fake telepathy. Like a pseudo-telepathy. It's not really telepathy 'cause it's through actual muscle movements. But that could still be really powerful. It still could functionally be telepathy.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: It's really not telepathy. It's probably better termed silent communication.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, imagine the military being able to communicate with each other without having to make any noise. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Or spies. Just it's silent communication. You can imagine dictating in a crowded room without having to speak aloud.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Google Glass <small>(31:25)</small>===<br />
http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/<br />
<br />
S: All right, Jay, let's move on. You're gonna tell us about Google glass.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, baby.<br />
<br />
J: So, yeah, Steve, this is a real milestone. This is one of the pieces of technology that I've been waiting for for a long time. This is the beginning of real augmented reality. To give you a quick definition of what augmented reality is: so imagine a car mechanic that's wearing a pair of sunglasses and a computer is projecting onto the inside of those sunglasses a schematic so that the car mechanic is looking at the car engine and the computer's projecting say, the wiring system. So wherever he turns his head, the, it'll look like it's in 3D so he can see, or he or she can see things that aren't actually visible to the naked eye because the computer is laying that on top of reality. It's like another layer, or putting layers of information on top of reality. Or, a surgeon performing open-heart surgery would be able to see the heart in a 3D view unobstructed by the rest of the tissue surrounding it, or the rib cage, or whatever. You know, having that vantage point gives people the opportunity to achieve things much faster, more precisely and with much greater success overall. Now, I'm not saying that Google glass is offering that to us right now, but what Google is offering is the very first step in true augmented reality. So let me give you a quick list of the features of what it is, and I'll describe to you the actual component that you're wearing is, it's like taking a pair of sunglasses, removing the lenses and then on one side, on one eye, they'll put a, it's like a little module there that has a piece of glass that's hovering in front of one of your eyes. It'll project into your vision onto that piece of glass you're looking through that piece of glass, one of your eyes. It'll project a computer screen that looks like it's floating three or four feet in front of you, that doesn't have any borders or anything of course. And there's simply information there. You know, there's text, there's however, they're showing this information, it's gonna be a varying degree of different things. And you're gonna be talking to it. You're not gonna be using keyboard or a mouse or anything, that you're primarily gonna be using vocalization to turn it on, to tell it what you need it to do. And some of the features that it's launching with are it's gonna be able to record video. What you see, it's gonna record. It's gonna take pictures. You're gonna be able to start Google-Plus hangouts with people. You're gonna be able to search. You're gonna be able to also search photos, which is cool. You're gonna be able to do translations, you're gonna be able to get directions; you're gonna be able to use the Google Now software, which is like iPhone's Siri, where you can ask more complicated questions and actually tell it to do certain things, like take notes, put something in my address book, in my calendar, whatever. You can send messages to people and you can get flight, or there'll be a flight detail database attached, so you can call that up when you need it. You would start each command with "Okay, Glass," as if you were talking to someone. "Okay, Glass, I want you to start recording video right now." "Okay, Glass, stop recording video." The really cool thing about this though, is you take it with you, it connects into your iPhone or to your Android operating system, and it is based off of the Android operating system. And you wear it and you just put it on and you forget that it's there and it just becomes another interface for you. The big thing here is, guys, it truly is the beginning of the next way that we're gonna be interacting and experiencing reality. And it's going to be augmented by computers in a way now that we've really never experienced it before. We're all gonna be able to do things that we normally wouldn't be able to do, even simple things. Like let's say you went to Ikea and you bought a bookshelf. Everybody knows that directions that come from companies like Ikea or whatever, some are better than other, but for the most part having to construct something is a complete and total pain in the ass. This would be showing you what to do. It would be giving you visual cues using the actual things that you're looking at. Like, showing you what pieces connect to each other and where.<br />
<br />
B: And that's the key, Jay. To me that's the key. It's contextual information. It's not, you're not just surfing web pages. You are seeing overlays on reality and it knows what you're looking at, and gives you information based on your environment and what you're interacting with. And that's one of the reasons why this is gonna be so powerful.<br />
<br />
S: All right, Bob, Bob, what would be the porn application?<br />
<br />
J: Oh, my god. Don't even go there.<br />
<br />
B: God. Come on.<br />
<br />
J: Well, Bob's talking about what it will be like down the road, and <br />
<br />
B: I ''have'' to talk about that.<br />
<br />
J: Maybe a future use of this would be that you could tell Google glass "When I'm sitting at my work desk, I want my monitor to appear as if it's here where a physical monitor would be" but when you turn your head away, it stays in that three-dimensional space; you know, if you're looking at your computer monitor and you turn your head to the left, you don't see the monitor anymore, you wouldn't in real life.<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: Now let me be the wet-blanket skeptic. <br />
<br />
E: ''(laughing)'' I was gonna mention something about that.<br />
<br />
S: To bring things down a little bit. So everything that you guys are saying may come to pass at some point, but the thing that we have to keep in mind is that until we put this technology in the hands of lots of people, it's really hard to predict how people will want to use it.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, absolutely.<br />
<br />
S: And what it will be useful for. So all the things that you guys are speculating about, are speculation. So we don't know if this is going to be the smart phone, where everyone's gonna want to have 'em and it's gonna be much more useful than anyone ever thought, or if it's gonna be the Segue. You know, where it's not gonna be so revolutionary. But it'll have a niche where people use it for certain specific things, or, guys, remember the high-definition, high-frame rate situation where there just was something annoying about it, that people have a hard time adapting to.<br />
<br />
B: Ah, you're so full of it<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, adaptation.<br />
<br />
B: That's a horrible analogy. ''(laughter)'' Because this, this isn't, it's not a segue. People were gonna build cities around segue. That was a ridiculous prediction. It's not like a segue at all. This is an improvement on the computer interfaces. I mean computer interfaces, they're not going anywhere. That's a proven technology. It's just another way, it's another type of monitor, Steve. <br />
<br />
S: I know, Bob. I'm just saying, until people start using we won't know, it's like a video phone. We talked about the fact, oh video phones are coming. Well, why wouldn't you use a video phone? And it turns out that for a lot of things you don't wanna be looking at somebody. Why is texting so popular? The use of technology is hard to predict.<br />
<br />
B: I agree. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:06)</small>== <br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Evan. Tell us about last week's Who's That Noisy?<br />
<br />
E: I'll do one better and play for you last week's Who's That Noisy? Who could forget this, this wonderful little sound. Here we go.<br />
<br />
''Bird-like tweeting. The tweet song is repeated several times, pretty much the same each time.''<br />
<br />
E: Definitely not a bird, definitely not a plane. <br />
<br />
S: What is it?<br />
<br />
E: Superman. ''(laughs)'' That is . . . the whistlepig.<br />
<br />
S: The whistlepig.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' The whistlepig. <br />
<br />
''(numerous garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
B: What the hell is a whistlepig?<br />
<br />
E: A groundhog!<br />
<br />
S: Remember, from ''Groundhog's Day''?<br />
<br />
E: We only covered it a few weeks ago.<br />
<br />
J: That's an actual pig?<br />
<br />
S: No, it's a groundhog. The whistlepig is another name for the groundhog.<br />
<br />
E: Right. Woodchuck, is another name for the groundhog. Some people call it a land beaver. And they're all over the place, especially in North America. Very common in northeastern parts of the continent, and in the central United States. Several guesses; only a few correct answers this week came in to us. Congratulations to Wayne Heller. Your name was drawn. You are the winner this week. You're in the drawing for the end-of-the-year contest by which we will put all names in the hat from the week winners and that grand-prize winner will join us on the SGU to play a round of Science or Fiction. All right, so. You guys ready for this week?<br />
<br />
S: Always.<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: It is another noisy we have this week. It's short. Here we go:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Men's voices speaking on some kind of communicators:<br />
Person 1: You're looking a little hot and all your calls will be a little early. (Beep) Person 2: Okay. Person 3: And that looks good here.</blockquote><br />
<br />
J: Isn't that when they made the Six-Million-Dollar Man, and he was about to crash? No?<br />
<br />
E: That's an interesting guess, Jay. No, that's not correct.<br />
<br />
J: I hope at some point in my life I'm gonna be talking to someone and that whistle will comment like the<br />
<br />
S: That call-tone?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I love that.<br />
<br />
E: What I would like to see in the answer for this week is not a generic idea of what you think the noise is. I would like to know pretty exactly where you recognize that noise from. Send us your guess. wtn@theskepticsguide.org; that's the email address for Who's That Noisy submissions. Or you can post it on our forums, sguforums.com. Every week I wish you all the best of <br />
<br />
J: ''(shouting)'' Good luck everybody!<br />
<br />
E: Thank you, Jay. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: I was getting very excited, Evan.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== "Ow!" <small>(40:36)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: All right, we have one question this week. This comes from Joe Shoults. And this is the shortest question we 've ever had.<br />
<br />
J: The answer is six inches.<br />
<br />
E: Four foot one.<br />
<br />
S: Joe writes "Why do we say "ow"? <br />
<br />
B: Wow! What a good question! Holy crap!<br />
<br />
J: Steve, can I try to answer it and see if I'm anywhere near correct?<br />
<br />
S: You can try.<br />
<br />
E: Okay.<br />
<br />
J: The first thing that occurred to me when I read that email when it came in was, well, first, the word is cultural. I'm sure that in other cultures they don't say "ow," they say other things.<br />
<br />
S: Are you sure?<br />
<br />
J: I'm guessing. I'm guessing. <br />
<br />
B: That's my guess as well.<br />
<br />
J: The other thing is I think we're giving a cue to the other mammals around us that we're injured.<br />
<br />
E: Here's my guess. My guess is ow is short for ouch.<br />
<br />
S: Why do we say ouch?<br />
<br />
J: 'Cause ouch is short for ouch-a-daisy.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: He didn't say "why do we say ouch?"; that wasn't the question. Said "why do we say 'ow'?" ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: Don't split hairs. Why do we make a vocalization when we get hurt?<br />
<br />
S: Do you think there's any published scientific research that might enlighten us on that question?<br />
<br />
J: I'm sure you know.<br />
<br />
E: If there is, you have it, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: All of the evolutionary psychological answers, there's no answer to that. ''(laughter)'' This is all hand waving. We don't know. No one knows. You could make up any kind of plausible sounding answer that you like for that. <br />
<br />
J: So I'm right!<br />
<br />
S: The answer is we don't know. That's what the answer is. But I did look at this from a couple of angles, just to see what I could find. One was, 'cause I remember reading this study but I wanted just to see what all the literature was, about swearing and pain perception. I couldn't find anything published about saying "ow" or "ouch," but I could find swearing. And, the research does show that if you swear when you have, like stub your toe, or have physical pain, that your perception of the pain is decreased. It does help.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: However, get this, if you swear all the time, then the benefit of swearing goes down. <br />
<br />
J: Fuck that!<br />
<br />
E: 'Cause you've numbed yourself.<br />
<br />
B: I could see that.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so you have to keep your swearing in reserve for when you stub your toe.<br />
<br />
J: Save it for the pain.<br />
<br />
S: Save it for the pain.<br />
<br />
B: How 'bout, now, what about instead of physical pain, what about emotional pain?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well, we also use it in lots of related ways, like, when somebody says something bad that happened, you might say, "ooo, ouch" as a way of saying, expressing sympathy or if somebody insults you really bad you might say "ouch" like sarcastically. Try to say like, oh you hurt me. I also had the same question, what is the, how international or cross-cultural is "ow" or "ouch." So I looked it up. Here's a smattering of what other cultures say instead of ouch. Ayee. So "ayee" or "ow" are the two main things that cultures say. In French, "ayee"; Thai, "oi"; Spanish, "ai"; Polish, "ouch"; Maltese, "ach"; Iran, "ai" or "ach" or "oof"; Afghanistan, "oof"; Germany, it's a-u-a, "Aua"; Dutch is "ow"; Norwegian, "ow"; Danish, it says a-v, I'm not sure if that's supposed to also be pronounced "ow"; <br />
<br />
E: Probably.<br />
<br />
S: Chinese, the only two-syllable one I came across, "ayo" or "ayah"; Turkish, "ach" or "ai"; so very similar across the cultures. It's mainly a lot of "ai" "ach" "oof" "ow." Very similar.<br />
<br />
J: That's interesting, too, and they're all short.<br />
<br />
S: A lot of a's, o's, yeah, they're all short. The Chinese one was the only one I found that was two syllables.<br />
<br />
J: Very cool. That's so interesting. I love that.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Interview with Jon Ronson <small>(44:20)</small> ==<br />
* Interview with Jon Ronson, recorded at CSICon 2012.<br />
<br />
S: All right, we have a very interesting interview that we recorded last October at CSICon with Jon Ronson.<br />
<br />
''(Music)''<br />
<br />
S: We're sitting here now with Jon Ronson. Jon, welcome back to the Skeptics' Guide.<br />
<br />
JR: It's good to be back. Thank you , Steve. And it's nice to meet you all after I've heard 400 episodes of you.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: Only 381.<br />
<br />
J: Jon, I believe you owe us an apology.<br />
<br />
JR: I do. Last time I was on, it was to talk about my book ''The Psychopath Test'' and it was on my birthday. And it was quite late, it was like 11:00 at night. And unlike me, I was drunk. And I, it turns out that I am a befuddled and slightly angry drunk.<br />
<br />
S: 'Cause we couldn't tell the difference.<br />
<br />
''(garbled comments and laughter)''<br />
<br />
JR: When I listened back I was ashamed. I was ashamed. Mid-sentence I would drift off. I didn't know what I was talking about.<br />
<br />
E: We said "Jon was sharp as ever tonight, wasn't he?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
JR: Well, actually, after the podcast, I accidentally typed my name into Google and I saw somebody saying "God, Jon Ronson sounded weird on Skeptics' Guide." ''(laughter)'' But the reason why was because it was my birthday and I'd been out with my family and I was drunk.<br />
<br />
S: I don't think you told us it was your birthday.<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, it was my birthday. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Warn us next time, okay?<br />
<br />
JR: Yes.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
JR: But yes, you can see now I'm as sharp as a pin. <br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
E: Ouch!<br />
<br />
S: Pithy. Much more pithy.<br />
<br />
JR: Pithy as a pin.<br />
<br />
J: So, Jon, can you please say to me: ''(in a English accent)'' "But of course I was drunk at the time."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
JR: I don't talk like that. Like somebody, like a buffoon from Downton Abbey. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Now you sound like the first of the reboot of the Doctors Who.<br />
<br />
JR: Right. The Doctors Who.<br />
<br />
''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: It was, what was the actor's name? Not David Tennant.<br />
<br />
R: Christopher Eccleston?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, Christopher Eccleston. What kind of accent does he have? Northern.<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, I believe he's from the Northeast. I see him jogging maniacally in a park in North London. <br />
<br />
S: You do?<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, he's a big jogger.<br />
<br />
S: Interesting.<br />
<br />
JR: Maniacal. Like he's really running away something. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Demons . . .<br />
<br />
E: May be.<br />
<br />
R: Personal demons . . . <br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, or . . . Daleks. "(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: Jon, what are you working on now?<br />
<br />
JR: Now I'm starting to write a new book on the subject . . . I don't want to talk too much about it because I don't wanna talk it all out. It always helps me to kind of internalize the thing that I'm writing about. It's kind of on the subject of humiliation. I always like to start with a word. So ''The Psychopath Test'' the word, I guess, was "madness." About how madness is a more powerful engine in our lives than rationality. And in ''The Men Who Stare at Goats'' I guess the word was a phrase, and it was "irrationality at the heart of power." And ''Them'' was like, paranoia at the fringes of society, and the new word is "humiliation." I'm very interested. I was really surprised, actually, I've just brought out this collection called ''Lost at Sea,'' and I was reading it; it's an audiobook, and I was amazed at fifteen years of adventure stories, how often the subject of humiliation comes up. How often people said to me, my greatest fear in life was being humiliated, and here it was coming true. It seems to be a running theme in my stories. <br />
<br />
R: And what about people who don't get humiliated? Are there any people who just . . . <br />
<br />
JR: Well that's another interesting thing. I mean, psychopaths don't get humilitated. <br />
<br />
S: Meaning they're immune to humilitation.<br />
<br />
JR: I think so, yeah. So it seems. They get annoyed, as you know. They get very cross if they feel slighted. So they've got terrible grandiosity issues. But, when they're caught in a lie, they don't feel bad about it. That's one of _________________ big things, feeling unembarrassed about being caught lying. But other people don't get humiliated, too. And I'm really interested in those people.<br />
<br />
J: It's interesting to think, is the most powerful source of humiliation for the average person being caught in a lie, or is it, like, a lot of people will do the default "oh, I'm naked in public, I would be humiliated." That wouldn't bother me at all. <br />
<br />
E: It would bother everyone else.<br />
<br />
J: But I definitely think being caught in a social lie, when people know. Especially like stealing somebody else's work type of lie, would be horrible. That would be horrible, right?<br />
<br />
JR; I can't think of anything worse than being the recipient of some kind of storm like that. Like Jonah Lehrer or Mike Daisey, those people. To me that's like, that's the kind of thing that would wake me up sweating.<br />
<br />
R: And there's so many people right now in what I feel is your field, in a way, like the people who are writing these sometimes slightly fictionalized accounts, but of truthful stories, you know, and David Sedaris went through this. And it's kind of sad, like they're all people I love, and to see that happening. . . <br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, I feel a bit sorry for Jonah Lehrer, because his big crime was inflating Bob Dylan quotes. Or, in fact, inventing them. And as somebody pointed out in the wake of that storm, Bob Dylan's autobiography is full of made-up stuff. Yet, nobody goes for Dylan. It does feel slightly subjective.<br />
<br />
R: Also, you know, sometimes you can't tell what Dylan's saying anyway. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Can't tell what he's ''singing.''<br />
<br />
JR: Another thing that worried me was, before Jonah Lehrer got done for that, he was done for self-plagiarism.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
JR: And I . . . I've never . . .<br />
<br />
S: What is self-plagiarism?<br />
<br />
JR: Well, it's basically using the same material like say in an article for the ''New Yorker'' and a blog for ''Wired.''<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Lifting like word-for-word, same paragraph, and dropping into a different article, usually.<br />
<br />
JR: When I heard that, I thought . . . so he wasn't stealing somebody else's work, he was repeating his own work.<br />
<br />
E: Repeating his own.<br />
<br />
JR: And when I heard that, I thought, Frank Sinatra would sing ''My Way'' every night! You know? Is that the worst crime in the world? I used to do that, and not worry. If I had like a really great line, there's a line in ''The Psychopath Test'' where I say . . . yes, there's a line in ''The Psychopath Test'' where I say, I'm talking about how bankers weren't, were kind of ignored, like the wickedness of hedge-fund managers and stuff, was kind of ignored for a long time and they were getting away with it. And I said the reason why they were getting away with it was because they were boring, and journalists don't like to write about boring people because the more colorful the prose, the better it looks for the journalist. So I said if you want to get away with wielding true malevolent power, be boring. And I'd actually written something very very similar to that a couple years ago in a column for the ''Guardian'' and it was completely ignored, and I thought, this is like a really interesting point. So I was happy to give it another shot in ''The Psychopath Test.'' And sure enough, it's become one of the more popular quotes in that book.<br />
<br />
R: The problem with that, I mean, 'cause what else are you gonna say, every single time? "As I once said." I mean, no.<br />
<br />
JR: I was surprised actually, when that came up as an issue for Jonah, and it worried me that people were gonna start going for journalistic misdeeds too much. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it becomes a witch hunt. And I think some people are doing it because they can. Because we have the technology, if you will, to sift through everything everyone's written. I know Gerald Posner faced that, where someone thought that he had plagiarized part of his book. And then somebody decided to cross reference everything he ever wrote with searching algorithms, where you could search everything he wrote and come up with all these other instances where lines from his research found their way into his books, or his articles without being properly referenced. And he admitted, clearly my process has broken down here and I haven't been keeping track of where these lines were coming from. So he admitted that inadvertently things have crept in, but I don't know who can withstand that kind of really thorough scrutiny. I mean we all have things rattling around in our head that we heard from other people, and if you write a lot, that stuff is gonna end up in what you write. <br />
<br />
JR: Absolutely. It did worry me. It seems to be kind of drifting off a little bit now. The funny thing about Mike Daisey, you know his story; he went to China and<br />
<br />
R: Foxconn.<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, to Foxconn, and was writing about the abuses that Foxconn were . . . everything he wrote was true. But his grave error of judgment was he said he witnessed it all first-hand. The tragedy of Mike Daisey is if he'd stayed in China for a couple of weeks longer, he could have actually got everything that he purported to get. All he had to do was get on a few more planes and go and meet a few more people. And it would have been the greatest expose of Apple of all time. But he didn't.<br />
<br />
R: But I think even if he had, though, he still would have messed with the narrative, because he, that was another huge thing; was not just that it didn't happen to him, but then he was screwing with the narrative not in a way that just makes better story arc but in a way that drastically altered events: where they happened, how they happened. And I feel like even if he had stayed there a few weeks; because what he is at heart is a storyteller, and that's what he values. He doesn't value truth.<br />
<br />
S: But isn't that the problem with journalism in general, is that ultimately it's a storytelling endeavor, and the truth, or the facts, becomes second in importance to that?<br />
<br />
R: Well no, because it's possible, I think, to balance those things; to know how to take what you're seeing . . . it's like taking a photo. You know, you could take a photo; I could take a photo of something out the window right now and then we could have a professional photographer come in and come up with something that's amazingly better. We're both representing the truth, but one of us has a better eye for how to capture it. It's exactly the same.<br />
<br />
S: Well, I think a better analogy there would be then you take it onto to PhotoShop and maybe you color correct it a little bit, or you enhance the contrast. Or then maybe you said, you know what, a tree instead of this building would work a little bit better. That building's ugly. I wanna put a tree there so that it doesn't ruin . . .<br />
<br />
R: Well, yeah, that would be the . . . yeah.<br />
<br />
S: And then there's a slippery slope. I'm talking more about this slippery slope. Of course all good journalism is storytelling. You know, Jon, you know this obviously better than any of us, you're a journalist and an author. You've written, obviously, you've listed your most recent successful books, screenplays, et cetera. And you have to tell a good story. But at the same time you're trying to convey an accurate portrayal of the subject matter. But isn't there this temptation to always tweak it to make the story a little bit better, even if it's not exactly true?<br />
<br />
JR: Well, I always try and make it true. And, a rather good thing about, you know, it's good to, it's, I feel sorry for the likes of Jonah Lehrer for being the one who's thrown into the bonfire. But I guess a good thing about that is it does keep everybody in check. But, I always try to keep a ___________, I have never been, nothing bad's ever happened, you know, I've never . . . <br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Yeah, yeah.<br />
<br />
JR: You know, so I've always been all right. Yeah, but you think about this every time you write something. It's really important. I always think it's the fact that I suffer from anxiety that stops me from transgressing. Like for instance if I was tempted to shape something too much, to shape something so it was no longer accurate, no longer truthful, I would immediately envisage a horrific future. <br />
<br />
E: Right. You play out a worst-case scenario in your head.<br />
<br />
JR: Exactly. Where it begins with Twitter, and it ends with, you know, jumping off a building.<br />
<br />
J: And that gets back to what we were saying earlier though, where a psychopath, or someone that doesn't have those built-in social meters and thresholds is gonna be capable of doing things that people like us won't be.<br />
<br />
JR: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: And you're editing yourself in a way to limit your own anxiety. I do the same thing. I have a very similar process where I'm always thinking about my actions and projecting then into the future. And it happens very seamlessly, right? You don't actually have to put a lot of energy into it. It's just part of your, the way your brain works.<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, absolutely. It's "what-if" scenarios that haunt people with OCD and so on. Yes. Psychopaths don't have that, which makes me suspect that psychopathy is the most pleasant feeling of all the mental disorders. So all of the things that keep us good, anxiety, guilt, remorse and so on, is, am I right in saying, Steven, shift to the amygdala and the central nervous system.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well, the amygdala is part of the central nervous system. But you mean, the frontal cortex is where all of the social mores are, the social morals, the things that give you anxiety so that you internally police yourself and you don't do things because you're afraid of social humiliation. That emotion exists so that we can exist in a society. And in fact what social psychology is showing is that people will essentially cheat exactly as much as they think they'll get away with. And it is, more than anyone else, the fear of social humiliation that keeps us from doing things which are inherently greedy or self-serving. We are totally self-serving unless we think that other people's perception of us being self-serving is no longer in our best interest. So it's ultimately still self-serving.<br />
<br />
J: There's something so unraveling about that.<br />
<br />
S: But that's, we're chimpanzees; that's how we behave. Just in a very sophisticated way. But then again in psychopaths they sort of lack that . . . it must be very freeing. I think that's why they're very charismatic, very compelling characters, 'cause it's like, wow, imagine having the freedom to just really do whatever you want .<br />
<br />
JR: And so difficult to treat, too, because there's no incentive to change. People with anxiety disorders want to get better.<br />
<br />
S: That ties into what you were saying about not liking the haughtiness of skepticism. And that's, I think, one of the challenges that we have. It's hard to tell people they're wrong about something without coming off as being haughty. So . . .<br />
<br />
JR: I mean the way I get away with it is to be very open about my own irrationalities; my anxieties; and people can sort of connect to that, on a sort of flawed level, I guess. People connect to me on a flawed level, and I think that helps. And, I think, yeah, that's a good way around that, is to be . . . . but you do that, Steven. You talk about everybody's rationality. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
JR: You don't say skeptics are perfect.<br />
<br />
S: No, no.<br />
<br />
JR: And that's very likable to do that.<br />
<br />
S: I don't think anyone really does that. I think it's an inadvertent thing that it comes across . . . I think people are looking for a reason to dismiss what the skeptics are saying because they don't like the conclusions. Like, oh, you're just being closed minded and haughty, and it's kind of a cheap shot, I think, oftentimes.<br />
<br />
JR: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: I do think that skeptics have evolved as a community to the point where we realize that that finger-wagging, haughty skeptic is completely ineffectual. If we wanna actually change people's minds. And in fact it's not even really true that, you know . . . we are all irrational. It's a matter of having a process that deals with that and understanding it.<br />
<br />
JR. Yeah. Also, you talked at the beginning about this kind of humiliation idea, and the more open you are about your weaknesses and so on, the less humiliatable you are. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, yeah . . .<br />
<br />
JR: It's like, these things kind of only exist when you're keeping them a secret, keeping them in the darkness.<br />
<br />
S: It is all part of the human narrative, right? So I think that's what you're, Jon, excellent at, as an investigative journalist and a writer, is making your, you are a good storyteller, and the are very human, and you're very much in the stories. But the process comes out, in that, still.<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah. But to me . . . I think this, where I disagreed with what you said was the I think self-deception, so these kind of more serious aspects of things, not the kind of, let's say for want of a better phrase, the sort of, the confirmation bias you find in the corpse instead of the confirmation bias you find in a haunted honty-tonk . . . I actually think people really are interested in this, 'cause I think psychology books are really popular and, you know, Richard Wiseman's books sell a lot of copies, and I think people ''do'' want to know about their own<br />
<br />
S: Yeah<br />
<br />
JR: flawed thought processes, actually. I think. Pleasure to see you all in the flesh. It's strange to actually hear these voices coming out of actual human faces. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: We do have actual human faces.<br />
<br />
E: We've shattered your illusion apparently. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Thanks, Jon.<br />
<br />
JR: Thank you.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:50)</small> ==<br />
''Voiceover: It's time for Science or Fiction''<br />
<br />
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious and I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. You guys ready for this week?<br />
<br />
J: We are ready.<br />
<br />
E: Time to play.<br />
<br />
S: You'll find these are interesting.<br />
<br />
E: Always.<br />
<br />
S: Here we go. [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/osoa-idh022613.php Item number one]. Scientists have developed an imaging system that can look through walls into a burning building and identify survivors that need rescuing. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130225092040.htm Item number two]. A new analysis finds that Spiderman’s webbing would have been strong enough to stop the commuter trains as depicted in the Spiderman 2 movie. [http://now.tufts.edu/news-releases/new-study-shows-viruses-can-have-immune-syste And item number three]. Researchers discover a virus with an adaptive immune system. <br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: Jay, you spoke first, so you get to go first.<br />
<br />
J: The first one about scientists developing an imaging system that can look through walls into a burning building.<br />
<br />
E: Let me guess. Google glasses. <br />
<br />
J: I don't see why I should doubt this. I think that of course it's using temperature difference, I'd imagine, to see where the survivors might be, or, you know, we already have, they already have devices like this where they can see through a hundred smoke-filled room. You know, they go in with the face mask and the oxygen and they're walking through and they hold this thing up and it's, looks like a really big flashlight but it has a viewfinder on it that will show them the heat differences. I just don't see why this one is that big of a leap. So I'm just gonna take that initially right off the list as that's a, that is science. The second one about Spiderman's webbing being strong enough to stop a commuter train, or it would have been, Spiderman's webbing would be that strong if he was using that much spider web, I'm assuming, right Steve? If that were real spider web and there was that much of it, it could do those things?<br />
<br />
S: Yes. That's what the analysis showed.<br />
<br />
J: I would just imagine that that's a yes, if anything I'd like to say I think it would be a lot stronger than that as well because of the things I do know about spider webbing. I don't know if all spider webbing is created equal, if every spider produces the same exact type of thing, I'd imagine there's huge variances in there, but that one seems completely legitimate to me as well. So, I'm left with this last one that researchers discovered a virus with an adaptive immune system. I don't see why that sounds too crazy either. You know, we're talking viruses here, which are these very small, small litter critters that, like bacteria, why should I doubt it? But I'm really gonna go with that last one as the fake 'cause the other two just seem very plausible to me. And here's the roll. And it came up a two. And so, once, me and randomness do not agree.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. All right. Bob?<br />
<br />
B: Let's see, I'll start with 3. The adaptive immune system. That's wicked, if a virus . . . I assume it's somehow grabbing what it needs to create its own immune system. That's pretty amazing. But considering that it can, I mean it's designed to penetrate a cell, and take over genetic machinery, I guess that seems somewhat plausible that it could, that it can somehow, that they found one with an immune system . . . I'm just assuming that it somehow co-opted it from another organization. That just kind of makes sense to me. I really hope that that's true. Let's see, the second one, Spiderman's webbing, yeah, I can totally see that. We all have heard over and over and over just how strong spider web is, and Jay, you're right. There is a huge variance. There's a specific type of spider that creates the strongest drag line silk. If you scale that up, I could see how it would actually work. I mean, Jay, we're talking about a huge amount of momentum. Huge amount of kinetic energy that it has to deal with. But considering that spider silk is also very good at maintaining its stength and stretching, I really believe that this would work. I really hope it does. The first one, this is the one I've got problems with. Yeah, I myself have talked about this specific type of technology where they could actually see through walls and buildings. And it's really amazing, but the technology is a little bit immature, I think, at this stage. It's got tons of potential, but the thing that's throwing me a little bit is the burning building and you've got fire, you've got heat; it can distort images <br />
<br />
J: FIRE!<br />
<br />
B: incredibly. ''(laughter)'' And I think that throwing the fire in the mix is what would make this not a viable technology. Not yet anyway. That's a little bit too advanced. See through a wall? Yeah. But when you throw a fire into the mix, and heat, and the distorting effects that that has. I think you tweaked this one a little bit, so I think that one is the fiction.<br />
<br />
S: And Evan.<br />
<br />
E: Bob and Jay each touched on really good things here on the two that they chose as the fiction, and I was kind of thinking the same thing, so I'm kind of split between those. As far as Spiderman's webbing, strong enough to stop the train. Yeah, I guess if you have enough of it it's, some webs that are produced by spiders are pretty durable material. Pretty strong in their own right. And you just need, I think, it's a matter of quantity at that point. So therefore I'm down to this virus with an adaptive immune system. I don't know, in a way, would that be unfortunate? ''(laughter)'' Would this make viruses more difficult and cause more problems for human beings? The first one about looking though the walls into the burning building and then find the survivors. So, maybe it's not so much about the fire, maybe it's more about finding the survivors and the heat that they're giving off. I'm in a burning building, right? Chances are I'm not in there kind of running around like a chicken with my head cut off, I'm probably just doing whatever I can to find shelter, or maybe I've gone unconscious but not have died from the smoke inhalation. And perhaps that's a key to this, as to how they're able to detect a person who is alive and needs rescuing. So, that means I have to sort of lean towards this virus with the adaptive immune system. I'm gonna go with Jay and say that one is the fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. So you all agree that a new analysis finds that Spiderman's webbing would have been strong enough to stop the commuter train, as depicted in the Spiderman 2 movie. All think that one is science, and that one . . . is . . . science.<br />
<br />
J: All right!<br />
<br />
B: Sweet!<br />
<br />
S: Good job so far, guys.<br />
<br />
E: Thank you.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, this is a project by some physics students and they did all the calculations. Would the webbing have had the strength to stop the momentum plus the engine, they include that as well 'cause it was still running, you know, it wasn't just in<br />
<br />
B: Coasting, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: It wasn't coasting. Would it have been enough to stop the train, and they concluded that it would have been more than strong, more than powerful enough.<br />
<br />
E: More than enough, wow.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it is very, very strong. It's stronger than steel, so if you just imagine steel cables, it kind of visually makes a little bit more sense. But, I would say though, I didn't point this out during . . . 'cause nobody asked, but you know how in that movie where Spiderman just sort of shot the webbing to either side, and then stopped the train. That would have ripped him apart. Even if the webbing wouldn't have been the weak<br />
<br />
B: Right. ''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: But that made him like Superman. I mean, I understand Spiderman is tough, but that, I thought, was ridiculous. He should have shot the web from one side to the other.<br />
<br />
E: Right.<br />
<br />
S: So just the web itself stopped the train. And I think that's the calculation that the physicists did. The students did.<br />
<br />
B: I forgot that Spidey did that. Yeah, that was a little silly, but . . .<br />
<br />
S: So this is students from the University of Leicester, published in the ''Journal of Physics,'' special topics. This was James Forester, Mark Brian and Alex Stone, came up with a fun idea for their senior project. But yeah, not surprising. Spider webbing is ridiculously strong. And some spider webs are stronger than others. They did use webbing from the toughest spider silk that is known. Do you guys know what spider that's from?<br />
<br />
B: I think it's got "bark" in the name, doesn't it?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Darwin's bark spider. Good job.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Strongest known webbing of any spider, Darwin's bark spider.<br />
<br />
E: Damn right.<br />
<br />
S: All right. Let's go back to number one. Scientists have developed an imaging system that look through walls into a burning building and identiy survivors that need rescuing. Bob thinks, is alone in thinking that this one is the fiction. Jay and Evan think this one is science. And this one . . . is . . . the fiction.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, baby.<br />
<br />
S: Good job, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: wow.<br />
<br />
S: Although, Bob, you're right for the exact wrong reason.<br />
<br />
B: Whaa?<br />
<br />
S: Because scientists have developed an infrared digital holography that allows fire fighters to see through flames and image people. So they, they <br />
<br />
B: Well, yes of course, yes.<br />
<br />
S: Not through smoke but through flames.<br />
<br />
B: No, no, no, no, Steve. In my equation was the wall.<br />
<br />
S: Well, the wall was<br />
<br />
B: and the fire. That's what made it difficult. Not the fire. I totally believe they've developed it through fire, but not wall and fire.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. I thought you just said through smoke, but the fire was the problem. All right, fine. But the smoke, that, as you guys all said, that's, infrared imagers will see body heat through smoke. No problem. But the problem has been when there's fire, the heat from the fire obscures the heat from the body and it overwhelms it. Because you have heat sensitive detectors and you have this bright heat source. Especially if you have to zoom in to try to find the person, zooming in will completely overwhelm the sensors. So they developed an instrument that uses digital holography and uses an imaging system without focusing lenses, so that it deals with that problem of getting too much heat, too much, you know, radiation into the system overwhelming the sensors. And they were able to use it to separate the image of a person from the background noise of flame. <br />
<br />
B: That's awesome.<br />
<br />
S: But this, you have to be inside the building with the person. So the bit that I changed was imaging from the outside. And you're right, there is, we talked about this too, technology for looking through walls. But it's not nearly, at this point, where you could look at a burning building, go Oh, there's a person on the second floor, in the closet, or whatever. This means that researchers discover a virus with an adaptive immune system is science. This one's pretty cool.<br />
<br />
B: Cool. Yeah, that's really cool.<br />
<br />
J: Awesome.<br />
<br />
S: Do you know what the virus is, Bob? <br />
<br />
B: No. The, no, I don't know what the, I don't know.<br />
<br />
S: It's a bacteriophage.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, a phage, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: It's a virus that eats bacteria, that infects and kills bacteria.<br />
<br />
E: That's good.<br />
<br />
S: And the virus has adopted the adaptive immune system from a cholera bacteria. Interestingly, they think that it is, over its history it incorporated genes from bacteria in order to co-opt its adaptive immune even though<br />
<br />
B: Tricky bastard.<br />
<br />
S: the modern cholera that it infects doesn't have those genes anymore.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' Oh, awesome. A blast from the past.<br />
<br />
S: So this makes this bacteriophage, this virus, much more deadly to the bacteria. It's much more effective. It infects it, kills it, replicates, spreads, goes into more bacteria, infects them, kills them, very effective. Evan, this would, if anything, it would be a good thing. These are viruses that do not infect people. They infect bacteria, and <br />
<br />
E: I was hoping, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: And it's actually possible to use them as a way of fighting off a bacterial infection. If you think about it, they're little machines, bacteria-killing machines. This is being developed as a bacteria-fighting technology. This bit about having an adaptive immune system actually can make them more effective. So it would be nice if it comes to fruition because of the problems we're facing with anti-bac, with antibiotic resistance. Pretty cool. All right, well, good job, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: Finally.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:13:44)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: Jay, do you have a quote for us this week?<br />
<br />
J: Um hm. Steve, I have a great quote. It was sent in by a co-host named Steven No- No-vel-lo.<br />
<br />
?: Novelli.<br />
<br />
B: NAH-vela.<br />
<br />
J: From a – oh, he lives in Connecticut, Evan. Did you ever hear of this guy?<br />
<br />
S: I'm vaguely familiar with him, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, he lives in your house! Get out!! ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Look behind you!<br />
<br />
J: And another coincidence, this is a Yale professor. So Steve, a Yale professor sent a quote from a Yale professor. Did this guy give you like five bucks? What's the deal, Steve? ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: I think your identity's been stolen.<br />
<br />
S: I just found the quote and thought it was appropriate.<br />
<br />
J: This is Edward Tufte, and he said or wrote:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The world is much more interesting than any one discipline.</blockquote><br />
<br />
That's from Yale professor, Mr. ''(shouting)'' Edward Tufte!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I like that because we talk about that all the time. Everyone has their little perspective on reality based upon whatever their expertise is, but the world is so much more complicated that no one discipline can capture it all, you know?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, we brought this up many, many times. I think even last week I said there are scientists who are great at something, whatever their specialty is, but when it comes down to a lot of the other things that they're interested in that they don't have a specialty in, they think that they can apply their same level of assurance to those things as their specialty, and they fall flat. It's a deadly combination of being intelligent and blind to critical thinking.<br />
<br />
B: Hey, what about the corollary to that – the universe is much more interesting than any one world. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's a <br />
<br />
E: Polyverse. Multiverse. Yay multiverse.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>(1:15:27)</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_398&diff=6416SGU Episode 3982013-04-25T02:04:32Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 398<br />
|episodeDate = 2<sup>nd</sup> March 2013<br />
|episodeIcon = File:E-tattoo.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|guest1 = JR: Jon Ronson<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-02.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=398<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45209.0.html<br />
|qowText = The world is much more interesting than any one discipline.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tufte Edward Tufte]<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine <br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, February 27, 2013 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: Hey, guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Ah. Kum bah wa, everyone.<br />
<br />
B: Kum bah yay, what was that?<br />
<br />
E: Kum bah ya, no. Kum bah wa. Japanese for good evening.<br />
<br />
S: Good evening.<br />
<br />
E: Lots of SGU listeners in Japan. We know a few. <br />
<br />
S: So apparently Rebecca has some kind of phlegm situation going on. <br />
<br />
E: I didn't know she was Amish.<br />
<br />
S: We're trying to decide if she has the flu, whooping cough, or strep throat.<br />
<br />
J: Well, get this, guys. So Rebecca emails us and says that she's not feeling well; that she woke up really late today, and she's been basically zonked all day. And at the same time, we have a little whooping cough scare going on over here with the newborn. This is what happened. My sister-in-law came to visit from Denver. And in the Midwest you know that the whooping cough incidences are higher and everything and I just didn't really think much of it other than everyone in the family got the tdap vaccination, which is the whooping cough<br />
<br />
S: Did she and her family get the tdap?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, they did. What I found out today was that, like many of the vaccines that we get, you know they're guessing at which strain is gonna be the one that's gonna hit that year,<br />
<br />
S: No, hang on a minute, Jay. What you're describing is relevant for the flu. With the whooping cough, it's not that there's like a different strain hitting every year, it's just that tdap covers only a very narrow number of strains and the virus has mutated. You know, it just, new strains are developing. But it's not like there's a seasonal strain like the flu. It's a little bit different.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I didn't mean to confuse that. I know, like, exactly what you said, that there is a newer version of it that just wasn't covered by that particular vaccination that we got. <br />
<br />
S: yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So, her sister left on Monday morning. She called us up today, we're recording on Wednesday. She said "Guys, I had a bad cold on my way home, and now it's turning into something that's very, what I would consider to be whooping cough-like.<br />
<br />
E: Yeesh.<br />
<br />
J: So we called up our doctor, you know, I have a three-and-a-half-week-old in the house now, and you know, like, very dialed into this. And we called up the doctor up and me like "What's up? Like what do we do? What happens?" And pertussis is a bacteria, it's not a virus. So they have an anti-biotic for it. <br />
<br />
E: Anti-biotic. Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So, what do you call it, Steve? Erythromycin? <br />
<br />
S: Erythromycin, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Erythromycin, yeah. So that's the one that they use for it. And it's the mega-dose, like two pills the first day and then you take like this mega-dose thing for four days. Of course the baby's taking the liquid form and everything. But I'm sitting there tonight with my wife and we're giving the baby its first medication, and it's freakin' whooping cough medication! Like I wanted to strangle people. Thank you everybody for not . . .<br />
<br />
S: Anyone who has never gotten vaccinated for whooping cough, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Something that we could<br />
<br />
E: Way to blow the herd immunity; way to go.<br />
<br />
