https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Jacquie+oSGUTranscripts - User contributions [en]2026-04-05T02:17:10ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.43.8https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=8391SGU Episode 3352013-10-14T07:52:30Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Hallucinating Color (29:39) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 />
|episodeNum = 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she will be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
*[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Bad Astronomy: Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
S: All right, sad story, but, Bob, let's transition to a happy story about the {{w|Higgs boson}}.<br />
<br />
R: Hooray!<br />
<br />
B: Well, I might beg to differ. The big news, I think, this week was the first electronic optical fibers with hydrogenated amorphous silicon were developed. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Actually, no, that's number&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't you ever talk to me like that again, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: What did you just throw up?<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;that's number two. The number-one story was that scientists discovered why buttercups reflect yellow on chins. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yes, I saw that one too.<br />
<br />
R: Way to ruin Science or Fiction, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, good thing I didn't choose any of those.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, that doesn't mean you like butter? What...what's up?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Or {{w|Parkay}}?<br />
<br />
B: I'm kidding obviously, but&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Who doesn't like butter?<br />
<br />
E: People allergic to butter.<br />
<br />
S: But don't get me started on {{w|I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!}} &mdash; that stuff is ''not'' butter. That will make...that is&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: I can't ''believe'' it!<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;nausea inducing.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
R: So about that Higgs boson...<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the Higgs boson...''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
J: Pretty cool, huh?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, so, unless you've been off planet or in stasis for a couple weeks, you probably have heard about the latest hubbub about the Higgs boson.<br />
<br />
E: Again.<br />
<br />
B: Two separate teams of scientists at {{w|CERN}} using the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} have found the most similar and enticing hints yet of the existence of the Higgs boson, the so-called "''God'' particle"&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I hate that...I hate that name.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;the particle that is thought&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That ''is'' stupid.<br />
<br />
S: Can we call it the "Lucifer particle?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: I was going to go with the "Thor particle."<br />
<br />
E: The "Buddah particle?"<br />
<br />
B: There you go. Umm, this is the particle that's thought to imbue all matter with mass. Now, both the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS_experiment ATLAS] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Muon_Solenoid CMS] experiments and...the teams that ran those experiments recently announced their results from ''literally'' &mdash; and I mean this &mdash; hundreds of trillions of proton collisions that offer not conclusive proof of Higgs, but the best evidence yet for many reasons. The Higgs boson is the last predicted particle of the famous and successful {{w|Standard Model}} of physics, which describes how forces and particles interact. A key component of this theory is actually not the particle per se, which everyone seems to focus on, but the Higgs ''field''. This is what everything really is interacting with in order to get the mass, even the Higgs particle itself. Now, as great as this standard theory is, it doesn't actually predict the ''mass'' of the Higgs, so scientists kinda need to look around at all the various energies that it could potentially exist in and exclude those energy domains where they don't find it. So to just...kind of just narrowing it down more and more over time. And it seems like they're really backing it into a corner now, if it even still exists, which of course isn't certain. Now, the ATLAS team has narrowed the range that they...it looks like the Higgs exists between 115 and 131 gigaelectronvolts. The CMS team is saying that it ''cannot'' be ''heavier'' than 127 GeV (gigaelectronvolts). Now, you see "electronvolts" tossed around a lot in a lot of these articles. It refers to an amount of energy &mdash; an electronvolt. One electronvolt is the amount of energy that is given to an electron when it's accelerated through an {{w|electric potential difference}} of one volt. So that's kind of it in a nutshell. These electronvolts work very well in particle physics. They're very flexible. They can be used as a unit of momentum, and also, due to E=mc2 &mdash; or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence energy-mass equivalence] &mdash; it could also be used for a unit of mass. So, to kind of put these into perspective a little bit, one GeV is a billion electronvolts. One TeV is a trillion electronvolts, and that's about the same kinetic energy of a flying mosquito. So even a trillion electronvolts is still not a lot of energy. The energy of one photon of visible light is anywhere between 1.6 to 3.4 electronvolts. So, very, very little energy there. So, if these latest experiments are correct, then the Higgs would then weigh between about 126 billion electronvolts. That would make it about 126 times heavier than a proton and a quarter-million times heavier than an electron, so it would certainly be a big boy. The next question that I think of is like, well, all right, how confident are these scientists? That's pretty important. And you may have heard a lot about "sigma." They give numbers &mdash; a sigma of 1.9 or 2-point-whatever. These sigma numbers try to put into perspective the chance that the results are a total fluke with no significance at all. So, for the ATLAS experiments, the statistical significance of the 126 GeV was a sigma of 2.3. Now, that means that there's about a two-percent chance of their results being just a random fluctuation. The CMS detector had a sigma of 1.9, so that was less than two percent. Now, that sounds good, and it is very good, but the gold standard is 5 sigma, and that would mean that there's less than one in a million chance of random noise causing the results that they're seeing. So clearly there's more work to be done and more data to be gathered before we can all, you know, get drunk and really start celebrating the Higgs boson. And, I don't know...did you guys find a similar puzzling attitude? A lot of people were like, "Oh, nothing to see here!" "Please move on!" You know, "Big deal!" "They didn't discover it yet." And I disagree. I think there's plenty of room for real optimism in this. You know, we've been steadily narrowing the range &mdash; the energy regime in which the Higgs can be found. That alone, I think, makes these most recent results much more compelling than if the range was much larger than it was, even a few years ago. So, as you narrow that range down where it would most likely exist, any new evidence that you have I think is just more compelling. Second, the Standard Model doesn't tell us how big the Higgs is &mdash; this one was pretty interesting &mdash; but it does tell us how it would interact with particles like the {{w|W and Z bosons}}, which are responsible for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction weak nuclear force]. So if you consider the weight of those particles, which have been determined through experiments, the Higgs ''should'' weigh between 115 and 130 gigaelectronvolts, and that fits these latest predictions like a glove. That's ''exactly'' what they're saying, and, to me, that's very compelling. And finally, for the first time, we've got these two separate high-resolution experiments that both agree on this new energy range. So you put all that together, and, you know, of course it still can be a fluke, but I think after such a...the long journey these guys have taken, it seems likely to me that these are among the final steps that these scientists are taking to finally determine if the Higgs exists or not, and whether it does or not &mdash; and I think we'll probably know with a sigma of 5, hopefully within the year or so &mdash; that I think either eventuality I think would be worth raising a glass to all the scientists that have worked so hard on this.<br />
<br />
E: I think people are...have been inundated &mdash; and especially the last few years &mdash; with articles about the Higgs boson coming out every what seems like couple of months, and it's kind of like the boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon. It's like, all right, well, you know, let us know when the wolf is ''really'' here.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's part of it.<br />
<br />
E: Then we'll pay attention, right?<br />
<br />
B: It seems like more of the same, and as interesting and as important as these results are, yeah, after three or four times...god, I think we've talked about the Higgs on at least three or four occasions. And the LHC, forget it, we've talked about that a bunch too. So yeah, there's that part of it. I think that might be a reason why a lot of these people are just like, "Ho-hum." But there are certainly a lot of people that are just so excited.<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, that's fine. This is ''happening'', you know. We're not just going to wait and say when it's totally over. It's interesting to see the process unfold. {{w|Lawrence Krauss}}, whose interview we aired last week, was quoted as saying this about it: <blockquote>If the Higgs is discovered, it will represent perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the human intellect in recent memory, vindicating fifty years of the building of one of the greatest theoretical edifices in all of science and requiring the building of the most complicated machine that has ever been built.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So I think that puts it into perspective.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good quote.<br />
<br />
S: This is ''huge'', and I think we should watch it unfold and not just pop the corks at the very end and get people caught up, you know, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Well, I can see the general public might not be interested in the play-by-play. I find it fascinating because I like to hear the steps that they're taking. It's also good to....you know, it's good to keep that research in the press because, you know, it gives us the idea that they're using that machine. It took so long to do it, it was so expensive, and I ''need'' to hear about updates like this. I think it's important.<br />
<br />
S: I love the play-by-play because what's most fascinating is the ''process'' of science, not just the findings of science. And how they're building the case for the Higgs and, you know, what it means is just as fascinating as the end result.<br />
<br />
R: Science education &mdash; at least in this country, in the U.S. &mdash; isn't about teaching the process. It's not about teaching how difficult science can be and all the, you know, the amount of time and the amount of failures you have to have before you have one success. I think most people think of science as a string of large discoveries, and so they look around and they wonder why they're not seeing scientists making these big discoveries now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. ''Eureka!''<br />
<br />
J: The other cool thing about this type of research is it usually does...and we ''will'' see the LHC create new information. Like, you know, things will be discovered and happened upon by accident that will lead to other stuff that they never even thought about.<br />
<br />
B: Well, Jay, it's funny you point that out because that's exactly what's happening now. Now that they really think they've got a handle on the range in which the Higgs can appear, that would mean that the Higgs is relatively...it has a very relatively low mass, which would mean &mdash; according to the standard theory, I think &mdash; that the Higgs would have to be accompanied by ''another'' particle.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Now, this is a particle that's not explicitly predicted by the standard theory, but in order for the Higgs to exist at this low mass, it would need this extra particle with it, Otherwise, the Higgs would never be stable, the universe never would have existed, and things would be very different and boring all around. But...so this might actually lead to new physics&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So you're saying the Higgs has a posse.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)'' Right.<br />
<br />
S: An entourage.<br />
<br />
B: This could lead to new physics. I mean, how awesome would that be if the last particle, you know, proven that the standard theory predicted, that we finally showed experimentally, leads the way into new physics because of this new particle that wasn't like...you know, wasn't really anticipated but would have to exist if the Higgs has that mass?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm. Well, I think that the Standard Model is one of the greatest triumphs of science. It's up there with the periodic table, I mean, evolution...some basic concept that has huge impact...implications for our understanding of how the world works.<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
*[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ NeuroLogica Blog: Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
S: Some lighter news this week &mdash; did you guys hear about the UFO that's trailing behind Mercury?<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
B: You mean the cloaked UFO?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah!<br />
<br />
S: The cloaked UFO.<br />
<br />
B: O...M...G.<br />
<br />
J: That can't be ''anything'' else, Steve.<br />
<br />
E: Nope.<br />
<br />
S: No, what else could it possibly be? So&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Just tell me nobody's going to commit mass suicide over it.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' I can't promise you that.<br />
<br />
E: ''(laughs)'' No promises.<br />
<br />
S: NASA has a lot...produces a lot of video and other, you know, allied astronomical organizations, you know, that are producing video and pictures, either from probes or telescopes or whatever. And now with the Internet, a lot of this is available online. So UFO enthusiasts can pore through pictures and video looking for anomalies. And then when they see something apparently anomalous, they declare it a UFO. It's just like ghost hunters looking at photographs and video and listening to audio, and anything that strikes them as anomalous is a ghost. It's the same process of anomaly hunting. So what one UFO enthusiast who uploaded a video to [http://www.youtube.com/ YouTube] under the pseudonym of siniXster &mdash; ''(spelling)'' S-I-N-X-S-T-E-R&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: siniXster.<br />
<br />
S: siniXster.<br />
<br />
E: Like "sinister"&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't ask me.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;but with an "X." Makes it sound ''cool''.<br />
<br />
S: He uploaded the video of a {{w|coronal mass ejection}} from the sun, and Mercury happened to be in the background. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6X96xI1gLdQ the video], as the &mdash; which we'll link to, of course &mdash; as the coronal mass ejections were washing across the visual...the field of view, this cluster of lights appears to the right of the bright light that is Mercury in the middle of the field. And then it fades away again as the mass ejection passes by it. So what siniXster thought this was was a large cloaked vessel that was revealed by the energy of the sun, you know, washing past it. What he...he gives us a voiceover for the video. It's actually the Sun Centered Imaging Package and Heliosphere Imager that was taking the pictures, and he says: <blockquote>That is definitely some sort of manufactured object. It's cylindrical on either side and has a shape in the middle. It definitely looks like a ship to me, and very obviously, it's cloaked. There's really absolutely no explanation for that other than it's some sort of ship.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: There you go.<br />
<br />
E: There you have it.<br />
<br />
R: I buy it.<br />
<br />
E: That's it.<br />
<br />
B: That's all the evidence I need.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Case closed!<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: It's a very compelling argument.<br />
<br />
S: Now, "Two cylinders with a shape in the middle?" So is that the Enterprise? I mean, what does he think that he is seeing there? Maybe a Romulan Bird-of-Prey or...which would make more sense 'cause they have the cloaking device.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: And he sounds very sincere. I mean, you never know if, with things like this, if it's being satirical or it's a joke, but the guy sounds sincere, for whatever that's worth, but...it is interesting the confidence that people can have. Essentially you're looking at blobs of light on a video that has undergone a tremendous amount of processing. And he's convinced it ''has'' to be manufactured, it ''has'' to be a ship, and it's ''obviously'' cloaked, from just these blobs of light on this video. Interestingly, which is often the case, there's already an explanation available for this. Astronomers involved with this project, specifically Nathan Rich, was quoted as saying: <blockquote>It's a complicated effect. It's basically the background that is removed from the image to bring out the faint coronal signal. It's a negative imprint on the background.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So what he's saying is it's a photographic artifact. They have to remove all of the brighter objects in the background in order to see this very faint coronal mass ejection, and this is an artifact of that process. It's essentially a ghost of Mercury itself.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: As Mercury's moving through the field, you know, its image was imperfectly removed from the background, leaving this ghost image behind on a couple frames.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, I found another quote from Nathan Rich. This guy's the ground systems engineer for the [http://secchi.nrl.navy.mil/ Sun Earth Connection Coronal and Heliospheric Investigation] &mdash; seems like he knows what he's talking about. He said that &mdash; kinda like what you said &mdash; in essence, the alien image is a visual aftereffect or ghost artifact of Mercury. But he concludes by saying that that was taken...that was photographed the previous day. So he says it's a byproduct of the way the images are made, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around what he meant by a ghost artifact of Mercury that was photographed the previous day.<br />
<br />
S: I guess they're using cumulative images, you know, not just one image&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;in order to remove this background. It's not like they're just taking a snapshot; they're collecting data and processing it over a long period of time. It reminded me of the Elenin UFO or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2010_X1 Elenin comet]. Remember this, guys?<br />
<br />
B: No, what was that?<br />
<br />
E: We talked about it at TAM.<br />
<br />
S: We talked about it at TAM. Where there was again like these cylinders trailing behind&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;the...like ships in formation or something trailing behind the comet, but it was just an artifact of the fact that the camera was tracking the comet, which is moving relative to the background stars. And so the background stars were smearing out and trailing behind the comet. Pure photographic artifact. But it's...you know, this is a common scenario where the UFO enthusiasts ''assume'' that whatever they're looking at is exactly what it is. They take it completely at face value, and they don't consider photographic artifact in their, you know, thinking about it. They...either they just...it's not on their list of things that they think about or they just dismiss it out of hand...<br />
<br />
B: It reminds me of visual perception in general, where, I mean, your eye and your brain &mdash; it's not just a camera.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Your brain is constructing reality, so you can't take what you see as something that's exactly the...that exactly reflects reality. You just can't do it.<br />
<br />
S: And it's also interesting to point out the process of anomaly hunting as a method of pseudoscience &mdash; you know, just looking for anything weird and then, rather than using that as a starting point for a ''hypothesis'', they use that as support for a ''conclusion'', as if this confirms that it's a ship, you know. Not, "Oh, I don't know what's causing that. Let me figure out if anyone knows what's causing it. And let's see if we can figure out what is the ultimate cause." Rather than, "Ooh, that's weird. It's a ghost!" or "It's a UFO!" They short-circuit the entire process of scientific discovery.<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-10-13<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=8390SGU Episode 3352013-10-14T07:50:45Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Mercury UFO (22:53) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 />
|episodeNum = 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she will be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
*[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Bad Astronomy: Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
S: All right, sad story, but, Bob, let's transition to a happy story about the {{w|Higgs boson}}.<br />
<br />
R: Hooray!<br />
<br />
B: Well, I might beg to differ. The big news, I think, this week was the first electronic optical fibers with hydrogenated amorphous silicon were developed. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Actually, no, that's number&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't you ever talk to me like that again, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: What did you just throw up?<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;that's number two. The number-one story was that scientists discovered why buttercups reflect yellow on chins. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yes, I saw that one too.<br />
<br />
R: Way to ruin Science or Fiction, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, good thing I didn't choose any of those.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, that doesn't mean you like butter? What...what's up?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Or {{w|Parkay}}?<br />
<br />
B: I'm kidding obviously, but&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Who doesn't like butter?<br />
<br />
E: People allergic to butter.<br />
<br />
S: But don't get me started on {{w|I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!}} &mdash; that stuff is ''not'' butter. That will make...that is&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: I can't ''believe'' it!<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;nausea inducing.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
R: So about that Higgs boson...<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the Higgs boson...''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
J: Pretty cool, huh?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, so, unless you've been off planet or in stasis for a couple weeks, you probably have heard about the latest hubbub about the Higgs boson.<br />
<br />
E: Again.<br />
<br />
B: Two separate teams of scientists at {{w|CERN}} using the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} have found the most similar and enticing hints yet of the existence of the Higgs boson, the so-called "''God'' particle"&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I hate that...I hate that name.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;the particle that is thought&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That ''is'' stupid.<br />
<br />
S: Can we call it the "Lucifer particle?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: I was going to go with the "Thor particle."<br />
<br />
E: The "Buddah particle?"<br />
<br />
B: There you go. Umm, this is the particle that's thought to imbue all matter with mass. Now, both the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS_experiment ATLAS] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Muon_Solenoid CMS] experiments and...the teams that ran those experiments recently announced their results from ''literally'' &mdash; and I mean this &mdash; hundreds of trillions of proton collisions that offer not conclusive proof of Higgs, but the best evidence yet for many reasons. The Higgs boson is the last predicted particle of the famous and successful {{w|Standard Model}} of physics, which describes how forces and particles interact. A key component of this theory is actually not the particle per se, which everyone seems to focus on, but the Higgs ''field''. This is what everything really is interacting with in order to get the mass, even the Higgs particle itself. Now, as great as this standard theory is, it doesn't actually predict the ''mass'' of the Higgs, so scientists kinda need to look around at all the various energies that it could potentially exist in and exclude those energy domains where they don't find it. So to just...kind of just narrowing it down more and more over time. And it seems like they're really backing it into a corner now, if it even still exists, which of course isn't certain. Now, the ATLAS team has narrowed the range that they...it looks like the Higgs exists between 115 and 131 gigaelectronvolts. The CMS team is saying that it ''cannot'' be ''heavier'' than 127 GeV (gigaelectronvolts). Now, you see "electronvolts" tossed around a lot in a lot of these articles. It refers to an amount of energy &mdash; an electronvolt. One electronvolt is the amount of energy that is given to an electron when it's accelerated through an {{w|electric potential difference}} of one volt. So that's kind of it in a nutshell. These electronvolts work very well in particle physics. They're very flexible. They can be used as a unit of momentum, and also, due to E=mc2 &mdash; or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence energy-mass equivalence] &mdash; it could also be used for a unit of mass. So, to kind of put these into perspective a little bit, one GeV is a billion electronvolts. One TeV is a trillion electronvolts, and that's about the same kinetic energy of a flying mosquito. So even a trillion electronvolts is still not a lot of energy. The energy of one photon of visible light is anywhere between 1.6 to 3.4 electronvolts. So, very, very little energy there. So, if these latest experiments are correct, then the Higgs would then weigh between about 126 billion electronvolts. That would make it about 126 times heavier than a proton and a quarter-million times heavier than an electron, so it would certainly be a big boy. The next question that I think of is like, well, all right, how confident are these scientists? That's pretty important. And you may have heard a lot about "sigma." They give numbers &mdash; a sigma of 1.9 or 2-point-whatever. These sigma numbers try to put into perspective the chance that the results are a total fluke with no significance at all. So, for the ATLAS experiments, the statistical significance of the 126 GeV was a sigma of 2.3. Now, that means that there's about a two-percent chance of their results being just a random fluctuation. The CMS detector had a sigma of 1.9, so that was less than two percent. Now, that sounds good, and it is very good, but the gold standard is 5 sigma, and that would mean that there's less than one in a million chance of random noise causing the results that they're seeing. So clearly there's more work to be done and more data to be gathered before we can all, you know, get drunk and really start celebrating the Higgs boson. And, I don't know...did you guys find a similar puzzling attitude? A lot of people were like, "Oh, nothing to see here!" "Please move on!" You know, "Big deal!" "They didn't discover it yet." And I disagree. I think there's plenty of room for real optimism in this. You know, we've been steadily narrowing the range &mdash; the energy regime in which the Higgs can be found. That alone, I think, makes these most recent results much more compelling than if the range was much larger than it was, even a few years ago. So, as you narrow that range down where it would most likely exist, any new evidence that you have I think is just more compelling. Second, the Standard Model doesn't tell us how big the Higgs is &mdash; this one was pretty interesting &mdash; but it does tell us how it would interact with particles like the {{w|W and Z bosons}}, which are responsible for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction weak nuclear force]. So if you consider the weight of those particles, which have been determined through experiments, the Higgs ''should'' weigh between 115 and 130 gigaelectronvolts, and that fits these latest predictions like a glove. That's ''exactly'' what they're saying, and, to me, that's very compelling. And finally, for the first time, we've got these two separate high-resolution experiments that both agree on this new energy range. So you put all that together, and, you know, of course it still can be a fluke, but I think after such a...the long journey these guys have taken, it seems likely to me that these are among the final steps that these scientists are taking to finally determine if the Higgs exists or not, and whether it does or not &mdash; and I think we'll probably know with a sigma of 5, hopefully within the year or so &mdash; that I think either eventuality I think would be worth raising a glass to all the scientists that have worked so hard on this.<br />
<br />
E: I think people are...have been inundated &mdash; and especially the last few years &mdash; with articles about the Higgs boson coming out every what seems like couple of months, and it's kind of like the boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon. It's like, all right, well, you know, let us know when the wolf is ''really'' here.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's part of it.<br />
<br />
E: Then we'll pay attention, right?<br />
<br />
B: It seems like more of the same, and as interesting and as important as these results are, yeah, after three or four times...god, I think we've talked about the Higgs on at least three or four occasions. And the LHC, forget it, we've talked about that a bunch too. So yeah, there's that part of it. I think that might be a reason why a lot of these people are just like, "Ho-hum." But there are certainly a lot of people that are just so excited.<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, that's fine. This is ''happening'', you know. We're not just going to wait and say when it's totally over. It's interesting to see the process unfold. {{w|Lawrence Krauss}}, whose interview we aired last week, was quoted as saying this about it: <blockquote>If the Higgs is discovered, it will represent perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the human intellect in recent memory, vindicating fifty years of the building of one of the greatest theoretical edifices in all of science and requiring the building of the most complicated machine that has ever been built.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So I think that puts it into perspective.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good quote.<br />
<br />
S: This is ''huge'', and I think we should watch it unfold and not just pop the corks at the very end and get people caught up, you know, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Well, I can see the general public might not be interested in the play-by-play. I find it fascinating because I like to hear the steps that they're taking. It's also good to....you know, it's good to keep that research in the press because, you know, it gives us the idea that they're using that machine. It took so long to do it, it was so expensive, and I ''need'' to hear about updates like this. I think it's important.<br />
<br />
S: I love the play-by-play because what's most fascinating is the ''process'' of science, not just the findings of science. And how they're building the case for the Higgs and, you know, what it means is just as fascinating as the end result.<br />
<br />
R: Science education &mdash; at least in this country, in the U.S. &mdash; isn't about teaching the process. It's not about teaching how difficult science can be and all the, you know, the amount of time and the amount of failures you have to have before you have one success. I think most people think of science as a string of large discoveries, and so they look around and they wonder why they're not seeing scientists making these big discoveries now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. ''Eureka!''<br />
<br />
J: The other cool thing about this type of research is it usually does...and we ''will'' see the LHC create new information. Like, you know, things will be discovered and happened upon by accident that will lead to other stuff that they never even thought about.<br />
<br />
B: Well, Jay, it's funny you point that out because that's exactly what's happening now. Now that they really think they've got a handle on the range in which the Higgs can appear, that would mean that the Higgs is relatively...it has a very relatively low mass, which would mean &mdash; according to the standard theory, I think &mdash; that the Higgs would have to be accompanied by ''another'' particle.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Now, this is a particle that's not explicitly predicted by the standard theory, but in order for the Higgs to exist at this low mass, it would need this extra particle with it, Otherwise, the Higgs would never be stable, the universe never would have existed, and things would be very different and boring all around. But...so this might actually lead to new physics&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So you're saying the Higgs has a posse.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)'' Right.<br />
<br />
S: An entourage.<br />
<br />
B: This could lead to new physics. I mean, how awesome would that be if the last particle, you know, proven that the standard theory predicted, that we finally showed experimentally, leads the way into new physics because of this new particle that wasn't like...you know, wasn't really anticipated but would have to exist if the Higgs has that mass?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm. Well, I think that the Standard Model is one of the greatest triumphs of science. It's up there with the periodic table, I mean, evolution...some basic concept that has huge impact...implications for our understanding of how the world works.<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
*[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ NeuroLogica Blog: Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
S: Some lighter news this week &mdash; did you guys hear about the UFO that's trailing behind Mercury?<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
B: You mean the cloaked UFO?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah!<br />
<br />
S: The cloaked UFO.<br />
<br />
B: O...M...G.<br />
<br />
J: That can't be ''anything'' else, Steve.<br />
<br />
E: Nope.<br />
<br />
S: No, what else could it possibly be? So&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Just tell me nobody's going to commit mass suicide over it.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' I can't promise you that.<br />
<br />
E: ''(laughs)'' No promises.<br />
<br />
S: NASA has a lot...produces a lot of video and other, you know, allied astronomical organizations, you know, that are producing video and pictures, either from probes or telescopes or whatever. And now with the Internet, a lot of this is available online. So UFO enthusiasts can pore through pictures and video looking for anomalies. And then when they see something apparently anomalous, they declare it a UFO. It's just like ghost hunters looking at photographs and video and listening to audio, and anything that strikes them as anomalous is a ghost. It's the same process of anomaly hunting. So what one UFO enthusiast who uploaded a video to [http://www.youtube.com/ YouTube] under the pseudonym of siniXster &mdash; ''(spelling)'' S-I-N-X-S-T-E-R&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: siniXster.<br />
<br />
S: siniXster.<br />
<br />
E: Like "sinister"&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't ask me.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;but with an "X." Makes it sound ''cool''.<br />
<br />
S: He uploaded the video of a {{w|coronal mass ejection}} from the sun, and Mercury happened to be in the background. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6X96xI1gLdQ the video], as the &mdash; which we'll link to, of course &mdash; as the coronal mass ejections were washing across the visual...the field of view, this cluster of lights appears to the right of the bright light that is Mercury in the middle of the field. And then it fades away again as the mass ejection passes by it. So what siniXster thought this was was a large cloaked vessel that was revealed by the energy of the sun, you know, washing past it. What he...he gives us a voiceover for the video. It's actually the Sun Centered Imaging Package and Heliosphere Imager that was taking the pictures, and he says: <blockquote>That is definitely some sort of manufactured object. It's cylindrical on either side and has a shape in the middle. It definitely looks like a ship to me, and very obviously, it's cloaked. There's really absolutely no explanation for that other than it's some sort of ship.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: There you go.<br />
<br />
E: There you have it.<br />
<br />
R: I buy it.<br />
<br />
E: That's it.<br />
<br />
B: That's all the evidence I need.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Case closed!<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: It's a very compelling argument.<br />
<br />
S: Now, "Two cylinders with a shape in the middle?" So is that the Enterprise? I mean, what does he think that he is seeing there? Maybe a Romulan Bird-of-Prey or...which would make more sense 'cause they have the cloaking device.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: And he sounds very sincere. I mean, you never know if, with things like this, if it's being satirical or it's a joke, but the guy sounds sincere, for whatever that's worth, but...it is interesting the confidence that people can have. Essentially you're looking at blobs of light on a video that has undergone a tremendous amount of processing. And he's convinced it ''has'' to be manufactured, it ''has'' to be a ship, and it's ''obviously'' cloaked, from just these blobs of light on this video. Interestingly, which is often the case, there's already an explanation available for this. Astronomers involved with this project, specifically Nathan Rich, was quoted as saying: <blockquote>It's a complicated effect. It's basically the background that is removed from the image to bring out the faint coronal signal. It's a negative imprint on the background.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So what he's saying is it's a photographic artifact. They have to remove all of the brighter objects in the background in order to see this very faint coronal mass ejection, and this is an artifact of that process. It's essentially a ghost of Mercury itself.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: As Mercury's moving through the field, you know, its image was imperfectly removed from the background, leaving this ghost image behind on a couple frames.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, I found another quote from Nathan Rich. This guy's the ground systems engineer for the [http://secchi.nrl.navy.mil/ Sun Earth Connection Coronal and Heliospheric Investigation] &mdash; seems like he knows what he's talking about. He said that &mdash; kinda like what you said &mdash; in essence, the alien image is a visual aftereffect or ghost artifact of Mercury. But he concludes by saying that that was taken...that was photographed the previous day. So he says it's a byproduct of the way the images are made, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around what he meant by a ghost artifact of Mercury that was photographed the previous day.<br />
<br />
S: I guess they're using cumulative images, you know, not just one image&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;in order to remove this background. It's not like they're just taking a snapshot; they're collecting data and processing it over a long period of time. It reminded me of the Elenin UFO or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2010_X1 Elenin comet]. Remember this, guys?<br />
<br />
B: No, what was that?<br />
<br />
E: We talked about it at TAM.<br />
<br />
S: We talked about it at TAM. Where there was again like these cylinders trailing behind&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;the...like ships in formation or something trailing behind the comet, but it was just an artifact of the fact that the camera was tracking the comet, which is moving relative to the background stars. And so the background stars were smearing out and trailing behind the comet. Pure photographic artifact. But it's...you know, this is a common scenario where the UFO enthusiasts ''assume'' that whatever they're looking at is exactly what it is. They take it completely at face value, and they don't consider photographic artifact in their, you know, thinking about it. They...either they just...it's not on their list of things that they think about or they just dismiss it out of hand...<br />
<br />
B: It reminds me of visual perception in general, where, I mean, your eye and your brain &mdash; it's not just a camera.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Your brain is constructing reality, so you can't take what you see as something that's exactly the...that exactly reflects reality. You just can't do it.<br />
<br />
S: And it's also interesting to point out the process of anomaly hunting as a method of pseudoscience &mdash; you know, just looking for anything weird and then, rather than using that as a starting point for a ''hypothesis'', they use that as support for a ''conclusion'', as if this confirms that it's a ship, you know. Not, "Oh, I don't know what's causing that. Let me figure out if anyone knows what's causing it. And let's see if we can figure out what is the ultimate cause." Rather than, "Ooh, that's weird. It's a ghost!" or "It's a UFO!" They short-circuit the entire process of scientific discovery.<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=8389SGU Episode 3352013-10-14T07:49:21Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Mercury UFO (22:53) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 />
|episodeNum = 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she will be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
*[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Bad Astronomy: Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
S: All right, sad story, but, Bob, let's transition to a happy story about the {{w|Higgs boson}}.<br />
<br />
R: Hooray!<br />
<br />
B: Well, I might beg to differ. The big news, I think, this week was the first electronic optical fibers with hydrogenated amorphous silicon were developed. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Actually, no, that's number&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't you ever talk to me like that again, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: What did you just throw up?<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;that's number two. The number-one story was that scientists discovered why buttercups reflect yellow on chins. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yes, I saw that one too.<br />
<br />
R: Way to ruin Science or Fiction, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, good thing I didn't choose any of those.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, that doesn't mean you like butter? What...what's up?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Or {{w|Parkay}}?<br />
<br />
B: I'm kidding obviously, but&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Who doesn't like butter?<br />
<br />
E: People allergic to butter.<br />
<br />
S: But don't get me started on {{w|I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!}} &mdash; that stuff is ''not'' butter. That will make...that is&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: I can't ''believe'' it!<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;nausea inducing.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
R: So about that Higgs boson...<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the Higgs boson...''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
J: Pretty cool, huh?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, so, unless you've been off planet or in stasis for a couple weeks, you probably have heard about the latest hubbub about the Higgs boson.<br />
<br />
E: Again.<br />
<br />
B: Two separate teams of scientists at {{w|CERN}} using the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} have found the most similar and enticing hints yet of the existence of the Higgs boson, the so-called "''God'' particle"&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I hate that...I hate that name.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;the particle that is thought&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That ''is'' stupid.<br />
<br />
S: Can we call it the "Lucifer particle?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: I was going to go with the "Thor particle."<br />
<br />
E: The "Buddah particle?"<br />
<br />
B: There you go. Umm, this is the particle that's thought to imbue all matter with mass. Now, both the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS_experiment ATLAS] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Muon_Solenoid CMS] experiments and...the teams that ran those experiments recently announced their results from ''literally'' &mdash; and I mean this &mdash; hundreds of trillions of proton collisions that offer not conclusive proof of Higgs, but the best evidence yet for many reasons. The Higgs boson is the last predicted particle of the famous and successful {{w|Standard Model}} of physics, which describes how forces and particles interact. A key component of this theory is actually not the particle per se, which everyone seems to focus on, but the Higgs ''field''. This is what everything really is interacting with in order to get the mass, even the Higgs particle itself. Now, as great as this standard theory is, it doesn't actually predict the ''mass'' of the Higgs, so scientists kinda need to look around at all the various energies that it could potentially exist in and exclude those energy domains where they don't find it. So to just...kind of just narrowing it down more and more over time. And it seems like they're really backing it into a corner now, if it even still exists, which of course isn't certain. Now, the ATLAS team has narrowed the range that they...it looks like the Higgs exists between 115 and 131 gigaelectronvolts. The CMS team is saying that it ''cannot'' be ''heavier'' than 127 GeV (gigaelectronvolts). Now, you see "electronvolts" tossed around a lot in a lot of these articles. It refers to an amount of energy &mdash; an electronvolt. One electronvolt is the amount of energy that is given to an electron when it's accelerated through an {{w|electric potential difference}} of one volt. So that's kind of it in a nutshell. These electronvolts work very well in particle physics. They're very flexible. They can be used as a unit of momentum, and also, due to E=mc2 &mdash; or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence energy-mass equivalence] &mdash; it could also be used for a unit of mass. So, to kind of put these into perspective a little bit, one GeV is a billion electronvolts. One TeV is a trillion electronvolts, and that's about the same kinetic energy of a flying mosquito. So even a trillion electronvolts is still not a lot of energy. The energy of one photon of visible light is anywhere between 1.6 to 3.4 electronvolts. So, very, very little energy there. So, if these latest experiments are correct, then the Higgs would then weigh between about 126 billion electronvolts. That would make it about 126 times heavier than a proton and a quarter-million times heavier than an electron, so it would certainly be a big boy. The next question that I think of is like, well, all right, how confident are these scientists? That's pretty important. And you may have heard a lot about "sigma." They give numbers &mdash; a sigma of 1.9 or 2-point-whatever. These sigma numbers try to put into perspective the chance that the results are a total fluke with no significance at all. So, for the ATLAS experiments, the statistical significance of the 126 GeV was a sigma of 2.3. Now, that means that there's about a two-percent chance of their results being just a random fluctuation. The CMS detector had a sigma of 1.9, so that was less than two percent. Now, that sounds good, and it is very good, but the gold standard is 5 sigma, and that would mean that there's less than one in a million chance of random noise causing the results that they're seeing. So clearly there's more work to be done and more data to be gathered before we can all, you know, get drunk and really start celebrating the Higgs boson. And, I don't know...did you guys find a similar puzzling attitude? A lot of people were like, "Oh, nothing to see here!" "Please move on!" You know, "Big deal!" "They didn't discover it yet." And I disagree. I think there's plenty of room for real optimism in this. You know, we've been steadily narrowing the range &mdash; the energy regime in which the Higgs can be found. That alone, I think, makes these most recent results much more compelling than if the range was much larger than it was, even a few years ago. So, as you narrow that range down where it would most likely exist, any new evidence that you have I think is just more compelling. Second, the Standard Model doesn't tell us how big the Higgs is &mdash; this one was pretty interesting &mdash; but it does tell us how it would interact with particles like the {{w|W and Z bosons}}, which are responsible for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction weak nuclear force]. So if you consider the weight of those particles, which have been determined through experiments, the Higgs ''should'' weigh between 115 and 130 gigaelectronvolts, and that fits these latest predictions like a glove. That's ''exactly'' what they're saying, and, to me, that's very compelling. And finally, for the first time, we've got these two separate high-resolution experiments that both agree on this new energy range. So you put all that together, and, you know, of course it still can be a fluke, but I think after such a...the long journey these guys have taken, it seems likely to me that these are among the final steps that these scientists are taking to finally determine if the Higgs exists or not, and whether it does or not &mdash; and I think we'll probably know with a sigma of 5, hopefully within the year or so &mdash; that I think either eventuality I think would be worth raising a glass to all the scientists that have worked so hard on this.<br />
<br />
E: I think people are...have been inundated &mdash; and especially the last few years &mdash; with articles about the Higgs boson coming out every what seems like couple of months, and it's kind of like the boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon. It's like, all right, well, you know, let us know when the wolf is ''really'' here.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's part of it.<br />
<br />
E: Then we'll pay attention, right?<br />
<br />
B: It seems like more of the same, and as interesting and as important as these results are, yeah, after three or four times...god, I think we've talked about the Higgs on at least three or four occasions. And the LHC, forget it, we've talked about that a bunch too. So yeah, there's that part of it. I think that might be a reason why a lot of these people are just like, "Ho-hum." But there are certainly a lot of people that are just so excited.<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, that's fine. This is ''happening'', you know. We're not just going to wait and say when it's totally over. It's interesting to see the process unfold. {{w|Lawrence Krauss}}, whose interview we aired last week, was quoted as saying this about it: <blockquote>If the Higgs is discovered, it will represent perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the human intellect in recent memory, vindicating fifty years of the building of one of the greatest theoretical edifices in all of science and requiring the building of the most complicated machine that has ever been built.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So I think that puts it into perspective.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good quote.<br />
<br />
S: This is ''huge'', and I think we should watch it unfold and not just pop the corks at the very end and get people caught up, you know, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Well, I can see the general public might not be interested in the play-by-play. I find it fascinating because I like to hear the steps that they're taking. It's also good to....you know, it's good to keep that research in the press because, you know, it gives us the idea that they're using that machine. It took so long to do it, it was so expensive, and I ''need'' to hear about updates like this. I think it's important.<br />
<br />
S: I love the play-by-play because what's most fascinating is the ''process'' of science, not just the findings of science. And how they're building the case for the Higgs and, you know, what it means is just as fascinating as the end result.<br />
<br />
R: Science education &mdash; at least in this country, in the U.S. &mdash; isn't about teaching the process. It's not about teaching how difficult science can be and all the, you know, the amount of time and the amount of failures you have to have before you have one success. I think most people think of science as a string of large discoveries, and so they look around and they wonder why they're not seeing scientists making these big discoveries now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. ''Eureka!''<br />
<br />
J: The other cool thing about this type of research is it usually does...and we ''will'' see the LHC create new information. Like, you know, things will be discovered and happened upon by accident that will lead to other stuff that they never even thought about.<br />
<br />
B: Well, Jay, it's funny you point that out because that's exactly what's happening now. Now that they really think they've got a handle on the range in which the Higgs can appear, that would mean that the Higgs is relatively...it has a very relatively low mass, which would mean &mdash; according to the standard theory, I think &mdash; that the Higgs would have to be accompanied by ''another'' particle.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Now, this is a particle that's not explicitly predicted by the standard theory, but in order for the Higgs to exist at this low mass, it would need this extra particle with it, Otherwise, the Higgs would never be stable, the universe never would have existed, and things would be very different and boring all around. But...so this might actually lead to new physics&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So you're saying the Higgs has a posse.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)'' Right.<br />
<br />
S: An entourage.<br />
<br />
B: This could lead to new physics. I mean, how awesome would that be if the last particle, you know, proven that the standard theory predicted, that we finally showed experimentally, leads the way into new physics because of this new particle that wasn't like...you know, wasn't really anticipated but would have to exist if the Higgs has that mass?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm. Well, I think that the Standard Model is one of the greatest triumphs of science. It's up there with the periodic table, I mean, evolution...some basic concept that has huge impact...implications for our understanding of how the world works.<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
*[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ NeuroLogica Blog: Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
S: Some lighter news this week &mdash; did you guys hear about the UFO that's trailing behind Mercury?<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
B: You mean the cloaked UFO?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah!<br />
<br />
S: The cloaked UFO.<br />
<br />
B: O...M...G.<br />
<br />
J: That can't be ''anything'' else, Steve.<br />
<br />
E: Nope.<br />
<br />
S: No, what else could it possibly be? So&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Just tell me nobody's going to commit mass suicide over it.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' I can't promise you that.<br />
<br />
E: ''(laughs)'' No promises.<br />
<br />
S: NASA has a lot...produces a lot of video and other, you know, allied astronomical organizations, you know, that are producing video and pictures, either from probes or telescopes or whatever. And now with the Internet, a lot of this is available online. So UFO enthusiasts can pore through pictures and video looking for anomalies. And then when they see something apparently anomalous, they declare it a UFO. It's just like ghost hunters looking at photographs and video and listening to audio, and anything that strikes them as anomalous is a ghost. It's the same process of anomaly hunting. So what one UFO enthusiast who uploaded a video to [http://www.youtube.com/ YouTube] under the pseudonym of siniXster &mdash; ''(spelling)'' S-I-N-X-S-T-E-R&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: siniXster.<br />
<br />
S: siniXster.<br />
<br />
E: Like "sinister"&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't ask me.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;but with an "X." Makes it sound ''cool''.<br />
<br />
S: He uploaded the video of a {{w|coronal mass ejection}} from the sun, and Mercury happened to be in the background. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6X96xI1gLdQ the video], as the &mdash; which we'll link to, of course &mdash; as the coronal mass ejections were washing across the visual...the field of view, this cluster of lights appears to the right of the bright light that is Mercury in the middle of the field. And then it fades away again as the mass ejection passes by it. So what siniXster thought this was was a large cloaked vessel that was revealed by the energy of the sun, you know, washing past it. What he...he gives us a voiceover for the video. It's actually the Sun Centered Imaging Package and Heliosphere Imager that was taking the pictures, and he says: <blockquote>That is definitely some sort of manufactured object. It's cylindrical on either side and has a shape in the middle. It definitely looks like a ship to me, and very obviously, it's cloaked. There's really absolutely no explanation for that other than it's some sort of ship.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: There you go.<br />
<br />
E: There you have it.<br />
<br />
R: I buy it.<br />
<br />
E: That's it.<br />
<br />
B: That's all the evidence I need.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Case closed!<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: It's a very compelling argument.<br />
<br />
S: Now, "Two cylinders with a shape in the middle?" So is that the Enterprise? I mean, what does he think that he is seeing there? Maybe a Romulan Bird-of-Prey or...which would make more sense 'cause they have the cloaking device.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: And he sounds very sincere. I mean, you never know if, with things like this, if it's being satirical or it's a joke, but the guy sounds sincere, for whatever that's worth, but...it is interesting the confidence that people can have. Essentially you're looking at blobs of light on a video that has undergone a tremendous amount of processing. And he's convinced it ''has'' to be manufactured, it ''has'' to be a ship, and it's ''obviously'' cloaked, from just these blobs of light on this video. Interestingly, which is often the case, there's already an explanation available for this. Astronomers involved with this project, specifically Nathan Rich, was quoted as saying: <blockquote>It's a complicated effect. It's basically the background that is removed from the image to bring out the faint coronal signal. It's a negative imprint on the background.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So what he's saying is it's a photographic artifact. They have to remove all of the brighter objects in the background in order to see this very faint coronal mass ejection, and this is an artifact of that process. It's essentially a ghost of Mercury itself.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: As Mercury's moving through the field, you know, its image was imperfectly removed from the background, leaving this ghost image behind on a couple frames.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, I found another quote from Nathan Rich. This guy's the ground systems engineer for the [http://secchi.nrl.navy.mil/ Sun Earth Connection Coronal and Heliospheric Investigation] &mdash; seems like he knows what he's talking about. He said that &mdash; kinda like what you said &mdash; in essence, the alien image is a visual aftereffect or ghost artifact of Mercury. But he concludes by saying that that was taken...that was photographed the previous day. So he says it's a byproduct of the way the images are made, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around what he meant by a ghost artifact of Mercury that was photographed the previous day.<br />
<br />
S: I guess they're using cumulative images, you know, not just one image&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;in order to remove this background. It's not like they're just taking a snapshot; they're collecting data and processing it over a long period of time. It reminded me of the Elenin UFO or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2010_X1 Elenin comet]. Remember this, guys?<br />
<br />
B: No, what was that?<br />
<br />
E: We talked about it at TAM.<br />
<br />
S: We talked about it at TAM. Where there was again like these cylinders trailing behind&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;the...like ships in formation or something trailing behind the comet, but it was just an artifact of the fact that the camera was tracking the comet, which is moving relative to the background stars. And so the background stars were smearing out and trailing behind the comet. Pure photographic artifact. But it's...you know, this is a common scenario where the UFO enthusiasts ''assume'' that whatever they're looking at is exactly what it is. They take it completely at face value, and they don't consider photographic artifact in their, you know, thinking about it. They...either they just...it's not on their list of things they think about or they just dismiss it out of hand...<br />
<br />
B: It reminds me of visual perception in general, where, I mean, your eye and your brain &mdash; it's not just a camera.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Your brain is constructing reality, so you can't take what you see as something that's exactly the...that exactly reflects reality. You just can't do it.<br />
<br />
S: And it's also interesting to point out the process of anomaly hunting as a method of pseudoscience &mdash; you know, just looking for anything weird and then, rather than using that as a starting point for a ''hypothesis'', they use that as support for a ''conclusion'', as if this confirms that it's a ship, you know. Not, "Oh, I don't know what's causing that. Let me figure out if anyone knows what's causing it. And let's see if we can figure out what is the ultimate cause." Rather than, "Ooh, that's weird. It's a ghost!" or "It's a UFO!" They short-circuit the entire process of scientific discovery.<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=8388SGU Episode 3352013-10-14T07:49:00Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Mercury UFO (22:53) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 />
|episodeNum = 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she will be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
*[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Bad Astronomy: Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
S: All right, sad story, but, Bob, let's transition to a happy story about the {{w|Higgs boson}}.<br />
<br />
R: Hooray!<br />
<br />
B: Well, I might beg to differ. The big news, I think, this week was the first electronic optical fibers with hydrogenated amorphous silicon were developed. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Actually, no, that's number&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't you ever talk to me like that again, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: What did you just throw up?<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;that's number two. The number-one story was that scientists discovered why buttercups reflect yellow on chins. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yes, I saw that one too.<br />
<br />
R: Way to ruin Science or Fiction, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, good thing I didn't choose any of those.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, that doesn't mean you like butter? What...what's up?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Or {{w|Parkay}}?<br />
<br />
B: I'm kidding obviously, but&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Who doesn't like butter?<br />
<br />
E: People allergic to butter.<br />
<br />
S: But don't get me started on {{w|I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!}} &mdash; that stuff is ''not'' butter. That will make...that is&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: I can't ''believe'' it!<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;nausea inducing.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
R: So about that Higgs boson...<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the Higgs boson...''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
J: Pretty cool, huh?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, so, unless you've been off planet or in stasis for a couple weeks, you probably have heard about the latest hubbub about the Higgs boson.<br />
<br />
E: Again.<br />
<br />
B: Two separate teams of scientists at {{w|CERN}} using the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} have found the most similar and enticing hints yet of the existence of the Higgs boson, the so-called "''God'' particle"&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I hate that...I hate that name.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;the particle that is thought&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That ''is'' stupid.<br />
<br />
S: Can we call it the "Lucifer particle?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: I was going to go with the "Thor particle."<br />
<br />
E: The "Buddah particle?"<br />
<br />
B: There you go. Umm, this is the particle that's thought to imbue all matter with mass. Now, both the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS_experiment ATLAS] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Muon_Solenoid CMS] experiments and...the teams that ran those experiments recently announced their results from ''literally'' &mdash; and I mean this &mdash; hundreds of trillions of proton collisions that offer not conclusive proof of Higgs, but the best evidence yet for many reasons. The Higgs boson is the last predicted particle of the famous and successful {{w|Standard Model}} of physics, which describes how forces and particles interact. A key component of this theory is actually not the particle per se, which everyone seems to focus on, but the Higgs ''field''. This is what everything really is interacting with in order to get the mass, even the Higgs particle itself. Now, as great as this standard theory is, it doesn't actually predict the ''mass'' of the Higgs, so scientists kinda need to look around at all the various energies that it could potentially exist in and exclude those energy domains where they don't find it. So to just...kind of just narrowing it down more and more over time. And it seems like they're really backing it into a corner now, if it even still exists, which of course isn't certain. Now, the ATLAS team has narrowed the range that they...it looks like the Higgs exists between 115 and 131 gigaelectronvolts. The CMS team is saying that it ''cannot'' be ''heavier'' than 127 GeV (gigaelectronvolts). Now, you see "electronvolts" tossed around a lot in a lot of these articles. It refers to an amount of energy &mdash; an electronvolt. One electronvolt is the amount of energy that is given to an electron when it's accelerated through an {{w|electric potential difference}} of one volt. So that's kind of it in a nutshell. These electronvolts work very well in particle physics. They're very flexible. They can be used as a unit of momentum, and also, due to E=mc2 &mdash; or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence energy-mass equivalence] &mdash; it could also be used for a unit of mass. So, to kind of put these into perspective a little bit, one GeV is a billion electronvolts. One TeV is a trillion electronvolts, and that's about the same kinetic energy of a flying mosquito. So even a trillion electronvolts is still not a lot of energy. The energy of one photon of visible light is anywhere between 1.6 to 3.4 electronvolts. So, very, very little energy there. So, if these latest experiments are correct, then the Higgs would then weigh between about 126 billion electronvolts. That would make it about 126 times heavier than a proton and a quarter-million times heavier than an electron, so it would certainly be a big boy. The next question that I think of is like, well, all right, how confident are these scientists? That's pretty important. And you may have heard a lot about "sigma." They give numbers &mdash; a sigma of 1.9 or 2-point-whatever. These sigma numbers try to put into perspective the chance that the results are a total fluke with no significance at all. So, for the ATLAS experiments, the statistical significance of the 126 GeV was a sigma of 2.3. Now, that means that there's about a two-percent chance of their results being just a random fluctuation. The CMS detector had a sigma of 1.9, so that was less than two percent. Now, that sounds good, and it is very good, but the gold standard is 5 sigma, and that would mean that there's less than one in a million chance of random noise causing the results that they're seeing. So clearly there's more work to be done and more data to be gathered before we can all, you know, get drunk and really start celebrating the Higgs boson. And, I don't know...did you guys find a similar puzzling attitude? A lot of people were like, "Oh, nothing to see here!" "Please move on!" You know, "Big deal!" "They didn't discover it yet." And I disagree. I think there's plenty of room for real optimism in this. You know, we've been steadily narrowing the range &mdash; the energy regime in which the Higgs can be found. That alone, I think, makes these most recent results much more compelling than if the range was much larger than it was, even a few years ago. So, as you narrow that range down where it would most likely exist, any new evidence that you have I think is just more compelling. Second, the Standard Model doesn't tell us how big the Higgs is &mdash; this one was pretty interesting &mdash; but it does tell us how it would interact with particles like the {{w|W and Z bosons}}, which are responsible for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction weak nuclear force]. So if you consider the weight of those particles, which have been determined through experiments, the Higgs ''should'' weigh between 115 and 130 gigaelectronvolts, and that fits these latest predictions like a glove. That's ''exactly'' what they're saying, and, to me, that's very compelling. And finally, for the first time, we've got these two separate high-resolution experiments that both agree on this new energy range. So you put all that together, and, you know, of course it still can be a fluke, but I think after such a...the long journey these guys have taken, it seems likely to me that these are among the final steps that these scientists are taking to finally determine if the Higgs exists or not, and whether it does or not &mdash; and I think we'll probably know with a sigma of 5, hopefully within the year or so &mdash; that I think either eventuality I think would be worth raising a glass to all the scientists that have worked so hard on this.<br />
<br />
E: I think people are...have been inundated &mdash; and especially the last few years &mdash; with articles about the Higgs boson coming out every what seems like couple of months, and it's kind of like the boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon. It's like, all right, well, you know, let us know when the wolf is ''really'' here.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's part of it.<br />
<br />
E: Then we'll pay attention, right?<br />
<br />
B: It seems like more of the same, and as interesting and as important as these results are, yeah, after three or four times...god, I think we've talked about the Higgs on at least three or four occasions. And the LHC, forget it, we've talked about that a bunch too. So yeah, there's that part of it. I think that might be a reason why a lot of these people are just like, "Ho-hum." But there are certainly a lot of people that are just so excited.<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, that's fine. This is ''happening'', you know. We're not just going to wait and say when it's totally over. It's interesting to see the process unfold. {{w|Lawrence Krauss}}, whose interview we aired last week, was quoted as saying this about it: <blockquote>If the Higgs is discovered, it will represent perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the human intellect in recent memory, vindicating fifty years of the building of one of the greatest theoretical edifices in all of science and requiring the building of the most complicated machine that has ever been built.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So I think that puts it into perspective.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good quote.<br />
<br />
S: This is ''huge'', and I think we should watch it unfold and not just pop the corks at the very end and get people caught up, you know, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Well, I can see the general public might not be interested in the play-by-play. I find it fascinating because I like to hear the steps that they're taking. It's also good to....you know, it's good to keep that research in the press because, you know, it gives us the idea that they're using that machine. It took so long to do it, it was so expensive, and I ''need'' to hear about updates like this. I think it's important.<br />
<br />
S: I love the play-by-play because what's most fascinating is the ''process'' of science, not just the findings of science. And how they're building the case for the Higgs and, you know, what it means is just as fascinating as the end result.<br />
<br />
R: Science education &mdash; at least in this country, in the U.S. &mdash; isn't about teaching the process. It's not about teaching how difficult science can be and all the, you know, the amount of time and the amount of failures you have to have before you have one success. I think most people think of science as a string of large discoveries, and so they look around and they wonder why they're not seeing scientists making these big discoveries now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. ''Eureka!''<br />
<br />
J: The other cool thing about this type of research is it usually does...and we ''will'' see the LHC create new information. Like, you know, things will be discovered and happened upon by accident that will lead to other stuff that they never even thought about.<br />
<br />
B: Well, Jay, it's funny you point that out because that's exactly what's happening now. Now that they really think they've got a handle on the range in which the Higgs can appear, that would mean that the Higgs is relatively...it has a very relatively low mass, which would mean &mdash; according to the standard theory, I think &mdash; that the Higgs would have to be accompanied by ''another'' particle.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Now, this is a particle that's not explicitly predicted by the standard theory, but in order for the Higgs to exist at this low mass, it would need this extra particle with it, Otherwise, the Higgs would never be stable, the universe never would have existed, and things would be very different and boring all around. But...so this might actually lead to new physics&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So you're saying the Higgs has a posse.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)'' Right.<br />
<br />
S: An entourage.<br />
<br />
B: This could lead to new physics. I mean, how awesome would that be if the last particle, you know, proven that the standard theory predicted, that we finally showed experimentally, leads the way into new physics because of this new particle that wasn't like...you know, wasn't really anticipated but would have to exist if the Higgs has that mass?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm. Well, I think that the Standard Model is one of the greatest triumphs of science. It's up there with the periodic table, I mean, evolution...some basic concept that has huge impact...implications for our understanding of how the world works.<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
*[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ NeuroLogica Blog: Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
S: Some lighter news this week &mdash; did you guys hear about the UFO that's trailing behind Mercury?<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
B: You mean the cloaked UFO?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah!<br />
<br />
S: The cloaked UFO.<br />
<br />
B: O...M...G.<br />
<br />
J: That can't be ''anything'' else, Steve.<br />
<br />
E: Nope.<br />
<br />
S: No, what else could it possibly be? So&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Just tell me nobody's going to commit mass suicide over it.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' I can't promise you that.<br />
<br />
E: ''(laughs)'' No promises.<br />
<br />
S: NASA has a lot...produces a lot of video and other, you know, allied astronomical organizations, you know, that are producing video and pictures, either from probes or telescopes or whatever. And now with the Internet, a lot of this is available online. So UFO enthusiasts can pore through pictures and video looking for anomalies. And then when they see something apparently anomalous, they declare it a UFO. It's just like ghost hunters looking at photographs and video and listening to audio, and anything that strikes them as anomalous is a ghost. It's the same process of anomaly hunting. So what one UFO enthusiast who uploaded a video to [http://www.youtube.com/ YouTube] under the pseudonym of siniXster &mdash; ''(spelling)'' S-I-N-X-S-T-E-R&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: siniXster.<br />
<br />
S: siniXster.<br />
<br />
E: Like "sinister"&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't ask me.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;but with an "X." Makes it sound ''cool''.<br />
<br />
S: He uploaded the video of a {{w|coronal mass ejection}} from the sun, and Mercury happened to be in the background. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6X96xI1gLdQ the video], as the &mdash; which we'll link to, of course &mdash; as the coronal mass ejections were washing across the visual...the field of view, this cluster of lights appears to the right of the bright light that is Mercury in the middle of the field. And then it fades away again as the mass ejection passes by it. So what siniXster thought this was was a large cloaked vessel that was revealed by the energy of the sun, you know, washing past it. What he...he gives us a voiceover for the video. It's actually the Sun Centered Imaging Package and Heliosphere Imager that was taking the pictures, and he says: <blockquote>That is definitely some sort of manufactured object. It's cylindrical on either side and has a shape in the middle. It definitely looks like a ship to me, and very obviously, it's cloaked. There's really absolutely no explanation for that other than it's some sort of ship.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: There you go.<br />
<br />
E: There you have it.<br />
<br />
R: I buy it.<br />
<br />
E: That's it.<br />
<br />
B: That's all the evidence I need.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Case closed!<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: It's a very compelling argument.<br />
<br />
S: Now, "Two cylinders with a shape in the middle?" So is that the Enterprise? I mean, what does he think that he is seeing there? Maybe a Romulan Bird-of-Prey or...which would make more sense 'cause they have the cloaking device.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: And he sounds very sincere. I mean, you never know if, with things like this, if it's being satirical or it's a joke, but the guy sounds sincere, for whatever that's worth, but...it is interesting the confidence that people can have. Essentially you're looking at blobs of light on a video that has undergone a tremendous amount of processing. And he's convinced it ''has'' to be manufactured, it ''has'' to be a ship, and it's ''obviously'' cloaked, from just these blobs of light on this video. Interestingly, which is often the case, there's already an explanation available for this. Astronomers involved with this project, specifically Nathan Rich, was quoted as saying: <blockquote>It's a complicated effect. It's basically the background that is removed from the image to bring out the faint coronal signal. It's a negative imprint on the background.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So what he's saying is it's a photographic artifact. They have to remove all of the brighter objects in the background in order to see this very faint coronal mass ejection, and this is an artifact of that process. It's essentially a ghost of Mercury itself.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: As Mercury's moving through the field, you know, its image was imperfectly removed from the background, leaving this ghost image behind on a couple frames.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, I found another quote from Nathan Rich. This guy's the ground systems engineer for the [http://secchi.nrl.navy.mil/ Sun Earth Connection Coronal and Heliospheric Investigation] &mdash; seems like he knows what he's talking about. He said that &mdash; kinda like what you said &mdash; in essence, the alien image is a visual aftereffect or ghost artifact of Mercury. But he concludes by saying that that was taken...that was photographed the previous day. So he says it's a byproduct of the way the images are made, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around what he meant by a ghost artifact of Mercury that was photographed the previous day.<br />
<br />
S: I guess they're using cumulative images, you know, not just one image&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;in order to remove this background. It's not like they're just taking a snapshot; they're collecting data and processing it over a long period of time. It reminded me of the Elenin UFO or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2010_X1 Elenin comet]. Remember this, guys?<br />
<br />
B: No, what was that?<br />
<br />
E: We talked about it at TAM.<br />
<br />
S: We talked about it at TAM. Where there was again like these cylinders trailing behind&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;the... like ships in formation or something trailing behind the comet, but it was just an artifact of the fact that the camera was tracking the comet, which is moving relative to the background stars. And so the background stars were smearing out and trailing behind the comet. Pure photographic artifact. But it's...you know, this is a common scenario where the UFO enthusiasts ''assume'' that whatever they're looking at is exactly what it is. They take it completely at face value, and they don't consider photographic artifact in their, you know, thinking about it. They...either they just...it's not on their list of things they think about or they just dismiss it out of hand...<br />
<br />
B: It reminds me of visual perception in general, where, I mean, your eye and your brain &mdash; it's not just a camera.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Your brain is constructing reality, so you can't take what you see as something that's exactly the...that exactly reflects reality. You just can't do it.<br />
<br />
S: And it's also interesting to point out the process of anomaly hunting as a method of pseudoscience &mdash; you know, just looking for anything weird and then, rather than using that as a starting point for a ''hypothesis'', they use that as support for a ''conclusion'', as if this confirms that it's a ship, you know. Not, "Oh, I don't know what's causing that. Let me figure out if anyone knows what's causing it. And let's see if we can figure out what is the ultimate cause." Rather than, "Ooh, that's weird. It's a ghost!" or "It's a UFO!" They short-circuit the entire process of scientific discovery.<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=8387SGU Episode 3352013-10-14T07:46:47Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Mercury UFO (22:53) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 />
|episodeNum = 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she will be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
*[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Bad Astronomy: Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
S: All right, sad story, but, Bob, let's transition to a happy story about the {{w|Higgs boson}}.<br />
<br />
R: Hooray!<br />
<br />
B: Well, I might beg to differ. The big news, I think, this week was the first electronic optical fibers with hydrogenated amorphous silicon were developed. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Actually, no, that's number&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't you ever talk to me like that again, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: What did you just throw up?<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;that's number two. The number-one story was that scientists discovered why buttercups reflect yellow on chins. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yes, I saw that one too.<br />
<br />
R: Way to ruin Science or Fiction, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, good thing I didn't choose any of those.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, that doesn't mean you like butter? What...what's up?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Or {{w|Parkay}}?<br />
<br />
B: I'm kidding obviously, but&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Who doesn't like butter?<br />
<br />
E: People allergic to butter.<br />
<br />
S: But don't get me started on {{w|I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!}} &mdash; that stuff is ''not'' butter. That will make...that is&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: I can't ''believe'' it!<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;nausea inducing.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
R: So about that Higgs boson...<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the Higgs boson...''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
J: Pretty cool, huh?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, so, unless you've been off planet or in stasis for a couple weeks, you probably have heard about the latest hubbub about the Higgs boson.<br />
<br />
E: Again.<br />
<br />
B: Two separate teams of scientists at {{w|CERN}} using the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} have found the most similar and enticing hints yet of the existence of the Higgs boson, the so-called "''God'' particle"&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I hate that...I hate that name.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;the particle that is thought&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That ''is'' stupid.<br />
<br />
S: Can we call it the "Lucifer particle?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: I was going to go with the "Thor particle."<br />
<br />
E: The "Buddah particle?"<br />
<br />
B: There you go. Umm, this is the particle that's thought to imbue all matter with mass. Now, both the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS_experiment ATLAS] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Muon_Solenoid CMS] experiments and...the teams that ran those experiments recently announced their results from ''literally'' &mdash; and I mean this &mdash; hundreds of trillions of proton collisions that offer not conclusive proof of Higgs, but the best evidence yet for many reasons. The Higgs boson is the last predicted particle of the famous and successful {{w|Standard Model}} of physics, which describes how forces and particles interact. A key component of this theory is actually not the particle per se, which everyone seems to focus on, but the Higgs ''field''. This is what everything really is interacting with in order to get the mass, even the Higgs particle itself. Now, as great as this standard theory is, it doesn't actually predict the ''mass'' of the Higgs, so scientists kinda need to look around at all the various energies that it could potentially exist in and exclude those energy domains where they don't find it. So to just...kind of just narrowing it down more and more over time. And it seems like they're really backing it into a corner now, if it even still exists, which of course isn't certain. Now, the ATLAS team has narrowed the range that they...it looks like the Higgs exists between 115 and 131 gigaelectronvolts. The CMS team is saying that it ''cannot'' be ''heavier'' than 127 GeV (gigaelectronvolts). Now, you see "electronvolts" tossed around a lot in a lot of these articles. It refers to an amount of energy &mdash; an electronvolt. One electronvolt is the amount of energy that is given to an electron when it's accelerated through an {{w|electric potential difference}} of one volt. So that's kind of it in a nutshell. These electronvolts work very well in particle physics. They're very flexible. They can be used as a unit of momentum, and also, due to E=mc2 &mdash; or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence energy-mass equivalence] &mdash; it could also be used for a unit of mass. So, to kind of put these into perspective a little bit, one GeV is a billion electronvolts. One TeV is a trillion electronvolts, and that's about the same kinetic energy of a flying mosquito. So even a trillion electronvolts is still not a lot of energy. The energy of one photon of visible light is anywhere between 1.6 to 3.4 electronvolts. So, very, very little energy there. So, if these latest experiments are correct, then the Higgs would then weigh between about 126 billion electronvolts. That would make it about 126 times heavier than a proton and a quarter-million times heavier than an electron, so it would certainly be a big boy. The next question that I think of is like, well, all right, how confident are these scientists? That's pretty important. And you may have heard a lot about "sigma." They give numbers &mdash; a sigma of 1.9 or 2-point-whatever. These sigma numbers try to put into perspective the chance that the results are a total fluke with no significance at all. So, for the ATLAS experiments, the statistical significance of the 126 GeV was a sigma of 2.3. Now, that means that there's about a two-percent chance of their results being just a random fluctuation. The CMS detector had a sigma of 1.9, so that was less than two percent. Now, that sounds good, and it is very good, but the gold standard is 5 sigma, and that would mean that there's less than one in a million chance of random noise causing the results that they're seeing. So clearly there's more work to be done and more data to be gathered before we can all, you know, get drunk and really start celebrating the Higgs boson. And, I don't know...did you guys find a similar puzzling attitude? A lot of people were like, "Oh, nothing to see here!" "Please move on!" You know, "Big deal!" "They didn't discover it yet." And I disagree. I think there's plenty of room for real optimism in this. You know, we've been steadily narrowing the range &mdash; the energy regime in which the Higgs can be found. That alone, I think, makes these most recent results much more compelling than if the range was much larger than it was, even a few years ago. So, as you narrow that range down where it would most likely exist, any new evidence that you have I think is just more compelling. Second, the Standard Model doesn't tell us how big the Higgs is &mdash; this one was pretty interesting &mdash; but it does tell us how it would interact with particles like the {{w|W and Z bosons}}, which are responsible for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction weak nuclear force]. So if you consider the weight of those particles, which have been determined through experiments, the Higgs ''should'' weigh between 115 and 130 gigaelectronvolts, and that fits these latest predictions like a glove. That's ''exactly'' what they're saying, and, to me, that's very compelling. And finally, for the first time, we've got these two separate high-resolution experiments that both agree on this new energy range. So you put all that together, and, you know, of course it still can be a fluke, but I think after such a...the long journey these guys have taken, it seems likely to me that these are among the final steps that these scientists are taking to finally determine if the Higgs exists or not, and whether it does or not &mdash; and I think we'll probably know with a sigma of 5, hopefully within the year or so &mdash; that I think either eventuality I think would be worth raising a glass to all the scientists that have worked so hard on this.<br />
<br />
E: I think people are...have been inundated &mdash; and especially the last few years &mdash; with articles about the Higgs boson coming out every what seems like couple of months, and it's kind of like the boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon. It's like, all right, well, you know, let us know when the wolf is ''really'' here.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's part of it.<br />
<br />
E: Then we'll pay attention, right?<br />
<br />
B: It seems like more of the same, and as interesting and as important as these results are, yeah, after three or four times...god, I think we've talked about the Higgs on at least three or four occasions. And the LHC, forget it, we've talked about that a bunch too. So yeah, there's that part of it. I think that might be a reason why a lot of these people are just like, "Ho-hum." But there are certainly a lot of people that are just so excited.<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, that's fine. This is ''happening'', you know. We're not just going to wait and say when it's totally over. It's interesting to see the process unfold. {{w|Lawrence Krauss}}, whose interview we aired last week, was quoted as saying this about it: <blockquote>If the Higgs is discovered, it will represent perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the human intellect in recent memory, vindicating fifty years of the building of one of the greatest theoretical edifices in all of science and requiring the building of the most complicated machine that has ever been built.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So I think that puts it into perspective.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good quote.<br />
<br />
S: This is ''huge'', and I think we should watch it unfold and not just pop the corks at the very end and get people caught up, you know, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Well, I can see the general public might not be interested in the play-by-play. I find it fascinating because I like to hear the steps that they're taking. It's also good to....you know, it's good to keep that research in the press because, you know, it gives us the idea that they're using that machine. It took so long to do it, it was so expensive, and I ''need'' to hear about updates like this. I think it's important.<br />
<br />
S: I love the play-by-play because what's most fascinating is the ''process'' of science, not just the findings of science. And how they're building the case for the Higgs and, you know, what it means is just as fascinating as the end result.<br />
<br />
R: Science education &mdash; at least in this country, in the U.S. &mdash; isn't about teaching the process. It's not about teaching how difficult science can be and all the, you know, the amount of time and the amount of failures you have to have before you have one success. I think most people think of science as a string of large discoveries, and so they look around and they wonder why they're not seeing scientists making these big discoveries now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. ''Eureka!''<br />
<br />
J: The other cool thing about this type of research is it usually does...and we ''will'' see the LHC create new information. Like, you know, things will be discovered and happened upon by accident that will lead to other stuff that they never even thought about.<br />
<br />
B: Well, Jay, it's funny you point that out because that's exactly what's happening now. Now that they really think they've got a handle on the range in which the Higgs can appear, that would mean that the Higgs is relatively...it has a very relatively low mass, which would mean &mdash; according to the standard theory, I think &mdash; that the Higgs would have to be accompanied by ''another'' particle.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Now, this is a particle that's not explicitly predicted by the standard theory, but in order for the Higgs to exist at this low mass, it would need this extra particle with it, Otherwise, the Higgs would never be stable, the universe never would have existed, and things would be very different and boring all around. But...so this might actually lead to new physics&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So you're saying the Higgs has a posse.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)'' Right.<br />
<br />
S: An entourage.<br />
<br />
B: This could lead to new physics. I mean, how awesome would that be if the last particle, you know, proven that the standard theory predicted, that we finally showed experimentally, leads the way into new physics because of this new particle that wasn't like...you know, wasn't really anticipated but would have to exist if the Higgs has that mass?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm. Well, I think that the Standard Model is one of the greatest triumphs of science. It's up there with the periodic table, I mean, evolution...some basic concept that has huge impact...implications for our understanding of how the world works.<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
*[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ NeuroLogica Blog: Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
S: Some lighter news this week &mdash; did you guys hear about the UFO that's trailing behind Mercury?<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
B: You mean the cloaked UFO?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah!<br />
<br />
S: The cloaked UFO.<br />
<br />
B: O...M...G.<br />
<br />
J: That can't be ''anything'' else, Steve.<br />
<br />
E: Nope.<br />
<br />
S: No, what else could it possibly be? So&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Just tell me nobody's going to commit mass suicide over it.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' I can't promise you that.<br />
<br />
E: ''(laughs)'' No promises.<br />
<br />
S: NASA has a lot...produces a lot of video and other, you know, allied astronomical organizations, you know, that are producing video and pictures, either from probes or telescopes or whatever. And now with the Internet, a lot of this is available online. So UFO enthusiasts can pore through pictures and video looking for anomalies. And then when they see something apparently anomalous, they declare it a UFO. It's just like ghost hunters looking at photographs and video and listening to audio, and anything that strikes them as anomalous is a ghost. It's the same process of anomaly hunting. So what one UFO enthusiast who uploaded a video to [http://www.youtube.com/ YouTube] under the pseudonym of siniXster &mdash; ''(spelling)'' S-I-N-X-S-T-E-R&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: siniXster.<br />
<br />
S: siniXster.<br />
<br />
E: Like "sinister"&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't ask me.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;but with an "X." Makes it sound ''cool''.<br />
<br />
S: He uploaded the video of a {{w|coronal mass ejection}} from the sun, and Mercury happened to be in the background. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6X96xI1gLdQ the video], as the &mdash; which we'll link to, of course &mdash; as the coronal mass ejections were washing across the visual...the field of view, this cluster of lights appears to the right of the bright light that is Mercury in the middle of the field. And then it fades away again as the mass ejection passes by it. So what siniXster thought this was was a large cloaked vessel that was revealed by the energy of the sun, you know, washing past it. What he...he gives us a voiceover for the video. It's actually the Sun Centered Imaging Package and Heliosphere Imager that was taking the pictures, and he says: <blockquote>That is definitely some sort of manufactured object. It's cylindrical on either side and has a shape in the middle. It definitely looks like a ship to me, and very obviously, it's cloaked. There's really absolutely no explanation for that other than it's some sort of ship.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: There you go.<br />
<br />
E: There you have it.<br />
<br />
R: I buy it.<br />
<br />
E: That's it.<br />
<br />
B: That's all the evidence I need.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Case closed!<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: It's a very compelling argument.<br />
<br />
S: Now, "Two cylinders with a shape in the middle?" So is that the Enterprise? I mean, what does he think that he is seeing there? Maybe a Romulan Bird-of-Prey or...which would make more sense 'cause they have the cloaking device.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: And he sounds very sincere. I mean, you never know if, with things like this, if it's being satirical or it's a joke, but the guy sounds sincere, for whatever that's worth, but...it is interesting the confidence that people can have. Essentially you're looking at blobs of light on a video that has undergone a tremendous amount of processing. And he's convinced it ''has'' to be manufactured, it ''has'' to be a ship, and it's ''obviously'' cloaked, from just these blobs of light on this video. Interestingly, which is often the case, there's already an explanation available for this. Astronomers involved with this project, specifically Nathan Rich, was quoted as saying: <blockquote>It's a complicated effect. It's basically the background that is removed from the image to bring out the faint coronal signal. It's a negative imprint on the background.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So what he's saying is it's a photographic artifact. They have to remove all of the brighter objects in the background in order to see this very faint coronal mass ejection, and this is an artifact of that process. It's essentially a ghost of Mercury itself.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: As Mercury's moving through the field, you know, its image was imperfectly removed from the background, leaving this ghost image behind on a couple frames.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, I found another quote from Nathan Rich. This guy's the ground systems engineer for the [http://secchi.nrl.navy.mil/ Sun Earth Connection Coronal and Heliospheric Investigation] &mdash; seems like he knows what he's talking about. He said that &mdash; kinda like what you said &mdash; in essence, the alien image is a visual aftereffect or ghost artifact of Mercury. But he concludes by saying that that was taken...that was photographed the previous day. So he says it's a byproduct of the way the images are made, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around what he meant by a ghost artifact of Mercury that was photographed the previous day.<br />
<br />
S: I guess they're using cumulative images, you know, not just one image&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;in order to remove this background. It's not like they're just taking a snapshot; they're collecting data and processing it over a long period of time. It reminded me of the Elenin UFO or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2010_X1 Elenin comet]. Remember this, guys?<br />
<br />
B: No, what was that?<br />
<br />
E: We talked about it at TAM.<br />
<br />
S: We talked about it at TAM. Where there was again like these cylinders trailing behind&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;the like...ships in formation or something trailing behind the comet, but it was just an artifact of the fact that the camera was tracking the comet, which is moving relative to the background stars. And so the background stars were smearing out and trailing behind the comet. Pure photographic artifact. But it's...you know, this is a common scenario where the UFO enthusiasts ''assume'' that whatever they're looking at is exactly what it is. They take it completely at face value, and they don't consider photographic artifact in their, you know, thinking about it. They...either they just...it's not on their list of things they think about or they just dismiss it out of hand...<br />
<br />
B: It reminds me of visual perception in general, where, I mean, your eye and your brain &mdash; it's not just a camera.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Your brain is constructing reality, so you can't take what you see as something that's exactly the...that exactly reflects reality. You just can't do it.<br />
<br />
S: And it's also interesting to point out the process of anomaly hunting as a method of pseudoscience &mdash; you know, just looking for anything weird and then, rather than using that as a starting point for a ''hypothesis'', they use that as support for a ''conclusion'', as if this confirms that it's a ship, you know. Not, "Oh, I don't know what's causing that. Let me figure out if anyone knows what's causing it. And let's see if we can figure out what is the ultimate cause." Rather than, "Ooh, that's weird. It's a ghost!" or "It's a UFO!" They short-circuit the entire process of scientific discovery.<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=8386SGU Episode 3352013-10-14T07:45:55Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Mercury UFO (22:53) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 />
|episodeNum = 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she will be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
*[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Bad Astronomy: Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
S: All right, sad story, but, Bob, let's transition to a happy story about the {{w|Higgs boson}}.<br />
<br />
R: Hooray!<br />
<br />
B: Well, I might beg to differ. The big news, I think, this week was the first electronic optical fibers with hydrogenated amorphous silicon were developed. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Actually, no, that's number&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't you ever talk to me like that again, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: What did you just throw up?<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;that's number two. The number-one story was that scientists discovered why buttercups reflect yellow on chins. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yes, I saw that one too.<br />
<br />
R: Way to ruin Science or Fiction, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, good thing I didn't choose any of those.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, that doesn't mean you like butter? What...what's up?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Or {{w|Parkay}}?<br />
<br />
B: I'm kidding obviously, but&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Who doesn't like butter?<br />
<br />
E: People allergic to butter.<br />
<br />
S: But don't get me started on {{w|I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!}} &mdash; that stuff is ''not'' butter. That will make...that is&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: I can't ''believe'' it!<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;nausea inducing.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
R: So about that Higgs boson...<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the Higgs boson...''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
J: Pretty cool, huh?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, so, unless you've been off planet or in stasis for a couple weeks, you probably have heard about the latest hubbub about the Higgs boson.<br />
<br />
E: Again.<br />
<br />
B: Two separate teams of scientists at {{w|CERN}} using the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} have found the most similar and enticing hints yet of the existence of the Higgs boson, the so-called "''God'' particle"&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I hate that...I hate that name.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;the particle that is thought&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That ''is'' stupid.<br />
<br />
S: Can we call it the "Lucifer particle?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: I was going to go with the "Thor particle."<br />
<br />
E: The "Buddah particle?"<br />
<br />
B: There you go. Umm, this is the particle that's thought to imbue all matter with mass. Now, both the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS_experiment ATLAS] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Muon_Solenoid CMS] experiments and...the teams that ran those experiments recently announced their results from ''literally'' &mdash; and I mean this &mdash; hundreds of trillions of proton collisions that offer not conclusive proof of Higgs, but the best evidence yet for many reasons. The Higgs boson is the last predicted particle of the famous and successful {{w|Standard Model}} of physics, which describes how forces and particles interact. A key component of this theory is actually not the particle per se, which everyone seems to focus on, but the Higgs ''field''. This is what everything really is interacting with in order to get the mass, even the Higgs particle itself. Now, as great as this standard theory is, it doesn't actually predict the ''mass'' of the Higgs, so scientists kinda need to look around at all the various energies that it could potentially exist in and exclude those energy domains where they don't find it. So to just...kind of just narrowing it down more and more over time. And it seems like they're really backing it into a corner now, if it even still exists, which of course isn't certain. Now, the ATLAS team has narrowed the range that they...it looks like the Higgs exists between 115 and 131 gigaelectronvolts. The CMS team is saying that it ''cannot'' be ''heavier'' than 127 GeV (gigaelectronvolts). Now, you see "electronvolts" tossed around a lot in a lot of these articles. It refers to an amount of energy &mdash; an electronvolt. One electronvolt is the amount of energy that is given to an electron when it's accelerated through an {{w|electric potential difference}} of one volt. So that's kind of it in a nutshell. These electronvolts work very well in particle physics. They're very flexible. They can be used as a unit of momentum, and also, due to E=mc2 &mdash; or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence energy-mass equivalence] &mdash; it could also be used for a unit of mass. So, to kind of put these into perspective a little bit, one GeV is a billion electronvolts. One TeV is a trillion electronvolts, and that's about the same kinetic energy of a flying mosquito. So even a trillion electronvolts is still not a lot of energy. The energy of one photon of visible light is anywhere between 1.6 to 3.4 electronvolts. So, very, very little energy there. So, if these latest experiments are correct, then the Higgs would then weigh between about 126 billion electronvolts. That would make it about 126 times heavier than a proton and a quarter-million times heavier than an electron, so it would certainly be a big boy. The next question that I think of is like, well, all right, how confident are these scientists? That's pretty important. And you may have heard a lot about "sigma." They give numbers &mdash; a sigma of 1.9 or 2-point-whatever. These sigma numbers try to put into perspective the chance that the results are a total fluke with no significance at all. So, for the ATLAS experiments, the statistical significance of the 126 GeV was a sigma of 2.3. Now, that means that there's about a two-percent chance of their results being just a random fluctuation. The CMS detector had a sigma of 1.9, so that was less than two percent. Now, that sounds good, and it is very good, but the gold standard is 5 sigma, and that would mean that there's less than one in a million chance of random noise causing the results that they're seeing. So clearly there's more work to be done and more data to be gathered before we can all, you know, get drunk and really start celebrating the Higgs boson. And, I don't know...did you guys find a similar puzzling attitude? A lot of people were like, "Oh, nothing to see here!" "Please move on!" You know, "Big deal!" "They didn't discover it yet." And I disagree. I think there's plenty of room for real optimism in this. You know, we've been steadily narrowing the range &mdash; the energy regime in which the Higgs can be found. That alone, I think, makes these most recent results much more compelling than if the range was much larger than it was, even a few years ago. So, as you narrow that range down where it would most likely exist, any new evidence that you have I think is just more compelling. Second, the Standard Model doesn't tell us how big the Higgs is &mdash; this one was pretty interesting &mdash; but it does tell us how it would interact with particles like the {{w|W and Z bosons}}, which are responsible for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction weak nuclear force]. So if you consider the weight of those particles, which have been determined through experiments, the Higgs ''should'' weigh between 115 and 130 gigaelectronvolts, and that fits these latest predictions like a glove. That's ''exactly'' what they're saying, and, to me, that's very compelling. And finally, for the first time, we've got these two separate high-resolution experiments that both agree on this new energy range. So you put all that together, and, you know, of course it still can be a fluke, but I think after such a...the long journey these guys have taken, it seems likely to me that these are among the final steps that these scientists are taking to finally determine if the Higgs exists or not, and whether it does or not &mdash; and I think we'll probably know with a sigma of 5, hopefully within the year or so &mdash; that I think either eventuality I think would be worth raising a glass to all the scientists that have worked so hard on this.<br />
<br />
E: I think people are...have been inundated &mdash; and especially the last few years &mdash; with articles about the Higgs boson coming out every what seems like couple of months, and it's kind of like the boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon. It's like, all right, well, you know, let us know when the wolf is ''really'' here.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's part of it.<br />
<br />
E: Then we'll pay attention, right?<br />
<br />
B: It seems like more of the same, and as interesting and as important as these results are, yeah, after three or four times...god, I think we've talked about the Higgs on at least three or four occasions. And the LHC, forget it, we've talked about that a bunch too. So yeah, there's that part of it. I think that might be a reason why a lot of these people are just like, "Ho-hum." But there are certainly a lot of people that are just so excited.<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, that's fine. This is ''happening'', you know. We're not just going to wait and say when it's totally over. It's interesting to see the process unfold. {{w|Lawrence Krauss}}, whose interview we aired last week, was quoted as saying this about it: <blockquote>If the Higgs is discovered, it will represent perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the human intellect in recent memory, vindicating fifty years of the building of one of the greatest theoretical edifices in all of science and requiring the building of the most complicated machine that has ever been built.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So I think that puts it into perspective.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good quote.<br />
<br />
S: This is ''huge'', and I think we should watch it unfold and not just pop the corks at the very end and get people caught up, you know, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Well, I can see the general public might not be interested in the play-by-play. I find it fascinating because I like to hear the steps that they're taking. It's also good to....you know, it's good to keep that research in the press because, you know, it gives us the idea that they're using that machine. It took so long to do it, it was so expensive, and I ''need'' to hear about updates like this. I think it's important.<br />
<br />
S: I love the play-by-play because what's most fascinating is the ''process'' of science, not just the findings of science. And how they're building the case for the Higgs and, you know, what it means is just as fascinating as the end result.<br />
<br />
R: Science education &mdash; at least in this country, in the U.S. &mdash; isn't about teaching the process. It's not about teaching how difficult science can be and all the, you know, the amount of time and the amount of failures you have to have before you have one success. I think most people think of science as a string of large discoveries, and so they look around and they wonder why they're not seeing scientists making these big discoveries now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. ''Eureka!''<br />
<br />
J: The other cool thing about this type of research is it usually does...and we ''will'' see the LHC create new information. Like, you know, things will be discovered and happened upon by accident that will lead to other stuff that they never even thought about.<br />
<br />
B: Well, Jay, it's funny you point that out because that's exactly what's happening now. Now that they really think they've got a handle on the range in which the Higgs can appear, that would mean that the Higgs is relatively...it has a very relatively low mass, which would mean &mdash; according to the standard theory, I think &mdash; that the Higgs would have to be accompanied by ''another'' particle.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Now, this is a particle that's not explicitly predicted by the standard theory, but in order for the Higgs to exist at this low mass, it would need this extra particle with it, Otherwise, the Higgs would never be stable, the universe never would have existed, and things would be very different and boring all around. But...so this might actually lead to new physics&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So you're saying the Higgs has a posse.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)'' Right.<br />
<br />
S: An entourage.<br />
<br />
B: This could lead to new physics. I mean, how awesome would that be if the last particle, you know, proven that the standard theory predicted, that we finally showed experimentally, leads the way into new physics because of this new particle that wasn't like...you know, wasn't really anticipated but would have to exist if the Higgs has that mass?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm. Well, I think that the Standard Model is one of the greatest triumphs of science. It's up there with the periodic table, I mean, evolution...some basic concept that has huge impact...implications for our understanding of how the world works.<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
*[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ NeuroLogica Blog: Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
S: Some lighter news this week &mdash; did you guys hear about the UFO that's trailing behind Mercury?<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
B: You mean the cloaked UFO?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah!<br />
<br />
S: The cloaked UFO.<br />
<br />
B: O...M...G.<br />
<br />
J: That can't be ''anything'' else, Steve.<br />
<br />
E: Nope.<br />
<br />
S: No, what else could it possibly be? So&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Just tell me nobody's going to commit mass suicide over it.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' I can't promise you that.<br />
<br />
E: ''(laughs)'' No promises.<br />
<br />
S: NASA has a lot...produces a lot of video and other, you know, allied astronomical organizations, you know, that are producing video and pictures, either from probes or telescopes or whatever. And now with the Internet, a lot of this is available online. So UFO enthusiasts can pore through pictures and video looking for anomalies. And then when they see something apparently anomalous, they declare it a UFO. It's just like ghost hunters looking at photographs and video and listening to audio, and anything that strikes them as anomalous is a ghost. It's the same process of anomaly hunting. So what one UFO enthusiast who uploaded a video to [http://www.youtube.com/ YouTube] under the pseudonym of siniXster &mdash; ''(spelling)'' S-I-N-X-S-T-E-R&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: siniXster.<br />
<br />
S: siniXster.<br />
<br />
E: Like "sinister"&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't ask me.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;but with an "X." Makes it sound ''cool''.<br />
<br />
S: He uploaded the video of a {{w|coronal mass ejection}} from the sun, and Mercury happened to be in the background. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6X96xI1gLdQ the video], as the &mdash; which we'll link to, of course &mdash; as the coronal mass ejections were washing across the visual...the field of view, this cluster of lights appears to the right of the bright light that is Mercury in the middle of the field. And then it fades away again as the mass ejection passes by it. So what siniXster thought this was was a large cloaked vessel that was revealed by the energy of the sun, you know, washing past it. What he...he gives us a voiceover for the video. It's actually the Sun Centered Imaging Package and Heliosphere Imager that was taking the pictures, and he says: <blockquote>That is definitely some sort of manufactured object. It's cylindrical on either side and has a shape in the middle. It definitely looks like a ship to me, and very obviously, it's cloaked. There's really absolutely no explanation for that other than it's some sort of ship.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: There you go.<br />
<br />
E: There you have it.<br />
<br />
R: I buy it.<br />
<br />
E: That's it.<br />
<br />
B: That's all the evidence I need.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Case closed!<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: It's a very compelling argument.<br />
<br />
S: Now, "Two cylinders with a shape in the middle?" So is that the Enterprise? I mean, what does he think that he is seeing there? Maybe a Romulan Bird-of-Prey or...which would make more sense 'cause they have the cloaking device.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: And he sounds very sincere. I mean, you never know if, with things like this, if it's being satirical or it's a joke, but the guy sounds sincere, for whatever that's worth, but...it is interesting the confidence that people can have. Essentially you're looking at blobs of light on a video that has undergone a tremendous amount of processing. And he's convinced it ''has'' to be manufactured, it ''has'' to be a ship, and it's ''obviously'' cloaked, from just these blobs of light on this video. Interestingly, which is often the case, there's already an explanation available for this. Astronomers involved with this project, specifically Nathan Rich, was quoted as saying: <blockquote>It's a complicated effect. It's basically the background that is removed from the image to bring out the faint coronal signal. It's a negative imprint on the background.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So what he's saying is it's a photographic artifact. They have to remove all of the brighter objects in the background in order to see this very faint coronal mass ejection, and this is an artifact of that process. It's essentially a ghost of Mercury itself.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: As Mercury's moving through the field, you know, its image was imperfectly removed from the background, leaving this ghost image behind on a couple frames.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, I found another quote from Nathan Rich. This guy's the ground systems engineer for the [http://secchi.nrl.navy.mil/ Sun Earth Connection Coronal and Heliospheric Investigation] &mdash; seems like he knows what he's talking about. He said that &mdash; kinda like what you said &mdash; in essence, the alien image is a visual after effect or ghost artifact of Mercury. But he concludes by saying that that was taken...that was photographed the previous day. So he says it's a byproduct of the way the images are made, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around what he meant by a ghost artifact of Mercury that was photographed the previous day.<br />
<br />
S: I guess they're using cumulative images, you know, not just one image&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;in order to remove this background. It's not like they're just taking a snapshot; they're collecting data and processing it over a long period of time. It reminded me of the Elenin UFO or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2010_X1 Elenin comet]. Remember this, guys?<br />
<br />
B: No, what was that?<br />
<br />
E: We talked about it at TAM.<br />
<br />
S: We talked about it at TAM. Where there was again like these cylinders trailing behind&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;the like...ships in formation or something trailing behind the comet, but it was just an artifact of the fact that the camera was tracking the comet, which is moving relative to the background stars. And so the background stars were smearing out and trailing behind the comet. Pure photographic artifact. But it's...you know, this is a common scenario where the UFO enthusiasts ''assume'' that whatever they're looking at is exactly what it is. They take it completely at face value, and they don't consider photographic artifact in their, you know, thinking about it. They...either they just...it's not on their list of things they think about or they just dismiss it out of hand...<br />
<br />
B: It reminds me of visual perception in general, where, I mean, your eye and your brain &mdash; it's not just a camera.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Your brain is constructing reality, so you can't take what you see as something that's exactly the...that exactly reflects reality. You just can't do it.<br />
<br />
S: And it's also interesting to point out the process of anomaly hunting as a method of pseudoscience &mdash; you know, just looking for anything weird and then, rather than using that as a starting point for a ''hypothesis'', they use that as support for a ''conclusion'', as if this confirms that it's a ship, you know. Not, "Oh, I don't know what's causing that. Let me figure out if anyone knows what's causing it. And let's see if we can figure out what is the ultimate cause." Rather than, "Ooh, that's weird. It's a ghost!" or "It's a UFO!" They short-circuit the entire process of scientific discovery.<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=8385SGU Episode 3352013-10-14T07:42:18Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Mercury UFO (22:53) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 />
|episodeNum = 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she will be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
*[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Bad Astronomy: Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
S: All right, sad story, but, Bob, let's transition to a happy story about the {{w|Higgs boson}}.<br />
<br />
R: Hooray!<br />
<br />
B: Well, I might beg to differ. The big news, I think, this week was the first electronic optical fibers with hydrogenated amorphous silicon were developed. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Actually, no, that's number&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't you ever talk to me like that again, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: What did you just throw up?<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;that's number two. The number-one story was that scientists discovered why buttercups reflect yellow on chins. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yes, I saw that one too.<br />
<br />
R: Way to ruin Science or Fiction, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, good thing I didn't choose any of those.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, that doesn't mean you like butter? What...what's up?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Or {{w|Parkay}}?<br />
<br />
B: I'm kidding obviously, but&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Who doesn't like butter?<br />
<br />
E: People allergic to butter.<br />
<br />
S: But don't get me started on {{w|I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!}} &mdash; that stuff is ''not'' butter. That will make...that is&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: I can't ''believe'' it!<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;nausea inducing.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
R: So about that Higgs boson...<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the Higgs boson...''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
J: Pretty cool, huh?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, so, unless you've been off planet or in stasis for a couple weeks, you probably have heard about the latest hubbub about the Higgs boson.<br />
<br />
E: Again.<br />
<br />
B: Two separate teams of scientists at {{w|CERN}} using the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} have found the most similar and enticing hints yet of the existence of the Higgs boson, the so-called "''God'' particle"&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I hate that...I hate that name.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;the particle that is thought&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That ''is'' stupid.<br />
<br />
S: Can we call it the "Lucifer particle?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: I was going to go with the "Thor particle."<br />
<br />
E: The "Buddah particle?"<br />
<br />
B: There you go. Umm, this is the particle that's thought to imbue all matter with mass. Now, both the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS_experiment ATLAS] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Muon_Solenoid CMS] experiments and...the teams that ran those experiments recently announced their results from ''literally'' &mdash; and I mean this &mdash; hundreds of trillions of proton collisions that offer not conclusive proof of Higgs, but the best evidence yet for many reasons. The Higgs boson is the last predicted particle of the famous and successful {{w|Standard Model}} of physics, which describes how forces and particles interact. A key component of this theory is actually not the particle per se, which everyone seems to focus on, but the Higgs ''field''. This is what everything really is interacting with in order to get the mass, even the Higgs particle itself. Now, as great as this standard theory is, it doesn't actually predict the ''mass'' of the Higgs, so scientists kinda need to look around at all the various energies that it could potentially exist in and exclude those energy domains where they don't find it. So to just...kind of just narrowing it down more and more over time. And it seems like they're really backing it into a corner now, if it even still exists, which of course isn't certain. Now, the ATLAS team has narrowed the range that they...it looks like the Higgs exists between 115 and 131 gigaelectronvolts. The CMS team is saying that it ''cannot'' be ''heavier'' than 127 GeV (gigaelectronvolts). Now, you see "electronvolts" tossed around a lot in a lot of these articles. It refers to an amount of energy &mdash; an electronvolt. One electronvolt is the amount of energy that is given to an electron when it's accelerated through an {{w|electric potential difference}} of one volt. So that's kind of it in a nutshell. These electronvolts work very well in particle physics. They're very flexible. They can be used as a unit of momentum, and also, due to E=mc2 &mdash; or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence energy-mass equivalence] &mdash; it could also be used for a unit of mass. So, to kind of put these into perspective a little bit, one GeV is a billion electronvolts. One TeV is a trillion electronvolts, and that's about the same kinetic energy of a flying mosquito. So even a trillion electronvolts is still not a lot of energy. The energy of one photon of visible light is anywhere between 1.6 to 3.4 electronvolts. So, very, very little energy there. So, if these latest experiments are correct, then the Higgs would then weigh between about 126 billion electronvolts. That would make it about 126 times heavier than a proton and a quarter-million times heavier than an electron, so it would certainly be a big boy. The next question that I think of is like, well, all right, how confident are these scientists? That's pretty important. And you may have heard a lot about "sigma." They give numbers &mdash; a sigma of 1.9 or 2-point-whatever. These sigma numbers try to put into perspective the chance that the results are a total fluke with no significance at all. So, for the ATLAS experiments, the statistical significance of the 126 GeV was a sigma of 2.3. Now, that means that there's about a two-percent chance of their results being just a random fluctuation. The CMS detector had a sigma of 1.9, so that was less than two percent. Now, that sounds good, and it is very good, but the gold standard is 5 sigma, and that would mean that there's less than one in a million chance of random noise causing the results that they're seeing. So clearly there's more work to be done and more data to be gathered before we can all, you know, get drunk and really start celebrating the Higgs boson. And, I don't know...did you guys find a similar puzzling attitude? A lot of people were like, "Oh, nothing to see here!" "Please move on!" You know, "Big deal!" "They didn't discover it yet." And I disagree. I think there's plenty of room for real optimism in this. You know, we've been steadily narrowing the range &mdash; the energy regime in which the Higgs can be found. That alone, I think, makes these most recent results much more compelling than if the range was much larger than it was, even a few years ago. So, as you narrow that range down where it would most likely exist, any new evidence that you have I think is just more compelling. Second, the Standard Model doesn't tell us how big the Higgs is &mdash; this one was pretty interesting &mdash; but it does tell us how it would interact with particles like the {{w|W and Z bosons}}, which are responsible for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction weak nuclear force]. So if you consider the weight of those particles, which have been determined through experiments, the Higgs ''should'' weigh between 115 and 130 gigaelectronvolts, and that fits these latest predictions like a glove. That's ''exactly'' what they're saying, and, to me, that's very compelling. And finally, for the first time, we've got these two separate high-resolution experiments that both agree on this new energy range. So you put all that together, and, you know, of course it still can be a fluke, but I think after such a...the long journey these guys have taken, it seems likely to me that these are among the final steps that these scientists are taking to finally determine if the Higgs exists or not, and whether it does or not &mdash; and I think we'll probably know with a sigma of 5, hopefully within the year or so &mdash; that I think either eventuality I think would be worth raising a glass to all the scientists that have worked so hard on this.<br />
<br />
E: I think people are...have been inundated &mdash; and especially the last few years &mdash; with articles about the Higgs boson coming out every what seems like couple of months, and it's kind of like the boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon. It's like, all right, well, you know, let us know when the wolf is ''really'' here.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's part of it.<br />
<br />
E: Then we'll pay attention, right?<br />
<br />
B: It seems like more of the same, and as interesting and as important as these results are, yeah, after three or four times...god, I think we've talked about the Higgs on at least three or four occasions. And the LHC, forget it, we've talked about that a bunch too. So yeah, there's that part of it. I think that might be a reason why a lot of these people are just like, "Ho-hum." But there are certainly a lot of people that are just so excited.<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, that's fine. This is ''happening'', you know. We're not just going to wait and say when it's totally over. It's interesting to see the process unfold. {{w|Lawrence Krauss}}, whose interview we aired last week, was quoted as saying this about it: <blockquote>If the Higgs is discovered, it will represent perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the human intellect in recent memory, vindicating fifty years of the building of one of the greatest theoretical edifices in all of science and requiring the building of the most complicated machine that has ever been built.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So I think that puts it into perspective.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good quote.<br />
<br />
S: This is ''huge'', and I think we should watch it unfold and not just pop the corks at the very end and get people caught up, you know, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Well, I can see the general public might not be interested in the play-by-play. I find it fascinating because I like to hear the steps that they're taking. It's also good to....you know, it's good to keep that research in the press because, you know, it gives us the idea that they're using that machine. It took so long to do it, it was so expensive, and I ''need'' to hear about updates like this. I think it's important.<br />
<br />
S: I love the play-by-play because what's most fascinating is the ''process'' of science, not just the findings of science. And how they're building the case for the Higgs and, you know, what it means is just as fascinating as the end result.<br />
<br />
R: Science education &mdash; at least in this country, in the U.S. &mdash; isn't about teaching the process. It's not about teaching how difficult science can be and all the, you know, the amount of time and the amount of failures you have to have before you have one success. I think most people think of science as a string of large discoveries, and so they look around and they wonder why they're not seeing scientists making these big discoveries now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. ''Eureka!''<br />
<br />
J: The other cool thing about this type of research is it usually does...and we ''will'' see the LHC create new information. Like, you know, things will be discovered and happened upon by accident that will lead to other stuff that they never even thought about.<br />
<br />
B: Well, Jay, it's funny you point that out because that's exactly what's happening now. Now that they really think they've got a handle on the range in which the Higgs can appear, that would mean that the Higgs is relatively...it has a very relatively low mass, which would mean &mdash; according to the standard theory, I think &mdash; that the Higgs would have to be accompanied by ''another'' particle.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Now, this is a particle that's not explicitly predicted by the standard theory, but in order for the Higgs to exist at this low mass, it would need this extra particle with it, Otherwise, the Higgs would never be stable, the universe never would have existed, and things would be very different and boring all around. But...so this might actually lead to new physics&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So you're saying the Higgs has a posse.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)'' Right.<br />
<br />
S: An entourage.<br />
<br />
B: This could lead to new physics. I mean, how awesome would that be if the last particle, you know, proven that the standard theory predicted, that we finally showed experimentally, leads the way into new physics because of this new particle that wasn't like...you know, wasn't really anticipated but would have to exist if the Higgs has that mass?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm. Well, I think that the Standard Model is one of the greatest triumphs of science. It's up there with the periodic table, I mean, evolution...some basic concept that has huge impact...implications for our understanding of how the world works.<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
*[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ NeuroLogica Blog: Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
S: Some lighter news this week &mdash; did you guys hear about the UFO that's trailing behind Mercury?<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
B: You mean the cloaked UFO?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah!<br />
<br />
S: The cloaked UFO.<br />