J: We could get rid of it. Did you guys see the info-graphic of . . . the CDC puts out information every year, and somebody made an info-graphic of the incidence of morbidity before and after the vaccination for a particular disease came and went. Right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And right out of the gate, things like smallpox and stuff, I don't remember the exact numbers, but we have certain diseases where there was like a half a million people dying a year, down to zero. After the vaccination. And there's like, in this info-graphic, I think there was more than a dozen of them. It was incredible. Like you see the numbers, how dramatically different they are. Right there. That's a hundred percent proof. They work. And yet people are walking around out there ''today'' and they don't care; that information is meaningless to them. How? Why?<br />
<br />
B: Well what is the worst-case scenario with pertussis? I mean, how bad could it get? <br />
<br />
J: It can kill you, Bob; it can kill a baby.<br />
<br />
E: Death.<br />
<br />
B: That's bad.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there was that famous case in Australia where a baby caught, Dana McCaffery, caught whooping cough in a community that had very low vaccination rates because of the Australian anti-vaccination network preaching against vaccines, and, the baby caught it from unvaccinated people. And died. 'Cause the child was too young to be vaccinated. It's one of the populations that need to be protected by herd immunity.<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(4:33)</small> ==<br />
* March 2, 1983: Compact Disc players and discs are released for the first time in the United States and other markets. They had been available only in Japan before then.<br />
<br />
S: Evan, so you're filling in for Rebecca this week for This Day in Skepticism.<br />
<br />
E: I said "Good evening" in Japanese to start the show. And I did so because the compact disc, you guys remember what compact discs are, CDs,<br />
<br />
S: They're still, they're still used today.<br />
<br />
E: They are. Their first, most common usage was of course for music storage, right? Playing music. Put 80 minutes of uncompressed audio on one of those things. That's 737 megabytes of data. What do you think of that? So in Japan, is where the CDs were first, widely became available, in October of '82. However, on March 2nd of 1983, compact discs and their players were released for the first time in the United States and other markets around the world, whereas they'd only been available in Japan before but finally they came to the United States, and I remember this vividly. It was a big f'ing deal, for me and my 13-year-old friends and stuff who were all, in our own opinions, very big into music. And it was a rush to see who would get the first CD, who would be able to afford the first CD player. It was kind of bragging rights, in a sense. Do you guys remember?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah. Instantly replaced tapes, records; 8-tracks had already died by then.<br />
<br />
E: Thank goodness.<br />
<br />
S: Buy, yeah, and think about it, guys. Thirty years! And they're still a perfectly acceptable technology. I still buy CDs for music. <br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
S: Sure.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, man. I just download it all.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but think about it. A CD, you can then rip it into any quality MP3 you want, which you own, without any DRM, and you have the CD for a backup. And it's still cost-effective. It's not like you're saving money by downloading. So it's still a perfectly viable technology. It's had a lot of longevity.<br />
<br />
B: It's all right, I guess. I like, I hear a song that I like. Like, oh boy, that sounds really good. And I buy it. Within literally four minutes I have it on my iPhone and I'm listening to it. That's awesome.<br />
<br />
S: I do that, too, but, if there's an album coming out and I know I want the whole album, I'll get it on a CD. <br />
<br />
E: Something to remember, guys, is that when you purchase a CD, you're purchasing something physical that you actually own. And when you purchase a license to get a music or something you download through iTunes or something, there's a question, there's debates going on right now in the courts as to how much ownership do you actually have over that thing? In other words, can you put it into your estate and leave it to your heirs?<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And they are fighting that. You know, the record industry, or industries, don't want those rights to be transferred on to descendents. Where, but with a CD you're guaranteed. That is yours, it's physical, you can do whatever the heck you want with it. So, keep that in mind also in the debate about, you know, what medium, what format you're gonna use for your music.<br />
<br />
B: That's messed up.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Life Around Dying Stars <small>(7:32)</small>===<br />
http://phys.org/news/2013-02-future-evidence-extraterrestrial-life-dying.html#ajTabs<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Bob, talk about looking for life around dying stars.<br />
<br />
B: If you insist.<br />
<br />
S: I do.<br />
<br />
B: So guys, <br />
<br />
E: Like Mickey Rooney, are we talking? What are we talking here, dying stars?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, boy. Guys, when you think of an extraterrestrial planet, especially one that supports life, what do you think of? Do you think of, you've got this planet orbiting a parent star that's kind of like our sun, right? Maybe it's a little bit bigger than our sun, maybe it's a little bit smaller. And of course, if that's the case, the habitable zone around the star changes because of how big and bright the star is.<br />
<br />
S: Now, Bob, I think of Tatooine with two suns. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Nice orchestral music playing.<br />
<br />
S: Or Rigel 7 with a big planet in the distance with rings around it.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but, still, it's like a, it's a real star, it's like a star that <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, not a fake star.<br />
<br />
B: It's fusing hydrogen into helium. No, but it's not a ''dead'' star, and that's the point here. There's a new theoretical study that finds that the most likely place possibly to find life on another planet may be around a dead star. More specifically, of course, a white dwarf. You know, I'm not talking about a neutron star or black hole. But not only that, they think they might be able to actually find one of these planets in the next ten years. Which seems like a pretty bold prediction.<br />
<br />
E: But Bob, isn't a white dwarf after the star went through its initial sort of expansion then came back in on itself. Wouldn't it have kind of destroyed things on that<br />
<br />
B: Well, exactly. And that's the huge problem. That's the first thing I thought of, well how can that be? A white dwarf is a dead star. It's a corpse of a sun-like star, at the end of its, you know in its old age it swells into a red giant and it totally crisps any of the planets that were nearby, but before it expels a lot of its mass, making the beautifully misnomered planetary nebula. So what's left is this collapsed core. It's about as big as the earth, but it's got the mass, it could have a mass of more than the sun. 1.4 solar masses, I think, is the ________________________ limit for that. So that's a lot of mass in a really tiny place. So clearly it's unbelievably dense, right? If you had a ton of white dwarf matter, if you could do that, you could fit it into a matchbox. I mean it's super, super tiny. You can thank the electron degeneracy pressure for that. But there's no nuclear reactions going on to produce energy, but because it's relatively small it could radiate it's remaining heat for literally billions of years. So clearly, then, this thing could have its own little Goldilocks zone to support life, even though it's really not even a star anymore. It's not creating energy, but it's just radiating away the energy that's contained in it for many, many, many eons. So then the next question then, Evan, which ties into your comment, was how does the planet get there, because the red giant's gonna wipe out anything that's nearby. Probably anything that's in the Goldilocks zone. So there's actually two ways that could happen. One might, you might predict, a planet can migrate in from the outskirts of a solar system; we've seen that with hot Jupiters: Jupiter-sized planets that have orbits closer than Mercury. How the hell did they get there? Well they can actually migrate in through the solar system. But there's another way. A planet can also form from the leftover dust and gas; and that, of course, would be a second-generation world, which I think is pretty cool. Now of course, though, this planet would have to get pretty damned close, since the heat source is so small and dim compared to regular living stars . . .<br />
<br />
S: Bob, do we know that either of those can actually happen around a white dwarf, though?<br />
<br />
B: The thing here, though, with this theoretical study, Steve, is that they ran these really sophisticated simulations and they've pretty much shown in the simulation everything that I'm talking about.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
T<br />
B: That this can happen; they're incredibly confident that it could happen. They can think of no reason why it wouldn't happen. Now, it's not like every white dwarf is gonna have one these. They're saying that among the 500 closest white dwarves to the sun, they might find one or two that have planetary bodies in orbit around it that could support life. So, you know, one or two in 500 isn't great odds, but there's lots of stars and we can look at a lot of different things.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
B: So, the interesting thing is, as you could imagine, these planets would have to be very close to the white dwarf in order to get enough heat to have liquid water and life evolve. So that turns out to be only about a million miles away, which is what one over ninety-three, wait, sorry. And that's, our orbit's 93 million miles, so it's way, way, way close to it. And it's year, of course, would only be about ten hours long, which is an amazingly fast orbit so that would, I cal . . .<br />
<br />
E: That's a party every ten hours, oh my gosh.<br />
<br />
B: I calculated Rebecca would be over 30,000 years old if she lived on that planet. ''(laughter)'' So, all right. So we've got this dead star that could conceivably keep a nearby planet warm enough for life, so we've got that. We've got a couple different ways for a planet to arrive or form nearby. So then the next interesting question is, how do we detect this thing? And, if you regularly listen to this show, I think you probably know: the transit method, right? A planet moves between us and their star. The output, the light output dips, and bam! You've detected a planet. Of course, it's a little bit more complicated than that, but that's essentially the idea. Now in this scenario it's actually even better. Now think of this system, though. You've got a planet real close to a white dwarf and the white dwarf is so tiny, I mean they could be comparable in size, so that when this planet eclipses the white dwarf, you're gonna have a huge dip in the light output. It would be an obvious signal. It would leap out and say "whoa!" This starlight almost completely disappeared.<br />
<br />
S: But the plane of that system would have to be perfectly aligned with us.<br />
<br />
B: Yes, it would have to be. But even if it wasn't, you could still occlude half the star or 33 percent, and that still would be really really good. That's not even the best part. The real icing on the cake for this is that the white dwarf emits so much less light it becomes much easier to determine the composition of the atmosphere of the planet in orbit around it. And it turns out that after the simulation I was talking about, they showed that after just a few hours of observation instead of something like hundreds of hours, we would know that the planet has perhaps water vapor or maybe oxygen in it. And oxygen would, that would be gargantuan news. That would be huge because, on earth anyway, oxygen is created by life. You take away life from the planet earth and it would slowly diminish, the oxygen would just disappear. It would dissolve into the oceans, it would oxidize the surface, and if we found a sizable amount of oxygen on a planet, I think it'd be pretty solid indication that there's probably some kind of life on the planet producing that oxygen. And if not, maybe it's some kind of alien machine that's creating and it wouldn't matter 'cause in that case we would find life anyway. So, either way, it's a win-win!<br />
<br />
S: So now we've just gotta look for them.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, and the James Webb, the James Webb's a big thing, that once that guy comes online, that telescope comes online, I think, jees, I'm not sure when, but within a few years or so.<br />
<br />
S: They plan on a 2018 launch date.<br />
<br />
B: That is gonna have what it needs to really survey these white dwarves and find these planets and maybe find a planet that most likely has life on it. And how huge would that be; talk about the science story of the millennia, let alone the year!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we'll probably cover that one.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, maybe. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Ancient Lost Continent <small>(15:06)</small>===<br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21551149<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Evan, I read<br />
<br />
E: Yeah!<br />
<br />
S: that geologists claim they have found a lost sunken continent.<br />
<br />
E: You read correctly, Steve. And courtesy of the BBC, their headline reads "Fragments of ancient continent buried under the Indian Ocean."" So, what do you think? Is this it? They finally found Atlantis? Is the evidence incontrovertible?<br />
<br />
S: It's in the Indian Ocean so it wouldn't be Atlantis, it would be Indiana.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, I suppose that would be more accurate.<br />
<br />
B: No – Indianis.<br />
<br />
S: Indianis<br />
<br />
E: Indianis. <br />
<br />
B: I kinda like it.<br />
<br />
E: There are a few outlets out there; not exactly of BBC quality, with their own headlines, including "Fragments of ancient continent Atlantis found." And Atlantis is all in caps with an exclamation point and the word "found" is as well. And another one that says "Is this the real Atlantis?"<br />
<br />
S: Nobody knows.<br />
<br />
E: So, you know. Jees, that was not predictable at all that some people would be jumping all over the Atlantis part of the story. But, it has nothing to do with Atlantis whatsoever.<br />
<br />
S: Zip. Zero. Nada.<br />
<br />
E: Nada. Nope. This article's focus is on the study published in the journal Nature Geoscience. And like you said, Steve, the researchers have found evidence for the land mass that would have existed up to about 85 million years ago. Can I give you a quick little story to set this all up? So, a long time ago in a galaxy called the Milky Way, almost a billion years ago, and that was before iTunes and compact discs and vaccinations, on the earth there existed a super-continent. A super-continent is one very large continent. While at the same time, there are no other significant land masses anywhere on the earth. There have been many super-continents that have existed on the earth over the history of the earth.<br />
<br />
S: A few.<br />
<br />
E: Just a few. Well, about a dozen or so that they have listed online. But the super-continent from this particular period of time was called Rodinia. You guys may remember learning, I remember learning in grade school, about the super-continent called Pangaea, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. The most recent one, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: But, <br />
<br />
B: And Gondwana land is the other one, right?<br />
<br />
E: That one, Gondwanaland.<br />
<br />
J: Was that Guanaland? What is that, made of bat poop? The whole island?<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Pangaea, about 300 million years ago. No, Rodinia was well before that, about 750, maybe 800 million years ago. So we're talking a long time ago. As far as this particular new land mass that was discovered goes: picture in your mind a world map, and look in your mind for the country India. Okay? And then, to the south, the island nation of Madagascar. All right. Well, these areas were once connected, a part of Rodinia, and they were smashed up right next to each other. And researchers believe they've found evidence of a sliver of a continent known as, well they call it a microcontinent, that was once tucked between these two masses. But not only have they found the evidence, they're already calling it something. They're calling it Mauritia, named after the tiny island of Mauritius, which is the place where they actually discovered the evidence. So what kind of evidence did they find? Well, they collected samples from a volcanic eruption that took place estimated 9 million years ago, and within the samples of those sands and grains that they took in, were mixed in some much older minerals. They uncovered zircons. Now, zircons are known in geological circles for being found on the continental shelf and they are very, very old. These particular zircons that they found are estimated to be at least 600 million years old. And I read some estimates in some places that they could be almost 2 billion years old. The nearest known outcrop of continental crust that could have produced these zircons is on, well, Madagascar. But it's still very far away. And it's unlikely, they're trying to come up with scenarios by which, how could these zircons have gotten there by other means? They think that this is evidence for a land mass that actually, you know, believes a microcontinent that actually exists out there below the Indian Ocean. And they're going to be doing more studying about it. They're hoping to do more research and being a more detailed mapping of the floor of the Indian Ocean, and continue this research and try to find the sunken continent.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I read the paper itself, and I think what they demonstrated is pretty solid. But the notion that the source of these grains of sands that they examining is this sunken microcontinent that existed between India and Madagascar. That's really just a hypothesis at this point. It's not like they're found the continent or they're proven that it exists. It's just that it would be one possible explanation for why this ancient zircon would be where it is. It sounds plausible, sounds like a reasonable story, but again, I think just a hypothesis.<br />
<br />
B: In this context you always hear them saying "lost" or "sunken" continent. What the hell does "sunken" mean in this context?<br />
<br />
S; Below the water. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah, but<br />
<br />
E: You're right, Bob, it's a mystery.<br />
<br />
B: What's the mechanism? I mean, is it just erosion, like the islands near Hawaii that have been eroded into the sea after they moved off of the volcanic hot spot? I mean, or would some cataclysm happen that actually made it, that shifted the crust and made it sink because of that? I mean . . .<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I think it's more to do with when two land, a land mass breaks apart into two land masses, the piece in, you know, there may be some of it in between the two pieces that breaks apart and sinks under the ocean. That's essentially what they're saying. Just the way the crust broke apart. One interesting thing about the whole supercontinents, et cetera, is that we're still not really sure why continents even exist.<br />
<br />
J: Why? What do you mean? We don't know why they're there?<br />
<br />
S: Actually what happens with plate tectonics is you have, the oceans are constantly turning over like a conveyor belt. So no part of the ocean is any older than a couple hundred million years. Parts of the ocean diving down below a continental plate, and you have rifts in the middle where new ocean floors emerging and spreading. Yeah, so you have this spreading zone and then subduction zone. But the continents are always floating on top of these oceanic plates. So how did that happen in the first place? Once it established itself to be that way, then you could see how it's self-perpetuating. But we're not really sure how that happened to begin with. Which is interesting.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's cool.<br />
<br />
E: It is interesting.<br />
<br />
S: The other thing that's interesting is the result of that is that continents are ancient. That's why stuff that's ancient has to be continental, right, 'cause anything from the ocean can only be a couple hundred million years old. If something's a billion years old, it had to come from a continent. Only the continents are that old.<br />
<br />
E: Yes. Right, right. That's why the zircon's important.<br />
<br />
S: Which is kind of nice. 'Cause if the continents were also occasionally diving underneath other plates and recycling, there wouldn't be fossils.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. We'd lose a lot of information.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Electronic Tattoos <small>(22:36)</small>===<br />
http://www.businessinsider.com/temporary-tattoos-could-make-electronic-telepathy-telekinesis-possible-2013-2<br />
<br />
S: All right. Let's move on. I'm gonna talk about electronic tattoos.<br />
<br />
B: What the hell's that about?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, it has something to do with Fantasy Island.<br />
<br />
S: Here's the headline. You guys tell me what you think about this. "Temporary tattoos could make electronic telepathy possible."<br />
<br />
E: Telepathy!<br />
<br />
''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: I know, I know. If somebody didn't send this to me, I would have used it as a Science or Fiction item.<br />
<br />
E: Sorry!<br />
<br />
S: Evan, you sent me several things I was gonna use for Science or Fiction. But anyway, <br />
<br />
E: Oh, I undermined you totally.<br />
<br />
S: This would have, I would have had Bob going. It's like "Now you're talking about telepathy??" ''(laughter)'' But, yeah. No. No telepathy. So what the technology is is they're essentially flexible electronics that you can apply to skin. And because they're flexible they could move around, they could bend. They're very thin, and they can serve a few functions. One primary function would be that they would essentially be an electrode. No big deal. So it could pick up electrical signals from the skin. So for example, if placed on the scalp, they could detect brain waves. But because this is, like, an electronic circuit, it's not just a dumb electrode, it's an actual circuit, you can build other functionality into it, including a transmitter to transmit signals to, say, a device. It could be used as very small, thin, flexible monitors. And so the technology seems very practical, very useful. I'm sure that this kind of thing is going to find a lot of applications. What I found amusing, maybe irritating, was the reporting of this technology, this, these devices in terms of what the possible applications would be. Because these are electrodes, that could read electrical signals from the brain, they started speculating wildly about the most advanced applications of the brain machine interface. Now we've chatted about this too, but I mean, that's something that would be far enough in the future we cannot say how long it's going to be; that we cannot extrapolate. The brain machine interface we have now are actually very good at, and getting better, at reading movements. So because we can map out the motor strip, you know, the motor cortex, and you know, you can put a lot of electrodes along the motor cortex and then people can learn how to use a robotic arm, for example, just by thinking about what they want it to do because it's interpreting the signals in their motor cortex. So that's about where the technology is now. But telepathy would require being able to read somebody's thoughts. And there the limiting factor isn't the electrodes, you know, it's not the signal.<br />
<br />
B: It's the brain in the skull.<br />
<br />
S: It's interpreting, although even if you had brain surface electrodes that were in incredibly high fidelity reading the EEG, the electrical signals from the brain, we still wouldn't know how to translate it into thoughts.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, how do you turn thought into a digital signal? What's the interpretation? And everybody's would be different. That's the real problem.<br />
<br />
S: Well you'd have to calibrate, you know. And partly the machine would have to calibrate to you but also the user could learn how to use it, you know. But this will not allow for telepathy. That's the bottom line. This doesn't really get us any closer to telepathy. <br />
<br />
E: But the headline! Look at the headline!<br />
<br />
S: The researchers admitted that brain surface electrodes would work better than these. These skin surface electrodes are probably never going to have the fidelity, the discrimination, to be able to read thoughts.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It just makes more sense that they, let's say they surgically implant something that is the analog to digital interface for the brain, then it transmits it to another device and let all the computer power happen somewhere else. It doesn't have to happen on the surface of your skin.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well that's what this would do, too. This would just read signals transmitted to your smart phone and then you could communicate through your smart phone or operate your smart phone with thoughts alone.<br />
<br />
E: Like, if I were to think, dial my home number. It would activate the phone to do something like that?<br />
<br />
S: We're not at that point yet with this. But this could be useful for, like, paraplegic people who want to control a computer screen, or control a robotic device. Because these are very thin and small you could probably have a lot of them. But still, the signal is not as clear as the brain surface's invasive electrodes. So it remains to be seen how much utility these would have. But because these are, the advance here, is that the electrodes are integrated with other elements, such as transmitters, and that they're thin and flexible. You know, so you can put a lot of them on the scalp. You don't have to wear this big massive cap or something that's very unwieldy. So, it does expand the number of possible uses, but it doesn't get over the problem of reading the EEG from the scalp, and therefore telepathy is not one of the applications of this technology in my opinion. However, having said that, they did bring up the notion of sub-vocalizations. Are you guys familiar with that?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, yeah; that's cool stuff.<br />
<br />
J: I don't think we've talked about it on the show, but we, off the show, have talked about it. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, when you are saying words inside your mind, you tend to move your face, tongue and throat muscles in the way that you would if you were speaking them, just much more subtly. And there's actually been some research; I looked; there's not a lot, but there is some published research looking at detecting with skin surface electrodes, the muscle movements in the throat and the face and interpreting these sub-vocalizations. I'm reading some conflicting things, though. You know, some reviews say that being able to go from detecting these sub-vocalizations to actual words has been elusive. But other studies claim that they've been able to distinguish a number of different words from the EMG signals. But it's possible from, a limited set of words, that they can then know which one of those words that the person was thinking. So that's, actually, though . . .<br />
<br />
E: Interesting.<br />
<br />
S: That is plausible and that may just be a matter of incremental progress, and these electrodes, so these tattoos, might apply to that technology. Right? So if you're using this as a way of detecting sub-vocalizations, and the detection and analysis algorithm get sophisticated enough, and the user may be able to learn how to do that. 'Cause you can, I was doing this before the show, I was just thinking to myself and paying attention to what I was doing. And then also tried to maximize my movement, my sub-vocalization movements. You know what I mean? Like you can deliberately accentuate them. <br />
<br />
E: Can you shut them off entirely if you think about it? Or is it just so subtle that you really don't have that level of control over it?<br />
<br />
S: Well in researching this I did find lots of websites, and even some published studies, looking at the question of suppressing sub-vocalizations in order to improve or increase your reading speed. 'Cause apparently the sub-vocalizations slow you down.<br />
<br />
J: So to clarify, Steve, if words are going through my head; if I'm sitting here saying to myself, oh, I've gotta get up early tomorrow morning, or whatever it is, I am having some type of muscular reaction in my throat? Every time?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: If you're reading.<br />
<br />
S: No, even if you're just thinking, words.<br />
<br />
E: Even if you're just thinking the words!<br />
<br />
S: You're saying the words in your head, you are sub-vocalizing those words. Yes.<br />
<br />
E: Right. Okay.<br />
<br />
S: But the question is just, can we detect and interpret those muscle movements with enough precision and discrimination that we could translate that into the words that are in your head, that you're thinking. And this could give you like a fake telepathy. Like a pseudo-telepathy. It's not really telepathy 'cause it's through actual muscle movements. But that could still be really powerful. It still could functionally be telepathy.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: It's really not telepathy. It's probably better termed silent communication.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, imagine the military being able to communicate with each other without having to make any noise. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Or spies. Just it's silent communication. You can imagine dictating in a crowded room without having to speak aloud.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Google Glass <small>(31:25)</small>===<br />
http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/<br />
<br />
S: All right, Jay, let's move on. You're gonna tell us about Google glass.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, baby.<br />
<br />
J: So, yeah, Steve, this is a real milestone. This is one of the pieces of technology that I've been waiting for for a long time. This is the beginning of real augmented reality. To give you a quick definition of what augmented reality is: so imagine a car mechanic that's wearing a pair of sunglasses and a computer is projecting onto the inside of those sunglasses a schematic so that the car mechanic is looking at the car engine and the computer's projecting say, the wiring system. So wherever he turns his head, the, it'll look like it's in 3D so he can see, or he or she can see things that aren't actually visible to the naked eye because the computer is laying that on top of reality. It's like another layer, or putting layers of information on top of reality. Or, a surgeon performing open-heart surgery would be able to see the heart in a 3D view unobstructed by the rest of the tissue surrounding it, or the rib cage, or whatever. You know, having that vantage point gives people the opportunity to achieve things much faster, more precisely and with much greater success overall. Now, I'm not saying that Google glass is offering that to us right now, but what Google is offering is the very first step in true augmented reality. So let me give you a quick list of the features of what it is, and I'll describe to you the actual component that you're wearing is, it's like taking a pair of sunglasses, removing the lenses and then on one side, on one eye, they'll put a, it's like a little module there that has a piece of glass that's hovering in front of one of your eyes. It'll project into your vision onto that piece of glass you're looking through that piece of glass, one of your eyes. It'll project a computer screen that looks like it's floating three or four feet in front of you, that doesn't have any borders or anything of course. And there's simply information there. You know, there's text, there's however, they're showing this information, it's gonna be a varying degree of different things. And you're gonna be talking to it. You're not gonna be using keyboard or a mouse or anything, that you're primarily gonna be using vocalization to turn it on, to tell it what you need it to do. And some of the features that it's launching with are it's gonna be able to record video. What you see, it's gonna record. It's gonna take pictures. You're gonna be able to start Google-Plus hangouts with people. You're gonna be able to search. You're gonna be able to also search photos, which is cool. You're gonna be able to do translations, you're gonna be able to get directions; you're gonna be able to use the Google Now software, which is like iPhone's Siri, where you can ask more complicated questions and actually tell it to do certain things, like take notes, put something in my address book, in my calendar, whatever. You can send messages to people and you can get flight, or there'll be a flight detail database attached, so you can call that up when you need it. You would start each command with "Okay, Glass," as if you were talking to someone. "Okay, Glass, I want you to start recording video right now." "Okay, Glass, stop recording video." The really cool thing about this though, is you take it with you, it connects into your iPhone or to your Android operating system, and it is based off of the Android operating system. And you wear it and you just put it on and you forget that it's there and it just becomes another interface for you. The big thing here is, guys, it truly is the beginning of the next way that we're gonna be interacting and experiencing reality. And it's going to be augmented by computers in a way now that we've really never experienced it before. We're all gonna be able to do things that we normally wouldn't be able to do, even simple things. Like let's say you went to Ikea and you bought a bookshelf. Everybody knows that directions that come from companies like Ikea or whatever, some are better than other, but for the most part having to construct something is a complete and total pain in the ass. This would be showing you what to do. It would be giving you visual cues using the actual things that you're looking at. Like, showing you what pieces connect to each other and where.<br />
<br />
B: And that's the key, Jay. To me that's the key. It's contextual information. It's not, you're not just surfing web pages. You are seeing overlays on reality and it knows what you're looking at, and gives you information based on your environment and what you're interacting with. And that's one of the reasons why this is gonna be so powerful.<br />
<br />
S: All right, Bob, Bob, what would be the porn application?<br />
<br />
J: Oh, my god. Don't even go there.<br />
<br />
B: God. Come on.<br />
<br />
J: Well, Bob's talking about what it will be like down the road, and <br />
<br />
B: I ''have'' to talk about that.<br />
<br />
J: Maybe a future use of this would be that you could tell Google glass "When I'm sitting at my work desk, I want my monitor to appear as if it's here where a physical monitor would be" but when you turn your head away, it stays in that three-dimensional space; you know, if you're looking at your computer monitor and you turn your head to the left, you don't see the monitor anymore, you wouldn't in real life.<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: Now let me be the wet-blanket skeptic. <br />
<br />
E: ''(laughing)'' I was gonna mention something about that.<br />
<br />
S: To bring things down a little bit. So everything that you guys are saying may come to pass at some point, but the thing that we have to keep in mind is that until we put this technology in the hands of lots of people, it's really hard to predict how people will want to use it.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, absolutely.<br />
<br />
S: And what it will be useful for. So all the things that you guys are speculating about, are speculation. So we don't know if this is going to be the smart phone, where everyone's gonna want to have 'em and it's gonna be much more useful than anyone ever thought, or if it's gonna be the Segue. You know, where it's not gonna be so revolutionary. But it'll have a niche where people use it for certain specific things, or, guys, remember the high-definition, high-frame rate situation where there just was something annoying about it, that people have a hard time adapting to.<br />
<br />
B: Ah, you're so full of it<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, adaptation.<br />
<br />
B: That's a horrible analogy. ''(laughter)'' Because this, this isn't, it's not a segue. People were gonna build cities around segue. That was a ridiculous prediction. It's not like a segue at all. This is an improvement on the computer interfaces. I mean computer interfaces, they're not going anywhere. That's a proven technology. It's just another way, it's another type of monitor, Steve. <br />
<br />
S: I know, Bob. I'm just saying, until people start using we won't know, it's like a video phone. We talked about the fact, oh video phones are coming. Well, why wouldn't you use a video phone? And it turns out that for a lot of things you don't wanna be looking at somebody. Why is texting so popular? The use of technology is hard to predict.<br />
<br />
B: I agree. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:06)</small>== <br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Evan. Tell us about last week's Who's That Noisy?<br />
<br />
E: I'll do one better and play for you last week's Who's That Noisy? Who could forget this, this wonderful little sound. Here we go.<br />
<br />
''Bird-like tweeting. The tweet song is repeated several times, pretty much the same each time.''<br />
<br />
E: Definitely not a bird, definitely not a plane. <br />
<br />
S: What is it?<br />
<br />
E: Superman. ''(laughs)'' That is . . . the whistlepig.<br />
<br />
S: The whistlepig.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' The whistlepig. <br />
<br />
''(numerous garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
B: What the hell is a whistlepig?<br />
<br />
E: A groundhog!<br />
<br />
S: Remember, from ''Groundhog's Day''?<br />
<br />
E: We only covered it a few weeks ago.<br />
<br />
J: That's an actual pig?<br />
<br />
S: No, it's a groundhog. The whistlepig is another name for the groundhog.<br />
<br />
E: Right. Woodchuck, is another name for the groundhog. Some people call it a land beaver. And they're all over the place, especially in North America. Very common in northeastern parts of the continent, and in the central United States. Several guesses; only a few correct answers this week came in to us. Congratulations to Wayne Heller. Your name was drawn. You are the winner this week. You're in the drawing for the end-of-the-year contest by which we will put all names in the hat from the week winners and that grand-prize winner will join us on the SGU to play a round of Science or Fiction. All right, so. You guys ready for this week?<br />
<br />
S: Always.<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: It is another noisy we have this week. It's short. Here we go:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Men's voices speaking on some kind of communicators:<br />
Person 1: You're looking a little hot and all your calls will be a little early. (Beep) Person 2: Okay. Person 3: And that looks good here.</blockquote><br />
<br />
J: Isn't that when they made the Six-Million-Dollar Man, and he was about to crash? No?<br />
<br />
E: That's an interesting guess, Jay. No, that's not correct.<br />
<br />
J: I hope at some point in my life I'm gonna be talking to someone and that whistle will comment like the<br />
<br />
S: That call-tone?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I love that.<br />
<br />
E: What I would like to see in the answer for this week is not a generic idea of what you think the noise is. I would like to know pretty exactly where you recognize that noise from. Send us your guess. wtn@theskepticsguide.org; that's the email address for Who's That Noisy submissions. Or you can post it on our forums, sguforums.com. Every week I wish you all the best of <br />
<br />
J: ''(shouting)'' Good luck everybody!<br />
<br />
E: Thank you, Jay. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: I was getting very excited, Evan.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== "Ow!" <small>(40:36)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: All right, we have one question this week. This comes from Joe Shoults. And this is the shortest question we 've ever had.<br />
<br />
J: The answer is six inches.<br />
<br />
E: Four foot one.<br />
<br />
S: Joe writes "Why do we say "ow"? <br />
<br />
B: Wow! What a good question! Holy crap!<br />
<br />
J: Steve, can I try to answer it and see if I'm anywhere near correct?<br />
<br />
S: You can try.<br />
<br />
E: Okay.<br />
<br />
J: The first thing that occurred to me when I read that email when it came in was, well, first, the word is cultural. I'm sure that in other cultures they don't say "ow," they say other things.<br />
<br />
S: Are you sure?<br />
<br />
J: I'm guessing. I'm guessing. <br />
<br />
B: That's my guess as well.<br />
<br />
J: The other thing is I think we're giving a cue to the other mammals around us that we're injured.<br />
<br />
E: Here's my guess. My guess is ow is short for ouch.<br />
<br />
S: Why do we say ouch?<br />
<br />
J: 'Cause ouch is short for ouch-a-daisy.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: He didn't say "why do we say ouch?"; that wasn't the question. Said "why do we say 'ow'?" ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: Don't split hairs. Why do we make a vocalization when we get hurt?<br />
<br />
S: Do you think there's any published scientific research that might enlighten us on that question?<br />
<br />
J: I'm sure you know.<br />
<br />
E: If there is, you have it, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: All of the evolutionary psychological answers, there's no answer to that. ''(laughter)'' This is all hand waving. We don't know. No one knows. You could make up any kind of plausible sounding answer that you like for that. <br />
<br />
J: So I'm right!<br />
<br />
S: The answer is we don't know. That's what the answer is. But I did look at this from a couple of angles, just to see what I could find. One was, 'cause I remember reading this study but I wanted just to see what all the literature was, about swearing and pain perception. I couldn't find anything published about saying "ow" or "ouch," but I could find swearing. And, the research does show that if you swear when you have, like stub your toe, or have physical pain, that your perception of the pain is decreased. It does help.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: However, get this, if you swear all the time, then the benefit of swearing goes down. <br />
<br />
J: Fuck that!<br />
<br />
E: 'Cause you've numbed yourself.<br />
<br />
B: I could see that.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so you have to keep your swearing in reserve for when you stub your toe.<br />
<br />
J: Save it for the pain.<br />
<br />
S: Save it for the pain.<br />
<br />
B: How 'bout, now, what about instead of physical pain, what about emotional pain?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well, we also use it in lots of related ways, like, when somebody says something bad that happened, you might say, "ooo, ouch" as a way of saying, expressing sympathy or if somebody insults you really bad you might say "ouch" like sarcastically. Try to say like, oh you hurt me. I also had the same question, what is the, how international or cross-cultural is "ow" or "ouch." So I looked it up. Here's a smattering of what other cultures say instead of ouch. Ayee. So "ayee" or "ow" are the two main things that cultures say. In French, "ayee"; Thai, "oi"; Spanish, "ai"; Polish, "ouch"; Maltese, "ach"; Iran, "ai" or "ach" or "oof"; Afghanistan, "oof"; Germany, it's a-u-a, "Aua"; Dutch is "ow"; Norwegian, "ow"; Danish, it says a-v, I'm not sure if that's supposed to also be pronounced "ow"; <br />
<br />
E: Probably.<br />
<br />
S: Chinese, the only two-syllable one I came across, "ayo" or "ayah"; Turkish, "ach" or "ai"; so very similar across the cultures. It's mainly a lot of "ai" "ach" "oof" "ow." Very similar.<br />
<br />
J: That's interesting, too, and they're all short.<br />
<br />
S: A lot of a's, o's, yeah, they're all short. The Chinese one was the only one I found that was two syllables.<br />
<br />
J: Very cool. That's so interesting. I love that.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Interview with Jon Ronson <small>(44:20)</small> ==<br />
* Interview with Jon Ronson, recorded at CSICon 2012.<br />
<br />
S: All right, we have a very interesting interview that we recorded last October at CSICon with Jon Ronson.<br />
<br />
''(Music)''<br />
<br />
S: We're sitting here now with Jon Ronson. Jon, welcome back to the Skeptics' Guide.<br />
<br />
JR: It's good to be back. Thank you , Steve. And it's nice to meet you all after I've heard 400 episodes of you.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: Only 381.<br />
<br />
J: Jon, I believe you owe us an apology.<br />
<br />
JR: I do. Last time I was on, it was to talk about my book ''The Psychopath Test'' and it was on my birthday. And it was quite late, it was like 11:00 at night. And unlike me, I was drunk. And I, it turns out that I am a befuddled and slightly angry drunk.<br />
<br />
S: 'Cause we couldn't tell the difference.<br />
<br />
''(garbled comments and laughter)''<br />
<br />
JR: When I listened back I was ashamed. I was ashamed. Mid-sentence I would drift off. I didn't know what I was talking about.<br />
<br />
E: We said "Jon was sharp as ever tonight, wasn't he?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
JR: Well, actually, after the podcast, I accidentally typed my name into Google and I saw somebody saying "God, Jon Ronson sounded weird on Skeptics' Guide." ''(laughter)'' But the reason why was because it was my birthday and I'd been out with my family and I was drunk.<br />
<br />
S: I don't think you told us it was your birthday.<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, it was my birthday. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Warn us next time, okay?<br />
<br />
JR: Yes.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
JR: But yes, you can see now I'm as sharp as a pin. <br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
E: Ouch!<br />
<br />
S: Pithy. Much more pithy.<br />
<br />
JR: Pithy as a pin.<br />
<br />
J: So, Jon, can you please say to me: ''(in a English accent)'' "But of course I was drunk at the time."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
JR: I don't talk like that. Like somebody, like a buffoon from Downton Abbey. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Now you sound like the first of the reboot of the Doctors Who.<br />
<br />
JR: Right. The Doctors Who.<br />
<br />
''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: It was, what was the actor's name? Not David Tennant.<br />
<br />
R: Christopher Eccleston?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, Christopher Eccleston. What kind of accent does he have? Northern.<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, I believe he's from the Northeast. I see him jogging maniacally in a park in North London. <br />
<br />
S: You do?<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, he's a big jogger.<br />
<br />
S: Interesting.<br />
<br />
JR: Maniacal. Like he's really running away something. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Demons . . .<br />
<br />
E: May be.<br />
<br />
R: Personal demons . . . <br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, or . . . Daleks. "(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: Jon, what are you working on now?<br />
<br />
JR: Now I'm starting to write a new book on the subject . . . I don't want to talk too much about it because I don't wanna talk it all out. It always helps me to kind of internalize the thing that I'm writing about. It's kind of on the subject of humiliation. I always like to start with a word. So ''The Psychopath Test'' the word, I guess, was "madness." About how madness is a more powerful engine in our lives than rationality. And in ''The Men Who Stare at Goats'' I guess the word was a phrase, and it was "irrationality at the heart of power." And ''Them'' was like, paranoia at the fringes of society, and the new word is "humiliation." I'm very interested. I was really surprised, actually, I've just brought out this collection called ''Lost at Sea,'' and I was reading it; it's an audiobook, and I was amazed at fifteen years of adventure stories, how often the subject of humiliation comes up. How often people said to me, my greatest fear in life was being humiliated, and here it was coming true. It seems to be a running theme in my stories. <br />
<br />
R: And what about people who don't get humiliated? Are there any people who just . . . <br />
<br />
JR: Well that's another interesting thing. I mean, psychopaths don't get humilitated. <br />
<br />
S: Meaning they're immune to humilitation.<br />
<br />
JR: I think so, yeah. So it seems. They get annoyed, as you know. They get very cross if they feel slighted. So they've got terrible grandiosity issues. But, when they're caught in a lie, they don't feel bad about it. That's one of _________________ big things, feeling unembarrassed about being caught lying. But other people don't get humiliated, too. And I'm really interested in those people.<br />
<br />
J: It's interesting to think, is the most powerful source of humiliation for the average person being caught in a lie, or is it, like, a lot of people will do the default "oh, I'm naked in public, I would be humiliated." That wouldn't bother me at all. <br />
<br />
E: It would bother everyone else.<br />
<br />
J: But I definitely think being caught in a social lie, when people know. Especially like stealing somebody else's work type of lie, would be horrible. That would be horrible, right?<br />
<br />
JR; I can't think of anything worse than being the recipient of some kind of storm like that. Like Jonah Lehrer or Mike Daisey, those people. To me that's like, that's the kind of thing that would wake me up sweating.<br />
<br />
R: And there's so many people right now in what I feel is your field, in a way, like the people who are writing these sometimes slightly fictionalized accounts, but of truthful stories, you know, and David Sedaris went through this. And it's kind of sad, like they're all people I love, and to see that happening. . . <br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, I feel a bit sorry for Jonah Lehrer, because his big crime was inflating Bob Dylan quotes. Or, in fact, inventing them. And as somebody pointed out in the wake of that storm, Bob Dylan's autobiography is full of made-up stuff. Yet, nobody goes for Dylan. It does feel slightly subjective.<br />
<br />
R: Also, you know, sometimes you can't tell what Dylan's saying anyway. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Can't tell what he's ''singing.''<br />
<br />
JR: Another thing that worried me was, before Jonah Lehrer got done for that, he was done for self-plagiarism.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
JR: And I . . . I've never . . .<br />
<br />
S: What is self-plagiarism?<br />
<br />
JR: Well, it's basically using the same material like say in an article for the ''New Yorker'' and a blog for ''Wired.''<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Lifting like word-for-word, same paragraph, and dropping into a different article, usually.<br />
<br />
JR: When I heard that, I thought . . . so he wasn't stealing somebody else's work, he was repeating his own work.<br />
<br />
E: Repeating his own.<br />
<br />
JR: And when I heard that, I thought, Frank Sinatra would sing ''My Way'' every night! You know? Is that the worst crime in the world? I used to do that, and not worry. If I had like a really great line, there's a line in ''The Psychopath Test'' where I say . . . yes, there's a line in ''The Psychopath Test'' where I say, I'm talking about how bankers weren't, were kind of ignored, like the wickedness of hedge-fund managers and stuff, was kind of ignored for a long time and they were getting away with it. And I said the reason why they were getting away with it was because they were boring, and journalists don't like to write about boring people because the more colorful the prose, the better it looks for the journalist. So I said if you want to get away with wielding true malevolent power, be boring. And I'd actually written something very very similar to that a couple years ago in a column for the ''Guardian'' and it was completely ignored, and I thought, this is like a really interesting point. So I was happy to give it another shot in ''The Psychopath Test.'' And sure enough, it's become one of the more popular quotes in that book.<br />
<br />
R: The problem with that, I mean, 'cause what else are you gonna say, every single time? "As I once said." I mean, no.<br />
<br />
JR: I was surprised actually, when that came up as an issue for Jonah, and it worried me that people were gonna start going for journalistic misdeeds too much. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it becomes a witch hunt. And I think some people are doing it because they can. Because we have the technology, if you will, to sift through everything everyone's written. I know Gerald Posner faced that, where someone thought that he had plagiarized part of his book. And then somebody decided to cross reference everything he ever wrote with searching algorithms, where you could search everything he wrote and come up with all these other instances where lines from his research found their way into his books, or his articles without being properly referenced. And he admitted, clearly my process has broken down here and I haven't been keeping track of where these lines were coming from. So he admitted that inadvertently things have crept in, but I don't know who can withstand that kind of really thorough scrutiny. I mean we all have things rattling around in our head that we heard from other people, and if you write a lot, that stuff is gonna end up in what you write. <br />
<br />
JR: Absolutely. It did worry me. It seems to be kind of drifting off a little bit now. The funny thing about Mike Daisey, you know his story; he went to China and<br />
<br />
R: Foxconn.<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, to Foxconn, and was writing about the abuses that Foxconn were . . . everything he wrote was true. But his grave error of judgment was he said he witnessed it all first-hand. The tragedy of Mike Daisey is if he'd stayed in China for a couple of weeks longer, he could have actually got everything that he purported to get. All he had to do was get on a few more planes and go and meet a few more people. And it would have been the greatest expose of Apple of all time. But he didn't.<br />
<br />
R: But I think even if he had, though, he still would have messed with the narrative, because he, that was another huge thing; was not just that it didn't happen to him, but then he was screwing with the narrative not in a way that just makes better story arc but in a way that drastically altered events: where they happened, how they happened. And I feel like even if he had stayed there a few weeks; because what he is at heart is a storyteller, and that's what he values. He doesn't value truth.<br />
<br />
S: But isn't that the problem with journalism in general, is that ultimately it's a storytelling endeavor, and the truth, or the facts, becomes second in importance to that?<br />
<br />
R: Well no, because it's possible, I think, to balance those things; to know how to take what you're seeing . . . it's like taking a photo. You know, you could take a photo; I could take a photo of something out the window right now and then we could have a professional photographer come in and come up with something that's amazingly better. We're both representing the truth, but one of us has a better eye for how to capture it. It's exactly the same.<br />
<br />
S: Well, I think a better analogy there would be then you take it onto to PhotoShop and maybe you color correct it a little bit, or you enhance the contrast. Or then maybe you said, you know what, a tree instead of this building would work a little bit better. That building's ugly. I wanna put a tree there so that it doesn't ruin . . .<br />
<br />
R: Well, yeah, that would be the . . . yeah.<br />
<br />
S: And then there's a slippery slope. I'm talking more about this slippery slope. Of course all good journalism is storytelling. You know, Jon, you know this obviously better than any of us, you're a journalist and an author. You've written, obviously, you've listed your most recent successful books, screenplays, et cetera. And you have to tell a good story. But at the same time you're trying to convey an accurate portrayal of the subject matter. But isn't there this temptation to always tweak it to make the story a little bit better, even if it's not exactly true?<br />
<br />
JR: Well, I always try and make it true. And, a rather good thing about, you know, it's good to, it's, I feel sorry for the likes of Jonah Lehrer for being the one who's thrown into the bonfire. But I guess a good thing about that is it does keep everybody in check. But, I always try to keep a ___________, I have never been, nothing bad's ever happened, you know, I've never . . . <br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Yeah, yeah.<br />
<br />
JR: You know, so I've always been all right. Yeah, but you think about this every time you write something. It's really important. I always think it's the fact that I suffer from anxiety that stops me from transgressing. Like for instance if I was tempted to shape something too much, to shape something so it was no longer accurate, no longer truthful, I would immediately envisage a horrific future. <br />
<br />
E: Right. You play out a worst-case scenario in your head.<br />
<br />
JR: Exactly. Where it begins with Twitter, and it ends with, you know, jumping off a building.<br />
<br />
J: And that gets back to what we were saying earlier though, where a psychopath, or someone that doesn't have those built-in social meters and thresholds is gonna be capable of doing things that people like us won't be.<br />
<br />
JR: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: And you're editing yourself in a way to limit your own anxiety. I do the same thing. I have a very similar process where I'm always thinking about my actions and projecting then into the future. And it happens very seamlessly, right? You don't actually have to put a lot of energy into it. It's just part of your, the way your brain works.<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, absolutely. It's "what-if" scenarios that haunt people with OCD and so on. Yes. Psychopaths don't have that, which makes me suspect that psychopathy is the most pleasant feeling of all the mental disorders. So all of the things that keep us good, anxiety, guilt, remorse and so on, is, am I right in saying, Steven, shift to the amygdala and the central nervous system.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well, the amygdala is part of the central nervous system. But you mean, the frontal cortex is where all of the social mores are, the social morals, the things that give you anxiety so that you internally police yourself and you don't do things because you're afraid of social humiliation. That emotion exists so that we can exist in a society. And in fact what social psychology is showing is that people will essentially cheat exactly as much as they think they'll get away with. And it is, more than anyone else, the fear of social humiliation that keeps us from doing things which are inherently greedy or self-serving. We are totally self-serving unless we think that other people's perception of us being self-serving is no longer in our best interest. So it's ultimately still self-serving.<br />
<br />
J: There's something so unraveling about that.<br />
<br />
S: But that's, we're chimpanzees; that's how we behave. Just in a very sophisticated way. But then again in psychopaths they sort of lack that . . . it must be very freeing. I think that's why they're very charismatic, very compelling characters, 'cause it's like, wow, imagine having the freedom to just really do whatever you want .<br />
<br />
JR: And so difficult to treat, too, because there's no incentive to change. People with anxiety disorders want to get better.<br />
<br />
S: That ties into what you were saying about not liking the haughtiness of skepticism. And that's, I think, one of the challenges that we have. It's hard to tell people they're wrong about something without coming off as being haughty. So . . .<br />
<br />
JR: I mean the way I get away with it is to be very open about my own irrationalities; my anxieties; and people can sort of connect to that, on a sort of flawed level, I guess. People connect to me on a flawed level, and I think that helps. And, I think, yeah, that's a good way around that, is to be . . . . but you do that, Steven. You talk about everybody's rationality. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
JR: You don't say skeptics are perfect.<br />
<br />
S: No, no.<br />
<br />
JR: And that's very likable to do that.<br />
<br />
S: I don't think anyone really does that. I think it's an inadvertent thing that it comes across . . . I think people are looking for a reason to dismiss what the skeptics are saying because they don't like the conclusions. Like, oh, you're just being closed minded and haughty, and it's kind of a cheap shot, I think, oftentimes.<br />
<br />
JR: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: I do think that skeptics have evolved as a community to the point where we realize that that finger-wagging, haughty skeptic is completely ineffectual. If we wanna actually change people's minds. And in fact it's not even really true that, you know . . . we are all irrational. It's a matter of having a process that deals with that and understanding it.<br />
<br />
JR. Yeah. Also, you talked at the beginning about this kind of humiliation idea, and the more open you are about your weaknesses and so on, the less humiliatable you are. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, yeah . . .<br />
<br />
JR: It's like, these things kind of only exist when you're keeping them a secret, keeping them in the darkness.<br />
<br />
S: It is all part of the human narrative, right? So I think that's what you're, Jon, excellent at, as an investigative journalist and a writer, is making your, you are a good storyteller, and the are very human, and you're very much in the stories. But the process comes out, in that, still.<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah. But to me . . . I think this, where I disagreed with what you said was the I think self-deception, so these kind of more serious aspects of things, not the kind of, let's say for want of a better phrase, the sort of, the confirmation bias you find in the corpse instead of the confirmation bias you find in a haunted honty-tonk . . . I actually think people really are interested in this, 'cause I think psychology books are really popular and, you know, Richard Wiseman's books sell a lot of copies, and I think people ''do'' want to know about their own<br />
<br />
S: Yeah<br />
<br />
JR: flawed thought processes, actually. I think. Pleasure to see you all in the flesh. It's strange to actually hear these voices coming out of actual human faces. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: We do have actual human faces.<br />
<br />
E: We've shattered your illusion apparently. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Thanks, Jon.<br />
<br />
JR: Thank you.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:50)</small> ==<br />
''Voiceover: It's time for Science or Fiction''<br />
<br />
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious and I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. You guys ready for this week?<br />
<br />
J: We are ready.<br />
<br />
E: Time to play.<br />
<br />
S: You'll find these are interesting.<br />
<br />
E: Always.<br />
<br />
S: Here we go. [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/osoa-idh022613.php Item number one]. Scientists have developed an imaging system that can look through walls into a burning building and identify survivors that need rescuing. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130225092040.htm Item number two]. A new analysis finds that Spiderman’s webbing would have been strong enough to stop the commuter trains as depicted in the Spiderman 2 movie. [http://now.tufts.edu/news-releases/new-study-shows-viruses-can-have-immune-syste And item number three]. Researchers discover a virus with an adaptive immune system. <br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: Jay, you spoke first, so you get to go first.<br />
<br />
J: The first one about scientists developing an imaging system that can look through walls into a burning building.<br />
<br />
E: Let me guess. Google glasses. <br />
<br />
J: I don't see why I should doubt this. I think that of course it's using temperature difference, I'd imagine, to see where the survivors might be, or, you know, we already have, they already have devices like this where they can see through a hundred smoke-filled room. You know, they go in with the face mask and the oxygen and they're walking through and they hold this thing up and it's, looks like a really big flashlight but it has a viewfinder on it that will show them the heat differences. I just don't see why this one is that big of a leap. So I'm just gonna take that initially right off the list as that's a, that is science. The second one about Spiderman's webbing being strong enough to stop a commuter train, or it would have been, Spiderman's webbing would be that strong if he was using that much spider web, I'm assuming, right Steve? If that were real spider web and there was that much of it, it could do those things?<br />
<br />
S: Yes. That's what the analysis showed.<br />
<br />
J: I would just imagine that that's a yes, if anything I'd like to say I think it would be a lot stronger than that as well because of the things I do know about spider webbing. I don't know if all spider webbing is created equal, if every spider produces the same exact type of thing, I'd imagine there's huge variances in there, but that one seems completely legitimate to me as well. So, I'm left with this last one that researchers discovered a virus with an adaptive immune system. I don't see why that sounds too crazy either. You know, we're talking viruses here, which are these very small, small litter critters that, like bacteria, why should I doubt it? But I'm really gonna go with that last one as the fake 'cause the other two just seem very plausible to me. And here's the roll. And it came up a two. And so, once, me and randomness do not agree.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. All right. Bob?<br />
<br />
B: Let's see, I'll start with 3. The adaptive immune system. That's wicked, if a virus . . . I assume it's somehow grabbing what it needs to create its own immune system. That's pretty amazing. But considering that it can, I mean it's designed to penetrate a cell, and take over genetic machinery, I guess that seems somewhat plausible that it could, that it can somehow, that they found one with an immune system . . . I'm just assuming that it somehow co-opted it from another organization. That just kind of makes sense to me. I really hope that that's true. Let's see, the second one, Spiderman's webbing, yeah, I can totally see that. We all have heard over and over and over just how strong spider web is, and Jay, you're right. There is a huge variance. There's a specific type of spider that creates the strongest drag line silk. If you scale that up, I could see how it would actually work. I mean, Jay, we're talking about a huge amount of momentum. Huge amount of kinetic energy that it has to deal with. But considering that spider silk is also very good at maintaining its stength and stretching, I really believe that this would work. I really hope it does. The first one, this is the one I've got problems with. Yeah, I myself have talked about this specific type of technology where they could actually see through walls and buildings. And it's really amazing, but the technology is a little bit immature, I think, at this stage. It's got tons of potential, but the thing that's throwing me a little bit is the burning building and you've got fire, you've got heat; it can distort images <br />
<br />
J: FIRE!<br />
<br />
B: incredibly. ''(laughter)'' And I think that throwing the fire in the mix is what would make this not a viable technology. Not yet anyway. That's a little bit too advanced. See through a wall? Yeah. But when you throw a fire into the mix, and heat, and the distorting effects that that has. I think you tweaked this one a little bit, so I think that one is the fiction.<br />
<br />
S: And Evan.<br />
<br />
E: Bob and Jay each touched on really good things here on the two that they chose as the fiction, and I was kind of thinking the same thing, so I'm kind of split between those. As far as Spiderman's webbing, strong enough to stop the train. Yeah, I guess if you have enough of it it's, some webs that are produced by spiders are pretty durable material. Pretty strong in their own right. And you just need, I think, it's a matter of quantity at that point. So therefore I'm down to this virus with an adaptive immune system. I don't know, in a way, would that be unfortunate? ''(laughter)'' Would this make viruses more difficult and cause more problems for human beings? The first one about looking though the walls into the burning building and then find the survivors. So, maybe it's not so much about the fire, maybe it's more about finding the survivors and the heat that they're giving off. I'm in a burning building, right? Chances are I'm not in there kind of running around like a chicken with my head cut off, I'm probably just doing whatever I can to find shelter, or maybe I've gone unconscious but not have died from the smoke inhalation. And perhaps that's a key to this, as to how they're able to detect a person who is alive and needs rescuing. So, that means I have to sort of lean towards this virus with the adaptive immune system. I'm gonna go with Jay and say that one is the fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. So you all agree that a new analysis finds that Spiderman's webbing would have been strong enough to stop the commuter train, as depicted in the Spiderman 2 movie. All think that one is science, and that one . . . is . . . science.<br />
<br />
J: All right!<br />
<br />
B: Sweet!<br />
<br />
S: Good job so far, guys.<br />
<br />
E: Thank you.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, this is a project by some physics students and they did all the calculations. Would the webbing have had the strength to stop the momentum plus the engine, they include that as well 'cause it was still running, you know, it wasn't just in<br />
<br />
B: Coasting, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: It wasn't coasting. Would it have been enough to stop the train, and they concluded that it would have been more than strong, more than powerful enough.<br />
<br />
E: More than enough, wow.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it is very, very strong. It's stronger than steel, so if you just imagine steel cables, it kind of visually makes a little bit more sense. But, I would say though, I didn't point this out during . . . 'cause nobody asked, but you know how in that movie where Spiderman just sort of shot the webbing to either side, and then stopped the train. That would have ripped him apart. Even if the webbing wouldn't have been the weak<br />
<br />
B: Right. ''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: But that made him like Superman. I mean, I understand Spiderman is tough, but that, I thought, was ridiculous. He should have shot the web from one side to the other.<br />
<br />
E: Right.<br />
<br />
S: So just the web itself stopped the train. And I think that's the calculation that the physicists did. The students did.<br />
<br />
B: I forgot that Spidey did that. Yeah, that was a little silly, but . . .<br />
<br />
S: So this is students from the University of Leicester, published in the ''Journal of Physics,'' special topics. This was James Forester, Mark Brian and Alex Stone, came up with a fun idea for their senior project. But yeah, not surprising. Spider webbing is ridiculously strong. And some spider webs are stronger than others. They did use webbing from the toughest spider silk that is known. Do you guys know what spider that's from?<br />
<br />
B: I think it's got "bark" in the name, doesn't it?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Darwin's bark spider. Good job.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Strongest known webbing of any spider, Darwin's bark spider.<br />
<br />
E: Damn right.<br />
<br />
S: All right. Let's go back to number one. Scientists have developed an imaging system that look through walls into a burning building and identiy survivors that need rescuing. Bob thinks, is alone in thinking that this one is the fiction. Jay and Evan think this one is science. And this one . . . is . . . the fiction.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, baby.<br />
<br />
S: Good job, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: wow.<br />
<br />
S: Although, Bob, you're right for the exact wrong reason.<br />
<br />
B: Whaa?<br />
<br />
S: Because scientists have developed an infrared digital holography that allows fire fighters to see through flames and image people. So they, they <br />
<br />
B: Well, yes of course, yes.<br />
<br />
S: Not through smoke but through flames.<br />
<br />
B: No, no, no, no, Steve. In my equation was the wall.<br />
<br />
S: Well, the wall was<br />
<br />
B: and the fire. That's what made it difficult. Not the fire. I totally believe they've developed it through fire, but not wall and fire.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. I thought you just said through smoke, but the fire was the problem. All right, fine. But the smoke, that, as you guys all said, that's, infrared imagers will see body heat through smoke. No problem. But the problem has been when there's fire, the heat from the fire obscures the heat from the body and it overwhelms it. Because you have heat sensitive detectors and you have this bright heat source. Especially if you have to zoom in to try to find the person, zooming in will completely overwhelm the sensors. So they developed an instrument that uses digital holography and uses an imaging system without focusing lenses, so that it deals with that problem of getting too much heat, too much, you know, radiation into the system overwhelming the sensors. And they were able to use it to separate the image of a person from the background noise of flame. <br />
<br />
B: That's awesome.<br />
<br />
S: But this, you have to be inside the building with the person. So the bit that I changed was imaging from the outside. And you're right, there is, we talked about this too, technology for looking through walls. But it's not nearly, at this point, where you could look at a burning building, go Oh, there's a person on the second floor, in the closet, or whatever. This means that researchers discover a virus with an adaptive immune system is science. This one's pretty cool.<br />
<br />
B: Cool. Yeah, that's really cool.<br />
<br />
J: Awesome.<br />
<br />
S: Do you know what the virus is, Bob? <br />
<br />
B: No. The, no, I don't know what the, I don't know.<br />
<br />
S: It's a bacteriophage.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, a phage, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: It's a virus that eats bacteria, that infects and kills bacteria.<br />
<br />
E: That's good.<br />
<br />
S: And the virus has adopted the adaptive immune system from a cholera bacteria. Interestingly, they think that it is, over its history it incorporated genes from bacteria in order to co-opt its adaptive immune even though<br />
<br />
B: Tricky bastard.<br />
<br />
S: the modern cholera that it infects doesn't have those genes anymore.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' Oh, awesome. A blast from the past.<br />
<br />
S: So this makes this bacteriophage, this virus, much more deadly to the bacteria. It's much more effective. It infects it, kills it, replicates, spreads, goes into more bacteria, infects them, kills them, very effective. Evan, this would, if anything, it would be a good thing. These are viruses that do not infect people. They infect bacteria, and <br />
<br />
E: I was hoping, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: And it's actually possible to use them as a way of fighting off a bacterial infection. If you think about it, they're little machines, bacteria-killing machines. This is being developed as a bacteria-fighting technology. This bit about having an adaptive immune system actually can make them more effective. So it would be nice if it comes to fruition because of the problems we're facing with anti-bac, with antibiotic resistance. Pretty cool. All right, well, good job, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: Finally.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:13:44)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>The world is much more interesting than any one discipline.</blockquote><br />
Edward Tufte<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>(1:15:27)</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_398&diff=6395SGU Episode 3982013-04-21T23:41:29Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 398<br />
|episodeDate = 2<sup>nd</sup> March 2013<br />
|episodeIcon = File:E-tattoo.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|guest1 = JR: Jon Ronson<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-02.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=398<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45209.0.html<br />
|qowText = The world is much more interesting than any one discipline.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tufte Edward Tufte]<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine <br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, February 27, 2013 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: Hey, guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Ah. Kum bah wa, everyone.<br />
<br />
B: Kum bah yay, what was that?<br />
<br />
E: Kum bah ya, no. Kum bah wa. Japanese for good evening.<br />
<br />
S: Good evening.<br />
<br />
E: Lots of SGU listeners in Japan. We know a few. <br />
<br />
S: So apparently Rebecca has some kind of phlegm situation going on. <br />
<br />
E: I didn't know she was Amish.<br />
<br />
S: We're trying to decide if she has the flu, whooping cough, or strep throat.<br />
<br />
J: Well, get this, guys. So Rebecca emails us and says that she's not feeling well; that she woke up really late today, and she's been basically zonked all day. And at the same time, we have a little whooping cough scare going on over here with the newborn. This is what happened. My sister-in-law came to visit from Denver. And in the Midwest you know that the whooping cough incidences are higher and everything and I just didn't really think much of it other than everyone in the family got the tdap vaccination, which is the whooping cough<br />
<br />
S: Did she and her family get the tdap?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, they did. What I found out today was that, like many of the vaccines that we get, you know they're guessing at which strain is gonna be the one that's gonna hit that year,<br />
<br />
S: No, hang on a minute, Jay. What you're describing is relevant for the flu. With the whooping cough, it's not that there's like a different strain hitting every year, it's just that tdap covers only a very narrow number of strains and the virus has mutated. You know, it just, new strains are developing. But it's not like there's a seasonal strain like the flu. It's a little bit different.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I didn't mean to confuse that. I know, like, exactly what you said, that there is a newer version of it that just wasn't covered by that particular vaccination that we got. <br />
<br />
S: yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So, her sister left on Monday morning. She called us up today, we're recording on Wednesday. She said "Guys, I had a bad cold on my way home, and now it's turning into something that's very, what I would consider to be whooping cough-like.<br />
<br />
E: Yeesh.<br />
<br />
J: So we called up our doctor, you know, I have a three-and-a-half-week-old in the house now, and you know, like, very dialed into this. And we called up the doctor up and me like "What's up? Like what do we do? What happens?" And pertussis is a bacteria, it's not a virus. So they have an anti-biotic for it. <br />
<br />
E: Anti-biotic. Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So, what do you call it, Steve? Erythromycin? <br />
<br />
S: Erythromycin, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Erythromycin, yeah. So that's the one that they use for it. And it's the mega-dose, like two pills the first day and then you take like this mega-dose thing for four days. Of course the baby's taking the liquid form and everything. But I'm sitting there tonight with my wife and we're giving the baby its first medication, and it's freakin' whooping cough medication! Like I wanted to strangle people. Thank you everybody for not . . .<br />
<br />
S: Anyone who has never gotten vaccinated for whooping cough, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Something that we could<br />
<br />
E: Way to blow the herd immunity; way to go.<br />
<br />
J: We could get rid of it. Did you guys see the info-graphic of . . . the CDC puts out information every year, and somebody made an info-graphic of the incidence of morbidity before and after the vaccination for a particular disease came and went. Right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And right out of the gate, things like smallpox and stuff, I don't remember the exact numbers, but we have certain diseases where there was like a half a million people dying a year, down to zero. After the vaccination. And there's like, in this info-graphic, I think there was more than a dozen of them. It was incredible. Like you see the numbers, how dramatically different they are. Right there. That's a hundred percent proof. They work. And yet people are walking around out there ''today'' and they don't care; that information is meaningless to them. How? Why?<br />
<br />
B: Well what is the worst-case scenario with pertussis? I mean, how bad could it get? <br />
<br />
J: It can kill you, Bob; it can kill a baby.<br />
<br />
E: Death.<br />
<br />
B: That's bad.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there was that famous case in Australia where a baby caught, Dana McCaffery, caught whooping cough in a community that had very low vaccination rates because of the Australian anti-vaccination network preaching against vaccines, and, the baby caught it from unvaccinated people. And died. 'Cause the child was too young to be vaccinated. It's one of the populations that need to be protected by herd immunity.<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(4:33)</small> ==<br />
* March 2, 1983: Compact Disc players and discs are released for the first time in the United States and other markets. They had been available only in Japan before then.<br />
<br />
S: Evan, so you're filling in for Rebecca this week for This Day in Skepticism.<br />
<br />
E: I said "Good evening" in Japanese to start the show. And I did so because the compact disc, you guys remember what compact discs are, CDs,<br />
<br />
S: They're still, they're still used today.<br />
<br />
E: They are. Their first, most common usage was of course for music storage, right? Playing music. Put 80 minutes of uncompressed audio on one of those things. That's 737 megabytes of data. What do you think of that? So in Japan, is where the CDs were first, widely became available, in October of '82. However, on March 2nd of 1983, compact discs and their players were released for the first time in the United States and other markets around the world, whereas they'd only been available in Japan before but finally they came to the United States, and I remember this vividly. It was a big f'ing deal, for me and my 13-year-old friends and stuff who were all, in our own opinions, very big into music. And it was a rush to see who would get the first CD, who would be able to afford the first CD player. It was kind of bragging rights, in a sense. Do you guys remember?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah. Instantly replaced tapes, records; 8-tracks had already died by then.<br />
<br />
E: Thank goodness.<br />
<br />
S: Buy, yeah, and think about it, guys. Thirty years! And they're still a perfectly acceptable technology. I still buy CDs for music. <br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
S: Sure.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, man. I just download it all.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but think about it. A CD, you can then rip it into any quality MP3 you want, which you own, without any DRM, and you have the CD for a backup. And it's still cost-effective. It's not like you're saving money by downloading. So it's still a perfectly viable technology. It's had a lot of longevity.<br />
<br />
B: It's all right, I guess. I like, I hear a song that I like. Like, oh boy, that sounds really good. And I buy it. Within literally four minutes I have it on my iPhone and I'm listening to it. That's awesome.<br />
<br />
S: I do that, too, but, if there's an album coming out and I know I want the whole album, I'll get it on a CD. <br />
<br />
E: Something to remember, guys, is that when you purchase a CD, you're purchasing something physical that you actually own. And when you purchase a license to get a music or something you download through iTunes or something, there's a question, there's debates going on right now in the courts as to how much ownership do you actually have over that thing? In other words, can you put it into your estate and leave it to your heirs?<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And they are fighting that. You know, the record industry, or industries, don't want those rights to be transferred on to descendents. Where, but with a CD you're guaranteed. That is yours, it's physical, you can do whatever the heck you want with it. So, keep that in mind also in the debate about, you know, what medium, what format you're gonna use for your music.<br />
<br />
B: That's messed up.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Life Around Dying Stars <small>(7:32)</small>===<br />
http://phys.org/news/2013-02-future-evidence-extraterrestrial-life-dying.html#ajTabs<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Bob, talk about looking for life around dying stars.<br />
<br />
B: If you insist.<br />
<br />
S: I do.<br />
<br />
B: So guys, <br />
<br />
E: Like Mickey Rooney, are we talking? What are we talking here, dying stars?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, boy. Guys, when you think of an extraterrestrial planet, especially one that supports life, what do you think of? Do you think of, you've got this planet orbiting a parent star that's kind of like our sun, right? Maybe it's a little bit bigger than our sun, maybe it's a little bit smaller. And of course, if that's the case, the habitable zone around the star changes because of how big and bright the star is.<br />
<br />
S: Now, Bob, I think of Tatooine with two suns. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Nice orchestral music playing.<br />
<br />
S: Or Rigel 7 with a big planet in the distance with rings around it.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but, still, it's like a, it's a real star, it's like a star that <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, not a fake star.<br />
<br />
B: It's fusing hydrogen into helium. No, but it's not a ''dead'' star, and that's the point here. There's a new theoretical study that finds that the most likely place possibly to find life on another planet may be around a dead star. More specifically, of course, a white dwarf. You know, I'm not talking about a neutron star or black hole. But not only that, they think they might be able to actually find one of these planets in the next ten years. Which seems like a pretty bold prediction.<br />
<br />
E: But Bob, isn't a white dwarf after the star went through its initial sort of expansion then came back in on itself. Wouldn't it have kind of destroyed things on that<br />
<br />
B: Well, exactly. And that's the huge problem. That's the first thing I thought of, well how can that be? A white dwarf is a dead star. It's a corpse of a sun-like star, at the end of its, you know in its old age it swells into a red giant and it totally crisps any of the planets that were nearby, but before it expels a lot of its mass, making the beautifully misnomered planetary nebula. So what's left is this collapsed core. It's about as big as the earth, but it's got the mass, it could have a mass of more than the sun. 1.4 solar masses, I think, is the ________________________ limit for that. So that's a lot of mass in a really tiny place. So clearly it's unbelievably dense, right? If you had a ton of white dwarf matter, if you could do that, you could fit it into a matchbox. I mean it's super, super tiny. You can thank the electron degeneracy pressure for that. But there's no nuclear reactions going on to produce energy, but because it's relatively small it could radiate it's remaining heat for literally billions of years. So clearly, then, this thing could have its own little Goldilocks zone to support life, even though it's really not even a star anymore. It's not creating energy, but it's just radiating away the energy that's contained in it for many, many, many eons. So then the next question then, Evan, which ties into your comment, was how does the planet get there, because the red giant's gonna wipe out anything that's nearby. Probably anything that's in the Goldilocks zone. So there's actually two ways that could happen. One might, you might predict, a planet can migrate in from the outskirts of a solar system; we've seen that with hot Jupiters: Jupiter-sized planets that have orbits closer than Mercury. How the hell did they get there? Well they can actually migrate in through the solar system. But there's another way. A planet can also form from the leftover dust and gas; and that, of course, would be a second-generation world, which I think is pretty cool. Now of course, though, this planet would have to get pretty damned close, since the heat source is so small and dim compared to regular living stars . . .<br />
<br />
S: Bob, do we know that either of those can actually happen around a white dwarf, though?<br />
<br />
B: The thing here, though, with this theoretical study, Steve, is that they ran these really sophisticated simulations and they've pretty much shown in the simulation everything that I'm talking about.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
T<br />
B: That this can happen; they're incredibly confident that it could happen. They can think of no reason why it wouldn't happen. Now, it's not like every white dwarf is gonna have one these. They're saying that among the 500 closest white dwarves to the sun, they might find one or two that have planetary bodies in orbit around it that could support life. So, you know, one or two in 500 isn't great odds, but there's lots of stars and we can look at a lot of different things.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
B: So, the interesting thing is, as you could imagine, these planets would have to be very close to the white dwarf in order to get enough heat to have liquid water and life evolve. So that turns out to be only about a million miles away, which is what one over ninety-three, wait, sorry. And that's, our orbit's 93 million miles, so it's way, way, way close to it. And it's year, of course, would only be about ten hours long, which is an amazingly fast orbit so that would, I cal . . .<br />
<br />
E: That's a party every ten hours, oh my gosh.<br />
<br />
B: I calculated Rebecca would be over 30,000 years old if she lived on that planet. ''(laughter)'' So, all right. So we've got this dead star that could conceivably keep a nearby planet warm enough for life, so we've got that. We've got a couple different ways for a planet to arrive or form nearby. So then the next interesting question is, how do we detect this thing? And, if you regularly listen to this show, I think you probably know: the transit method, right? A planet moves between us and their star. The output, the light output dips, and bam! You've detected a planet. Of course, it's a little bit more complicated than that, but that's essentially the idea. Now in this scenario it's actually even better. Now think of this system, though. You've got a planet real close to a white dwarf and the white dwarf is so tiny, I mean they could be comparable in size, so that when this planet eclipses the white dwarf, you're gonna have a huge dip in the light output. It would be an obvious signal. It would leap out and say "whoa!" This starlight almost completely disappeared.<br />
<br />
S: But the plane of that system would have to be perfectly aligned with us.<br />
<br />
B: Yes, it would have to be. But even if it wasn't, you could still occlude half the star or 33 percent, and that still would be really really good. That's not even the best part. The real icing on the cake for this is that the white dwarf emits so much less light it becomes much easier to determine the composition of the atmosphere of the planet in orbit around it. And it turns out that after the simulation I was talking about, they showed that after just a few hours of observation instead of something like hundreds of hours, we would know that the planet has perhaps water vapor or maybe oxygen in it. And oxygen would, that would be gargantuan news. That would be huge because, on earth anyway, oxygen is created by life. You take away life from the planet earth and it would slowly diminish, the oxygen would just disappear. It would dissolve into the oceans, it would oxidize the surface, and if we found a sizable amount of oxygen on a planet, I think it'd be pretty solid indication that there's probably some kind of life on the planet producing that oxygen. And if not, maybe it's some kind of alien machine that's creating and it wouldn't matter 'cause in that case we would find life anyway. So, either way, it's a win-win!<br />
<br />
S: So now we've just gotta look for them.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, and the James Webb, the James Webb's a big thing, that once that guy comes online, that telescope comes online, I think, jees, I'm not sure when, but within a few years or so.<br />
<br />
S: They plan on a 2018 launch date.<br />
<br />
B: That is gonna have what it needs to really survey these white dwarves and find these planets and maybe find a planet that most likely has life on it. And how huge would that be; talk about the science story of the millennia, let alone the year!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we'll probably cover that one.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, maybe. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Ancient Lost Continent <small>(15:06)</small>===<br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21551149<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Evan, I read<br />
<br />
E: Yeah!<br />
<br />
S: that geologists claim they have found a lost sunken continent.<br />
<br />
E: You read correctly, Steve. And courtesy of the BBC, their headline reads "Fragments of ancient continent buried under the Indian Ocean."" So, what do you think? Is this it? They finally found Atlantis? Is the evidence incontrovertible?<br />
<br />
S: It's in the Indian Ocean so it wouldn't be Atlantis, it would be Indiana.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, I suppose that would be more accurate.<br />
<br />
B: No – Indianis.<br />
<br />
S: Indianis<br />
<br />
E: Indianis. <br />
<br />
B: I kinda like it.<br />
<br />
E: There are a few outlets out there; not exactly of BBC quality, with their own headlines, including "Fragments of ancient continent Atlantis found." And Atlantis is all in caps with an exclamation point and the word "found" is as well. And another one that says "Is this the real Atlantis?"<br />
<br />
S: Nobody knows.<br />
<br />
E: So, you know. Jees, that was not predictable at all that some people would be jumping all over the Atlantis part of the story. But, it has nothing to do with Atlantis whatsoever.<br />
<br />
S: Zip. Zero. Nada.<br />
<br />
E: Nada. Nope. This article's focus is on the study published in the journal Nature Geoscience. And like you said, Steve, the researchers have found evidence for the land mass that would have existed up to about 85 million years ago. Can I give you a quick little story to set this all up? So, a long time ago in a galaxy called the Milky Way, almost a billion years ago, and that was before iTunes and compact discs and vaccinations, on the earth there existed a super-continent. A super-continent is one very large continent. While at the same time, there are no other significant land masses anywhere on the earth. There have been many super-continents that have existed on the earth over the history of the earth.<br />
<br />
S: A few.<br />
<br />
E: Just a few. Well, about a dozen or so that they have listed online. But the super-continent from this particular period of time was called Rodinia. You guys may remember learning, I remember learning in grade school, about the super-continent called Pangaea, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. The most recent one, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: But, <br />
<br />
B: And Gondwana land is the other one, right?<br />
<br />
E: That one, Gondwanaland.<br />
<br />
J: Was that Guanaland? What is that, made of bat poop? The whole island?<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Pangaea, about 300 million years ago. No, Rodinia was well before that, about 750, maybe 800 million years ago. So we're talking a long time ago. As far as this particular new land mass that was discovered goes: picture in your mind a world map, and look in your mind for the country India. Okay? And then, to the south, the island nation of Madagascar. All right. Well, these areas were once connected, a part of Rodinia, and they were smashed up right next to each other. And researchers believe they've found evidence of a sliver of a continent known as, well they call it a microcontinent, that was once tucked between these two masses. But not only have they found the evidence, they're already calling it something. They're calling it Mauritia, named after the tiny island of Mauritius, which is the place where they actually discovered the evidence. So what kind of evidence did they find? Well, they collected samples from a volcanic eruption that took place estimated 9 million years ago, and within the samples of those sands and grains that they took in, were mixed in some much older minerals. They uncovered zircons. Now, zircons are known in geological circles for being found on the continental shelf and they are very, very old. These particular zircons that they found are estimated to be at least 600 million years old. And I read some estimates in some places that they could be almost 2 billion years old. The nearest known outcrop of continental crust that could have produced these zircons is on, well, Madagascar. But it's still very far away. And it's unlikely, they're trying to come up with scenarios by which, how could these zircons have gotten there by other means? They think that this is evidence for a land mass that actually, you know, believes a microcontinent that actually exists out there below the Indian Ocean. And they're going to be doing more studying about it. They're hoping to do more research and being a more detailed mapping of the floor of the Indian Ocean, and continue this research and try to find the sunken continent.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I read the paper itself, and I think what they demonstrated is pretty solid. But the notion that the source of these grains of sands that they examining is this sunken microcontinent that existed between India and Madagascar. That's really just a hypothesis at this point. It's not like they're found the continent or they're proven that it exists. It's just that it would be one possible explanation for why this ancient zircon would be where it is. It sounds plausible, sounds like a reasonable story, but again, I think just a hypothesis.<br />
<br />
B: In this context you always hear them saying "lost" or "sunken" continent. What the hell does "sunken" mean in this context?<br />
<br />
S; Below the water. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah, but<br />
<br />
E: You're right, Bob, it's a mystery.<br />
<br />
B: What's the mechanism? I mean, is it just erosion, like the islands near Hawaii that have been eroded into the sea after they moved off of the volcanic hot spot? I mean, or would some cataclysm happen that actually made it, that shifted the crust and made it sink because of that? I mean . . .<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I think it's more to do with when two land, a land mass breaks apart into two land masses, the piece in, you know, there may be some of it in between the two pieces that breaks apart and sinks under the ocean. That's essentially what they're saying. Just the way the crust broke apart. One interesting thing about the whole supercontinents, et cetera, is that we're still not really sure why continents even exist.<br />
<br />
J: Why? What do you mean? We don't know why they're there?<br />
<br />
S: Actually what happens with plate tectonics is you have, the oceans are constantly turning over like a conveyor belt. So no part of the ocean is any older than a couple hundred million years. Parts of the ocean diving down below a continental plate, and you have rifts in the middle where new ocean floors emerging and spreading. Yeah, so you have this spreading zone and then subduction zone. But the continents are always floating on top of these oceanic plates. So how did that happen in the first place? Once it established itself to be that way, then you could see how it's self-perpetuating. But we're not really sure how that happened to begin with. Which is interesting.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's cool.<br />
<br />
E: It is interesting.<br />
<br />
S: The other thing that's interesting is the result of that is that continents are ancient. That's why stuff that's ancient has to be continental, right, 'cause anything from the ocean can only be a couple hundred million years old. If something's a billion years old, it had to come from a continent. Only the continents are that old.<br />
<br />
E: Yes. Right, right. That's why the zircon's important.<br />
<br />
S: Which is kind of nice. 'Cause if the continents were also occasionally diving underneath other plates and recycling, there wouldn't be fossils.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. We'd lose a lot of information.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Electronic Tattoos <small>(22:36)</small>===<br />
http://www.businessinsider.com/temporary-tattoos-could-make-electronic-telepathy-telekinesis-possible-2013-2<br />
<br />
S: All right. Let's move on. I'm gonna talk about electronic tattoos.<br />
<br />
B: What the hell's that about?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, it has something to do with Fantasy Island.<br />
<br />
S: Here's the headline. You guys tell me what you think about this. "Temporary tattoos could make electronic telepathy possible."<br />
<br />
E: Telepathy!<br />
<br />
''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: I know, I know. If somebody didn't send this to me, I would have used it as a Science or Fiction item.<br />
<br />
E: Sorry!<br />
<br />
S: Evan, you sent me several things I was gonna use for Science or Fiction. But anyway, <br />
<br />
E: Oh, I undermined you totally.<br />
<br />
S: This would have, I would have had Bob going. It's like "Now you're talking about telepathy??" ''(laughter)'' But, yeah. No. No telepathy. So what the technology is is they're essentially flexible electronics that you can apply to skin. And because they're flexible they could move around, they could bend. They're very thin, and they can serve a few functions. One primary function would be that they would essentially be an electrode. No big deal. So it could pick up electrical signals from the skin. So for example, if placed on the scalp, they could detect brain waves. But because this is, like, an electronic circuit, it's not just a dumb electrode, it's an actual circuit, you can build other functionality into it, including a transmitter to transmit signals to, say, a device. It could be used as very small, thin, flexible monitors. And so the technology seems very practical, very useful. I'm sure that this kind of thing is going to find a lot of applications. What I found amusing, maybe irritating, was the reporting of this technology, this, these devices in terms of what the possible applications would be. Because these are electrodes, that could read electrical signals from the brain, they started speculating wildly about the most advanced applications of the brain machine interface. Now we've chatted about this too, but I mean, that's something that would be far enough in the future we cannot say how long it's going to be; that we cannot extrapolate. The brain machine interface we have now are actually very good at, and getting better, at reading movements. So because we can map out the motor strip, you know, the motor cortex, and you know, you can put a lot of electrodes along the motor cortex and then people can learn how to use a robotic arm, for example, just by thinking about what they want it to do because it's interpreting the signals in their motor cortex. So that's about where the technology is now. But telepathy would require being able to read somebody's thoughts. And there the limiting factor isn't the electrodes, you know, it's not the signal.<br />
<br />
B: It's the brain in the skull.<br />
<br />
S: It's interpreting, although even if you had brain surface electrodes that were in incredibly high fidelity reading the EEG, the electrical signals from the brain, we still wouldn't know how to translate it into thoughts.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, how do you turn thought into a digital signal? What's the interpretation? And everybody's would be different. That's the real problem.<br />
<br />
S: Well you'd have to calibrate, you know. And partly the machine would have to calibrate to you but also the user could learn how to use it, you know. But this will not allow for telepathy. That's the bottom line. This doesn't really get us any closer to telepathy. <br />
<br />
E: But the headline! Look at the headline!<br />
<br />
S: The researchers admitted that brain surface electrodes would work better than these. These skin surface electrodes are probably never going to have the fidelity, the discrimination, to be able to read thoughts.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It just makes more sense that they, let's say they surgically implant something that is the analog to digital interface for the brain, then it transmits it to another device and let all the computer power happen somewhere else. It doesn't have to happen on the surface of your skin.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well that's what this would do, too. This would just read signals transmitted to your smart phone and then you could communicate through your smart phone or operate your smart phone with thoughts alone.<br />
<br />
E: Like, if I were to think, dial my home number. It would activate the phone to do something like that?<br />
<br />
S: We're not at that point yet with this. But this could be useful for, like, paraplegic people who want to control a computer screen, or control a robotic device. Because these are very thin and small you could probably have a lot of them. But still, the signal is not as clear as the brain surface's invasive electrodes. So it remains to be seen how much utility these would have. But because these are, the advance here, is that the electrodes are integrated with other elements, such as transmitters, and that they're thin and flexible. You know, so you can put a lot of them on the scalp. You don't have to wear this big massive cap or something that's very unwieldy. So, it does expand the number of possible uses, but it doesn't get over the problem of reading the EEG from the scalp, and therefore telepathy is not one of the applications of this technology in my opinion. However, having said that, they did bring up the notion of sub-vocalizations. Are you guys familiar with that?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, yeah; that's cool stuff.<br />