<br />
B: O...M...G.<br />
<br />
J: That can't be ''anything'' else, Steve.<br />
<br />
E: Nope.<br />
<br />
S: No, what else could it possibly be? So&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Just tell me nobody's going to commit mass suicide over it.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' I can't promise you that.<br />
<br />
E: ''(laughs)'' No promises.<br />
<br />
S: NASA has a lot...produces a lot of video and other, you know, allied astronomical organizations, you know, that are producing video and pictures, either from probes or telescopes or whatever. And now with the Internet, a lot of this is available online. So UFO enthusiasts can pore through pictures and video looking for anomalies. And then when they see something apparently anomalous, they declare it a UFO. It's just like ghost hunters looking at photographs and video and listening to audio, and anything that strikes them as anomalous is a ghost. It's the same process of anomaly hunting. So what one UFO enthusiast who uploaded a video to [http://www.youtube.com/ YouTube] under the pseudonym of siniXster &mdash; ''(spelling)'' S-I-N-X-S-T-E-R&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: siniXster.<br />
<br />
S: siniXster.<br />
<br />
E: Like "sinister"&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't ask me.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;but with an "X." Makes it sound ''cool''.<br />
<br />
S: He uploaded the video of a {{w|coronal mass ejection}} from the sun, and Mercury happened to be in the background. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6X96xI1gLdQ the video], as the &mdash; which we'll link to, of course &mdash; as the coronal mass ejections were washing across the visual...the field of view, this cluster of lights appears to the right of the bright light that is Mercury in the middle of the field. And then it fades away again as the mass ejection passes by it. So what siniXster thought this was was a large cloaked vessel that was revealed by the energy of the sun, you know, washing past it. What he...he gives us a voiceover for the video. It's actually the Sun Centered Imaging Package and Heliosphere Imager that was taking the pictures, and he says: <blockquote>That is definitely some sort of manufactured object. It's cylindrical on either side and has a shape in the middle. It definitely looks like a ship to me, and very obviously, it's cloaked. There's really absolutely no explanation for that other than it's some sort of ship.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: There you go.<br />
<br />
E: There you have it.<br />
<br />
R: I buy it.<br />
<br />
E: That's it.<br />
<br />
B: That's all the evidence I need.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Case closed!<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: It's a very compelling argument.<br />
<br />
S: Now, "Two cylinders with a shape in the middle?" So is that the Enterprise? I mean, what does he think that he is seeing there? Maybe a Romulan Bird-of-Prey or...which would make more sense 'cause they have the cloaking device.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: And he sounds very sincere. I mean, you never know if, with things like this, if it's being satirical or it's a joke, but the guy sounds sincere, for whatever that's worth, but...it is interesting the confidence that people can have. Essentially you're looking at blobs of light on a video that has undergone a tremendous amount of processing. And he's convinced it ''has'' to be manufactured, it ''has'' to be a ship, and it's ''obviously'' cloaked, from just these blobs of light on this video. Interestingly, which is often the case, there's already an explanation available for this. Astronomers involved with this project, specifically Nathan Rich, was quoted as saying: <blockquote>It's a complicated effect. It's basically the background that is removed from the image to bring out the faint coronal signal. It's a negative imprint on the background.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So what he's saying is it's a photographic artifact. They have to remove all of the brighter objects in the background in order to see this very faint coronal mass ejection, and this is an artifact of that process. It's essentially a ghost of Mercury itself.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: As Mercury's moving through the field, you know, its image was imperfectly removed from the background, leaving this ghost image behind on a couple frames.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, I found another quote from Nathan Rich. This guy's the ground systems engineer for the [http://secchi.nrl.navy.mil/ Sun Earth Connection Coronal and Heliospheric Investigation] &mdash; seems like he knows what he's talking about. He said that...kinda like what you said &mdash; in essence, the alien image is a visual after effect or ghost artifact of Mercury. But he concludes by saying that that was taken...that was photographed the previous day. So he says it's a byproduct of the way the images are made, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around what he meant by a ghost artifact of Mercury that was photographed the previous day.<br />
<br />
S: I guess they're using cumulative images, you know, not just one image&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;in order to remove this background. It's not like they're just taking a snapshot; they're collecting data and processing it over a long period of time. It reminded me of the Elenin UFO or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2010_X1 Elenin comet]. Remember this, guys?<br />
<br />
B: No, what was that?<br />
<br />
E: We talked about it at TAM.<br />
<br />
S: We talked about it at TAM. Where there was again like these cylinders trailing behind&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;the like...ships in formation or something trailing behind the comet, but it was just an artifact of the fact that the camera was tracking the comet, which is moving relative to the background stars. And so the background stars were smearing out and trailing behind the comet. Pure photographic artifact. But it's...you know, this is a common scenario where the UFO enthusiasts ''assume'' that whatever they're looking at is exactly what it is. They take it completely at face value, and they don't consider photographic artifact in their, you know, thinking about it. They...either they just...it's not on their list of things they think about or they just dismiss it out of hand...<br />
<br />
B: It reminds me of visual perception in general, where, I mean, your eye and your brain &mdash; it's not just a camera.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Your brain is constructing reality, so you can't take what you see as something that's exactly the...that exactly reflects reality. You just can't do it.<br />
<br />
S: And it's also interesting to point out the process of anomaly hunting as a method of pseudoscience &mdash; you know, just looking for anything weird and then, rather than using that as a starting point for a ''hypothesis'', they use that as support for a ''conclusion'', as if this confirms that it's a ship, you know. Not, "Oh, I don't know what's causing that. Let me figure out if anyone knows what's causing it. And let's see if we can figure out what is the ultimate cause." Rather than, "Ooh, that's weird. It's a ghost!" or "It's a UFO!" They short-circuit the entire process of scientific discovery.<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=8384SGU Episode 3352013-10-14T07:41:37Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Mercury UFO (22:53) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 />
|episodeNum = 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she will be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
*[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Bad Astronomy: Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
S: All right, sad story, but, Bob, let's transition to a happy story about the {{w|Higgs boson}}.<br />
<br />
R: Hooray!<br />
<br />
B: Well, I might beg to differ. The big news, I think, this week was the first electronic optical fibers with hydrogenated amorphous silicon were developed. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Actually, no, that's number&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't you ever talk to me like that again, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: What did you just throw up?<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;that's number two. The number-one story was that scientists discovered why buttercups reflect yellow on chins. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yes, I saw that one too.<br />
<br />
R: Way to ruin Science or Fiction, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, good thing I didn't choose any of those.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, that doesn't mean you like butter? What...what's up?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Or {{w|Parkay}}?<br />
<br />
B: I'm kidding obviously, but&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Who doesn't like butter?<br />
<br />
E: People allergic to butter.<br />
<br />
S: But don't get me started on {{w|I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!}} &mdash; that stuff is ''not'' butter. That will make...that is&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: I can't ''believe'' it!<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;nausea inducing.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
R: So about that Higgs boson...<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the Higgs boson...''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
J: Pretty cool, huh?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, so, unless you've been off planet or in stasis for a couple weeks, you probably have heard about the latest hubbub about the Higgs boson.<br />
<br />
E: Again.<br />
<br />
B: Two separate teams of scientists at {{w|CERN}} using the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} have found the most similar and enticing hints yet of the existence of the Higgs boson, the so-called "''God'' particle"&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I hate that...I hate that name.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;the particle that is thought&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That ''is'' stupid.<br />
<br />
S: Can we call it the "Lucifer particle?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: I was going to go with the "Thor particle."<br />
<br />
E: The "Buddah particle?"<br />
<br />
B: There you go. Umm, this is the particle that's thought to imbue all matter with mass. Now, both the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS_experiment ATLAS] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Muon_Solenoid CMS] experiments and...the teams that ran those experiments recently announced their results from ''literally'' &mdash; and I mean this &mdash; hundreds of trillions of proton collisions that offer not conclusive proof of Higgs, but the best evidence yet for many reasons. The Higgs boson is the last predicted particle of the famous and successful {{w|Standard Model}} of physics, which describes how forces and particles interact. A key component of this theory is actually not the particle per se, which everyone seems to focus on, but the Higgs ''field''. This is what everything really is interacting with in order to get the mass, even the Higgs particle itself. Now, as great as this standard theory is, it doesn't actually predict the ''mass'' of the Higgs, so scientists kinda need to look around at all the various energies that it could potentially exist in and exclude those energy domains where they don't find it. So to just...kind of just narrowing it down more and more over time. And it seems like they're really backing it into a corner now, if it even still exists, which of course isn't certain. Now, the ATLAS team has narrowed the range that they...it looks like the Higgs exists between 115 and 131 gigaelectronvolts. The CMS team is saying that it ''cannot'' be ''heavier'' than 127 GeV (gigaelectronvolts). Now, you see "electronvolts" tossed around a lot in a lot of these articles. It refers to an amount of energy &mdash; an electronvolt. One electronvolt is the amount of energy that is given to an electron when it's accelerated through an {{w|electric potential difference}} of one volt. So that's kind of it in a nutshell. These electronvolts work very well in particle physics. They're very flexible. They can be used as a unit of momentum, and also, due to E=mc2 &mdash; or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence energy-mass equivalence] &mdash; it could also be used for a unit of mass. So, to kind of put these into perspective a little bit, one GeV is a billion electronvolts. One TeV is a trillion electronvolts, and that's about the same kinetic energy of a flying mosquito. So even a trillion electronvolts is still not a lot of energy. The energy of one photon of visible light is anywhere between 1.6 to 3.4 electronvolts. So, very, very little energy there. So, if these latest experiments are correct, then the Higgs would then weigh between about 126 billion electronvolts. That would make it about 126 times heavier than a proton and a quarter-million times heavier than an electron, so it would certainly be a big boy. The next question that I think of is like, well, all right, how confident are these scientists? That's pretty important. And you may have heard a lot about "sigma." They give numbers &mdash; a sigma of 1.9 or 2-point-whatever. These sigma numbers try to put into perspective the chance that the results are a total fluke with no significance at all. So, for the ATLAS experiments, the statistical significance of the 126 GeV was a sigma of 2.3. Now, that means that there's about a two-percent chance of their results being just a random fluctuation. The CMS detector had a sigma of 1.9, so that was less than two percent. Now, that sounds good, and it is very good, but the gold standard is 5 sigma, and that would mean that there's less than one in a million chance of random noise causing the results that they're seeing. So clearly there's more work to be done and more data to be gathered before we can all, you know, get drunk and really start celebrating the Higgs boson. And, I don't know...did you guys find a similar puzzling attitude? A lot of people were like, "Oh, nothing to see here!" "Please move on!" You know, "Big deal!" "They didn't discover it yet." And I disagree. I think there's plenty of room for real optimism in this. You know, we've been steadily narrowing the range &mdash; the energy regime in which the Higgs can be found. That alone, I think, makes these most recent results much more compelling than if the range was much larger than it was, even a few years ago. So, as you narrow that range down where it would most likely exist, any new evidence that you have I think is just more compelling. Second, the Standard Model doesn't tell us how big the Higgs is &mdash; this one was pretty interesting &mdash; but it does tell us how it would interact with particles like the {{w|W and Z bosons}}, which are responsible for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction weak nuclear force]. So if you consider the weight of those particles, which have been determined through experiments, the Higgs ''should'' weigh between 115 and 130 gigaelectronvolts, and that fits these latest predictions like a glove. That's ''exactly'' what they're saying, and, to me, that's very compelling. And finally, for the first time, we've got these two separate high-resolution experiments that both agree on this new energy range. So you put all that together, and, you know, of course it still can be a fluke, but I think after such a...the long journey these guys have taken, it seems likely to me that these are among the final steps that these scientists are taking to finally determine if the Higgs exists or not, and whether it does or not &mdash; and I think we'll probably know with a sigma of 5, hopefully within the year or so &mdash; that I think either eventuality I think would be worth raising a glass to all the scientists that have worked so hard on this.<br />
<br />
E: I think people are...have been inundated &mdash; and especially the last few years &mdash; with articles about the Higgs boson coming out every what seems like couple of months, and it's kind of like the boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon. It's like, all right, well, you know, let us know when the wolf is ''really'' here.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's part of it.<br />
<br />
E: Then we'll pay attention, right?<br />
<br />
B: It seems like more of the same, and as interesting and as important as these results are, yeah, after three or four times...god, I think we've talked about the Higgs on at least three or four occasions. And the LHC, forget it, we've talked about that a bunch too. So yeah, there's that part of it. I think that might be a reason why a lot of these people are just like, "Ho-hum." But there are certainly a lot of people that are just so excited.<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, that's fine. This is ''happening'', you know. We're not just going to wait and say when it's totally over. It's interesting to see the process unfold. {{w|Lawrence Krauss}}, whose interview we aired last week, was quoted as saying this about it: <blockquote>If the Higgs is discovered, it will represent perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the human intellect in recent memory, vindicating fifty years of the building of one of the greatest theoretical edifices in all of science and requiring the building of the most complicated machine that has ever been built.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So I think that puts it into perspective.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good quote.<br />
<br />
S: This is ''huge'', and I think we should watch it unfold and not just pop the corks at the very end and get people caught up, you know, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Well, I can see the general public might not be interested in the play-by-play. I find it fascinating because I like to hear the steps that they're taking. It's also good to....you know, it's good to keep that research in the press because, you know, it gives us the idea that they're using that machine. It took so long to do it, it was so expensive, and I ''need'' to hear about updates like this. I think it's important.<br />
<br />
S: I love the play-by-play because what's most fascinating is the ''process'' of science, not just the findings of science. And how they're building the case for the Higgs and, you know, what it means is just as fascinating as the end result.<br />
<br />
R: Science education &mdash; at least in this country, in the U.S. &mdash; isn't about teaching the process. It's not about teaching how difficult science can be and all the, you know, the amount of time and the amount of failures you have to have before you have one success. I think most people think of science as a string of large discoveries, and so they look around and they wonder why they're not seeing scientists making these big discoveries now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. ''Eureka!''<br />
<br />
J: The other cool thing about this type of research is it usually does...and we ''will'' see the LHC create new information. Like, you know, things will be discovered and happened upon by accident that will lead to other stuff that they never even thought about.<br />
<br />
B: Well, Jay, it's funny you point that out because that's exactly what's happening now. Now that they really think they've got a handle on the range in which the Higgs can appear, that would mean that the Higgs is relatively...it has a very relatively low mass, which would mean &mdash; according to the standard theory, I think &mdash; that the Higgs would have to be accompanied by ''another'' particle.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Now, this is a particle that's not explicitly predicted by the standard theory, but in order for the Higgs to exist at this low mass, it would need this extra particle with it, Otherwise, the Higgs would never be stable, the universe never would have existed, and things would be very different and boring all around. But...so this might actually lead to new physics&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So you're saying the Higgs has a posse.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)'' Right.<br />
<br />
S: An entourage.<br />
<br />
B: This could lead to new physics. I mean, how awesome would that be if the last particle, you know, proven that the standard theory predicted, that we finally showed experimentally, leads the way into new physics because of this new particle that wasn't like...you know, wasn't really anticipated but would have to exist if the Higgs has that mass?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm. Well, I think that the Standard Model is one of the greatest triumphs of science. It's up there with the periodic table, I mean, evolution...some basic concept that has huge impact...implications for our understanding of how the world works.<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
*[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ NeuroLogica Blog: Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
S: Some lighter news this week &mdash; did you guys hear about the UFO that's trailing behind Mercury?<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
B: You mean the cloaked UFO?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah!<br />
<br />
S: The cloaked UFO.<br />
<br />
B: O...M...G.<br />
<br />
J: That can't be ''anything'' else, Steve.<br />
<br />
E: Nope.<br />
<br />
S: No, what else could it possibly be? So&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Just tell me nobody's going to commit mass suicide over it.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' I can't promise you that.<br />
<br />
E: ''(laughs)'' No promises.<br />
<br />
S: NASA has a lot...produces a lot of video and other, you know, allied astronomical organizations, you know, that are producing video and pictures, either from probes or telescopes or whatever. And now with the Internet, a lot of this is available online. So UFO enthusiasts can pore through pictures and video looking for anomalies. And then when they see something apparently anomalous, they declare it a UFO. It's just like ghost hunters looking at photographs and video and listening to audio, and anything that strikes them as anomalous is a ghost. It's the same process of anomaly hunting. So what one UFO enthusiast who uploaded a video to [http://www.youtube.com/ YouTube] under the pseudonym of siniXster &mdash; ''(spelling)'' S-I-N-X-S-T-E-R&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: siniXster.<br />
<br />
S: siniXster.<br />
<br />
E: Like "sinister"&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't ask me.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;but with an "X." Makes it sound ''cool''.<br />
<br />
S: He uploaded the video of a {{w|coronal mass ejection}} from the sun, and Mercury happened to be in the background. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6X96xI1gLdQ the video], as the &mdash; which we'll link to, of course &mdash; as the coronal mass ejections were washing across the visual...the field of view, this cluster of lights appears to the right of the bright light that is Mercury in the middle of the field. And then it fades away again as the mass ejection passes by it. So what siniXster thought this was was a large cloaked vessel that was revealed by the energy of the sun, you know, washing past it. What he...he gives us a voiceover for the video. It's actually the Sun Centered Imaging Package and Heliosphere Imager that was taking the pictures, and he says: <blockquote>That is definitely some sort of manufactured object. It's cylindrical on either side and has a shape in the middle. It definitely looks like a ship to me, and very obviously, it's cloaked. There's really absolutely no explanation for that other than it's some sort of ship.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: There you go.<br />
<br />
E: There you have it.<br />
<br />
R: I buy it.<br />
<br />
E: That's it.<br />
<br />
B: That's all the evidence I need.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Case closed!<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: It's a very compelling argument.<br />
<br />
S: Now, "Two cylinders with a shape in the middle?" So is that the Enterprise? I mean, what does he think that he is seeing there? Maybe a Romulan Bird-of-Prey or...which would make more sense 'cause they have the cloaking device.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: And he sounds very sincere. I mean, you never know if, with things like this, if it's being satirical or it's a joke, but the guy sounds sincere, for whatever that's worth, but it is interesting the confidence that people can have. Essentially you're looking at blobs of light on a video that has undergone a tremendous amount of processing. And he's convinced it ''has'' to be manufactured, it ''has'' to be a ship, and it's ''obviously'' cloaked, from just these blobs of light on this video. Interestingly, which is often the case, there's already an explanation available for this. Astronomers involved with this project, specifically Nathan Rich, was quoted as saying: <blockquote>It's a complicated effect. It's basically the background that is removed from the image to bring out the faint coronal signal. It's a negative imprint on the background.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So what he's saying is it's a photographic artifact. They have to remove all of the brighter objects in the background in order to see this very faint coronal mass ejection, and this is an artifact of that process. It's essentially a ghost of Mercury itself.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: As Mercury's moving through the field, you know, its image was imperfectly removed from the background, leaving this ghost image behind on a couple frames.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, I found another quote from Nathan Rich. This guy's the ground systems engineer for the [http://secchi.nrl.navy.mil/ Sun Earth Connection Coronal and Heliospheric Investigation] &mdash; seems like he knows what he's talking about. He said that...kinda like what you said &mdash; in essence, the alien image is a visual after effect or ghost artifact of Mercury. But he concludes by saying that that was taken...that was photographed the previous day. So he says it's a byproduct of the way the images are made, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around what he meant by a ghost artifact of Mercury that was photographed the previous day.<br />
<br />
S: I guess they're using cumulative images, you know, not just one image&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;in order to remove this background. It's not like they're just taking a snapshot; they're collecting data and processing it over a long period of time. It reminded me of the Elenin UFO or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2010_X1 Elenin comet]. Remember this, guys?<br />
<br />
B: No, what was that?<br />
<br />
E: We talked about it at TAM.<br />
<br />
S: We talked about it at TAM. Where there was again like these cylinders trailing behind&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;the like...ships in formation or something trailing behind the comet, but it was just an artifact of the fact that the camera was tracking the comet, which is moving relative to the background stars. And so the background stars were smearing out and trailing behind the comet. Pure photographic artifact. But it's...you know, this is a common scenario where the UFO enthusiasts ''assume'' that whatever they're looking at is exactly what it is. They take it completely at face value, and they don't consider photographic artifact in their, you know, thinking about it. They...either they just...it's not on their list of things they think about or they just dismiss it out of hand...<br />
<br />
B: It reminds me of visual perception in general, where, I mean, your eye and your brain &mdash; it's not just a camera.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Your brain is constructing reality, so you can't take what you see as something that's exactly the...that exactly reflects reality. You just can't do it.<br />
<br />
S: And it's also interesting to point out the process of anomaly hunting as a method of pseudoscience &mdash; you know, just looking for anything weird and then, rather than using that as a starting point for a ''hypothesis'', they use that as support for a ''conclusion'', as if this confirms that it's a ship, you know. Not, "Oh, I don't know what's causing that. Let me figure out if anyone knows what's causing it. And let's see if we can figure out what is the ultimate cause." Rather than, "Ooh, that's weird. It's a ghost!" or "It's a UFO!" They short-circuit the entire process of scientific discovery.<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=8383SGU Episode 3352013-10-14T07:40:40Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Mercury UFO (22:53) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 />
|episodeNum = 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she will be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
*[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Bad Astronomy: Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
S: All right, sad story, but, Bob, let's transition to a happy story about the {{w|Higgs boson}}.<br />
<br />
R: Hooray!<br />
<br />
B: Well, I might beg to differ. The big news, I think, this week was the first electronic optical fibers with hydrogenated amorphous silicon were developed. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Actually, no, that's number&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't you ever talk to me like that again, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: What did you just throw up?<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;that's number two. The number-one story was that scientists discovered why buttercups reflect yellow on chins. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yes, I saw that one too.<br />
<br />
R: Way to ruin Science or Fiction, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, good thing I didn't choose any of those.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, that doesn't mean you like butter? What...what's up?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Or {{w|Parkay}}?<br />
<br />
B: I'm kidding obviously, but&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Who doesn't like butter?<br />
<br />
E: People allergic to butter.<br />
<br />
S: But don't get me started on {{w|I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!}} &mdash; that stuff is ''not'' butter. That will make...that is&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: I can't ''believe'' it!<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;nausea inducing.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
R: So about that Higgs boson...<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the Higgs boson...''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
J: Pretty cool, huh?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, so, unless you've been off planet or in stasis for a couple weeks, you probably have heard about the latest hubbub about the Higgs boson.<br />
<br />
E: Again.<br />
<br />
B: Two separate teams of scientists at {{w|CERN}} using the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} have found the most similar and enticing hints yet of the existence of the Higgs boson, the so-called "''God'' particle"&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I hate that...I hate that name.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;the particle that is thought&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That ''is'' stupid.<br />
<br />
S: Can we call it the "Lucifer particle?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: I was going to go with the "Thor particle."<br />
<br />
E: The "Buddah particle?"<br />
<br />
B: There you go. Umm, this is the particle that's thought to imbue all matter with mass. Now, both the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS_experiment ATLAS] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Muon_Solenoid CMS] experiments and...the teams that ran those experiments recently announced their results from ''literally'' &mdash; and I mean this &mdash; hundreds of trillions of proton collisions that offer not conclusive proof of Higgs, but the best evidence yet for many reasons. The Higgs boson is the last predicted particle of the famous and successful {{w|Standard Model}} of physics, which describes how forces and particles interact. A key component of this theory is actually not the particle per se, which everyone seems to focus on, but the Higgs ''field''. This is what everything really is interacting with in order to get the mass, even the Higgs particle itself. Now, as great as this standard theory is, it doesn't actually predict the ''mass'' of the Higgs, so scientists kinda need to look around at all the various energies that it could potentially exist in and exclude those energy domains where they don't find it. So to just...kind of just narrowing it down more and more over time. And it seems like they're really backing it into a corner now, if it even still exists, which of course isn't certain. Now, the ATLAS team has narrowed the range that they...it looks like the Higgs exists between 115 and 131 gigaelectronvolts. The CMS team is saying that it ''cannot'' be ''heavier'' than 127 GeV (gigaelectronvolts). Now, you see "electronvolts" tossed around a lot in a lot of these articles. It refers to an amount of energy &mdash; an electronvolt. One electronvolt is the amount of energy that is given to an electron when it's accelerated through an {{w|electric potential difference}} of one volt. So that's kind of it in a nutshell. These electronvolts work very well in particle physics. They're very flexible. They can be used as a unit of momentum, and also, due to E=mc2 &mdash; or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence energy-mass equivalence] &mdash; it could also be used for a unit of mass. So, to kind of put these into perspective a little bit, one GeV is a billion electronvolts. One TeV is a trillion electronvolts, and that's about the same kinetic energy of a flying mosquito. So even a trillion electronvolts is still not a lot of energy. The energy of one photon of visible light is anywhere between 1.6 to 3.4 electronvolts. So, very, very little energy there. So, if these latest experiments are correct, then the Higgs would then weigh between about 126 billion electronvolts. That would make it about 126 times heavier than a proton and a quarter-million times heavier than an electron, so it would certainly be a big boy. The next question that I think of is like, well, all right, how confident are these scientists? That's pretty important. And you may have heard a lot about "sigma." They give numbers &mdash; a sigma of 1.9 or 2-point-whatever. These sigma numbers try to put into perspective the chance that the results are a total fluke with no significance at all. So, for the ATLAS experiments, the statistical significance of the 126 GeV was a sigma of 2.3. Now, that means that there's about a two-percent chance of their results being just a random fluctuation. The CMS detector had a sigma of 1.9, so that was less than two percent. Now, that sounds good, and it is very good, but the gold standard is 5 sigma, and that would mean that there's less than one in a million chance of random noise causing the results that they're seeing. So clearly there's more work to be done and more data to be gathered before we can all, you know, get drunk and really start celebrating the Higgs boson. And, I don't know...did you guys find a similar puzzling attitude? A lot of people were like, "Oh, nothing to see here!" "Please move on!" You know, "Big deal!" "They didn't discover it yet." And I disagree. I think there's plenty of room for real optimism in this. You know, we've been steadily narrowing the range &mdash; the energy regime in which the Higgs can be found. That alone, I think, makes these most recent results much more compelling than if the range was much larger than it was, even a few years ago. So, as you narrow that range down where it would most likely exist, any new evidence that you have I think is just more compelling. Second, the Standard Model doesn't tell us how big the Higgs is &mdash; this one was pretty interesting &mdash; but it does tell us how it would interact with particles like the {{w|W and Z bosons}}, which are responsible for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction weak nuclear force]. So if you consider the weight of those particles, which have been determined through experiments, the Higgs ''should'' weigh between 115 and 130 gigaelectronvolts, and that fits these latest predictions like a glove. That's ''exactly'' what they're saying, and, to me, that's very compelling. And finally, for the first time, we've got these two separate high-resolution experiments that both agree on this new energy range. So you put all that together, and, you know, of course it still can be a fluke, but I think after such a...the long journey these guys have taken, it seems likely to me that these are among the final steps that these scientists are taking to finally determine if the Higgs exists or not, and whether it does or not &mdash; and I think we'll probably know with a sigma of 5, hopefully within the year or so &mdash; that I think either eventuality I think would be worth raising a glass to all the scientists that have worked so hard on this.<br />
<br />
E: I think people are...have been inundated &mdash; and especially the last few years &mdash; with articles about the Higgs boson coming out every what seems like couple of months, and it's kind of like the boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon. It's like, all right, well, you know, let us know when the wolf is ''really'' here.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's part of it.<br />
<br />
E: Then we'll pay attention, right?<br />
<br />
B: It seems like more of the same, and as interesting and as important as these results are, yeah, after three or four times...god, I think we've talked about the Higgs on at least three or four occasions. And the LHC, forget it, we've talked about that a bunch too. So yeah, there's that part of it. I think that might be a reason why a lot of these people are just like, "Ho-hum." But there are certainly a lot of people that are just so excited.<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, that's fine. This is ''happening'', you know. We're not just going to wait and say when it's totally over. It's interesting to see the process unfold. {{w|Lawrence Krauss}}, whose interview we aired last week, was quoted as saying this about it: <blockquote>If the Higgs is discovered, it will represent perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the human intellect in recent memory, vindicating fifty years of the building of one of the greatest theoretical edifices in all of science and requiring the building of the most complicated machine that has ever been built.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So I think that puts it into perspective.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good quote.<br />
<br />
S: This is ''huge'', and I think we should watch it unfold and not just pop the corks at the very end and get people caught up, you know, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Well, I can see the general public might not be interested in the play-by-play. I find it fascinating because I like to hear the steps that they're taking. It's also good to....you know, it's good to keep that research in the press because, you know, it gives us the idea that they're using that machine. It took so long to do it, it was so expensive, and I ''need'' to hear about updates like this. I think it's important.<br />
<br />
S: I love the play-by-play because what's most fascinating is the ''process'' of science, not just the findings of science. And how they're building the case for the Higgs and, you know, what it means is just as fascinating as the end result.<br />
<br />
R: Science education &mdash; at least in this country, in the U.S. &mdash; isn't about teaching the process. It's not about teaching how difficult science can be and all the, you know, the amount of time and the amount of failures you have to have before you have one success. I think most people think of science as a string of large discoveries, and so they look around and they wonder why they're not seeing scientists making these big discoveries now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. ''Eureka!''<br />
<br />
J: The other cool thing about this type of research is it usually does...and we ''will'' see the LHC create new information. Like, you know, things will be discovered and happened upon by accident that will lead to other stuff that they never even thought about.<br />
<br />
B: Well, Jay, it's funny you point that out because that's exactly what's happening now. Now that they really think they've got a handle on the range in which the Higgs can appear, that would mean that the Higgs is relatively...it has a very relatively low mass, which would mean &mdash; according to the standard theory, I think &mdash; that the Higgs would have to be accompanied by ''another'' particle.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Now, this is a particle that's not explicitly predicted by the standard theory, but in order for the Higgs to exist at this low mass, it would need this extra particle with it, Otherwise, the Higgs would never be stable, the universe never would have existed, and things would be very different and boring all around. But...so this might actually lead to new physics&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So you're saying the Higgs has a posse.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)'' Right.<br />
<br />
S: An entourage.<br />
<br />
B: This could lead to new physics. I mean, how awesome would that be if the last particle, you know, proven that the standard theory predicted, that we finally showed experimentally, leads the way into new physics because of this new particle that wasn't like...you know, wasn't really anticipated but would have to exist if the Higgs has that mass?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm. Well, I think that the Standard Model is one of the greatest triumphs of science. It's up there with the periodic table, I mean, evolution...some basic concept that has huge impact...implications for our understanding of how the world works.<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
*[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ NeuroLogica Blog: Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
S: Some lighter news this week &mdash; did you guys hear about the UFO that's trailing behind Mercury?<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
B: You mean the cloaked UFO?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah!<br />
<br />
S: The cloaked UFO.<br />
<br />
B: O...M...G.<br />
<br />
J: That can't be ''anything'' else, Steve.<br />
<br />
E: Nope.<br />
<br />
S: No, what else could it possibly be? So&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Just tell me nobody's going to commit mass suicide over it.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' I can't promise you that.<br />
<br />
E: ''(laughs)'' No promises.<br />
<br />
S: NASA has a lot...produces a lot of video and other, you know, allied astronomical organizations, you know, that are producing video and pictures, either from probes or telescopes or whatever. And now with the Internet, a lot of this is available online. So UFO enthusiasts can pore through pictures and video looking for anomalies. And then when they see something apparently anomalous, they declare it a UFO. It's just like ghost hunters looking at photographs and video and listening to audio, and anything that strikes them as anomalous is a ghost. It's the same process of anomaly hunting. So what one UFO enthusiast who uploaded a video to [http://www.youtube.com/ YouTube] under the pseudonym of siniXster &mdash; ''(spelling)'' S-I-N-X-S-T-E-R&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: siniXster.<br />
<br />
S: siniXster.<br />
<br />
E: Like "sinister"&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't ask me.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;but with an "X." Makes it sound ''cool''.<br />
<br />
S: He uploaded the video of a {{w|coronal mass ejection}} from the sun, and Mercury happened to be in the background. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6X96xI1gLdQ the video], as the &mdash; which we'll link to, of course &mdash; as the coronal mass ejections were washing across the visual...the field of view, this cluster of lights appears to the right of the bright light that is Mercury in the middle of the field. And then it fades away again as the mass ejection passes by it. So what siniXster thought this was was a large cloaked vessel that was revealed by the energy of the sun, you know, washing past it. What he...he gives us a voiceover for the video. It's actually the Sun Centered Imaging Package and Heliosphere Imager that was taking the pictures, and he says: <blockquote>That is definitely some sort of manufactured object. It's cylindrical on either side and has a shape in the middle. It definitely looks like a ship to me, and very obviously, it's cloaked. There's really absolutely no explanation for that other than it's some sort of ship.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: There you go.<br />
<br />
E: There you have it.<br />
<br />
R: I buy it.<br />
<br />
E: That's it.<br />
<br />
B: That's all the evidence I need.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Case closed!<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: It's a very compelling argument.<br />
<br />
S: Now, "Two cylinders with a shape in the middle?" So is that the Enterprise? I mean, what does he think that he is seeing there? Maybe a Romulan Bird-of-Prey or...which would make more sense 'cause they have the cloaking device.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: And he sounds very sincere. I mean, you never know if, with things like this, if it's being satirical or it's a joke, but the guy sounds sincere, for whatever that's worth, but...it is interesting the confidence that people can have. Essentially you're looking at blobs of light on a video that has undergone a tremendous amount of processing. And he's convinced it ''has'' to be manufactured, it ''has'' to be a ship, and it's ''obviously'' cloaked, from just these blobs of light on this video. Interestingly, which is often the case, there's already an explanation available for this. Astronomers involved with this project, specifically Nathan Rich, was quoted as saying: <blockquote>It's a complicated effect. It's basically the background that is removed from the image to bring out the faint coronal signal. It's a negative imprint on the background.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So what he's saying is it's a photographic artifact. They have to remove all of the brighter objects in the background in order to see this very faint coronal mass ejection, and this is an artifact of that process. It's essentially a ghost of Mercury itself.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: As Mercury's moving through the field, you know, its image was imperfectly removed from the background, leaving this ghost image behind on a couple frames.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, I found another quote from Nathan Rich. This guy's the ground systems engineer for the [http://secchi.nrl.navy.mil/ Sun Earth Connection Coronal and Heliospheric Investigation] &mdash; seems like he knows what he's talking about. He said that...kinda like what you said &mdash; in essence, the alien image is a visual after effect or ghost artifact of Mercury. But he concludes by saying that that was taken...that was photographed the previous day. So he says it's a byproduct of the way the images are made, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around what he meant by a ghost artifact of Mercury that was photographed the previous day.<br />
<br />
S: I guess they're using cumulative images, you know, not just one image&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;in order to remove this background. It's not like they're just taking a snapshot; they're collecting data and processing it over a long period of time. It reminded me of the Elenin UFO or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2010_X1 Elenin comet]. Remember this, guys?<br />
<br />
B: No, what was that?<br />
<br />
E: We talked about it at TAM.<br />
<br />
S: We talked about it at TAM. Where there was again like these cylinders trailing behind&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;the like...ships in formation or something trailing behind the comet, but it was just an artifact of the fact that the camera was tracking the comet, which is moving relative to the background stars. And so the background stars were smearing out and trailing behind the comet. Pure photographic artifact. But it's...you know, this is a common scenario where the UFO enthusiasts ''assume'' that whatever they're looking at is exactly what it is. They take it completely at face value, and they don't consider photographic artifact in their, you know, thinking about it. They...either they just...it's not on their list of things they think about or they just dismiss it out of hand...<br />
<br />
B: It reminds me of visual perception in general, where, I mean, your eye and your brain &mdash; it's not just a camera.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Your brain is constructing reality, so you can't take what you see as something that's exactly the...that exactly reflects reality. You just can't do it.<br />
<br />
S: And it's also interesting to point out the process of anomaly hunting as a method of pseudoscience &mdash; you know, just looking for anything weird and then, rather than using that as a starting point for a ''hypothesis'', they use that as support for a ''conclusion'', as if this confirms that it's a ship, you know. Not, "Oh, I don't know what's causing that. Let me figure out if anyone knows what's causing it. And let's see if we can figure out what is the ultimate cause." Rather than, "Ooh, that's weird. It's a ghost!" or "It's a UFO!" They short-circuit the entire process of scientific discovery.<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=8382SGU Episode 3352013-10-14T07:38:55Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Mercury UFO (22:53) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 />
|episodeNum = 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she will be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
*[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Bad Astronomy: Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
S: All right, sad story, but, Bob, let's transition to a happy story about the {{w|Higgs boson}}.<br />
<br />
R: Hooray!<br />
<br />
B: Well, I might beg to differ. The big news, I think, this week was the first electronic optical fibers with hydrogenated amorphous silicon were developed. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Actually, no, that's number&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't you ever talk to me like that again, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: What did you just throw up?<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;that's number two. The number-one story was that scientists discovered why buttercups reflect yellow on chins. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yes, I saw that one too.<br />
<br />
R: Way to ruin Science or Fiction, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, good thing I didn't choose any of those.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, that doesn't mean you like butter? What...what's up?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Or {{w|Parkay}}?<br />
<br />
B: I'm kidding obviously, but&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Who doesn't like butter?<br />
<br />
E: People allergic to butter.<br />
<br />
S: But don't get me started on {{w|I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!}} &mdash; that stuff is ''not'' butter. That will make...that is&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: I can't ''believe'' it!<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;nausea inducing.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
R: So about that Higgs boson...<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the Higgs boson...''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
J: Pretty cool, huh?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, so, unless you've been off planet or in stasis for a couple weeks, you probably have heard about the latest hubbub about the Higgs boson.<br />
<br />
E: Again.<br />
<br />
B: Two separate teams of scientists at {{w|CERN}} using the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} have found the most similar and enticing hints yet of the existence of the Higgs boson, the so-called "''God'' particle"&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I hate that...I hate that name.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;the particle that is thought&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That ''is'' stupid.<br />
<br />
S: Can we call it the "Lucifer particle?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: I was going to go with the "Thor particle."<br />
<br />
E: The "Buddah particle?"<br />
<br />
B: There you go. Umm, this is the particle that's thought to imbue all matter with mass. Now, both the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS_experiment ATLAS] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Muon_Solenoid CMS] experiments and...the teams that ran those experiments recently announced their results from ''literally'' &mdash; and I mean this &mdash; hundreds of trillions of proton collisions that offer not conclusive proof of Higgs, but the best evidence yet for many reasons. The Higgs boson is the last predicted particle of the famous and successful {{w|Standard Model}} of physics, which describes how forces and particles interact. A key component of this theory is actually not the particle per se, which everyone seems to focus on, but the Higgs ''field''. This is what everything really is interacting with in order to get the mass, even the Higgs particle itself. Now, as great as this standard theory is, it doesn't actually predict the ''mass'' of the Higgs, so scientists kinda need to look around at all the various energies that it could potentially exist in and exclude those energy domains where they don't find it. So to just...kind of just narrowing it down more and more over time. And it seems like they're really backing it into a corner now, if it even still exists, which of course isn't certain. Now, the ATLAS team has narrowed the range that they...it looks like the Higgs exists between 115 and 131 gigaelectronvolts. The CMS team is saying that it ''cannot'' be ''heavier'' than 127 GeV (gigaelectronvolts). Now, you see "electronvolts" tossed around a lot in a lot of these articles. It refers to an amount of energy &mdash; an electronvolt. One electronvolt is the amount of energy that is given to an electron when it's accelerated through an {{w|electric potential difference}} of one volt. So that's kind of it in a nutshell. These electronvolts work very well in particle physics. They're very flexible. They can be used as a unit of momentum, and also, due to E=mc2 &mdash; or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence energy-mass equivalence] &mdash; it could also be used for a unit of mass. So, to kind of put these into perspective a little bit, one GeV is a billion electronvolts. One TeV is a trillion electronvolts, and that's about the same kinetic energy of a flying mosquito. So even a trillion electronvolts is still not a lot of energy. The energy of one photon of visible light is anywhere between 1.6 to 3.4 electronvolts. So, very, very little energy there. So, if these latest experiments are correct, then the Higgs would then weigh between about 126 billion electronvolts. That would make it about 126 times heavier than a proton and a quarter-million times heavier than an electron, so it would certainly be a big boy. The next question that I think of is like, well, all right, how confident are these scientists? That's pretty important. And you may have heard a lot about "sigma." They give numbers &mdash; a sigma of 1.9 or 2-point-whatever. These sigma numbers try to put into perspective the chance that the results are a total fluke with no significance at all. So, for the ATLAS experiments, the statistical significance of the 126 GeV was a sigma of 2.3. Now, that means that there's about a two-percent chance of their results being just a random fluctuation. The CMS detector had a sigma of 1.9, so that was less than two percent. Now, that sounds good, and it is very good, but the gold standard is 5 sigma, and that would mean that there's less than one in a million chance of random noise causing the results that they're seeing. So clearly there's more work to be done and more data to be gathered before we can all, you know, get drunk and really start celebrating the Higgs boson. And, I don't know...did you guys find a similar puzzling attitude? A lot of people were like, "Oh, nothing to see here!" "Please move on!" You know, "Big deal!" "They didn't discover it yet." And I disagree. I think there's plenty of room for real optimism in this. You know, we've been steadily narrowing the range &mdash; the energy regime in which the Higgs can be found. That alone, I think, makes these most recent results much more compelling than if the range was much larger than it was, even a few years ago. So, as you narrow that range down where it would most likely exist, any new evidence that you have I think is just more compelling. Second, the Standard Model doesn't tell us how big the Higgs is &mdash; this one was pretty interesting &mdash; but it does tell us how it would interact with particles like the {{w|W and Z bosons}}, which are responsible for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction weak nuclear force]. So if you consider the weight of those particles, which have been determined through experiments, the Higgs ''should'' weigh between 115 and 130 gigaelectronvolts, and that fits these latest predictions like a glove. That's ''exactly'' what they're saying, and, to me, that's very compelling. And finally, for the first time, we've got these two separate high-resolution experiments that both agree on this new energy range. So you put all that together, and, you know, of course it still can be a fluke, but I think after such a...the long journey these guys have taken, it seems likely to me that these are among the final steps that these scientists are taking to finally determine if the Higgs exists or not, and whether it does or not &mdash; and I think we'll probably know with a sigma of 5, hopefully within the year or so &mdash; that I think either eventuality I think would be worth raising a glass to all the scientists that have worked so hard on this.<br />
<br />
E: I think people are...have been inundated &mdash; and especially the last few years &mdash; with articles about the Higgs boson coming out every what seems like couple of months, and it's kind of like the boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon. It's like, all right, well, you know, let us know when the wolf is ''really'' here.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's part of it.<br />
<br />
E: Then we'll pay attention, right?<br />
<br />
B: It seems like more of the same, and as interesting and as important as these results are, yeah, after three or four times...god, I think we've talked about the Higgs on at least three or four occasions. And the LHC, forget it, we've talked about that a bunch too. So yeah, there's that part of it. I think that might be a reason why a lot of these people are just like, "Ho-hum." But there are certainly a lot of people that are just so excited.<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, that's fine. This is ''happening'', you know. We're not just going to wait and say when it's totally over. It's interesting to see the process unfold. {{w|Lawrence Krauss}}, whose interview we aired last week, was quoted as saying this about it: <blockquote>If the Higgs is discovered, it will represent perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the human intellect in recent memory, vindicating fifty years of the building of one of the greatest theoretical edifices in all of science and requiring the building of the most complicated machine that has ever been built.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So I think that puts it into perspective.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good quote.<br />
<br />
S: This is ''huge'', and I think we should watch it unfold and not just pop the corks at the very end and get people caught up, you know, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Well, I can see the general public might not be interested in the play-by-play. I find it fascinating because I like to hear the steps that they're taking. It's also good to....you know, it's good to keep that research in the press because, you know, it gives us the idea that they're using that machine. It took so long to do it, it was so expensive, and I ''need'' to hear about updates like this. I think it's important.<br />
<br />
S: I love the play-by-play because what's most fascinating is the ''process'' of science, not just the findings of science. And how they're building the case for the Higgs and, you know, what it means is just as fascinating as the end result.<br />
<br />
R: Science education &mdash; at least in this country, in the U.S. &mdash; isn't about teaching the process. It's not about teaching how difficult science can be and all the, you know, the amount of time and the amount of failures you have to have before you have one success. I think most people think of science as a string of large discoveries, and so they look around and they wonder why they're not seeing scientists making these big discoveries now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. ''Eureka!''<br />
<br />
J: The other cool thing about this type of research is it usually does...and we ''will'' see the LHC create new information. Like, you know, things will be discovered and happened upon by accident that will lead to other stuff that they never even thought about.<br />
<br />
B: Well, Jay, it's funny you point that out because that's exactly what's happening now. Now that they really think they've got a handle on the range in which the Higgs can appear, that would mean that the Higgs is relatively...it has a very relatively low mass, which would mean &mdash; according to the standard theory, I think &mdash; that the Higgs would have to be accompanied by ''another'' particle.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Now, this is a particle that's not explicitly predicted by the standard theory, but in order for the Higgs to exist at this low mass, it would need this extra particle with it, Otherwise, the Higgs would never be stable, the universe never would have existed, and things would be very different and boring all around. But...so this might actually lead to new physics&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So you're saying the Higgs has a posse.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)'' Right.<br />
<br />
S: An entourage.<br />
<br />
B: This could lead to new physics. I mean, how awesome would that be if the last particle, you know, proven that the standard theory predicted, that we finally showed experimentally, leads the way into new physics because of this new particle that wasn't like...you know, wasn't really anticipated but would have to exist if the Higgs has that mass?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm. Well, I think that the Standard Model is one of the greatest triumphs of science. It's up there with the periodic table, I mean, evolution...some basic concept that has huge impact...implications for our understanding of how the world works.<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
*[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ NeuroLogica Blog: Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
S: Some lighter news this week &mdash; did you guys hear about the UFO that's trailing behind Mercury?<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
B: You mean the cloaked UFO?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah!<br />
<br />
S: The cloaked UFO.<br />
<br />
B: O...M...G.<br />
<br />
J: That can't be ''anything'' else, Steve.<br />
<br />
E: Nope.<br />
<br />
S: No, what else could it possibly be? So&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Just tell me nobody's going to commit mass suicide over it.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' I can't promise you that.<br />
<br />
E: ''(laughs)'' No promises.<br />
<br />
S: NASA has a lot...produces a lot of video and other, you know, allied astronomical organizations, you know, that are producing video and pictures, either from probes or telescopes or whatever. And now with the Internet, a lot of this is available online. So UFO enthusiasts can pore through pictures and video looking for anomalies. And then when they see something apparently anomalous, they declare it a UFO. It's just like ghost hunters looking at photographs and video and listening to audio, and anything that strikes them as anomalous is a ghost. It's the same process of anomaly hunting. So what one UFO enthusiast who uploaded a video to [http://www.youtube.com/ YouTube] under the pseudonym of siniXster &mdash; ''(spelling)'' S-I-N-X-S-T-E-R&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: siniXster.<br />
<br />
S: siniXster.<br />
<br />
E: Like "sinister"&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't ask me.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;but with an "X." Makes it sound ''cool''.<br />
<br />
S: He uploaded the video of a {{w|coronal mass ejection}} from the sun, and Mercury happened to be in the background. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6X96xI1gLdQ the video], as the &mdash; which we'll link to, of course &mdash; as the coronal mass ejections were washing across the visual...the field of view, this cluster of lights appears to the right of the bright light that is Mercury in the middle of the field. And then it fades away again as the mass ejection passes by it. So what siniXster thought this was was a large cloaked vessel that was revealed by the energy of the sun, you know, washing past it. What he...he gives us a voiceover for the video. It's actually the Sun Centered Imaging Package and Heliosphere Imager that was taking the pictures, and he says: <blockquote>That is definitely some sort of manufactured object. It's cylindrical on either side and has a shape in the middle. It definitely looks like a ship to me, and very obviously, it's cloaked. There's really absolutely no explanation for that other than it's some sort of ship.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: There you go.<br />
<br />
E: There you have it.<br />
<br />
R: I buy it.<br />
<br />
E: That's it.<br />
<br />
B: That's all the evidence I need.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Case closed!<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: It's a very compelling argument.<br />
<br />
S: Now, "Two cylinders with a shape in the middle?" So is that the Enterprise? I mean, what does he think that he is seeing there? Maybe a Romulan Bird-of-Prey or...which would make more sense 'cause they have the cloaking device.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: And he sounds very sincere. I mean, you never know if...with things like this if it's being satirical or it's a joke, but the guy sounds sincere, for whatever that's worth, but...it is interesting the confidence that people can have. Essentially you're looking at blobs of light on a video that has undergone a tremendous amount of processing. And he's convinced it ''has'' to be manufactured, it ''has'' to be a ship, and it's ''obviously'' cloaked, from just these blobs of light on this video. Interestingly, which is often the case, there's already an explanation available for this. Astronomers involved with this project, specifically Nathan Rich, was quoted as saying: <blockquote>It's a complicated effect. It's basically the background that is removed from the image to bring out the faint coronal signal. It's a negative imprint on the background.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So what he's saying is it's a photographic artifact. They have to remove all of the brighter objects in the background in order to see this very faint coronal mass ejection, and this is an artifact of that process. It's essentially a ghost of Mercury itself.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: As Mercury's moving through the field, you know, its image was imperfectly removed from the background, leaving this ghost image behind on a couple frames.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, I found another quote from Nathan Rich. This guy's the ground systems engineer for the [http://secchi.nrl.navy.mil/ Sun Earth Connection Coronal and Heliospheric Investigation] &mdash; seems like he knows what he's talking about. He said that...kinda like what you said &mdash; in essence, the alien image is a visual after effect or ghost artifact of Mercury. But he concludes by saying that that was taken...that was photographed the previous day. So he says it's a byproduct of the way the images are made, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around what he meant by a ghost artifact of Mercury that was photographed the previous day.<br />
<br />
S: I guess they're using cumulative images, you know, not just one image&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;in order to remove this background. It's not like they're just taking a snapshot; they're collecting data and processing it over a long period of time. It reminded me of the Elenin UFO or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2010_X1 Elenin comet]. Remember this, guys?<br />
<br />
B: No, what was that?<br />
<br />
E: We talked about it at TAM.<br />
<br />
S: We talked about it at TAM. Where there was again like these cylinders trailing behind&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;the like...ships in formation or something trailing behind the comet, but it was just an artifact of the fact that the camera was tracking the comet, which is moving relative to the background stars. And so the background stars were smearing out and trailing behind the comet. Pure photographic artifact. But it's...you know, this is a common scenario where the UFO enthusiasts ''assume'' that whatever they're looking at is exactly what it is. They take it completely at face value, and they don't consider photographic artifact in their, you know, thinking about it. They...either they just...it's not on their list of things they think about or they just dismiss it out of hand...<br />
<br />
B: It reminds me of visual perception in general, where, I mean, your eye and your brain &mdash; it's not just a camera.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Your brain is constructing reality, so you can't take what you see as something that's exactly the...that exactly reflects reality. You just can't do it.<br />
<br />
S: And it's also interesting to point out the process of anomaly hunting as a method of pseudoscience &mdash; you know, just looking for anything weird and then, rather than using that as a starting point for a ''hypothesis'', they use that as support for a ''conclusion'', as if this confirms that it's a ship, you know. Not, "Oh, I don't know what's causing that. Let me figure out if anyone knows what's causing it. And let's see if we can figure out what is the ultimate cause." Rather than, "Ooh, that's weird. It's a ghost!" or "It's a UFO!" They short-circuit the entire process of scientific discovery.<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=8381SGU Episode 3352013-10-14T07:34:08Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Mercury UFO (22:53) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 />
|episodeNum = 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she will be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
*[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Bad Astronomy: Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
S: All right, sad story, but, Bob, let's transition to a happy story about the {{w|Higgs boson}}.<br />
<br />
R: Hooray!<br />
<br />
B: Well, I might beg to differ. The big news, I think, this week was the first electronic optical fibers with hydrogenated amorphous silicon were developed. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Actually, no, that's number&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't you ever talk to me like that again, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: What did you just throw up?<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;that's number two. The number-one story was that scientists discovered why buttercups reflect yellow on chins. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yes, I saw that one too.<br />
<br />
R: Way to ruin Science or Fiction, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, good thing I didn't choose any of those.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, that doesn't mean you like butter? What...what's up?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Or {{w|Parkay}}?<br />
<br />
B: I'm kidding obviously, but&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Who doesn't like butter?<br />
<br />
E: People allergic to butter.<br />
<br />
S: But don't get me started on {{w|I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!}} &mdash; that stuff is ''not'' butter. That will make...that is&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: I can't ''believe'' it!<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;nausea inducing.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
R: So about that Higgs boson...<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the Higgs boson...''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
J: Pretty cool, huh?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, so, unless you've been off planet or in stasis for a couple weeks, you probably have heard about the latest hubbub about the Higgs boson.<br />
<br />
E: Again.<br />
<br />
B: Two separate teams of scientists at {{w|CERN}} using the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} have found the most similar and enticing hints yet of the existence of the Higgs boson, the so-called "''God'' particle"&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I hate that...I hate that name.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;the particle that is thought&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That ''is'' stupid.<br />
<br />
S: Can we call it the "Lucifer particle?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: I was going to go with the "Thor particle."<br />
<br />
E: The "Buddah particle?"<br />
<br />
B: There you go. Umm, this is the particle that's thought to imbue all matter with mass. Now, both the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS_experiment ATLAS] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Muon_Solenoid CMS] experiments and...the teams that ran those experiments recently announced their results from ''literally'' &mdash; and I mean this &mdash; hundreds of trillions of proton collisions that offer not conclusive proof of Higgs, but the best evidence yet for many reasons. The Higgs boson is the last predicted particle of the famous and successful {{w|Standard Model}} of physics, which describes how forces and particles interact. A key component of this theory is actually not the particle per se, which everyone seems to focus on, but the Higgs ''field''. This is what everything really is interacting with in order to get the mass, even the Higgs particle itself. Now, as great as this standard theory is, it doesn't actually predict the ''mass'' of the Higgs, so scientists kinda need to look around at all the various energies that it could potentially exist in and exclude those energy domains where they don't find it. So to just...kind of just narrowing it down more and more over time. And it seems like they're really backing it into a corner now, if it even still exists, which of course isn't certain. Now, the ATLAS team has narrowed the range that they...it looks like the Higgs exists between 115 and 131 gigaelectronvolts. The CMS team is saying that it ''cannot'' be ''heavier'' than 127 GeV (gigaelectronvolts). Now, you see "electronvolts" tossed around a lot in a lot of these articles. It refers to an amount of energy &mdash; an electronvolt. One electronvolt is the amount of energy that is given to an electron when it's accelerated through an {{w|electric potential difference}} of one volt. So that's kind of it in a nutshell. These electronvolts work very well in particle physics. They're very flexible. They can be used as a unit of momentum, and also, due to E=mc2 &mdash; or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence energy-mass equivalence] &mdash; it could also be used for a unit of mass. So, to kind of put these into perspective a little bit, one GeV is a billion electronvolts. One TeV is a trillion electronvolts, and that's about the same kinetic energy of a flying mosquito. So even a trillion electronvolts is still not a lot of energy. The energy of one photon of visible light is anywhere between 1.6 to 3.4 electronvolts. So, very, very little energy there. So, if these latest experiments are correct, then the Higgs would then weigh between about 126 billion electronvolts. That would make it about 126 times heavier than a proton and a quarter-million times heavier than an electron, so it would certainly be a big boy. The next question that I think of is like, well, all right, how confident are these scientists? That's pretty important. And you may have heard a lot about "sigma." They give numbers &mdash; a sigma of 1.9 or 2-point-whatever. These sigma numbers try to put into perspective the chance that the results are a total fluke with no significance at all. So, for the ATLAS experiments, the statistical significance of the 126 GeV was a sigma of 2.3. Now, that means that there's about a two-percent chance of their results being just a random fluctuation. The CMS detector had a sigma of 1.9, so that was less than two percent. Now, that sounds good, and it is very good, but the gold standard is 5 sigma, and that would mean that there's less than one in a million chance of random noise causing the results that they're seeing. So clearly there's more work to be done and more data to be gathered before we can all, you know, get drunk and really start celebrating the Higgs boson. And, I don't know...did you guys find a similar puzzling attitude? A lot of people were like, "Oh, nothing to see here!" "Please move on!" You know, "Big deal!" "They didn't discover it yet." And I disagree. I think there's plenty of room for real optimism in this. You know, we've been steadily narrowing the range &mdash; the energy regime in which the Higgs can be found. That alone, I think, makes these most recent results much more compelling than if the range was much larger than it was, even a few years ago. So, as you narrow that range down where it would most likely exist, any new evidence that you have I think is just more compelling. Second, the Standard Model doesn't tell us how big the Higgs is &mdash; this one was pretty interesting &mdash; but it does tell us how it would interact with particles like the {{w|W and Z bosons}}, which are responsible for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction weak nuclear force]. So if you consider the weight of those particles, which have been determined through experiments, the Higgs ''should'' weigh between 115 and 130 gigaelectronvolts, and that fits these latest predictions like a glove. That's ''exactly'' what they're saying, and, to me, that's very compelling. And finally, for the first time, we've got these two separate high-resolution experiments that both agree on this new energy range. So you put all that together, and, you know, of course it still can be a fluke, but I think after such a...the long journey these guys have taken, it seems likely to me that these are among the final steps that these scientists are taking to finally determine if the Higgs exists or not, and whether it does or not &mdash; and I think we'll probably know with a sigma of 5, hopefully within the year or so &mdash; that I think either eventuality I think would be worth raising a glass to all the scientists that have worked so hard on this.<br />
<br />
E: I think people are...have been inundated &mdash; and especially the last few years &mdash; with articles about the Higgs boson coming out every what seems like couple of months, and it's kind of like the boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon. It's like, all right, well, you know, let us know when the wolf is ''really'' here.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's part of it.<br />
<br />
E: Then we'll pay attention, right?<br />
<br />
B: It seems like more of the same, and as interesting and as important as these results are, yeah, after three or four times...god, I think we've talked about the Higgs on at least three or four occasions. And the LHC, forget it, we've talked about that a bunch too. So yeah, there's that part of it. I think that might be a reason why a lot of these people are just like, "Ho-hum." But there are certainly a lot of people that are just so excited.<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, that's fine. This is ''happening'', you know. We're not just going to wait and say when it's totally over. It's interesting to see the process unfold. {{w|Lawrence Krauss}}, whose interview we aired last week, was quoted as saying this about it: <blockquote>If the Higgs is discovered, it will represent perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the human intellect in recent memory, vindicating fifty years of the building of one of the greatest theoretical edifices in all of science and requiring the building of the most complicated machine that has ever been built.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So I think that puts it into perspective.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good quote.<br />
<br />
S: This is ''huge'', and I think we should watch it unfold and not just pop the corks at the very end and get people caught up, you know, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Well, I can see the general public might not be interested in the play-by-play. I find it fascinating because I like to hear the steps that they're taking. It's also good to....you know, it's good to keep that research in the press because, you know, it gives us the idea that they're using that machine. It took so long to do it, it was so expensive, and I ''need'' to hear about updates like this. I think it's important.<br />
<br />
S: I love the play-by-play because what's most fascinating is the ''process'' of science, not just the findings of science. And how they're building the case for the Higgs and, you know, what it means is just as fascinating as the end result.<br />
<br />
R: Science education &mdash; at least in this country, in the U.S. &mdash; isn't about teaching the process. It's not about teaching how difficult science can be and all the, you know, the amount of time and the amount of failures you have to have before you have one success. I think most people think of science as a string of large discoveries, and so they look around and they wonder why they're not seeing scientists making these big discoveries now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. ''Eureka!''<br />
<br />
J: The other cool thing about this type of research is it usually does...and we ''will'' see the LHC create new information. Like, you know, things will be discovered and happened upon by accident that will lead to other stuff that they never even thought about.<br />
<br />
B: Well, Jay, it's funny you point that out because that's exactly what's happening now. Now that they really think they've got a handle on the range in which the Higgs can appear, that would mean that the Higgs is relatively...it has a very relatively low mass, which would mean &mdash; according to the standard theory, I think &mdash; that the Higgs would have to be accompanied by ''another'' particle.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Now, this is a particle that's not explicitly predicted by the standard theory, but in order for the Higgs to exist at this low mass, it would need this extra particle with it, Otherwise, the Higgs would never be stable, the universe never would have existed, and things would be very different and boring all around. But...so this might actually lead to new physics&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So you're saying the Higgs has a posse.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)'' Right.<br />
<br />
S: An entourage.<br />
<br />
B: This could lead to new physics. I mean, how awesome would that be if the last particle, you know, proven that the standard theory predicted, that we finally showed experimentally, leads the way into new physics because of this new particle that wasn't like...you know, wasn't really anticipated but would have to exist if the Higgs has that mass?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm. Well, I think that the Standard Model is one of the greatest triumphs of science. It's up there with the periodic table, I mean, evolution...some basic concept that has huge impact...implications for our understanding of how the world works.<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
*[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ NeuroLogica Blog: Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
S: Some lighter news this week &mdash; did you guys hear about the UFO that's trailing behind Mercury?<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
B: You mean the cloaked UFO?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah!<br />
<br />
S: The cloaked UFO.<br />
<br />
B: O...M...G.<br />
<br />
J: That can't be ''anything'' else, Steve.<br />
<br />
E: Nope.<br />
<br />
S: No, what else could it possibly be? So&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Just tell me nobody's going to commit mass suicide over it.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' I can't promise you that.<br />
<br />
E: ''(laughs)'' No promises.<br />
<br />
S: NASA has a lot...produces a lot of video and other, you know, allied astronomical organizations, you know, that are producing video and pictures, either from probes or telescopes or whatever. And now with the Internet, a lot of this is available online. So UFO enthusiasts can pore through pictures and video looking for anomalies. And then when they see something apparently anomalous, they declare it a UFO. It's just like ghost hunters looking at photographs and video and listening to audio, and anything that strikes them as anomalous is a ghost. It's the same process of anomaly hunting. So what one UFO enthusiast who uploaded a video to [http://www.youtube.com/ YouTube] under the pseudonym of siniXster &mdash; ''(spelling)'' S-I-N-X-S-T-E-R&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: siniXster.<br />
<br />
S: siniXster.<br />
<br />
E: Like "sinister"&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't ask me.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;but with an "X." Makes it sound ''cool''.<br />
<br />
S: He uploaded the video of a {{w|coronal mass ejection}} from the sun, and Mercury happened to be in the background. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6X96xI1gLdQ the video], as the &mdash; which we'll link to, of course &mdash; as the coronal mass ejections were washing across the visual...the field of view, this cluster of lights appears to the right of the bright light that is Mercury in the middle of the field. And then it fades away again as the mass ejection passes by it. So what siniXster thought this was was a large cloaked vessel that was revealed by the energy of the sun, you know, washing past it. What he...he gives us a voice over for the video. It's actually the Sun Centered Imaging Package and Heliosphere Imager that was taking the pictures, and he says: <blockquote>That is definitely some sort of manufactured object. It's cylindrical on either side and has a shape in the middle. It definitely looks like a ship to me, and very obviously, it's cloaked. There's really absolutely no explanation for that other than it's some sort of ship.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: There you go.<br />
<br />
E: There you have it.<br />
<br />
R: I buy it.<br />
<br />
E: That's it.<br />
<br />
B: That's all the evidence I need.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Case closed!<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: It's a very compelling argument.<br />
<br />
S: Now, "Two cylinders with a shape in the middle?" So is that the Enterprise? I mean, what does he think that he is seeing there? Maybe a Romulan Bird-of-Prey or...which would make more sense 'cause they have the cloaking device.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: And he sounds very sincere. I mean, you never know if...with things like this if it's being satirical or it's a joke, but the guy sounds sincere, for whatever that's worth, but...it is interesting the confidence that people can have. Essentially you're looking at blobs of light on a video that has undergone a tremendous amount of processing. And he's convinced it ''has'' to be manufactured, it ''has'' to be a ship, and it's ''obviously'' cloaked, from just these blobs of light on this video. Interestingly, which is often the case, there's already an explanation available for this. Astronomers involved with this project, specifically Nathan Rich, was quoted as saying: <blockquote>It's a complicated effect. It's basically the background that is removed from the image to bring out the faint coronal signal. It's a negative imprint on the background.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So what he's saying is it's a photographic artifact. They have to remove all of the brighter objects in the background in order to see this very faint coronal mass ejection, and this is an artifact of that process. It's essentially a ghost of Mercury itself.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: As Mercury's moving through the field, you know, its image was imperfectly removed from the background, leaving this ghost image behind on a couple frames.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, I found another quote from Nathan Rich. This guy's the ground systems engineer for the [http://secchi.nrl.navy.mil/ Sun Earth Connection Coronal and Heliospheric Investigation] &mdash; seems like he knows what he's talking about. He said that...kinda like what you said &mdash; in essence, the alien image is a visual after effect or ghost artifact of Mercury. But he concludes by saying that that was taken...that was photographed the previous day. So he says it's a byproduct of the way the images are made, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around what he meant by a ghost artifact of Mercury that was photographed the previous day.<br />
<br />
S: I guess they're using cumulative images, you know, not just one image&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;in order to remove this background. It's not like they're just taking a snapshot; they're collecting data and processing it over a long period of time. It reminded me of the Elenin UFO or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2010_X1 Elenin comet]. Remember this, guys?<br />
<br />
B: No, what was that?<br />
<br />
E: We talked about it at TAM.<br />
<br />
S: We talked about it at TAM. Where there was again like these cylinders trailing behind&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;the like...ships in formation or something trailing behind the comet, but it was just an artifact of the fact that the camera was tracking the comet, which is moving relative to the background stars. And so the background stars were smearing out and trailing behind the comet. Pure photographic artifact. But it's...you know, this is a common scenario where the UFO enthusiasts ''assume'' that whatever they're looking at is exactly what it is. They take it completely at face value, and they don't consider photographic artifact in their, you know, thinking about it. They...either they just...it's not on their list of things they think about or they just dismiss it out of hand...<br />
<br />
B: It reminds me of visual perception in general, where, I mean, your eye and your brain &mdash; it's not just a camera.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Your brain is constructing reality, so you can't take what you see as something that's exactly the...that exactly reflects reality. You just can't do it.<br />
<br />
S: And it's also interesting to point out the process of anomaly hunting as a method of pseudoscience &mdash; you know, just looking for anything weird and then, rather than using that as a starting point for a ''hypothesis'', they use that as support for a ''conclusion'', as if this confirms that it's a ship, you know. Not, "Oh, I don't know what's causing that. Let me figure out if anyone knows what's causing it. And let's see if we can figure out what is the ultimate cause." Rather than, "Ooh, that's weird. It's a ghost!" or "It's a UFO!" They short-circuit the entire process of scientific discovery.<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=8380SGU Episode 3352013-10-14T07:33:37Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Mercury UFO (22:53) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 />
|episodeNum = 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she will be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
*[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Bad Astronomy: Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
S: All right, sad story, but, Bob, let's transition to a happy story about the {{w|Higgs boson}}.<br />
<br />
R: Hooray!<br />
<br />
B: Well, I might beg to differ. The big news, I think, this week was the first electronic optical fibers with hydrogenated amorphous silicon were developed. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Actually, no, that's number&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't you ever talk to me like that again, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: What did you just throw up?<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;that's number two. The number-one story was that scientists discovered why buttercups reflect yellow on chins. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yes, I saw that one too.<br />
<br />
R: Way to ruin Science or Fiction, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, good thing I didn't choose any of those.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, that doesn't mean you like butter? What...what's up?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Or {{w|Parkay}}?<br />
<br />
B: I'm kidding obviously, but&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Who doesn't like butter?<br />
<br />
E: People allergic to butter.<br />
<br />
S: But don't get me started on {{w|I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!}} &mdash; that stuff is ''not'' butter. That will make...that is&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: I can't ''believe'' it!<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;nausea inducing.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
R: So about that Higgs boson...<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the Higgs boson...''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
J: Pretty cool, huh?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, so, unless you've been off planet or in stasis for a couple weeks, you probably have heard about the latest hubbub about the Higgs boson.<br />
<br />
E: Again.<br />
<br />
B: Two separate teams of scientists at {{w|CERN}} using the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} have found the most similar and enticing hints yet of the existence of the Higgs boson, the so-called "''God'' particle"&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I hate that...I hate that name.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;the particle that is thought&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That ''is'' stupid.<br />
<br />
S: Can we call it the "Lucifer particle?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: I was going to go with the "Thor particle."<br />
<br />
E: The "Buddah particle?"<br />
<br />
B: There you go. Umm, this is the particle that's thought to imbue all matter with mass. Now, both the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS_experiment ATLAS] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Muon_Solenoid CMS] experiments and...the teams that ran those experiments recently announced their results from ''literally'' &mdash; and I mean this &mdash; hundreds of trillions of proton collisions that offer not conclusive proof of Higgs, but the best evidence yet for many reasons. The Higgs boson is the last predicted particle of the famous and successful {{w|Standard Model}} of physics, which describes how forces and particles interact. A key component of this theory is actually not the particle per se, which everyone seems to focus on, but the Higgs ''field''. This is what everything really is interacting with in order to get the mass, even the Higgs particle itself. Now, as great as this standard theory is, it doesn't actually predict the ''mass'' of the Higgs, so scientists kinda need to look around at all the various energies that it could potentially exist in and exclude those energy domains where they don't find it. So to just...kind of just narrowing it down more and more over time. And it seems like they're really backing it into a corner now, if it even still exists, which of course isn't certain. Now, the ATLAS team has narrowed the range that they...it looks like the Higgs exists between 115 and 131 gigaelectronvolts. The CMS team is saying that it ''cannot'' be ''heavier'' than 127 GeV (gigaelectronvolts). Now, you see "electronvolts" tossed around a lot in a lot of these articles. It refers to an amount of energy &mdash; an electronvolt. One electronvolt is the amount of energy that is given to an electron when it's accelerated through an {{w|electric potential difference}} of one volt. So that's kind of it in a nutshell. These electronvolts work very well in particle physics. They're very flexible. They can be used as a unit of momentum, and also, due to E=mc2 &mdash; or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence energy-mass equivalence] &mdash; it could also be used for a unit of mass. So, to kind of put these into perspective a little bit, one GeV is a billion electronvolts. One TeV is a trillion electronvolts, and that's about the same kinetic energy of a flying mosquito. So even a trillion electronvolts is still not a lot of energy. The energy of one photon of visible light is anywhere between 1.6 to 3.4 electronvolts. So, very, very little energy there. So, if these latest experiments are correct, then the Higgs would then weigh between about 126 billion electronvolts. That would make it about 126 times heavier than a proton and a quarter-million times heavier than an electron, so it would certainly be a big boy. The next question that I think of is like, well, all right, how confident are these scientists? That's pretty important. And you may have heard a lot about "sigma." They give numbers &mdash; a sigma of 1.9 or 2-point-whatever. These sigma numbers try to put into perspective the chance that the results are a total fluke with no significance at all. So, for the ATLAS experiments, the statistical significance of the 126 GeV was a sigma of 2.3. Now, that means that there's about a two-percent chance of their results being just a random fluctuation. The CMS detector had a sigma of 1.9, so that was less than two percent. Now, that sounds good, and it is very good, but the gold standard is 5 sigma, and that would mean that there's less than one in a million chance of random noise causing the results that they're seeing. So clearly there's more work to be done and more data to be gathered before we can all, you know, get drunk and really start celebrating the Higgs boson. And, I don't know...did you guys find a similar puzzling attitude? A lot of people were like, "Oh, nothing to see here!" "Please move on!" You know, "Big deal!" "They didn't discover it yet." And I disagree. I think there's plenty of room for real optimism in this. You know, we've been steadily narrowing the range &mdash; the energy regime in which the Higgs can be found. That alone, I think, makes these most recent results much more compelling than if the range was much larger than it was, even a few years ago. So, as you narrow that range down where it would most likely exist, any new evidence that you have I think is just more compelling. Second, the Standard Model doesn't tell us how big the Higgs is &mdash; this one was pretty interesting &mdash; but it does tell us how it would interact with particles like the {{w|W and Z bosons}}, which are responsible for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction weak nuclear force]. So if you consider the weight of those particles, which have been determined through experiments, the Higgs ''should'' weigh between 115 and 130 gigaelectronvolts, and that fits these latest predictions like a glove. That's ''exactly'' what they're saying, and, to me, that's very compelling. And finally, for the first time, we've got these two separate high-resolution experiments that both agree on this new energy range. So you put all that together, and, you know, of course it still can be a fluke, but I think after such a...the long journey these guys have taken, it seems likely to me that these are among the final steps that these scientists are taking to finally determine if the Higgs exists or not, and whether it does or not &mdash; and I think we'll probably know with a sigma of 5, hopefully within the year or so &mdash; that I think either eventuality I think would be worth raising a glass to all the scientists that have worked so hard on this.<br />
<br />
E: I think people are...have been inundated &mdash; and especially the last few years &mdash; with articles about the Higgs boson coming out every what seems like couple of months, and it's kind of like the boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon. It's like, all right, well, you know, let us know when the wolf is ''really'' here.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's part of it.<br />
<br />
E: Then we'll pay attention, right?<br />
<br />
B: It seems like more of the same, and as interesting and as important as these results are, yeah, after three or four times...god, I think we've talked about the Higgs on at least three or four occasions. And the LHC, forget it, we've talked about that a bunch too. So yeah, there's that part of it. I think that might be a reason why a lot of these people are just like, "Ho-hum." But there are certainly a lot of people that are just so excited.<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, that's fine. This is ''happening'', you know. We're not just going to wait and say when it's totally over. It's interesting to see the process unfold. {{w|Lawrence Krauss}}, whose interview we aired last week, was quoted as saying this about it: <blockquote>If the Higgs is discovered, it will represent perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the human intellect in recent memory, vindicating fifty years of the building of one of the greatest theoretical edifices in all of science and requiring the building of the most complicated machine that has ever been built.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So I think that puts it into perspective.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good quote.<br />
<br />
S: This is ''huge'', and I think we should watch it unfold and not just pop the corks at the very end and get people caught up, you know, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Well, I can see the general public might not be interested in the play-by-play. I find it fascinating because I like to hear the steps that they're taking. It's also good to....you know, it's good to keep that research in the press because, you know, it gives us the idea that they're using that machine. It took so long to do it, it was so expensive, and I ''need'' to hear about updates like this. I think it's important.<br />
<br />
S: I love the play-by-play because what's most fascinating is the ''process'' of science, not just the findings of science. And how they're building the case for the Higgs and, you know, what it means is just as fascinating as the end result.<br />
<br />
R: Science education &mdash; at least in this country, in the U.S. &mdash; isn't about teaching the process. It's not about teaching how difficult science can be and all the, you know, the amount of time and the amount of failures you have to have before you have one success. I think most people think of science as a string of large discoveries, and so they look around and they wonder why they're not seeing scientists making these big discoveries now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. ''Eureka!''<br />
<br />
J: The other cool thing about this type of research is it usually does...and we ''will'' see the LHC create new information. Like, you know, things will be discovered and happened upon by accident that will lead to other stuff that they never even thought about.<br />
<br />
B: Well, Jay, it's funny you point that out because that's exactly what's happening now. Now that they really think they've got a handle on the range in which the Higgs can appear, that would mean that the Higgs is relatively...it has a very relatively low mass, which would mean &mdash; according to the standard theory, I think &mdash; that the Higgs would have to be accompanied by ''another'' particle.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Now, this is a particle that's not explicitly predicted by the standard theory, but in order for the Higgs to exist at this low mass, it would need this extra particle with it, Otherwise, the Higgs would never be stable, the universe never would have existed, and things would be very different and boring all around. But...so this might actually lead to new physics&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So you're saying the Higgs has a posse.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)'' Right.<br />
<br />
S: An entourage.<br />
<br />
B: This could lead to new physics. I mean, how awesome would that be if the last particle, you know, proven that the standard theory predicted, that we finally showed experimentally, leads the way into new physics because of this new particle that wasn't like...you know, wasn't really anticipated but would have to exist if the Higgs has that mass?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm. Well, I think that the Standard Model is one of the greatest triumphs of science. It's up there with the periodic table, I mean, evolution...some basic concept that has huge impact...implications for our understanding of how the world works.<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
*[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ NeuroLogica Blog: Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
S: Some lighter news this week &mdash; did you guys hear about the UFO that's trailing behind Mercury?<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
B: You mean the cloaked UFO?<br />
<br />
E: ''Yeah!''<br />
<br />
S: The cloaked UFO.<br />
<br />
B: O...M...G.<br />
<br />
J: That can't be ''anything'' else, Steve.<br />
<br />
E: Nope.<br />
<br />
S: No, what else could it possibly be? So&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Just tell me nobody's going to commit mass suicide over it.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' I can't promise you that.<br />
<br />
E: ''(laughs)'' No promises.<br />
<br />
S: NASA has a lot...produces a lot of video and other, you know, allied astronomical organizations, you know, that are producing video and pictures, either from probes or telescopes or whatever. And now with the Internet, a lot of this is available online. So UFO enthusiasts can pore through pictures and video looking for anomalies. And then when they see something apparently anomalous, they declare it a UFO. It's just like ghost hunters looking at photographs and video and listening to audio, and anything that strikes them as anomalous is a ghost. It's the same process of anomaly hunting. So what one UFO enthusiast who uploaded a video to [http://www.youtube.com/ YouTube] under the pseudonym of siniXster &mdash; ''(spelling)'' S-I-N-X-S-T-E-R&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: siniXster.<br />
<br />
S: siniXster.<br />
<br />
E: Like "sinister"&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't ask me.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;but with an "X." Makes it sound ''cool''.<br />
<br />
S: He uploaded the video of a {{w|coronal mass ejection}} from the sun, and Mercury happened to be in the background. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6X96xI1gLdQ the video], as the &mdash; which we'll link to, of course &mdash; as the coronal mass ejections were washing across the visual...the field of view, this cluster of lights appears to the right of the bright light that is Mercury in the middle of the field. And then it fades away again as the mass ejection passes by it. So what siniXster thought this was was a large cloaked vessel that was revealed by the energy of the sun, you know, washing past it. What he...he gives us a voice over for the video. It's actually the Sun Centered Imaging Package and Heliosphere Imager that was taking the pictures, and he says: <blockquote>That is definitely some sort of manufactured object. It's cylindrical on either side and has a shape in the middle. It definitely looks like a ship to me, and very obviously, it's cloaked. There's really absolutely no explanation for that other than it's some sort of ship.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: There you go.<br />
<br />
E: There you have it.<br />
<br />
R: I buy it.<br />
<br />
E: That's it.<br />
<br />
B: That's all the evidence I need.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Case closed!<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: It's a very compelling argument.<br />
<br />
S: Now, "Two cylinders with a shape in the middle?" So is that the Enterprise? I mean, what does he think that he is seeing there? Maybe a Romulan Bird-of-Prey or...which would make more sense 'cause they have the cloaking device.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: And he sounds very sincere. I mean, you never know if...with things like this if it's being satirical or it's a joke, but the guy sounds sincere, for whatever that's worth, but...it is interesting the confidence that people can have. Essentially you're looking at blobs of light on a video that has undergone a tremendous amount of processing. And he's convinced it ''has'' to be manufactured, it ''has'' to be a ship, and it's ''obviously'' cloaked, from just these blobs of light on this video. Interestingly, which is often the case, there's already an explanation available for this. Astronomers involved with this project, specifically Nathan Rich, was quoted as saying: <blockquote>It's a complicated effect. It's basically the background that is removed from the image to bring out the faint coronal signal. It's a negative imprint on the background.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So what he's saying is it's a photographic artifact. They have to remove all of the brighter objects in the background in order to see this very faint coronal mass ejection, and this is an artifact of that process. It's essentially a ghost of Mercury itself.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: As Mercury's moving through the field, you know, its image was imperfectly removed from the background, leaving this ghost image behind on a couple frames.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, I found another quote from Nathan Rich. This guy's the ground systems engineer for the [http://secchi.nrl.navy.mil/ Sun Earth Connection Coronal and Heliospheric Investigation] &mdash; seems like he knows what he's talking about. He said that...kinda like what you said &mdash; in essence, the alien image is a visual after effect or ghost artifact of Mercury. But he concludes by saying that that was taken...that was photographed the previous day. So he says it's a byproduct of the way the images are made, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around what he meant by a ghost artifact of Mercury that was photographed the previous day.<br />
<br />
S: I guess they're using cumulative images, you know, not just one image&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;in order to remove this background. It's not like they're just taking a snapshot; they're collecting data and processing it over a long period of time. It reminded me of the Elenin UFO or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2010_X1 Elenin comet]. Remember this, guys?<br />
<br />
B: No, what was that?<br />
<br />
E: We talked about it at TAM.<br />
<br />
S: We talked about it at TAM. Where there was again like these cylinders trailing behind&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;the like...ships in formation or something trailing behind the comet, but it was just an artifact of the fact that the camera was tracking the comet, which is moving relative to the background stars. And so the background stars were smearing out and trailing behind the comet. Pure photographic artifact. But it's...you know, this is a common scenario where the UFO enthusiasts ''assume'' that whatever they're looking at is exactly what it is. They take it completely at face value, and they don't consider photographic artifact in their, you know, thinking about it. They...either they just...it's not on their list of things they think about or they just dismiss it out of hand...<br />
<br />
B: It reminds me of visual perception in general, where, I mean, your eye and your brain &mdash; it's not just a camera.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Your brain is constructing reality, so you can't take what you see as something that's exactly the...that exactly reflects reality. You just can't do it.<br />
<br />
S: And it's also interesting to point out the process of anomaly hunting as a method of pseudoscience &mdash; you know, just looking for anything weird and then, rather than using that as a starting point for a ''hypothesis'', they use that as support for a ''conclusion'', as if this confirms that it's a ship, you know. Not, "Oh, I don't know what's causing that. Let me figure out if anyone knows what's causing it. And let's see if we can figure out what is the ultimate cause." Rather than, "Ooh, that's weird. It's a ghost!" or "It's a UFO!" They short-circuit the entire process of scientific discovery.<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=8379SGU Episode 3352013-10-14T07:32:47Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Mercury UFO (22:53) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 />
|episodeNum = 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she will be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
*[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Bad Astronomy: Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
S: All right, sad story, but, Bob, let's transition to a happy story about the {{w|Higgs boson}}.<br />
<br />
R: Hooray!<br />
<br />
B: Well, I might beg to differ. The big news, I think, this week was the first electronic optical fibers with hydrogenated amorphous silicon were developed. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Actually, no, that's number&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't you ever talk to me like that again, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: What did you just throw up?<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;that's number two. The number-one story was that scientists discovered why buttercups reflect yellow on chins. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yes, I saw that one too.<br />
<br />
R: Way to ruin Science or Fiction, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, good thing I didn't choose any of those.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, that doesn't mean you like butter? What...what's up?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Or {{w|Parkay}}?<br />
<br />
B: I'm kidding obviously, but&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Who doesn't like butter?<br />
<br />
E: People allergic to butter.<br />
<br />
S: But don't get me started on {{w|I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!}} &mdash; that stuff is ''not'' butter. That will make...that is&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: I can't ''believe'' it!<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;nausea inducing.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
R: So about that Higgs boson...<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the Higgs boson...''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
J: Pretty cool, huh?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, so, unless you've been off planet or in stasis for a couple weeks, you probably have heard about the latest hubbub about the Higgs boson.<br />
<br />
E: Again.<br />
<br />
B: Two separate teams of scientists at {{w|CERN}} using the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} have found the most similar and enticing hints yet of the existence of the Higgs boson, the so-called "''God'' particle"&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I hate that...I hate that name.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;the particle that is thought&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That ''is'' stupid.<br />
<br />
S: Can we call it the "Lucifer particle?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: I was going to go with the "Thor particle."<br />
<br />
E: The "Buddah particle?"<br />
<br />
B: There you go. Umm, this is the particle that's thought to imbue all matter with mass. Now, both the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS_experiment ATLAS] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Muon_Solenoid CMS] experiments and...the teams that ran those experiments recently announced their results from ''literally'' &mdash; and I mean this &mdash; hundreds of trillions of proton collisions that offer not conclusive proof of Higgs, but the best evidence yet for many reasons. The Higgs boson is the last predicted particle of the famous and successful {{w|Standard Model}} of physics, which describes how forces and particles interact. A key component of this theory is actually not the particle per se, which everyone seems to focus on, but the Higgs ''field''. This is what everything really is interacting with in order to get the mass, even the Higgs particle itself. Now, as great as this standard theory is, it doesn't actually predict the ''mass'' of the Higgs, so scientists kinda need to look around at all the various energies that it could potentially exist in and exclude those energy domains where they don't find it. So to just...kind of just narrowing it down more and more over time. And it seems like they're really backing it into a corner now, if it even still exists, which of course isn't certain. Now, the ATLAS team has narrowed the range that they...it looks like the Higgs exists between 115 and 131 gigaelectronvolts. The CMS team is saying that it ''cannot'' be ''heavier'' than 127 GeV (gigaelectronvolts). Now, you see "electronvolts" tossed around a lot in a lot of these articles. It refers to an amount of energy &mdash; an electronvolt. One electronvolt is the amount of energy that is given to an electron when it's accelerated through an {{w|electric potential difference}} of one volt. So that's kind of it in a nutshell. These electronvolts work very well in particle physics. They're very flexible. They can be used as a unit of momentum, and also, due to E=mc2 &mdash; or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence energy-mass equivalence] &mdash; it could also be used for a unit of mass. So, to kind of put these into perspective a little bit, one GeV is a billion electronvolts. One TeV is a trillion electronvolts, and that's about the same kinetic energy of a flying mosquito. So even a trillion electronvolts is still not a lot of energy. The energy of one photon of visible light is anywhere between 1.6 to 3.4 electronvolts. So, very, very little energy there. So, if these latest experiments are correct, then the Higgs would then weigh between about 126 billion electronvolts. That would make it about 126 times heavier than a proton and a quarter-million times heavier than an electron, so it would certainly be a big boy. The next question that I think of is like, well, all right, how confident are these scientists? That's pretty important. And you may have heard a lot about "sigma." They give numbers &mdash; a sigma of 1.9 or 2-point-whatever. These sigma numbers try to put into perspective the chance that the results are a total fluke with no significance at all. So, for the ATLAS experiments, the statistical significance of the 126 GeV was a sigma of 2.3. Now, that means that there's about a two-percent chance of their results being just a random fluctuation. The CMS detector had a sigma of 1.9, so that was less than two percent. Now, that sounds good, and it is very good, but the gold standard is 5 sigma, and that would mean that there's less than one in a million chance of random noise causing the results that they're seeing. So clearly there's more work to be done and more data to be gathered before we can all, you know, get drunk and really start celebrating the Higgs boson. And, I don't know...did you guys find a similar puzzling attitude? A lot of people were like, "Oh, nothing to see here!" "Please move on!" You know, "Big deal!" "They didn't discover it yet." And I disagree. I think there's plenty of room for real optimism in this. You know, we've been steadily narrowing the range &mdash; the energy regime in which the Higgs can be found. That alone, I think, makes these most recent results much more compelling than if the range was much larger than it was, even a few years ago. So, as you narrow that range down where it would most likely exist, any new evidence that you have I think is just more compelling. Second, the Standard Model doesn't tell us how big the Higgs is &mdash; this one was pretty interesting &mdash; but it does tell us how it would interact with particles like the {{w|W and Z bosons}}, which are responsible for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction weak nuclear force]. So if you consider the weight of those particles, which have been determined through experiments, the Higgs ''should'' weigh between 115 and 130 gigaelectronvolts, and that fits these latest predictions like a glove. That's ''exactly'' what they're saying, and, to me, that's very compelling. And finally, for the first time, we've got these two separate high-resolution experiments that both agree on this new energy range. So you put all that together, and, you know, of course it still can be a fluke, but I think after such a...the long journey these guys have taken, it seems likely to me that these are among the final steps that these scientists are taking to finally determine if the Higgs exists or not, and whether it does or not &mdash; and I think we'll probably know with a sigma of 5, hopefully within the year or so &mdash; that I think either eventuality I think would be worth raising a glass to all the scientists that have worked so hard on this.<br />
<br />
E: I think people are...have been inundated &mdash; and especially the last few years &mdash; with articles about the Higgs boson coming out every what seems like couple of months, and it's kind of like the boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon. It's like, all right, well, you know, let us know when the wolf is ''really'' here.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's part of it.<br />
<br />
E: Then we'll pay attention, right?<br />
<br />
B: It seems like more of the same, and as interesting and as important as these results are, yeah, after three or four times...god, I think we've talked about the Higgs on at least three or four occasions. And the LHC, forget it, we've talked about that a bunch too. So yeah, there's that part of it. I think that might be a reason why a lot of these people are just like, "Ho-hum." But there are certainly a lot of people that are just so excited.<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, that's fine. This is ''happening'', you know. We're not just going to wait and say when it's totally over. It's interesting to see the process unfold. {{w|Lawrence Krauss}}, whose interview we aired last week, was quoted as saying this about it: <blockquote>If the Higgs is discovered, it will represent perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the human intellect in recent memory, vindicating fifty years of the building of one of the greatest theoretical edifices in all of science and requiring the building of the most complicated machine that has ever been built.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So I think that puts it into perspective.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good quote.<br />
<br />
S: This is ''huge'', and I think we should watch it unfold and not just pop the corks at the very end and get people caught up, you know, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Well, I can see the general public might not be interested in the play-by-play. I find it fascinating because I like to hear the steps that they're taking. It's also good to....you know, it's good to keep that research in the press because, you know, it gives us the idea that they're using that machine. It took so long to do it, it was so expensive, and I ''need'' to hear about updates like this. I think it's important.<br />
<br />
S: I love the play-by-play because what's most fascinating is the ''process'' of science, not just the findings of science. And how they're building the case for the Higgs and, you know, what it means is just as fascinating as the end result.<br />
<br />
R: Science education &mdash; at least in this country, in the U.S. &mdash; isn't about teaching the process. It's not about teaching how difficult science can be and all the, you know, the amount of time and the amount of failures you have to have before you have one success. I think most people think of science as a string of large discoveries, and so they look around and they wonder why they're not seeing scientists making these big discoveries now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. ''Eureka!''<br />
<br />
J: The other cool thing about this type of research is it usually does...and we ''will'' see the LHC create new information. Like, you know, things will be discovered and happened upon by accident that will lead to other stuff that they never even thought about.<br />
<br />
B: Well, Jay, it's funny you point that out because that's exactly what's happening now. Now that they really think they've got a handle on the range in which the Higgs can appear, that would mean that the Higgs is relatively...it has a very relatively low mass, which would mean &mdash; according to the standard theory, I think &mdash; that the Higgs would have to be accompanied by ''another'' particle.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Now, this is a particle that's not explicitly predicted by the standard theory, but in order for the Higgs to exist at this low mass, it would need this extra particle with it, Otherwise, the Higgs would never be stable, the universe never would have existed, and things would be very different and boring all around. But...so this might actually lead to new physics&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So you're saying the Higgs has a posse.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)'' Right.<br />
<br />
S: An entourage.<br />
<br />
B: This could lead to new physics. I mean, how awesome would that be if the last particle, you know, proven that the standard theory predicted, that we finally showed experimentally, leads the way into new physics because of this new particle that wasn't like...you know, wasn't really anticipated but would have to exist if the Higgs has that mass?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm. Well, I think that the Standard Model is one of the greatest triumphs of science. It's up there with the periodic table, I mean, evolution...some basic concept that has huge impact...implications for our understanding of how the world works.<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
*[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ NeuroLogica Blog: Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
S: Some lighter news this week...did you guys hear about the UFO that's trailing behind Mercury?<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
B: You mean the cloaked UFO?<br />
<br />
E: ''Yeah!''<br />
<br />
S: The cloaked UFO.<br />
<br />
B: O...M...G.<br />
<br />
J: That can't be ''anything'' else, Steve.<br />
<br />
E: Nope.<br />
<br />
S: No, what else could it possibly be? So&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Just tell me nobody's going to commit mass suicide over it.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' I can't promise you that.<br />
<br />
E: ''(laughs)'' No promises.<br />
<br />
S: NASA has a lot...produces a lot of video and other, you know, allied astronomical organizations, you know, that are producing video and pictures, either from probes or telescopes or whatever. And now with the Internet, a lot of this is available online. So UFO enthusiasts can pore through pictures and video looking for anomalies. And then when they see something apparently anomalous, they declare it a UFO. It's just like ghost hunters looking at photographs and video and listening to audio, and anything that strikes them as anomalous is a ghost. It's the same process of anomaly hunting. So what one UFO enthusiast who uploaded a video to [http://www.youtube.com/ YouTube] under the pseudonym of siniXster &mdash; ''(spelling)'' S-I-N-X-S-T-E-R&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: siniXster.<br />
<br />
S: siniXster.<br />
<br />
E: Like "sinister"&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't ask me.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;but with an "X." Makes it sound ''cool''.<br />
<br />
S: He uploaded the video of a {{w|coronal mass ejection}} from the sun, and Mercury happened to be in the background. And in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6X96xI1gLdQ the video], as the &mdash; which we'll link to, of course &mdash; as the coronal mass ejections were washing across the visual...the field of view, this cluster of lights appears to the right of the bright light that is Mercury in the middle of the field. And then it fades away again as the mass ejection passes by it. So what siniXster thought this was was a large cloaked vessel that was revealed by the energy of the sun, you know, washing past it. What he...he gives us a voice over for the video. It's actually the Sun Centered Imaging Package and Heliosphere Imager that was taking the pictures, and he says: <blockquote>That is definitely some sort of manufactured object. It's cylindrical on either side and has a shape in the middle. It definitely looks like a ship to me, and very obviously, it's cloaked. There's really absolutely no explanation for that other than it's some sort of ship.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: There you go.<br />
<br />
E: There you have it.<br />
<br />
R: I buy it.<br />
<br />
E: That's it.<br />
<br />
B: That's all the evidence I need.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Case closed!<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: It's a very compelling argument.<br />
<br />
S: Now, "Two cylinders with a shape in the middle?" So is that the Enterprise? I mean, what does he think that he is seeing there? Maybe a Romulan Bird-of-Prey or...which would make more sense 'cause they have the cloaking device.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: And he sounds very sincere. I mean, you never know if...with things like this if it's being satirical or it's a joke, but the guy sounds sincere, for whatever that's worth, but...it is interesting the confidence that people can have. Essentially you're looking at blobs of light on a video that has undergone a tremendous amount of processing. And he's convinced it ''has'' to be manufactured, it ''has'' to be a ship, and it's ''obviously'' cloaked, from just these blobs of light on this video. Interestingly, which is often the case, there's already an explanation available for this. Astronomers involved with this project, specifically Nathan Rich, was quoted as saying: <blockquote>It's a complicated effect. It's basically the background that is removed from the image to bring out the faint coronal signal. It's a negative imprint on the background.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So what he's saying is it's a photographic artifact. They have to remove all of the brighter objects in the background in order to see this very faint coronal mass ejection, and this is an artifact of that process. It's essentially a ghost of Mercury itself.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: As Mercury's moving through the field, you know, its image was imperfectly removed from the background, leaving this ghost image behind on a couple frames.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, I found another quote from Nathan Rich. This guy's the ground systems engineer for the [http://secchi.nrl.navy.mil/ Sun Earth Connection Coronal and Heliospheric Investigation] &mdash; seems like he knows what he's talking about. He said that...kinda like what you said &mdash; in essence, the alien image is a visual after effect or ghost artifact of Mercury. But he concludes by saying that that was taken...that was photographed the previous day. So he says it's a byproduct of the way the images are made, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around what he meant by a ghost artifact of Mercury that was photographed the previous day.<br />
<br />
S: I guess they're using cumulative images, you know, not just one image&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;in order to remove this background. It's not like they're just taking a snapshot; they're collecting data and processing it over a long period of time. It reminded me of the Elenin UFO or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2010_X1 Elenin comet]. Remember this, guys?<br />
<br />
B: No, what was that?<br />
<br />
E: We talked about it at TAM.<br />
<br />
S: We talked about it at TAM. Where there was again like these cylinders trailing behind&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;the like...ships in formation or something trailing behind the comet, but it was just an artifact of the fact that the camera was tracking the comet, which is moving relative to the background stars. And so the background stars were smearing out and trailing behind the comet. Pure photographic artifact. But it's...you know, this is a common scenario where the UFO enthusiasts ''assume'' that whatever they're looking at is exactly what it is. They take it completely at face value, and they don't consider photographic artifact in their, you know, thinking about it. They...either they just...it's not on their list of things they think about or they just dismiss it out of hand...<br />
<br />
B: It reminds me of visual perception in general, where, I mean, your eye and your brain &mdash; it's not just a camera.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Your brain is constructing reality, so you can't take what you see as something that's exactly the...that exactly reflects reality. You just can't do it.<br />
<br />
S: And it's also interesting to point out the process of anomaly hunting as a method of pseudoscience &mdash; you know, just looking for anything weird and then, rather than using that as a starting point for a ''hypothesis'', they use that as support for a ''conclusion'', as if this confirms that it's a ship, you know. Not, "Oh, I don't know what's causing that. Let me figure out if anyone knows what's causing it. And let's see if we can figure out what is the ultimate cause." Rather than, "Ooh, that's weird. It's a ghost!" or "It's a UFO!" They short-circuit the entire process of scientific discovery.<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=8378SGU Episode 3352013-10-14T06:42:33Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Higgs Update (12:08) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 />
|episodeNum = 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she will be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
*[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Bad Astronomy: Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
S: All right, sad story, but, Bob, let's transition to a happy story about the {{w|Higgs boson}}.<br />
<br />
R: Hooray!<br />
<br />
B: Well, I might beg to differ. The big news, I think, this week was the first electronic optical fibers with hydrogenated amorphous silicon were developed. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Actually, no, that's number&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't you ever talk to me like that again, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: What did you just throw up?<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;that's number two. The number-one story was that scientists discovered why buttercups reflect yellow on chins. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yes, I saw that one too.<br />
<br />
R: Way to ruin Science or Fiction, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, good thing I didn't choose any of those.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, that doesn't mean you like butter? What...what's up?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Or {{w|Parkay}}?<br />
<br />
B: I'm kidding obviously, but&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Who doesn't like butter?<br />
<br />
E: People allergic to butter.<br />
<br />
S: But don't get me started on {{w|I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!}} &mdash; that stuff is ''not'' butter. That will make...that is&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: I can't ''believe'' it!<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;nausea inducing.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
R: So about that Higgs boson...<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the Higgs boson...''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
J: Pretty cool, huh?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, so, unless you've been off planet or in stasis for a couple weeks, you probably have heard about the latest hubbub about the Higgs boson.<br />
<br />
E: Again.<br />
<br />
B: Two separate teams of scientists at {{w|CERN}} using the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} have found the most similar and enticing hints yet of the existence of the Higgs boson, the so-called "''God'' particle"&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I hate that...I hate that name.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;the particle that is thought&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That ''is'' stupid.<br />
<br />
S: Can we call it the "Lucifer particle?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: I was going to go with the "Thor particle."<br />
<br />
E: The "Buddah particle?"<br />
<br />
B: There you go. Umm, this is the particle that's thought to imbue all matter with mass. Now, both the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS_experiment ATLAS] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Muon_Solenoid CMS] experiments and...the teams that ran those experiments recently announced their results from ''literally'' &mdash; and I mean this &mdash; hundreds of trillions of proton collisions that offer not conclusive proof of Higgs, but the best evidence yet for many reasons. The Higgs boson is the last predicted particle of the famous and successful {{w|Standard Model}} of physics, which describes how forces and particles interact. A key component of this theory is actually not the particle per se, which everyone seems to focus on, but the Higgs ''field''. This is what everything really is interacting with in order to get the mass, even the Higgs particle itself. Now, as great as this standard theory is, it doesn't actually predict the ''mass'' of the Higgs, so scientists kinda need to look around at all the various energies that it could potentially exist in and exclude those energy domains where they don't find it. So to just...kind of just narrowing it down more and more over time. And it seems like they're really backing it into a corner now, if it even still exists, which of course isn't certain. Now, the ATLAS team has narrowed the range that they...it looks like the Higgs exists between 115 and 131 gigaelectronvolts. The CMS team is saying that it ''cannot'' be ''heavier'' than 127 GeV (gigaelectronvolts). Now, you see "electronvolts" tossed around a lot in a lot of these articles. It refers to an amount of energy &mdash; an electronvolt. One electronvolt is the amount of energy that is given to an electron when it's accelerated through an {{w|electric potential difference}} of one volt. So that's kind of it in a nutshell. These electronvolts work very well in particle physics. They're very flexible. They can be used as a unit of momentum, and also, due to E=mc2 &mdash; or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence energy-mass equivalence] &mdash; it could also be used for a unit of mass. So, to kind of put these into perspective a little bit, one GeV is a billion electronvolts. One TeV is a trillion electronvolts, and that's about the same kinetic energy of a flying mosquito. So even a trillion electronvolts is still not a lot of energy. The energy of one photon of visible light is anywhere between 1.6 to 3.4 electronvolts. So, very, very little energy there. So, if these latest experiments are correct, then the Higgs would then weigh between about 126 billion electronvolts. That would make it about 126 times heavier than a proton and a quarter-million times heavier than an electron, so it would certainly be a big boy. The next question that I think of is like, well, all right, how confident are these scientists? That's pretty important. And you may have heard a lot about "sigma." They give numbers &mdash; a sigma of 1.9 or 2-point-whatever. These sigma numbers try to put into perspective the chance that the results are a total fluke with no significance at all. So, for the ATLAS experiments, the statistical significance of the 126 GeV was a sigma of 2.3. Now, that means that there's about a two-percent chance of their results being just a random fluctuation. The CMS detector had a sigma of 1.9, so that was less than two percent. Now, that sounds good, and it is very good, but the gold standard is 5 sigma, and that would mean that there's less than one in a million chance of random noise causing the results that they're seeing. So clearly there's more work to be done and more data to be gathered before we can all, you know, get drunk and really start celebrating the Higgs boson. And, I don't know...did you guys find a similar puzzling attitude? A lot of people were like, "Oh, nothing to see here!" "Please move on!" You know, "Big deal!" "They didn't discover it yet." And I disagree. I think there's plenty of room for real optimism in this. You know, we've been steadily narrowing the range &mdash; the energy regime in which the Higgs can be found. That alone, I think, makes these most recent results much more compelling than if the range was much larger than it was, even a few years ago. So, as you narrow that range down where it would most likely exist, any new evidence that you have I think is just more compelling. Second, the Standard Model doesn't tell us how big the Higgs is &mdash; this one was pretty interesting &mdash; but it does tell us how it would interact with particles like the {{w|W and Z bosons}}, which are responsible for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction weak nuclear force]. So if you consider the weight of those particles, which have been determined through experiments, the Higgs ''should'' weigh between 115 and 130 gigaelectronvolts, and that fits these latest predictions like a glove. That's ''exactly'' what they're saying, and, to me, that's very compelling. And finally, for the first time, we've got these two separate high-resolution experiments that both agree on this new energy range. So you put all that together, and, you know, of course it still can be a fluke, but I think after such a...the long journey these guys have taken, it seems likely to me that these are among the final steps that these scientists are taking to finally determine if the Higgs exists or not, and whether it does or not &mdash; and I think we'll probably know with a sigma of 5, hopefully within the year or so &mdash; that I think either eventuality I think would be worth raising a glass to all the scientists that have worked so hard on this.<br />