<br />
J: I don't think we've talked about it on the show, but we, off the show, have talked about it. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, when you are saying words inside your mind, you tend to move your face, tongue and throat muscles in the way that you would if you were speaking them, just much more subtly. And there's actually been some research; I looked; there's not a lot, but there is some published research looking at detecting with skin surface electrodes, the muscle movements in the throat and the face and interpreting these sub-vocalizations. I'm reading some conflicting things, though. You know, some reviews say that being able to go from detecting these sub-vocalizations to actual words has been elusive. But other studies claim that they've been able to distinguish a number of different words from the EMG signals. But it's possible from, a limited set of words, that they can then know which one of those words that the person was thinking. So that's, actually, though . . .<br />
<br />
E: Interesting.<br />
<br />
S: That is plausible and that may just be a matter of incremental progress, and these electrodes, so these tattoos, might apply to that technology. Right? So if you're using this as a way of detecting sub-vocalizations, and the detection and analysis algorithm get sophisticated enough, and the user may be able to learn how to do that. 'Cause you can, I was doing this before the show, I was just thinking to myself and paying attention to what I was doing. And then also tried to maximize my movement, my sub-vocalization movements. You know what I mean? Like you can deliberately accentuate them. <br />
<br />
E: Can you shut them off entirely if you think about it? Or is it just so subtle that you really don't have that level of control over it?<br />
<br />
S: Well in researching this I did find lots of websites, and even some published studies, looking at the question of suppressing sub-vocalizations in order to improve or increase your reading speed. 'Cause apparently the sub-vocalizations slow you down.<br />
<br />
J: So to clarify, Steve, if words are going through my head; if I'm sitting here saying to myself, oh, I've gotta get up early tomorrow morning, or whatever it is, I am having some type of muscular reaction in my throat? Every time?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: If you're reading.<br />
<br />
S: No, even if you're just thinking, words.<br />
<br />
E: Even if you're just thinking the words!<br />
<br />
S: You're saying the words in your head, you are sub-vocalizing those words. Yes.<br />
<br />
E: Right. Okay.<br />
<br />
S: But the question is just, can we detect and interpret those muscle movements with enough precision and discrimination that we could translate that into the words that are in your head, that you're thinking. And this could give you like a fake telepathy. Like a pseudo-telepathy. It's not really telepathy 'cause it's through actual muscle movements. But that could still be really powerful. It still could functionally be telepathy.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: It's really not telepathy. It's probably better termed silent communication.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, imagine the military being able to communicate with each other without having to make any noise. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Or spies. Just it's silent communication. You can imagine dictating in a crowded room without having to speak aloud.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Google Glass <small>(31:25)</small>===<br />
http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/<br />
<br />
S: All right, Jay, let's move on. You're gonna tell us about Google glass.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, baby.<br />
<br />
J: So, yeah, Steve, this is a real milestone. This is one of the pieces of technology that I've been waiting for for a long time. This is the beginning of real augmented reality. To give you a quick definition of what augmented reality is: so imagine a car mechanic that's wearing a pair of sunglasses and a computer is projecting onto the inside of those sunglasses a schematic so that the car mechanic is looking at the car engine and the computer's projecting say, the wiring system. So wherever he turns his head, the, it'll look like it's in 3D so he can see, or he or she can see things that aren't actually visible to the naked eye because the computer is laying that on top of reality. It's like another layer, or putting layers of information on top of reality. Or, a surgeon performing open-heart surgery would be able to see the heart in a 3D view unobstructed by the rest of the tissue surrounding it, or the rib cage, or whatever. You know, having that vantage point gives people the opportunity to achieve things much faster, more precisely and with much greater success overall. Now, I'm not saying that Google glass is offering that to us right now, but what Google is offering is the very first step in true augmented reality. So let me give you a quick list of the features of what it is, and I'll describe to you the actual component that you're wearing is, it's like taking a pair of sunglasses, removing the lenses and then on one side, on one eye, they'll put a, it's like a little module there that has a piece of glass that's hovering in front of one of your eyes. It'll project into your vision onto that piece of glass you're looking through that piece of glass, one of your eyes. It'll project a computer screen that looks like it's floating three or four feet in front of you, that doesn't have any borders or anything of course. And there's simply information there. You know, there's text, there's however, they're showing this information, it's gonna be a varying degree of different things. And you're gonna be talking to it. You're not gonna be using keyboard or a mouse or anything, that you're primarily gonna be using vocalization to turn it on, to tell it what you need it to do. And some of the features that it's launching with are it's gonna be able to record video. What you see, it's gonna record. It's gonna take pictures. You're gonna be able to start Google-Plus hangouts with people. You're gonna be able to search. You're gonna be able to also search photos, which is cool. You're gonna be able to do translations, you're gonna be able to get directions; you're gonna be able to use the Google Now software, which is like iPhone's Siri, where you can ask more complicated questions and actually tell it to do certain things, like take notes, put something in my address book, in my calendar, whatever. You can send messages to people and you can get flight, or there'll be a flight detail database attached, so you can call that up when you need it. You would start each command with "Okay, Glass," as if you were talking to someone. "Okay, Glass, I want you to start recording video right now." "Okay, Glass, stop recording video." The really cool thing about this though, is you take it with you, it connects into your iPhone or to your Android operating system, and it is based off of the Android operating system. And you wear it and you just put it on and you forget that it's there and it just becomes another interface for you. The big thing here is, guys, it truly is the beginning of the next way that we're gonna be interacting and experiencing reality. And it's going to be augmented by computers in a way now that we've really never experienced it before. We're all gonna be able to do things that we normally wouldn't be able to do, even simple things. Like let's say you went to Ikea and you bought a bookshelf. Everybody knows that directions that come from companies like Ikea or whatever, some are better than other, but for the most part having to construct something is a complete and total pain in the ass. This would be showing you what to do. It would be giving you visual cues using the actual things that you're looking at. Like, showing you what pieces connect to each other and where.<br />
<br />
B: And that's the key, Jay. To me that's the key. It's contextual information. It's not, you're not just surfing web pages. You are seeing overlays on reality and it knows what you're looking at, and gives you information based on your environment and what you're interacting with. And that's one of the reasons why this is gonna be so powerful.<br />
<br />
S: All right, Bob, Bob, what would be the porn application?<br />
<br />
J: Oh, my god. Don't even go there.<br />
<br />
B: God. Come on.<br />
<br />
J: Well, Bob's talking about what it will be like down the road, and <br />
<br />
B: I ''have'' to talk about that.<br />
<br />
J: Maybe a future use of this would be that you could tell Google glass "When I'm sitting at my work desk, I want my monitor to appear as if it's here where a physical monitor would be" but when you turn your head away, it stays in that three-dimensional space; you know, if you're looking at your computer monitor and you turn your head to the left, you don't see the monitor anymore, you wouldn't in real life.<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: Now let me be the wet-blanket skeptic. <br />
<br />
E: ''(laughing)'' I was gonna mention something about that.<br />
<br />
S: To bring things down a little bit. So everything that you guys are saying may come to pass at some point, but the thing that we have to keep in mind is that until we put this technology in the hands of lots of people, it's really hard to predict how people will want to use it.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, absolutely.<br />
<br />
S: And what it will be useful for. So all the things that you guys are speculating about, are speculation. So we don't know if this is going to be the smart phone, where everyone's gonna want to have 'em and it's gonna be much more useful than anyone ever thought, or if it's gonna be the Segue. You know, where it's not gonna be so revolutionary. But it'll have a niche where people use it for certain specific things, or, guys, remember the high-definition, high-frame rate situation where there just was something annoying about it, that people have a hard time adapting to.<br />
<br />
B: Ah, you're so full of it<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, adaptation.<br />
<br />
B: That's a horrible analogy. ''(laughter)'' Because this, this isn't, it's not a segue. People were gonna build cities around segue. That was a ridiculous prediction. It's not like a segue at all. This is an improvement on the computer interfaces. I mean computer interfaces, they're not going anywhere. That's a proven technology. It's just another way, it's another type of monitor, Steve. <br />
<br />
S: I know, Bob. I'm just saying, until people start using we won't know, it's like a video phone. We talked about the fact, oh video phones are coming. Well, why wouldn't you use a video phone? And it turns out that for a lot of things you don't wanna be looking at somebody. Why is texting so popular? The use of technology is hard to predict.<br />
<br />
B: I agree. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:06)</small>== <br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Evan. Tell us about last week's Who's That Noisy?<br />
<br />
E: I'll do one better and play for you last week's Who's That Noisy? Who could forget this, this wonderful little sound. Here we go.<br />
<br />
''Bird-like tweeting. The tweet song is repeated several times, pretty much the same each time.''<br />
<br />
E: Definitely not a bird, definitely not a plane. <br />
<br />
S: What is it?<br />
<br />
E: Superman. ''(laughs)'' That is . . . the whistlepig.<br />
<br />
S: The whistlepig.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' The whistlepig. <br />
<br />
''(numerous garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
B: What the hell is a whistlepig?<br />
<br />
E: A groundhog!<br />
<br />
S: Remember, from ''Groundhog's Day''?<br />
<br />
E: We only covered it a few weeks ago.<br />
<br />
J: That's an actual pig?<br />
<br />
S: No, it's a groundhog. The whistlepig is another name for the groundhog.<br />
<br />
E: Right. Woodchuck, is another name for the groundhog. Some people call it a land beaver. And they're all over the place, especially in North America. Very common in northeastern parts of the continent, and in the central United States. Several guesses; only a few correct answers this week came in to us. Congratulations to Wayne Heller. Your name was drawn. You are the winner this week. You're in the drawing for the end-of-the-year contest by which we will put all names in the hat from the week winners and that grand-prize winner will join us on the SGU to play a round of Science or Fiction. All right, so. You guys ready for this week?<br />
<br />
S: Always.<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: It is another noisy we have this week. It's short. Here we go:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Men's voices speaking on some kind of communicators:<br />
Person 1: You're looking a little hot and all your calls will be a little early. (Beep) Person 2: Okay. Person 3: And that looks good here.</blockquote><br />
<br />
J: Isn't that when they made the Six-Million-Dollar Man, and he was about to crash? No?<br />
<br />
E: That's an interesting guess, Jay. No, that's not correct.<br />
<br />
J: I hope at some point in my life I'm gonna be talking to someone and that whistle will comment like the<br />
<br />
S: That call-tone?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I love that.<br />
<br />
E: What I would like to see in the answer for this week is not a generic idea of what you think the noise is. I would like to know pretty exactly where you recognize that noise from. Send us your guess. wtn@theskepticsguide.org; that's the email address for Who's That Noisy submissions. Or you can post it on our forums, sguforums.com. Every week I wish you all the best of <br />
<br />
J: ''(shouting)'' Good luck everybody!<br />
<br />
E: Thank you, Jay. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: I was getting very excited, Evan.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== "Ow!" <small>(40:36)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: All right, we have one question this week. This comes from Joe Shoults. And this is the shortest question we 've ever had.<br />
<br />
J: The answer is six inches.<br />
<br />
E: Four foot one.<br />
<br />
S: Joe writes "Why do we say "ow"? <br />
<br />
B: Wow! What a good question! Holy crap!<br />
<br />
J: Steve, can I try to answer it and see if I'm anywhere near correct?<br />
<br />
S: You can try.<br />
<br />
E: Okay.<br />
<br />
J: The first thing that occurred to me when I read that email when it came in was, well, first, the word is cultural. I'm sure that in other cultures they don't say "ow," they say other things.<br />
<br />
S: Are you sure?<br />
<br />
J: I'm guessing. I'm guessing. <br />
<br />
B: That's my guess as well.<br />
<br />
J: The other thing is I think we're giving a cue to the other mammals around us that we're injured.<br />
<br />
E: Here's my guess. My guess is ow is short for ouch.<br />
<br />
S: Why do we say ouch?<br />
<br />
J: 'Cause ouch is short for ouch-a-daisy.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: He didn't say "why do we say ouch?"; that wasn't the question. Said "why do we say 'ow'?" ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: Don't split hairs. Why do we make a vocalization when we get hurt?<br />
<br />
S: Do you think there's any published scientific research that might enlighten us on that question?<br />
<br />
J: I'm sure you know.<br />
<br />
E: If there is, you have it, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: All of the evolutionary psychological answers, there's no answer to that. ''(laughter)'' This is all hand waving. We don't know. No one knows. You could make up any kind of plausible sounding answer that you like for that. <br />
<br />
J: So I'm right!<br />
<br />
S: The answer is we don't know. That's what the answer is. But I did look at this from a couple of angles, just to see what I could find. One was, 'cause I remember reading this study but I wanted just to see what all the literature was, about swearing and pain perception. I couldn't find anything published about saying "ow" or "ouch," but I could find swearing. And, the research does show that if you swear when you have, like stub your toe, or have physical pain, that your perception of the pain is decreased. It does help.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: However, get this, if you swear all the time, then the benefit of swearing goes down. <br />
<br />
J: Fuck that!<br />
<br />
E: 'Cause you've numbed yourself.<br />
<br />
B: I could see that.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so you have to keep your swearing in reserve for when you stub your toe.<br />
<br />
J: Save it for the pain.<br />
<br />
S: Save it for the pain.<br />
<br />
B: How 'bout, now, what about instead of physical pain, what about emotional pain?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well, we also use it in lots of related ways, like, when somebody says something bad that happened, you might say, "ooo, ouch" as a way of saying, expressing sympathy or if somebody insults you really bad you might say "ouch" like sarcastically. Try to say like, oh you hurt me. I also had the same question, what is the, how international or cross-cultural is "ow" or "ouch." So I looked it up. Here's a smattering of what other cultures say instead of ouch. Ayee. So "ayee" or "ow" are the two main things that cultures say. In French, "ayee"; Thai, "oi"; Spanish, "ai"; Polish, "ouch"; Maltese, "ach"; Iran, "ai" or "ach" or "oof"; Afghanistan, "oof"; Germany, it's a-u-a, "Aua"; Dutch is "ow"; Norwegian, "ow"; Danish, it says a-v, I'm not sure if that's supposed to also be pronounced "ow"; <br />
<br />
E: Probably.<br />
<br />
S: Chinese, the only two-syllable one I came across, "ayo" or "ayah"; Turkish, "ach" or "ai"; so very similar across the cultures. It's mainly a lot of "ai" "ach" "oof" "ow." Very similar.<br />
<br />
J: That's interesting, too, and they're all short.<br />
<br />
S: A lot of a's, o's, yeah, they're all short. The Chinese one was the only one I found that was two syllables.<br />
<br />
J: Very cool. That's so interesting. I love that.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Interview with Jon Ronson <small>(44:20)</small> ==<br />
* Interview with Jon Ronson, recorded at CSICon 2012.<br />
<br />
S: All right, we have a very interesting interview that we recorded last October at CSICon with Jon Ronson.<br />
<br />
''(Music)''<br />
<br />
S: We're sitting here now with Jon Ronson. Jon, welcome back to the Skeptics' Guide.<br />
<br />
JR: It's good to be back. Thank you , Steve. And it's nice to meet you all after I've heard 400 episodes of you.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: Only 381.<br />
<br />
J: Jon, I believe you owe us an apology.<br />
<br />
JR: I do. Last time I was on, it was to talk about my book ''The Psychopath Test'' and it was on my birthday. And it was quite late, it was like 11:00 at night. And unlike me, I was drunk. And I, it turns out that I am a befuddled and slightly angry drunk.<br />
<br />
S: 'Cause we couldn't tell the difference.<br />
<br />
''(garbled comments and laughter)''<br />
<br />
JR: When I listened back I was ashamed. I was ashamed. Mid-sentence I would drift off. I didn't know what I was talking about.<br />
<br />
E: We said "Jon was sharp as ever tonight, wasn't he?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
JR: Well, actually, after the podcast, I accidentally typed my name into Google and I saw somebody saying "God, Jon Ronson sounded weird on Skeptics' Guide." ''(laughter)'' But the reason why was because it was my birthday and I'd been out with my family and I was drunk.<br />
<br />
S: I don't think you told us it was your birthday.<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, it was my birthday. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Warn us next time, okay?<br />
<br />
JR: Yes.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
JR: But yes, you can see now I'm as sharp as a pin. <br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
E: Ouch!<br />
<br />
S: Pithy. Much more pithy.<br />
<br />
JR: Pithy as a pin.<br />
<br />
J: So, Jon, can you please say to me: ''(in a English accent)'' "But of course I was drunk at the time."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
JR: I don't talk like that. Like somebody, like a buffoon from Downton Abbey. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Now you sound like the first of the reboot of the Doctors Who.<br />
<br />
JR: Right. The Doctors Who.<br />
<br />
''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: It was, what was the actor's name? Not David Tennant.<br />
<br />
R: Christopher Eccleston?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, Christopher Eccleston. What kind of accent does he have? Northern.<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, I believe he's from the Northeast. I see him jogging maniacally in a park in North London. <br />
<br />
S: You do?<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, he's a big jogger.<br />
<br />
S: Interesting.<br />
<br />
JR: Maniacal. Like he's really running away something. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Demons . . .<br />
<br />
E: May be.<br />
<br />
R: Personal demons . . . <br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, or . . . Daleks. "(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: Jon, what are you working on now?<br />
<br />
JR: Now I'm starting to write a new book on the subject . . . I don't want to talk too much about it because I don't wanna talk it all out. It always helps me to kind of internalize the thing that I'm writing about. It's kind of on the subject of humiliation. I always like to start with a word. So ''The Psychopath Test'' the word, I guess, was "madness." About how madness is a more powerful engine in our lives than rationality. And in ''The Men Who Stare at Goats'' I guess the word was a phrase, and it was "irrationality at the heart of power." And ''Them'' was like, paranoia at the fringes of society, and the new word is "humiliation." I'm very interested. I was really surprised, actually, I've just brought out this collection called ''Lost at Sea,'' and I was reading it; it's an audiobook, and I was amazed at fifteen years of adventure stories, how often the subject of humiliation comes up. How often people said to me, my greatest fear in life was being humiliated, and here it was coming true. It seems to be a running theme in my stories. <br />
<br />
R: And what about people who don't get humiliated? Are there any people who just . . . <br />
<br />
JR: Well that's another interesting thing. I mean, psychopaths don't get humilitated. <br />
<br />
S: Meaning they're immune to humilitation.<br />
<br />
JR: I think so, yeah. So it seems. They get annoyed, as you know. They get very cross if they feel slighted. So they've got terrible grandiosity issues. But, when they're caught in a lie, they don't feel bad about it. That's one of _________________ big things, feeling unembarrassed about being caught lying. But other people don't get humiliated, too. And I'm really interested in those people.<br />
<br />
J: It's interesting to think, is the most powerful source of humiliation for the average person being caught in a lie, or is it, like, a lot of people will do the default "oh, I'm naked in public, I would be humiliated." That wouldn't bother me at all. <br />
<br />
E: It would bother everyone else.<br />
<br />
J: But I definitely think being caught in a social lie, when people know. Especially like stealing somebody else's work type of lie, would be horrible. That would be horrible, right?<br />
<br />
JR; I can't think of anything worse than being the recipient of some kind of storm like that. Like Jonah Lehrer or Mike Daisey, those people. To me that's like, that's the kind of thing that would wake me up sweating.<br />
<br />
R: And there's so many people right now in what I feel is your field, in a way, like the people who are writing these sometimes slightly fictionalized accounts, but of truthful stories, you know, and David Sedaris went through this. And it's kind of sad, like they're all people I love, and to see that happening. . . <br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, I feel a bit sorry for Jonah Lehrer, because his big crime was inflating Bob Dylan quotes. Or, in fact, inventing them. And as somebody pointed out in the wake of that storm, Bob Dylan's autobiography is full of made-up stuff. Yet, nobody goes for Dylan. It does feel slightly subjective.<br />
<br />
R: Also, you know, sometimes you can't tell what Dylan's saying anyway. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Can't tell what he's ''singing.''<br />
<br />
JR: Another thing that worried me was, before Jonah Lehrer got done for that, he was done for self-plagiarism.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
JR: And I . . . I've never . . .<br />
<br />
S: What is self-plagiarism?<br />
<br />
JR: Well, it's basically using the same material like say in an article for the ''New Yorker'' and a blog for ''Wired.''<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Lifting like word-for-word, same paragraph, and dropping into a different article, usually.<br />
<br />
JR: When I heard that, I thought . . . so he wasn't stealing somebody else's work, he was repeating his own work.<br />
<br />
E: Repeating his own.<br />
<br />
JR: And when I heard that, I thought, Frank Sinatra would sing ''My Way'' every night! You know? Is that the worst crime in the world? I used to do that, and not worry. If I had like a really great line, there's a line in ''The Psychopath Test'' where I say . . . yes, there's a line in ''The Psychopath Test'' where I say, I'm talking about how bankers weren't, were kind of ignored, like the wickedness of hedge-fund managers and stuff, was kind of ignored for a long time and they were getting away with it. And I said the reason why they were getting away with it was because they were boring, and journalists don't like to write about boring people because the more colorful the prose, the better it looks for the journalist. So I said if you want to get away with wielding true malevolent power, be boring. And I'd actually written something very very similar to that a couple years ago in a column for the ''Guardian'' and it was completely ignored, and I thought, this is like a really interesting point. So I was happy to give it another shot in ''The Psychopath Test.'' And sure enough, it's become one of the more popular quotes in that book.<br />
<br />
R: The problem with that, I mean, 'cause what else are you gonna say, every single time? "As I once said." I mean, no.<br />
<br />
JR: I was surprised actually, when that came up as an issue for Jonah, and it worried me that people were gonna start going for journalistic misdeeds too much. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it becomes a witch hunt. And I think some people are doing it because they can. Because we have the technology, if you will, to sift through everything everyone's written. I know Gerald Posner faced that, where someone thought that he had plagiarized part of his book. And then somebody decided to cross reference everything he ever wrote with searching algorithms, where you could search everything he wrote and come up with all these other instances where lines from his research found their way into his books, or his articles without being properly referenced. And he admitted, clearly my process has broken down here and I haven't been keeping track of where these lines were coming from. So he admitted that inadvertently things have crept in, but I don't know who can withstand that kind of really thorough scrutiny. I mean we all have things rattling around in our head that we heard from other people, and if you write a lot, that stuff is gonna end up in what you write. <br />
<br />
JR: Absolutely. It did worry me. It seems to be kind of drifting off a little bit now. The funny thing about Mike Daisey, you know his story; he went to China and<br />
<br />
R: Foxconn.<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, to Foxconn, and was writing about the abuses that Foxconn were . . . everything he wrote was true. But his grave error of judgment was he said he witnessed it all first-hand. The tragedy of Mike Daisey is if he'd stayed in China for a couple of weeks longer, he could have actually got everything that he purported to get. All he had to do was get on a few more planes and go and meet a few more people. And it would have been the greatest expose of Apple of all time. But he didn't.<br />
<br />
R: But I think even if he had, though, he still would have messed with the narrative, because he, that was another huge thing; was not just that it didn't happen to him, but then he was screwing with the narrative not in a way that just makes better story arc but in a way that drastically altered events: where they happened, how they happened. And I feel like even if he had stayed there a few weeks; because what he is at heart is a storyteller, and that's what he values. He doesn't value truth.<br />
<br />
S: But isn't that the problem with journalism in general, is that ultimately it's a storytelling endeavor, and the truth, or the facts, becomes second in importance to that?<br />
<br />
R: Well no, because it's possible, I think, to balance those things; to know how to take what you're seeing . . . it's like taking a photo. You know, you could take a photo; I could take a photo of something out the window right now and then we could have a professional photographer come in and come up with something that's amazingly better. We're both representing the truth, but one of us has a better eye for how to capture it. It's exactly the same.<br />
<br />
S: Well, I think a better analogy there would be then you take it onto to PhotoShop and maybe you color correct it a little bit, or you enhance the contrast. Or then maybe you said, you know what, a tree instead of this building would work a little bit better. That building's ugly. I wanna put a tree there so that it doesn't ruin . . .<br />
<br />
R: Well, yeah, that would be the . . . yeah.<br />
<br />
S: And then there's a slippery slope. I'm talking more about this slippery slope. Of course all good journalism is storytelling. You know, Jon, you know this obviously better than any of us, you're a journalist and an author. You've written, obviously, you've listed your most recent successful books, screenplays, et cetera. And you have to tell a good story. But at the same time you're trying to convey an accurate portrayal of the subject matter. But isn't there this temptation to always tweak it to make the story a little bit better, even if it's not exactly true?<br />
<br />
JR: Well, I always try and make it true. And, a rather good thing about, you know, it's good to, it's, I feel sorry for the likes of Jonah Lehrer for being the one who's thrown into the bonfire. But I guess a good thing about that is it does keep everybody in check. But, I always try to keep a ___________, I have never been, nothing bad's ever happened, you know, I've never . . . <br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Yeah, yeah.<br />
<br />
JR: You know, so I've always been all right. Yeah, but you think about this every time you write something. It's really important. I always think it's the fact that I suffer from anxiety that stops me from transgressing. Like for instance if I was tempted to shape something too much, to shape something so it was no longer accurate, no longer truthful, I would immediately envisage a horrific future. <br />
<br />
E: Right. You play out a worst-case scenario in your head.<br />
<br />
JR: Exactly. Where it begins with Twitter, and it ends with, you know, jumping off a building.<br />
<br />
J: And that gets back to what we were saying earlier though, where a psychopath, or someone that doesn't have those built-in social meters and thresholds is gonna be capable of doing things that people like us won't be.<br />
<br />
JR: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: And you're editing yourself in a way to limit your own anxiety. I do the same thing. I have a very similar process where I'm always thinking about my actions and projecting then into the future. And it happens very seamlessly, right? You don't actually have to put a lot of energy into it. It's just part of your, the way your brain works.<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah, absolutely. It's "what-if" scenarios that haunt people with OCD and so on. Yes. Psychopaths don't have that, which makes me suspect that psychopathy is the most pleasant feeling of all the mental disorders. So all of the things that keep us good, anxiety, guilt, remorse and so on, is, am I right in saying, Steven, shift to the amygdala and the central nervous system.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well, the amygdala is part of the central nervous system. But you mean, the frontal cortex is where all of the social mores are, the social morals, the things that give you anxiety so that you internally police yourself and you don't do things because you're afraid of social humiliation. That emotion exists so that we can exist in a society. And in fact what social psychology is showing is that people will essentially cheat exactly as much as they think they'll get away with. And it is, more than anyone else, the fear of social humiliation that keeps us from doing things which are inherently greedy or self-serving. We are totally self-serving unless we think that other people's perception of us being self-serving is no longer in our best interest. So it's ultimately still self-serving.<br />
<br />
J: There's something so unraveling about that.<br />
<br />
S: But that's, we're chimpanzees; that's how we behave. Just in a very sophisticated way. But then again in psychopaths they sort of lack that . . . it must be very freeing. I think that's why they're very charismatic, very compelling characters, 'cause it's like, wow, imagine having the freedom to just really do whatever you want .<br />
<br />
JR: And so difficult to treat, too, because there's no incentive to change. People with anxiety disorders want to get better.<br />
<br />
S: That ties into what you were saying about not liking the haughtiness of skepticism. And that's, I think, one of the challenges that we have. It's hard to tell people they're wrong about something without coming off as being haughty. So . . .<br />
<br />
JR: I mean the way I get away with it is to be very open about my own irrationalities; my anxieties; and people can sort of connect to that, on a sort of flawed level, I guess. People connect to me on a flawed level, and I think that helps. And, I think, yeah, that's a good way around that, is to be . . . . but you do that, Steven. You talk about everybody's rationality. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
JR: You don't say skeptics are perfect.<br />
<br />
S: No, no.<br />
<br />
JR: And that's very likable to do that.<br />
<br />
S: I don't think anyone really does that. I think it's an inadvertent thing that it comes across . . . I think people are looking for a reason to dismiss what the skeptics are saying because they don't like the conclusions. Like, oh, you're just being closed minded and haughty, and it's kind of a cheap shot, I think, oftentimes.<br />
<br />
JR: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: I do think that skeptics have evolved as a community to the point where we realize that that finger-wagging, haughty skeptic is completely ineffectual. If we wanna actually change people's minds. And in fact it's not even really true that, you know . . . we are all irrational. It's a matter of having a process that deals with that and understanding it.<br />
<br />
JR. Yeah. Also, you talked at the beginning about this kind of humiliation idea, and the more open you are about your weaknesses and so on, the less humiliatable you are. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, yeah . . .<br />
<br />
JR: It's like, these things kind of only exist when you're keeping them a secret, keeping them in the darkness.<br />
<br />
S: It is all part of the human narrative, right? So I think that's what you're, Jon, excellent at, as an investigative journalist and a writer, is making your, you are a good storyteller, and the are very human, and you're very much in the stories. But the process comes out, in that, still.<br />
<br />
JR: Yeah. But to me . . . I think this, where I disagreed with what you said was the I think self-deception, so these kind of more serious aspects of things, not the kind of, let's say for want of a better phrase, the sort of, the confirmation bias you find in the corpse instead of the confirmation bias you find in a haunted honty-tonk . . . I actually think people really are interested in this, 'cause I think psychology books are really popular and, you know, Richard Wiseman's books sell a lot of copies, and I think people ''do'' want to know about their own<br />
<br />
S: Yeah<br />
<br />
JR: flawed thought processes, actually. I think. Pleasure to see you all in the flesh. It's strange to actually hear these voices coming out of actual human faces. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: We do have actual human faces.<br />
<br />
E: We've shattered your illusion apparently. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
S: Thanks, Jon.<br />
<br />
JR: Thank you.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:50)</small> ==<br />
[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/osoa-idh022613.php Item number one]. Scientists have developed an imaging system that can look through walls into a burning building and identify survivors that need rescuing. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130225092040.htm Item number two]. A new analysis finds that Spiderman’s webbing would have been strong enough to stop the commuter trains as depicted in the Spiderman 2 movie. [http://now.tufts.edu/news-releases/new-study-shows-viruses-can-have-immune-syste And item number three]. Researchers discover a virus with an adaptive immune system. <br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:13:44)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>The world is much more interesting than any one discipline.</blockquote><br />
Edward Tufte<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>(1:15:27)</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_398&diff=6334SGU Episode 3982013-04-14T23:37:15Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 398<br />
|episodeDate = 2<sup>nd</sup> March 2013<br />
|episodeIcon = File:E-tattoo.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|guest1 = JR: Jon Ronson<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-02.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=398<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45209.0.html<br />
|qowText = The world is much more interesting than any one discipline.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tufte Edward Tufte]<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine <br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, February 27, 2013 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: Hey, guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Ah. Kum bah wa, everyone.<br />
<br />
B: Kum bah yay, what was that?<br />
<br />
E: Kum bah ya, no. Kum bah wa. Japanese for good evening.<br />
<br />
S: Good evening.<br />
<br />
E: Lots of SGU listeners in Japan. We know a few. <br />
<br />
S: So apparently Rebecca has some kind of phlegm situation going on. <br />
<br />
E: I didn't know she was Amish.<br />
<br />
S: We're trying to decide if she has the flu, whooping cough, or strep throat.<br />
<br />
J: Well, get this, guys. So Rebecca emails us and says that she's not feeling well; that she woke up really late today, and she's been basically zonked all day. And at the same time, we have a little whooping cough scare going on over here with the newborn. This is what happened. My sister-in-law came to visit from Denver. And in the Midwest you know that the whooping cough incidences are higher and everything and I just didn't really think much of it other than everyone in the family got the tdap vaccination, which is the whooping cough<br />
<br />
S: Did she and her family get the tdap?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, they did. What I found out today was that, like many of the vaccines that we get, you know they're guessing at which strain is gonna be the one that's gonna hit that year,<br />
<br />
S: No, hang on a minute, Jay. What you're describing is relevant for the flu. With the whooping cough, it's not that there's like a different strain hitting every year, it's just that tdap covers only a very narrow number of strains and the virus has mutated. You know, it just, new strains are developing. But it's not like there's a seasonal strain like the flu. It's a little bit different.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I didn't mean to confuse that. I know, like, exactly what you said, that there is a newer version of it that just wasn't covered by that particular vaccination that we got. <br />
<br />
S: yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So, her sister left on Monday morning. She called us up today, we're recording on Wednesday. She said "Guys, I had a bad cold on my way home, and now it's turning into something that's very, what I would consider to be whooping cough-like.<br />
<br />
E: Yeesh.<br />
<br />
J: So we called up our doctor, you know, I have a three-and-a-half-week-old in the house now, and you know, like, very dialed into this. And we called up the doctor up and me like "What's up? Like what do we do? What happens?" And pertussis is a bacteria, it's not a virus. So they have an anti-biotic for it. <br />
<br />
E: Anti-biotic. Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So, what do you call it, Steve? Erythromycin? <br />
<br />
S: Erythromycin, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Erythromycin, yeah. So that's the one that they use for it. And it's the mega-dose, like two pills the first day and then you take like this mega-dose thing for four days. Of course the baby's taking the liquid form and everything. But I'm sitting there tonight with my wife and we're giving the baby its first medication, and it's freakin' whooping cough medication! Like I wanted to strangle people. Thank you everybody for not . . .<br />
<br />
S: Anyone who has never gotten vaccinated for whooping cough, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Something that we could<br />
<br />
E: Way to blow the herd immunity; way to go.<br />
<br />
J: We could get rid of it. Did you guys see the info-graphic of . . . the CDC puts out information every year, and somebody made an info-graphic of the incidence of morbidity before and after the vaccination for a particular disease came and went. Right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And right out of the gate, things like smallpox and stuff, I don't remember the exact numbers, but we have certain diseases where there was like a half a million people dying a year, down to zero. After the vaccination. And there's like, in this info-graphic, I think there was more than a dozen of them. It was incredible. Like you see the numbers, how dramatically different they are. Right there. That's a hundred percent proof. They work. And yet people are walking around out there ''today'' and they don't care; that information is meaningless to them. How? Why?<br />
<br />
B: Well what is the worst-case scenario with pertussis? I mean, how bad could it get? <br />
<br />
J: It can kill you, Bob; it can kill a baby.<br />
<br />
E: Death.<br />
<br />
B: That's bad.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there was that famous case in Australia where a baby caught, Dana McCaffery, caught whooping cough in a community that had very low vaccination rates because of the Australian anti-vaccination network preaching against vaccines, and, the baby caught it from unvaccinated people. And died. 'Cause the child was too young to be vaccinated. It's one of the populations that need to be protected by herd immunity.<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(4:33)</small> ==<br />
* March 2, 1983: Compact Disc players and discs are released for the first time in the United States and other markets. They had been available only in Japan before then.<br />
<br />
S: Evan, so you're filling in for Rebecca this week for This Day in Skepticism.<br />
<br />
E: I said "Good evening" in Japanese to start the show. And I did so because the compact disc, you guys remember what compact discs are, CDs,<br />
<br />
S: They're still, they're still used today.<br />
<br />
E: They are. Their first, most common usage was of course for music storage, right? Playing music. Put 80 minutes of uncompressed audio on one of those things. That's 737 megabytes of data. What do you think of that? So in Japan, is where the CDs were first, widely became available, in October of '82. However, on March 2nd of 1983, compact discs and their players were released for the first time in the United States and other markets around the world, whereas they'd only been available in Japan before but finally they came to the United States, and I remember this vividly. It was a big f'ing deal, for me and my 13-year-old friends and stuff who were all, in our own opinions, very big into music. And it was a rush to see who would get the first CD, who would be able to afford the first CD player. It was kind of bragging rights, in a sense. Do you guys remember?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah. Instantly replaced tapes, records; 8-tracks had already died by then.<br />
<br />
E: Thank goodness.<br />
<br />
S: Buy, yeah, and think about it, guys. Thirty years! And they're still a perfectly acceptable technology. I still buy CDs for music. <br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
S: Sure.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, man. I just download it all.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but think about it. A CD, you can then rip it into any quality MP3 you want, which you own, without any DRM, and you have the CD for a backup. And it's still cost-effective. It's not like you're saving money by downloading. So it's still a perfectly viable technology. It's had a lot of longevity.<br />
<br />
B: It's all right, I guess. I like, I hear a song that I like. Like, oh boy, that sounds really good. And I buy it. Within literally four minutes I have it on my iPhone and I'm listening to it. That's awesome.<br />
<br />
S: I do that, too, but, if there's an album coming out and I know I want the whole album, I'll get it on a CD. <br />
<br />
E: Something to remember, guys, is that when you purchase a CD, you're purchasing something physical that you actually own. And when you purchase a license to get a music or something you download through iTunes or something, there's a question, there's debates going on right now in the courts as to how much ownership do you actually have over that thing? In other words, can you put it into your estate and leave it to your heirs?<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And they are fighting that. You know, the record industry, or industries, don't want those rights to be transferred on to descendents. Where, but with a CD you're guaranteed. That is yours, it's physical, you can do whatever the heck you want with it. So, keep that in mind also in the debate about, you know, what medium, what format you're gonna use for your music.<br />
<br />
B: That's messed up.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Life Around Dying Stars <small>(7:32)</small>===<br />
http://phys.org/news/2013-02-future-evidence-extraterrestrial-life-dying.html#ajTabs<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Bob, talk about looking for life around dying stars.<br />
<br />
B: If you insist.<br />
<br />
S: I do.<br />
<br />
B: So guys, <br />
<br />
E: Like Mickey Rooney, are we talking? What are we talking here, dying stars?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, boy. Guys, when you think of an extraterrestrial planet, especially one that supports life, what do you think of? Do you think of, you've got this planet orbiting a parent star that's kind of like our sun, right? Maybe it's a little bit bigger than our sun, maybe it's a little bit smaller. And of course, if that's the case, the habitable zone around the star changes because of how big and bright the star is.<br />
<br />
S: Now, Bob, I think of Tatooine with two suns. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Nice orchestral music playing.<br />
<br />
S: Or Rigel 7 with a big planet in the distance with rings around it.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but, still, it's like a, it's a real star, it's like a star that <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, not a fake star.<br />
<br />
B: It's fusing hydrogen into helium. No, but it's not a ''dead'' star, and that's the point here. There's a new theoretical study that finds that the most likely place possibly to find life on another planet may be around a dead star. More specifically, of course, a white dwarf. You know, I'm not talking about a neutron star or black hole. But not only that, they think they might be able to actually find one of these planets in the next ten years. Which seems like a pretty bold prediction.<br />
<br />
E: But Bob, isn't a white dwarf after the star went through its initial sort of expansion then came back in on itself. Wouldn't it have kind of destroyed things on that<br />
<br />
B: Well, exactly. And that's the huge problem. That's the first thing I thought of, well how can that be? A white dwarf is a dead star. It's a corpse of a sun-like star, at the end of its, you know in its old age it swells into a red giant and it totally crisps any of the planets that were nearby, but before it expels a lot of its mass, making the beautifully misnomered planetary nebula. So what's left is this collapsed core. It's about as big as the earth, but it's got the mass, it could have a mass of more than the sun. 1.4 solar masses, I think, is the ________________________ limit for that. So that's a lot of mass in a really tiny place. So clearly it's unbelievably dense, right? If you had a ton of white dwarf matter, if you could do that, you could fit it into a matchbox. I mean it's super, super tiny. You can thank the electron degeneracy pressure for that. But there's no nuclear reactions going on to produce energy, but because it's relatively small it could radiate it's remaining heat for literally billions of years. So clearly, then, this thing could have its own little Goldilocks zone to support life, even though it's really not even a star anymore. It's not creating energy, but it's just radiating away the energy that's contained in it for many, many, many eons. So then the next question then, Evan, which ties into your comment, was how does the planet get there, because the red giant's gonna wipe out anything that's nearby. Probably anything that's in the Goldilocks zone. So there's actually two ways that could happen. One might, you might predict, a planet can migrate in from the outskirts of a solar system; we've seen that with hot Jupiters: Jupiter-sized planets that have orbits closer than Mercury. How the hell did they get there? Well they can actually migrate in through the solar system. But there's another way. A planet can also form from the leftover dust and gas; and that, of course, would be a second-generation world, which I think is pretty cool. Now of course, though, this planet would have to get pretty damned close, since the heat source is so small and dim compared to regular living stars . . .<br />
<br />
S: Bob, do we know that either of those can actually happen around a white dwarf, though?<br />
<br />
B: The thing here, though, with this theoretical study, Steve, is that they ran these really sophisticated simulations and they've pretty much shown in the simulation everything that I'm talking about.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
T<br />
B: That this can happen; they're incredibly confident that it could happen. They can think of no reason why it wouldn't happen. Now, it's not like every white dwarf is gonna have one these. They're saying that among the 500 closest white dwarves to the sun, they might find one or two that have planetary bodies in orbit around it that could support life. So, you know, one or two in 500 isn't great odds, but there's lots of stars and we can look at a lot of different things.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
B: So, the interesting thing is, as you could imagine, these planets would have to be very close to the white dwarf in order to get enough heat to have liquid water and life evolve. So that turns out to be only about a million miles away, which is what one over ninety-three, wait, sorry. And that's, our orbit's 93 million miles, so it's way, way, way close to it. And it's year, of course, would only be about ten hours long, which is an amazingly fast orbit so that would, I cal . . .<br />
<br />
E: That's a party every ten hours, oh my gosh.<br />
<br />
B: I calculated Rebecca would be over 30,000 years old if she lived on that planet. ''(laughter)'' So, all right. So we've got this dead star that could conceivably keep a nearby planet warm enough for life, so we've got that. We've got a couple different ways for a planet to arrive or form nearby. So then the next interesting question is, how do we detect this thing? And, if you regularly listen to this show, I think you probably know: the transit method, right? A planet moves between us and their star. The output, the light output dips, and bam! You've detected a planet. Of course, it's a little bit more complicated than that, but that's essentially the idea. Now in this scenario it's actually even better. Now think of this system, though. You've got a planet real close to a white dwarf and the white dwarf is so tiny, I mean they could be comparable in size, so that when this planet eclipses the white dwarf, you're gonna have a huge dip in the light output. It would be an obvious signal. It would leap out and say "whoa!" This starlight almost completely disappeared.<br />
<br />
S: But the plane of that system would have to be perfectly aligned with us.<br />
<br />
B: Yes, it would have to be. But even if it wasn't, you could still occlude half the star or 33 percent, and that still would be really really good. That's not even the best part. The real icing on the cake for this is that the white dwarf emits so much less light it becomes much easier to determine the composition of the atmosphere of the planet in orbit around it. And it turns out that after the simulation I was talking about, they showed that after just a few hours of observation instead of something like hundreds of hours, we would know that the planet has perhaps water vapor or maybe oxygen in it. And oxygen would, that would be gargantuan news. That would be huge because, on earth anyway, oxygen is created by life. You take away life from the planet earth and it would slowly diminish, the oxygen would just disappear. It would dissolve into the oceans, it would oxidize the surface, and if we found a sizable amount of oxygen on a planet, I think it'd be pretty solid indication that there's probably some kind of life on the planet producing that oxygen. And if not, maybe it's some kind of alien machine that's creating and it wouldn't matter 'cause in that case we would find life anyway. So, either way, it's a win-win!<br />
<br />
S: So now we've just gotta look for them.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, and the James Webb, the James Webb's a big thing, that once that guy comes online, that telescope comes online, I think, jees, I'm not sure when, but within a few years or so.<br />
<br />
S: They plan on a 2018 launch date.<br />
<br />
B: That is gonna have what it needs to really survey these white dwarves and find these planets and maybe find a planet that most likely has life on it. And how huge would that be; talk about the science story of the millennia, let alone the year!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we'll probably cover that one.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, maybe. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Ancient Lost Continent <small>(15:06)</small>===<br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21551149<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Evan, I read<br />
<br />
E: Yeah!<br />
<br />
S: that geologists claim they have found a lost sunken continent.<br />
<br />
E: You read correctly, Steve. And courtesy of the BBC, their headline reads "Fragments of ancient continent buried under the Indian Ocean."" So, what do you think? Is this it? They finally found Atlantis? Is the evidence incontrovertible?<br />
<br />
S: It's in the Indian Ocean so it wouldn't be Atlantis, it would be Indiana.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, I suppose that would be more accurate.<br />
<br />
B: No – Indianis.<br />
<br />
S: Indianis<br />
<br />
E: Indianis. <br />
<br />
B: I kinda like it.<br />
<br />
E: There are a few outlets out there; not exactly of BBC quality, with their own headlines, including "Fragments of ancient continent Atlantis found." And Atlantis is all in caps with an exclamation point and the word "found" is as well. And another one that says "Is this the real Atlantis?"<br />
<br />
S: Nobody knows.<br />
<br />
E: So, you know. Jees, that was not predictable at all that some people would be jumping all over the Atlantis part of the story. But, it has nothing to do with Atlantis whatsoever.<br />
<br />
S: Zip. Zero. Nada.<br />
<br />
E: Nada. Nope. This article's focus is on the study published in the journal Nature Geoscience. And like you said, Steve, the researchers have found evidence for the land mass that would have existed up to about 85 million years ago. Can I give you a quick little story to set this all up? So, a long time ago in a galaxy called the Milky Way, almost a billion years ago, and that was before iTunes and compact discs and vaccinations, on the earth there existed a super-continent. A super-continent is one very large continent. While at the same time, there are no other significant land masses anywhere on the earth. There have been many super-continents that have existed on the earth over the history of the earth.<br />
<br />
S: A few.<br />
<br />
E: Just a few. Well, about a dozen or so that they have listed online. But the super-continent from this particular period of time was called Rodinia. You guys may remember learning, I remember learning in grade school, about the super-continent called Pangaea, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. The most recent one, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: But, <br />
<br />
B: And Gondwana land is the other one, right?<br />
<br />
E: That one, Gondwanaland.<br />
<br />
J: Was that Guanaland? What is that, made of bat poop? The whole island?<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Pangaea, about 300 million years ago. No, Rodinia was well before that, about 750, maybe 800 million years ago. So we're talking a long time ago. As far as this particular new land mass that was discovered goes: picture in your mind a world map, and look in your mind for the country India. Okay? And then, to the south, the island nation of Madagascar. All right. Well, these areas were once connected, a part of Rodinia, and they were smashed up right next to each other. And researchers believe they've found evidence of a sliver of a continent known as, well they call it a microcontinent, that was once tucked between these two masses. But not only have they found the evidence, they're already calling it something. They're calling it Mauritia, named after the tiny island of Mauritius, which is the place where they actually discovered the evidence. So what kind of evidence did they find? Well, they collected samples from a volcanic eruption that took place estimated 9 million years ago, and within the samples of those sands and grains that they took in, were mixed in some much older minerals. They uncovered zircons. Now, zircons are known in geological circles for being found on the continental shelf and they are very, very old. These particular zircons that they found are estimated to be at least 600 million years old. And I read some estimates in some places that they could be almost 2 billion years old. The nearest known outcrop of continental crust that could have produced these zircons is on, well, Madagascar. But it's still very far away. And it's unlikely, they're trying to come up with scenarios by which, how could these zircons have gotten there by other means? They think that this is evidence for a land mass that actually, you know, believes a microcontinent that actually exists out there below the Indian Ocean. And they're going to be doing more studying about it. They're hoping to do more research and being a more detailed mapping of the floor of the Indian Ocean, and continue this research and try to find the sunken continent.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I read the paper itself, and I think what they demonstrated is pretty solid. But the notion that the source of these grains of sands that they examining is this sunken microcontinent that existed between India and Madagascar. That's really just a hypothesis at this point. It's not like they're found the continent or they're proven that it exists. It's just that it would be one possible explanation for why this ancient zircon would be where it is. It sounds plausible, sounds like a reasonable story, but again, I think just a hypothesis.<br />
<br />
B: In this context you always hear them saying "lost" or "sunken" continent. What the hell does "sunken" mean in this context?<br />
<br />
S; Below the water. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah, but<br />
<br />
E: You're right, Bob, it's a mystery.<br />
<br />
B: What's the mechanism? I mean, is it just erosion, like the islands near Hawaii that have been eroded into the sea after they moved off of the volcanic hot spot? I mean, or would some cataclysm happen that actually made it, that shifted the crust and made it sink because of that? I mean . . .<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I think it's more to do with when two land, a land mass breaks apart into two land masses, the piece in, you know, there may be some of it in between the two pieces that breaks apart and sinks under the ocean. That's essentially what they're saying. Just the way the crust broke apart. One interesting thing about the whole supercontinents, et cetera, is that we're still not really sure why continents even exist.<br />
<br />
J: Why? What do you mean? We don't know why they're there?<br />
<br />
S: Actually what happens with plate tectonics is you have, the oceans are constantly turning over like a conveyor belt. So no part of the ocean is any older than a couple hundred million years. Parts of the ocean diving down below a continental plate, and you have rifts in the middle where new ocean floors emerging and spreading. Yeah, so you have this spreading zone and then subduction zone. But the continents are always floating on top of these oceanic plates. So how did that happen in the first place? Once it established itself to be that way, then you could see how it's self-perpetuating. But we're not really sure how that happened to begin with. Which is interesting.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's cool.<br />
<br />
E: It is interesting.<br />
<br />
S: The other thing that's interesting is the result of that is that continents are ancient. That's why stuff that's ancient has to be continental, right, 'cause anything from the ocean can only be a couple hundred million years old. If something's a billion years old, it had to come from a continent. Only the continents are that old.<br />
<br />
E: Yes. Right, right. That's why the zircon's important.<br />
<br />
S: Which is kind of nice. 'Cause if the continents were also occasionally diving underneath other plates and recycling, there wouldn't be fossils.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. We'd lose a lot of information.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Electronic Tattoos <small>(22:36)</small>===<br />
http://www.businessinsider.com/temporary-tattoos-could-make-electronic-telepathy-telekinesis-possible-2013-2<br />
<br />
S: All right. Let's move on. I'm gonna talk about electronic tattoos.<br />
<br />
B: What the hell's that about?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, it has something to do with Fantasy Island.<br />
<br />
S: Here's the headline. You guys tell me what you think about this. "Temporary tattoos could make electronic telepathy possible."<br />
<br />
E: Telepathy!<br />
<br />
''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: I know, I know. If somebody didn't send this to me, I would have used it as a Science or Fiction item.<br />
<br />
E: Sorry!<br />
<br />
S: Evan, you sent me several things I was gonna use for Science or Fiction. But anyway, <br />
<br />
E: Oh, I undermined you totally.<br />
<br />
S: This would have, I would have had Bob going. It's like "Now you're talking about telepathy??" ''(laughter)'' But, yeah. No. No telepathy. So what the technology is is they're essentially flexible electronics that you can apply to skin. And because they're flexible they could move around, they could bend. They're very thin, and they can serve a few functions. One primary function would be that they would essentially be an electrode. No big deal. So it could pick up electrical signals from the skin. So for example, if placed on the scalp, they could detect brain waves. But because this is, like, an electronic circuit, it's not just a dumb electrode, it's an actual circuit, you can build other functionality into it, including a transmitter to transmit signals to, say, a device. It could be used as very small, thin, flexible monitors. And so the technology seems very practical, very useful. I'm sure that this kind of thing is going to find a lot of applications. What I found amusing, maybe irritating, was the reporting of this technology, this, these devices in terms of what the possible applications would be. Because these are electrodes, that could read electrical signals from the brain, they started speculating wildly about the most advanced applications of the brain machine interface. Now we've chatted about this too, but I mean, that's something that would be far enough in the future we cannot say how long it's going to be; that we cannot extrapolate. The brain machine interface we have now are actually very good at, and getting better, at reading movements. So because we can map out the motor strip, you know, the motor cortex, and you know, you can put a lot of electrodes along the motor cortex and then people can learn how to use a robotic arm, for example, just by thinking about what they want it to do because it's interpreting the signals in their motor cortex. So that's about where the technology is now. But telepathy would require being able to read somebody's thoughts. And there the limiting factor isn't the electrodes, you know, it's not the signal.<br />
<br />
B: It's the brain in the skull.<br />
<br />
S: It's interpreting, although even if you had brain surface electrodes that were in incredibly high fidelity reading the EEG, the electrical signals from the brain, we still wouldn't know how to translate it into thoughts.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, how do you turn thought into a digital signal? What's the interpretation? And everybody's would be different. That's the real problem.<br />
<br />
S: Well you'd have to calibrate, you know. And partly the machine would have to calibrate to you but also the user could learn how to use it, you know. But this will not allow for telepathy. That's the bottom line. This doesn't really get us any closer to telepathy. <br />
<br />
E: But the headline! Look at the headline!<br />
<br />
S: The researchers admitted that brain surface electrodes would work better than these. These skin surface electrodes are probably never going to have the fidelity, the discrimination, to be able to read thoughts.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It just makes more sense that they, let's say they surgically implant something that is the analog to digital interface for the brain, then it transmits it to another device and let all the computer power happen somewhere else. It doesn't have to happen on the surface of your skin.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well that's what this would do, too. This would just read signals transmitted to your smart phone and then you could communicate through your smart phone or operate your smart phone with thoughts alone.<br />
<br />
E: Like, if I were to think, dial my home number. It would activate the phone to do something like that?<br />
<br />
S: We're not at that point yet with this. But this could be useful for, like, paraplegic people who want to control a computer screen, or control a robotic device. Because these are very thin and small you could probably have a lot of them. But still, the signal is not as clear as the brain surface's invasive electrodes. So it remains to be seen how much utility these would have. But because these are, the advance here, is that the electrodes are integrated with other elements, such as transmitters, and that they're thin and flexible. You know, so you can put a lot of them on the scalp. You don't have to wear this big massive cap or something that's very unwieldy. So, it does expand the number of possible uses, but it doesn't get over the problem of reading the EEG from the scalp, and therefore telepathy is not one of the applications of this technology in my opinion. However, having said that, they did bring up the notion of sub-vocalizations. Are you guys familiar with that?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, yeah; that's cool stuff.<br />
<br />
J: I don't think we've talked about it on the show, but we, off the show, have talked about it. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, when you are saying words inside your mind, you tend to move your face, tongue and throat muscles in the way that you would if you were speaking them, just much more subtly. And there's actually been some research; I looked; there's not a lot, but there is some published research looking at detecting with skin surface electrodes, the muscle movements in the throat and the face and interpreting these sub-vocalizations. I'm reading some conflicting things, though. You know, some reviews say that being able to go from detecting these sub-vocalizations to actual words has been elusive. But other studies claim that they've been able to distinguish a number of different words from the EMG signals. But it's possible from, a limited set of words, that they can then know which one of those words that the person was thinking. So that's, actually, though . . .<br />
<br />
E: Interesting.<br />
<br />
S: That is plausible and that may just be a matter of incremental progress, and these electrodes, so these tattoos, might apply to that technology. Right? So if you're using this as a way of detecting sub-vocalizations, and the detection and analysis algorithm get sophisticated enough, and the user may be able to learn how to do that. 'Cause you can, I was doing this before the show, I was just thinking to myself and paying attention to what I was doing. And then also tried to maximize my movement, my sub-vocalization movements. You know what I mean? Like you can deliberately accentuate them. <br />
<br />
E: Can you shut them off entirely if you think about it? Or is it just so subtle that you really don't have that level of control over it?<br />
<br />
S: Well in researching this I did find lots of websites, and even some published studies, looking at the question of suppressing sub-vocalizations in order to improve or increase your reading speed. 'Cause apparently the sub-vocalizations slow you down.<br />
<br />
J: So to clarify, Steve, if words are going through my head; if I'm sitting here saying to myself, oh, I've gotta get up early tomorrow morning, or whatever it is, I am having some type of muscular reaction in my throat? Every time?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: If you're reading.<br />
<br />
S: No, even if you're just thinking, words.<br />
<br />
E: Even if you're just thinking the words!<br />
<br />
S: You're saying the words in your head, you are sub-vocalizing those words. Yes.<br />
<br />
E: Right. Okay.<br />
<br />
S: But the question is just, can we detect and interpret those muscle movements with enough precision and discrimination that we could translate that into the words that are in your head, that you're thinking. And this could give you like a fake telepathy. Like a pseudo-telepathy. It's not really telepathy 'cause it's through actual muscle movements. But that could still be really powerful. It still could functionally be telepathy.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: It's really not telepathy. It's probably better termed silent communication.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, imagine the military being able to communicate with each other without having to make any noise. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Or spies. Just it's silent communication. You can imagine dictating in a crowded room without having to speak aloud.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Google Glass <small>(31:25)</small>===<br />
http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/<br />
<br />
S: All right, Jay, let's move on. You're gonna tell us about Google glass.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, baby.<br />
<br />
J: So, yeah, Steve, this is a real milestone. This is one of the pieces of technology that I've been waiting for for a long time. This is the beginning of real augmented reality. To give you a quick definition of what augmented reality is: so imagine a car mechanic that's wearing a pair of sunglasses and a computer is projecting onto the inside of those sunglasses a schematic so that the car mechanic is looking at the car engine and the computer's projecting say, the wiring system. So wherever he turns his head, the, it'll look like it's in 3D so he can see, or he or she can see things that aren't actually visible to the naked eye because the computer is laying that on top of reality. It's like another layer, or putting layers of information on top of reality. Or, a surgeon performing open-heart surgery would be able to see the heart in a 3D view unobstructed by the rest of the tissue surrounding it, or the rib cage, or whatever. You know, having that vantage point gives people the opportunity to achieve things much faster, more precisely and with much greater success overall. Now, I'm not saying that Google glass is offering that to us right now, but what Google is offering is the very first step in true augmented reality. So let me give you a quick list of the features of what it is, and I'll describe to you the actual component that you're wearing is, it's like taking a pair of sunglasses, removing the lenses and then on one side, on one eye, they'll put a, it's like a little module there that has a piece of glass that's hovering in front of one of your eyes. It'll project into your vision onto that piece of glass you're looking through that piece of glass, one of your eyes. It'll project a computer screen that looks like it's floating three or four feet in front of you, that doesn't have any borders or anything of course. And there's simply information there. You know, there's text, there's however, they're showing this information, it's gonna be a varying degree of different things. And you're gonna be talking to it. You're not gonna be using keyboard or a mouse or anything, that you're primarily gonna be using vocalization to turn it on, to tell it what you need it to do. And some of the features that it's launching with are it's gonna be able to record video. What you see, it's gonna record. It's gonna take pictures. You're gonna be able to start Google-Plus hangouts with people. You're gonna be able to search. You're gonna be able to also search photos, which is cool. You're gonna be able to do translations, you're gonna be able to get directions; you're gonna be able to use the Google Now software, which is like iPhone's Siri, where you can ask more complicated questions and actually tell it to do certain things, like take notes, put something in my address book, in my calendar, whatever. You can send messages to people and you can get flight, or there'll be a flight detail database attached, so you can call that up when you need it. You would start each command with "Okay, Glass," as if you were talking to someone. "Okay, Glass, I want you to start recording video right now." "Okay, Glass, stop recording video." The really cool thing about this though, is you take it with you, it connects into your iPhone or to your Android operating system, and it is based off of the Android operating system. And you wear it and you just put it on and you forget that it's there and it just becomes another interface for you. The big thing here is, guys, it truly is the beginning of the next way that we're gonna be interacting and experiencing reality. And it's going to be augmented by computers in a way now that we've really never experienced it before. We're all gonna be able to do things that we normally wouldn't be able to do, even simple things. Like let's say you went to Ikea and you bought a bookshelf. Everybody knows that directions that come from companies like Ikea or whatever, some are better than other, but for the most part having to construct something is a complete and total pain in the ass. This would be showing you what to do. It would be giving you visual cues using the actual things that you're looking at. Like, showing you what pieces connect to each other and where.<br />
<br />
B: And that's the key, Jay. To me that's the key. It's contextual information. It's not, you're not just surfing web pages. You are seeing overlays on reality and it knows what you're looking at, and gives you information based on your environment and what you're interacting with. And that's one of the reasons why this is gonna be so powerful.<br />
<br />
S: All right, Bob, Bob, what would be the porn application?<br />
<br />
J: Oh, my god. Don't even go there.<br />
<br />
B: God. Come on.<br />
<br />
J: Well, Bob's talking about what it will be like down the road, and <br />
<br />
B: I ''have'' to talk about that.<br />
<br />
J: Maybe a future use of this would be that you could tell Google glass "When I'm sitting at my work desk, I want my monitor to appear as if it's here where a physical monitor would be" but when you turn your head away, it stays in that three-dimensional space; you know, if you're looking at your computer monitor and you turn your head to the left, you don't see the monitor anymore, you wouldn't in real life.<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: Now let me be the wet-blanket skeptic. <br />
<br />
E: ''(laughing)'' I was gonna mention something about that.<br />
<br />
S: To bring things down a little bit. So everything that you guys are saying may come to pass at some point, but the thing that we have to keep in mind is that until we put this technology in the hands of lots of people, it's really hard to predict how people will want to use it.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, absolutely.<br />
<br />
S: And what it will be useful for. So all the things that you guys are speculating about, are speculation. So we don't know if this is going to be the smart phone, where everyone's gonna want to have 'em and it's gonna be much more useful than anyone ever thought, or if it's gonna be the Segue. You know, where it's not gonna be so revolutionary. But it'll have a niche where people use it for certain specific things, or, guys, remember the high-definition, high-frame rate situation where there just was something annoying about it, that people have a hard time adapting to.<br />
<br />
B: Ah, you're so full of it<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, adaptation.<br />
<br />
B: That's a horrible analogy. ''(laughter)'' Because this, this isn't, it's not a segue. People were gonna build cities around segue. That was a ridiculous prediction. It's not like a segue at all. This is an improvement on the computer interfaces. I mean computer interfaces, they're not going anywhere. That's a proven technology. It's just another way, it's another type of monitor, Steve. <br />
<br />
S: I know, Bob. I'm just saying, until people start using we won't know, it's like a video phone. We talked about the fact, oh video phones are coming. Well, why wouldn't you use a video phone? And it turns out that for a lot of things you don't wanna be looking at somebody. Why is texting so popular? The use of technology is hard to predict.<br />
<br />
B: I agree. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:06)</small>== <br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Evan. Tell us about last week's Who's That Noisy?<br />
<br />
E: I'll do one better and play for you last week's Who's That Noisy? Who could forget this, this wonderful little sound. Here we go.<br />
<br />
''Bird-like tweeting. The tweet song is repeated several times, pretty much the same each time.''<br />
<br />
E: Definitely not a bird, definitely not a plane. <br />
<br />
S: What is it?<br />
<br />
E: Superman. ''(laughs)'' That is . . . the whistlepig.<br />
<br />
S: The whistlepig.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' The whistlepig. <br />
<br />
''(numerous garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
B: What the hell is a whistlepig?<br />
<br />
E: A groundhog!<br />
<br />
S: Remember, from ''Groundhog's Day''?<br />
<br />
E: We only covered it a few weeks ago.<br />
<br />
J: That's an actual pig?<br />
<br />
S: No, it's a groundhog. The whistlepig is another name for the groundhog.<br />
<br />
E: Right. Woodchuck, is another name for the groundhog. Some people call it a land beaver. And they're all over the place, especially in North America. Very common in northeastern parts of the continent, and in the central United States. Several guesses; only a few correct answers this week came in to us. Congratulations to Wayne Heller. Your name was drawn. You are the winner this week. You're in the drawing for the end-of-the-year contest by which we will put all names in the hat from the week winners and that grand-prize winner will join us on the SGU to play a round of Science or Fiction. All right, so. You guys ready for this week?<br />
<br />
S: Always.<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: It is another noisy we have this week. It's short. Here we go:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Men's voices speaking on some kind of communicators:<br />
Person 1: You're looking a little hot and all your calls will be a little early. (Beep) Person 2: Okay. Person 3: And that looks good here.</blockquote><br />
<br />
J: Isn't that when they made the Six-Million-Dollar Man, and he was about to crash? No?<br />
<br />
E: That's an interesting guess, Jay. No, that's not correct.<br />
<br />
J: I hope at some point in my life I'm gonna be talking to someone and that whistle will comment like the<br />
<br />
S: That call-tone?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I love that.<br />
<br />
E: What I would like to see in the answer for this week is not a generic idea of what you think the noise is. I would like to know pretty exactly where you recognize that noise from. Send us your guess. wtn@theskepticsguide.org; that's the email address for Who's That Noisy submissions. Or you can post it on our forums, sguforums.com. Every week I wish you all the best of <br />
<br />
J: ''(shouting)'' Good luck everybody!<br />
<br />
E: Thank you, Jay. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: I was getting very excited, Evan.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== "Ow!" <small>(40:36)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: All right, we have one question this week. This comes from Joe Shoults. And this is the shortest question we 've ever had.<br />
<br />
J: The answer is six inches.<br />
<br />
E: Four foot one.<br />
<br />
S: Joe writes "Why do we say "ow"? <br />
<br />
B: Wow! What a good question! Holy crap!<br />
<br />
J: Steve, can I try to answer it and see if I'm anywhere near correct?<br />
<br />
S: You can try.<br />
<br />
E: Okay.<br />
<br />
J: The first thing that occurred to me when I read that email when it came in was, well, first, the word is cultural. I'm sure that in other cultures they don't say "ow," they say other things.<br />
<br />
S: Are you sure?<br />
<br />
J: I'm guessing. I'm guessing. <br />
<br />
B: That's my guess as well.<br />
<br />
J: The other thing is I think we're giving a cue to the other mammals around us that we're injured.<br />
<br />
E: Here's my guess. My guess is ow is short for ouch.<br />
<br />
S: Why do we say ouch?<br />
<br />
J: 'Cause ouch is short for ouch-a-daisy.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: He didn't say "why do we say ouch?"; that wasn't the question. Said "why do we say 'ow'?" ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: Don't split hairs. Why do we make a vocalization when we get hurt?<br />
<br />
S: Do you think there's any published scientific research that might enlighten us on that question?<br />
<br />
J: I'm sure you know.<br />
<br />
E: If there is, you have it, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: All of the evolutionary psychological answers, there's no answer to that. ''(laughter)'' This is all hand waving. We don't know. No one knows. You could make up any kind of plausible sounding answer that you like for that. <br />
<br />
J: So I'm right!<br />
<br />
S: The answer is we don't know. That's what the answer is. But I did look at this from a couple of angles, just to see what I could find. One was, 'cause I remember reading this study but I wanted just to see what all the literature was, about swearing and pain perception. I couldn't find anything published about saying "ow" or "ouch," but I could find swearing. And, the research does show that if you swear when you have, like stub your toe, or have physical pain, that your perception of the pain is decreased. It does help.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: However, get this, if you swear all the time, then the benefit of swearing goes down. <br />
<br />
J: Fuck that!<br />
<br />
E: 'Cause you've numbed yourself.<br />
<br />
B: I could see that.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so you have to keep your swearing in reserve for when you stub your toe.<br />
<br />
J: Save it for the pain.<br />
<br />
S: Save it for the pain.<br />
<br />
B: How 'bout, now, what about instead of physical pain, what about emotional pain?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well, we also use it in lots of related ways, like, when somebody says something bad that happened, you might say, "ooo, ouch" as a way of saying, expressing sympathy or if somebody insults you really bad you might say "ouch" like sarcastically. Try to say like, oh you hurt me. I also had the same question, what is the, how international or cross-cultural is "ow" or "ouch." So I looked it up. Here's a smattering of what other cultures say instead of ouch. Ayee. So "ayee" or "ow" are the two main things that cultures say. In French, "ayee"; Thai, "oi"; Spanish, "ai"; Polish, "ouch"; Maltese, "ach"; Iran, "ai" or "ach" or "oof"; Afghanistan, "oof"; Germany, it's a-u-a, "Aua"; Dutch is "ow"; Norwegian, "ow"; Danish, it says a-v, I'm not sure if that's supposed to also be pronounced "ow"; <br />
<br />
E: Probably.<br />
<br />
S: Chinese, the only two-syllable one I came across, "ayo" or "ayah"; Turkish, "ach" or "ai"; so very similar across the cultures. It's mainly a lot of "ai" "ach" "oof" "ow." Very similar.<br />
<br />
J: That's interesting, too, and they're all short.<br />
<br />
S: A lot of a's, o's, yeah, they're all short. The Chinese one was the only one I found that was two syllables.<br />
<br />
J: Very cool. That's so interesting. I love that.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Interview with Jon Ronson <small>(44:20)</small> ==<br />
* Interview with Jon Ronson, recorded at CSICon 2012.<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:50)</small> ==<br />
[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/osoa-idh022613.php Item number one]. Scientists have developed an imaging system that can look through walls into a burning building and identify survivors that need rescuing. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130225092040.htm Item number two]. A new analysis finds that Spiderman’s webbing would have been strong enough to stop the commuter trains as depicted in the Spiderman 2 movie. [http://now.tufts.edu/news-releases/new-study-shows-viruses-can-have-immune-syste And item number three]. Researchers discover a virus with an adaptive immune system. <br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:13:44)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>The world is much more interesting than any one discipline.</blockquote><br />
Edward Tufte<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>(1:15:27)</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_398&diff=6330SGU Episode 3982013-04-13T23:29:43Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 398<br />
|episodeDate = 2<sup>nd</sup> March 2013<br />
|episodeIcon = File:E-tattoo.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|guest1 = JR: Jon Ronson<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-02.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=398<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45209.0.html<br />
|qowText = The world is much more interesting than any one discipline.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tufte Edward Tufte]<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine <br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, February 27, 2013 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: Hey, guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Ah. Kum bah wa, everyone.<br />
<br />
B: Kum bah yay, what was that?<br />
<br />
E: Kum bah ya, no. Kum bah wa. Japanese for good evening.<br />
<br />
S: Good evening.<br />
<br />
E: Lots of SGU listeners in Japan. We know a few. <br />
<br />
S: So apparently Rebecca has some kind of phlegm situation going on. <br />
<br />
E: I didn't know she was Amish.<br />
<br />
S: We're trying to decide if she has the flu, whooping cough, or strep throat.<br />
<br />
J: Well, get this, guys. So Rebecca emails us and says that she's not feeling well; that she woke up really late today, and she's been basically zonked all day. And at the same time, we have a little whooping cough scare going on over here with the newborn. This is what happened. My sister-in-law came to visit from Denver. And in the Midwest you know that the whooping cough incidences are higher and everything and I just didn't really think much of it other than everyone in the family got the tdap vaccination, which is the whooping cough<br />
<br />
S: Did she and her family get the tdap?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, they did. What I found out today was that, like many of the vaccines that we get, you know they're guessing at which strain is gonna be the one that's gonna hit that year,<br />
<br />
S: No, hang on a minute, Jay. What you're describing is relevant for the flu. With the whooping cough, it's not that there's like a different strain hitting every year, it's just that tdap covers only a very narrow number of strains and the virus has mutated. You know, it just, new strains are developing. But it's not like there's a seasonal strain like the flu. It's a little bit different.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I didn't mean to confuse that. I know, like, exactly what you said, that there is a newer version of it that just wasn't covered by that particular vaccination that we got. <br />
<br />
S: yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So, her sister left on Monday morning. She called us up today, we're recording on Wednesday. She said "Guys, I had a bad cold on my way home, and now it's turning into something that's very, what I would consider to be whooping cough-like.<br />
<br />
E: Yeesh.<br />
<br />
J: So we called up our doctor, you know, I have a three-and-a-half-week-old in the house now, and you know, like, very dialed into this. And we called up the doctor up and me like "What's up? Like what do we do? What happens?" And pertussis is a bacteria, it's not a virus. So they have an anti-biotic for it. <br />
<br />
E: Anti-biotic. Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So, what do you call it, Steve? Erythromycin? <br />
<br />
S: Erythromycin, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Erythromycin, yeah. So that's the one that they use for it. And it's the mega-dose, like two pills the first day and then you take like this mega-dose thing for four days. Of course the baby's taking the liquid form and everything. But I'm sitting there tonight with my wife and we're giving the baby its first medication, and it's freakin' whooping cough medication! Like I wanted to strangle people. Thank you everybody for not . . .<br />
<br />
S: Anyone who has never gotten vaccinated for whooping cough, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Something that we could<br />
<br />
E: Way to blow the herd immunity; way to go.<br />
<br />
J: We could get rid of it. Did you guys see the info-graphic of . . . the CDC puts out information every year, and somebody made an info-graphic of the incidence of morbidity before and after the vaccination for a particular disease came and went. Right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And right out of the gate, things like smallpox and stuff, I don't remember the exact numbers, but we have certain diseases where there was like a half a million people dying a year, down to zero. After the vaccination. And there's like, in this info-graphic, I think there was more than a dozen of them. It was incredible. Like you see the numbers, how dramatically different they are. Right there. That's a hundred percent proof. They work. And yet people are walking around out there ''today'' and they don't care; that information is meaningless to them. How? Why?<br />
<br />
B: Well what is the worst-case scenario with pertussis? I mean, how bad could it get? <br />
<br />
J: It can kill you, Bob; it can kill a baby.<br />
<br />
E: Death.<br />
<br />
B: That's bad.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there was that famous case in Australia where a baby caught, Dana McCaffery, caught whooping cough in a community that had very low vaccination rates because of the Australian anti-vaccination network preaching against vaccines, and, the baby caught it from unvaccinated people. And died. 'Cause the child was too young to be vaccinated. It's one of the populations that need to be protected by herd immunity.<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(4:33)</small> ==<br />
* March 2, 1983: Compact Disc players and discs are released for the first time in the United States and other markets. They had been available only in Japan before then.<br />
<br />
S: Evan, so you're filling in for Rebecca this week for This Day in Skepticism.<br />
<br />
E: I said "Good evening" in Japanese to start the show. And I did so because the compact disc, you guys remember what compact discs are, CDs,<br />
<br />
S: They're still, they're still used today.<br />
<br />
E: They are. Their first, most common usage was of course for music storage, right? Playing music. Put 80 minutes of uncompressed audio on one of those things. That's 737 megabytes of data. What do you think of that? So in Japan, is where the CDs were first, widely became available, in October of '82. However, on March 2nd of 1983, compact discs and their players were released for the first time in the United States and other markets around the world, whereas they'd only been available in Japan before but finally they came to the United States, and I remember this vividly. It was a big f'ing deal, for me and my 13-year-old friends and stuff who were all, in our own opinions, very big into music. And it was a rush to see who would get the first CD, who would be able to afford the first CD player. It was kind of bragging rights, in a sense. Do you guys remember?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah. Instantly replaced tapes, records; 8-tracks had already died by then.<br />
<br />
E: Thank goodness.<br />
<br />
S: Buy, yeah, and think about it, guys. Thirty years! And they're still a perfectly acceptable technology. I still buy CDs for music. <br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
S: Sure.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, man. I just download it all.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but think about it. A CD, you can then rip it into any quality MP3 you want, which you own, without any DRM, and you have the CD for a backup. And it's still cost-effective. It's not like you're saving money by downloading. So it's still a perfectly viable technology. It's had a lot of longevity.<br />
<br />
B: It's all right, I guess. I like, I hear a song that I like. Like, oh boy, that sounds really good. And I buy it. Within literally four minutes I have it on my iPhone and I'm listening to it. That's awesome.<br />
<br />
S: I do that, too, but, if there's an album coming out and I know I want the whole album, I'll get it on a CD. <br />
<br />
E: Something to remember, guys, is that when you purchase a CD, you're purchasing something physical that you actually own. And when you purchase a license to get a music or something you download through iTunes or something, there's a question, there's debates going on right now in the courts as to how much ownership do you actually have over that thing? In other words, can you put it into your estate and leave it to your heirs?<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And they are fighting that. You know, the record industry, or industries, don't want those rights to be transferred on to descendents. Where, but with a CD you're guaranteed. That is yours, it's physical, you can do whatever the heck you want with it. So, keep that in mind also in the debate about, you know, what medium, what format you're gonna use for your music.<br />
<br />
B: That's messed up.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Life Around Dying Stars <small>(7:32)</small>===<br />
http://phys.org/news/2013-02-future-evidence-extraterrestrial-life-dying.html#ajTabs<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Bob, talk about looking for life around dying stars.<br />
<br />
B: If you insist.<br />
<br />
S: I do.<br />
<br />
B: So guys, <br />
<br />
E: Like Mickey Rooney, are we talking? What are we talking here, dying stars?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, boy. Guys, when you think of an extraterrestrial planet, especially one that supports life, what do you think of? Do you think of, you've got this planet orbiting a parent star that's kind of like our sun, right? Maybe it's a little bit bigger than our sun, maybe it's a little bit smaller. And of course, if that's the case, the habitable zone around the star changes because of how big and bright the star is.<br />
<br />
S: Now, Bob, I think of Tatooine with two suns. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Nice orchestral music playing.<br />
<br />
S: Or Rigel 7 with a big planet in the distance with rings around it.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but, still, it's like a, it's a real star, it's like a star that <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, not a fake star.<br />
<br />
B: It's fusing hydrogen into helium. No, but it's not a ''dead'' star, and that's the point here. There's a new theoretical study that finds that the most likely place possibly to find life on another planet may be around a dead star. More specifically, of course, a white dwarf. You know, I'm not talking about a neutron star or black hole. But not only that, they think they might be able to actually find one of these planets in the next ten years. Which seems like a pretty bold prediction.<br />
<br />
E: But Bob, isn't a white dwarf after the star went through its initial sort of expansion then came back in on itself. Wouldn't it have kind of destroyed things on that<br />
<br />
B: Well, exactly. And that's the huge problem. That's the first thing I thought of, well how can that be? A white dwarf is a dead star. It's a corpse of a sun-like star, at the end of its, you know in its old age it swells into a red giant and it totally crisps any of the planets that were nearby, but before it expels a lot of its mass, making the beautifully misnomered planetary nebula. So what's left is this collapsed core. It's about as big as the earth, but it's got the mass, it could have a mass of more than the sun. 1.4 solar masses, I think, is the ________________________ limit for that. So that's a lot of mass in a really tiny place. So clearly it's unbelievably dense, right? If you had a ton of white dwarf matter, if you could do that, you could fit it into a matchbox. I mean it's super, super tiny. You can thank the electron degeneracy pressure for that. But there's no nuclear reactions going on to produce energy, but because it's relatively small it could radiate it's remaining heat for literally billions of years. So clearly, then, this thing could have its own little Goldilocks zone to support life, even though it's really not even a star anymore. It's not creating energy, but it's just radiating away the energy that's contained in it for many, many, many eons. So then the next question then, Evan, which ties into your comment, was how does the planet get there, because the red giant's gonna wipe out anything that's nearby. Probably anything that's in the Goldilocks zone. So there's actually two ways that could happen. One might, you might predict, a planet can migrate in from the outskirts of a solar system; we've seen that with hot Jupiters: Jupiter-sized planets that have orbits closer than Mercury. How the hell did they get there? Well they can actually migrate in through the solar system. But there's another way. A planet can also form from the leftover dust and gas; and that, of course, would be a second-generation world, which I think is pretty cool. Now of course, though, this planet would have to get pretty damned close, since the heat source is so small and dim compared to regular living stars . . .<br />
<br />
S: Bob, do we know that either of those can actually happen around a white dwarf, though?<br />
<br />
B: The thing here, though, with this theoretical study, Steve, is that they ran these really sophisticated simulations and they've pretty much shown in the simulation everything that I'm talking about.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
T<br />
B: That this can happen; they're incredibly confident that it could happen. They can think of no reason why it wouldn't happen. Now, it's not like every white dwarf is gonna have one these. They're saying that among the 500 closest white dwarves to the sun, they might find one or two that have planetary bodies in orbit around it that could support life. So, you know, one or two in 500 isn't great odds, but there's lots of stars and we can look at a lot of different things.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
B: So, the interesting thing is, as you could imagine, these planets would have to be very close to the white dwarf in order to get enough heat to have liquid water and life evolve. So that turns out to be only about a million miles away, which is what one over ninety-three, wait, sorry. And that's, our orbit's 93 million miles, so it's way, way, way close to it. And it's year, of course, would only be about ten hours long, which is an amazingly fast orbit so that would, I cal . . .<br />
<br />
E: That's a party every ten hours, oh my gosh.<br />
<br />
B: I calculated Rebecca would be over 30,000 years old if she lived on that planet. ''(laughter)'' So, all right. So we've got this dead star that could conceivably keep a nearby planet warm enough for life, so we've got that. We've got a couple different ways for a planet to arrive or form nearby. So then the next interesting question is, how do we detect this thing? And, if you regularly listen to this show, I think you probably know: the transit method, right? A planet moves between us and their star. The output, the light output dips, and bam! You've detected a planet. Of course, it's a little bit more complicated than that, but that's essentially the idea. Now in this scenario it's actually even better. Now think of this system, though. You've got a planet real close to a white dwarf and the white dwarf is so tiny, I mean they could be comparable in size, so that when this planet eclipses the white dwarf, you're gonna have a huge dip in the light output. It would be an obvious signal. It would leap out and say "whoa!" This starlight almost completely disappeared.<br />
<br />
S: But the plane of that system would have to be perfectly aligned with us.<br />
<br />
B: Yes, it would have to be. But even if it wasn't, you could still occlude half the star or 33 percent, and that still would be really really good. That's not even the best part. The real icing on the cake for this is that the white dwarf emits so much less light it becomes much easier to determine the composition of the atmosphere of the planet in orbit around it. And it turns out that after the simulation I was talking about, they showed that after just a few hours of observation instead of something like hundreds of hours, we would know that the planet has perhaps water vapor or maybe oxygen in it. And oxygen would, that would be gargantuan news. That would be huge because, on earth anyway, oxygen is created by life. You take away life from the planet earth and it would slowly diminish, the oxygen would just disappear. It would dissolve into the oceans, it would oxidize the surface, and if we found a sizable amount of oxygen on a planet, I think it'd be pretty solid indication that there's probably some kind of life on the planet producing that oxygen. And if not, maybe it's some kind of alien machine that's creating and it wouldn't matter 'cause in that case we would find life anyway. So, either way, it's a win-win!<br />
<br />
S: So now we've just gotta look for them.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, and the James Webb, the James Webb's a big thing, that once that guy comes online, that telescope comes online, I think, jees, I'm not sure when, but within a few years or so.<br />
<br />
S: They plan on a 2018 launch date.<br />
<br />
B: That is gonna have what it needs to really survey these white dwarves and find these planets and maybe find a planet that most likely has life on it. And how huge would that be; talk about the science story of the millennia, let alone the year!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we'll probably cover that one.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, maybe. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Ancient Lost Continent <small>(15:06)</small>===<br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21551149<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Evan, I read<br />
<br />
E: Yeah!<br />
<br />
S: that geologists claim they have found a lost sunken continent.<br />
<br />
E: You read correctly, Steve. And courtesy of the BBC, their headline reads "Fragments of ancient continent buried under the Indian Ocean."" So, what do you think? Is this it? They finally found Atlantis? Is the evidence incontrovertible?<br />
<br />
S: It's in the Indian Ocean so it wouldn't be Atlantis, it would be Indiana.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, I suppose that would be more accurate.<br />
<br />
B: No – Indianis.<br />
<br />
S: Indianis<br />
<br />
E: Indianis. <br />
<br />
B: I kinda like it.<br />
<br />
E: There are a few outlets out there; not exactly of BBC quality, with their own headlines, including "Fragments of ancient continent Atlantis found." And Atlantis is all in caps with an exclamation point and the word "found" is as well. And another one that says "Is this the real Atlantis?"<br />
<br />
S: Nobody knows.<br />
<br />
E: So, you know. Jees, that was not predictable at all that some people would be jumping all over the Atlantis part of the story. But, it has nothing to do with Atlantis whatsoever.<br />
<br />
S: Zip. Zero. Nada.<br />
<br />
E: Nada. Nope. This article's focus is on the study published in the journal Nature Geoscience. And like you said, Steve, the researchers have found evidence for the land mass that would have existed up to about 85 million years ago. Can I give you a quick little story to set this all up? So, a long time ago in a galaxy called the Milky Way, almost a billion years ago, and that was before iTunes and compact discs and vaccinations, on the earth there existed a super-continent. A super-continent is one very large continent. While at the same time, there are no other significant land masses anywhere on the earth. There have been many super-continents that have existed on the earth over the history of the earth.<br />
<br />
S: A few.<br />
<br />
E: Just a few. Well, about a dozen or so that they have listed online. But the super-continent from this particular period of time was called Rodinia. You guys may remember learning, I remember learning in grade school, about the super-continent called Pangaea, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. The most recent one, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: But, <br />
<br />
B: And Gondwana land is the other one, right?<br />
<br />