<br />
E: I think people are...have been inundated &mdash; and especially the last few years &mdash; with articles about the Higgs boson coming out every what seems like couple of months, and it's kind of like the boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon. It's like, all right, well, you know, let us know when the wolf is ''really'' here.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's part of it.<br />
<br />
E: Then we'll pay attention, right?<br />
<br />
B: It seems like more of the same, and as interesting and as important as these results are, yeah, after three or four times...god, I think we've talked about the Higgs on at least three or four occasions. And the LHC, forget it, we've talked about that a bunch too. So yeah, there's that part of it. I think that might be a reason why a lot of these people are just like, "Ho-hum." But there are certainly a lot of people that are just so excited.<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, that's fine. This is ''happening'', you know. We're not just going to wait and say when it's totally over. It's interesting to see the process unfold. {{w|Lawrence Krauss}}, whose interview we aired last week, was quoted as saying this about it: <blockquote>If the Higgs is discovered, it will represent perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the human intellect in recent memory, vindicating fifty years of the building of one of the greatest theoretical edifices in all of science and requiring the building of the most complicated machine that has ever been built.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So I think that puts it into perspective.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good quote.<br />
<br />
S: This is ''huge'', and I think we should watch it unfold and not just pop the corks at the very end and get people caught up, you know, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Well, I can see the general public might not be interested in the play-by-play. I find it fascinating because I like to hear the steps that they're taking. It's also good to....you know, it's good to keep that research in the press because, you know, it gives us the idea that they're using that machine. It took so long to do it, it was so expensive, and I ''need'' to hear about updates like this. I think it's important.<br />
<br />
S: I love the play-by-play because what's most fascinating is the ''process'' of science, not just the findings of science. And how they're building the case for the Higgs and, you know, what it means is just as fascinating as the end result.<br />
<br />
R: Science education &mdash; at least in this country, in the U.S. &mdash; isn't about teaching the process. It's not about teaching how difficult science can be and all the, you know, the amount of time and the amount of failures you have to have before you have one success. I think most people think of science as a string of large discoveries, and so they look around and they wonder why they're not seeing scientists making these big discoveries now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. ''Eureka!''<br />
<br />
J: The other cool thing about this type of research is it usually does...and we ''will'' see the LHC create new information. Like, you know, things will be discovered and happened upon by accident that will lead to other stuff that they never even thought about.<br />
<br />
B: Well, Jay, it's funny you point that out because that's exactly what's happening now. Now that they really think they've got a handle on the range in which the Higgs can appear, that would mean that the Higgs is relatively...it has a very relatively low mass, which would mean &mdash; according to the standard theory, I think &mdash; that the Higgs would have to be accompanied by ''another'' particle.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Now, this is a particle that's not explicitly predicted by the standard theory, but in order for the Higgs to exist at this low mass, it would need this extra particle with it, Otherwise, the Higgs would never be stable, the universe never would have existed, and things would be very different and boring all around. But...so this might actually lead to new physics&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So you're saying the Higgs has a posse.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)'' Right.<br />
<br />
S: An entourage.<br />
<br />
B: This could lead to new physics. I mean, how awesome would that be if the last particle, you know, proven that the standard theory predicted, that we finally showed experimentally, leads the way into new physics because of this new particle that wasn't like...you know, wasn't really anticipated but would have to exist if the Higgs has that mass?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm. Well, I think that the Standard Model is one of the greatest triumphs of science. It's up there with the periodic table, I mean, evolution...some basic concept that has huge impact...implications for our understanding of how the world works.<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=8377SGU Episode 3352013-10-14T06:36:23Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Higgs Update (12:08) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 />
|episodeNum = 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she will be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
*[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Bad Astronomy: Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
S: All right, sad story, but, Bob, let's transition to a happy story about the {{w|Higgs boson}}.<br />
<br />
R: Hooray!<br />
<br />
B: Well, I might beg to differ. The big news, I think, this week was the first electronic optical fibers with hydrogenated amorphous silicon were developed. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Actually, no, that's number&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't you ever talk to me like that again, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: What did you just throw up?<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;that's number two. The number-one story was that scientists discovered why buttercups reflect yellow on chins. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yes, I saw that one too.<br />
<br />
R: Way to ruin Science or Fiction, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, good thing I didn't choose any of those.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, that doesn't mean you like butter? What...what's up?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Or {{w|Parkay}}?<br />
<br />
B: I'm kidding obviously, but&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Who doesn't like butter?<br />
<br />
E: People allergic to butter.<br />
<br />
S: But don't get me started on {{w|I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!}} &mdash; that stuff is ''not'' butter. That will make...that is&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: I can't ''believe'' it!<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;nausea inducing.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
R: So about that Higgs boson...<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the Higgs boson...''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
J: Pretty cool, huh?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, so, unless you've been off planet or in stasis for a couple weeks, you probably have heard about the latest hubbub about the Higgs boson.<br />
<br />
E: Again.<br />
<br />
B: Two separate teams of scientists at {{w|CERN}} using the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} have found the most similar and enticing hints yet of the existence of the Higgs boson, the so-called "''God'' particle"&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I hate that...I hate that name.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;the particle that is thought&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That ''is'' stupid.<br />
<br />
S: Can we call it the "Lucifer particle?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: I was going to go with the "Thor particle."<br />
<br />
E: The "Buddah particle?"<br />
<br />
B: There you go. Umm, this is the particle that's thought to imbue all matter with mass. Now, both the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS_experiment ATLAS] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Muon_Solenoid CMS] experiments and...the teams that ran those experiments recently announced their results from ''literally'' &mdash; and I mean this &mdash; hundreds of trillions of proton collisions that offer not conclusive proof of Higgs, but the best evidence yet for many reasons. The Higgs boson is the last predicted particle of the famous and successful {{w|Standard Model}} of physics, which describes how forces and particles interact. A key component of this theory is actually not the particle per se, which everyone seems to focus on, but the Higgs ''field''. This is what everything really is interacting with in order to get the mass, even the Higgs particle itself. Now, as great as this standard theory is, it doesn't actually predict the ''mass'' of the Higgs, so scientists kinda need to look around at all the various energies that it could potentially exist in and exclude those energy domains where they don't find it. So to just...kind of just narrowing it down more and more over time. And it seems like they're really backing it into a corner now, if it even still exists, which of course isn't certain. Now, the ATLAS team has narrowed the range that they...it looks like the Higgs exists between 115 and 131 gigaelectronvolts. The CMS team is saying that it ''cannot'' be ''heavier'' than 127 GeV (gigaelectronvolts). Now, you see "electronvolts" tossed around a lot in a lot of these articles. It refers to an amount of energy &mdash; an electronvolt. One electronvolt is the amount of energy that is given to an electron when it's accelerated through an {{w|electric potential difference}} of one volt. So that's kind of it in a nutshell. These electronvolts work very well in particle physics. They're very flexible. They can be used as a unit of momentum, and also, due to E=mc2 &mdash; or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence energy-mass equivalence] &mdash; it could also be used for a unit of mass. So, to kind of put these into perspective a little bit, one GeV is a billion electronvolts. One TeV is a trillion electronvolts, and that's about the same kinetic energy of a flying mosquito. So even a trillion electronvolts is still not a lot of energy. The energy of one photon of visible light is anywhere between 1.6 to 3.4 electronvolts. So, very, very little energy there. So, if these latest experiments are correct, then the Higgs would then weigh between about 126 billion electronvolts. That would make it about 126 times heavier than a proton and a quarter-million times heavier than an electron, so it would certainly be a big boy. The next question that I think of is like, well, all right, how confident are these scientists? That's pretty important. And you may have heard a lot about "sigma." They give numbers &mdash; a sigma of 1.9 or 2-point-whatever. These sigma numbers try to put into perspective the chance that the results are a total fluke with no significance at all. So, for the ATLAS experiments, the statistical significance of the 126 GeV was a sigma of 2.3. Now, that means that there's about a two-percent chance of their results being just a random fluctuation. The CMS detector had a sigma of 1.9, so that was less than two percent. Now, that sounds good, and it is very good, but the gold standard is 5 sigma, and that would mean that there's less than one in a million chance of random noise causing the results that they're seeing. So clearly there's more work to be done and more data to be gathered before we can all, you know, get drunk and really start celebrating the Higgs boson. And, I don't know...did you guys find a similar puzzling attitude? A lot of people were like, "Oh, nothing to see here!" "Please move on!" You know, "Big deal!" "They didn't discover it yet." And I disagree. I think there's plenty of room for real optimism in this. You know, we've been steadily narrowing the range &mdash; the energy regime in which the Higgs can be found. That alone, I think, makes these most recent results much more compelling than if the range was much larger than it was, even a few years ago. So, as you narrow that range down where it would most likely exist, any new evidence that you have I think is just more compelling. Second, the Standard Model doesn't tell us how big the Higgs is &mdash; this one was pretty interesting &mdash; but it does tell us how it would interact with particles like the {{w|W and Z bosons}}, which are responsible for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction weak nuclear force]. So if you consider the weight of those particles, which have been determined through experiments, the Higgs ''should'' weigh between 115 and 130 gigaelectronvolts, and that fits these latest predictions like a glove. That's ''exactly'' what they're saying, and, to me, that's very compelling. And finally, for the first time, we've got these two separate high-resolution experiments that both agree on this new energy range. So you put all that together, and, you know, of course it still can be a fluke, but I think after such a...the long journey these guys have taken, it seems likely to me that these are among the final steps that these scientists are taking to finally determine if the Higgs exists or not, and whether it does or not &mdash; and I think we'll probably know with a sigma of 5, hopefully within the year or so &mdash; that I think either eventuality I think would be worth raising a glass to all the scientists that have worked so hard on this.<br />
<br />
E: I think people are...have been inundated &mdash; and especially the last few years &mdash; with articles about the Higgs boson coming out every what seems like couple of months, and it's kind of like the boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon. It's like, all right, well, you know, let us know when the wolf is ''really'' here.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's part of it.<br />
<br />
E: Then we'll pay attention, right?<br />
<br />
B: It seems like more of the same, and as interesting and as important as these results are, yeah, after three or four times...god, I think we've talked about the Higgs on at least three or four occasions. And the LHC, forget it, we've talked about that a bunch too. So yeah, there's that part of it. I think that might be a reason why a lot of these people are just like, "Ho-hum." But there are certainly a lot of people that are just so excited.<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, that's fine. This is ''happening'', you know. We're not just going to wait and say when it's totally over. It's interesting to see the process unfold. {{w|Lawrence Krauss}}, whose interview we aired last week, was quoted as saying this about it: <blockquote>If the Higgs is discovered, it will represent perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the human intellect in recent memory, vindicating fifty years of the building of one of the greatest theoretical edifices in all of science and requiring the building of the most complicated machine that has ever been built.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So I think that puts it into perspective.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good quote.<br />
<br />
S: This is ''huge'', and I think we should watch it unfold and not just pop the corks at the very end and get people caught up, you know, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Well, I can see the general public might not be interested in the play-by-play. I find it fascinating because I like to hear the steps that they're taking. It's also good to....you know, it's good to keep that research in the press because, you know, it gives us the idea that they're using that machine. It took so long to do it, it was so expensive, and I ''need'' to hear about updates like this. I think it's important.<br />
<br />
S: I love the play-by-play because what's most fascinating is the ''process'' of science, not just the findings of science. And how they're building the case for the Higgs and, you know, what it means is just as fascinating as the end result.<br />
<br />
R: Science education &mdash; at least in this country, in the U.S. &mdash; isn't about teaching the process. It's not about teaching how difficult science can be and all the, you know, the amount of time and the amount of failures you have to have before you have one success. I think most people think of science as a string of large discoveries, and so they look around and they wonder why they're not seeing scientists making these big discoveries now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. ''Eureka!''<br />
<br />
J: The other cool thing about this type of research is it usually does...and we ''will'' see the LHC create new information. Like, you know, things will be discovered and happened upon by accident that will lead to other stuff that they never even thought about.<br />
<br />
B: Well, Jay, it's funny you point that out because that's exactly what's happening now. Now that they really think they've got a handle on the range in which the Higgs can appear, that would mean that the Higgs is relatively...it has a very relatively low mass, which would mean &mdash; according to the standard theory, I think &mdash; that the Higgs would have to be accompanied by ''another'' particle.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Now, this is a particle that's not explicitly predicted by the standard theory, but in order for the Higgs to exist at this low mass, it would need this extra particle with it, Otherwise, the Higgs would never be stable, the universe never would have existed, and things would be very different and boring all around. But...so this might actually lead to new physics&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So you're saying the Higgs has a posse.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)'' Right.<br />
<br />
S: An entourage.<br />
<br />
B: This could lead to new physics. I mean, how awesome would that be if the last particle, you know, proven that the standard theory predicted, that we finally showed experimentally, leads the way into new physics because of this new particle that wasn't like...you know, wasn't really anticipated but would have to exist if the Higgs has that mass?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm. Well, I think that the standard model is one of the greatest triumphs of science. It's up there with the periodic table, I mean, evolution...some basic concept that has huge impact...implications for our understanding of how the world works.<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=8376SGU Episode 3352013-10-14T06:34:21Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Higgs Update (12:08) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 />
|episodeNum = 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she will be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
*[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Bad Astronomy: Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
S: All right, sad story, but, Bob, let's transition to a happy story about the {{w|Higgs boson}}.<br />
<br />
R: Hooray!<br />
<br />
B: Well, I might beg to differ. The big news, I think, this week was the first electronic optical fibers with hydrogenated amorphous silicon were developed. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Actually, no, that's number&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't you ever talk to me like that again, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: What did you just throw up?<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;that's number two. The number-one story was that scientists discovered why buttercups reflect yellow on chins. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yes, I saw that one too.<br />
<br />
R: Way to ruin Science or Fiction, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, good thing I didn't choose any of those.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, that doesn't mean you like butter? What...what's up?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Or {{w|Parkay}}?<br />
<br />
B: I'm kidding obviously, but&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Who doesn't like butter?<br />
<br />
E: People allergic to butter.<br />
<br />
S: But don't get me started on {{w|I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!}} &mdash; that stuff is ''not'' butter. That will make...that is&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: I can't ''believe'' it!<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;nausea inducing.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
R: So about that Higgs boson...<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the Higgs boson...''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
J: Pretty cool, huh?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, so, unless you've been off planet or in stasis for a couple weeks, you probably have heard about the latest hubbub about the Higgs boson.<br />
<br />
E: Again.<br />
<br />
B: Two separate teams of scientists at {{w|CERN}} using the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} have found the most similar and enticing hints yet of the existence of the Higgs boson, the so-called "''God'' particle"&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I hate that...I hate that name.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;the particle that is thought&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That ''is'' stupid.<br />
<br />
S: Can we call it the "Lucifer particle?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: I was going to go with the "Thor particle."<br />
<br />
E: The "Buddah particle?"<br />
<br />
B: There you go. Umm, this is the particle that's thought to imbue all matter with mass. Now, both the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS_experiment ATLAS] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Muon_Solenoid CMS] experiments and...the teams that ran those experiments recently announced their results from ''literally'' &mdash; and I mean this &mdash; hundreds of trillions of proton collisions that offer not conclusive proof of Higgs, but the best evidence yet for many reasons. The Higgs boson is the last predicted particle of the famous and successful {{w|Standard Model}} of physics, which describes how forces and particles interact. A key component of this theory is actually not the particle per se, which everyone seems to focus on, but the Higgs ''field''. This is what everything really is interacting with in order to get the mass, even the Higgs particle itself. Now, as great as this standard theory is, it doesn't actually predict the ''mass'' of the Higgs, so scientists kinda need to look around at all the various energies that it could potentially exist in and exclude those energy domains where they don't find it. So to just...kind of just narrowing it down more and more over time. And it seems like they're really backing it into a corner now, if it even still exists, which of course isn't certain. Now, the ATLAS team has narrowed the range that they...it looks like the Higgs exists between 115 and 131 gigaelectronvolts. The CMS team is saying that it ''cannot'' be ''heavier'' than 127 GeV (gigaelectronvolts). Now, you see "electronvolts" tossed around a lot in a lot of these articles. It refers to an amount of energy &mdash; an electronvolt. One electronvolt is the amount of energy that is given to an electron when it's accelerated through an {{w|electric potential difference}} of one volt. So that's kind of it in a nutshell. These electronvolts work very well in particle physics. They're very flexible. They can be used as a unit of momentum, and also, due to E=mc2 &mdash; or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence energy-mass equivalence] &mdash; it could also be used for a unit of mass. So, to kind of put these into perspective a little bit, one GeV is a billion electronvolts. One TeV is a trillion electronvolts, and that's about the same kinetic energy of a flying mosquito. So even a trillion electronvolts is still not a lot of energy. The energy of one photon of visible light is anywhere between 1.6 to 3.4 electronvolts. So, very, very little energy there. So, if these latest experiments are correct, then the Higgs would then weigh between about 126 billion electronvolts. That would make it about 126 times heavier than a proton and a quarter-million times heavier than an electron, so it would certainly be a big boy. The next question that I think of is like, well, all right, how confident are these scientists? That's pretty important. And you may have heard a lot about "sigma." They give numbers &mdash; a sigma of 1.9 or 2-point-whatever. These sigma numbers try to put into perspective the chance that the results are a total fluke with no significance at all. So, for the ATLAS experiments, the statistical significance of the 126 GeV was a sigma of 2.3. Now, that means that there's about a two-percent chance of their results being just a random fluctuation. The CMS detector had a sigma of 1.9, so that was less than two percent. Now, that sounds good, and it is very good, but the gold standard is 5 sigma, and that would mean that there's less than one in a million chance of random noise causing the results that they're seeing. So clearly there's more work to be done and more data to be gathered before we can all, you know, get drunk and really start celebrating the Higgs boson. And, I don't know...did you guys find a similar puzzling attitude? A lot of people were like, "Oh, nothing to see here!" "Please move on!" You know, "Big deal!" "They didn't discover it yet." And I disagree. I think there's plenty of room for real optimism in this. You know, we've been steadily narrowing the range &mdash; the energy regime in which the Higgs can be found. That alone, I think, makes these most recent results much more compelling than if the range was much larger than it was, even a few years ago. So, as you narrow that range down where it would most likely exist, any new evidence that you have I think is just more compelling. Second, the Standard Model doesn't tell us how big the Higgs is &mdash; this one was pretty interesting &mdash; but it does tell us how it would interact with particles like the {{w|W and Z bosons}}, which are responsible for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction weak nuclear force]. So if you consider the weight of those particles, which have been determined through experiments, the Higgs ''should'' weigh between 115 and 130 gigaelectronvolts, and that fits these latest predictions like a glove. That's ''exactly'' what they're saying, and, to me, that's very compelling. And finally, for the first time, we've got these two separate high-resolution experiments that both agree on this new energy range. So you put all that together, and, you know, of course it still can be a fluke, but I think after such a...the long journey these guys have taken, it seems likely to me that these are among the final steps that these scientists are taking to finally determine if the Higgs exists or not, and whether it does or not &mdash; and I think we'll probably know with a sigma of 5 hopefully within the year or so &mdash; that I think either eventuality I think would be worth raising a glass to all the scientists that have worked so hard on this.<br />
<br />
E: I think people are...have been inundated &mdash; and especially the last few years &mdash; with articles about the Higgs boson coming out every what seems like couple of months, and it's kind of like the boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon. It's like, all right, well, you know, let us know when the wolf is ''really'' here.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's part of it.<br />
<br />
E: Then we'll pay attention, right?<br />
<br />
B: It seems like more of the same, and as interesting and as important as these results are, yeah, after three or four times...god, I think we've talked about the Higgs on at least three or four occasions. And the LHC, forget it, we've talked about that a bunch too. So yeah, there's that part of it. I think that might be a reason why a lot of these people are just like, "Ho-hum." But there are certainly a lot of people that are just so excited.<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, that's fine. This is ''happening'', you know. We're not just going to wait and say when it's totally over. It's interesting to see the process unfold. {{w|Lawrence Krauss}}, whose interview we aired last week, was quoted as saying this about it: <blockquote>If the Higgs is discovered, it will represent perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the human intellect in recent memory, vindicating fifty years of the building of one of the greatest theoretical edifices in all of science and requiring the building of the most complicated machine that has ever been built.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So I think that puts it into perspective.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good quote.<br />
<br />
S: This is ''huge'', and I think we should watch it unfold and not just pop the corks at the very end and get people caught up, you know, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Well, I can see the general public might not be interested in the play-by-play. I find it fascinating because I like to hear the steps that they're taking. It's also good to....you know, it's good to keep that research in the press because, you know, it gives us the idea that they're using that machine. It took so long to do it, it was so expensive, and I ''need'' to hear about updates like this. I think it's important.<br />
<br />
S: I love the play-by-play because what's most fascinating is the ''process'' of science, not just the findings of science. And how they're building the case for the Higgs and, you know, what it means is just as fascinating as the end result.<br />
<br />
R: Science education &mdash; at least in this country, in the U.S. &mdash; isn't about teaching the process. It's not about teaching how difficult science can be and all the, you know, the amount of time and the amount of failures you have to have before you have one success. I think most people think of science as a string of large discoveries, and so they look around and they wonder why they're not seeing scientists making these big discoveries now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. ''Eureka!''<br />
<br />
J: The other cool thing about this type of research is it usually does...and we ''will'' see the LHC create new information. Like, you know, things will be discovered and happened upon by accident that will lead to other stuff that they never even thought about.<br />
<br />
B: Well, Jay, it's funny you point that out because that's exactly what's happening now. Now that they really think they've got a handle on the range in which the Higgs can appear, that would mean that the Higgs is relatively...it has a very relatively low mass, which would mean &mdash; according to the standard theory, I think &mdash; that the Higgs would have to be accompanied by ''another'' particle.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Now, this is a particle that's not explicitly predicted by the standard theory, but in order for the Higgs to exist at this low mass, it would need this extra particle with it, Otherwise, the Higgs would never be stable, the universe never would have existed, and things would be very different and boring all around. But...so this might actually lead to new physics&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So you're saying the Higgs has a posse.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)'' Right.<br />
<br />
S: An entourage.<br />
<br />
B: This could lead to new physics. I mean, how awesome would that be if the last particle, you know, proven that the standard theory predicted, that we finally showed experimentally, leads the way into new physics because of this new particle that wasn't like...you know, wasn't really anticipated but would have to exist if the Higgs has that mass?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm. Well, I think that the standard model is one of the greatest triumphs of science. It's up there with the periodic table, I mean, evolution...some basic concept that has huge impact...implications for our understanding of how the world works.<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=8375SGU Episode 3352013-10-14T06:32:15Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Higgs Update (12:08) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 />
|episodeNum = 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she will be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
*[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Bad Astronomy: Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
S: All right, sad story, but, Bob, let's transition to a happy story about the {{w|Higgs boson}}.<br />
<br />
R: Hooray!<br />
<br />
B: Well, I might beg to differ. The big news, I think, this week was the first electronic optical fibers with hydrogenated amorphous silicon were developed. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Actually, no, that's number&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't you ever talk to me like that again, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: What did you just throw up?<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;that's number two. The number-one story was that scientists discovered why buttercups reflect yellow on chins. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yes, I saw that one too.<br />
<br />
R: Way to ruin Science or Fiction, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, good thing I didn't choose any of those.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, that doesn't mean you like butter? What...what's up?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Or {{w|Parkay}}?<br />
<br />
B: I'm kidding obviously, but&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Who doesn't like butter?<br />
<br />
E: People allergic to butter.<br />
<br />
S: But don't get me started on {{w|I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!}} &mdash; that stuff is ''not'' butter. That will make...that is&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: I can't ''believe'' it!<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;nausea inducing.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
R: So about that Higgs boson...<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the Higgs boson...''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
J: Pretty cool, huh?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, so, unless you've been off planet or in stasis for a couple weeks, you probably have heard about the latest hubbub about the Higgs boson.<br />
<br />
E: Again.<br />
<br />
B: Two separate teams of scientists at {{w|CERN}} using the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} have found the most similar and enticing hints yet of the existence of the Higgs boson, the so-called "''God'' particle"&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I hate that...I hate that name.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;the particle that is thought&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That ''is'' stupid.<br />
<br />
S: Can we call it the "Lucifer particle?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: I was going to go with the "Thor particle."<br />
<br />
E: The "Buddah particle?"<br />
<br />
B: There you go. Umm, this is the particle that's thought to imbue all matter with mass. Now, both the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS_experiment ATLAS] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Muon_Solenoid CMS] experiments and...the teams that ran those experiments recently announced their results from ''literally'' &mdash; and I mean this &mdash; hundreds of trillions of proton collisions that offer not conclusive proof of Higgs, but the best evidence yet for many reasons. The Higgs boson is the last predicted particle of the famous and successful {{w|Standard Model}} of physics, which describes how forces and particles interact. A key component of this theory is actually not the particle per se, which everyone seems to focus on, but the Higgs ''field''. This is what everything really is interacting with in order to get the mass, even the Higgs particle itself. Now, as great as this standard theory is, it doesn't actually predict the ''mass'' of the Higgs, so scientists kinda need to look around at all the various energies that it could potentially exist in and exclude those energy domains where they don't find it. So to just...kind of just narrowing it down more and more over time. And it seems like they're really backing it into a corner now, if it even still exists, which of course isn't certain. Now, the ATLAS team has narrowed the range that they...it looks like the Higgs exists between 115 and 131 gigaelectronvolts. The CMS team is saying that it ''cannot'' be ''heavier'' than 127 GeV (gigaelectronvolts). Now, you see "electronvolts" tossed around a lot in a lot of these articles. It refers to an amount of energy &mdash; an electronvolt. One electronvolt is the amount of energy that is given to an electron when it's accelerated through an {{w|electric potential difference}} of one volt. So that's kind of it in a nutshell. These electronvolts work very well in particle physics. They're very flexible. They can be used as a unit of momentum, and also, due to E=mc2 &mdash; or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence energy-mass equivalence] &mdash; it could also be used for a unit of mass. So, to kind of put these into perspective a little bit, one GeV is a billion electronvolts. One TeV is a trillion electronvolts, and that's about the same kinetic energy of a flying mosquito. So even a trillion electronvolts is still not a lot of energy. The energy of one photon of visible light is anywhere between 1.6 to 3.4 electronvolts. So, very, very little energy there. So, if these latest experiments are correct, then the Higgs would then weigh between about 126 billion electronvolts. That would make it about 126 times heavier than a proton and a quarter-million times heavier than an electron, so it would certainly be a big boy. The next question that I think of is like, well, all right, how confident are these scientists? That's pretty important. And you may have heard a lot about "sigma." They give numbers &mdash; a sigma of 1.9 or 2-point-whatever. These sigma numbers try to put into perspective the chance that the results are a total fluke with no significance at all. So, for the ATLAS experiments, the statistical significance of the 126 GeV was a sigma of 2.3. Now, that means that there's about a two-percent chance of their results being just a random fluctuation. The CMS detector had a sigma of 1.9, so that was less than two percent. Now, that sounds good, and it is very good, but the gold standard is 5 sigma, and that would mean that there's less than one in a million chance of random noise causing the results that they're seeing. So clearly there's more work to be done and more data to be gathered before we can all, you know, get drunk and really start celebrating the Higgs boson. And, I don't know...did you guys find a similar puzzling attitude? A lot of people were like, "Oh, nothing to see here!" "Please move on!" You know, "Big deal!" "They didn't discover it yet." And I disagree. I think there's plenty of room for real optimism in this. You know, we've been steadily narrowing the range &mdash; the energy regime in which the Higgs can be found. That alone, I think, makes these most recent results much more compelling than if the range was much larger than it was, even a few years ago. So, as you narrow that range down where it would most likely exist, any new evidence that you have I think is just more compelling. Second, the Standard Model doesn't tell us how big the Higgs is &mdash; this one was pretty interesting &mdash; but it does tell us how it would interact with particles like the {{w|W and Z bosons}}, which are responsible for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction weak nuclear force]. So if you consider the weight of those particles, which have been determined through experiments, the Higgs ''should'' weigh between 115 and 130 gigaelectronvolts, and that fits these latest predictions like a glove. That's ''exactly'' what they're saying, and to me, that's very compelling. And finally, for the first time, we've got these two separate high-resolution experiments that both agree on this new energy range. So you put all that together, and, you know, of course it still can be a fluke, but I think after such a...the long journey these guys have taken, it seems likely to me that these are among the final steps that these scientists are taking to finally determine if the Higgs exists or not, and whether it does or not &mdash; and I think we'll probably know with a sigma of 5 hopefully within the year or so &mdash; that I think either eventuality I think would be worth raising a glass to all the scientists that have worked so hard on this.<br />
<br />
E: I think people are...have been inundated &mdash; and especially the last few years &mdash; with articles about the Higgs boson coming out every what seems like couple of months, and it's kind of like the boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon. It's like, all right, well, you know, let us know when the wolf is ''really'' here.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's part of it.<br />
<br />
E: Then we'll pay attention, right?<br />
<br />
B: It seems like more of the same, and as interesting and as important as these results are, yeah, after three or four times...god, I think we've talked about the Higgs on at least three or four occasions. And the LHC, forget it, we've talked about that a bunch too. So yeah, there's that part of it. I think that might be a reason why a lot of these people are just like, "Ho-hum." But there are certainly a lot of people that are just so excited.<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, that's fine. This is ''happening'', you know. We're not just going to wait and say when it's totally over. It's interesting to see the process unfold. {{w|Lawrence Krauss}}, whose interview we aired last week, was quoted as saying this about it: <blockquote>If the Higgs is discovered, it will represent perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the human intellect in recent memory, vindicating fifty years of the building of one of the greatest theoretical edifices in all of science and requiring the building of the most complicated machine that has ever been built.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So I think that puts it into perspective.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good quote.<br />
<br />
S: This is ''huge'', and I think we should watch it unfold and not just pop the corks at the very end and get people caught up, you know, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Well, I can see the general public might not be interested in the play-by-play. I find it fascinating because I like to hear the steps that they're taking. It's also good to....you know, it's good to keep that research in the press because, you know, it gives us the idea that they're using that machine. It took so long to do it, it was so expensive, and I ''need'' to hear about updates like this. I think it's important.<br />
<br />
S: I love the play-by-play because what's most fascinating is the ''process'' of science, not just the findings of science. And how they're building the case for the Higgs and, you know, what it means is just as fascinating as the end result.<br />
<br />
R: Science education &mdash; at least in this country, in the U.S. &mdash; isn't about teaching the process. It's not about teaching how difficult science can be and all the, you know, the amount of time and the amount of failures you have to have before you have one success. I think most people think of science as a string of large discoveries, and so they look around and they wonder why they're not seeing scientists making these big discoveries now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. ''Eureka!''<br />
<br />
J: The other cool thing about this type of research is it usually does...and we ''will'' see the LHC create new information. Like, you know, things will be discovered and happened upon by accident that will lead to other stuff that they never even thought about.<br />
<br />
B: Well, Jay, it's funny you point that out because that's exactly what's happening now. Now that they really think they've got a handle on the range in which the Higgs can appear, that would mean that the Higgs is relatively...it has a very relatively low mass, which would mean &mdash; according to the standard theory, I think &mdash; that the Higgs would have to be accompanied by ''another'' particle.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Now, this is a particle that's not explicitly predicted by the standard theory, but in order for the Higgs to exist at this low mass, it would need this extra particle with it, Otherwise, the Higgs would never be stable, the universe never would have existed, and things would be very different and boring all around. But...so this might actually lead to new physics&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So you're saying the Higgs has a posse.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)'' Right.<br />
<br />
S: An entourage.<br />
<br />
B: This could lead to new physics. I mean, how awesome would that be if the last particle, you know, proven that the standard theory predicted, that we finally showed experimentally, leads the way into new physics because of this new particle that wasn't like...you know, wasn't really anticipated but would have to exist if the Higgs has that mass?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm. Well, I think that the standard model is one of the greatest triumphs of science. It's up there with the periodic table, I mean, evolution...some basic concept that has huge impact...implications for our understanding of how the world works.<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=8374SGU Episode 3352013-10-14T06:31:13Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Higgs Update (12:08) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 />
|episodeNum = 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she will be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
*[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Bad Astronomy: Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
S: All right, sad story, but, Bob, let's transition to a happy story about the {{w|Higgs boson}}.<br />
<br />
R: Hooray!<br />
<br />
B: Well, I might beg to differ. The big news, I think, this week was the first electronic optical fibers with hydrogenated amorphous silicon were developed. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Actually, no, that's number&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't you ever talk to me like that again, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: What did you just throw up?<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;that's number two. The number-one story was that scientists discovered why buttercups reflect yellow on chins. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yes, I saw that one too.<br />
<br />
R: Way to ruin Science or Fiction, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, good thing I didn't choose any of those.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, that doesn't mean you like butter? What...what's up?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Or {{w|Parkay}}?<br />
<br />
B: I'm kidding obviously, but&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Who doesn't like butter?<br />
<br />
E: People allergic to butter.<br />
<br />
S: But don't get me started on {{w|I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!}} &mdash; that stuff is ''not'' butter. That will make...that is&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: I can't ''believe'' it!<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;nausea inducing.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
R: So about that Higgs boson...<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the Higgs boson...''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
J: Pretty cool, huh?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, so, unless you've been off planet or in stasis for a couple weeks, you probably have heard about the latest hubbub about the Higgs boson.<br />
<br />
E: Again.<br />
<br />
B: Two separate teams of scientists at {{w|CERN}} using the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} have found the most similar and enticing hints yet of the existence of the Higgs boson, the so-called "''God'' particle"&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I hate that...I hate that name.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;the particle that is thought&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That ''is'' stupid.<br />
<br />
S: Can we call it the "Lucifer particle?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: I was going to go with the "Thor particle."<br />
<br />
E: The "Buddah particle?"<br />
<br />
B: There you go. Umm, this is the particle that's thought to imbue all matter with mass. Now, both the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS_experiment ATLAS] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Muon_Solenoid CMS] experiments and...the teams that ran those experiments recently announced their results from ''literally'' &mdash; and I mean this &mdash; hundreds of trillions of proton collisions that offer not conclusive proof of Higgs, but the best evidence yet for many reasons. The Higgs boson is the last predicted particle of the famous and successful {{w|Standard Model}} of physics, which describes how forces and particles interact. A key component of this theory is actually not the particle per se, which everyone seems to focus on, but the Higgs ''field''. This is what everything really is interacting with in order to get the mass, even the Higgs particle itself. Now, as great as this standard theory is, it doesn't actually predict the ''mass'' of the Higgs, so scientists kinda need to look around at all the various energies that it could potentially exist in and exclude those energy domains where they don't find it. So to just...kind of just narrowing it down more and more over time. And it seems like they're really backing it into a corner now, if it even still exists, which of course isn't certain. Now, the ATLAS team has narrowed the range that they...it looks like the Higgs exists between 115 and 131 gigaelectronvolts. The CMS team is saying that it ''cannot'' be ''heavier'' than 127 GeV (gigaelectronvolts). Now, you see "electronvolts" tossed around a lot in a lot of these articles. It refers to an amount of energy &mdash; an electronvolt. One electronvolt is the amount of energy that is given to an electron when it's accelerated through an {{w|electric potential difference}} of one volt. So that's kind of it in a nutshell. These electronvolts work very well in particle physics. They're very flexible. They can be used as a unit of momentum, and also, due to E=mc2 &mdash; or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence energy-mass equivalence] &mdash; it could also be used for a unit of mass. So, to kind of put these into perspective a little bit, one GeV is a billion electronvolts. One TeV is a trillion electronvolts, and that's about the same kinetic energy of a flying mosquito. So even a trillion electronvolts is still not a lot of energy. The energy of one photon of visible light is anywhere between 1.6 to 3.4 electronvolts. So, very, very little energy there. So, if these latest experiments are correct, then the Higgs would then weigh between about 126 billion electronvolts. That would make it about 126 times heavier than a proton and a quarter-million times heavier than an electron, so it would certainly be a big boy. The next question that I think of is like, well, all right, how confident are these scientists? That's pretty important. And you may have heard a lot about "sigma." They give numbers &mdash; a sigma of 1.9 or 2-point-whatever. These sigma numbers try to put into perspective the chance that the results are a total fluke with no significance at all. So, for the ATLAS experiments, the statistical significance of the 126 GeV was a sigma of 2.3. Now, that means that there's about a two-percent chance of their results being just a random fluctuation. The CMS detector had a sigma of 1.9, so that was less than two percent. Now, that sounds good, and it is very good, but the gold standard is 5 sigma, and that would mean that there's less than one in a million chance of random noise causing the results that they're seeing. So clearly there's more work to be done and more data to be gathered before we can all, you know, get drunk and really start celebrating the Higgs boson. And, I don't know...did you guys find a similar puzzling attitude? A lot of people were like, "Oh, nothing to see here!" "Please move on!" You know, "Big deal!" "They didn't discover it yet." And I disagree. I think there's plenty of room for real optimism in this. You know, we've been steadily narrowing the range &mdash; the energy regime in which the Higgs can be found. That alone, I think, makes these most recent results much more compelling than if the range was much larger than it was, even a few years ago. So, as you narrow that range down where it would most likely exist, any new evidence that you have I think is just more compelling. Second, the standard model doesn't tell us how big the Higgs is &mdash; this one was pretty interesting &mdash; but it does tell us how it would interact with particles like the {{w|W and Z bosons}}, which are responsible for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction weak nuclear force]. So if you consider the weight of those particles, which have been determined through experiments, the Higgs ''should'' weigh between 115 and 130 gigaelectronvolts, and that fits these latest predictions like a glove. That's ''exactly'' what they're saying, and to me, that's very compelling. And finally, for the first time, we've got these two separate high-resolution experiments that both agree on this new energy range. So you put all that together, and, you know, of course it still can be a fluke, but I think after such a...the long journey these guys have taken, it seems likely to me that these are among the final steps that these scientists are taking to finally determine if the Higgs exists or not, and whether it does or not &mdash; and I think we'll probably know with a sigma of 5 hopefully within the year or so &mdash; that I think either eventuality I think would be worth raising a glass to all the scientists that have worked so hard on this.<br />
<br />
E: I think people are...have been inundated &mdash; and especially the last few years &mdash; with articles about the Higgs boson coming out every what seems like couple of months, and it's kind of like the boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon. It's like, all right, well, you know, let us know when the wolf is ''really'' here.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's part of it.<br />
<br />
E: Then we'll pay attention, right?<br />
<br />
B: It seems like more of the same, and as interesting and as important as these results are, yeah, after three or four times...god, I think we've talked about the Higgs on at least three or four occasions. And the LHC, forget it, we've talked about that a bunch too. So yeah, there's that part of it. I think that might be a reason why a lot of these people are just like, "Ho-hum." But there are certainly a lot of people that are just so excited.<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, that's fine. This is ''happening'', you know. We're not just going to wait and say when it's totally over. It's interesting to see the process unfold. {{w|Lawrence Krauss}}, whose interview we aired last week, was quoted as saying this about it: <blockquote>If the Higgs is discovered, it will represent perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the human intellect in recent memory, vindicating fifty years of the building of one of the greatest theoretical edifices in all of science and requiring the building of the most complicated machine that has ever been built.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So I think that puts it into perspective.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good quote.<br />
<br />
S: This is ''huge'', and I think we should watch it unfold and not just pop the corks at the very end and get people caught up, you know, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Well, I can see the general public might not be interested in the play-by-play. I find it fascinating because I like to hear the steps that they're taking. It's also good to....you know, it's good to keep that research in the press because, you know, it gives us the idea that they're using that machine. It took so long to do it, it was so expensive, and I ''need'' to hear about updates like this. I think it's important.<br />
<br />
S: I love the play-by-play because what's most fascinating is the ''process'' of science, not just the findings of science. And how they're building the case for the Higgs and, you know, what it means is just as fascinating as the end result.<br />
<br />
R: Science education &mdash; at least in this country, in the U.S. &mdash; isn't about teaching the process. It's not about teaching how difficult science can be and all the, you know, the amount of time and the amount of failures you have to have before you have one success. I think most people think of science as a string of large discoveries, and so they look around and they wonder why they're not seeing scientists making these big discoveries now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. ''Eureka!''<br />
<br />
J: The other cool thing about this type of research is it usually does...and we ''will'' see the LHC create new information. Like, you know, things will be discovered and happened upon by accident that will lead to other stuff that they never even thought about.<br />
<br />
B: Well, Jay, it's funny you point that out because that's exactly what's happening now. Now that they really think they've got a handle on the range in which the Higgs can appear, that would mean that the Higgs is relatively...it has a very relatively low mass, which would mean &mdash; according to the standard theory, I think &mdash; that the Higgs would have to be accompanied by ''another'' particle.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Now, this is a particle that's not explicitly predicted by the standard theory, but in order for the Higgs to exist at this low mass, it would need this extra particle with it, Otherwise, the Higgs would never be stable, the universe never would have existed, and things would be very different and boring all around. But...so this might actually lead to new physics&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So you're saying the Higgs has a posse.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)'' Right.<br />
<br />
S: An entourage.<br />
<br />
B: This could lead to new physics. I mean, how awesome would that be if the last particle, you know, proven that the standard theory predicted, that we finally showed experimentally, leads the way into new physics because of this new particle that wasn't like...you know, wasn't really anticipated but would have to exist if the Higgs has that mass?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm. Well, I think that the standard model is one of the greatest triumphs of science. It's up there with the periodic table, I mean, evolution...some basic concept that has huge impact...implications for our understanding of how the world works.<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=8373SGU Episode 3352013-10-14T06:28:00Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Higgs Update (12:08) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 />
|episodeNum = 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she will be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
*[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Bad Astronomy: Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
S: All right, sad story, but, Bob, let's transition to a happy story about the {{w|Higgs boson}}.<br />
<br />
R: Hooray!<br />
<br />
B: Well, I might beg to differ. The big news, I think, this week was the first electronic optical fibers with hydrogenated amorphous silicon were developed. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Actually, no, that's number&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't you ever talk to me like that again, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: What did you just throw up?<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;that's number two. The number-one story was that scientists discovered why buttercups reflect yellow on chins. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yes, I saw that one too.<br />
<br />
R: Way to ruin Science or Fiction, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, good thing I didn't choose any of those.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, that doesn't mean you like butter? What...what's up?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Or {{w|Parkay}}?<br />
<br />
B: I'm kidding obviously, but&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Who doesn't like butter?<br />
<br />
E: People allergic to butter.<br />
<br />
S: But don't get me started on {{w|I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!}} &mdash; that stuff is ''not'' butter. That will make...that is&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: I can't ''believe'' it!<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;nausea inducing.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
R: So about that Higgs boson...<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the Higgs boson...''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
J: Pretty cool, huh?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, so, unless you've been off planet or in stasis for a couple weeks, you probably have heard about the latest hubbub about the Higgs boson.<br />
<br />
E: Again.<br />
<br />
B: Two separate teams of scientists at {{w|CERN}} using the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} have found the most similar and enticing hints yet of the existence of the Higgs boson, the so-called "''God'' particle"&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I hate that...I hate that name.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;the particle that is thought&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That ''is'' stupid.<br />
<br />
S: Can we call it the "Lucifer particle?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: I was going to go with the "Thor particle."<br />
<br />
E: The "Buddah particle?"<br />
<br />
B: There you go. Umm, this is the particle that's thought to imbue all matter with mass. Now, both the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS_experiment ATLAS] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Muon_Solenoid CMS] experiments and...the teams that ran those experiments recently announced their results from ''literally'' &mdash; and I mean this &mdash; hundreds of trillions of proton collisions that offer not conclusive proof of Higgs, but the best evidence yet for many reasons. The Higgs boson is the last predicted particle of the famous and successful {{w|Standard Model}} of physics, which describes how forces and particles interact. A key component of this theory is actually not the particle per se, which everyone seems to focus on, but the Higgs ''field''. This is what everything really is interacting with in order to get the mass, even the Higgs particle itself. Now, as great as this standard theory is, it doesn't actually predict the ''mass'' of the Higgs, so scientists kinda need to look around at all the various energies that it could potentially exist in and exclude those energy domains where they don't find it. So to just...kind of just narrowing it down more and more over time. And it seems like they're really backing it into a corner now, if it even still exists, which of course isn't certain. Now, the ATLAS team has narrowed the range that they...it looks like the Higgs exists between 115 and 131 gigaelectronvolts. The CMS team is saying that it ''cannot'' be ''heavier'' than 127 GeV (gigaelectronvolts). Now, you see "electronvolts" tossed around a lot in a lot of these articles. It refers to an amount of energy &mdash; an electronvolt. One electronvolt is the amount of energy that is given to an electron when it's accelerated through an {{w|electric potential difference}} of one volt. So that's kind of it in a nutshell. These electronvolts work very well in particle physics. They're very flexible. They can be used as a unit of momentum, and also, due to E=mc2 &mdash; or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence energy-mass equivalence] &mdash; it could also be used for a unit of mass. So, to kind of put these into perspective a little bit, one GeV is a billion electronvolts. One TeV is a trillion electronvolts, and that's about the same kinetic energy of a flying mosquito. So even a trillion electronvolts is still not a lot of energy. The energy of one photon of visible light is anywhere between 1.6 to 3.4 electronvolts. So, very, very little energy there. So, if these latest experiments are correct, then the Higgs would then weigh between about 126 billion electronvolts. That would make it about 126 times heavier than a proton and a quarter-million times heavier than an electron, so it would certainly be a big boy. The next question that I think of is like, well, all right, how confident are these scientists? That's pretty important. And you may have heard a lot about "sigma." They give numbers &mdash; a sigma of 1.9 or 2-point-whatever. These sigma numbers try to put into perspective the chance that the results are a total fluke with no significance at all. So, for the ATLAS experiments, the statistical significance of the 126 GeV was a sigma of 2.3. Now, that means that there's about a two-percent chance of their results being just a random fluctuation. The CMS detector had a sigma of 1.9, so that was less than two percent. Now, that sounds good, and it is very good, but the gold standard is 5 sigma, and that would mean that there's less than one in a million chance of random noise causing the results that they're seeing. So clearly there's more work to be done and more data to be gathered before we can all, you know, get drunk and really start celebrating the Higgs boson. And, I don't know...did you guys find a similar puzzling attitude? A lot of people were like, "Oh, nothing to see here!" "Please move on!" You know, "Big deal!" "They didn't discover it yet." And I disagree. I think there's plenty of room for real optimism in this. You know, we've been steadily narrowing the range &mdash; the energy regime in which the Higgs can be found. That alone, I think, makes these most recent results much more compelling than if the range was much larger than it was, even a few years ago. So as you narrow that range down where it would most likely exist, any new evidence that you have I think is just more compelling. Second, the standard model doesn't tell us how big the Higgs is &mdash; this one was pretty interesting &mdash; but it does tell us how it would interact with particles like the {{w|W and Z bosons}}, which are responsible for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction weak nuclear force]. So if you consider the weight of those particles, which have been determined through experiments, the Higgs ''should'' weigh between 115 and 130 gigaelectronvolts, and that fits these latest predictions like a glove. That's ''exactly'' what they're saying, and to me, that's very compelling. And finally, for the first time, we've got these two separate high-resolution experiments that both agree on this new energy range. So you put all that together, and, you know, of course it still can be a fluke, but I think after such a...the long journey these guys have taken, it seems likely to me that these are among the final steps that these scientists are taking to finally determine if the Higgs exists or not, and whether it does or not &mdash; and I think we'll probably know with a sigma of 5 hopefully within the year or so &mdash; that I think either eventuality I think would be worth raising a glass to all the scientists that have worked so hard on this.<br />
<br />
E: I think people are...have been inundated &mdash; and especially the last few years &mdash; with articles about the Higgs boson coming out every what seems like couple of months, and it's kind of like the boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon. It's like, all right, well, you know, let us know when the wolf is ''really'' here.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's part of it.<br />
<br />
E: Then we'll pay attention, right?<br />
<br />
B: It seems like more of the same, and as interesting and as important as these results are, yeah, after three or four times...god, I think we've talked about the Higgs on at least three or four occasions. And the LHC, forget it, we've talked about that a bunch too. So yeah, there's that part of it. I think that might be a reason why a lot of these people are just like, "Ho-hum." But there are certainly a lot of people that are just so excited.<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, that's fine. This is ''happening'', you know. We're not just going to wait and say when it's totally over. It's interesting to see the process unfold. {{w|Lawrence Krauss}}, whose interview we aired last week, was quoted as saying this about it: <blockquote>If the Higgs is discovered, it will represent perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the human intellect in recent memory, vindicating fifty years of the building of one of the greatest theoretical edifices in all of science and requiring the building of the most complicated machine that has ever been built.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So I think that puts it into perspective.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good quote.<br />
<br />
S: This is ''huge'', and I think we should watch it unfold and not just pop the corks at the very end and get people caught up, you know, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Well, I can see the general public might not be interested in the play-by-play. I find it fascinating because I like to hear the steps that they're taking. It's also good to....you know, it's good to keep that research in the press because, you know, it gives us the idea that they're using that machine. It took so long to do it, it was so expensive, and I ''need'' to hear about updates like this. I think it's important.<br />
<br />
S: I love the play-by-play because what's most fascinating is the ''process'' of science, not just the findings of science. And how they're building the case for the Higgs and, you know, what it means is just as fascinating as the end result.<br />
<br />
R: Science education &mdash; at least in this country, in the U.S. &mdash; isn't about teaching the process. It's not about teaching how difficult science can be and all the, you know, the amount of time and the amount of failures you have to have before you have one success. I think most people think of science as a string of large discoveries, and so they look around and they wonder why they're not seeing scientists making these big discoveries now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. ''Eureka!''<br />
<br />
J: The other cool thing about this type of research is it usually does...and we ''will'' see the LHC create new information. Like, you know, things will be discovered and happened upon by accident that will lead to other stuff that they never even thought about.<br />
<br />
B: Well, Jay, it's funny you point that out because that's exactly what's happening now. Now that they really think they've got a handle on the range in which the Higgs can appear, that would mean that the Higgs is relatively...it has a very relatively low mass, which would mean &mdash; according to the standard theory, I think &mdash; that the Higgs would have to be accompanied by ''another'' particle.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Now, this is a particle that's not explicitly predicted by the standard theory, but in order for the Higgs to exist at this low mass, it would need this extra particle with it, Otherwise, the Higgs would never be stable, the universe never would have existed, and things would be very different and boring all around. But...so this might actually lead to new physics&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So you're saying the Higgs has a posse.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)'' Right.<br />
<br />
S: An entourage.<br />
<br />
B: This could lead to new physics. I mean, how awesome would that be if the last particle, you know, proven that the standard theory predicted, that we finally showed experimentally, leads the way into new physics because of this new particle that wasn't like...you know, wasn't really anticipated but would have to exist if the Higgs has that mass?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm. Well, I think that the standard model is one of the greatest triumphs of science. It's up there with the periodic table, I mean, evolution...some basic concept that has huge impact...implications for our understanding of how the world works.<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=8372SGU Episode 3352013-10-14T06:24:53Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Higgs Update (12:08) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 />
|episodeNum = 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she will be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
*[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Bad Astronomy: Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
S: All right, sad story, but, Bob, let's transition to a happy story about the {{w|Higgs boson}}.<br />
<br />
R: Hooray!<br />
<br />
B: Well, I might beg to differ. The big news, I think, this week was the first electronic optical fibers with hydrogenated amorphous silicon were developed. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Actually, no, that's number&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't you ever talk to me like that again, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: What did you just throw up?<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;that's number two. The number-one story was that scientists discovered why buttercups reflect yellow on chins. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yes, I saw that one too.<br />
<br />
R: Way to ruin Science or Fiction, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, good thing I didn't choose any of those.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, that doesn't mean you like butter? What...what's up?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Or {{w|Parkay}}?<br />
<br />
B: I'm kidding obviously, but&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Who doesn't like butter?<br />
<br />
E: People allergic to butter.<br />
<br />
S: But don't get me started on {{w|I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!}} &mdash; that stuff is ''not'' butter. That will make...that is&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: I can't ''believe'' it!<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;nausea inducing.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
R: So about that Higgs boson...<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the Higgs boson...''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
J: Pretty cool, huh?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, so, unless you've been off planet or in stasis for a couple weeks, you probably have heard about the latest hubbub about the Higgs boson.<br />
<br />
E: Again.<br />
<br />
B: Two separate teams of scientists at {{w|CERN}} using the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} have found the most similar and enticing hints yet of the existence of the Higgs boson, the so-called "''God'' particle"&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I hate that...I hate that name.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;the particle that is thought&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That ''is'' stupid.<br />
<br />
S: Can we call it the "Lucifer particle?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: I was going to go with the "Thor particle."<br />
<br />
E: The "Buddah particle?"<br />
<br />
B: There you go. Umm, this is the particle that's thought to imbue all matter with mass. Now, both the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS_experiment ATLAS] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Muon_Solenoid CMS] experiments and...the teams that ran those experiments recently announced their results from ''literally'' &mdash; and I mean this &mdash; hundreds of trillions of proton collisions that offer not conclusive proof of Higgs, but the best evidence yet for many reasons. The Higgs boson is the last predicted particle of the famous and successful {{w|Standard Model}} of physics, which describes how forces and particles interact. A key component of this theory is actually not the particle per se, which everyone seems to focus on, but the Higgs ''field''. This is what everything really is interacting with in order to get the mass, even the Higgs particle itself. Now, as great as this standard theory is, it doesn't actually predict the ''mass'' of the Higgs, so scientists kinda need to look around at all the various energies that it could potentially exist in and exclude those energy domains where they don't find it. So to just...kind of just narrowing it down more and more over time. And it seems like they're really backing it into a corner now, if it even still exists, which of course isn't certain. Now, the ATLAS team has narrowed the range that they...it looks like the Higgs exists between 115 and 131 gigaelectronvolts. The CMS team is saying that it ''cannot'' be ''heavier'' than 127 GeV (gigaelectronvolts). Now, you see "electronvolts" tossed around a lot in a lot of these articles. It refers to an amount of energy &mdash; an electronvolt. One electronvolt is the amount of energy that is given to an electron when it's accelerated through an {{w|electric potential difference}} of one volt. So that's kind of it in a nutshell. These electronvolts work very well in particle physics. They're very flexible. They can be used as a unit of momentum, and also, due to E=mc2 &mdash; or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence energy-mass equivalence] &mdash; it could also be used for a unit of mass. So, to kind of put these into perspective a little bit, one GeV is a billion electronvolts. One TeV is a trillion electronvolts, and that's about the same kinetic energy of a flying mosquito. So even a trillion electronvolts is still not a lot of energy. The energy of one photon of visible light is anywhere between 1.6 to 3.4 electronvolts. So, very, very little energy there. So, if these latest experiments are correct, then the Higgs would then weigh between about 126 billion electronvolts. That would make it about 126 times heavier than a proton and a quarter-million times heavier than an electron, so it would certainly be a big boy. The next question that I think of is like, well, all right, how confident are these scientists? That's pretty important. And you may have heard a lot about "sigma." They give numbers &mdash; a sigma of 1.9 or 2-point-whatever. These sigma numbers try to put into perspective the chance that the results are a total fluke with no significance at all. So for the ATLAS experiments, the statistical significance of the 126 GeV was a sigma of 2.3. Now, that means that there's about a two-percent chance of their results being just a random fluctuation. The CMS detector had a sigma of 1.9, so that was less than two percent. Now, that sounds good, and it is very good, but the gold standard is 5 sigma, and that would mean that there's less than one in a million chance of random noise causing the results that they're seeing. So clearly there's more work to be done and more data to be gathered before we can all, you know, get drunk and really start celebrating the Higgs boson. And, I don't know...did you guys find a similar puzzling attitude? A lot of people were like, "Oh, nothing to see here!" "Please move on!" You know, "Big deal!" "They didn't discover it yet." And I disagree. I think there's plenty of room for real optimism in this. You know, we've been steadily narrowing the range &mdash; the energy regime in which the Higgs can be found. That alone, I think, makes these most recent results much more compelling than if the range was much larger than it was, even a few years ago. So as you narrow that range down where it would most likely exist, any new evidence that you have I think is just more compelling. Second, the standard model doesn't tell us how big the Higgs is &mdash; this one was pretty interesting &mdash; but it does tell us how it would interact with particles like the {{w|W and Z bosons}}, which are responsible for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction weak nuclear force]. So if you consider the weight of those particles, which have been determined through experiments, the Higgs ''should'' weigh between 115 and 130 gigaelectronvolts, and that fits these latest predictions like a glove. That's ''exactly'' what they're saying, and to me, that's very compelling. And finally, for the first time, we've got these two separate high-resolution experiments that both agree on this new energy range. So you put all that together, and, you know, of course it still can be a fluke, but I think after such a...the long journey these guys have taken, it seems likely to me that these are among the final steps that these scientists are taking to finally determine if the Higgs exists or not, and whether it does or not &mdash; and I think we'll probably know with a sigma of 5 hopefully within the year or so &mdash; that I think either eventuality I think would be worth raising a glass to all the scientists that have worked so hard on this.<br />
<br />
E: I think people are...have been inundated &mdash; and especially the last few years &mdash; with articles about the Higgs boson coming out every what seems like couple of months, and it's kind of like the boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon. It's like, all right, well, you know, let us know when the wolf is ''really'' here.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's part of it.<br />
<br />
E: Then we'll pay attention, right?<br />
<br />
B: It seems like more of the same, and as interesting and as important as these results are, yeah, after three or four times...god, I think we've talked about the Higgs on at least three or four occasions. And the LHC, forget it, we've talked about that a bunch too. So yeah, there's that part of it. I think that might be a reason why a lot of these people are just like, "Ho-hum." But there are certainly a lot of people that are just so excited.<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, that's fine. This is ''happening'', you know. We're not just going to wait and say when it's totally over. It's interesting to see the process unfold. {{w|Lawrence Krauss}}, whose interview we aired last week, was quoted as saying this about it: <blockquote>If the Higgs is discovered, it will represent perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the human intellect in recent memory, vindicating fifty years of the building of one of the greatest theoretical edifices in all of science and requiring the building of the most complicated machine that has ever been built.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So I think that puts it into perspective.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good quote.<br />
<br />
S: This is ''huge'', and I think we should watch it unfold and not just pop the corks at the very end and get people caught up, you know, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Well, I can see the general public might not be interested in the play-by-play. I find it fascinating because I like to hear the steps that they're taking. It's also good to....you know, it's good to keep that research in the press because, you know, it gives us the idea that they're using that machine. It took so long to do it, it was so expensive, and I ''need'' to hear about updates like this. I think it's important.<br />
<br />
S: I love the play-by-play because what's most fascinating is the ''process'' of science, not just the findings of science. And how they're building the case for the Higgs and, you know, what it means is just as fascinating as the end result.<br />
<br />
R: Science education &mdash; at least in this country, in the U.S. &mdash; isn't about teaching the process. It's not about teaching how difficult science can be and all the, you know, the amount of time and the amount of failures you have to have before you have one success. I think most people think of science as a string of large discoveries, and so they look around and they wonder why they're not seeing scientists making these big discoveries now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. ''Eureka!''<br />
<br />
J: The other cool thing about this type of research is it usually does...and we ''will'' see the LHC create new information. Like, you know, things will be discovered and happened upon by accident that will lead to other stuff that they never even thought about.<br />
<br />
B: Well, Jay, it's funny you point that out because that's exactly what's happening now. Now that they really think they've got a handle on the range in which the Higgs can appear, that would mean that the Higgs is relatively...it has a very relatively low mass, which would mean &mdash; according to the standard theory, I think &mdash; that the Higgs would have to be accompanied by ''another'' particle.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Now, this is a particle that's not explicitly predicted by the standard theory, but in order for the Higgs to exist at this low mass, it would need this extra particle with it, Otherwise, the Higgs would never be stable, the universe never would have existed, and things would be very different and boring all around. But...so this might actually lead to new physics&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So you're saying the Higgs has a posse.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)'' Right.<br />
<br />
S: An entourage.<br />
<br />
B: This could lead to new physics. I mean, how awesome would that be if the last particle, you know, proven that the standard theory predicted, that we finally showed experimentally, leads the way into new physics because of this new particle that wasn't like...you know, wasn't really anticipated but would have to exist if the Higgs has that mass?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm. Well, I think that the standard model is one of the greatest triumphs of science. It's up there with the periodic table, I mean, evolution...some basic concept that has huge impact...implications for our understanding of how the world works.<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=8371SGU Episode 3352013-10-14T06:22:41Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Higgs Update (12:08) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 />
|episodeNum = 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she will be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
*[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Bad Astronomy: Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
S: All right, sad story, but, Bob, let's transition to a happy story about the {{w|Higgs boson}}.<br />
<br />
R: Hooray!<br />
<br />
B: Well, I might beg to differ. The big news, I think, this week was the first electronic optical fibers with hydrogenated amorphous silicon were developed. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Actually, no, that's number&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't you ever talk to me like that again, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: What did you just throw up?<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;that's number two. The number-one story was that scientists discovered why buttercups reflect yellow on chins. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yes, I saw that one too.<br />
<br />
R: Way to ruin Science or Fiction, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, good thing I didn't choose any of those.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, that doesn't mean you like butter? What...what's up?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Or {{w|Parkay}}?<br />
<br />
B: I'm kidding obviously, but&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Who doesn't like butter?<br />
<br />
E: People allergic to butter.<br />
<br />
S: But don't get me started on {{w|I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!}} &mdash; that stuff is ''not'' butter. That will make...that is&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: I can't ''believe'' it!<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;nausea inducing.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
R: So about that Higgs boson...<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the Higgs boson...''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
J: Pretty cool, huh?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, so, unless you've been off planet or in stasis for a couple weeks, you probably have heard about the latest hubbub about the Higgs boson.<br />
<br />
E: Again.<br />
<br />
B: Two separate teams of scientists at {{w|CERN}} using the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} have found the most similar and enticing hints yet of the existence of the Higgs boson, the so-called "''God'' particle"&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I hate that...I hate that name.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;the particle that is thought&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That ''is'' stupid.<br />
<br />
S: Can we call it the "Lucifer particle?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: I was going to go with the "Thor particle."<br />
<br />
E: The "Buddah particle?"<br />
<br />
B: There you go. Umm, this is the particle that's thought to imbue all matter with mass. Now, both the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS_experiment ATLAS] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Muon_Solenoid CMS] experiments and...the teams that ran those experiments recently announced their results from ''literally'' &mdash; and I mean this &mdash; hundreds of trillions of proton collisions that offer not conclusive proof of Higgs, but the best evidence yet for many reasons. The Higgs boson is the last predicted particle of the famous and successful {{w|Standard Model}} of physics, which describes how forces and particles interact. A key component of this theory is actually not the particle per se, which everyone seems to focus on, but the Higgs ''field''. This is what everything really is interacting with in order to get the mass, even the Higgs particle itself. Now, as great as this standard theory is, it doesn't actually predict the ''mass'' of the Higgs, so scientists kinda need to look around at all the various energies that it could potentially exist in and exclude those energy domains where they don't find it. So to just...kind of just narrowing it down more and more over time. And it seems like they're really backing it into a corner now, if it even still exists, which of course isn't certain. Now, the ATLAS team has narrowed the range that they...it looks like the Higgs exists between 115 and 131 gigaelectronvolts. The CMS team is saying that it ''cannot'' be ''heavier'' than 127 GeV (gigaelectronvolts). Now, you see "electronvolts" tossed around a lot in a lot of these articles. It refers to an amount of energy &mdash; an electronvolt. One electronvolt is the amount of energy that is given to an electron when it's accelerated through an {{w|electric potential difference}} of one volt. So that's kind of it in a nutshell. These electronvolts work very well in particle physics. They're very flexible. They can be used as a unit of momentum, and also, due to E=mc2 &mdash; or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence energy-mass equivalence] &mdash; it could also be used for a unit of mass. So, to kind of put these into perspective a little bit, one GeV is a billion electronvolts. One TeV is a trillion electronvolts, and that's about the same kinetic energy of a flying mosquito. So even a trillion electronvolts is still not a lot of energy. The energy of one photon of visible light is anywhere between 1.6 to 3.4 electronvolts. So, very, very little energy there. So if these latest experiments are correct, then the Higgs would then weigh between about 126 billion electronvolts. That would make it about 126 times heavier than a proton and a quarter-million times heavier than an electron, so it would certainly be a big boy. The next question that I think of is like, well, all right, how confident are these scientists? That's pretty important. And you may have heard a lot about "sigma." They give numbers &mdash; a sigma of 1.9 or 2-point-whatever. These sigma numbers try to put into perspective the chance that the results are a total fluke with no significance at all. So for the ATLAS experiments, the statistical significance of the 126 GeV was a sigma of 2.3. Now, that means that there's about a two-percent chance of their results being just a random fluctuation. The CMS detector had a sigma of 1.9, so that was less than two percent. Now, that sounds good, and it is very good, but the gold standard is 5 sigma, and that would mean that there's less than one in a million chance of random noise causing the results that they're seeing. So clearly there's more work to be done and more data to be gathered before we can all, you know, get drunk and really start celebrating the Higgs boson. And, I don't know...did you guys find a similar puzzling attitude? A lot of people were like, "Oh, nothing to see here!" "Please move on!" You know, "Big deal!" "They didn't discover it yet." And I disagree. I think there's plenty of room for real optimism in this. You know, we've been steadily narrowing the range &mdash; the energy regime in which the Higgs can be found. That alone, I think, makes these most recent results much more compelling than if the range was much larger than it was, even a few years ago. So as you narrow that range down where it would most likely exist, any new evidence that you have I think is just more compelling. Second, the standard model doesn't tell us how big the Higgs is &mdash; this one was pretty interesting &mdash; but it does tell us how it would interact with particles like the {{w|W and Z bosons}}, which are responsible for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction weak nuclear force]. So if you consider the weight of those particles, which have been determined through experiments, the Higgs ''should'' weigh between 115 and 130 gigaelectronvolts, and that fits these latest predictions like a glove. That's ''exactly'' what they're saying, and to me, that's very compelling. And finally, for the first time, we've got these two separate high-resolution experiments that both agree on this new energy range. So you put all that together, and, you know, of course it still can be a fluke, but I think after such a...the long journey these guys have taken, it seems likely to me that these are among the final steps that these scientists are taking to finally determine if the Higgs exists or not, and whether it does or not &mdash; and I think we'll probably know with a sigma of 5 hopefully within the year or so &mdash; that I think either eventuality I think would be worth raising a glass to all the scientists that have worked so hard on this.<br />
<br />
E: I think people are...have been inundated &mdash; and especially the last few years &mdash; with articles about the Higgs boson coming out every what seems like couple of months, and it's kind of like the boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon. It's like, all right, well, you know, let us know when the wolf is ''really'' here.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's part of it.<br />
<br />
E: Then we'll pay attention, right?<br />
<br />
B: It seems like more of the same, and as interesting and as important as these results are, yeah, after three or four times...god, I think we've talked about the Higgs on at least three or four occasions. And the LHC, forget it, we've talked about that a bunch too. So yeah, there's that part of it. I think that might be a reason why a lot of these people are just like, "Ho-hum." But there are certainly a lot of people that are just so excited.<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, that's fine. This is ''happening'', you know. We're not just going to wait and say when it's totally over. It's interesting to see the process unfold. {{w|Lawrence Krauss}}, whose interview we aired last week, was quoted as saying this about it: <blockquote>If the Higgs is discovered, it will represent perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the human intellect in recent memory, vindicating fifty years of the building of one of the greatest theoretical edifices in all of science and requiring the building of the most complicated machine that has ever been built.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So I think that puts it into perspective.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good quote.<br />
<br />
S: This is ''huge'', and I think we should watch it unfold and not just pop the corks at the very end and get people caught up, you know, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Well, I can see the general public might not be interested in the play-by-play. I find it fascinating because I like to hear the steps that they're taking. It's also good to....you know, it's good to keep that research in the press because, you know, it gives us the idea that they're using that machine. It took so long to do it, it was so expensive, and I ''need'' to hear about updates like this. I think it's important.<br />
<br />
S: I love the play-by-play because what's most fascinating is the ''process'' of science, not just the findings of science. And how they're building the case for the Higgs and, you know, what it means is just as fascinating as the end result.<br />
<br />
R: Science education &mdash; at least in this country, in the U.S. &mdash; isn't about teaching the process. It's not about teaching how difficult science can be and all the, you know, the amount of time and the amount of failures you have to have before you have one success. I think most people think of science as a string of large discoveries, and so they look around and they wonder why they're not seeing scientists making these big discoveries now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. ''Eureka!''<br />
<br />
J: The other cool thing about this type of research is it usually does...and we ''will'' see the LHC create new information. Like, you know, things will be discovered and happened upon by accident that will lead to other stuff that they never even thought about.<br />
<br />
B: Well, Jay, it's funny you point that out because that's exactly what's happening now. Now that they really think they've got a handle on the range in which the Higgs can appear, that would mean that the Higgs is relatively...it has a very relatively low mass, which would mean &mdash; according to the standard theory, I think &mdash; that the Higgs would have to be accompanied by ''another'' particle.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Now, this is a particle that's not explicitly predicted by the standard theory, but in order for the Higgs to exist at this low mass, it would need this extra particle with it, Otherwise, the Higgs would never be stable, the universe never would have existed, and things would be very different and boring all around. But...so this might actually lead to new physics&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So you're saying the Higgs has a posse.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)'' Right.<br />
<br />
S: An entourage.<br />
<br />
B: This could lead to new physics. I mean, how awesome would that be if the last particle, you know, proven that the standard theory predicted, that we finally showed experimentally, leads the way into new physics because of this new particle that wasn't like...you know, wasn't really anticipated but would have to exist if the Higgs has that mass?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm. Well, I think that the standard model is one of the greatest triumphs of science. It's up there with the periodic table, I mean, evolution...some basic concept that has huge impact...implications for our understanding of how the world works.<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=8370SGU Episode 3352013-10-14T06:20:19Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Higgs Update (12:08) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 />
|episodeNum = 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she will be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
*[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Bad Astronomy: Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
S: All right, sad story, but, Bob, let's transition to a happy story about the {{w|Higgs boson}}.<br />
<br />
R: Hooray!<br />
<br />
B: Well, I might beg to differ. The big news, I think, this week was the first electronic optical fibers with hydrogenated amorphous silicon were developed. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Actually, no, that's number&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't you ever talk to me like that again, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: What did you just throw up?<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;that's number two. The number-one story was that scientists discovered why buttercups reflect yellow on chins. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yes, I saw that one too.<br />
<br />
R: Way to ruin Science or Fiction, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, good thing I didn't choose any of those.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, that doesn't mean you like butter? What...what's up?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Or {{w|Parkay}}?<br />
<br />
B: I'm kidding obviously, but&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Who doesn't like butter?<br />
<br />
E: People allergic to butter.<br />
<br />
S: But don't get me started on {{w|I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!}} &mdash; that stuff is ''not'' butter. That will make...that is&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: I can't ''believe'' it!<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;nausea inducing.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
R: So about that Higgs boson...<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the Higgs boson...''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
J: Pretty cool, huh?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, so, unless you've been off planet or in stasis for a couple weeks, you probably have heard about the latest hubbub about the Higgs boson.<br />
<br />
E: Again.<br />
<br />
B: Two separate teams of scientists at {{w|CERN}} using the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} have found the most similar and enticing hints yet of the existence of the Higgs boson, the so-called "''God'' particle"&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I hate that...I hate that name.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;the particle that is thought&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That ''is'' stupid.<br />
<br />
S: Can we call it the "Lucifer particle?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: I was going to go with the "Thor particle."<br />
<br />
E: The "Buddah particle?"<br />
<br />
B: There you go. Umm, this is the particle that's thought to imbue all matter with mass. Now, both the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS_experiment ATLAS] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Muon_Solenoid CMS] experiments and...the teams that ran those experiments recently announced their results from ''literally'' &mdash; and I mean this &mdash; hundreds of trillions of proton collisions that offer not conclusive proof of Higgs, but the best evidence yet for many reasons. The Higgs boson is the last predicted particle of the famous and successful {{w|Standard Model}} of physics, which describes how forces and particles interact. A key component of this theory is actually not the particle per se, which everyone seems to focus on, but the Higgs ''field''. This is what everything really is interacting with in order to get the mass, even the Higgs particle itself. Now, as great as this standard theory is, it doesn't actually predict the ''mass'' of the Higgs, so scientists kinda need to look around at all the various energies that it could potentially exist in and exclude those energy domains where they don't find it. So to just...kind of just narrowing it down more and more over time. And it seems like they're really backing it into a corner now, if it even still exists, which of course isn't certain. Now, the ATLAS team has narrowed the range that they...it looks like the Higgs exists between 115 and 131 gigaelectronvolts. The CMS team is saying that it ''cannot'' be ''heavier'' than 127 GeV (gigaelectronvolts). Now, you see "electronvolts" tossed around a lot in a lot of these articles. It refers to an amount of energy &mdash; an electronvolt. One electronvolt is the amount of energy that is given to an electron when it's accelerated through an {{w|electric potential difference}} of one volt. So that's kind of it in a nutshell. These electronvolts work very well in particle physics. They're very flexible. They can be used as a unit of momentum, and also, due to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence E=mc2] &mdash; or energy-mass equivalence &mdash; it could also be used for a unit of mass. So, to kind of put these into perspective a little bit, one GeV is a billion electronvolts. One TeV is a trillion electronvolts, and that's about the same kinetic energy of a flying mosquito. So even a trillion electronvolts is still not a lot of energy. The energy of one photon of visible light is anywhere between 1.6 to 3.4 electronvolts. So, very, very little energy there. So if these latest experiments are correct, then the Higgs would then weigh between about 126 billion electronvolts. That would make it about 126 times heavier than a proton and a quarter-million times heavier than an electron, so it would certainly be a big boy. The next question that I think of is like, well, all right, how confident are these scientists? That's pretty important. And you may have heard a lot about "sigma." They give numbers &mdash; a sigma of 1.9 or 2-point-whatever. These sigma numbers try to put into perspective the chance that the results are a total fluke with no significance at all. So for the ATLAS experiments, the statistical significance of the 126 GeV was a sigma of 2.3. Now, that means that there's about a two-percent chance of their results being just a random fluctuation. The CMS detector had a sigma of 1.9, so that was less than two percent. Now, that sounds good, and it is very good, but the gold standard is 5 sigma, and that would mean that there's less than one in a million chance of random noise causing the results that they're seeing. So clearly there's more work to be done and more data to be gathered before we can all, you know, get drunk and really start celebrating the Higgs boson. And, I don't know...did you guys find a similar puzzling attitude? A lot of people were like, "Oh, nothing to see here!" "Please move on!" You know, "Big deal!" "They didn't discover it yet." And I disagree. I think there's plenty of room for real optimism in this. You know, we've been steadily narrowing the range &mdash; the energy regime in which the Higgs can be found. That alone, I think, makes these most recent results much more compelling than if the range was much larger than it was, even a few years ago. So as you narrow that range down where it would most likely exist, any new evidence that you have I think is just more compelling. Second, the standard model doesn't tell us how big the Higgs is &mdash; this one was pretty interesting &mdash; but it does tell us how it would interact with particles like the {{w|W and Z bosons}}, which are responsible for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction weak nuclear force]. So if you consider the weight of those particles, which have been determined through experiments, the Higgs ''should'' weigh between 115 and 130 gigaelectronvolts, and that fits these latest predictions like a glove. That's ''exactly'' what they're saying, and to me, that's very compelling. And finally, for the first time, we've got these two separate high-resolution experiments that both agree on this new energy range. So you put all that together, and, you know, of course it still can be a fluke, but I think after such a...the long journey these guys have taken, it seems likely to me that these are among the final steps that these scientists are taking to finally determine if the Higgs exists or not, and whether it does or not &mdash; and I think we'll probably know with a sigma of 5 hopefully within the year or so &mdash; that I think either eventuality I think would be worth raising a glass to all the scientists that have worked so hard on this.<br />
<br />
E: I think people are...have been inundated &mdash; and especially the last few years &mdash; with articles about the Higgs boson coming out every what seems like couple of months, and it's kind of like the boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon. It's like, all right, well, you know, let us know when the wolf is ''really'' here.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's part of it.<br />
<br />
E: Then we'll pay attention, right?<br />
<br />
B: It seems like more of the same, and as interesting and as important as these results are, yeah, after three or four times...god, I think we've talked about the Higgs on at least three or four occasions. And the LHC, forget it, we've talked about that a bunch too. So yeah, there's that part of it. I think that might be a reason why a lot of these people are just like, "Ho-hum." But there are certainly a lot of people that are just so excited.<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, that's fine. This is ''happening'', you know. We're not just going to wait and say when it's totally over. It's interesting to see the process unfold. {{w|Lawrence Krauss}}, whose interview we aired last week, was quoted as saying this about it: <blockquote>If the Higgs is discovered, it will represent perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the human intellect in recent memory, vindicating fifty years of the building of one of the greatest theoretical edifices in all of science and requiring the building of the most complicated machine that has ever been built.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So I think that puts it into perspective.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good quote.<br />
<br />
S: This is ''huge'', and I think we should watch it unfold and not just pop the corks at the very end and get people caught up, you know, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Well, I can see the general public might not be interested in the play-by-play. I find it fascinating because I like to hear the steps that they're taking. It's also good to....you know, it's good to keep that research in the press because, you know, it gives us the idea that they're using that machine. It took so long to do it, it was so expensive, and I ''need'' to hear about updates like this. I think it's important.<br />
<br />
S: I love the play-by-play because what's most fascinating is the ''process'' of science, not just the findings of science. And how they're building the case for the Higgs and, you know, what it means is just as fascinating as the end result.<br />
<br />
R: Science education &mdash; at least in this country, in the U.S. &mdash; isn't about teaching the process. It's not about teaching how difficult science can be and all the, you know, the amount of time and the amount of failures you have to have before you have one success. I think most people think of science as a string of large discoveries, and so they look around and they wonder why they're not seeing scientists making these big discoveries now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. ''Eureka!''<br />
<br />
J: The other cool thing about this type of research is it usually does...and we ''will'' see the LHC create new information. Like, you know, things will be discovered and happened upon by accident that will lead to other stuff that they never even thought about.<br />
<br />
B: Well, Jay, it's funny you point that out because that's exactly what's happening now. Now that they really think they've got a handle on the range in which the Higgs can appear, that would mean that the Higgs is relatively...it has a very relatively low mass, which would mean &mdash; according to the standard theory, I think &mdash; that the Higgs would have to be accompanied by ''another'' particle.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Now, this is a particle that's not explicitly predicted by the standard theory, but in order for the Higgs to exist at this low mass, it would need this extra particle with it, Otherwise, the Higgs would never be stable, the universe never would have existed, and things would be very different and boring all around. But...so this might actually lead to new physics&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So you're saying the Higgs has a posse.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)'' Right.<br />
<br />
S: An entourage.<br />
<br />
B: This could lead to new physics. I mean, how awesome would that be if the last particle, you know, proven that the standard theory predicted, that we finally showed experimentally, leads the way into new physics because of this new particle that wasn't like...you know, wasn't really anticipated but would have to exist if the Higgs has that mass?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm. Well, I think that the standard model is one of the greatest triumphs of science. It's up there with the periodic table, I mean, evolution...some basic concept that has huge impact...implications for our understanding of how the world works.<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=8369SGU Episode 3352013-10-14T06:18:38Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Higgs Update (12:08) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 />
|episodeNum = 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she will be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
*[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Bad Astronomy: Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
S: All right, sad story, but, Bob, let's transition to a happy story about the {{w|Higgs boson}}.<br />
<br />
R: Hooray!<br />
<br />
B: Well, I might beg to differ. The big news, I think, this week was the first electronic optical fibers with hydrogenated amorphous silicon were developed. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Actually, no, that's number&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't you ever talk to me like that again, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: What did you just throw up?<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;that's number two. The number-one story was that scientists discovered why buttercups reflect yellow on chins. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yes, I saw that one too.<br />
<br />
R: Way to ruin Science or Fiction, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, good thing I didn't choose any of those.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, that doesn't mean you like butter? What...what's up?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Or {{w|Parkay}}?<br />
<br />
B: I'm kidding obviously, but&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Who doesn't like butter?<br />
<br />
E: People allergic to butter.<br />
<br />
S: But don't get me started on {{w|I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!}} &mdash; that stuff is ''not'' butter. That will make...that is&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: I can't ''believe'' it!<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;nausea inducing.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
R: So about that Higgs boson...<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the Higgs boson...''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
J: Pretty cool, huh?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, so, unless you've been off planet or in stasis for a couple weeks, you probably have heard about the latest hubbub about the Higgs boson.<br />
<br />
E: Again.<br />
<br />
B: Two separate teams of scientists at {{w|CERN}} using the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} have found the most similar and enticing hints yet of the existence of the Higgs boson, the so-called "''God'' particle"&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I hate that...I hate that name.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;the particle that is thought&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That ''is'' stupid.<br />
<br />
S: Can we call it the "Lucifer particle?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: I was going to go with the "Thor particle."<br />
<br />
E: The "Buddah particle?"<br />
<br />
B: There you go. Umm, this is the particle that's thought to imbue all matter with mass. Now, both the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS_experiment ATLAS] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Muon_Solenoid CMS] experiments and...the teams that ran those experiments recently announced their results from ''literally'' &mdash; and I mean this &mdash; hundreds of trillions of proton collisions that offer not conclusive proof of Higgs, but the best evidence yet for many reasons. The Higgs boson is the last predicted particle of the famous and successful {{w|Standard Model}} of physics, which describes how forces and particles interact. A key component of this theory is actually not the particle per se, which everyone seems to focus on, but the Higgs ''field''. This is what everything really is interacting with in order to get the mass, even the Higgs particle itself. Now, as great as this standard theory is, it doesn't actually predict the ''mass'' of the Higgs, so scientists kinda need to look around at all the various energies that it could potentially exist in and exclude those energy domains where they don't find it. So to just...kind of just narrowing it down more and more over time. And it seems like they're really backing it into a corner now, if it even still exists, which of course isn't certain. Now, the ATLAS team has narrowed the range that they...it looks like the Higgs exists between 115 and 131 gigaelectronvolts. The CMS team is saying that it ''cannot'' be ''heavier'' than 127 GeV (gigaelectronvolts). Now, you see "electronvolts" tossed around a lot in a lot of these articles. It refers to an amount of energy &mdash; an electronvolt. One electronvolt is the amount of energy that is given to an electron when it's accelerated through an {{w|electric potential difference}} of one volt. So that's kind of it in a nut shell. These electronvolts work very well in particle physics. They're very flexible. They can be used as a unit of momentum, and also, due to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence E=mc2] &mdash; or energy-mass equivalence &mdash; it could also be used for a unit of mass. So, to kind of put these into perspective a little bit, one GeV is a billion electronvolts. One TeV is a trillion electronvolts, and that's about the same kinetic energy of a flying mosquito. So even a trillion electronvolts is still not a lot of energy. The energy of one photon of visible light is anywhere between 1.6 to 3.4 electronvolts. So, very, very little energy there. So if these latest experiments are correct, then the Higgs would then weigh between about 126 billion electronvolts. That would make it about 126 times heavier than a proton and a quarter-million times heavier than an electron, so it would certainly be a big boy. The next question that I think of is like, well, all right, how confident are these scientists? That's pretty important. And you may have heard a lot about "sigma." They give numbers &mdash; a sigma of 1.9 or 2-point-whatever. These sigma numbers try to put into perspective the chance that the results are a total fluke with no significance at all. So for the ATLAS experiments, the statistical significance of the 126 GeV was a sigma of 2.3. Now, that means that there's about a two-percent chance of their results being just a random fluctuation. The CMS detector had a sigma of 1.9, so that was less than two percent. Now, that sounds good, and it is very good, but the gold standard is 5 sigma, and that would mean that there's less than one in a million chance of random noise causing the results that they're seeing. So clearly there's more work to be done and more data to be gathered before we can all, you know, get drunk and really start celebrating the Higgs boson. And, I don't know...did you guys find a similar puzzling attitude? A lot of people were like, "Oh, nothing to see here!" "Please move on!" You know, "Big deal!" "They didn't discover it yet." And I disagree. I think there's plenty of room for real optimism in this. You know, we've been steadily narrowing the range &mdash; the energy regime in which the Higgs can be found. That alone, I think, makes these most recent results much more compelling than if the range was much larger than it was, even a few years ago. So as you narrow that range down where it would most likely exist, any new evidence that you have I think is just more compelling. Second, the standard model doesn't tell us how big the Higgs is &mdash; this one was pretty interesting &mdash; but it does tell us how it would interact with particles like the {{w|W and Z bosons}}, which are responsible for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction weak nuclear force]. So if you consider the weight of those particles, which have been determined through experiments, the Higgs ''should'' weigh between 115 and 130 gigaelectronvolts, and that fits these latest predictions like a glove. That's ''exactly'' what they're saying, and to me, that's very compelling. And finally, for the first time, we've got these two separate high-resolution experiments that both agree on this new energy range. So you put all that together, and, you know, of course it still can be a fluke, but I think after such a...the long journey these guys have taken, it seems likely to me that these are among the final steps that these scientists are taking to finally determine if the Higgs exists or not, and whether it does or not &mdash; and I think we'll probably know with a sigma of 5 hopefully within the year or so &mdash; that I think either eventuality I think would be worth raising a glass to all the scientists that have worked so hard on this.<br />
<br />
E: I think people are...have been inundated &mdash; and especially the last few years &mdash; with articles about the Higgs boson coming out every what seems like couple of months, and it's kind of like the boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon. It's like, all right, well, you know, let us know when the wolf is ''really'' here.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's part of it.<br />
<br />
E: Then we'll pay attention, right?<br />
<br />
B: It seems like more of the same, and as interesting and as important as these results are, yeah, after three or four times...god, I think we've talked about the Higgs on at least three or four occasions. And the LHC, forget it, we've talked about that a bunch too. So yeah, there's that part of it. I think that might be a reason why a lot of these people are just like, "Ho-hum." But there are certainly a lot of people that are just so excited.<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, that's fine. This is ''happening'', you know. We're not just going to wait and say when it's totally over. It's interesting to see the process unfold. {{w|Lawrence Krauss}}, whose interview we aired last week, was quoted as saying this about it: <blockquote>If the Higgs is discovered, it will represent perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the human intellect in recent memory, vindicating fifty years of the building of one of the greatest theoretical edifices in all of science and requiring the building of the most complicated machine that has ever been built.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So I think that puts it into perspective.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good quote.<br />
<br />
S: This is ''huge'', and I think we should watch it unfold and not just pop the corks at the very end and get people caught up, you know, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Well, I can see the general public might not be interested in the play-by-play. I find it fascinating because I like to hear the steps that they're taking. It's also good to....you know, it's good to keep that research in the press because, you know, it gives us the idea that they're using that machine. It took so long to do it, it was so expensive, and I ''need'' to hear about updates like this. I think it's important.<br />
<br />
S: I love the play-by-play because what's most fascinating is the ''process'' of science, not just the findings of science. And how they're building the case for the Higgs and, you know, what it means is just as fascinating as the end result.<br />
<br />
R: Science education &mdash; at least in this country, in the U.S. &mdash; isn't about teaching the process. It's not about teaching how difficult science can be and all the, you know, the amount of time and the amount of failures you have to have before you have one success. I think most people think of science as a string of large discoveries, and so they look around and they wonder why they're not seeing scientists making these big discoveries now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. ''Eureka!''<br />
<br />
J: The other cool thing about this type of research is it usually does...and we ''will'' see the LHC create new information. Like, you know, things will be discovered and happened upon by accident that will lead to other stuff that they never even thought about.<br />
<br />
B: Well, Jay, it's funny you point that out because that's exactly what's happening now. Now that they really think they've got a handle on the range in which the Higgs can appear, that would mean that the Higgs is relatively...it has a very relatively low mass, which would mean &mdash; according to the standard theory, I think &mdash; that the Higgs would have to be accompanied by ''another'' particle.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Now, this is a particle that's not explicitly predicted by the standard theory, but in order for the Higgs to exist at this low mass, it would need this extra particle with it, Otherwise, the Higgs would never be stable, the universe never would have existed, and things would be very different and boring all around. But...so this might actually lead to new physics&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So you're saying the Higgs has a posse.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)'' Right.<br />
<br />
S: An entourage.<br />
<br />
B: This could lead to new physics. I mean, how awesome would that be if the last particle, you know, proven that the standard theory predicted, that we finally showed experimentally, leads the way into new physics because of this new particle that wasn't like...you know, wasn't really anticipated but would have to exist if the Higgs has that mass?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm. Well, I think that the standard model is one of the greatest triumphs of science. It's up there with the periodic table, I mean, evolution...some basic concept that has huge impact...implications for our understanding of how the world works.<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=8368SGU Episode 3352013-10-14T06:07:37Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Higgs Update (12:08) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 />
|episodeNum = 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she will be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
*[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Bad Astronomy: Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
S: All right, sad story, but, Bob, let's transition to a happy story about the {{w|Higgs boson}}.<br />
<br />
R: Hooray!<br />
<br />
B: Well, I might beg to differ. The big news, I think, this week was the first electronic optical fibers with hydrogenated amorphous silicon were developed. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Actually, no, that's number&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't you ever talk to me like that again, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: What did you just throw up?<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;that's number two. The number-one story was that scientists discovered why buttercups reflect yellow on chins. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yes, I saw that one too.<br />
<br />
R: Way to ruin Science or Fiction, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, good thing I didn't choose any of those.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, that doesn't mean you like butter? What...what's up?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Or {{w|Parkay}}?<br />
<br />
B: I'm kidding obviously, but&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Who doesn't like butter?<br />
<br />
E: People allergic to butter.<br />
<br />
S: But don't get me started on {{w|I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!}} &mdash; that stuff is ''not'' butter. That will make...that is&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: I can't ''believe'' it!<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;nausea inducing.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
R: So about that Higgs boson...<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the Higgs boson...''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
J: Pretty cool, huh?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, so, unless you've been off planet or in stasis for a couple weeks, you probably have heard about the latest hubbub about the Higgs boson.<br />
<br />
E: Again.<br />
<br />
B: Two separate teams of scientists at {{w|CERN}} using the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} have found the most similar and enticing hints yet of the existence of the Higgs boson, the so-called "''God'' particle"&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I hate that...I hate that name.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;the particle that is thought&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That ''is'' stupid.<br />
<br />
S: Can we call it the "Lucifer particle?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: I was going to go with the "Thor particle."<br />
<br />
E: The "Buddah particle?"<br />
<br />
B: There you go. Umm, this is the particle that's thought to imbue all matter with mass. Now, both the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS_experiment ATLAS] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Muon_Solenoid CMS] experiments and...the teams that ran those experiments recently announced their results from ''literally'' &mdash; and I mean this &mdash; hundreds of trillions of proton collisions that offer not conclusive proof of Higgs, but the best evidence yet for many reasons. The Higgs boson is the last predicted particle of the famous and successful {{w|Standard Model}} of physics, which describes how forces and particles interact. A key component of this theory is actually not the particle per se, which everyone seems to focus on, but the Higgs ''field''. This is what everything really is interacting with in order to get the mass, even the Higgs particle itself. Now, as great as this standard theory is, it doesn't actually predict the ''mass'' of the Higgs, so scientists kinda need to look around at all the various energies that it could potentially exist in and exclude those energy domains where they don't find it. So to just...kind of just narrowing it down more and more over time. And it seems like they're really backing it into a corner now, if it even still exists, which of course isn't certain. Now, the ATLAS team has narrowed the range that they...it looks like the Higgs exists between 115 and 131 gigaelectronvolts. The CMS team is saying that it ''cannot'' be heavier than 127 GeV (gigaelectronvolts). Now, you see "electronvolts" tossed around a lot in a lot of these articles. It refers to an amount of energy &mdash; an electronvolt. One electronvolt is the amount of energy that is given to an electron when it's accelerated through an {{w|electric potential difference}} of one volt. So that's kind of it in a nut shell. These electronvolts work very well in particle physics. They're very flexible. They can be used as a unit of momentum, and also, due to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence E=mc2] &mdash; or energy-mass equivalence &mdash; it could also be used for a unit of mass. So, to kind of put these into perspective a little bit, one GeV is a billion electronvolts. One TeV is a trillion electronvolts, and that's about the same kinetic energy of a flying mosquito. So even a trillion electronvolts is still not a lot of energy. The energy of one photon of visible light is anywhere between 1.6 to 3.4 electronvolts. So, very, very little energy there. So if these latest experiments are correct, then the Higgs would then weigh between about 126 billion electronvolts. That would make it about 126 times heavier than a proton and a quarter-million times heavier than an electron, so it would certainly be a big boy. The next question that I think of is like, well, all right, how confident are these scientists? That's pretty important. And you may have heard a lot about "sigma." They give numbers &mdash; a sigma of 1.9 or 2-point-whatever. These sigma numbers try to put into perspective the chance that the results are a total fluke with no significance at all. So for the ATLAS experiments, the statistical significance of the 126 GeV was a sigma of 2.3. Now, that means that there's about a two-percent chance of their results being just a random fluctuation. The CMS detector had a sigma of 1.9, so that was less than two percent. Now, that sounds good, and it is very good, but the gold standard is 5 sigma, and that would mean that there's less than one in a million chance of random noise causing the results that they're seeing. So clearly there's more work to be done and more data to be gathered before we can all, you know, get drunk and really start celebrating the Higgs boson. And, I don't know...did you guys find a similar puzzling attitude? A lot of people were like, "Oh, nothing to see here!" "Please move on!" You know, "Big deal!" "They didn't discover it yet." And I disagree. I think there's plenty of room for real optimism in this. You know, we've been steadily narrowing the range &mdash; the energy regime in which the Higgs can be found. That alone, I think, makes these most recent results much more compelling than if the range was much larger than it was, even a few years ago. So as you narrow that range down where it would most likely exist, any new evidence that you have I think is just more compelling. Second, the standard model doesn't tell us how big the Higgs is &mdash; this one was pretty interesting &mdash; but it does tell us how it would interact with particles like the {{w|W and Z bosons}}, which are responsible for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction weak nuclear force]. So if you consider the weight of those particles, which have been determined through experiments, the Higgs ''should'' weigh between 115 and 130 gigaelectronvolts, and that fits these latest predictions like a glove. That's ''exactly'' what they're saying, and to me, that's very compelling. And finally, for the first time, we've got these two separate high-resolution experiments that both agree on this new energy range. So you put all that together, and, you know, of course it still can be a fluke, but I think after such a...the long journey these guys have taken, it seems likely to me that these are among the final steps that these scientists are taking to finally determine if the Higgs exists or not, and whether it does or not &mdash; and I think we'll probably know with a sigma of 5 hopefully within the year or so &mdash; that I think either eventuality I think would be worth raising a glass to all the scientists that have worked so hard on this.<br />
<br />
E: I think people are...have been inundated &mdash; and especially the last few years &mdash; with articles about the Higgs boson coming out every what seems like couple of months, and it's kind of like the boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon. It's like, all right, well, you know, let us know when the wolf is ''really'' here.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's part of it.<br />
<br />
E: Then we'll pay attention, right?<br />
<br />
B: It seems like more of the same, and as interesting and as important as these results are, yeah, after three or four times...god, I think we've talked about the Higgs on at least three or four occasions. And the LHC, forget it, we've talked about that a bunch too. So yeah, there's that part of it. I think that might be a reason why a lot of these people are just like, "Ho-hum." But there are certainly a lot of people that are just so excited.<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, that's fine. This is ''happening'', you know. We're not just going to wait and say when it's totally over. It's interesting to see the process unfold. {{w|Lawrence Krauss}}, whose interview we aired last week, was quoted as saying this about it: <blockquote>If the Higgs is discovered, it will represent perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the human intellect in recent memory, vindicating fifty years of the building of one of the greatest theoretical edifices in all of science and requiring the building of the most complicated machine that has ever been built.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So I think that puts it into perspective.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good quote.<br />
<br />
S: This is ''huge'', and I think we should watch it unfold and not just pop the corks at the very end and get people caught up, you know, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Well, I can see the general public might not be interested in the play-by-play. I find it fascinating because I like to hear the steps that they're taking. It's also good to....you know, it's good to keep that research in the press because, you know, it gives us the idea that they're using that machine. It took so long to do it, it was so expensive, and I ''need'' to hear about updates like this. I think it's important.<br />
<br />
S: I love the play-by-play because what's most fascinating is the ''process'' of science, not just the findings of science. And how they're building the case for the Higgs and, you know, what it means is just as fascinating as the end result.<br />
<br />
R: Science education &mdash; at least in this country, in the U.S. &mdash; isn't about teaching the process. It's not about teaching how difficult science can be and all the, you know, the amount of time and the amount of failures you have to have before you have one success. I think most people think of science as a string of large discoveries, and so they look around and they wonder why they're not seeing scientists making these big discoveries now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. ''Eureka!''<br />
<br />
J: The other cool thing about this type of research is it usually does...and we ''will'' see the LHC create new information. Like, you know, things will be discovered and happened upon by accident that will lead to other stuff that they never even thought about.<br />
<br />
B: Well, Jay, it's funny you point that out because that's exactly what's happening now. Now that they really think they've got a handle on the range in which the Higgs can appear, that would mean that the Higgs is relatively...it has a very relatively low mass, which would mean &mdash; according to the standard theory, I think &mdash; that the Higgs would have to be accompanied by ''another'' particle.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Now, this is a particle that's not explicitly predicted by the standard theory, but in order for the Higgs to exist at this low mass, it would need this extra particle with it, Otherwise, the Higgs would never be stable, the universe never would have existed, and things would be very different and boring all around. But...so this might actually lead to new physics&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So you're saying the Higgs has a posse.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)'' Right.<br />
<br />
S: An entourage.<br />
<br />
B: This could lead to new physics. I mean, how awesome would that be if the last particle, you know, proven that the standard theory predicted, that we finally showed experimentally, leads the way into new physics because of this new particle that wasn't like...you know, wasn't really anticipated but would have to exist if the Higgs has that mass?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm. Well, I think that the standard model is one of the greatest triumphs of science. It's up there with the periodic table, I mean, evolution...some basic concept that has huge impact...implications for our understanding of how the world works.<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=8367SGU Episode 3352013-10-14T06:04:32Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Higgs Update (12:08) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 />