E: That one, Gondwanaland.<br />
<br />
J: Was that Guanaland? What is that, made of bat poop? The whole island?<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Pangaea, about 300 million years ago. No, Rodinia was well before that, about 750, maybe 800 million years ago. So we're talking a long time ago. As far as this particular new land mass that was discovered goes: picture in your mind a world map, and look in your mind for the country India. Okay? And then, to the south, the island nation of Madagascar. All right. Well, these areas were once connected, a part of Rodinia, and they were smashed up right next to each other. And researchers believe they've found evidence of a sliver of a continent known as, well they call it a microcontinent, that was once tucked between these two masses. But not only have they found the evidence, they're already calling it something. They're calling it Mauritia, named after the tiny island of Mauritius, which is the place where they actually discovered the evidence. So what kind of evidence did they find? Well, they collected samples from a volcanic eruption that took place estimated 9 million years ago, and within the samples of those sands and grains that they took in, were mixed in some much older minerals. They uncovered zircons. Now, zircons are known in geological circles for being found on the continental shelf and they are very, very old. These particular zircons that they found are estimated to be at least 600 million years old. And I read some estimates in some places that they could be almost 2 billion years old. The nearest known outcrop of continental crust that could have produced these zircons is on, well, Madagascar. But it's still very far away. And it's unlikely, they're trying to come up with scenarios by which, how could these zircons have gotten there by other means? They think that this is evidence for a land mass that actually, you know, believes a microcontinent that actually exists out there below the Indian Ocean. And they're going to be doing more studying about it. They're hoping to do more research and being a more detailed mapping of the floor of the Indian Ocean, and continue this research and try to find the sunken continent.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I read the paper itself, and I think what they demonstrated is pretty solid. But the notion that the source of these grains of sands that they examining is this sunken microcontinent that existed between India and Madagascar. That's really just a hypothesis at this point. It's not like they're found the continent or they're proven that it exists. It's just that it would be one possible explanation for why this ancient zircon would be where it is. It sounds plausible, sounds like a reasonable story, but again, I think just a hypothesis.<br />
<br />
B: In this context you always hear them saying "lost" or "sunken" continent. What the hell does "sunken" mean in this context?<br />
<br />
S; Below the water. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah, but<br />
<br />
E: You're right, Bob, it's a mystery.<br />
<br />
B: What's the mechanism? I mean, is it just erosion, like the islands near Hawaii that have been eroded into the sea after they moved off of the volcanic hot spot? I mean, or would some cataclysm happen that actually made it, that shifted the crust and made it sink because of that? I mean . . .<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I think it's more to do with when two land, a land mass breaks apart into two land masses, the piece in, you know, there may be some of it in between the two pieces that breaks apart and sinks under the ocean. That's essentially what they're saying. Just the way the crust broke apart. One interesting thing about the whole supercontinents, et cetera, is that we're still not really sure why continents even exist.<br />
<br />
J: Why? What do you mean? We don't know why they're there?<br />
<br />
S: Actually what happens with plate tectonics is you have, the oceans are constantly turning over like a conveyor belt. So no part of the ocean is any older than a couple hundred million years. Parts of the ocean diving down below a continental plate, and you have rifts in the middle where new ocean floors emerging and spreading. Yeah, so you have this spreading zone and then subduction zone. But the continents are always floating on top of these oceanic plates. So how did that happen in the first place? Once it established itself to be that way, then you could see how it's self-perpetuating. But we're not really sure how that happened to begin with. Which is interesting.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's cool.<br />
<br />
E: It is interesting.<br />
<br />
S: The other thing that's interesting is the result of that is that continents are ancient. That's why stuff that's ancient has to be continental, right, 'cause anything from the ocean can only be a couple hundred million years old. If something's a billion years old, it had to come from a continent. Only the continents are that old.<br />
<br />
E: Yes. Right, right. That's why the zircon's important.<br />
<br />
S: Which is kind of nice. 'Cause if the continents were also occasionally diving underneath other plates and recycling, there wouldn't be fossils.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. We'd lose a lot of information.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Electronic Tattoos <small>(22:36)</small>===<br />
http://www.businessinsider.com/temporary-tattoos-could-make-electronic-telepathy-telekinesis-possible-2013-2<br />
<br />
S: All right. Let's move on. I'm gonna talk about electronic tattoos.<br />
<br />
B: What the hell's that about?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, it has something to do with Fantasy Island.<br />
<br />
S: Here's the headline. You guys tell me what you think about this. "Temporary tattoos could make electronic telepathy possible."<br />
<br />
E: Telepathy!<br />
<br />
''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: I know, I know. If somebody didn't send this to me, I would have used it as a Science or Fiction item.<br />
<br />
E: Sorry!<br />
<br />
S: Evan, you sent me several things I was gonna use for Science or Fiction. But anyway, <br />
<br />
E: Oh, I undermined you totally.<br />
<br />
S: This would have, I would have had Bob going. It's like "Now you're talking about telepathy??" ''(laughter)'' But, yeah. No. No telepathy. So what the technology is is they're essentially flexible electronics that you can apply to skin. And because they're flexible they could move around, they could bend. They're very thin, and they can serve a few functions. One primary function would be that they would essentially be an electrode. No big deal. So it could pick up electrical signals from the skin. So for example, if placed on the scalp, they could detect brain waves. But because this is, like, an electronic circuit, it's not just a dumb electrode, it's an actual circuit, you can build other functionality into it, including a transmitter to transmit signals to, say, a device. It could be used as very small, thin, flexible monitors. And so the technology seems very practical, very useful. I'm sure that this kind of thing is going to find a lot of applications. What I found amusing, maybe irritating, was the reporting of this technology, this, these devices in terms of what the possible applications would be. Because these are electrodes, that could read electrical signals from the brain, they started speculating wildly about the most advanced applications of the brain machine interface. Now we've chatted about this too, but I mean, that's something that would be far enough in the future we cannot say how long it's going to be; that we cannot extrapolate. The brain machine interface we have now are actually very good at, and getting better, at reading movements. So because we can map out the motor strip, you know, the motor cortex, and you know, you can put a lot of electrodes along the motor cortex and then people can learn how to use a robotic arm, for example, just by thinking about what they want it to do because it's interpreting the signals in their motor cortex. So that's about where the technology is now. But telepathy would require being able to read somebody's thoughts. And there the limiting factor isn't the electrodes, you know, it's not the signal.<br />
<br />
B: It's the brain in the skull.<br />
<br />
S: It's interpreting, although even if you had brain surface electrodes that were in incredibly high fidelity reading the EEG, the electrical signals from the brain, we still wouldn't know how to translate it into thoughts.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, how do you turn thought into a digital signal? What's the interpretation? And everybody's would be different. That's the real problem.<br />
<br />
S: Well you'd have to calibrate, you know. And partly the machine would have to calibrate to you but also the user could learn how to use it, you know. But this will not allow for telepathy. That's the bottom line. This doesn't really get us any closer to telepathy. <br />
<br />
E: But the headline! Look at the headline!<br />
<br />
S: The researchers admitted that brain surface electrodes would work better than these. These skin surface electrodes are probably never going to have the fidelity, the discrimination, to be able to read thoughts.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It just makes more sense that they, let's say they surgically implant something that is the analog to digital interface for the brain, then it transmits it to another device and let all the computer power happen somewhere else. It doesn't have to happen on the surface of your skin.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well that's what this would do, too. This would just read signals transmitted to your smart phone and then you could communicate through your smart phone or operate your smart phone with thoughts alone.<br />
<br />
E: Like, if I were to think, dial my home number. It would activate the phone to do something like that?<br />
<br />
S: We're not at that point yet with this. But this could be useful for, like, paraplegic people who want to control a computer screen, or control a robotic device. Because these are very thin and small you could probably have a lot of them. But still, the signal is not as clear as the brain surface's invasive electrodes. So it remains to be seen how much utility these would have. But because these are, the advance here, is that the electrodes are integrated with other elements, such as transmitters, and that they're thin and flexible. You know, so you can put a lot of them on the scalp. You don't have to wear this big massive cap or something that's very unwieldy. So, it does expand the number of possible uses, but it doesn't get over the problem of reading the EEG from the scalp, and therefore telepathy is not one of the applications of this technology in my opinion. However, having said that, they did bring up the notion of sub-vocalizations. Are you guys familiar with that?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, yeah; that's cool stuff.<br />
<br />
J: I don't think we've talked about it on the show, but we, off the show, have talked about it. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, when you are saying words inside your mind, you tend to move your face, tongue and throat muscles in the way that you would if you were speaking them, just much more subtly. And there's actually been some research; I looked; there's not a lot, but there is some published research looking at detecting with skin surface electrodes, the muscle movements in the throat and the face and interpreting these sub-vocalizations. I'm reading some conflicting things, though. You know, some reviews say that being able to go from detecting these sub-vocalizations to actual words has been elusive. But other studies claim that they've been able to distinguish a number of different words from the EMG signals. But it's possible from, a limited set of words, that they can then know which one of those words that the person was thinking. So that's, actually, though . . .<br />
<br />
E: Interesting.<br />
<br />
S: That is plausible and that may just be a matter of incremental progress, and these electrodes, so these tattoos, might apply to that technology. Right? So if you're using this as a way of detecting sub-vocalizations, and the detection and analysis algorithm get sophisticated enough, and the user may be able to learn how to do that. 'Cause you can, I was doing this before the show, I was just thinking to myself and paying attention to what I was doing. And then also tried to maximize my movement, my sub-vocalization movements. You know what I mean? Like you can deliberately accentuate them. <br />
<br />
E: Can you shut them off entirely if you think about it? Or is it just so subtle that you really don't have that level of control over it?<br />
<br />
S: Well in researching this I did find lots of websites, and even some published studies, looking at the question of suppressing sub-vocalizations in order to improve or increase your reading speed. 'Cause apparently the sub-vocalizations slow you down.<br />
<br />
J: So to clarify, Steve, if words are going through my head; if I'm sitting here saying to myself, oh, I've gotta get up early tomorrow morning, or whatever it is, I am having some type of muscular reaction in my throat? Every time?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: If you're reading.<br />
<br />
S: No, even if you're just thinking, words.<br />
<br />
E: Even if you're just thinking the words!<br />
<br />
S: You're saying the words in your head, you are sub-vocalizing those words. Yes.<br />
<br />
E: Right. Okay.<br />
<br />
S: But the question is just, can we detect and interpret those muscle movements with enough precision and discrimination that we could translate that into the words that are in your head, that you're thinking. And this could give you like a fake telepathy. Like a pseudo-telepathy. It's not really telepathy 'cause it's through actual muscle movements. But that could still be really powerful. It still could functionally be telepathy.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: It's really not telepathy. It's probably better termed silent communication.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, imagine the military being able to communicate with each other without having to make any noise. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Or spies. Just it's silent communication. You can imagine dictating in a crowded room without having to speak aloud.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Google Glass <small>(31:25)</small>===<br />
http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/<br />
<br />
S: All right, Jay, let's move on. You're gonna tell us about Google glass.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, baby.<br />
<br />
J: So, yeah, Steve, this is a real milestone. This is one of the pieces of technology that I've been waiting for for a long time. This is the beginning of real augmented reality. To give you a quick definition of what augmented reality is: so imagine a car mechanic that's wearing a pair of sunglasses and a computer is projecting onto the inside of those sunglasses a schematic so that the car mechanic is looking at the car engine and the computer's projecting say, the wiring system. So wherever he turns his head, the, it'll look like it's in 3D so he can see, or he or she can see things that aren't actually visible to the naked eye because the computer is laying that on top of reality. It's like another layer, or putting layers of information on top of reality. Or, a surgeon performing open-heart surgery would be able to see the heart in a 3D view unobstructed by the rest of the tissue surrounding it, or the rib cage, or whatever. You know, having that vantage point gives people the opportunity to achieve things much faster, more precisely and with much greater success overall. Now, I'm not saying that Google glass is offering that to us right now, but what Google is offering is the very first step in true augmented reality. So let me give you a quick list of the features of what it is, and I'll describe to you the actual component that you're wearing is, it's like taking a pair of sunglasses, removing the lenses and then on one side, on one eye, they'll put a, it's like a little module there that has a piece of glass that's hovering in front of one of your eyes. It'll project into your vision onto that piece of glass you're looking through that piece of glass, one of your eyes. It'll project a computer screen that looks like it's floating three or four feet in front of you, that doesn't have any borders or anything of course. And there's simply information there. You know, there's text, there's however, they're showing this information, it's gonna be a varying degree of different things. And you're gonna be talking to it. You're not gonna be using keyboard or a mouse or anything, that you're primarily gonna be using vocalization to turn it on, to tell it what you need it to do. And some of the features that it's launching with are it's gonna be able to record video. What you see, it's gonna record. It's gonna take pictures. You're gonna be able to start Google-Plus hangouts with people. You're gonna be able to search. You're gonna be able to also search photos, which is cool. You're gonna be able to do translations, you're gonna be able to get directions; you're gonna be able to use the Google Now software, which is like iPhone's Siri, where you can ask more complicated questions and actually tell it to do certain things, like take notes, put something in my address book, in my calendar, whatever. You can send messages to people and you can get flight, or there'll be a flight detail database attached, so you can call that up when you need it. You would start each command with "Okay, Glass," as if you were talking to someone. "Okay, Glass, I want you to start recording video right now." "Okay, Glass, stop recording video." The really cool thing about this though, is you take it with you, it connects into your iPhone or to your Android operating system, and it is based off of the Android operating system. And you wear it and you just put it on and you forget that it's there and it just becomes another interface for you. The big thing here is, guys, it truly is the beginning of the next way that we're gonna be interacting and experiencing reality. And it's going to be augmented by computers in a way now that we've really never experienced it before. We're all gonna be able to do things that we normally wouldn't be able to do, even simple things. Like let's say you went to Ikea and you bought a bookshelf. Everybody knows that directions that come from companies like Ikea or whatever, some are better than other, but for the most part having to construct something is a complete and total pain in the ass. This would be showing you what to do. It would be giving you visual cues using the actual things that you're looking at. Like, showing you what pieces connect to each other and where.<br />
<br />
B: And that's the key, Jay. To me that's the key. It's contextual information. It's not, you're not just surfing web pages. You are seeing overlays on reality and it knows what you're looking at, and gives you information based on your environment and what you're interacting with. And that's one of the reasons why this is gonna be so powerful.<br />
<br />
S: All right, Bob, Bob, what would be the porn application?<br />
<br />
J: Oh, my god. Don't even go there.<br />
<br />
B: God. Come on.<br />
<br />
J: Well, Bob's talking about what it will be like down the road, and <br />
<br />
B: I ''have'' to talk about that.<br />
<br />
J: Maybe a future use of this would be that you could tell Google glass "When I'm sitting at my work desk, I want my monitor to appear as if it's here where a physical monitor would be" but when you turn your head away, it stays in that three-dimensional space; you know, if you're looking at your computer monitor and you turn your head to the left, you don't see the monitor anymore, you wouldn't in real life.<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: Now let me be the wet-blanket skeptic. <br />
<br />
E: ''(laughing)'' I was gonna mention something about that.<br />
<br />
S: To bring things down a little bit. So everything that you guys are saying may come to pass at some point, but the thing that we have to keep in mind is that until we put this technology in the hands of lots of people, it's really hard to predict how people will want to use it.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, absolutely.<br />
<br />
S: And what it will be useful for. So all the things that you guys are speculating about, are speculation. So we don't know if this is going to be the smart phone, where everyone's gonna want to have 'em and it's gonna be much more useful than anyone ever thought, or if it's gonna be the Segue. You know, where it's not gonna be so revolutionary. But it'll have a niche where people use it for certain specific things, or, guys, remember the high-definition, high-frame rate situation where there just was something annoying about it, that people have a hard time adapting to.<br />
<br />
B: Ah, you're so full of it<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, adaptation.<br />
<br />
B: That's a horrible analogy. ''(laughter)'' Because this, this isn't, it's not a segue. People were gonna build cities around segue. That was a ridiculous prediction. It's not like a segue at all. This is an improvement on the computer interfaces. I mean computer interfaces, they're not going anywhere. That's a proven technology. It's just another way, it's another type of monitor, Steve. <br />
<br />
S: I know, Bob. I'm just saying, until people start using we won't know, it's like a video phone. We talked about the fact, oh video phones are coming. Well, why wouldn't you use a video phone? And it turns out that for a lot of things you don't wanna be looking at somebody. Why is texting so popular? The use of technology is hard to predict.<br />
<br />
B: I agree. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:06)</small>== <br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Evan. Tell us about last week's Who's That Noisy?<br />
<br />
E: I'll do one better and play for you last week's Who's That Noisy? Who could forget this, this wonderful little sound. Here we go.<br />
<br />
''Bird-like tweeting. The tweet song is repeated several times, pretty much the same each time.''<br />
<br />
E: Definitely not a bird, definitely not a plane. <br />
<br />
S: What is it?<br />
<br />
E: Superman. ''(laughs)'' That is . . . the whistlepig.<br />
<br />
S: The whistlepig.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' The whistlepig. <br />
<br />
''(numerous garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
B: What the hell is a whistlepig?<br />
<br />
E: A groundhog!<br />
<br />
S: Remember, from ''Groundhog's Day''?<br />
<br />
E: We only covered it a few weeks ago.<br />
<br />
J: That's an actual pig?<br />
<br />
S: No, it's a groundhog. The whistlepig is another name for the groundhog.<br />
<br />
E: Right. Woodchuck, is another name for the groundhog. Some people call it a land beaver. And they're all over the place, especially in North America. Very common in northeastern parts of the continent, and in the central United States. Several guesses; only a few correct answers this week came in to us. Congratulations to Wayne Heller. Your name was drawn. You are the winner this week. You're in the drawing for the end-of-the-year contest by which we will put all names in the hat from the week winners and that grand-prize winner will join us on the SGU to play a round of Science or Fiction. All right, so. You guys ready for this week?<br />
<br />
S: Always.<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: It is another noisy we have this week. It's short. Here we go:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Men's voices speaking on some kind of communicators:<br />
Person 1: You're looking a little hot and all your calls will be a little early. (Beep) Person 2: Okay. Person 3: And that looks good here.</blockquote><br />
<br />
J: Isn't that when they made the Six-Million-Dollar Man, and he was about to crash? No?<br />
<br />
E: That's an interesting guess, Jay. No, that's not correct.<br />
<br />
J: I hope at some point in my life I'm gonna be talking to someone and that whistle will comment like the<br />
<br />
S: That call-tone?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I love that.<br />
<br />
E: What I would like to see in the answer for this week is not a generic idea of what you think the noise is. I would like to know pretty exactly where you recognize that noise from. Send us your guess. wtn@theskepticsguide.org; that's the email address for Who's That Noisy submissions. Or you can post it on our forums, sguforums.com. Every week I wish you all the best of <br />
<br />
J: ''(shouting)'' Good luck everybody!<br />
<br />
E: Thank you, Jay. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: I was getting very excited, Evan.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== "Ow!" <small>(40:36)</small>===<br />
* Why do we say, "Ow!"? Joe Shoults<br />
<br />
== Interview with Jon Ronson <small>(44:20)</small> ==<br />
* Interview with Jon Ronson, recorded at CSICon 2012.<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:50)</small> ==<br />
[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/osoa-idh022613.php Item number one]. Scientists have developed an imaging system that can look through walls into a burning building and identify survivors that need rescuing. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130225092040.htm Item number two]. A new analysis finds that Spiderman’s webbing would have been strong enough to stop the commuter trains as depicted in the Spiderman 2 movie. [http://now.tufts.edu/news-releases/new-study-shows-viruses-can-have-immune-syste And item number three]. Researchers discover a virus with an adaptive immune system. <br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:13:44)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>The world is much more interesting than any one discipline.</blockquote><br />
Edward Tufte<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>(1:15:27)</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_398&diff=6329SGU Episode 3982013-04-13T21:41:13Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 398<br />
|episodeDate = 2<sup>nd</sup> March 2013<br />
|episodeIcon = File:E-tattoo.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|guest1 = JR: Jon Ronson<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-02.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=398<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45209.0.html<br />
|qowText = The world is much more interesting than any one discipline.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tufte Edward Tufte]<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine <br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, February 27, 2013 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: Hey, guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Ah. Kum bah wa, everyone.<br />
<br />
B: Kum bah yay, what was that?<br />
<br />
E: Kum bah ya, no. Kum bah wa. Japanese for good evening.<br />
<br />
S: Good evening.<br />
<br />
E: Lots of SGU listeners in Japan. We know a few. <br />
<br />
S: So apparently Rebecca has some kind of phlegm situation going on. <br />
<br />
E: I didn't know she was Amish.<br />
<br />
S: We're trying to decide if she has the flu, whooping cough, or strep throat.<br />
<br />
J: Well, get this, guys. So Rebecca emails us and says that she's not feeling well; that she woke up really late today, and she's been basically zonked all day. And at the same time, we have a little whooping cough scare going on over here with the newborn. This is what happened. My sister-in-law came to visit from Denver. And in the Midwest you know that the whooping cough incidences are higher and everything and I just didn't really think much of it other than everyone in the family got the tdap vaccination, which is the whooping cough<br />
<br />
S: Did she and her family get the tdap?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, they did. What I found out today was that, like many of the vaccines that we get, you know they're guessing at which strain is gonna be the one that's gonna hit that year,<br />
<br />
S: No, hang on a minute, Jay. What you're describing is relevant for the flu. With the whooping cough, it's not that there's like a different strain hitting every year, it's just that tdap covers only a very narrow number of strains and the virus has mutated. You know, it just, new strains are developing. But it's not like there's a seasonal strain like the flu. It's a little bit different.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I didn't mean to confuse that. I know, like, exactly what you said, that there is a newer version of it that just wasn't covered by that particular vaccination that we got. <br />
<br />
S: yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So, her sister left on Monday morning. She called us up today, we're recording on Wednesday. She said "Guys, I had a bad cold on my way home, and now it's turning into something that's very, what I would consider to be whooping cough-like.<br />
<br />
E: Yeesh.<br />
<br />
J: So we called up our doctor, you know, I have a three-and-a-half-week-old in the house now, and you know, like, very dialed into this. And we called up the doctor up and me like "What's up? Like what do we do? What happens?" And pertussis is a bacteria, it's not a virus. So they have an anti-biotic for it. <br />
<br />
E: Anti-biotic. Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So, what do you call it, Steve? Erythromycin? <br />
<br />
S: Erythromycin, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Erythromycin, yeah. So that's the one that they use for it. And it's the mega-dose, like two pills the first day and then you take like this mega-dose thing for four days. Of course the baby's taking the liquid form and everything. But I'm sitting there tonight with my wife and we're giving the baby its first medication, and it's freakin' whooping cough medication! Like I wanted to strangle people. Thank you everybody for not . . .<br />
<br />
S: Anyone who has never gotten vaccinated for whooping cough, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Something that we could<br />
<br />
E: Way to blow the herd immunity; way to go.<br />
<br />
J: We could get rid of it. Did you guys see the info-graphic of . . . the CDC puts out information every year, and somebody made an info-graphic of the incidence of morbidity before and after the vaccination for a particular disease came and went. Right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And right out of the gate, things like smallpox and stuff, I don't remember the exact numbers, but we have certain diseases where there was like a half a million people dying a year, down to zero. After the vaccination. And there's like, in this info-graphic, I think there was more than a dozen of them. It was incredible. Like you see the numbers, how dramatically different they are. Right there. That's a hundred percent proof. They work. And yet people are walking around out there ''today'' and they don't care; that information is meaningless to them. How? Why?<br />
<br />
B: Well what is the worst-case scenario with pertussis? I mean, how bad could it get? <br />
<br />
J: It can kill you, Bob; it can kill a baby.<br />
<br />
E: Death.<br />
<br />
B: That's bad.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there was that famous case in Australia where a baby caught, Dana McCaffery, caught whooping cough in a community that had very low vaccination rates because of the Australian anti-vaccination network preaching against vaccines, and, the baby caught it from unvaccinated people. And died. 'Cause the child was too young to be vaccinated. It's one of the populations that need to be protected by herd immunity.<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(4:33)</small> ==<br />
* March 2, 1983: Compact Disc players and discs are released for the first time in the United States and other markets. They had been available only in Japan before then.<br />
<br />
S: Evan, so you're filling in for Rebecca this week for This Day in Skepticism.<br />
<br />
E: I said "Good evening" in Japanese to start the show. And I did so because the compact disc, you guys remember what compact discs are, CDs,<br />
<br />
S: They're still, they're still used today.<br />
<br />
E: They are. Their first, most common usage was of course for music storage, right? Playing music. Put 80 minutes of uncompressed audio on one of those things. That's 737 megabytes of data. What do you think of that? So in Japan, is where the CDs were first, widely became available, in October of '82. However, on March 2nd of 1983, compact discs and their players were released for the first time in the United States and other markets around the world, whereas they'd only been available in Japan before but finally they came to the United States, and I remember this vividly. It was a big f'ing deal, for me and my 13-year-old friends and stuff who were all, in our own opinions, very big into music. And it was a rush to see who would get the first CD, who would be able to afford the first CD player. It was kind of bragging rights, in a sense. Do you guys remember?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah. Instantly replaced tapes, records; 8-tracks had already died by then.<br />
<br />
E: Thank goodness.<br />
<br />
S: Buy, yeah, and think about it, guys. Thirty years! And they're still a perfectly acceptable technology. I still buy CDs for music. <br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
S: Sure.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, man. I just download it all.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but think about it. A CD, you can then rip it into any quality MP3 you want, which you own, without any DRM, and you have the CD for a backup. And it's still cost-effective. It's not like you're saving money by downloading. So it's still a perfectly viable technology. It's had a lot of longevity.<br />
<br />
B: It's all right, I guess. I like, I hear a song that I like. Like, oh boy, that sounds really good. And I buy it. Within literally four minutes I have it on my iPhone and I'm listening to it. That's awesome.<br />
<br />
S: I do that, too, but, if there's an album coming out and I know I want the whole album, I'll get it on a CD. <br />
<br />
E: Something to remember, guys, is that when you purchase a CD, you're purchasing something physical that you actually own. And when you purchase a license to get a music or something you download through iTunes or something, there's a question, there's debates going on right now in the courts as to how much ownership do you actually have over that thing? In other words, can you put it into your estate and leave it to your heirs?<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And they are fighting that. You know, the record industry, or industries, don't want those rights to be transferred on to descendents. Where, but with a CD you're guaranteed. That is yours, it's physical, you can do whatever the heck you want with it. So, keep that in mind also in the debate about, you know, what medium, what format you're gonna use for your music.<br />
<br />
B: That's messed up.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Life Around Dying Stars <small>(7:32)</small>===<br />
http://phys.org/news/2013-02-future-evidence-extraterrestrial-life-dying.html#ajTabs<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Bob, talk about looking for life around dying stars.<br />
<br />
B: If you insist.<br />
<br />
S: I do.<br />
<br />
B: So guys, <br />
<br />
E: Like Mickey Rooney, are we talking? What are we talking here, dying stars?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, boy. Guys, when you think of an extraterrestrial planet, especially one that supports life, what do you think of? Do you think of, you've got this planet orbiting a parent star that's kind of like our sun, right? Maybe it's a little bit bigger than our sun, maybe it's a little bit smaller. And of course, if that's the case, the habitable zone around the star changes because of how big and bright the star is.<br />
<br />
S: Now, Bob, I think of Tatooine with two suns. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Nice orchestral music playing.<br />
<br />
S: Or Rigel 7 with a big planet in the distance with rings around it.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but, still, it's like a, it's a real star, it's like a star that <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, not a fake star.<br />
<br />
B: It's fusing hydrogen into helium. No, but it's not a ''dead'' star, and that's the point here. There's a new theoretical study that finds that the most likely place possibly to find life on another planet may be around a dead star. More specifically, of course, a white dwarf. You know, I'm not talking about a neutron star or black hole. But not only that, they think they might be able to actually find one of these planets in the next ten years. Which seems like a pretty bold prediction.<br />
<br />
E: But Bob, isn't a white dwarf after the star went through its initial sort of expansion then came back in on itself. Wouldn't it have kind of destroyed things on that<br />
<br />
B: Well, exactly. And that's the huge problem. That's the first thing I thought of, well how can that be? A white dwarf is a dead star. It's a corpse of a sun-like star, at the end of its, you know in its old age it swells into a red giant and it totally crisps any of the planets that were nearby, but before it expels a lot of its mass, making the beautifully misnomered planetary nebula. So what's left is this collapsed core. It's about as big as the earth, but it's got the mass, it could have a mass of more than the sun. 1.4 solar masses, I think, is the ________________________ limit for that. So that's a lot of mass in a really tiny place. So clearly it's unbelievably dense, right? If you had a ton of white dwarf matter, if you could do that, you could fit it into a matchbox. I mean it's super, super tiny. You can thank the electron degeneracy pressure for that. But there's no nuclear reactions going on to produce energy, but because it's relatively small it could radiate it's remaining heat for literally billions of years. So clearly, then, this thing could have its own little Goldilocks zone to support life, even though it's really not even a star anymore. It's not creating energy, but it's just radiating away the energy that's contained in it for many, many, many eons. So then the next question then, Evan, which ties into your comment, was how does the planet get there, because the red giant's gonna wipe out anything that's nearby. Probably anything that's in the Goldilocks zone. So there's actually two ways that could happen. One might, you might predict, a planet can migrate in from the outskirts of a solar system; we've seen that with hot Jupiters: Jupiter-sized planets that have orbits closer than Mercury. How the hell did they get there? Well they can actually migrate in through the solar system. But there's another way. A planet can also form from the leftover dust and gas; and that, of course, would be a second-generation world, which I think is pretty cool. Now of course, though, this planet would have to get pretty damned close, since the heat source is so small and dim compared to regular living stars . . .<br />
<br />
S: Bob, do we know that either of those can actually happen around a white dwarf, though?<br />
<br />
B: The thing here, though, with this theoretical study, Steve, is that they ran these really sophisticated simulations and they've pretty much shown in the simulation everything that I'm talking about.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
T<br />
B: That this can happen; they're incredibly confident that it could happen. They can think of no reason why it wouldn't happen. Now, it's not like every white dwarf is gonna have one these. They're saying that among the 500 closest white dwarves to the sun, they might find one or two that have planetary bodies in orbit around it that could support life. So, you know, one or two in 500 isn't great odds, but there's lots of stars and we can look at a lot of different things.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
B: So, the interesting thing is, as you could imagine, these planets would have to be very close to the white dwarf in order to get enough heat to have liquid water and life evolve. So that turns out to be only about a million miles away, which is what one over ninety-three, wait, sorry. And that's, our orbit's 93 million miles, so it's way, way, way close to it. And it's year, of course, would only be about ten hours long, which is an amazingly fast orbit so that would, I cal . . .<br />
<br />
E: That's a party every ten hours, oh my gosh.<br />
<br />
B: I calculated Rebecca would be over 30,000 years old if she lived on that planet. ''(laughter)'' So, all right. So we've got this dead star that could conceivably keep a nearby planet warm enough for life, so we've got that. We've got a couple different ways for a planet to arrive or form nearby. So then the next interesting question is, how do we detect this thing? And, if you regularly listen to this show, I think you probably know: the transit method, right? A planet moves between us and their star. The output, the light output dips, and bam! You've detected a planet. Of course, it's a little bit more complicated than that, but that's essentially the idea. Now in this scenario it's actually even better. Now think of this system, though. You've got a planet real close to a white dwarf and the white dwarf is so tiny, I mean they could be comparable in size, so that when this planet eclipses the white dwarf, you're gonna have a huge dip in the light output. It would be an obvious signal. It would leap out and say "whoa!" This starlight almost completely disappeared.<br />
<br />
S: But the plane of that system would have to be perfectly aligned with us.<br />
<br />
B: Yes, it would have to be. But even if it wasn't, you could still occlude half the star or 33 percent, and that still would be really really good. That's not even the best part. The real icing on the cake for this is that the white dwarf emits so much less light it becomes much easier to determine the composition of the atmosphere of the planet in orbit around it. And it turns out that after the simulation I was talking about, they showed that after just a few hours of observation instead of something like hundreds of hours, we would know that the planet has perhaps water vapor or maybe oxygen in it. And oxygen would, that would be gargantuan news. That would be huge because, on earth anyway, oxygen is created by life. You take away life from the planet earth and it would slowly diminish, the oxygen would just disappear. It would dissolve into the oceans, it would oxidize the surface, and if we found a sizable amount of oxygen on a planet, I think it'd be pretty solid indication that there's probably some kind of life on the planet producing that oxygen. And if not, maybe it's some kind of alien machine that's creating and it wouldn't matter 'cause in that case we would find life anyway. So, either way, it's a win-win!<br />
<br />
S: So now we've just gotta look for them.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, and the James Webb, the James Webb's a big thing, that once that guy comes online, that telescope comes online, I think, jees, I'm not sure when, but within a few years or so.<br />
<br />
S: They plan on a 2018 launch date.<br />
<br />
B: That is gonna have what it needs to really survey these white dwarves and find these planets and maybe find a planet that most likely has life on it. And how huge would that be; talk about the science story of the millennia, let alone the year!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we'll probably cover that one.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, maybe. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Ancient Lost Continent <small>(15:06)</small>===<br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21551149<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Evan, I read<br />
<br />
E: Yeah!<br />
<br />
S: that geologists claim they have found a lost sunken continent.<br />
<br />
E: You read correctly, Steve. And courtesy of the BBC, their headline reads "Fragments of ancient continent buried under the Indian Ocean."" So, what do you think? Is this it? They finally found Atlantis? Is the evidence incontrovertible?<br />
<br />
S: It's in the Indian Ocean so it wouldn't be Atlantis, it would be Indiana.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, I suppose that would be more accurate.<br />
<br />
B: No – Indianis.<br />
<br />
S: Indianis<br />
<br />
E: Indianis. <br />
<br />
B: I kinda like it.<br />
<br />
E: There are a few outlets out there; not exactly of BBC quality, with their own headlines, including "Fragments of ancient continent Atlantis found." And Atlantis is all in caps with an exclamation point and the word "found" is as well. And another one that says "Is this the real Atlantis?"<br />
<br />
S: Nobody knows.<br />
<br />
E: So, you know. Jees, that was not predictable at all that some people would be jumping all over the Atlantis part of the story. But, it has nothing to do with Atlantis whatsoever.<br />
<br />
S: Zip. Zero. Nada.<br />
<br />
E: Nada. Nope. This article's focus is on the study published in the journal Nature Geoscience. And like you said, Steve, the researchers have found evidence for the land mass that would have existed up to about 85 million years ago. Can I give you a quick little story to set this all up? So, a long time ago in a galaxy called the Milky Way, almost a billion years ago, and that was before iTunes and compact discs and vaccinations, on the earth there existed a super-continent. A super-continent is one very large continent. While at the same time, there are no other significant land masses anywhere on the earth. There have been many super-continents that have existed on the earth over the history of the earth.<br />
<br />
S: A few.<br />
<br />
E: Just a few. Well, about a dozen or so that they have listed online. But the super-continent from this particular period of time was called Rodinia. You guys may remember learning, I remember learning in grade school, about the super-continent called Pangaea, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. The most recent one, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: But, <br />
<br />
B: And Gondwana land is the other one, right?<br />
<br />
E: That one, Gondwanaland.<br />
<br />
J: Was that Guanaland? What is that, made of bat poop? The whole island?<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Pangaea, about 300 million years ago. No, Rodinia was well before that, about 750, maybe 800 million years ago. So we're talking a long time ago. As far as this particular new land mass that was discovered goes: picture in your mind a world map, and look in your mind for the country India. Okay? And then, to the south, the island nation of Madagascar. All right. Well, these areas were once connected, a part of Rodinia, and they were smashed up right next to each other. And researchers believe they've found evidence of a sliver of a continent known as, well they call it a microcontinent, that was once tucked between these two masses. But not only have they found the evidence, they're already calling it something. They're calling it Mauritia, named after the tiny island of Mauritius, which is the place where they actually discovered the evidence. So what kind of evidence did they find? Well, they collected samples from a volcanic eruption that took place estimated 9 million years ago, and within the samples of those sands and grains that they took in, were mixed in some much older minerals. They uncovered zircons. Now, zircons are known in geological circles for being found on the continental shelf and they are very, very old. These particular zircons that they found are estimated to be at least 600 million years old. And I read some estimates in some places that they could be almost 2 billion years old. The nearest known outcrop of continental crust that could have produced these zircons is on, well, Madagascar. But it's still very far away. And it's unlikely, they're trying to come up with scenarios by which, how could these zircons have gotten there by other means? They think that this is evidence for a land mass that actually, you know, believes a microcontinent that actually exists out there below the Indian Ocean. And they're going to be doing more studying about it. They're hoping to do more research and being a more detailed mapping of the floor of the Indian Ocean, and continue this research and try to find the sunken continent.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I read the paper itself, and I think what they demonstrated is pretty solid. But the notion that the source of these grains of sands that they examining is this sunken microcontinent that existed between India and Madagascar. That's really just a hypothesis at this point. It's not like they're found the continent or they're proven that it exists. It's just that it would be one possible explanation for why this ancient zircon would be where it is. It sounds plausible, sounds like a reasonable story, but again, I think just a hypothesis.<br />
<br />
B: In this context you always hear them saying "lost" or "sunken" continent. What the hell does "sunken" mean in this context?<br />
<br />
S; Below the water. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah, but<br />
<br />
E: You're right, Bob, it's a mystery.<br />
<br />
B: What's the mechanism? I mean, is it just erosion, like the islands near Hawaii that have been eroded into the sea after they moved off of the volcanic hot spot? I mean, or would some cataclysm happen that actually made it, that shifted the crust and made it sink because of that? I mean . . .<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I think it's more to do with when two land, a land mass breaks apart into two land masses, the piece in, you know, there may be some of it in between the two pieces that breaks apart and sinks under the ocean. That's essentially what they're saying. Just the way the crust broke apart. One interesting thing about the whole supercontinents, et cetera, is that we're still not really sure why continents even exist.<br />
<br />
J: Why? What do you mean? We don't know why they're there?<br />
<br />
S: Actually what happens with plate tectonics is you have, the oceans are constantly turning over like a conveyor belt. So no part of the ocean is any older than a couple hundred million years. Parts of the ocean diving down below a continental plate, and you have rifts in the middle where new ocean floors emerging and spreading. Yeah, so you have this spreading zone and then subduction zone. But the continents are always floating on top of these oceanic plates. So how did that happen in the first place? Once it established itself to be that way, then you could see how it's self-perpetuating. But we're not really sure how that happened to begin with. Which is interesting.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's cool.<br />
<br />
E: It is interesting.<br />
<br />
S: The other thing that's interesting is the result of that is that continents are ancient. That's why stuff that's ancient has to be continental, right, 'cause anything from the ocean can only be a couple hundred million years old. If something's a billion years old, it had to come from a continent. Only the continents are that old.<br />
<br />
E: Yes. Right, right. That's why the zircon's important.<br />
<br />
S: Which is kind of nice. 'Cause if the continents were also occasionally diving underneath other plates and recycling, there wouldn't be fossils.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. We'd lose a lot of information.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Electronic Tattoos <small>(22:36)</small>===<br />
http://www.businessinsider.com/temporary-tattoos-could-make-electronic-telepathy-telekinesis-possible-2013-2<br />
<br />
S: All right. Let's move on. I'm gonna talk about electronic tattoos.<br />
<br />
B: What the hell's that about?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, it has something to do with Fantasy Island.<br />
<br />
S: Here's the headline. You guys tell me what you think about this. "Temporary tattoos could make electronic telepathy possible."<br />
<br />
E: Telepathy!<br />
<br />
''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: I know, I know. If somebody didn't send this to me, I would have used it as a Science or Fiction item.<br />
<br />
E: Sorry!<br />
<br />
S: Evan, you sent me several things I was gonna use for Science or Fiction. But anyway, <br />
<br />
E: Oh, I undermined you totally.<br />
<br />
S: This would have, I would have had Bob going. It's like "Now you're talking about telepathy??" ''(laughter)'' But, yeah. No. No telepathy. So what the technology is is they're essentially flexible electronics that you can apply to skin. And because they're flexible they could move around, they could bend. They're very thin, and they can serve a few functions. One primary function would be that they would essentially be an electrode. No big deal. So it could pick up electrical signals from the skin. So for example, if placed on the scalp, they could detect brain waves. But because this is, like, an electronic circuit, it's not just a dumb electrode, it's an actual circuit, you can build other functionality into it, including a transmitter to transmit signals to, say, a device. It could be used as very small, thin, flexible monitors. And so the technology seems very practical, very useful. I'm sure that this kind of thing is going to find a lot of applications. What I found amusing, maybe irritating, was the reporting of this technology, this, these devices in terms of what the possible applications would be. Because these are electrodes, that could read electrical signals from the brain, they started speculating wildly about the most advanced applications of the brain machine interface. Now we've chatted about this too, but I mean, that's something that would be far enough in the future we cannot say how long it's going to be; that we cannot extrapolate. The brain machine interface we have now are actually very good at, and getting better, at reading movements. So because we can map out the motor strip, you know, the motor cortex, and you know, you can put a lot of electrodes along the motor cortex and then people can learn how to use a robotic arm, for example, just by thinking about what they want it to do because it's interpreting the signals in their motor cortex. So that's about where the technology is now. But telepathy would require being able to read somebody's thoughts. And there the limiting factor isn't the electrodes, you know, it's not the signal.<br />
<br />
B: It's the brain in the skull.<br />
<br />
S: It's interpreting, although even if you had brain surface electrodes that were in incredibly high fidelity reading the EEG, the electrical signals from the brain, we still wouldn't know how to translate it into thoughts.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, how do you turn thought into a digital signal? What's the interpretation? And everybody's would be different. That's the real problem.<br />
<br />
S: Well you'd have to calibrate, you know. And partly the machine would have to calibrate to you but also the user could learn how to use it, you know. But this will not allow for telepathy. That's the bottom line. This doesn't really get us any closer to telepathy. <br />
<br />
E: But the headline! Look at the headline!<br />
<br />
S: The researchers admitted that brain surface electrodes would work better than these. These skin surface electrodes are probably never going to have the fidelity, the discrimination, to be able to read thoughts.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It just makes more sense that they, let's say they surgically implant something that is the analog to digital interface for the brain, then it transmits it to another device and let all the computer power happen somewhere else. It doesn't have to happen on the surface of your skin.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well that's what this would do, too. This would just read signals transmitted to your smart phone and then you could communicate through your smart phone or operate your smart phone with thoughts alone.<br />
<br />
E: Like, if I were to think, dial my home number. It would activate the phone to do something like that?<br />
<br />
S: We're not at that point yet with this. But this could be useful for, like, paraplegic people who want to control a computer screen, or control a robotic device. Because these are very thin and small you could probably have a lot of them. But still, the signal is not as clear as the brain surface's invasive electrodes. So it remains to be seen how much utility these would have. But because these are, the advance here, is that the electrodes are integrated with other elements, such as transmitters, and that they're thin and flexible. You know, so you can put a lot of them on the scalp. You don't have to wear this big massive cap or something that's very unwieldy. So, it does expand the number of possible uses, but it doesn't get over the problem of reading the EEG from the scalp, and therefore telepathy is not one of the applications of this technology in my opinion. However, having said that, they did bring up the notion of sub-vocalizations. Are you guys familiar with that?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, yeah; that's cool stuff.<br />
<br />
J: I don't think we've talked about it on the show, but we, off the show, have talked about it. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, when you are saying words inside your mind, you tend to move your face, tongue and throat muscles in the way that you would if you were speaking them, just much more subtly. And there's actually been some research; I looked; there's not a lot, but there is some published research looking at detecting with skin surface electrodes, the muscle movements in the throat and the face and interpreting these sub-vocalizations. I'm reading some conflicting things, though. You know, some reviews say that being able to go from detecting these sub-vocalizations to actual words has been elusive. But other studies claim that they've been able to distinguish a number of different words from the EMG signals. But it's possible from, a limited set of words, that they can then know which one of those words that the person was thinking. So that's, actually, though . . .<br />
<br />
E: Interesting.<br />
<br />
S: That is plausible and that may just be a matter of incremental progress, and these electrodes, so these tattoos, might apply to that technology. Right? So if you're using this as a way of detecting sub-vocalizations, and the detection and analysis algorithm get sophisticated enough, and the user may be able to learn how to do that. 'Cause you can, I was doing this before the show, I was just thinking to myself and paying attention to what I was doing. And then also tried to maximize my movement, my sub-vocalization movements. You know what I mean? Like you can deliberately accentuate them. <br />
<br />
E: Can you shut them off entirely if you think about it? Or is it just so subtle that you really don't have that level of control over it?<br />
<br />
S: Well in researching this I did find lots of websites, and even some published studies, looking at the question of suppressing sub-vocalizations in order to improve or increase your reading speed. 'Cause apparently the sub-vocalizations slow you down.<br />
<br />
J: So to clarify, Steve, if words are going through my head; if I'm sitting here saying to myself, oh, I've gotta get up early tomorrow morning, or whatever it is, I am having some type of muscular reaction in my throat? Every time?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: If you're reading.<br />
<br />
S: No, even if you're just thinking, words.<br />
<br />
E: Even if you're just thinking the words!<br />
<br />
S: You're saying the words in your head, you are sub-vocalizing those words. Yes.<br />
<br />
E: Right. Okay.<br />
<br />
S: But the question is just, can we detect and interpret those muscle movements with enough precision and discrimination that we could translate that into the words that are in your head, that you're thinking. And this could give you like a fake telepathy. Like a pseudo-telepathy. It's not really telepathy 'cause it's through actual muscle movements. But that could still be really powerful. It still could functionally be telepathy.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: It's really not telepathy. It's probably better termed silent communication.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, imagine the military being able to communicate with each other without having to make any noise. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Or spies. Just it's silent communication. You can imagine dictating in a crowded room without having to speak aloud.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Google Glass <small>(31:25)</small>===<br />
http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/<br />
<br />
S: All right, Jay, let's move on. You're gonna tell us about Google glass.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, baby.<br />
<br />
J: So, yeah, Steve, this is a real milestone. This is one of the pieces of technology that I've been waiting for for a long time. This is the beginning of real augmented reality. To give you a quick definition of what augmented reality is: so imagine a car mechanic that's wearing a pair of sunglasses and a computer is projecting onto the inside of those sunglasses a schematic so that the car mechanic is looking at the car engine and the computer's projecting say, the wiring system. So wherever he turns his head, the, it'll look like it's in 3D so he can see, or he or she can see things that aren't actually visible to the naked eye because the computer is laying that on top of reality. It's like another layer, or putting layers of information on top of reality. Or, a surgeon performing open-heart surgery would be able to see the heart in a 3D view unobstructed by the rest of the tissue surrounding it, or the rib cage, or whatever. You know, having that vantage point gives people the opportunity to achieve things much faster, more precisely and with much greater success overall. Now, I'm not saying that Google glass is offering that to us right now, but what Google is offering is the very first step in true augmented reality. So let me give you a quick list of the features of what it is, and I'll describe to you the actual component that you're wearing is, it's like taking a pair of sunglasses, removing the lenses and then on one side, on one eye, they'll put a, it's like a little module there that has a piece of glass that's hovering in front of one of your eyes. It'll project into your vision onto that piece of glass you're looking through that piece of glass, one of your eyes. It'll project a computer screen that looks like it's floating three or four feet in front of you, that doesn't have any borders or anything of course. And there's simply information there. You know, there's text, there's however, they're showing this information, it's gonna be a varying degree of different things. And you're gonna be talking to it. You're not gonna be using keyboard or a mouse or anything, that you're primarily gonna be using vocalization to turn it on, to tell it what you need it to do. And some of the features that it's launching with are it's gonna be able to record video. What you see, it's gonna record. It's gonna take pictures. You're gonna be able to start Google-Plus hangouts with people. You're gonna be able to search. You're gonna be able to also search photos, which is cool. You're gonna be able to do translations, you're gonna be able to get directions; you're gonna be able to use the Google Now software, which is like iPhone's Siri, where you can ask more complicated questions and actually tell it to do certain things, like take notes, put something in my address book, in my calendar, whatever. You can send messages to people and you can get flight, or there'll be a flight detail database attached, so you can call that up when you need it. You would start each command with "Okay, Glass," as if you were talking to someone. "Okay, Glass, I want you to start recording video right now." "Okay, Glass, stop recording video." The really cool thing about this though, is you take it with you, it connects into your iPhone or to your Android operating system, and it is based off of the Android operating system. And you wear it and you just put it on and you forget that it's there and it just becomes another interface for you. The big thing here is, guys, it truly is the beginning of the next way that we're gonna be interacting and experiencing reality. And it's going to be augmented by computers in a way now that we've really never experienced it before. We're all gonna be able to do things that we normally wouldn't be able to do, even simple things. Like let's say you went to Ikea and you bought a bookshelf. Everybody knows that directions that come from companies like Ikea or whatever, some are better than other, but for the most part having to construct something is a complete and total pain in the ass. This would be showing you what to do. It would be giving you visual cues using the actual things that you're looking at. Like, showing you what pieces connect to each other and where.<br />
<br />
B: And that's the key, Jay. To me that's the key. It's contextual information. It's not, you're not just surfing web pages. You are seeing overlays on reality and it knows what you're looking at, and gives you information based on your environment and what you're interacting with. And that's one of the reasons why this is gonna be so powerful.<br />
<br />
S: All right, Bob, Bob, what would be the porn application?<br />
<br />
J: Oh, my god. Don't even go there.<br />
<br />
B: God. Come on.<br />
<br />
J: Well, Bob's talking about what it will be like down the road, and <br />
<br />
B: I ''have'' to talk about that.<br />
<br />
J: Maybe a future use of this would be that you could tell Google glass "When I'm sitting at my work desk, I want my monitor to appear as if it's here where a physical monitor would be" but when you turn your head away, it stays in that three-dimensional space; you know, if you're looking at your computer monitor and you turn your head to the left, you don't see the monitor anymore, you wouldn't in real life.<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: Now let me be the wet-blanket skeptic. <br />
<br />
E: ''(laughing)'' I was gonna mention something about that.<br />
<br />
S: To bring things down a little bit. So everything that you guys are saying may come to pass at some point, but the thing that we have to keep in mind is that until we put this technology in the hands of lots of people, it's really hard to predict how people will want to use it.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, absolutely.<br />
<br />
S: And what it will be useful for. So all the things that you guys are speculating about, are speculation. So we don't know if this is going to be the smart phone, where everyone's gonna want to have 'em and it's gonna be much more useful than anyone ever thought, or if it's gonna be the Segue. You know, where it's not gonna be so revolutionary. But it'll have a niche where people use it for certain specific things, or, guys, remember the high-definition, high-frame rate situation where there just was something annoying about it, that people have a hard time adapting to.<br />
<br />
B: Ah, you're so full of it<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, adaptation.<br />
<br />
B: That's a horrible analogy. ''(laughter)'' Because this, this isn't, it's not a segue. People were gonna build cities around segue. That was a ridiculous prediction. It's not like a segue at all. This is an improvement on the computer interfaces. I mean computer interfaces, they're not going anywhere. That's a proven technology. It's just another way, it's another type of monitor, Steve. <br />
<br />
S: I know, Bob. I'm just saying, until people start using we won't know, it's like a video phone. We talked about the fact, oh video phones are coming. Well, why wouldn't you use a video phone? And it turns out that for a lot of things you don't wanna be looking at somebody. Why is texting so popular? The use of technology is hard to predict.<br />
<br />
B: I agree. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:06)</small>== <br />
* Answer to last week: Whistlepig<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== "Ow!" <small>(40:36)</small>===<br />
* Why do we say, "Ow!"? Joe Shoults<br />
<br />
== Interview with Jon Ronson <small>(44:20)</small> ==<br />
* Interview with Jon Ronson, recorded at CSICon 2012.<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:50)</small> ==<br />
[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/osoa-idh022613.php Item number one]. Scientists have developed an imaging system that can look through walls into a burning building and identify survivors that need rescuing. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130225092040.htm Item number two]. A new analysis finds that Spiderman’s webbing would have been strong enough to stop the commuter trains as depicted in the Spiderman 2 movie. [http://now.tufts.edu/news-releases/new-study-shows-viruses-can-have-immune-syste And item number three]. Researchers discover a virus with an adaptive immune system. <br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:13:44)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>The world is much more interesting than any one discipline.</blockquote><br />
Edward Tufte<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>(1:15:27)</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_398&diff=6284SGU Episode 3982013-04-12T00:30:52Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 398<br />
|episodeDate = 2<sup>nd</sup> March 2013<br />
|episodeIcon = File:E-tattoo.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|guest1 = JR: Jon Ronson<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-02.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=398<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45209.0.html<br />
|qowText = The world is much more interesting than any one discipline.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tufte Edward Tufte]<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine <br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, February 27, 2013 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: Hey, guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Ah. Kum bah wa, everyone.<br />
<br />
B: Kum bah yay, what was that?<br />
<br />
E: Kum bah ya, no. Kum bah wa. Japanese for good evening.<br />
<br />
S: Good evening.<br />
<br />
E: Lots of SGU listeners in Japan. We know a few. <br />
<br />
S: So apparently Rebecca has some kind of phlegm situation going on. <br />
<br />
E: I didn't know she was Amish.<br />
<br />
S: We're trying to decide if she has the flu, whooping cough, or strep throat.<br />
<br />
J: Well, get this, guys. So Rebecca emails us and says that she's not feeling well; that she woke up really late today, and she's been basically zonked all day. And at the same time, we have a little whooping cough scare going on over here with the newborn. This is what happened. My sister-in-law came to visit from Denver. And in the Midwest you know that the whooping cough incidences are higher and everything and I just didn't really think much of it other than everyone in the family got the tdap vaccination, which is the whooping cough<br />
<br />
S: Did she and her family get the tdap?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, they did. What I found out today was that, like many of the vaccines that we get, you know they're guessing at which strain is gonna be the one that's gonna hit that year,<br />
<br />
S: No, hang on a minute, Jay. What you're describing is relevant for the flu. With the whooping cough, it's not that there's like a different strain hitting every year, it's just that tdap covers only a very narrow number of strains and the virus has mutated. You know, it just, new strains are developing. But it's not like there's a seasonal strain like the flu. It's a little bit different.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I didn't mean to confuse that. I know, like, exactly what you said, that there is a newer version of it that just wasn't covered by that particular vaccination that we got. <br />
<br />
S: yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So, her sister left on Monday morning. She called us up today, we're recording on Wednesday. She said "Guys, I had a bad cold on my way home, and now it's turning into something that's very, what I would consider to be whooping cough-like.<br />
<br />
E: Yeesh.<br />
<br />
J: So we called up our doctor, you know, I have a three-and-a-half-week-old in the house now, and you know, like, very dialed into this. And we called up the doctor up and me like "What's up? Like what do we do? What happens?" And pertussis is a bacteria, it's not a virus. So they have an anti-biotic for it. <br />
<br />
E: Anti-biotic. Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So, what do you call it, Steve? Erythromycin? <br />
<br />
S: Erythromycin, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Erythromycin, yeah. So that's the one that they use for it. And it's the mega-dose, like two pills the first day and then you take like this mega-dose thing for four days. Of course the baby's taking the liquid form and everything. But I'm sitting there tonight with my wife and we're giving the baby its first medication, and it's freakin' whooping cough medication! Like I wanted to strangle people. Thank you everybody for not . . .<br />
<br />
S: Anyone who has never gotten vaccinated for whooping cough, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Something that we could<br />
<br />
E: Way to blow the herd immunity; way to go.<br />
<br />
J: We could get rid of it. Did you guys see the info-graphic of . . . the CDC puts out information every year, and somebody made an info-graphic of the incidence of morbidity before and after the vaccination for a particular disease came and went. Right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And right out of the gate, things like smallpox and stuff, I don't remember the exact numbers, but we have certain diseases where there was like a half a million people dying a year, down to zero. After the vaccination. And there's like, in this info-graphic, I think there was more than a dozen of them. It was incredible. Like you see the numbers, how dramatically different they are. Right there. That's a hundred percent proof. They work. And yet people are walking around out there ''today'' and they don't care; that information is meaningless to them. How? Why?<br />
<br />
B: Well what is the worst-case scenario with pertussis? I mean, how bad could it get? <br />
<br />
J: It can kill you, Bob; it can kill a baby.<br />
<br />
E: Death.<br />
<br />
B: That's bad.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there was that famous case in Australia where a baby caught, Dana McCaffery, caught whooping cough in a community that had very low vaccination rates because of the Australian anti-vaccination network preaching against vaccines, and, the baby caught it from unvaccinated people. And died. 'Cause the child was too young to be vaccinated. It's one of the populations that need to be protected by herd immunity.<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(4:33)</small> ==<br />
* March 2, 1983: Compact Disc players and discs are released for the first time in the United States and other markets. They had been available only in Japan before then.<br />
<br />
S: Evan, so you're filling in for Rebecca this week for This Day in Skepticism.<br />
<br />
E: I said "Good evening" in Japanese to start the show. And I did so because the compact disc, you guys remember what compact discs are, CDs,<br />
<br />
S: They're still, they're still used today.<br />
<br />
E: They are. Their first, most common usage was of course for music storage, right? Playing music. Put 80 minutes of uncompressed audio on one of those things. That's 737 megabytes of data. What do you think of that? So in Japan, is where the CDs were first, widely became available, in October of '82. However, on March 2nd of 1983, compact discs and their players were released for the first time in the United States and other markets around the world, whereas they'd only been available in Japan before but finally they came to the United States, and I remember this vividly. It was a big f'ing deal, for me and my 13-year-old friends and stuff who were all, in our own opinions, very big into music. And it was a rush to see who would get the first CD, who would be able to afford the first CD player. It was kind of bragging rights, in a sense. Do you guys remember?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah. Instantly replaced tapes, records; 8-tracks had already died by then.<br />
<br />
E: Thank goodness.<br />
<br />
S: Buy, yeah, and think about it, guys. Thirty years! And they're still a perfectly acceptable technology. I still buy CDs for music. <br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
S: Sure.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, man. I just download it all.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but think about it. A CD, you can then rip it into any quality MP3 you want, which you own, without any DRM, and you have the CD for a backup. And it's still cost-effective. It's not like you're saving money by downloading. So it's still a perfectly viable technology. It's had a lot of longevity.<br />
<br />
B: It's all right, I guess. I like, I hear a song that I like. Like, oh boy, that sounds really good. And I buy it. Within literally four minutes I have it on my iPhone and I'm listening to it. That's awesome.<br />
<br />
S: I do that, too, but, if there's an album coming out and I know I want the whole album, I'll get it on a CD. <br />
<br />
E: Something to remember, guys, is that when you purchase a CD, you're purchasing something physical that you actually own. And when you purchase a license to get a music or something you download through iTunes or something, there's a question, there's debates going on right now in the courts as to how much ownership do you actually have over that thing? In other words, can you put it into your estate and leave it to your heirs?<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And they are fighting that. You know, the record industry, or industries, don't want those rights to be transferred on to descendents. Where, but with a CD you're guaranteed. That is yours, it's physical, you can do whatever the heck you want with it. So, keep that in mind also in the debate about, you know, what medium, what format you're gonna use for your music.<br />
<br />
B: That's messed up.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Life Around Dying Stars <small>(7:32)</small>===<br />
http://phys.org/news/2013-02-future-evidence-extraterrestrial-life-dying.html#ajTabs<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Bob, talk about looking for life around dying stars.<br />
<br />
B: If you insist.<br />
<br />
S: I do.<br />
<br />
B: So guys, <br />
<br />
E: Like Mickey Rooney, are we talking? What are we talking here, dying stars?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, boy. Guys, when you think of an extraterrestrial planet, especially one that supports life, what do you think of? Do you think of, you've got this planet orbiting a parent star that's kind of like our sun, right? Maybe it's a little bit bigger than our sun, maybe it's a little bit smaller. And of course, if that's the case, the habitable zone around the star changes because of how big and bright the star is.<br />
<br />
S: Now, Bob, I think of Tatooine with two suns. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Nice orchestral music playing.<br />
<br />
S: Or Rigel 7 with a big planet in the distance with rings around it.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but, still, it's like a, it's a real star, it's like a star that <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, not a fake star.<br />
<br />
B: It's fusing hydrogen into helium. No, but it's not a ''dead'' star, and that's the point here. There's a new theoretical study that finds that the most likely place possibly to find life on another planet may be around a dead star. More specifically, of course, a white dwarf. You know, I'm not talking about a neutron star or black hole. But not only that, they think they might be able to actually find one of these planets in the next ten years. Which seems like a pretty bold prediction.<br />
<br />
E: But Bob, isn't a white dwarf after the star went through its initial sort of expansion then came back in on itself. Wouldn't it have kind of destroyed things on that<br />
<br />
B: Well, exactly. And that's the huge problem. That's the first thing I thought of, well how can that be? A white dwarf is a dead star. It's a corpse of a sun-like star, at the end of its, you know in its old age it swells into a red giant and it totally crisps any of the planets that were nearby, but before it expels a lot of its mass, making the beautifully misnomered planetary nebula. So what's left is this collapsed core. It's about as big as the earth, but it's got the mass, it could have a mass of more than the sun. 1.4 solar masses, I think, is the ________________________ limit for that. So that's a lot of mass in a really tiny place. So clearly it's unbelievably dense, right? If you had a ton of white dwarf matter, if you could do that, you could fit it into a matchbox. I mean it's super, super tiny. You can thank the electron degeneracy pressure for that. But there's no nuclear reactions going on to produce energy, but because it's relatively small it could radiate it's remaining heat for literally billions of years. So clearly, then, this thing could have its own little Goldilocks zone to support life, even though it's really not even a star anymore. It's not creating energy, but it's just radiating away the energy that's contained in it for many, many, many eons. So then the next question then, Evan, which ties into your comment, was how does the planet get there, because the red giant's gonna wipe out anything that's nearby. Probably anything that's in the Goldilocks zone. So there's actually two ways that could happen. One might, you might predict, a planet can migrate in from the outskirts of a solar system; we've seen that with hot Jupiters: Jupiter-sized planets that have orbits closer than Mercury. How the hell did they get there? Well they can actually migrate in through the solar system. But there's another way. A planet can also form from the leftover dust and gas; and that, of course, would be a second-generation world, which I think is pretty cool. Now of course, though, this planet would have to get pretty damned close, since the heat source is so small and dim compared to regular living stars . . .<br />
<br />
S: Bob, do we know that either of those can actually happen around a white dwarf, though?<br />
<br />
B: The thing here, though, with this theoretical study, Steve, is that they ran these really sophisticated simulations and they've pretty much shown in the simulation everything that I'm talking about.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
T<br />
B: That this can happen; they're incredibly confident that it could happen. They can think of no reason why it wouldn't happen. Now, it's not like every white dwarf is gonna have one these. They're saying that among the 500 closest white dwarves to the sun, they might find one or two that have planetary bodies in orbit around it that could support life. So, you know, one or two in 500 isn't great odds, but there's lots of stars and we can look at a lot of different things.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
B: So, the interesting thing is, as you could imagine, these planets would have to be very close to the white dwarf in order to get enough heat to have liquid water and life evolve. So that turns out to be only about a million miles away, which is what one over ninety-three, wait, sorry. And that's, our orbit's 93 million miles, so it's way, way, way close to it. And it's year, of course, would only be about ten hours long, which is an amazingly fast orbit so that would, I cal . . .<br />
<br />
E: That's a party every ten hours, oh my gosh.<br />
<br />
B: I calculated Rebecca would be over 30,000 years old if she lived on that planet. ''(laughter)'' So, all right. So we've got this dead star that could conceivably keep a nearby planet warm enough for life, so we've got that. We've got a couple different ways for a planet to arrive or form nearby. So then the next interesting question is, how do we detect this thing? And, if you regularly listen to this show, I think you probably know: the transit method, right? A planet moves between us and their star. The output, the light output dips, and bam! You've detected a planet. Of course, it's a little bit more complicated than that, but that's essentially the idea. Now in this scenario it's actually even better. Now think of this system, though. You've got a planet real close to a white dwarf and the white dwarf is so tiny, I mean they could be comparable in size, so that when this planet eclipses the white dwarf, you're gonna have a huge dip in the light output. It would be an obvious signal. It would leap out and say "whoa!" This starlight almost completely disappeared.<br />
<br />
S: But the plane of that system would have to be perfectly aligned with us.<br />
<br />
B: Yes, it would have to be. But even if it wasn't, you could still occlude half the star or 33 percent, and that still would be really really good. That's not even the best part. The real icing on the cake for this is that the white dwarf emits so much less light it becomes much easier to determine the composition of the atmosphere of the planet in orbit around it. And it turns out that after the simulation I was talking about, they showed that after just a few hours of observation instead of something like hundreds of hours, we would know that the planet has perhaps water vapor or maybe oxygen in it. And oxygen would, that would be gargantuan news. That would be huge because, on earth anyway, oxygen is created by life. You take away life from the planet earth and it would slowly diminish, the oxygen would just disappear. It would dissolve into the oceans, it would oxidize the surface, and if we found a sizable amount of oxygen on a planet, I think it'd be pretty solid indication that there's probably some kind of life on the planet producing that oxygen. And if not, maybe it's some kind of alien machine that's creating and it wouldn't matter 'cause in that case we would find life anyway. So, either way, it's a win-win!<br />
<br />
S: So now we've just gotta look for them.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, and the James Webb, the James Webb's a big thing, that once that guy comes online, that telescope comes online, I think, jees, I'm not sure when, but within a few years or so.<br />
<br />
S: They plan on a 2018 launch date.<br />
<br />
B: That is gonna have what it needs to really survey these white dwarves and find these planets and maybe find a planet that most likely has life on it. And how huge would that be; talk about the science story of the millennia, let alone the year!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we'll probably cover that one.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, maybe. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Ancient Lost Continent <small>(15:06)</small>===<br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21551149<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Evan, I read<br />
<br />
E: Yeah!<br />
<br />
S: that geologists claim they have found a lost sunken continent.<br />
<br />
E: You read correctly, Steve. And courtesy of the BBC, their headline reads "Fragments of ancient continent buried under the Indian Ocean."" So, what do you think? Is this it? They finally found Atlantis? Is the evidence incontrovertible?<br />
<br />
S: It's in the Indian Ocean so it wouldn't be Atlantis, it would be Indiana.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, I suppose that would be more accurate.<br />
<br />
B: No – Indianis.<br />
<br />
S: Indianis<br />
<br />
E: Indianis. <br />
<br />
B: I kinda like it.<br />
<br />
E: There are a few outlets out there; not exactly of BBC quality, with their own headlines, including "Fragments of ancient continent Atlantis found." And Atlantis is all in caps with an exclamation point and the word "found" is as well. And another one that says "Is this the real Atlantis?"<br />
<br />
S: Nobody knows.<br />
<br />
E: So, you know. Jees, that was not predictable at all that some people would be jumping all over the Atlantis part of the story. But, it has nothing to do with Atlantis whatsoever.<br />
<br />
S: Zip. Zero. Nada.<br />
<br />
E: Nada. Nope. This article's focus is on the study published in the journal Nature Geoscience. And like you said, Steve, the researchers have found evidence for the land mass that would have existed up to about 85 million years ago. Can I give you a quick little story to set this all up? So, a long time ago in a galaxy called the Milky Way, almost a billion years ago, and that was before iTunes and compact discs and vaccinations, on the earth there existed a super-continent. A super-continent is one very large continent. While at the same time, there are no other significant land masses anywhere on the earth. There have been many super-continents that have existed on the earth over the history of the earth.<br />
<br />
S: A few.<br />
<br />
E: Just a few. Well, about a dozen or so that they have listed online. But the super-continent from this particular period of time was called Rodinia. You guys may remember learning, I remember learning in grade school, about the super-continent called Pangaea, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. The most recent one, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: But, <br />
<br />
B: And Gondwana land is the other one, right?<br />
<br />
E: That one, Gondwanaland.<br />
<br />
J: Was that Guanaland? What is that, made of bat poop? The whole island?<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Pangaea, about 300 million years ago. No, Rodinia was well before that, about 750, maybe 800 million years ago. So we're talking a long time ago. As far as this particular new land mass that was discovered goes: picture in your mind a world map, and look in your mind for the country India. Okay? And then, to the south, the island nation of Madagascar. All right. Well, these areas were once connected, a part of Rodinia, and they were smashed up right next to each other. And researchers believe they've found evidence of a sliver of a continent known as, well they call it a microcontinent, that was once tucked between these two masses. But not only have they found the evidence, they're already calling it something. They're calling it Mauritia, named after the tiny island of Mauritius, which is the place where they actually discovered the evidence. So what kind of evidence did they find? Well, they collected samples from a volcanic eruption that took place estimated 9 million years ago, and within the samples of those sands and grains that they took in, were mixed in some much older minerals. They uncovered zircons. Now, zircons are known in geological circles for being found on the continental shelf and they are very, very old. These particular zircons that they found are estimated to be at least 600 million years old. And I read some estimates in some places that they could be almost 2 billion years old. The nearest known outcrop of continental crust that could have produced these zircons is on, well, Madagascar. But it's still very far away. And it's unlikely, they're trying to come up with scenarios by which, how could these zircons have gotten there by other means? They think that this is evidence for a land mass that actually, you know, believes a microcontinent that actually exists out there below the Indian Ocean. And they're going to be doing more studying about it. They're hoping to do more research and being a more detailed mapping of the floor of the Indian Ocean, and continue this research and try to find the sunken continent.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I read the paper itself, and I think what they demonstrated is pretty solid. But the notion that the source of these grains of sands that they examining is this sunken microcontinent that existed between India and Madagascar. That's really just a hypothesis at this point. It's not like they're found the continent or they're proven that it exists. It's just that it would be one possible explanation for why this ancient zircon would be where it is. It sounds plausible, sounds like a reasonable story, but again, I think just a hypothesis.<br />
<br />
B: In this context you always hear them saying "lost" or "sunken" continent. What the hell does "sunken" mean in this context?<br />
<br />
S; Below the water. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah, but<br />
<br />
E: You're right, Bob, it's a mystery.<br />
<br />
B: What's the mechanism? I mean, is it just erosion, like the islands near Hawaii that have been eroded into the sea after they moved off of the volcanic hot spot? I mean, or would some cataclysm happen that actually made it, that shifted the crust and made it sink because of that? I mean . . .<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I think it's more to do with when two land, a land mass breaks apart into two land masses, the piece in, you know, there may be some of it in between the two pieces that breaks apart and sinks under the ocean. That's essentially what they're saying. Just the way the crust broke apart. One interesting thing about the whole supercontinents, et cetera, is that we're still not really sure why continents even exist.<br />
<br />
J: Why? What do you mean? We don't know why they're there?<br />
<br />
S: Actually what happens with plate tectonics is you have, the oceans are constantly turning over like a conveyor belt. So no part of the ocean is any older than a couple hundred million years. Parts of the ocean diving down below a continental plate, and you have rifts in the middle where new ocean floors emerging and spreading. Yeah, so you have this spreading zone and then subduction zone. But the continents are always floating on top of these oceanic plates. So how did that happen in the first place? Once it established itself to be that way, then you could see how it's self-perpetuating. But we're not really sure how that happened to begin with. Which is interesting.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's cool.<br />
<br />
E: It is interesting.<br />
<br />
S: The other thing that's interesting is the result of that is that continents are ancient. That's why stuff that's ancient has to be continental, right, 'cause anything from the ocean can only be a couple hundred million years old. If something's a billion years old, it had to come from a continent. Only the continents are that old.<br />
<br />
E: Yes. Right, right. That's why the zircon's important.<br />
<br />
S: Which is kind of nice. 'Cause if the continents were also occasionally diving underneath other plates and recycling, there wouldn't be fossils.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. We'd lose a lot of information.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Electronic Tattoos <small>(22:36)</small>===<br />
http://www.businessinsider.com/temporary-tattoos-could-make-electronic-telepathy-telekinesis-possible-2013-2<br />
<br />
S: All right. Let's move on. I'm gonna talk about electronic tattoos.<br />
<br />
B: What the hell's that about?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, it has something to do with Fantasy Island.<br />
<br />
S: Here's the headline. You guys tell me what you think about this. "Temporary tattoos could make electronic telepathy possible."<br />
<br />
E: Telepathy!<br />
<br />
''(garbled comments)''<br />
<br />
S: I know, I know. If somebody didn't send this to me, I would have used it as a Science or Fiction item.<br />
<br />
E: Sorry!<br />
<br />
S: Evan, you sent me several things I was gonna use for Science or Fiction. But anyway, <br />
<br />
E: Oh, I undermined you totally.<br />
<br />
S: This would have, I would have had Bob going. It's like "Now you're talking about telepathy??" ''(laughter)'' But, yeah. No. No telepathy. So what the technology is is they're essentially flexible electronics that you can apply to skin. And because they're flexible they could move around, they could bend. They're very thin, and they can serve a few functions. One primary function would be that they would essentially be an electrode. No big deal. So it could pick up electrical signals from the skin. So for example, if placed on the scalp, they could detect brain waves. But because this is, like, an electronic circuit, it's not just a dumb electrode, it's an actual circuit, you can build other functionality into it, including a transmitter to transmit signals to, say, a device. It could be used as very small, thin, flexible monitors. And so the technology seems very practical, very useful. I'm sure that this kind of thing is going to find a lot of applications. What I found amusing, maybe irritating, was the reporting of this technology, this, these devices in terms of what the possible applications would be. Because these are electrodes, that could read electrical signals from the brain, they started speculating wildly about the most advanced applications of the brain machine interface. Now we've chatted about this too, but I mean, that's something that would be far enough in the future we cannot say how long it's going to be; that we cannot extrapolate. The brain machine interface we have now are actually very good at, and getting better, at reading movements. So because we can map out the motor strip, you know, the motor cortex, and you know, you can put a lot of electrodes along the motor cortex and then people can learn how to use a robotic arm, for example, just by thinking about what they want it to do because it's interpreting the signals in their motor cortex. So that's about where the technology is now. But telepathy would require being able to read somebody's thoughts. And there the limiting factor isn't the electrodes, you know, it's not the signal.<br />
<br />
B: It's the brain in the skull.<br />
<br />
S: It's interpreting, although even if you had brain surface electrodes that were in incredibly high fidelity reading the EEG, the electrical signals from the brain, we still wouldn't know how to translate it into thoughts.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, how do you turn thought into a digital signal? What's the interpretation? And everybody's would be different. That's the real problem.<br />
<br />
S: Well you'd have to calibrate, you know. And partly the machine would have to calibrate to you but also the user could learn how to use it, you know. But this will not allow for telepathy. That's the bottom line. This doesn't really get us any closer to telepathy. <br />
<br />
E: But the headline! Look at the headline!<br />
<br />
S: The researchers admitted that brain surface electrodes would work better than these. These skin surface electrodes are probably never going to have the fidelity, the discrimination, to be able to read thoughts.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It just makes more sense that they, let's say they surgically implant something that is the analog to digital interface for the brain, then it transmits it to another device and let all the computer power happen somewhere else. It doesn't have to happen on the surface of your skin.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well that's what this would do, too. This would just read signals transmitted to your smart phone and then you could communicate through your smart phone or operate your smart phone with thoughts alone.<br />
<br />
E: Like, if I were to think, dial my home number. It would activate the phone to do something like that?<br />
<br />
S: We're not at that point yet with this. But this could be useful for, like, paraplegic people who want to control a computer screen, or control a robotic device. Because these are very thin and small you could probably have a lot of them. But still, the signal is not as clear as the brain surface's invasive electrodes. So it remains to be seen how much utility these would have. But because these are, the advance here, is that the electrodes are integrated with other elements, such as transmitters, and that they're thin and flexible. You know, so you can put a lot of them on the scalp. You don't have to wear this big massive cap or something that's very unwieldy. So, it does expand the number of possible uses, but it doesn't get over the problem of reading the EEG from the scalp, and therefore telepathy is not one of the applications of this technology in my opinion. However, having said that, they did bring up the notion of sub-vocalizations. Are you guys familiar with that?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, yeah; that's cool stuff.<br />
<br />
J: I don't think we've talked about it on the show, but we, off the show, have talked about it. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so, when you are saying words inside your mind, you tend to move your face, tongue and throat muscles in the way that you would if you were speaking them, just much more subtly. And there's actually been some research; I looked; there's not a lot, but there is some published research looking at detecting with skin surface electrodes, the muscle movements in the throat and the face and interpreting these sub-vocalizations. I'm reading some conflicting things, though. You know, some reviews say that being able to go from detecting these sub-vocalizations to actual words has been elusive. But other studies claim that they've been able to distinguish a number of different words from the EMG signals. But it's possible from, a limited set of words, that they can then know which one of those words that the person was thinking. So that's, actually, though . . .<br />
<br />
E: Interesting.<br />
<br />
S: That is plausible and that may just be a matter of incremental progress, and these electrodes, so these tattoos, might apply to that technology. Right? So if you're using this as a way of detecting sub-vocalizations, and the detection and analysis algorithm get sophisticated enough, and the user may be able to learn how to do that. 'Cause you can, I was doing this before the show, I was just thinking to myself and paying attention to what I was doing. And then also tried to maximize my movement, my sub-vocalization movements. You know what I mean? Like you can deliberately accentuate them. <br />
<br />
E: Can you shut them off entirely if you think about it? Or is it just so subtle that you really don't have that level of control over it?<br />
<br />
S: Well in researching this I did find lots of websites, and even some published studies, looking at the question of suppressing sub-vocalizations in order to improve or increase your reading speed. 'Cause apparently the sub-vocalizations slow you down.<br />
<br />
J: So to clarify, Steve, if words are going through my head; if I'm sitting here saying to myself, oh, I've gotta get up early tomorrow morning, or whatever it is, I am having some type of muscular reaction in my throat? Every time?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: If you're reading.<br />
<br />
S: No, even if you're just thinking, words.<br />
<br />
E: Even if you're just thinking the words!<br />
<br />
S: You're saying the words in your head, you are sub-vocalizing those words. Yes.<br />
<br />
E: Right. Okay.<br />
<br />
S: But the question is just, can we detect and interpret those muscle movements with enough precision and discrimination that we could translate that into the words that are in your head, that you're thinking. And this could give you like a fake telepathy. Like a pseudo-telepathy. It's not really telepathy 'cause it's through actual muscle movements. But that could still be really powerful. It still could functionally be telepathy.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: It's really not telepathy. It's probably better termed silent communication.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, imagine the military being able to communicate with each other without having to make any noise. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Or spies. Just it's silent communication. You can imagine dictating in a crowded room without having to speak aloud.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Google Glass <small>(31:25)</small>===<br />
http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:06)</small>== <br />
* Answer to last week: Whistlepig<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== "Ow!" <small>(40:36)</small>===<br />
* Why do we say, "Ow!"? Joe Shoults<br />
<br />
== Interview with Jon Ronson <small>(44:20)</small> ==<br />
* Interview with Jon Ronson, recorded at CSICon 2012.<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:50)</small> ==<br />
[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/osoa-idh022613.php Item number one]. Scientists have developed an imaging system that can look through walls into a burning building and identify survivors that need rescuing. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130225092040.htm Item number two]. A new analysis finds that Spiderman’s webbing would have been strong enough to stop the commuter trains as depicted in the Spiderman 2 movie. [http://now.tufts.edu/news-releases/new-study-shows-viruses-can-have-immune-syste And item number three]. Researchers discover a virus with an adaptive immune system. <br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:13:44)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>The world is much more interesting than any one discipline.</blockquote><br />
Edward Tufte<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>(1:15:27)</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_398&diff=6251SGU Episode 3982013-04-07T23:49:41Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 398<br />
|episodeDate = 2<sup>nd</sup> March 2013<br />
|episodeIcon = File:E-tattoo.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|guest1 = JR: Jon Ronson<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-02.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=398<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45209.0.html<br />
|qowText = The world is much more interesting than any one discipline.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tufte Edward Tufte]<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine <br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, February 27, 2013 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: Hey, guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Ah. Kum bah wa, everyone.<br />
<br />
B: Kum bah yay, what was that?<br />
<br />
E: Kum bah ya, no. Kum bah wa. Japanese for good evening.<br />
<br />
S: Good evening.<br />
<br />
E: Lots of SGU listeners in Japan. We know a few. <br />
<br />
S: So apparently Rebecca has some kind of phlegm situation going on. <br />
<br />
E: I didn't know she was Amish.<br />
<br />
S: We're trying to decide if she has the flu, whooping cough, or strep throat.<br />
<br />
J: Well, get this, guys. So Rebecca emails us and says that she's not feeling well; that she woke up really late today, and she's been basically zonked all day. And at the same time, we have a little whooping cough scare going on over here with the newborn. This is what happened. My sister-in-law came to visit from Denver. And in the Midwest you know that the whooping cough incidences are higher and everything and I just didn't really think much of it other than everyone in the family got the tdap vaccination, which is the whooping cough<br />
<br />
S: Did she and her family get the tdap?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, they did. What I found out today was that, like many of the vaccines that we get, you know they're guessing at which strain is gonna be the one that's gonna hit that year,<br />
<br />
S: No, hang on a minute, Jay. What you're describing is relevant for the flu. With the whooping cough, it's not that there's like a different strain hitting every year, it's just that tdap covers only a very narrow number of strains and the virus has mutated. You know, it just, new strains are developing. But it's not like there's a seasonal strain like the flu. It's a little bit different.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I didn't mean to confuse that. I know, like, exactly what you said, that there is a newer version of it that just wasn't covered by that particular vaccination that we got. <br />
<br />
S: yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So, her sister left on Monday morning. She called us up today, we're recording on Wednesday. She said "Guys, I had a bad cold on my way home, and now it's turning into something that's very, what I would consider to be whooping cough-like.<br />
<br />
E: Yeesh.<br />
<br />
J: So we called up our doctor, you know, I have a three-and-a-half-week-old in the house now, and you know, like, very dialed into this. And we called up the doctor up and me like "What's up? Like what do we do? What happens?" And pertussis is a bacteria, it's not a virus. So they have an anti-biotic for it. <br />