|episodeNum = 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she will be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
* Bad Astronomy: [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
S: All right, sad story, but, Bob, let's transition to a happy story about the {{w|Higgs boson}}.<br />
<br />
R: Hooray!<br />
<br />
B: Well, I might beg to differ. The big news, I think, this week was the first electronic optical fibers with hydrogenated amorphous silicon were developed. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Actually, no, that's number&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Don't you ever talk to me like that again, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: What did you just throw up?<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;that's number two. The number-one story was that scientists discovered why buttercups reflect yellow on chins. Did you know that?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yes, I saw that one too.<br />
<br />
R: Way to ruin Science or Fiction, Bob.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, good thing I didn't choose any of those.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, that doesn't mean you like butter? What...what's up?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
E: Or {{w|Parkay}}?<br />
<br />
B: I'm kidding obviously, but&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: Who doesn't like butter?<br />
<br />
E: People allergic to butter.<br />
<br />
S: But don't get me started on {{w|I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!}} &mdash; that stuff is ''not'' butter. That will make...that is&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: I can't ''believe'' it!<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;nausea inducing.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
R: So about that Higgs boson...<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the Higgs boson...''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
J: Pretty cool, huh?<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, so, unless you've been off planet or in stasis for a couple weeks, you probably have heard about the latest hubbub about the Higgs boson.<br />
<br />
E: Again.<br />
<br />
B: Two separate teams of scientists at {{w|CERN}} using the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} have found the most similar and enticing hints yet of the existence of the Higgs boson, the so-called "''God'' particle"&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: I hate that...I hate that name.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
B: &mdash;the particle that is thought&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That ''is'' stupid.<br />
<br />
S: Can we call it the "Lucifer particle?"<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: I was going to go with the "Thor particle."<br />
<br />
E: The "Buddah particle?"<br />
<br />
B: There you go. Umm, this is the particle that's thought to imbue all matter with mass. Now, both the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS_experiment ATLAS] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Muon_Solenoid CMS] experiments and...the teams that ran those experiments recently announced their results from ''literally'' &mdash; and I mean this &mdash; hundreds of trillions of proton collisions that offer not conclusive proof of Higgs, but the best evidence yet for many reasons. The Higgs boson is the last predicted particle of the famous and successful {{w|Standard Model}} of physics, which describes how forces and particles interact. A key component of this theory is actually not the particle per se, which everyone seems to focus on, but the Higgs ''field''. This is what everything really is interacting with in order to get the mass, even the Higgs particle itself. Now, as great as this standard theory is, it doesn't actually predict the ''mass'' of the Higgs, so scientists kinda need to look around at all the various energies that it could potentially exist in and exclude those energy domains where they don't find it. So to just...kind of just narrowing it down more and more over time. And it seems like they're really backing it into a corner now, if it even still exists, which of course isn't certain. Now, the ATLAS team has narrowed the range that they...it looks like the Higgs exists between 115 and 131 gigaelectronvolts. The CMS team is saying that it ''cannot'' be heavier than 127 GeV (gigaelectronvolts). Now, you see "electronvolts" tossed around a lot in a lot of these articles. It refers to an amount of energy &mdash; an electronvolt. One electronvolt is the amount of energy that is given to an electron when it's accelerated through an {{w|electric potential difference}} of one volt. So that's kind of it in a nut shell. These electronvolts work very well in particle physics. They're very flexible. They can be used as a unit of momentum, and also, due to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence E=mc2] &mdash; or energy-mass equivalence &mdash; it could also be used for a unit of mass. So, to kind of put these into perspective a little bit, one GeV is a billion electronvolts. One TeV is a trillion electronvolts, and that's about the same kinetic energy of a flying mosquito. So even a trillion electronvolts is still not a lot of energy. The energy of one photon of visible light is anywhere between 1.6 to 3.4 electronvolts. So, very, very little energy there. So if these latest experiments are correct, then the Higgs would then weigh between about 126 billion electronvolts. That would make it about 126 times heavier than a proton and a quarter-million times heavier than an electron, so it would certainly be a big boy. The next question that I think of is like, well, all right, how confident are these scientists? That's pretty important. And you may have heard a lot about "sigma." They give numbers &mdash; a sigma of 1.9 or 2-point-whatever. These sigma numbers try to put into perspective the chance that the results are a total fluke with no significance at all. So for the ATLAS experiments, the statistical significance of the 126 GeV was a sigma of 2.3. Now, that means that there's about a two-percent chance of their results being just a random fluctuation. The CMS detector had a sigma of 1.9, so that was less than two percent. Now, that sounds good, and it is very good, but the gold standard is 5 sigma, and that would mean that there's less than one in a million chance of random noise causing the results that they're seeing. So clearly there's more work to be done and more data to be gathered before we can all, you know, get drunk and really start celebrating the Higgs boson. And, I don't know...did you guys find a similar puzzling attitude? A lot of people were like, "Oh, nothing to see here!" "Please move on!" You know, "Big deal!" "They didn't discover it yet." And I disagree. I think there's plenty of room for real optimism in this. You know, we've been steadily narrowing the range &mdash; the energy regime in which the Higgs can be found. That alone, I think, makes these most recent results much more compelling than if the range was much larger than it was, even a few years ago. So as you narrow that range down where it would most likely exist, any new evidence that you have I think is just more compelling. Second, the standard model doesn't tell us how big the Higgs is &mdash; this one was pretty interesting &mdash; but it does tell us how it would interact with particles like the {{w|W and Z bosons}}, which are responsible for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction weak nuclear force]. So if you consider the weight of those particles, which have been determined through experiments, the Higgs ''should'' weigh between 115 and 130 gigaelectronvolts, and that fits these latest predictions like a glove. That's ''exactly'' what they're saying, and to me, that's very compelling. And finally, for the first time, we've got these two separate high-resolution experiments that both agree on this new energy range. So you put all that together, and, you know, of course it still can be a fluke, but I think after such a...the long journey these guys have taken, it seems likely to me that these are among the final steps that these scientists are taking to finally determine if the Higgs exists or not, and whether it does or not &mdash; and I think we'll probably know with a sigma of 5 hopefully within the year or so &mdash; that I think either eventuality I think would be worth raising a glass to all the scientists that have worked so hard on this.<br />
<br />
E: I think people are...have been inundated &mdash; and especially the last few years &mdash; with articles about the Higgs boson coming out every what seems like couple of months, and it's kind of like the boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon. It's like, all right, well, you know, let us know when the wolf is ''really'' here.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, that's part of it.<br />
<br />
E: Then we'll pay attention, right?<br />
<br />
B: It seems like more of the same, and as interesting and as important as these results are, yeah, after three or four times...god, I think we've talked about the Higgs on at least three or four occasions. And the LHC, forget it, we've talked about that a bunch too. So yeah, there's that part of it. I think that might be a reason why a lot of these people are just like, "Ho-hum." But there are certainly a lot of people that are just so excited.<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, that's fine. This is ''happening'', you know. We're not just going to wait and say when it's totally over. It's interesting to see the process unfold. {{w|Lawrence Krauss}}, whose interview we aired last week, was quoted as saying this about it: <blockquote>If the Higgs is discovered, it will represent perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the human intellect in recent memory, vindicating fifty years of the building of one of the greatest theoretical edifices in all of science and requiring the building of the most complicated machine that has ever been built.</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So I think that puts it into perspective.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, good quote.<br />
<br />
S: This is ''huge'', and I think we should watch it unfold and not just pop the corks at the very end and get people caught up, you know, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Well, I can see the general public might not be interested in the play-by-play. I find it fascinating because I like to hear the steps that they're taking. It's also good to....you know, it's good to keep that research in the press because, you know, it gives us the idea that they're using that machine. It took so long to do it, it was so expensive, and I ''need'' to hear about updates like this. I think it's important.<br />
<br />
S: I love the play-by-play because what's most fascinating is the ''process'' of science, not just the findings of science. And how they're building the case for the Higgs and, you know, what it means is just as fascinating as the end result.<br />
<br />
R: Science education &mdash; at least in this country, in the U.S. &mdash; isn't about teaching the process. It's not about teaching how difficult science can be and all the, you know, the amount of time and the amount of failures you have to have before you have one success. I think most people think of science as a string of large discoveries, and so they look around and they wonder why they're not seeing scientists making these big discoveries now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. ''Eureka!''<br />
<br />
J: The other cool thing about this type of research is it usually does...and we ''will'' see the LHC create new information. Like, you know, things will be discovered and happened upon by accident that will lead to other stuff that they never even thought about.<br />
<br />
B: Well, Jay, it's funny you point that out because that's exactly what's happening now. Now that they really think they've got a handle on the range in which the Higgs can appear, that would mean that the Higgs is relatively...it has a very relatively low mass, which would mean &mdash; according to the standard theory, I think &mdash; that the Higgs would have to be accompanied by ''another'' particle.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Now, this is a particle that's not explicitly predicted by the standard theory, but in order for the Higgs to exist at this low mass, it would need this extra particle with it, Otherwise, the Higgs would never be stable, the universe never would have existed, and things would be very different and boring all around. But...so this might actually lead to new physics&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So you're saying the Higgs has a posse.<br />
<br />
B: ''(laughs)'' Right.<br />
<br />
S: An entourage.<br />
<br />
B: This could lead to new physics. I mean, how awesome would that be if the last particle, you know, proven that the standard theory predicted, that we finally showed experimentally, leads the way into new physics because of this new particle that wasn't like...you know, wasn't really anticipated but would have to exist if the Higgs has that mass?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm. Well, I think that the standard model is one of the greatest triumphs of science. It's up there with the periodic table, I mean, evolution...some basic concept that has huge impact...implications for our understanding of how the world works.<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
|date = 2013-04-24<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=6415SGU Episode 3352013-04-24T06:27:52Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Pro-Measles Children's Book (3:34) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011 <br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg <br />
|previous = 334 <br />
|next = 336 <br />
|rebecca = y <br />
|bob = y <br />
|jay = y <br />
|evan = y <br />
|perry = <br />
|guest1 = <br />
|guest2 = <br />
|guest3 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=335<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she will be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
* Bad Astronomy: [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=6414SGU Episode 3352013-04-24T06:24:12Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Pro-Measles Children's Book (3:34) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011 <br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg <br />
|previous = 334 <br />
|next = 336 <br />
|rebecca = y <br />
|bob = y <br />
|jay = y <br />
|evan = y <br />
|perry = <br />
|guest1 = <br />
|guest2 = <br />
|guest3 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=335<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she ''will'' be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
* Bad Astronomy: [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=6413SGU Episode 3352013-04-24T06:20:36Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Pro-Measles Children's Book (3:34) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011 <br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg <br />
|previous = 334 <br />
|next = 336 <br />
|rebecca = y <br />
|bob = y <br />
|jay = y <br />
|evan = y <br />
|perry = <br />
|guest1 = <br />
|guest2 = <br />
|guest3 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=335<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing With Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she ''will'' be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
* Bad Astronomy: [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=6412SGU Episode 3352013-04-24T05:58:15Z<p>Jacquie o: Removed "transcribing all" box (added transcribing box to specific sections still working on)</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011 <br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg <br />
|previous = 334 <br />
|next = 336 <br />
|rebecca = y <br />
|bob = y <br />
|jay = y <br />
|evan = y <br />
|perry = <br />
|guest1 = <br />
|guest2 = <br />
|guest3 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=335<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing with Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she ''will'' be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
* Bad Astronomy: [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=6411SGU Episode 3352013-04-24T05:55:56Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Hallucinating Color (29:39) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all|transcriber = jacquie_o}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011 <br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg <br />
|previous = 334 <br />
|next = 336 <br />
|rebecca = y <br />
|bob = y <br />
|jay = y <br />
|evan = y <br />
|perry = <br />
|guest1 = <br />
|guest2 = <br />
|guest3 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=335<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing with Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she ''will'' be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
* Bad Astronomy: [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=6410SGU Episode 3352013-04-24T05:55:34Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Mercury UFO (22:53) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all|transcriber = jacquie_o}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011 <br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg <br />
|previous = 334 <br />
|next = 336 <br />
|rebecca = y <br />
|bob = y <br />
|jay = y <br />
|evan = y <br />
|perry = <br />
|guest1 = <br />
|guest2 = <br />
|guest3 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=335<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing with Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she ''will'' be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
* Bad Astronomy: [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=6409SGU Episode 3352013-04-24T05:54:59Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Higgs Update (12:08) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all|transcriber = jacquie_o}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011 <br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg <br />
|previous = 334 <br />
|next = 336 <br />
|rebecca = y <br />
|bob = y <br />
|jay = y <br />
|evan = y <br />
|perry = <br />
|guest1 = <br />
|guest2 = <br />
|guest3 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=335<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing with Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she ''will'' be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
* Bad Astronomy: [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=6408SGU Episode 3352013-04-24T05:52:48Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Pro-Measles Children's Book (3:34) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all|transcriber = jacquie_o}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011 <br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg <br />
|previous = 334 <br />
|next = 336 <br />
|rebecca = y <br />
|bob = y <br />
|jay = y <br />
|evan = y <br />
|perry = <br />
|guest1 = <br />
|guest2 = <br />
|guest3 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=335<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Skepchick.org: Measles are Marvelous!]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you guys over at [http://skepchick.org/ Skepchick] wrote about a new children's book about the wonderful world of measles.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. Yeah, it's actually...it's a great new children's book, and it's inspired us to put out a whole new series of books based on the same idea, so, for instance, our first title is going to be ''Syphilis: Awesome!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: And it's going to&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Syphillis: Look what it did for Hitler!''<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: Right, it's going to teach kids to have unprotected sex, because syphilis is not as bad as everybody says it is, and then teach them ways that they can get it and basically tell them that it's totally cool and a healthy thing to do, and it's really not that big of a deal.<br />
<br />
S: I'm looking forward to the sequel, ''Playing with Polio''.<br />
<br />
R: Yep, yep.<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: It's going to be a great series, and I'm sure no one can think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that. Yeah, that's the book that Stephanie Messenger has written. It's called ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', and it is written for children to teach them that measles are a wonderful thing to get, that you don't need to get a vaccination&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;that you can just contract measles, and it's really not that big of a deal, and it'll make you much healthier, and everybody...it's natural, you know. There's a little girl chasing a butterfly on the cover; I'm pretty sure that's how measles works&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: Hey&mdash;<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you chase butterflies when you get it.<br />
<br />
J: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of like those herpes commercials where everybody just looks so goddamn happy, and you think, "Maybe I've been missing out&mdash;<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;you know, by not having herpes."<br />
<br />
''(laughter)''<br />
<br />
J: You're right, Rebecca!<br />
<br />
E: You're missing out on ''something''.<br />
<br />
R: It's the same sort of thing, like she...she just looks really happy to have measles. So Stephanie Messenger is obviously an anti-vaxer. She's friends with Meryl Dorey of AVN&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: ''(groans)''<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah...<br />
<br />
R: We've talked about her before, yeah. Meryl Dorey's the really outrageously awful woman who is anti-vaccine. She's an HIV/AIDS denialist. So they're both in Australia. Messenger has a really sad back story. Her child died very young. She blames it on vaccines. There's truly no way to tell, you know, what exactly happened there. You only have her anecdote to go by, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well, I could say, though, that the story of what happened to her child is pretty typical of certain classes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases neurodegenerative diseases], like the so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukodystrophies leukodystrophies]. There are some people who think that her child may have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_disease Alexander disease]. We can't know that. But, essentially, these children progress normally for one-to-two years, and then their nervous system starts to break down because of a genetic problem, and then they begin to regress, and they, you know, eventually die. The story of what happened to her child fits that very well. So we don't know that, but that's certainly a plausible alternative. We can be reasonably sure it wasn't a vaccine that did it, but that's what she has assumed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, apparently, she once mentioned that the doctors thought that it might have been Alexander's disease. She uses her other children as examples of...to support her view because her other children do not have...they were never vaccinated, and she says that they are perfectly healthy. A commenter on [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence] actually mentioned that those children are the children of a different father than the other ones, which supports the idea that this might be a...might have been a genetic disease. So, yeah, there are a lot of maybes, but, you know, there is one thing we do know for sure, and that's that vaccines are safe and effective and we are all much better off when everyone is getting vaccinated. Children&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: That's not what I read!<br />
<br />
R: ''(laughs)'' In ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles''?&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Children like Stephanie Messenger's children are benefiting from herd immunity. They're benefiting from the fact that everyone else is getting vaccinated, which is protecting them. Unfortunately, herd immunity is dropping, which is why we're seeing measles coming back. Measles can actually kill and maim in ways that are not mentioned in ''Melanie's Marvelous Measles'', oddly enough.<br />
<br />
B: Join the herd!<br />
<br />
R: So, yeah, that's what's happening. This book is being self published, so there's no publisher to complain about or to boycott, unfortunately. It looks like, as of right now, she's able to get away with just publishing this absolute dreck focused on children who will read this and not know any better. They'll read this and think that, "Oh, okay, there's nothing harmful about measles. It's perfectly natural and fun to get measles."<br />
<br />
E: Well, what good is an insane belief without some propaganda to back it up?<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Right?<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;and, you know, we all know that the best way to spread a belief like that is to get kids when they're young, when they're not&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yup.<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;necessarily going to question your authority, so...yeah, it's a savvy decision on the part of Messenger.<br />
<br />
J: I feel bad for her. I mean, she lost a child. It's got to be such an incredibly horrific life-altering event, and maybe she feels like she's trying to do some good and everything, and it's so sad and common for us to see people like fall into like the single anecdote: "Well, you know this was my only child that got sick. All the other ones are fine." And a lot of people definitely, you know, buy into that. They don't have any perspective on the fact that that single anecdote or personal experience that they have is just ''completely'' worthless, like, it doesn't teach you ''anything''. I mean, that only works with things like, "Oh, I touched the fire, and I got burned," you know? But it doesn't work with things like, you know, getting your children immunized.<br />
<br />
S: Anything reasonably complicated, yeah, 'cause it's just all confirmation bias and quirkiness of small experience, so...but it's very compelling to the individual. To her, it's ''case closed''. You know, what she knows is, "One child is vaccinated; he's dead. The rest of my children are perfectly fine, and they were not vaccinated." And no logic or scientific evidence will convince her that that is not a cause and effect. It's just the way we're hardwired. And now she's so emotionally invested...I agree, Jay; I mean, losing a child must be absolutely devastating, and this is how she's dealing with it. The emotional investment is also huge. It's just unfortunate that other people will be damaged because of this, because she's spreading misinformation that&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Damaged or ''killed''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, or killed.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But that...and that's the other side of the coin. Okay, so, yes, I do feel bad for her and anybody in that situation. It's terrible, but you know what? She should not be writing books like this. She has no idea what she's talking about. She's spreading misinformation. And, sadly, if this book gets more press, she ''will'' be responsible for kids dying or getting permanently damaged by these diseases.<br />
<br />
R: And it's not just the book. Unfortunately, much like Meryl Dorey, she is trying to spread her message far and wide, which includes giving vaccination seminars around Australia. And, also like Meryl Dorey, she claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome sudden infant death syndrome] isn't really a thing; it's just based on...the problem is with vaccines that are causing it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Vaccinations.<br />
<br />
R: Meryl Dorey also goes so far as to say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome shaken baby syndrome] isn't a real thing, that that's always just vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
R: She's even...she even lobbied for an American man who was imprisoned for apparently beating his child to death. She campaigned for him on the idea that his child was actually killed by vaccines.<br />
<br />
B: What about kids that are hurt in car accidents?<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)'' Yeah, I was going to say&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Let's, you know, let's make ''that''&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: &mdash;there's no car accidents either. I mean, it's all vaccines.<br />
<br />
R: Right. Vaccines are somehow involved, and the government is hiding it all. You know, there's a giant conspiracy.<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
* Bad Astronomy: [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=6407SGU Episode 3352013-04-24T04:42:50Z<p>Jacquie o: /* This Day in Skepticism (0:30) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all|transcriber = jacquie_o}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011 <br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg <br />
|previous = 334 <br />
|next = 336 <br />
|rebecca = y <br />
|bob = y <br />
|jay = y <br />
|evan = y <br />
|perry = <br />
|guest1 = <br />
|guest2 = <br />
|guest3 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=335<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, December 17th, huh?<br />
<br />
E: The year was 1919. Albert Porta, a respected American meteorologist, whose last name means "door" in Italian, I believe...well, he caused a widespread panic back in 1919, and he predicted that a conjunction of six planets, which was to occur on December 17th, would blast the Earth into oblivion. So apparently what was going to happen is that this conjunction of the six planets was going to cause a magnetic current that would pierce the sun and cause a great explosion of flaming gas and engulf the Earth. Bye, bye, Earth. And people took this quite seriously, as, after all, he was a ''respected'' American meteorologist, so he had some sway with the public.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: There's reports of, you know, some mob riots and even a few suicides, reportedly&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;based on this particular prediction he made. And, of course, it didn't happen, and then his reputation crashed and burned right after that, and nobody took him seriously.<br />
<br />
J: The suicide thing always boggles my mind because if the world were to end, then why kill yourself before it happens, you know?<br />
<br />
B: I'd want to see it happening. What a way to go, huh?<br />
<br />
R: In some people's version of the end times, though, it's not something you really want to stick around for. There's locusts and horsemen...<br />
<br />
J: But it never occurred to them, he might be wrong, you know? ''(laughs)'' You know, the stakes don't get higher.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but what gets me about this stuff is that people never consider, "Hey, I wonder if this has happened ''before''." And if you kinda look at when these types of groupings have happened, like, say, for four or more planets lining up, it happens like every fifty-seven years, so, hello, I mean, that's kind of pertinent information that seems like a lot of these people never consider. And I know he was going off on magnetism and stuff, which was really silly, but a lot of people focus on the gravitational increase, and, I mean, if you line up five planets and look at what the effect on the gravitational pull...I think it's less than one percent increase. I mean, if I just stepped really close to you, I'm having more of an effect than the five planets would have. It's just so silly.<br />
<br />
S: Do you remember the planetary alignment in 1982?<br />
<br />
B: I think I do.<br />
<br />
E: That was big. Yes.<br />
<br />
B: Was that in like May? Was it May 5th?<br />
<br />
E: It was the May&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: March. March 10th.<br />
<br />
E: I thought it was the 9th.<br />
<br />
B: That's close.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, yeah, I think you're right.<br />
<br />
S: March 10th. You know what that's called, when the planets line up?<br />
<br />
B: Is it, umm...syz...<br />
<br />
E: Syzy...syzygy.<br />
<br />
S: Syzygy, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_%28astronomy%29 Syzygy] technically is when three bodies line up &mdash; like the sun, the earth, and the moon &mdash; but it's also sort of loosely used to refer to planets. Although, they were all lined up; they were just all on the same side of the sun at one time.<br />
<br />
B: A loose alignment.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so-called grand syzygy. The next one is coming up May 19th, 2161, when all of the planets will be within sixty-nine degrees of each other.<br />
<br />
E: Wow. There was a six-planet cluster just this past May, in fact.<br />
<br />
S: But, Evan, no effect on earthquakes?<br />
<br />
E: No, no effect...''(laughs)'' Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: ''(laughs)''<br />
<br />
E: No effect on earthquakes.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* Skepchick: [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Measles are Marvelous]<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
* Bad Astronomy: [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=6406SGU Episode 3352013-04-24T04:24:49Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Introduction */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all|transcriber = jacquie_o}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011 <br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg <br />
|previous = 334 <br />
|next = 336 <br />
|rebecca = y <br />
|bob = y <br />
|jay = y <br />
|evan = y <br />
|perry = <br />
|guest1 = <br />
|guest2 = <br />
|guest3 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=335<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <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, December 14th, 2011, 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: How we doin'?<br />
<br />
S: Good.<br />
<br />
B: Pretty good.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
J: Yah, fine.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
December 17, 1919 Albert Porta an expert seismographer and meteorologist predicted that a conjunction of six planets on this date would spell the end of the world. <br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
* Skepchick: [http://skepchick.org/2011/12/measles-are-marvelous/ Measles are Marvelous]<br />
<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
* Bad Astronomy: [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/ Mass effect: Maybe Higgs, maybe not]<br />
<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
* NeuroLogica Blog: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mercury-ufo/ Mercury UFO]<br />
<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
* National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/ People Can Hallucinate Color at Will]<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
Answer to last week: Piranha <br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<blockquote>I was listening to the latest podcast, reached the "fact or fiction" segment of the program and was disappointed to hear Jay trot out that old newage-lady-togetherness-myth about women's periods syncing up. It's one of those things people like say, "Betty and I are such good friends, we even have periods at the same time!" It's also bullshit. Socially synchronizing periods do not exist, and because of the varying lengths of duration of the period itself along with time between, cycles that start out apparently synced will un-couple over time. There are only so many days in a general 4-6 week cycle, chances are at some point one of my room mates and I will sort-of-sync for a month or three, but not the whole length of the apartment's lease (And while this myth persists, even it has never had the ovarian fortitude to claim syncing room mates have periods the exact same duration). Too, as cycles un-sync, people will start to count the near-misses as evidence. First it will be on the same day, then only 2 days apart, then 4, etc. "Why, we must still be in sync, even though clearly they're slowly getting further and further apart!" No reputable, repeatable study has ever proved syncing-cycles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist Barbara United States</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
Online Dating<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111213190156.htm Item #1]: Scientists have successfully developed a vaccine against breast cancer that has been shown to be effective in mice. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214135814.htm Item #2]: Scientists have developed a plant spray that allows plants to survive freezing conditions unharmed. [http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paradox-gift.html Item #3]: Psychologists discover that adding a small gift to a larger gift decreases the gift evaluation of the recipient.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.</blockquote><br />
Jean-Paul Sartre<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=4491SGU Episode 3352012-10-31T09:03:11Z<p>Jacquie o: Added a timestamp</p>
<hr />
<div> {{transcribing all <br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}} <br />
<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011 <br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg <br />
|previous = 334 <br />
|next = 336 <br />
|rebecca = y <br />
|bob = y <br />
|jay = y <br />
|evan = y <br />
|perry = <br />
|guest1 = <br />
|guest2 = <br />
|guest3 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=335<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <br />
|}}<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>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>(29:39)</small>===<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}} <!-- inserts the template containing the voiceover outro (including links) for episodes 301 onwards. For older episodes use:<br />
{{Outro291}} - episodes 291-300 (inclusive)<br />
episodes 289 & 290 use the same text as 291-300, but are voiced by Steve<br />
{{Outro119}} - episodes 119-288 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro61}} - episodes 61-118 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro39}} - episodes 39-60 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro30}} - episodes 30-38 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro18}} - episodes 18-29 (inclusive)<br />
--><br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=4314SGU Episode 3352012-10-27T01:50:40Z<p>Jacquie o: Added a timestamp</p>
<hr />
<div> {{transcribing all <br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}} <br />
<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011 <br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg <br />
|previous = 334 <br />
|next = 336 <br />
|rebecca = y <br />
|bob = y <br />
|jay = y <br />
|evan = y <br />
|perry = <br />
|guest1 = <br />
|guest2 = <br />
|guest3 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=335<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <br />
|}}<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>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>(22:53)</small>===<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}} <!-- inserts the template containing the voiceover outro (including links) for episodes 301 onwards. For older episodes use:<br />
{{Outro291}} - episodes 291-300 (inclusive)<br />
episodes 289 & 290 use the same text as 291-300, but are voiced by Steve<br />
{{Outro119}} - episodes 119-288 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro61}} - episodes 61-118 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro39}} - episodes 39-60 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro30}} - episodes 30-38 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro18}} - episodes 18-29 (inclusive)<br />
--><br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=4241SGU Episode 3352012-10-25T09:07:16Z<p>Jacquie o: Added some timestamps</p>
<hr />
<div> {{transcribing all <br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}} <br />
<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011 <br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg <br />
|previous = 334 <br />
|next = 336 <br />
|rebecca = y <br />
|bob = y <br />
|jay = y <br />
|evan = y <br />
|perry = <br />
|guest1 = <br />
|guest2 = <br />
|guest3 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=335<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <br />
|}}<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>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>(3:34)</small>===<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>(12:08)</small>===<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>()</small>===<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}} <!-- inserts the template containing the voiceover outro (including links) for episodes 301 onwards. For older episodes use:<br />
{{Outro291}} - episodes 291-300 (inclusive)<br />
episodes 289 & 290 use the same text as 291-300, but are voiced by Steve<br />
{{Outro119}} - episodes 119-288 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro61}} - episodes 61-118 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro39}} - episodes 39-60 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro30}} - episodes 30-38 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro18}} - episodes 18-29 (inclusive)<br />
--><br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=4179SGU Episode 3352012-10-24T12:53:13Z<p>Jacquie o: </p>
<hr />
<div> {{transcribing all <br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}} <br />
<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y<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 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011 <br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg <br />
|previous = 334 <br />
|next = 336 <br />
|rebecca = y <br />
|bob = y <br />
|jay = y <br />
|evan = y <br />
|perry = <br />
|guest1 = <br />
|guest2 = <br />
|guest3 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=335<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <br />
|}}<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>(0:30)</small> ==<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Pro-Measles Children's Book <small>()</small>===<br />
=== Higgs Update <small>()</small>===<br />
=== Mercury UFO <small>()</small>===<br />
=== Hallucinating Color <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Menstrual Syncing <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
== Swindler's List <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}} <!-- inserts the template containing the voiceover outro (including links) for episodes 301 onwards. For older episodes use:<br />
{{Outro291}} - episodes 291-300 (inclusive)<br />
episodes 289 & 290 use the same text as 291-300, but are voiced by Steve<br />
{{Outro119}} - episodes 119-288 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro61}} - episodes 61-118 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro39}} - episodes 39-60 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro30}} - episodes 30-38 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro18}} - episodes 18-29 (inclusive)<br />
--><br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jacquie_o&diff=4178User:Jacquie o2012-10-24T12:15:24Z<p>Jacquie o: </p>
<hr />
<div>I've been involved in the skeptical movement in one way or another since the early 2000s, when I helped found a group for atheists and freethinkers at my college campus and also attended a Secular Student Alliance conference, which was an amazing experience and got me hooked. I've been a fan of the Skeptics' Guide since 2008, when, after a recommendation from a friend, I started to listen to the episodes in order from the beginning. I'm now up to date and continue to listen to new episodes as they are released. The Skeptics' Guide is truly one of my favorite things in the world; it's like candy! I really enjoy writing and editing and actually don't mind tedious, detailed work, so I thought helping with the transcripts would be a good way for me to contribute to the cause!<br />
<br />
I'm currently located in Irvine, California.</div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_335&diff=4177SGU Episode 3352012-10-24T12:06:19Z<p>Jacquie o: Added skeleton and filled out info box</p>
<hr />
<div> {{transcribing all <br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}} <br />
<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 335<br />
|episodeDate = 17<sup>th</sup> December 2011 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:Mercury_UFOs.jpg <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = 334 <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = 336 <!-- 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/skepticast2011-12-17.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=335<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,39496.0.html<br />
|qowText = Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance. <!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre Jean-Paul Sartre] <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<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>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Item 1 <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Question 1 <small>()</small>===<br />
=== Question 2 <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
== Interview with "..." <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}} <!-- inserts the template containing the voiceover outro (including links) for episodes 301 onwards. For older episodes use:<br />
{{Outro291}} - episodes 291-300 (inclusive)<br />
episodes 289 & 290 use the same text as 291-300, but are voiced by Steve<br />
{{Outro119}} - episodes 119-288 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro61}} - episodes 61-118 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro39}} - episodes 39-60 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro30}} - episodes 30-38 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro18}} - episodes 18-29 (inclusive)<br />
--><br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SGU_episode_list&diff=4175Template:SGU episode list2012-10-24T11:46:07Z<p>Jacquie o: Added link for episode 335</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="2012"><big>'''2012'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 379]], Oct 20 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 378]], Oct 13 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 377]], Oct 6 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 376]], Sep 29 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 375]], Sep 22 2012 {{Open}}<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 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 348]], Mar 17 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 347]], Mar 10 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 346]], Mar 3 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 335]], Dec 17 2011 {{i}}<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 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 308]], Jun 08 2011 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 287]], Jan 12 2011 {{i}}<br />
|valign="top" style=white-space:nowrap|<span id="2010"><big>'''2010'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 271]], Sep 22 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 260]], Jun 30 2010 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 252]], May 12 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 245]], Mar 25 2010 {{i}}<br />
<br />
<span id="2009"><big>'''2009'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 220]], Oct 7 2009 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 216]], Sep 9 2009 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 185]], Feb 4 2009 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 184]], Jan 28 2009<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 146]], May 7 2008<br />
* [[SGU Episode 144]], Apr 23 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 140]], Mar 26 2008 {{i}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2007"><big>'''2007'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 123]], Nov 28, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 109]], Aug 24, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 105]], Jul 25, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 103]], Jul 11, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 98]], June 6, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 97]], May 30 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 89]], Apr 4, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 79]], Jan 24, 2007<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2006"><big>'''2006'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 62]], Sep 27 2006<br />
* [[SGU Episode 47]], Jun 14 2006 {{i}}<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 {{i}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2005"><big>'''2005'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 9]], Aug 10 2005 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 8]], Aug 2 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 7]], Jul 20 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 6]], Jul 7 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 5]], Jun 29 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 4]], Jun 15 2005 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 3]], Jun 7 2005 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 2]], Jun 1 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 1]], May 4 2005 {{tick}}<br />
|}</div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGUTranscripts:Community_portal&diff=4174SGUTranscripts:Community portal2012-10-24T11:16:25Z<p>Jacquie o: </p>
<hr />
<div>Hi guys like others I've often thought about this as a project but put off by the amount of time that it would have taken one person, the main reason I thought about doing this was to be able to search the transcripts when needed, example: if someone asked me a question on Homoeopathy I would be able to use my smartphone to give an answer based on what the SGU have talked about in the past, as I generally take what the guys say as fact.<br />
<br />
Do you think that what I'm taking about would be possible using this WIKI project??<br />
<br />
Looking forward to starting and completing my first SGU Transcript :-)<br />
<br />
--[[User:Manontop|Manontop]] 09:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Hi Manontop.<br />
:<br />
:Sure, I think that would be one of the most important uses of these transcripts. My ideas for having transcripts of the SGU episodes are to facilitate linking, searching and accessibility:<br />
:<br />
:* Linking. We have headings throughout the podcasts so that it's possible to link directly to a specific segment, for example [[SGU_Episode_352#Aristolochia_Nephropathy|Aristolochia Nephropathy]] (internal wiki link) or [http://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_352#Aristolochia_Nephropathy Aristolochia Nephropathy] (external link).<br />
:* Searching. Currently there are (at least) two ways to search. Either using Google or the built-in search box in the top right. If you want to use Google to search only this site, you can do so by using the "site:" term in your query. E.g. your Google query would be [https://www.google.com/search?q=site:sgutranscripts.org+titanic+disaster "site:sgutranscripts.org titanic disaster"]. Google is the king of them all, so I have installed proper semantic web (SEO) support. When a transcript is completed I go through and insert tags to important concepts that are covered in the podcast. This helps Google (and other search engines) know what is important about that page. You can see these by opening a transcript and viewing the source of the page. Then look for the <meta name="keywords" content="..."> tag. There are two components to this, tags that are site-wide such as "skeptics, sceptics, scepticism" etc. followed by tags that are local to a particular page such as "titanic, tragedy, ss, californian, space, junk" etc. Of course, Google also uses the page content when indexing.<br />
:* Accessibility. Quite simple really; people who can't listen to the podcast for any reason (deafness etc.) can now read the transcripts instead.<br />
:<br />
:Great to have you on board! :)<br />
:<br />
:--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] 11:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hi guys,<br />
<br />
I'm guessing this is the best place to put project discussions, let me know if there's another way - I'm new to Wiki editing.<br />
<br />
Regarding time stamps for the sections, I've entered them into the headings of [[SGU_Episode_348]] using < small > tags. This shows them smaller in the actual headings, but the same size in the contents list.<br />
What do you guys think?<br />
<br />
I've also been thinking of ways to make these transcript pages as useful as poss without causing ourselves too much extra work. One way might be to include a kind of bullet-point list of facts from the episode, as they often have throw-away comments that are interesting. E.g. in ep.348, they talk about nut allergies, and that cashew nuts contain the same allergy-inducing resin as poison-ivy. We could lift these from the main text as we go and build a list at the end. It wouldn't make much difference if someone's reading the whole transcript, but it might make a nice feature for flicking through them.<br />
Just a thought, I figured it would be better said earlier than later. What do you think?<br />
<br>Cheers,<br />
<br />
--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 04:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I like the idea of compiling a fact list at the end of the transcription for each episode. It's just up to the individual transcriber I suppose. Regarding the < small > tags, I definitely think it would help to have the timestamps in these transcriptions, and having it in the section title makes it visible in the table of contents. The other option is to use the wikibox on your user page, which I think is very nice, containing the image, quote, times and links in one place. It just depends on whether or not other people like it too.<br />
:--[[User:Jay One|Jay One]] 20:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks, I have no experience making wikibox templates, so if someone else knows more about these, mb they'd like to build one? (although I'm happy to try) we should probably come to some agreement about whether we want them and what they should contain.<br />
::--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 20:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Has anyone explored the idea of hiring a professional transcriptionist to do the work? This could be much faster, but there would be a cost involved. Perhaps a donation fund could be set up for SGU listeners to pay for it. Another podcast that goes this route is the "Security Now" podcast from Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte.<br />
<br>-- [[User:128.200.139.53|128.200.139.53]] ([[User talk:128.200.139.53|talk]]) 17:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
:I'm a professional trascriber and I would love to contribute towards this project. VLC is good but not optimized for transcription purpose. I would suggest NCH's ExpressScribe software and it's free. Also if you are spending a lot of time on this project, I would recommend investing on a foot pedal. It shouldn't cost you more than $25. With these two things, I am sure you can double your productivity.<br />
:--[[User:Eupraxsophic|Eupraxsophic]] ([[User talk:Eupraxsophic|talk]]) 02:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I'd like to help, but I ''cannot'' tell Jay and Bob's voices apart. Am I useless?<br />
<br>--[[User:Jenpohl|Jenpohl]] 20:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I often find this difficult, and it's quite likely I've already made mistakes based on this, but mb you'll get better as you're listening closely. I find Bob more nasal. Another good indicator is whether they're referencing nanotechnology or porn. :)<br />
:--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 21:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
:That may be a problem, but all it took for me to tell their voices apart was a little time.<br />
:--[[User:Jay One|Jay One]] 21:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Just a thought: if you want to put up a <ins>transcription page including</ins> timestamps in comments (using "< !--" and "-->" without spaces in them) for the points you're unsure about, you could flag the pages up here for me (or whoever) to see if we can help out. <ins>This way we can easily search for problem points.</ins><br />
:--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 06:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC) [edited:16:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)]<br />
<br />
:You're definitely not useless! The most important thing is to get a first pass of the transcription done, corrections are then much quicker/easier. How about you put a question mark after the letter if you can't work out who's speaking? So like:<br />
:<br />
:B?: Stuff that Bob or Jay said<br />
:<br />
:Then someone else can go fix them later, should be pretty quick to do.<br />
:--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] 09:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I've inserted a rough draft of a fact list at the bottom of [[SGU_Episode_348]]. What do you guys think? It was easy to put together, but I didn't know what to call it.<br />
<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 05:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
:I originally thought it was a bad idea until I went and looked at your example. Now I think it's ''awesome'', I love it! :) Currently you've called it "Today I Learned..." which I think is good, but can anyone think of a title that's better? Like maybe "Interesting ideas from the podcast" except not that as it sounds terrible. ;)<br />
:--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] 09:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Yay! Thanks. For the name, the only thing I thought, was I wanted to be careful not to assert them as hard facts. Also, we should mb point out that they are not part of the transcript, but taken from it after.<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 16:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hi guys, and thanks for starting this project! I don't have a lot of time to devote to doing whole transcripts, but I'd like to start categorizing the wiki pages, like "SGU Transcripts", "Live Episodes", etc. I think it would also be helpful to have next/previous episode links on each page, either at the bottom or in the infobox. Any opinions?<br>--[[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 15:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Hi Av8rmike, thanks for your interest, any help is always appreciated, big or small. We were thinking of using the categories from the [http://theness.com/roguesgallery/ Rogues gallery], plus others more specific to the podcast, e.g. guests. I think adding a category for live episodes is a great idea. We're also considering using redirect pages for categorizing podcast sections separately. <br />
:I agree, previous/next buttons would be good (in fact I was just playing with some graphics for them). However, I'm not sure how to get a wiki template to recognise the episode number and add/subtract automatically, do you have any ideas about that? Otherwise we can just input them manually.<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 16:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I took a stab at adding some categories to [[SGU_Episode_354]] to give an idea of how that would work. I don't know offhand how to do the auto-numbering in wiki templates, but from looking at the help pages for templates, you can do almost anything with them. I could probably do some experimenting and see how far I get.<br />
::[[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 18:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hi guys, I've noticed we've used 2 different time-stamp formats. When it gets past the hour mark, I use the h:mm:ss format, but some pages use mm:ss, e.g. 78:12. As the time-stamps form the links for sections, I figure this is pretty important. My argument for using h:mm:ss is that, in my experience, that's what the majority of audio software and mp3 players use, plus I think it's more natural for us to think of time this way. What do you guys think?<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 17:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Kitty, the only reason I was using mm:ss was because that's what was already in use on the existing pages. =P I agree that h:mm:ss makes more intuitive sense and is used in more places, so I'm all in favor of switching over.<br>-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 13:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks for responding. Rwh86's away this week, so I'm gonna be cheeky, assume he's cool with it and change them over. We can always change them back if anyone comes up with a good argument for the mm:ss format.<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 19:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hi guys...First time transcriber here! I was inspired by Tim Farley's presentation at TAM 2012 to see where I could help out - and figured I could at least try this. I just transcribed and posted [[5X5_Episode_4]], but I'm not familiar enough with the Rogues to distinguish voice identities. The only voice IDs I'm somewhat sure of are Steve's and Rebecca's (the others I guessed at). If anyone can help with voice IDs in Ep. 4, that would be great. (Maybe I'll get better at the voices in the future -grin-) [[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 03:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Hi Skepticat, and (as Av8rmike said) welcome to the team! I proof-read [[5X5 Episode 4]] and added the speakers. The page is great, took me no time to add them. In future, if there's a lot of lines you can't attribute, don't worry about adding times to each, just the first in a cluster. Hopefully that will save you a bit of time too :)<br>I often find Bob and Jay hard to distinguish, but I think Bob's just a little more nasal, and it sounds like Jay might use a desktop mic instead of one close by his mouth. I don't know if that's any help.<br>Thanks for your help, I'm very jealous you got to go to Tam, if you have any feedback for the site, do let us know.<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for the proof-read! Care to take a whack at [[5X5 Episode 5]], which I just posted? I don't think I'm going to have much luck with voice IDs (other than S & R) unless someone specifically says who's who, so I'll leave that to much more experienced folks, such as yourself, for now. Heck, I ended up riding down in the same elevator with the SGU crew at TAM (I think it was the first morning?) and I didn't fully realize who they were until later. As I was a "first TAMMER", that happened to me a few times with other skeptic notables there. :) [[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 04:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Done! And just for the record, I definitely don't get the voices right ''all'' the time. That's just one of the reasons to have subsequent contributors as proof-readers :) <br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 12:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Skepticat: Some things that may help you get more familiar with the voices:<br />
::* Listen to an episode and follow along with the transcript (assuming it's been verified), paying attention to who's speaking when.<br />
::* Transcribe some of the earlier episodes. Perry is easy to distinguish, and Jay (and sometimes Bob) aren't in all the early ones because of software limitations.<br>-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 14:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC) <br />
<br />
Hi guys, there's a few things I could do with getting some feedback on:<br />
# Using [[User:Teleuteskitty/Draft_main_layout|this page]] for the main page. (Av8rmike, I know you're pro)<br />
# Adding explanatory footnotes with the [[Template:Link needed]] (I explain this in more detail on the [[Template_talk:Link_needed|talk page]])<br />
# [[Help:How to Contribute]] page. Does this make sense to everyone?<br />
Could you please leave any feedback (positive/constructively critical/short/long) on the talk pages for these?<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 12:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The [[5X5 Episode 6]] transcript has just gone up and is begging for a proof-read and voice check. Any takers? :) [[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 04:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
:I got it covered. Thanks, Skepticat!<br>-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 02:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
You may have noticed a few changes in the site layout, including restriction of the [[Main Page]] editing to admin only. To add/amend transcript page links on the new main page and the dedicated [[SGU Episodes]] and [[5X5 Episodes]] pages, use [[Template:SGU episode list]] and [[Template:5X5 episode list]]. Links to these templates and the skeleton pages are on the [[Help:Contents]] page, and instructions on [[Help:Getting Started]] have been updated accordingly.<br />
<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 10:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hi all. I think it would be a good idea to pick an episode that is the canonical one. One where whatever the current agreed upon standard is implemented that can be pointed to or referenced whenever needed. Just a thought. Oo... also, we should be careful about links. We need to use nofollow when appropriate so quacks don't get any google juice from our work.<br><br />
--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 03:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Good idea on the example episode, we're trying to figure out which one would be best. Suggestions welcome!<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
::It might be that we'll have to splice together a few episodes to get all the various elements in one place.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
:::Hi, Geneocide! I think that the transcripts from episodes 350-365 (even the unverified ones) are probably as close to canonical as we're going to get. Those were done in the time when TK, RWH, and I had a little bit more time to devote to the pages and before we started to fall behind. (I'm particular to [[SGU_Episode_365|365]], since that's one I did almost entirely myself. =)<br/>--[[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 02:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I've posted the transcript for [[5X5 Episode 30]] so it's ready for a proof. Any takers? Tried my best to keep to US spelling. Mostly wiki links but some external, any preference? [[User:tnewsome|tnewsome]] ([[User talk:tnewsome|talk]]) 23:19, 18 October 2012 (EST)<br />
:We've mostly used wiki links, as it keeps a general standard of reference, they're often updated and they reference out to other sites. It's also very handy when you've got lots of linkable points, and it would take forever to find the ''best'' website for each. If readers are interested, it's generally a good place for them to start. Thanks for your help!<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Had an idea for a project we could work on in conjunction with the transcription. We should keep track of places where the rogues explain a core concept in detail (a lot of 5x5 episodes I imagine) and link to that explanation from other places in the transcription. Paradolia, Occam's razor, selection bias, things like that. We could centralize them into a single page, as well. Within the canonical rogue explanation we can link out to wikipedia or other sources.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is it possible to have certain text automatically become a link? Like 'Skeptic's Guide to the Universe' or 'New England Skeptic's Society' or the rogues' names for example?<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 00:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Question regarding interviews. When an interview is incorporated into a segment, such as Dr Rachie's interview in SGU 366, does that make her a guest? It doesn't seem like a black and white distinction. [[User:Zambuck|Zambuck]] ([[User talk:Zambuck|talk]]) 22:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Hi Zambuck, we use the 'Guest' section in the infobox as a key for non-Rogue speakers, so you're right to add her in there. Thanks for your help!--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 10:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is there a way to get <nowiki><blockquote></nowiki> formatted a little bit. Maybe a light background color and/or some automatic large quote marks? Right now it's not necessarily worth using, imho.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hey, guys! I'm new here (heard about the project on the recent episode) and today added two sections in episode 349: [[SGU Episode 349#Nuclear Clock (34:53)|Nuclear Clock]] and [[SGU Episode 349#NDE and Lucid Dreaming (40:44)|NDE and Lucid Dreaming]]. Let me know how they look! It's my first time transcribing anything on this scale, and I think I'm getting the hang of it, but I have to admit that I'm a bit of a perfectionist and I feel strange not having ''more'' direction as far as formatting (I realize it would probably be very difficult/time-consuming to enforce super-specific standards at this stage). I looked at some of the completed transcripts to get an idea of what others were doing and tried to use my best judgment from there. I think I'm ready to attack a full episode, but it might take me a while to get through it. There are still some things I'm not entirely clear on, including exactly how the categories/redirects work, so I'm sure I'll ask for some help once I've finished transcribing a full episode (and probably while I'm in the middle of it). Also, I wanted to say that I usually don't have any trouble distinguishing voices (including Jay's and Bob's), so if there are any episodes/sections that need a second pair of ears for that specifically, I can definitely help out. Going forward, is this page the best way to communicate with other members? Thanks!<br />
--[[User:Jacquie o|Jacquie o]] ([[User talk:Jacquie o|talk]]) 11:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)</div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_349&diff=4173SGU Episode 3492012-10-24T10:14:00Z<p>Jacquie o: Removed incorrectly-placed segment header</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y TK proof-read up to, and including, New Hampshire Abortion Bill --><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 349<br />
|episodeDate = 24<sup>th</sup> March 2012<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Baumgartner.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2012-03-24.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=349<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,40991.0.html<br />