<br />
E: Anti-biotic. Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So, what do you call it, Steve? Erythromycin? <br />
<br />
S: Erythromycin, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Erythromycin, yeah. So that's the one that they use for it. And it's the mega-dose, like two pills the first day and then you take like this mega-dose thing for four days. Of course the baby's taking the liquid form and everything. But I'm sitting there tonight with my wife and we're giving the baby its first medication, and it's freakin' whooping cough medication! Like I wanted to strangle people. Thank you everybody for not . . .<br />
<br />
S: Anyone who has never gotten vaccinated for whooping cough, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Something that we could<br />
<br />
E: Way to blow the herd immunity; way to go.<br />
<br />
J: We could get rid of it. Did you guys see the info-graphic of . . . the CDC puts out information every year, and somebody made an info-graphic of the incidence of morbidity before and after the vaccination for a particular disease came and went. Right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And right out of the gate, things like smallpox and stuff, I don't remember the exact numbers, but we have certain diseases where there was like a half a million people dying a year, down to zero. After the vaccination. And there's like, in this info-graphic, I think there was more than a dozen of them. It was incredible. Like you see the numbers, how dramatically different they are. Right there. That's a hundred percent proof. They work. And yet people are walking around out there ''today'' and they don't care; that information is meaningless to them. How? Why?<br />
<br />
B: Well what is the worst-case scenario with pertussis? I mean, how bad could it get? <br />
<br />
J: It can kill you, Bob; it can kill a baby.<br />
<br />
E: Death.<br />
<br />
B: That's bad.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there was that famous case in Australia where a baby caught, Dana McCaffery, caught whooping cough in a community that had very low vaccination rates because of the Australian anti-vaccination network preaching against vaccines, and, the baby caught it from unvaccinated people. And died. 'Cause the child was too young to be vaccinated. It's one of the populations that need to be protected by herd immunity.<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(4:33)</small> ==<br />
* March 2, 1983: Compact Disc players and discs are released for the first time in the United States and other markets. They had been available only in Japan before then.<br />
<br />
S: Evan, so you're filling in for Rebecca this week for This Day in Skepticism.<br />
<br />
E: I said "Good evening" in Japanese to start the show. And I did so because the compact disc, you guys remember what compact discs are, CDs,<br />
<br />
S: They're still, they're still used today.<br />
<br />
E: They are. Their first, most common usage was of course for music storage, right? Playing music. Put 80 minutes of uncompressed audio on one of those things. That's 737 megabytes of data. What do you think of that? So in Japan, is where the CDs were first, widely became available, in October of '82. However, on March 2nd of 1983, compact discs and their players were released for the first time in the United States and other markets around the world, whereas they'd only been available in Japan before but finally they came to the United States, and I remember this vividly. It was a big f'ing deal, for me and my 13-year-old friends and stuff who were all, in our own opinions, very big into music. And it was a rush to see who would get the first CD, who would be able to afford the first CD player. It was kind of bragging rights, in a sense. Do you guys remember?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah. Instantly replaced tapes, records; 8-tracks had already died by then.<br />
<br />
E: Thank goodness.<br />
<br />
S: Buy, yeah, and think about it, guys. Thirty years! And they're still a perfectly acceptable technology. I still buy CDs for music. <br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
S: Sure.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, man. I just download it all.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but think about it. A CD, you can then rip it into any quality MP3 you want, which you own, without any DRM, and you have the CD for a backup. And it's still cost-effective. It's not like you're saving money by downloading. So it's still a perfectly viable technology. It's had a lot of longevity.<br />
<br />
B: It's all right, I guess. I like, I hear a song that I like. Like, oh boy, that sounds really good. And I buy it. Within literally four minutes I have it on my iPhone and I'm listening to it. That's awesome.<br />
<br />
S: I do that, too, but, if there's an album coming out and I know I want the whole album, I'll get it on a CD. <br />
<br />
E: Something to remember, guys, is that when you purchase a CD, you're purchasing something physical that you actually own. And when you purchase a license to get a music or something you download through iTunes or something, there's a question, there's debates going on right now in the courts as to how much ownership do you actually have over that thing? In other words, can you put it into your estate and leave it to your heirs?<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And they are fighting that. You know, the record industry, or industries, don't want those rights to be transferred on to descendents. Where, but with a CD you're guaranteed. That is yours, it's physical, you can do whatever the heck you want with it. So, keep that in mind also in the debate about, you know, what medium, what format you're gonna use for your music.<br />
<br />
B: That's messed up.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Life Around Dying Stars <small>(7:32)</small>===<br />
http://phys.org/news/2013-02-future-evidence-extraterrestrial-life-dying.html#ajTabs<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Bob, talk about looking for life around dying stars.<br />
<br />
B: If you insist.<br />
<br />
S: I do.<br />
<br />
B: So guys, <br />
<br />
E: Like Mickey Rooney, are we talking? What are we talking here, dying stars?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, boy. Guys, when you think of an extraterrestrial planet, especially one that supports life, what do you think of? Do you think of, you've got this planet orbiting a parent star that's kind of like our sun, right? Maybe it's a little bit bigger than our sun, maybe it's a little bit smaller. And of course, if that's the case, the habitable zone around the star changes because of how big and bright the star is.<br />
<br />
S: Now, Bob, I think of Tatooine with two suns. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Nice orchestral music playing.<br />
<br />
S: Or Rigel 7 with a big planet in the distance with rings around it.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but, still, it's like a, it's a real star, it's like a star that <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, not a fake star.<br />
<br />
B: It's fusing hydrogen into helium. No, but it's not a ''dead'' star, and that's the point here. There's a new theoretical study that finds that the most likely place possibly to find life on another planet may be around a dead star. More specifically, of course, a white dwarf. You know, I'm not talking about a neutron star or black hole. But not only that, they think they might be able to actually find one of these planets in the next ten years. Which seems like a pretty bold prediction.<br />
<br />
E: But Bob, isn't a white dwarf after the star went through its initial sort of expansion then came back in on itself. Wouldn't it have kind of destroyed things on that<br />
<br />
B: Well, exactly. And that's the huge problem. That's the first thing I thought of, well how can that be? A white dwarf is a dead star. It's a corpse of a sun-like star, at the end of its, you know in its old age it swells into a red giant and it totally crisps any of the planets that were nearby, but before it expels a lot of its mass, making the beautifully misnomered planetary nebula. So what's left is this collapsed core. It's about as big as the earth, but it's got the mass, it could have a mass of more than the sun. 1.4 solar masses, I think, is the ________________________ limit for that. So that's a lot of mass in a really tiny place. So clearly it's unbelievably dense, right? If you had a ton of white dwarf matter, if you could do that, you could fit it into a matchbox. I mean it's super, super tiny. You can thank the electron degeneracy pressure for that. But there's no nuclear reactions going on to produce energy, but because it's relatively small it could radiate it's remaining heat for literally billions of years. So clearly, then, this thing could have its own little Goldilocks zone to support life, even though it's really not even a star anymore. It's not creating energy, but it's just radiating away the energy that's contained in it for many, many, many eons. So then the next question then, Evan, which ties into your comment, was how does the planet get there, because the red giant's gonna wipe out anything that's nearby. Probably anything that's in the Goldilocks zone. So there's actually two ways that could happen. One might, you might predict, a planet can migrate in from the outskirts of a solar system; we've seen that with hot Jupiters: Jupiter-sized planets that have orbits closer than Mercury. How the hell did they get there? Well they can actually migrate in through the solar system. But there's another way. A planet can also form from the leftover dust and gas; and that, of course, would be a second-generation world, which I think is pretty cool. Now of course, though, this planet would have to get pretty damned close, since the heat source is so small and dim compared to regular living stars . . .<br />
<br />
S: Bob, do we know that either of those can actually happen around a white dwarf, though?<br />
<br />
B: The thing here, though, with this theoretical study, Steve, is that they ran these really sophisticated simulations and they've pretty much shown in the simulation everything that I'm talking about.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
T<br />
B: That this can happen; they're incredibly confident that it could happen. They can think of no reason why it wouldn't happen. Now, it's not like every white dwarf is gonna have one these. They're saying that among the 500 closest white dwarves to the sun, they might find one or two that have planetary bodies in orbit around it that could support life. So, you know, one or two in 500 isn't great odds, but there's lots of stars and we can look at a lot of different things.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
B: So, the interesting thing is, as you could imagine, these planets would have to be very close to the white dwarf in order to get enough heat to have liquid water and life evolve. So that turns out to be only about a million miles away, which is what one over ninety-three, wait, sorry. And that's, our orbit's 93 million miles, so it's way, way, way close to it. And it's year, of course, would only be about ten hours long, which is an amazingly fast orbit so that would, I cal . . .<br />
<br />
E: That's a party every ten hours, oh my gosh.<br />
<br />
B: I calculated Rebecca would be over 30,000 years old if she lived on that planet. ''(laughter)'' So, all right. So we've got this dead star that could conceivably keep a nearby planet warm enough for life, so we've got that. We've got a couple different ways for a planet to arrive or form nearby. So then the next interesting question is, how do we detect this thing? And, if you regularly listen to this show, I think you probably know: the transit method, right? A planet moves between us and their star. The output, the light output dips, and bam! You've detected a planet. Of course, it's a little bit more complicated than that, but that's essentially the idea. Now in this scenario it's actually even better. Now think of this system, though. You've got a planet real close to a white dwarf and the white dwarf is so tiny, I mean they could be comparable in size, so that when this planet eclipses the white dwarf, you're gonna have a huge dip in the light output. It would be an obvious signal. It would leap out and say "whoa!" This starlight almost completely disappeared.<br />
<br />
S: But the plane of that system would have to be perfectly aligned with us.<br />
<br />
B: Yes, it would have to be. But even if it wasn't, you could still occlude half the star or 33 percent, and that still would be really really good. That's not even the best part. The real icing on the cake for this is that the white dwarf emits so much less light it becomes much easier to determine the composition of the atmosphere of the planet in orbit around it. And it turns out that after the simulation I was talking about, they showed that after just a few hours of observation instead of something like hundreds of hours, we would know that the planet has perhaps water vapor or maybe oxygen in it. And oxygen would, that would be gargantuan news. That would be huge because, on earth anyway, oxygen is created by life. You take away life from the planet earth and it would slowly diminish, the oxygen would just disappear. It would dissolve into the oceans, it would oxidize the surface, and if we found a sizable amount of oxygen on a planet, I think it'd be pretty solid indication that there's probably some kind of life on the planet producing that oxygen. And if not, maybe it's some kind of alien machine that's creating and it wouldn't matter 'cause in that case we would find life anyway. So, either way, it's a win-win!<br />
<br />
S: So now we've just gotta look for them.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, and the James Webb, the James Webb's a big thing, that once that guy comes online, that telescope comes online, I think, jees, I'm not sure when, but within a few years or so.<br />
<br />
S: They plan on a 2018 launch date.<br />
<br />
B: That is gonna have what it needs to really survey these white dwarves and find these planets and maybe find a planet that most likely has life on it. And how huge would that be; talk about the science story of the millennia, let alone the year!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we'll probably cover that one.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, maybe. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Ancient Lost Continent <small>(15:06)</small>===<br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21551149<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Evan, I read<br />
<br />
E: Yeah!<br />
<br />
S: that geologists claim they have found a lost sunken continent.<br />
<br />
E: You read correctly, Steve. And courtesy of the BBC, their headline reads "Fragments of ancient continent buried under the Indian Ocean."" So, what do you think? Is this it? They finally found Atlantis? Is the evidence incontrovertible?<br />
<br />
S: It's in the Indian Ocean so it wouldn't be Atlantis, it would be Indiana.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, I suppose that would be more accurate.<br />
<br />
B: No – Indianis.<br />
<br />
S: Indianis<br />
<br />
E: Indianis. <br />
<br />
B: I kinda like it.<br />
<br />
E: There are a few outlets out there; not exactly of BBC quality, with their own headlines, including "Fragments of ancient continent Atlantis found." And Atlantis is all in caps with an exclamation point and the word "found" is as well. And another one that says "Is this the real Atlantis?"<br />
<br />
S: Nobody knows.<br />
<br />
E: So, you know. Jees, that was not predictable at all that some people would be jumping all over the Atlantis part of the story. But, it has nothing to do with Atlantis whatsoever.<br />
<br />
S: Zip. Zero. Nada.<br />
<br />
E: Nada. Nope. This article's focus is on the study published in the journal Nature Geoscience. And like you said, Steve, the researchers have found evidence for the land mass that would have existed up to about 85 million years ago. Can I give you a quick little story to set this all up? So, a long time ago in a galaxy called the Milky Way, almost a billion years ago, and that was before iTunes and compact discs and vaccinations, on the earth there existed a super-continent. A super-continent is one very large continent. While at the same time, there are no other significant land masses anywhere on the earth. There have been many super-continents that have existed on the earth over the history of the earth.<br />
<br />
S: A few.<br />
<br />
E: Just a few. Well, about a dozen or so that they have listed online. But the super-continent from this particular period of time was called Rodinia. You guys may remember learning, I remember learning in grade school, about the super-continent called Pangaea, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. The most recent one, yeah.<br />
<br />
E: But, <br />
<br />
B: And Gondwana land is the other one, right?<br />
<br />
E: That one, Gondwanaland.<br />
<br />
J: Was that Guanaland? What is that, made of bat poop? The whole island?<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughing)'' Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Pangaea, about 300 million years ago. No, Rodinia was well before that, about 750, maybe 800 million years ago. So we're talking a long time ago. As far as this particular new land mass that was discovered goes: picture in your mind a world map, and look in your mind for the country India. Okay? And then, to the south, the island nation of Madagascar. All right. Well, these areas were once connected, a part of Rodinia, and they were smashed up right next to each other. And researchers believe they've found evidence of a sliver of a continent known as, well they call it a microcontinent, that was once tucked between these two masses. But not only have they found the evidence, they're already calling it something. They're calling it Mauritia, named after the tiny island of Mauritius, which is the place where they actually discovered the evidence. So what kind of evidence did they find? Well, they collected samples from a volcanic eruption that took place estimated 9 million years ago, and within the samples of those sands and grains that they took in, were mixed in some much older minerals. They uncovered zircons. Now, zircons are known in geological circles for being found on the continental shelf and they are very, very old. These particular zircons that they found are estimated to be at least 600 million years old. And I read some estimates in some places that they could be almost 2 billion years old. The nearest known outcrop of continental crust that could have produced these zircons is on, well, Madagascar. But it's still very far away. And it's unlikely, they're trying to come up with scenarios by which, how could these zircons have gotten there by other means? They think that this is evidence for a land mass that actually, you know, believes a microcontinent that actually exists out there below the Indian Ocean. And they're going to be doing more studying about it. They're hoping to do more research and being a more detailed mapping of the floor of the Indian Ocean, and continue this research and try to find the sunken continent.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I read the paper itself, and I think what they demonstrated is pretty solid. But the notion that the source of these grains of sands that they examining is this sunken microcontinent that existed between India and Madagascar. That's really just a hypothesis at this point. It's not like they're found the continent or they're proven that it exists. It's just that it would be one possible explanation for why this ancient zircon would be where it is. It sounds plausible, sounds like a reasonable story, but again, I think just a hypothesis.<br />
<br />
B: In this context you always hear them saying "lost" or "sunken" continent. What the hell does "sunken" mean in this context?<br />
<br />
S; Below the water. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah, but<br />
<br />
E: You're right, Bob, it's a mystery.<br />
<br />
B: What's the mechanism? I mean, is it just erosion, like the islands near Hawaii that have been eroded into the sea after they moved off of the volcanic hot spot? I mean, or would some cataclysm happen that actually made it, that shifted the crust and made it sink because of that? I mean . . .<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I think it's more to do with when two land, a land mass breaks apart into two land masses, the piece in, you know, there may be some of it in between the two pieces that breaks apart and sinks under the ocean. That's essentially what they're saying. Just the way the crust broke apart. One interesting thing about the whole supercontinents, et cetera, is that we're still not really sure why continents even exist.<br />
<br />
J: Why? What do you mean? We don't know why they're there?<br />
<br />
S: Actually what happens with plate tectonics is you have, the oceans are constantly turning over like a conveyor belt. So no part of the ocean is any older than a couple hundred million years. Parts of the ocean diving down below a continental plate, and you have rifts in the middle where new ocean floors emerging and spreading. Yeah, so you have this spreading zone and then subduction zone. But the continents are always floating on top of these oceanic plates. So how did that happen in the first place? Once it established itself to be that way, then you could see how it's self-perpetuating. But we're not really sure how that happened to begin with. Which is interesting.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's cool.<br />
<br />
E: It is interesting.<br />
<br />
S: The other thing that's interesting is the result of that is that continents are ancient. That's why stuff that's ancient has to be continental, right, 'cause anything from the ocean can only be a couple hundred million years old. If something's a billion years old, it had to come from a continent. Only the continents are that old.<br />
<br />
E: Yes. Right, right. That's why the zircon's important.<br />
<br />
S: Which is kind of nice. 'Cause if the continents were also occasionally diving underneath other plates and recycling, there wouldn't be fossils.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. We'd lose a lot of information.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Electronic Tattoos <small>(22:36)</small>===<br />
http://www.businessinsider.com/temporary-tattoos-could-make-electronic-telepathy-telekinesis-possible-2013-2<br />
<br />
=== Google Glass <small>(31:25)</small>===<br />
http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:06)</small>== <br />
* Answer to last week: Whistlepig<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== "Ow!" <small>(40:36)</small>===<br />
* Why do we say, "Ow!"? Joe Shoults<br />
<br />
== Interview with Jon Ronson <small>(44:20)</small> ==<br />
* Interview with Jon Ronson, recorded at CSICon 2012.<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:50)</small> ==<br />
[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/osoa-idh022613.php Item number one]. Scientists have developed an imaging system that can look through walls into a burning building and identify survivors that need rescuing. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130225092040.htm Item number two]. A new analysis finds that Spiderman’s webbing would have been strong enough to stop the commuter trains as depicted in the Spiderman 2 movie. [http://now.tufts.edu/news-releases/new-study-shows-viruses-can-have-immune-syste And item number three]. Researchers discover a virus with an adaptive immune system. <br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:13:44)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>The world is much more interesting than any one discipline.</blockquote><br />
Edward Tufte<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>(1:15:27)</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_398&diff=6198SGU Episode 3982013-04-06T01:42:30Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 398<br />
|episodeDate = 2<sup>nd</sup> March 2013<br />
|episodeIcon = File:E-tattoo.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|guest1 = JR: Jon Ronson<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-02.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=398<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45209.0.html<br />
|qowText = The world is much more interesting than any one discipline.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tufte Edward Tufte]<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine <br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, February 27, 2013 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: Hey, guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Ah. Kum bah wa, everyone.<br />
<br />
B: Kum bah yay, what was that?<br />
<br />
E: Kum bah ya, no. Kum bah wa. Japanese for good evening.<br />
<br />
S: Good evening.<br />
<br />
E: Lots of SGU listeners in Japan. We know a few. <br />
<br />
S: So apparently Rebecca has some kind of phlegm situation going on. <br />
<br />
E: I didn't know she was Amish.<br />
<br />
S: We're trying to decide if she has the flu, whooping cough, or strep throat.<br />
<br />
J: Well, get this, guys. So Rebecca emails us and says that she's not feeling well; that she woke up really late today, and she's been basically zonked all day. And at the same time, we have a little whooping cough scare going on over here with the newborn. This is what happened. My sister-in-law came to visit from Denver. And in the Midwest you know that the whooping cough incidences are higher and everything and I just didn't really think much of it other than everyone in the family got the tdap vaccination, which is the whooping cough<br />
<br />
S: Did she and her family get the tdap?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, they did. What I found out today was that, like many of the vaccines that we get, you know they're guessing at which strain is gonna be the one that's gonna hit that year,<br />
<br />
S: No, hang on a minute, Jay. What you're describing is relevant for the flu. With the whooping cough, it's not that there's like a different strain hitting every year, it's just that tdap covers only a very narrow number of strains and the virus has mutated. You know, it just, new strains are developing. But it's not like there's a seasonal strain like the flu. It's a little bit different.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I didn't mean to confuse that. I know, like, exactly what you said, that there is a newer version of it that just wasn't covered by that particular vaccination that we got. <br />
<br />
S: yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So, her sister left on Monday morning. She called us up today, we're recording on Wednesday. She said "Guys, I had a bad cold on my way home, and now it's turning into something that's very, what I would consider to be whooping cough-like.<br />
<br />
E: Yeesh.<br />
<br />
J: So we called up our doctor, you know, I have a three-and-a-half-week-old in the house now, and you know, like, very dialed into this. And we called up the doctor up and me like "What's up? Like what do we do? What happens?" And pertussis is a bacteria, it's not a virus. So they have an anti-biotic for it. <br />
<br />
E: Anti-biotic. Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So, what do you call it, Steve? Erythromycin? <br />
<br />
S: Erythromycin, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Erythromycin, yeah. So that's the one that they use for it. And it's the mega-dose, like two pills the first day and then you take like this mega-dose thing for four days. Of course the baby's taking the liquid form and everything. But I'm sitting there tonight with my wife and we're giving the baby its first medication, and it's freakin' whooping cough medication! Like I wanted to strangle people. Thank you everybody for not . . .<br />
<br />
S: Anyone who has never gotten vaccinated for whooping cough, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Something that we could<br />
<br />
E: Way to blow the herd immunity; way to go.<br />
<br />
J: We could get rid of it. Did you guys see the info-graphic of . . . the CDC puts out information every year, and somebody made an info-graphic of the incidence of morbidity before and after the vaccination for a particular disease came and went. Right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And right out of the gate, things like smallpox and stuff, I don't remember the exact numbers, but we have certain diseases where there was like a half a million people dying a year, down to zero. After the vaccination. And there's like, in this info-graphic, I think there was more than a dozen of them. It was incredible. Like you see the numbers, how dramatically different they are. Right there. That's a hundred percent proof. They work. And yet people are walking around out there ''today'' and they don't care; that information is meaningless to them. How? Why?<br />
<br />
B: Well what is the worst-case scenario with pertussis? I mean, how bad could it get? <br />
<br />
J: It can kill you, Bob; it can kill a baby.<br />
<br />
E: Death.<br />
<br />
B: That's bad.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there was that famous case in Australia where a baby caught, Dana McCaffery, caught whooping cough in a community that had very low vaccination rates because of the Australian anti-vaccination network preaching against vaccines, and, the baby caught it from unvaccinated people. And died. 'Cause the child was too young to be vaccinated. It's one of the populations that need to be protected by herd immunity.<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(4:33)</small> ==<br />
* March 2, 1983: Compact Disc players and discs are released for the first time in the United States and other markets. They had been available only in Japan before then.<br />
<br />
S: Evan, so you're filling in for Rebecca this week for This Day in Skepticism.<br />
<br />
E: I said "Good evening" in Japanese to start the show. And I did so because the compact disc, you guys remember what compact discs are, CDs,<br />
<br />
S: They're still, they're still used today.<br />
<br />
E: They are. Their first, most common usage was of course for music storage, right? Playing music. Put 80 minutes of uncompressed audio on one of those things. That's 737 megabytes of data. What do you think of that? So in Japan, is where the CDs were first, widely became available, in October of '82. However, on March 2nd of 1983, compact discs and their players were released for the first time in the United States and other markets around the world, whereas they'd only been available in Japan before but finally they came to the United States, and I remember this vividly. It was a big f'ing deal, for me and my 13-year-old friends and stuff who were all, in our own opinions, very big into music. And it was a rush to see who would get the first CD, who would be able to afford the first CD player. It was kind of bragging rights, in a sense. Do you guys remember?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah. Instantly replaced tapes, records; 8-tracks had already died by then.<br />
<br />
E: Thank goodness.<br />
<br />
S: Buy, yeah, and think about it, guys. Thirty years! And they're still a perfectly acceptable technology. I still buy CDs for music. <br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
S: Sure.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, man. I just download it all.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but think about it. A CD, you can then rip it into any quality MP3 you want, which you own, without any DRM, and you have the CD for a backup. And it's still cost-effective. It's not like you're saving money by downloading. So it's still a perfectly viable technology. It's had a lot of longevity.<br />
<br />
B: It's all right, I guess. I like, I hear a song that I like. Like, oh boy, that sounds really good. And I buy it. Within literally four minutes I have it on my iPhone and I'm listening to it. That's awesome.<br />
<br />
S: I do that, too, but, if there's an album coming out and I know I want the whole album, I'll get it on a CD. <br />
<br />
E: Something to remember, guys, is that when you purchase a CD, you're purchasing something physical that you actually own. And when you purchase a license to get a music or something you download through iTunes or something, there's a question, there's debates going on right now in the courts as to how much ownership do you actually have over that thing? In other words, can you put it into your estate and leave it to your heirs?<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And they are fighting that. You know, the record industry, or industries, don't want those rights to be transferred on to descendents. Where, but with a CD you're guaranteed. That is yours, it's physical, you can do whatever the heck you want with it. So, keep that in mind also in the debate about, you know, what medium, what format you're gonna use for your music.<br />
<br />
B: That's messed up.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Life Around Dying Stars <small>(7:32)</small>===<br />
http://phys.org/news/2013-02-future-evidence-extraterrestrial-life-dying.html#ajTabs<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, Bob, talk about looking for life around dying stars.<br />
<br />
B: If you insist.<br />
<br />
S: I do.<br />
<br />
B: So guys, <br />
<br />
E: Like Mickey Rooney, are we talking? What are we talking here, dying stars?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, boy. Guys, when you think of an extraterrestrial planet, especially one that supports life, what do you think of? Do you think of, you've got this planet orbiting a parent star that's kind of like our sun, right? Maybe it's a little bit bigger than our sun, maybe it's a little bit smaller. And of course, if that's the case, the habitable zone around the star changes because of how big and bright the star is.<br />
<br />
S: Now, Bob, I think of Tatooine with two suns. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Nice orchestral music playing.<br />
<br />
S: Or Rigel 7 with a big planet in the distance with rings around it.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but, still, it's like a, it's a real star, it's like a star that <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, not a fake star.<br />
<br />
B: It's fusing hydrogen into helium. No, but it's not a ''dead'' star, and that's the point here. There's a new theoretical study that finds that the most likely place possibly to find life on another planet may be around a dead star. More specifically, of course, a white dwarf. You know, I'm not talking about a neutron star or black hole. But not only that, they think they might be able to actually find one of these planets in the next ten years. Which seems like a pretty bold prediction.<br />
<br />
E: But Bob, isn't a white dwarf after the star went through its initial sort of expansion then came back in on itself. Wouldn't it have kind of destroyed things on that<br />
<br />
B: Well, exactly. And that's the huge problem. That's the first thing I thought of, well how can that be? A white dwarf is a dead star. It's a corpse of a sun-like star, at the end of its, you know in its old age it swells into a red giant and it totally crisps any of the planets that were nearby, but before it expels a lot of its mass, making the beautifully misnomered planetary nebula. So what's left is this collapsed core. It's about as big as the earth, but it's got the mass, it could have a mass of more than the sun. 1.4 solar masses, I think, is the ________________________ limit for that. So that's a lot of mass in a really tiny place. So clearly it's unbelievably dense, right? If you had a ton of white dwarf matter, if you could do that, you could fit it into a matchbox. I mean it's super, super tiny. You can thank the electron degeneracy pressure for that. But there's no nuclear reactions going on to produce energy, but because it's relatively small it could radiate it's remaining heat for literally billions of years. So clearly, then, this thing could have its own little Goldilocks zone to support life, even though it's really not even a star anymore. It's not creating energy, but it's just radiating away the energy that's contained in it for many, many, many eons. So then the next question then, Evan, which ties into your comment, was how does the planet get there, because the red giant's gonna wipe out anything that's nearby. Probably anything that's in the Goldilocks zone. So there's actually two ways that could happen. One might, you might predict, a planet can migrate in from the outskirts of a solar system; we've seen that with hot Jupiters: Jupiter-sized planets that have orbits closer than Mercury. How the hell did they get there? Well they can actually migrate in through the solar system. But there's another way. A planet can also form from the leftover dust and gas; and that, of course, would be a second-generation world, which I think is pretty cool. Now of course, though, this planet would have to get pretty damned close, since the heat source is so small and dim compared to regular living stars . . .<br />
<br />
S: Bob, do we know that either of those can actually happen around a white dwarf, though?<br />
<br />
B: The thing here, though, with this theoretical study, Steve, is that they ran these really sophisticated simulations and they've pretty much shown in the simulation everything that I'm talking about.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
T<br />
B: That this can happen; they're incredibly confident that it could happen. They can think of no reason why it wouldn't happen. Now, it's not like every white dwarf is gonna have one these. They're saying that among the 500 closest white dwarves to the sun, they might find one or two that have planetary bodies in orbit around it that could support life. So, you know, one or two in 500 isn't great odds, but there's lots of stars and we can look at a lot of different things.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
B: So, the interesting thing is, as you could imagine, these planets would have to be very close to the white dwarf in order to get enough heat to have liquid water and life evolve. So that turns out to be only about a million miles away, which is what one over ninety-three, wait, sorry. And that's, our orbit's 93 million miles, so it's way, way, way close to it. And it's year, of course, would only be about ten hours long, which is an amazingly fast orbit so that would, I cal . . .<br />
<br />
E: That's a party every ten hours, oh my gosh.<br />
<br />
B: I calculated Rebecca would be over 30,000 years old if she lived on that planet. ''(laughter)'' So, all right. So we've got this dead star that could conceivably keep a nearby planet warm enough for life, so we've got that. We've got a couple different ways for a planet to arrive or form nearby. So then the next interesting question is, how do we detect this thing? And, if you regularly listen to this show, I think you probably know: the transit method, right? A planet moves between us and their star. The output, the light output dips, and bam! You've detected a planet. Of course, it's a little bit more complicated than that, but that's essentially the idea. Now in this scenario it's actually even better. Now think of this system, though. You've got a planet real close to a white dwarf and the white dwarf is so tiny, I mean they could be comparable in size, so that when this planet eclipses the white dwarf, you're gonna have a huge dip in the light output. It would be an obvious signal. It would leap out and say "whoa!" This starlight almost completely disappeared.<br />
<br />
S: But the plane of that system would have to be perfectly aligned with us.<br />
<br />
B: Yes, it would have to be. But even if it wasn't, you could still occlude half the star or 33 percent, and that still would be really really good. That's not even the best part. The real icing on the cake for this is that the white dwarf emits so much less light it becomes much easier to determine the composition of the atmosphere of the planet in orbit around it. And it turns out that after the simulation I was talking about, they showed that after just a few hours of observation instead of something like hundreds of hours, we would know that the planet has perhaps water vapor or maybe oxygen in it. And oxygen would, that would be gargantuan news. That would be huge because, on earth anyway, oxygen is created by life. You take away life from the planet earth and it would slowly diminish, the oxygen would just disappear. It would dissolve into the oceans, it would oxidize the surface, and if we found a sizable amount of oxygen on a planet, I think it'd be pretty solid indication that there's probably some kind of life on the planet producing that oxygen. And if not, maybe it's some kind of alien machine that's creating and it wouldn't matter 'cause in that case we would find life anyway. So, either way, it's a win-win!<br />
<br />
S: So now we've just gotta look for them.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, and the James Webb, the James Webb's a big thing, that once that guy comes online, that telescope comes online, I think, jees, I'm not sure when, but within a few years or so.<br />
<br />
S: They plan on a 2018 launch date.<br />
<br />
B: That is gonna have what it needs to really survey these white dwarves and find these planets and maybe find a planet that most likely has life on it. And how huge would that be; talk about the science story of the millennia, let alone the year!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we'll probably cover that one.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, maybe. ''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Ancient Lost Continent <small>(15:06)</small>===<br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21551149<br />
<br />
=== Electronic Tattoos <small>(22:36)</small>===<br />
http://www.businessinsider.com/temporary-tattoos-could-make-electronic-telepathy-telekinesis-possible-2013-2<br />
<br />
=== Google Glass <small>(31:25)</small>===<br />
http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:06)</small>== <br />
* Answer to last week: Whistlepig<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== "Ow!" <small>(40:36)</small>===<br />
* Why do we say, "Ow!"? Joe Shoults<br />
<br />
== Interview with Jon Ronson <small>(44:20)</small> ==<br />
* Interview with Jon Ronson, recorded at CSICon 2012.<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:50)</small> ==<br />
[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/osoa-idh022613.php Item number one]. Scientists have developed an imaging system that can look through walls into a burning building and identify survivors that need rescuing. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130225092040.htm Item number two]. A new analysis finds that Spiderman’s webbing would have been strong enough to stop the commuter trains as depicted in the Spiderman 2 movie. [http://now.tufts.edu/news-releases/new-study-shows-viruses-can-have-immune-syste And item number three]. Researchers discover a virus with an adaptive immune system. <br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:13:44)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>The world is much more interesting than any one discipline.</blockquote><br />
Edward Tufte<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>(1:15:27)</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopinehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_398&diff=6171SGU Episode 3982013-04-02T23:03:40Z<p>Banjopine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 398<br />
|episodeDate = 2<sup>nd</sup> March 2013<br />
|episodeIcon = File:E-tattoo.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|guest1 = JR: Jon Ronson<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-03-02.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=398<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45209.0.html<br />
|qowText = The world is much more interesting than any one discipline.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tufte Edward Tufte]<br />
|}}<br />
{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = banjopine <br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, February 27, 2013 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey, everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: Hey, guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Ah. Kum bah wa, everyone.<br />
<br />
B: Kum bah yay, what was that?<br />
<br />
E: Kum bah ya, no. Kum bah wa. Japanese for good evening.<br />
<br />
S: Good evening.<br />
<br />
E: Lots of SGU listeners in Japan. We know a few. <br />
<br />
S: So apparently Rebecca has some kind of phlegm situation going on. <br />
<br />
E: I didn't know she was Amish.<br />
<br />
S: We're trying to decide if she has the flu, whooping cough, or strep throat.<br />
<br />
J: Well, get this, guys. So Rebecca emails us and says that she's not feeling well; that she woke up really late today, and she's been basically zonked all day. And at the same time, we have a little whooping cough scare going on over here with the newborn. This is what happened. My sister-in-law came to visit from Denver. And in the Midwest you know that the whooping cough incidences are higher and everything and I just didn't really think much of it other than everyone in the family got the tdap vaccination, which is the whooping cough<br />
<br />
S: Did she and her family get the tdap?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, they did. What I found out today was that, like many of the vaccines that we get, you know they're guessing at which strain is gonna be the one that's gonna hit that year,<br />
<br />
S: No, hang on a minute, Jay. What you're describing is relevant for the flu. With the whooping cough, it's not that there's like a different strain hitting every year, it's just that tdap covers only a very narrow number of strains and the virus has mutated. You know, it just, new strains are developing. But it's not like there's a seasonal strain like the flu. It's a little bit different.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I didn't mean to confuse that. I know, like, exactly what you said, that there is a newer version of it that just wasn't covered by that particular vaccination that we got. <br />
<br />
S: yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So, her sister left on Monday morning. She called us up today, we're recording on Wednesday. She said "Guys, I had a bad cold on my way home, and now it's turning into something that's very, what I would consider to be whooping cough-like.<br />
<br />
E: Yeesh.<br />
<br />
J: So we called up our doctor, you know, I have a three-and-a-half-week-old in the house now, and you know, like, very dialed into this. And we called up the doctor up and me like "What's up? Like what do we do? What happens?" And pertussis is a bacteria, it's not a virus. So they have an anti-biotic for it. <br />
<br />
E: Anti-biotic. Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So, what do you call it, Steve? Erythromycin? <br />
<br />
S: Erythromycin, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Erythromycin, yeah. So that's the one that they use for it. And it's the mega-dose, like two pills the first day and then you take like this mega-dose thing for four days. Of course the baby's taking the liquid form and everything. But I'm sitting there tonight with my wife and we're giving the baby its first medication, and it's freakin' whooping cough medication! Like I wanted to strangle people. Thank you everybody for not . . .<br />
<br />
S: Anyone who has never gotten vaccinated for whooping cough, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Something that we could<br />
<br />
E: Way to blow the herd immunity; way to go.<br />
<br />
J: We could get rid of it. Did you guys see the info-graphic of . . . the CDC puts out information every year, and somebody made an info-graphic of the incidence of morbidity before and after the vaccination for a particular disease came and went. Right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And right out of the gate, things like smallpox and stuff, I don't remember the exact numbers, but we have certain diseases where there was like a half a million people dying a year, down to zero. After the vaccination. And there's like, in this info-graphic, I think there was more than a dozen of them. It was incredible. Like you see the numbers, how dramatically different they are. Right there. That's a hundred percent proof. They work. And yet people are walking around out there ''today'' and they don't care; that information is meaningless to them. How? Why?<br />
<br />
B: Well what is the worst-case scenario with pertussis? I mean, how bad could it get? <br />
<br />
J: It can kill you, Bob; it can kill a baby.<br />
<br />
E: Death.<br />
<br />
B: That's bad.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there was that famous case in Australia where a baby caught, Dana McCaffery, caught whooping cough in a community that had very low vaccination rates because of the Australian anti-vaccination network preaching against vaccines, and, the baby caught it from unvaccinated people. And died. 'Cause the child was too young to be vaccinated. It's one of the populations that need to be protected by herd immunity.<br />
<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(4:33)</small> ==<br />
* March 2, 1983: Compact Disc players and discs are released for the first time in the United States and other markets. They had been available only in Japan before then.<br />
<br />
S: Evan, so you're filling in for Rebecca this week for This Day in Skepticism.<br />
<br />
E: I said "Good evening" in Japanese to start the show. And I did so because the compact disc, you guys remember what compact discs are, CDs,<br />
<br />
S: They're still, they're still used today.<br />
<br />
E: They are. Their first, most common usage was of course for music storage, right? Playing music. Put 80 minutes of uncompressed audio on one of those things. That's 737 megabytes of data. What do you think of that? So in Japan, is where the CDs were first, widely became available, in October of '82. However, on March 2nd of 1983, compact discs and their players were released for the first time in the United States and other markets around the world, whereas they'd only been available in Japan before but finally they came to the United States, and I remember this vividly. It was a big f'ing deal, for me and my 13-year-old friends and stuff who were all, in our own opinions, very big into music. And it was a rush to see who would get the first CD, who would be able to afford the first CD player. It was kind of bragging rights, in a sense. Do you guys remember?<br />
<br />
S: Oh, yeah. Instantly replaced tapes, records; 8-tracks had already died by then.<br />
<br />
E: Thank goodness.<br />
<br />
S: Buy, yeah, and think about it, guys. Thirty years! And they're still a perfectly acceptable technology. I still buy CDs for music. <br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
S: Sure.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, man. I just download it all.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but think about it. A CD, you can then rip it into any quality MP3 you want, which you own, without any DRM, and you have the CD for a backup. And it's still cost-effective. It's not like you're saving money by downloading. So it's still a perfectly viable technology. It's had a lot of longevity.<br />
<br />
B: It's all right, I guess. I like, I hear a song that I like. Like, oh boy, that sounds really good. And I buy it. Within literally four minutes I have it on my iPhone and I'm listening to it. That's awesome.<br />
<br />
S: I do that, too, but, if there's an album coming out and I know I want the whole album, I'll get it on a CD. <br />
<br />
E: Something to remember, guys, is that when you purchase a CD, you're purchasing something physical that you actually own. And when you purchase a license to get a music or something you download through iTunes or something, there's a question, there's debates going on right now in the courts as to how much ownership do you actually have over that thing? In other words, can you put it into your estate and leave it to your heirs?<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And they are fighting that. You know, the record industry, or industries, don't want those rights to be transferred on to descendents. Where, but with a CD you're guaranteed. That is yours, it's physical, you can do whatever the heck you want with it. So, keep that in mind also in the debate about, you know, what medium, what format you're gonna use for your music.<br />
<br />
B: That's messed up.<br />
<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Life Around Dying Stars <small>(7:32)</small>===<br />
http://phys.org/news/2013-02-future-evidence-extraterrestrial-life-dying.html#ajTabs<br />
<br />
=== Ancient Lost Continent <small>(15:06)</small>===<br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21551149<br />
<br />
=== Electronic Tattoos <small>(22:36)</small>===<br />
http://www.businessinsider.com/temporary-tattoos-could-make-electronic-telepathy-telekinesis-possible-2013-2<br />
<br />
=== Google Glass <small>(31:25)</small>===<br />
http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:06)</small>== <br />
* Answer to last week: Whistlepig<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== "Ow!" <small>(40:36)</small>===<br />
* Why do we say, "Ow!"? Joe Shoults<br />
<br />
== Interview with Jon Ronson <small>(44:20)</small> ==<br />
* Interview with Jon Ronson, recorded at CSICon 2012.<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:50)</small> ==<br />
[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/osoa-idh022613.php Item number one]. Scientists have developed an imaging system that can look through walls into a burning building and identify survivors that need rescuing. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130225092040.htm Item number two]. A new analysis finds that Spiderman’s webbing would have been strong enough to stop the commuter trains as depicted in the Spiderman 2 movie. [http://now.tufts.edu/news-releases/new-study-shows-viruses-can-have-immune-syste And item number three]. Researchers discover a virus with an adaptive immune system. <br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:13:44)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>The world is much more interesting than any one discipline.</blockquote><br />
Edward Tufte<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>(1:15:27)</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Banjopine