|qowText = Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Haisch Bernard Haisch]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the skeptics guide to the universe. Today is Wednesday March 21st 2012 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: (Jewish Accent) What is this? Pod-casting?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: ...and Evan Bernstein<br />
<br />
E: Good evening ladies and gentleman, how's everyone?<br />
<br />
J: Hola Evan.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
S: Good, Fine and dandy.<br />
<br />
E: Now this was some winter huh?<br />
<br />
J: Oh, crazy right?<br />
<br />
S: This is my kind of winter.<br />
<br />
E: We barely had ''any'' snow this year in New England, it was in the 50s for a large part of the winter in southern New England which is unheard of.<br />
<br />
S: I love the vernal equinox because it means the next six months the sun is in the upper half of its course through the sky.<br />
<br />
B: I hope all of you have released your white owls.<br />
<br />
S: Well anyway Rebecca, what else is special about this day?<br />
<br />
== This day in skepticism <small>(0:58)</small> ==<br />
<br />
=== March 24, 1989: The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill ===<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdex_oil_spill Wikipedia:Exxon Valdez Oil Spill]<br />
<br />
R: Well, this day marks the anniversary of a quite horrific event, March 24th 1989 was the day that the Exxon Valdez spilled oil into [http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Prince%20William%20Sound Prince William Sound].<br />
<br />
S: You just can't let it go can you Rebecca?<br />
<br />
R: No, no me and the otters...<br />
<br />
S: (laughs) the otters.<br />
<br />
R: ...are really pissed about it still.<br />
<br />
E: One drunk sea captain, you know, guides the boat into the low into the shoals and he pays for it for the rest of his life.<br />
<br />
R: I think, apparently that's a... apparently that's a bit of a myth, the captain apparently was drunk but was not at the helm. The third mate was, and on the list of things, what went wrong, the biggest ones seems to be that the radar for detecting possible collisions had been broken for nearly a year. Also...<br />
<br />
E: And the captain was too drunk to know it. Apparently.<br />
<br />
S: We'll get to that eventually.<br />
<br />
R: And apparently all of the crew was severely overworked and exhausted and had been for quite some time. So those were identified as being the main causes of why it ended up striking a reef and spilling up to possibly seven hundred fifty thousand barrels of oil. It's not however...<br />
<br />
E: Think of all the cars and furnaces that it would have provided heat and energy for. It's very sad.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, despite how devastating that oil spill was, it's not even in the top ten worst oil spills of all time. It ''was'' though the worst one in the US up until the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster]. But yeah it's kinda crazy to think that there are oils spills happening all the time and some of them are much much worse than the Exxon Valdez. Yeah, there's a happy thought for you. The ship itself was recently auctioned off, actually. Just the tanker, just this week it was sold for scrap so apparently it was renamed the "Oriental Nicety".<br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm?<br />
<br />
B: For real?<br />
<br />
R: I guess as some way to trick people into to thinking it was err...<br />
<br />
E: Oh my gosh, you might as well call it the "Happy Ending".<br />
<br />
S: (laughing) The little nicety?! That's odd. I've a funny Exxon Valdez story, I was in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epcot Epcot Centre] in Disney World shortly after that oil spill and the dinosaur exhibit was, I guess, funded by Exxon and before you get to see the dinosaurs, there's essentially a big commercial for Exxon. At one point they have this aerial shot of an oil tanker going through a harbor and they go: "The beautiful Exxon Valdez..." 'Course everyone starts laughing 'cause this is like right after the disaster they hadn't updated the ride yet.<br />
<br />
S: (laughs)<br />
<br />
E: Time to update the rides...<br />
<br />
B: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27oh! D'OH!]<br />
<br />
R: That's a little embarrassing. Here's my question; I've always heard people call it the Exxon Val-deeze but I don't understand why they pronounce it Val-deeze, when it's obviously Valdez.<br />
<br />
S: I don't know I'm just slavishly following what I hear.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah I don't know, I think it's weird.<br />
<br />
S: But at least we can have our super hero magical bracelets to make it all better right jay?<br />
<br />
B: Nice segue.<br />
<br />
R: That was a good segue Steve.<br />
<br />
S: You know it kinda takes away from it when you say it's a good segue.<br />
<br />
R: I know that's why it's funny, and every single time, Steve, you will never be able to do a segue without us calling attention to it.<br />
<br />
S: (laughs) OK.<br />
<br />
R: This is your curse.<br />
<br />
== News Items <small>(4:39)</small> ==<br />
<br />
=== Superhero Pseudoscience ===<br />
[http://colantotte.com Colantotte.com]<br />
<br />
J: Steve jumped right into it, I wanted to loosen up a little bit before we say bad things about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Studios Marvel], to say some good things about Marvel like, you know I think that for their super hero movies they've done a great job. You know for the most part I've liked all of them, and you know, the Avengers movie is coming out and I'm really psyched to see it, its totally right in my sweet spot. I mean I love super heroes I love like you know science fictiony stuff like that. So it really was disappointing to find out that Marvel, and probably even more involved is the production company that they're using, the marketing company that they've hired for the Avengers film, sadly has, is selling some crazy wacky merchandise. So they are selling a magic bracelet a ''real'' magic bracelet. A-la [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Balance Powerband] type BS.<br />
<br />
E: As opposed to those fake magic bracelets? <br />
<br />
S: They're not a toy, they're making actual claims for it.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah they are, here I'll get into some of the details here, the limited edition Magtitan Neo Legend has a carbon fibre surface finished with a coat of transparent resin that yields an attractive stylish design.<br />
<br />
S: Oh I thought you were going to say transparent aluminum. That would have been impressive.<br />
<br />
J: A 100 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millitesla mT] 1000 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss_unit Gauss] ferrite permanent magnets arranged in Colantotte's unique alternating north-south polarity orientation which is<br />
<br />
B: Oooh<br />
<br />
E: (laughs) *Sarcastic* unique!<br />
<br />
J: They've trademarked A-N-S-P-O. ANSPO trademark.<br />
<br />
R: I'm holding out for the east-west polarity.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah I'm there too.<br />
<br />
S: They're saying because they have alternating strips of magnets with the north-south polarity alternating, and that's supposed to be unique to this, that's exactly how you make a refrigerator magnet.<br />
<br />
E: Now wait a minute, what are you accusing them of?<br />
<br />
S: That's how the refrigerator magnets have a very you know, narrow, of depth but relatively strong for the power of the magnets used, attraction right? That's why like when you pull a refrigerator magnet off of the refrigerator it's really strong over a very short distance but they're very quickly gives way<br />
<br />
J: Right, drops off.<br />
<br />
S: That's because they have alternating strips of north and south, you know of poles in the magnet.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah but Steve is a refrigerator magnet made of adimantium, I don't think so?<br />
<br />
J: I don't think so, Steve come on.<br />
<br />
S: A really good refrigerator magnet.<br />
<br />
J: Steve you can say what you will, and put it down, but each 'limited edition Magtite Neo Legend comes in a special limited edition package commemorating Marvel's The Avengers movie'. So of course it's works, it works Steve you gotta buy this thing.<br />
<br />
S: Because the Avengers are real.<br />
<br />
J: Now I saw something I'm perusing the ah, website and I have to admit the design of it is pretty cool, but you know go around the website and I was nosing around the SGU forums and they were chit chatting about it and they came up with a couple of interesting things. Somebody on our forums said that this is basically proven to work in Japan, like they have real medical benefit in Japan. I couldn’t find any proof of that so if anybody does I'd be interested to read it for myself but what they do have on the website is of course they have first hand comments by professional athletes.<br />
<br />
S: Oh here we go.<br />
<br />
J: "The Magtite Neo Legend is Colantotte's finest gear, the combination of pure titanium and carbon fibre is great, plus it's been created specifically to commemorate Marvel's Avengers movie"<ref name=rory>Rory McIlroy endorses Magtitan Neo Legend on [http://colantotte.com/products/ colantotte.com]</ref>. Two things! Two comments, ready? One: That guy did not write that, he did not say that.<br />
<br />
E: Oh no!<br />
<br />
J: If that guy walks around talking like that, he needs help<br />
<br />
S: Don't you love it when anecdotes like that are written in ad-copy? <br />
<br />
J: Right.<br />
<br />
S: It's so ''obviously'' written by some sales guy, and it's supposed to be a spontaneous endorsement or anecdote from somebody. You know what I mean, it's so transparent.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, pretend I'm [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_McIlroy Rory McIlroy] and ask me about that bracelet I'm wearing?<br />
<br />
S: Hey can you tell me about that bracelet you're wearing?<br />
<br />
J: "The Magtight Neo Legend is Colantotte's finest gear, the combination of pure titanium and carbon fibre is great". Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
R: That's really natural.<br />
<br />
E: I think Rory has a Scottish accent actually...<br />
<br />
J: Don't even...<br />
<br />
E: ...if memory serves.<br />
<br />
J: (attempting Scottish accent) "The Magtight Neo Legend is Colantotte's finest gear".<br />
<br />
R: What? What was that?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: I'll take (unintelligible) for four hundred.<br />
<br />
B: I think you just invented a new accent that's never been heard of before.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah it think it was just shouting. It was like a Klingon variant.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: So anyway the second thing from that guy's endorsement that makes me shudder is he says, "I can't wait to go see this movie with my mates to watch Colantotte's Magtite Neo Legend in action"<ref name=rory/>. Does this mean it's in the movie? Is it in the movie, Marvel?<br />
<br />
E: Clearly.<br />
<br />
J: Seriously<br />
<br />
B: Oh god.<br />
<br />
S: I guess so.<br />
<br />
E: Someone had to pay for this movie.<br />
<br />
S: You gotta give it to 'em, I mean it's pretty brilliant, having a magic bracelet be on a super hero I mean, right?<br />
<br />
R: Yeaaah?<br />
<br />
E: OK, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: The marketing is good, the marketing idea is good, especially because most people will probably buy into it, even if it's just because it looks good but you know, it's very...<br />
<br />
R: It's probably still better than those Green Lantern rings.<br />
<br />
S: (laughs)<br />
<br />
B: Ha!<br />
<br />
E: I've got two of those.<br />
<br />
J: It's a sad state of affairs when a company like Marvel a company which produces fantasy, you know, they're actually...<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: They're still doing it.<br />
<br />
J: ...morphing into reality here, you know let's cash in on the fact that we write about magic and sell magic.<br />
<br />
E: Yep.<br />
<br />
J: So, I'm a little twigged at Marvel right now.<br />
<br />
S: What has this world come to.<br />
<br />
E: Payin' the bills, it's payin' the bills.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, on the website it shows a picture of the bracelet and underneath it says: "The superhero's secret"<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Oh wow really that's the secret huh? Two little magnets on their wrist, that's what it does it.<br />
<br />
R: I thought it was leaking radiation, we should try that.<br />
<br />
E: Bob, that's a secret<br />
<br />
S: So you're saying it doesn't work, Jay?<br />
<br />
E: Can we agree that DC maybe is taken a notch up due to this? And maybe...<br />
<br />
J: Yeah absolutely,<br />
<br />
E: ...and maybe Marvel have suffered a hit.<br />
<br />
J: It comes out April first, I couldn't find any pricing, I bet you it's going to be in the 60 to 100 dollar range. (note, $199 as of 29/5/2012<ref>Magtitan Neo Legend bracelet: Colantotte links to [http://www.trionzdirect.com/?cmd=cart&type=29&sub=1 trionzdirect.com] for US purchases</ref> <br />
<br />
S: April first really?<br />
<br />
E: April first? Hmmm.<br />
<br />
J: Well what do you think do you think the whole thing is a hoax?<br />
<br />
E: Something hoaxy this way comes, no.<br />
<br />
J: I don't think so and I'll tell you why, the company that produces the bracelet, I researched them, they make a lot of other BS stuff, the negative ion crap and all that stuff.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Of course.<br />
<br />
=== High Altitude Skydiving <small>(10:54)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17399985 BBC: Skydiver Felix Baumgartner on track for super jump]<br />
<br />
S: All right well let's move on, we have a bit of a follow-up to a previous discussion, we had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Cain Fraser Cain] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Gay Pamela Gay] on the show a few weeks ago, we talked about the up-coming attempted world-record-breaking high skydive, high altitude sky dive from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Baumgartner Felix Baumgartner]. And there's a discussion and bit of a news update, the news update is that he completed a test jump recently. He jumped from 71,500 ft or 22 Km above New Mexico, landing safely 8 minutes later. Although this is only a test jump, that puts him in the top three! In terms of the highest altitude skydives ever. This is a preparation for his planned jump later this year in which he will break the world record. He's planning to jump from 120,000 feet, so the current record stands at 102,800 ft in 1960 by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Kittinger Joe Kittinger] who was a US Air Force colonel at the time, when we were talking about Baumgartner's planned jump on the last episode we mentioned the fact that it's inherently dangerous to jump from such a high altitude because of the velocities involved and that Kittinger during his jump in 1960 actually spun out of control, blacked out, and didn't regain consciousness until after his chute had automatically deployed. So when I was researching this for this piece, I found out that that's sorta true but one thing we didn't mention is that was, that occurred on the first of Kittinger's three jumps this was the excelsior mission, is what it was called, there was excelsior one two and three.<br />
<br />
J: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excelsior#Motto_and_catchphrase Excelsior!]<br />
<br />
S: Yeah the third one was the one where he you know, is the record still stands now at 102,800 feet, it was the first one, excelsior one where he spun out of control, the reason he spun out of control didn't have anything to do with the conditions of the jump, the aerodynamics or the thin atmosphere, or the velocity, it had to do with the fact that his pilot chute deployed too early. He, in releasing you know from the gondola he had to yank on you know the cord a few times before it came loose but he actually started the timer on the first yank so the timer was going before he jumped off the gondola and then his pilot chute deployed too early so he wasn't going fast enough. Normally it'll only deploy after you get up sufficient speed that the aerodynamics are such that it will be you know pulled back away from you, but he was going too slow when it deployed and then therefore it flopped around more than it should have and it actually wrapped around his neck and this started him spinning. He basically got tangled up in the pilot chute, he started spinning out of control, they estimate I think 80 RPMs, and he blacked out. Then he fell all the way to 10,000 feet when the barometric release triggered his reserve parachute and this didn't, this got tangled too, but they had installed a backup contingency where the original chute would break away and that worked allowing the reserve chute to inflate at about 6000 feet. And he survived obviously and landed safely. So the spinning out itself was more of an equipment thing and didn't have anything to do with just the difficulty of dropping from such a high altitude. But this whole discussion started an email discussion with the listener who essentially said that this is his point, he said, if you jump at a very high altitude, the airody... the experience for the skydiver is the same because you're going to reach terminal velocity and terminal velocity is, by definition is the wind resistance is going to equal the acceleration due to gravity and therefore it doesn't really matter if it's a thin atmosphere and a high velocity or a thicker atmosphere at a lower velocity. The net resistance against the sky diver is the same so it feels the same to the sky diver. So I ''totally'' get that, and I see no problems with that line of logic. But here was my counter point. The difference here is that when you jump from very high where the atmosphere is thin, terminal velocity is a lot faster you're going to be going a lot faster and then you have to lose all of that extra velocity so when you get down into the thicker atmosphere you're not just approaching terminal velocity you're already exceeding the terminal velocity of the lower-down denser atmosphere and therefore the wind resistance has to actually decelerate you, it has to slow you down.<br />
<br />
E: Drag, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah so therefore the drag is greater than if you jumped at the lower altitude and were just getting up to terminal velocity. But he didn't agree with that point he thought, yeah but it depends on how, what the curve of the change in atmospheric density is but, I just don't buy it. For example it's estimated that during Kittinger's record-breaking jump he reached a maximum speed of 625 miles per hour. Terminal velocity at lower down, the normal altitudes that people sky dive from is somewhere between 117 and 125 miles per hour depending on, you know, your position and your size and whatnot, and in like a head-down bullet position it's about 210 miles per hour. So you figure Kittinger had to loose about 500 miles per hour of velocity when he descended into the lower atmosphere that's gotta be a lot of extra force from wind resistance that you wouldn't have on you if you were jumping from, you know say, 10,000 feet right? I tried to find, that's just my reasoning, I don't know what the final answer is I kinda propose it as an interesting physics question but no one has given me like a real definitive answer, what do you guys think about all that?<br />
<br />
J: Steve I agree with you I think you know, correct me where I'm wrong here, from what you're saying, if you're in a thinner atmosphere, terminal velocity is going to be faster.<br />
<br />
S: right, that we all agree on yep.<br />
<br />
J: then the idea is that you will eventually stop accelerating and maintain a speed when you hit enough air molecules basically get piled up underneath you that pretty much matches what it would be like say jumping at 10,000 feet, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah so it's thinner air but it's rushing past you faster and the net wind resistance is the same, that's right.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah ok,<br />
<br />
S: but the difference I'm saying is, yeah but then you descend into denser atmosphere where you have to, you're not just maintaining a terminal velocity you're actually significantly slowing down because the terminal velocity is getting lower as you descend into the thicker atmosphere, the other point I raised which no one's given me a good answer to is, all right so I understand the wind resistance will be the same but you still are going faster your velocity is greater so if you ''do'' spin out at a higher velocity, would there be the potential for the RPMs to be greater? Will you spin out faster? And that's the real risk, that you'll spin out so fast that you'll black out, right?<br />
<br />
J: Right yeah so, in other words, so if you do a spin out, at say, 70 or 80 thousand feet, you might actually be going so fast that, you know, your blood pressure goes totally crazy, whereas maybe...<br />
<br />
S: If you're going 500 miles an hour, and you spin out, is that more dangerous than when you're going at 120 miles an hour, that's the question. It's interesting, I posed it on my blog, but nobody really gave me a good answer. You know, Jay and I have been chatting about this and we asked a physics friend of ours who really didn't add anything to what we just said. So I dunno, it's an interesting thought experiment and we'll put it out there to our listeners to further the conversation. I still, it still seems to me that it would be more difficult and more risky to do the high sky dive because, it's the deceleration and the absolute velocity, how that translates into spin, those are the two points that I'd like to hear discussed. But Baumgartner is going to be making his next jump later this year where he's going to try and break the record and his one observation, I mean all the equipment tested out and worked fine but he said the cold was like really hard to handle. So before he goes...<br />
<br />
B: His hands were actually sort of numb he could't use them.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah so before he goes up higher, so his test dive was from 71,500 feet, he's going to 120,000 feet, that's going to be a lot thinner, a lot colder, so yeah I think they're going to have to tweak the spacesuit there that he has, if he's going to be able to tolerate the cold at that height.<br />
<br />
B: So put those heat packets in the gloves that's all.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: or those mittens that you put in the microwave.<br />
<br />
S: There are those people who like go into like the minus 120 degree refrigerators for like ten seconds, you guys hear about that?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Why would you do that?<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: 'cause why do you think? Because it's supposed to have some magical health benefit.<br />
<br />
R: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: I think I read it's supposed to be invigorating.<br />
<br />
S: Invigorating!<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: Invigorating? OK.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah you know what else is? Cold shower.<br />
<br />
S: They used to throw cold, wet blankets on psychotic patients to calm them down. <br />
<br />
J: Yeah. A real calming effect. It's a good...<br />
<br />
S: It would shock them, you know, they would be having you know whatever, they would be out of control, and that would shock them into just shutting down. You know that just that real sudden extreme cold.<br />
<br />
J: Steve aren't you really just supposed to slap someone silly when they freak out like that?<br />
<br />
E: Oh you know, an electrode that real electricity to...<br />
<br />
S: That's about as scientifically valid.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah according to like the fifties movies you know, all you got to do when someone's having a hissy fit you just smack 'em one and go you know...<br />
<br />
R: Get yourself together man!<br />
<br />
J: Get a hold of yourself woman you know something like that right?<br />
<br />
E: Stop crying or I'll give you something to cry about<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
=== Quickie with Bob: Designer Electrons <small>(21:33)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120314142841.htm ScienceDaily: Molecular Graphene Heralds New Era of 'Designer Electrons']<br />
<br />
E: You know what I just read? Rebecca wants a quickie with Bob<br />
<br />
S: (knowingly) Oooh.<br />
<br />
R: That's true, that's true I do.<br />
<br />
B: Oh sure Rebecca but will you hold me afterwards..<br />
<br />
R: (thinking) Mehh..<br />
<br />
B: Don't answer that question.<br />
<br />
R: I'm not into that cuddly shit.<br />
<br />
B: Ok this week's quickie with Bob...<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: For this week's quickie with Bob I've got a new era of designer electrons. Researchers at Stanford and the S.L.A.C national accelerator lab have learned how to control the behavior of electrons in such a way that we may see whole new classes of materials which in turn could comprise new and amazing electrical devices. Hari Manoharan who is associate professor of physics at Stanford who lead the research said: "The behavior of electrons in materials is at the heart of essentially all of today's technologies. We are now able to tune the fundamental properties of electrons so they behave in ways rarely seen in ordinary materials." So what they did was to use an STM. A [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope scanning tunneling microscope] to precisely position carbon monoxide molecules on a very, very smooth copper surface. So they did it in such a way so that electrons flowing over the surface are repelled by these molecules and they're forced into these patterns of flows that are identical to what their behaviors would be if there were a magnetic or electrical field present. Even though there were no such fields present at the time. So one example that they pulled off was that they were able to produce a flow of electrons that acted as if they were under the influence of a magnetic field of 60 Tesla. This is incredible because this is 30 percent more power than any field ever sustained by science. So these electrons were behaving in ways that there's probably no other way to make them behave 'cause science isn't even up to the take of creating a field and sustaining it that long. So who knows what kind of materials and devices this may lead to? Perhaps video displays and mobile phones and a host of other devices that we would hardly believe today. Do a Google search for designer electrons if you wanna read more about this.<br />
<br />
S: Thanks Bob.<br />
<br />
R: That's very satisfying.<br />
<br />
J: Thank-you Bob.<br />
<br />
===New Hampshire Abortion Bill <small>(23:31)</small> ===<br />
<!-- link broken http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2012/03/20/abortion_bill_goes_back_to_committee_of_nh_house/ --><br />
<br />
[http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view/2012/HB1659/2012-01-03 Women's Right to Know Act - January 3 2012]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca,<br />
<br />
R: Yo.<br />
<br />
S: Tell us about the lovely science based laws that are, bills that are being proposed up in our neighboring state New Hampshire, or nearby state I should say.<br />
<br />
R: Well, it's very, very exciting time to be a lady, in that it states, our listeners may be aware that right now in state legislatures around the US there's been this on going war on behalf of the religious right attempting to limit women's access to contraception, sexual health education and abortion in any way possible. And they can't just come out and make all that illegal, so much like the creationist, they have employed a wedge strategy of making life as difficult as possible for women who want control of their own reproductive health. Some of the bills that have been passing in the US have included those mandating that women be unnecessarily penetrated with an ultrasound wand prior to getting an abortion, some are allowing pharmacists and doctors to refuse to provide contraception based on religious convictions. And there are even some politicians that are trying to mandate that women need a signed permission slip from a man before getting an abortion. So that's just to give you like a slight context for those of you who maybe aren't in the US or aren't paying attention. Last week the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_House_of_Representatives New Hampshire House of Representatives] passed a bill that would require physicians to give certain materials to any woman seeking an abortion. Those materials are provided under the auspices of informed consent. You know we need to make sure women have as much information as possible before getting an abortion. The problem is that those materials include statements such as: "It is scientifically undisputed that full term pregnancy reduces a woman's lifetime risk of breast cancer. It is also undisputed that the earlier a woman has a first full-term pregnancy the lower her risk of breast cancer becomes because following a full term pregnancy the breast tissue exposed to estrogen through the menstrual cycle is more mature and cancer resistant. In fact for each year that a woman's first full-term pregnancy is delayed her risk of breast cancer rises three point five percent. The theory that there is a direct link between abortion and breast cancer builds upon this undisputed foundation."<br />
<br />
E: Where do they pull that information from?<br />
<br />
R: Their asses, actually.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: (Sarcastically) Oh they're proctologists, I see.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Yeah ah, this particular bit of pseudoscience, the idea that abortion increases a woman's chance of breast cancer has been bandied about particularly in anti-choice circles for a number of years now. And In-fact up until into the mid 1990s there have only been a few small but heavily flawed studies that had been done on this particular topic, and a few of those studies did show that there might be a connection between breast cancer and abortions and miscarriages. However, in the past several decades we've seen several large-scale studies conducted that show absolutely no connection at all. The organizations like the [http://www.nih.gov/ National Institutes of Health], [http://www.cancer.org/ American Cancer Society], the [http://www.acog.org/ American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists], and even the [http://ww5.komen.org/ Susan G. Komen Foundation],which is run by anti-choice fundamentalists, all stand by the fact that there's absolutely no link between abortion and breast cancer.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah I did my own literature research, just to see what it was, not reading political sites, just look at the literature and see what it shows, if you go back into the 1980s it looks like there was some, you know debate about it actually, you could find articles that come to either conclusion. But then when you look at reviews that are written in the last few years, they all agree that there is absolutely no link, between abortions and the risk of breast cancer.<br />
<br />
R: Right those papers that were done in the 80's and early 90's were very small, very small [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination sample sizes], and have a lot of flaws in them.<br />
<br />
E: So a coordinated disinformation campaign is underway.<br />
<br />
S: Exactly<br />
<br />
R: Well yeah now this is one of those things, another one I may have mentioned before on the show, definitely on [http://skepchick.org/ skepchick] though is, the idea that, one is the idea that abortion leads to depression, which is another thing that is absolutely not supported by the scientific evidence. And the other is that, that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus fetus], a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. This is a quote-unquote ''fact'' that is becoming commonplace in political discussions in the US these days and it's talked about as thought it's scientific fact, when in-fact it is not. The question of when a fetus can feel pain is actually still up for debate. And by no means is 20 weeks an actual medical diagnosis. you know, this is something that they've gone with that specific number because these politicians have an agenda, and that agenda is to outlaw abortion, and so they're using the idea of fetuses feeling pain at 20 weeks to convince courts to outlaw abortion at 20 weeks, despite the fact that it's unconstitutional.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah and there's good reason to think that it's actually not possible for a fetus to perceive pain before 24 weeks of gestation just in terms of the development of the nervous system.<br />
<br />
R: Right.<br />
<br />
S: So that's probably, that's a better guess at this point. Getting back.. can I comment on the mental health aspect of it?<br />
<br />
R: Yep.<br />
<br />
S: 'Cause you guys, just again looking at the literature just to see what it says. There's a lot of complexities actually to the mental health issue, because as you might imagine, you could look at studies in a lot of different ways. [http://www.statsdirect.com/help/basics/prospective.htm Retrospectively vs prospectively], you know, you can pick out different sub-populations you know for example a correlation obviously, just saying that women who are getting abortions are more depressed for example; well, probably something to do with their life situation that lead them to the abortion that may have something to do with it, that's not the same thing as saying that abortion ''causes'' depression. And when you control for those factors, there really isn't any evidence that abortions are causally linked to any mental health problem at all. But again they're cherry picking and exploiting the complexities in that particular part of the research in order to make their case. And If you have your desired conclusion in mind, you get, you know there's enough studies out there, you can cherry pick, you could support almost any position you want. But the systematic reviews out there done by researchers who are ''trying'' to get to the bottom of it and know how to control for different variables, are all coming to the same conclusion that there is just no causal relationship between abortion and mental illness.<br />
<br />
R: Right, and to get back to this particular bill in New Hampshire, the idea that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. So there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that's true. There ''is'' evidence to suggest that you, women who have children before the age of 30, do, they may have a decreased risk of breast cancer.<br />
<br />
S: So there is a difference between the outcomes of prospective and retrospective studies. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrospective_cohort_study Retrospective] basically means you take women who 'have' breast cancer and you ask them if they have had an abortion, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospective_cohort_study prospective] means you follow women who have had an abortion and then you see what their risk of, is of developing breast cancer compared to other women you know in the same cohort or who didn't have an abortion. The retrospective studies did show a higher correlation with having had an abortion but the prospective studies ''didn't'', and the likely interpretation there is that women who had breast cancer may have been more willing to disclose their prior history of abortion. We're relying upon women to disclose that information, when you follow them going forward, prospectively, there's no correlation. So prospective data is always better, it's always more reliable, because there isn't this recall bias, or maybe this willing to disclose bias that could alter the data. So the current consensus is that there's no correlation.<br />
<br />
R: Right, and despite this fact this bill ''did'' pass through the house, and the way that the original bill passed was not just to declare that the doctors needed to give these particular pseudoscientific materials to women seeking abortions, but it also wrote down exactly how those doctors should be punished if they failed to follow through with that. And in the original bill they recommended class A felonies for any doctor who didn't abide by the law and that came with up to 15 years in prison for a doctor.<br />
<br />
E: Ouch.<br />
<br />
S: For telling the truth.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, yeah, basically for telling the truth, and luckily I guess that original bill that passed through the house was then reconsidered and went back through the house. The criminal Justice and public safety committee just barely voted in favor of recommending the removal of the class A felony part. Even if that happens though, the way this bill is written, doctors will still be open to malpractice law suits or disciplinary action by the New Hampshire state board of medicine if they do in fact tell women the truth about abortion and breast cancer.<br />
<br />
S: Which means they can lose their license basically.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, so, you know, for those of you in New Hampshire you may want to contact your state representatives immediately. For those of you in the United States but not in New Hampshire you can't rest so easy because there are similar pseudoscientific bills exactly like this in several other states, and this is basically the religious right's standard operating procedure is to introduce the same or very similar bills simultaneously in many different states at once. So Kansas and Oklahoma, you have similar measures that have been proposed. So no matter where you are if you are in the US it might be a good idea to contact your local representatives and just let them know that you support science and reason.<br />
<br />
S: You know the thing I hate you know I feel obligated to say; it's not like, we're not taking a political position on this show regarding the abortion debate, I mean this is, you know people have the right to come to different moral and ethical decisions, you know, obviously Rebecca you have a certain position on that.<br />
<br />
R: I do have a certain position.<br />
<br />
S: But the point is you can't lie about the science...<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Yes right.<br />
<br />
S: ... in order to make your political position, and not only lying about the science by trying to pass a law ''mandating'' that physicians make the same lie and and trying to punish them for ''not'' lying; That is such an abuse of not only professionalism but of science and reason, and that stands aside from the political debate about abortion.<br />
<br />
R: Exactly yeah.<br />
<br />
S: It's a completely separate issue yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
=== Nuclear Clock <small>(34:53)</small> ===<br />
[http://phys.org/news/2012-03-blueprint-nuclear-clock-accurate-billions.html Phys.org: Researchers develop blueprint for nuclear clock accurate over billions of years]<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, let's move on. Bob, you got another item. Your full item to talk about has to do with nuclear clocks or atomic clocks.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, this one was...this one was pretty cool. Get ready for timekeeping that makes atomic clocks look like hourglasses. Scientists have demonstrated the potential of a nuclear clock that could gain or lose only a fraction of a second over &ndash; get this &ndash; fourteen ''billion'' years, the age of the universe.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
B: A team of researchers from the University of New South Wales, the University of Nevada, and Georgia Tech have thought up this...well, they didn't actually think this up, they actually...merely just demonstrated what it could actually do...of this super atomic clock of sorts that's based on the oscillations of neutrons instead of electrons. So to put this into perspective a bit, I think I'll just briefly go over some of the key clock technologies of the past few centuries that we're all familiar with, although you might not know some of the details. For example, pendulum clocks &ndash; the first appeared in the mid-1600s. Now, these clocks work because their consistent swing depends only on the length of the arm and not on the weight or the weight of the arm itself or the...or whatever weight there might be at the bottom of it or even the arc of its swing really doesn't really matter. They were revolutionary when they appeared because they improved the accuracy of timekeeping from about fifteen minutes a day to fifteen ''seconds'', and that actually was probably the most dramatic improvement in clock technology for the average person that I think there ever was. I think it must have been very dramatic. The other thing that surprised me about pendulum clocks was the fact that they got so good, that they would only drift by about a hundredth of a second a ''day'', which is a lot more accurate than I thought. And actually, it is more accurate than a quartz clock, which was a surprise because this technology came afterwards. Now, they...the quartz clocks are probably the most common of all clocks if you add...I mean, so, everyone's got...got wristwatches.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I think their big appeal, Bob, was not that they were just more accurate; they're just...they're cheap, yeah, they're cheap and portable.<br />
<br />
B: Cheap and portability, right; they were huge.<br />
<br />
E: Mine says "The Avengers" on it.<br />
<br />
B: And as it turns out, you know, they only lose ten to twenty seconds a year. I mean, that's nothing. That's really nothing. Who cares? So you're at the point where it's just, for the average person, that level of accuracy is perfectly fine. And yeah, like you said, Steve, it's...you know, portability is a huge factor. Now, just real quickly, the quartz clocks, of course, depends on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezoelectric_Effect piezoelectric effect]. Essentially, electricity passing through would cause the crystal to vibrate very consistently, which then you could use as a basis for your timekeeping. Then, of course, you've got atomic clocks that are the current gold standard of timekeeping. Now, they're...they keep incredibly accurate time using the orbits of electrons, kind of like a pendulum. Depending on your source, they can lose one second in an amazing twenty to sixty million years, which, of course, is amazingly accurate.<br />
<br />
J: Wow! That's awesome, man.<br />
<br />
B: Isn't that...yeah, isn't that amazing? One second in many millions of years is incredible. But as awesome as that is, it's nothing compared to what the potential of nuclear clocks may be.<br />
<br />
J: Don't even, you're scaring me now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: This proposed method would use a UV laser to orient electrons of a thorium atom in a very specific way, and essentially what this does is it opens a door to tweak the energy state of the nucleus and use the resulting oscillations of a neutron to make a clock that's a hundred times more accurate than the best thing that we have today. Now, this potential revolution in accuracy is because the neutrons are denser and much more tightly packed than electrons. This makes them pretty much immune to electric fields and magnetic fields, which cause atomic clocks to drift by as much as they do over millions of years, and, I mean, they don't drift much, obviously, but they've even now figured out potentially a way to get rid of even that tiny drift. So while researching this, I found a lot of online commenters that...that they really didn't understand what the big deal was, and they thought that this...an accuracy at this level is just total overkill. You know, what's the point? What possible advantage could nuclear clocks have over atomic clocks? But clocks at that level of accuracy...it's definitely not, you know, a superfluous improvement. [http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/ACADEMIC/flambaum.html Professor Victor Flambaum], who's the head of theoretical physics at the UNSW school of physics, said that it would allow scientists to test fundamental physical theories at unprecedented levels of precision and provide an unmatched tool for applied physics research. We could also &ndash; this was interesting &ndash; we could also pair up an atomic and nuclear clock and potentially discover that some laws of physics are not constant in time. Now, that would be an incredible discovery. You know, finding out that some of these laws that we think are constant and unchanging...if we could find even a tiny bit of change over, you know, expanses of time, that truly would be revolutionary. And, of course, we could also greatly improve the accuracy of GPS satellites so that your navigator in your car wouldn't tell you to take a left turn at the next lake. And I'm not sure, I couldn't, I couldn't find any...so when do you think that we're going to see this? When's it going to be real? And my answer is who the hell knows? I don't know how long it's going to take. Although, they did have some surprising confidence in their ability to figure this out. The biggest hurdle apparently is finding the exact laser frequency. Now, these lasers, they're using petahertz frequencies. They're using petahertz frequency lasers to do this, at least that's what they envision. And one scientist described this not as a needle in a haystack, but a needle in a million haystacks, trying to find that precise frequency that can achieve this result. Apparently, it could take some time.<br />
<br />
S: Maybe they can use this to measure how long it takes for neutrinos to go from their source to the detector.<br />
<br />
B: (laughs) Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: (laughs) Right.<br />
<br />
=== NDE and Lucid Dreaming <small>(40:44)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.livescience.com/19106-death-experiences-lucid-dreams.html LiveScience.com: Near-Death Experiences are Lucid Dreams, Experiment Finds]<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, tell us what you know about near-death experiences. We've chatted about these on the show before, but maybe we have some new information.<br />
<br />
E: We have, and we've talked about the near-death experience and is it in fact a way of proving life after death? That's the...that's the main point.<br />
<br />
S: I'm guessing no.<br />
<br />
E: Well...(laughs)<br />
<br />
S: (laughs)<br />
<br />
E: Look, you can believe what you want to believe.<br />
<br />
J: Come on, Steve, don't you have any faith? Come on, what are you talking about?<br />
<br />
S: I'm guessing no.<br />
<br />
E: (laughs) Well, there are folks that actually study lucid dreaming. You guys know what lucid dreaming is?<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Oh yeah, love it.<br />
<br />
E: Love it too.<br />
<br />
B: I love it!<br />
<br />
E: A lucid dream is any dream in which, well, you are aware that you are dreaming. And in the lucid dream, you may be able to exert some degree of control over the participation within the dream, manipulate the images you see, manipulate&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: The environment.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;manipulate the environment. And it's actually a scientifically well-established phenomenon that lucid dreaming does happen.<br />
<br />
J: Sure!<br />
<br />
E: Well, the folks who actually study lucid dreaming for a living rounded up some volunteers and conditioned them to dream about near-death experiences specifically, including the classic scenario of a near-death experience, which is the scenario in which you're flying or drifting towards a light at the end of a tunnel. And what the researchers are saying is that their experiments have demonstrated that these sorts of visions are likely the product of the human mind, rather than supernatural phenomenon, because they are able to condition these dreamers to dream about that very thing. These experiments were done at the [http://research.obe4u.com/ Out-of-Body Experience Research Center] in Los Angeles, in which they had groups of people &ndash; they're saying four groups of ten-to-twenty volunteers; I'm saying that's probably roughly sixty people &ndash; were trained to perform a series of mental steps upon awakening during the night that might lead them to have that out-of-body experience that &ndash; or near-death experience &ndash; that so many people have described. And they were conditioned to try and dream about floating through the tunnel to the bright light that you typically hear about. Eighteen of these volunteers were able to dream that exact experience, as described.<br />
<br />
J: Just by prepping themselves before they went to sleep, like, you know, saying, "I want to think about this."<br />
<br />
E: Exactly, right. They were given essentially this target to go after, and they were able to achieve it. You know, near-death experiences have been widely reported. They often get big headlines, and...including famous people that have said they have had these sort of near-death experiences one way or the other, either from a tragic accident that they were involved with or undergoing a surgery &ndash; right? &ndash; in the hospital and they see themselves kind of floating up above the operating table, and they can talk about things that are in the room, and then, of course, the white light at the end of the tunnel. Eight million Americans are reported to have a near-death experience, and it could be even more than that; those are just the ones that have been reported. Neurologists believe that near-death experiences are generated by the same brain mechanisms that cause lucid dreams, so there is...there's overlap here (inaudible)<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that was the hypothesis they were testing, basically. So, I mean, you can look at this a few ways. You know, there's lots of evidence to suggest that the near-death experience is a brain experience. All the elements can be produced by different physiological conditions &ndash; lack of oxygen, for example, or drugs or sometimes during seizures &ndash; so there's lots of reasons to think that this is a ''brain'' experience. This is one more bit of evidence that these types of experiences can be generated by the brain &ndash; in this case, by techniques that induce lucid dreaming. The one thing I found most compelling about this were those individuals who not only reported going through the tunnel, but actually like got to the end of the tunnel and then had an experience where they were visiting with their dead relatives. So they actually confabulated the rest of, you know, the near-death experience, which just shows how easy it is for that to happen. But, of course, those who believe in...that that near-death experience is a spiritual experience and not a brain experience could always say that, "Well, okay, you're ''simulating'' a near-death experience by specifically training people to have a dream-like experience that just mimics the details or some of the features of a near-death experience," and that's a legitimate point.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I agree with that.<br />
<br />
S: I don't think this proves that it's not a brain experience.<br />
<br />
E: Right.<br />
<br />
S: I think you could say at best, it's consistent evidence to show that the brain ''can have'' these experiences, but it certainly doesn't prove that there aren't near-death experiences that are spiritual. I don't think there's any evidence that they are, but this...you know, that's the limitation in terms of the implications of this experiment. It could just be a simulation and not actually producing the same experience. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: The researchers were quick to point that out, Steve, that this is by no means conclusive; it is one study; there should be more research done, more replication; it needs to pass the peer-review process. So they certainly did this and presented it in the correct context, and that was very good to hear.<br />
<br />
S: Right. Yeah. And it'll be interesting to see how far they can take this paradigm, you know, this lucid dreaming in order to investigate the near-death experience and see what else we can learn from it, but it's...I think it's always going to be this one piece to a more complicated puzzle, but an interesting one.<br />
<br />
E: When I'm lucid dreaming, I'm always...the first thing I typically think about is restraining myself to not expand the dream so much that I'm going to break the dream and wake up. There's that fine line of doing things that'll pop you out of it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but it always happens, doesn't it? It always happens.<br />
<br />
E: Eventually it does, but you try to stay in there as long as you can.<br />
<br />
B: I have found in my lucid dreaming experiences and from what I've read that the more excited you become, the greater the odds that you're going to fall out of it and wake up or potentially segue into another dream where you're not lucid. And one method that I've used and also read about &ndash; if you find yourself kind of losing your grasp on your lucidity in your dream &ndash; is look at your hands. For some reason, if you look at your hand when you feel the dream slipping away, it actually can re-anchor you into the lucid dream and maintain your, you know, your lucidity, which was a pretty cool little trick.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, but then you can't concentrate on moving the planets and the stars in the sky and all (inaudible) cool stuff.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, well, just do that after you look at your hands a little bit.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: I always try to fly. That's like the default thing I do when I become conscious or slightly conscious in a dream.<br />
<br />
S: You know what Freud said about that, Jay?<br />
<br />
J: No, what do you...what does it mean, that I'm...<br />
<br />
R: Gay.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, gay.<br />
<br />
S: Dreaming that you're flying is an expression of latent homosexuality.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Really.<br />
<br />
R: Freud thought&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Latent?''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;everything was (laughs) an expression of latent homosexuality.<br />
<br />
S: Times when I've lucid dreamed, I've marveled at how realistic it is. But the problem is I'm marveling with my dream brain, you know, which is not...doesn't have as much reality testing as my waking brain. So you're much more easy to impress, you know, when you're dreaming, in other words. But nevertheless&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: To a certain...to a certain extent.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's, well, again, when you're lucid, it's partway, you know. It's like halfway between being awake and dreaming. When you're full-on dreaming, you have like almost no reality testing, so...you know, you'll take almost anything as real. That's what keeps you asleep. It keeps you from waking up because of the unreality of your dreams. The lucidity is a breakdown of that. When you have a ''little'' bit of reality testing, you're saying, "Hey, this doesn't make sense. This isn't real. I must be dreaming." But it's not enough to fully wake you up, but that's an inherently unstable state, which is why you eventually either, you know, either wake up for real or ''dream'' you wake up, which is another way of losing the lucidity. Although, I'll point out that the same is true when you're awake, in that you're assessing the reality of things ''with your brain'', you know? Things feel real ''to your brain'', but that's flawed and artefactual and constructed and biased and subject to illusions. It's just that we don't know any better. It's just...that's the most lucid state that we have. So we can compare ''different'' states, and we can say, "Oh yeah, when I'm ''dreaming'', I'm not making sense," et cetera. The same may be true when you're awake; you just have nothing better to compare it to. It's all we know. It's still...in every state, it's still ''your'' brain assessing your own brain, and not...you're not assessing it with something outside of your brain that's objective, so, you know, in a way it kind of makes sense that it always seems real to you at the time.<br />
<br />
J: Right, so your brain can actually be fooling you into thinking that you are more lucid than you may actually be.<br />
<br />
S: Right. That's another way of saying it. That's exactly right.<br />
<br />
E: That's a good point.<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails: Here Comes the Metric System <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Just a quick question. I often wondered why America kept the Imperial system for measurements, miles, inches etc. Do you think it would be better (for science teaching in particular), if you switched to the metric system, and what problems do you think it would create? Thanks for the great show. Liz. Scotland </blockquote><br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy <small>()</small> ==<br />
From the comments to NeuroLogica <br />
<blockquote>"natural selection (or selection in general) explains how two horses can become all the different breeds we have today- including zebras. This is also how the finches of Darwin fame have longer beaks some years and shorter beaks other years… Everyone knows this happens. The question is this– does that explain how a single celled life form could become an elephant? Some question that it does. (I would be one who questions- BTW) This is called micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution– aka the development of species or kinds vs. the development of breeds. To make an analogy– Everyone knows you can make a ladder to the roof of the house. Does that mean you can make a ladder to the sun?"</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
*[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120321172208.htm Item number 1]: 'New measurements indicate that Venice continues to sink into the ocean, contradicting the prior conclusion that the city is stable'<br />
*[http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/health/sharp-rise-cases-new-strain-whooping-cough Item number 2]: 'A new study finds that the whooping cough epidemic currently occurring in Australia is mostly due to a new strain of B. pertussis which is not well covered by the vaccine' <br />
*[http://www.buffalo.edu/news/13271 Item number 3]: 'A new survey finds that parents of children with cancer trust information they find on the internet as much or more than information from their health care provider' <br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.</blockquote><br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Haisch Bernhard Haisch]<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_349&diff=4172SGU Episode 3492012-10-24T10:10:38Z<p>Jacquie o: /* NDE and Lucid Dreaming (40:44) */ Added transcription of section</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y TK proof-read up to, and including, New Hampshire Abortion Bill --><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 349<br />
|episodeDate = 24<sup>th</sup> March 2012<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Baumgartner.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2012-03-24.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=349<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,40991.0.html<br />
|qowText = Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Haisch Bernard Haisch]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the skeptics guide to the universe. Today is Wednesday March 21st 2012 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: (Jewish Accent) What is this? Pod-casting?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: ...and Evan Bernstein<br />
<br />
E: Good evening ladies and gentleman, how's everyone?<br />
<br />
J: Hola Evan.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
S: Good, Fine and dandy.<br />
<br />
E: Now this was some winter huh?<br />
<br />
J: Oh, crazy right?<br />
<br />
S: This is my kind of winter.<br />
<br />
E: We barely had ''any'' snow this year in New England, it was in the 50s for a large part of the winter in southern New England which is unheard of.<br />
<br />
S: I love the vernal equinox because it means the next six months the sun is in the upper half of its course through the sky.<br />
<br />
B: I hope all of you have released your white owls.<br />
<br />
S: Well anyway Rebecca, what else is special about this day?<br />
<br />
== This day in skepticism <small>(0:58)</small> ==<br />
<br />
=== March 24, 1989: The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill ===<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdex_oil_spill Wikipedia:Exxon Valdez Oil Spill]<br />
<br />
R: Well, this day marks the anniversary of a quite horrific event, March 24th 1989 was the day that the Exxon Valdez spilled oil into [http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Prince%20William%20Sound Prince William Sound].<br />
<br />
S: You just can't let it go can you Rebecca?<br />
<br />
R: No, no me and the otters...<br />
<br />
S: (laughs) the otters.<br />
<br />
R: ...are really pissed about it still.<br />
<br />
E: One drunk sea captain, you know, guides the boat into the low into the shoals and he pays for it for the rest of his life.<br />
<br />
R: I think, apparently that's a... apparently that's a bit of a myth, the captain apparently was drunk but was not at the helm. The third mate was, and on the list of things, what went wrong, the biggest ones seems to be that the radar for detecting possible collisions had been broken for nearly a year. Also...<br />
<br />
E: And the captain was too drunk to know it. Apparently.<br />
<br />
S: We'll get to that eventually.<br />
<br />
R: And apparently all of the crew was severely overworked and exhausted and had been for quite some time. So those were identified as being the main causes of why it ended up striking a reef and spilling up to possibly seven hundred fifty thousand barrels of oil. It's not however...<br />
<br />
E: Think of all the cars and furnaces that it would have provided heat and energy for. It's very sad.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, despite how devastating that oil spill was, it's not even in the top ten worst oil spills of all time. It ''was'' though the worst one in the US up until the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster]. But yeah it's kinda crazy to think that there are oils spills happening all the time and some of them are much much worse than the Exxon Valdez. Yeah, there's a happy thought for you. The ship itself was recently auctioned off, actually. Just the tanker, just this week it was sold for scrap so apparently it was renamed the "Oriental Nicety".<br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm?<br />
<br />
B: For real?<br />
<br />
R: I guess as some way to trick people into to thinking it was err...<br />
<br />
E: Oh my gosh, you might as well call it the "Happy Ending".<br />
<br />
S: (laughing) The little nicety?! That's odd. I've a funny Exxon Valdez story, I was in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epcot Epcot Centre] in Disney World shortly after that oil spill and the dinosaur exhibit was, I guess, funded by Exxon and before you get to see the dinosaurs, there's essentially a big commercial for Exxon. At one point they have this aerial shot of an oil tanker going through a harbor and they go: "The beautiful Exxon Valdez..." 'Course everyone starts laughing 'cause this is like right after the disaster they hadn't updated the ride yet.<br />
<br />
S: (laughs)<br />
<br />
E: Time to update the rides...<br />
<br />
B: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27oh! D'OH!]<br />
<br />
R: That's a little embarrassing. Here's my question; I've always heard people call it the Exxon Val-deeze but I don't understand why they pronounce it Val-deeze, when it's obviously Valdez.<br />
<br />
S: I don't know I'm just slavishly following what I hear.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah I don't know, I think it's weird.<br />
<br />
S: But at least we can have our super hero magical bracelets to make it all better right jay?<br />
<br />
B: Nice segue.<br />
<br />
R: That was a good segue Steve.<br />
<br />
S: You know it kinda takes away from it when you say it's a good segue.<br />
<br />
R: I know that's why it's funny, and every single time, Steve, you will never be able to do a segue without us calling attention to it.<br />
<br />
S: (laughs) OK.<br />
<br />
R: This is your curse.<br />
<br />
== News Items <small>(4:39)</small> ==<br />
<br />
=== Superhero Pseudoscience ===<br />
[http://colantotte.com Colantotte.com]<br />
<br />
J: Steve jumped right into it, I wanted to loosen up a little bit before we say bad things about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Studios Marvel], to say some good things about Marvel like, you know I think that for their super hero movies they've done a great job. You know for the most part I've liked all of them, and you know, the Avengers movie is coming out and I'm really psyched to see it, its totally right in my sweet spot. I mean I love super heroes I love like you know science fictiony stuff like that. So it really was disappointing to find out that Marvel, and probably even more involved is the production company that they're using, the marketing company that they've hired for the Avengers film, sadly has, is selling some crazy wacky merchandise. So they are selling a magic bracelet a ''real'' magic bracelet. A-la [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Balance Powerband] type BS.<br />
<br />
E: As opposed to those fake magic bracelets? <br />
<br />
S: They're not a toy, they're making actual claims for it.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah they are, here I'll get into some of the details here, the limited edition Magtitan Neo Legend has a carbon fibre surface finished with a coat of transparent resin that yields an attractive stylish design.<br />
<br />
S: Oh I thought you were going to say transparent aluminum. That would have been impressive.<br />
<br />
J: A 100 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millitesla mT] 1000 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss_unit Gauss] ferrite permanent magnets arranged in Colantotte's unique alternating north-south polarity orientation which is<br />
<br />
B: Oooh<br />
<br />
E: (laughs) *Sarcastic* unique!<br />
<br />
J: They've trademarked A-N-S-P-O. ANSPO trademark.<br />
<br />
R: I'm holding out for the east-west polarity.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah I'm there too.<br />
<br />
S: They're saying because they have alternating strips of magnets with the north-south polarity alternating, and that's supposed to be unique to this, that's exactly how you make a refrigerator magnet.<br />
<br />
E: Now wait a minute, what are you accusing them of?<br />
<br />
S: That's how the refrigerator magnets have a very you know, narrow, of depth but relatively strong for the power of the magnets used, attraction right? That's why like when you pull a refrigerator magnet off of the refrigerator it's really strong over a very short distance but they're very quickly gives way<br />
<br />
J: Right, drops off.<br />
<br />
S: That's because they have alternating strips of north and south, you know of poles in the magnet.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah but Steve is a refrigerator magnet made of adimantium, I don't think so?<br />
<br />
J: I don't think so, Steve come on.<br />
<br />
S: A really good refrigerator magnet.<br />
<br />
J: Steve you can say what you will, and put it down, but each 'limited edition Magtite Neo Legend comes in a special limited edition package commemorating Marvel's The Avengers movie'. So of course it's works, it works Steve you gotta buy this thing.<br />
<br />
S: Because the Avengers are real.<br />
<br />
J: Now I saw something I'm perusing the ah, website and I have to admit the design of it is pretty cool, but you know go around the website and I was nosing around the SGU forums and they were chit chatting about it and they came up with a couple of interesting things. Somebody on our forums said that this is basically proven to work in Japan, like they have real medical benefit in Japan. I couldn’t find any proof of that so if anybody does I'd be interested to read it for myself but what they do have on the website is of course they have first hand comments by professional athletes.<br />
<br />
S: Oh here we go.<br />
<br />
J: "The Magtite Neo Legend is Colantotte's finest gear, the combination of pure titanium and carbon fibre is great, plus it's been created specifically to commemorate Marvel's Avengers movie"<ref name=rory>Rory McIlroy endorses Magtitan Neo Legend on [http://colantotte.com/products/ colantotte.com]</ref>. Two things! Two comments, ready? One: That guy did not write that, he did not say that.<br />
<br />
E: Oh no!<br />
<br />
J: If that guy walks around talking like that, he needs help<br />
<br />
S: Don't you love it when anecdotes like that are written in ad-copy? <br />
<br />
J: Right.<br />
<br />
S: It's so ''obviously'' written by some sales guy, and it's supposed to be a spontaneous endorsement or anecdote from somebody. You know what I mean, it's so transparent.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, pretend I'm [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_McIlroy Rory McIlroy] and ask me about that bracelet I'm wearing?<br />
<br />
S: Hey can you tell me about that bracelet you're wearing?<br />
<br />
J: "The Magtight Neo Legend is Colantotte's finest gear, the combination of pure titanium and carbon fibre is great". Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
R: That's really natural.<br />
<br />
E: I think Rory has a Scottish accent actually...<br />
<br />
J: Don't even...<br />
<br />
E: ...if memory serves.<br />
<br />
J: (attempting Scottish accent) "The Magtight Neo Legend is Colantotte's finest gear".<br />
<br />
R: What? What was that?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: I'll take (unintelligible) for four hundred.<br />
<br />
B: I think you just invented a new accent that's never been heard of before.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah it think it was just shouting. It was like a Klingon variant.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: So anyway the second thing from that guy's endorsement that makes me shudder is he says, "I can't wait to go see this movie with my mates to watch Colantotte's Magtite Neo Legend in action"<ref name=rory/>. Does this mean it's in the movie? Is it in the movie, Marvel?<br />
<br />
E: Clearly.<br />
<br />
J: Seriously<br />
<br />
B: Oh god.<br />
<br />
S: I guess so.<br />
<br />
E: Someone had to pay for this movie.<br />
<br />
S: You gotta give it to 'em, I mean it's pretty brilliant, having a magic bracelet be on a super hero I mean, right?<br />
<br />
R: Yeaaah?<br />
<br />
E: OK, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: The marketing is good, the marketing idea is good, especially because most people will probably buy into it, even if it's just because it looks good but you know, it's very...<br />
<br />
R: It's probably still better than those Green Lantern rings.<br />
<br />
S: (laughs)<br />
<br />
B: Ha!<br />
<br />
E: I've got two of those.<br />
<br />
J: It's a sad state of affairs when a company like Marvel a company which produces fantasy, you know, they're actually...<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: They're still doing it.<br />
<br />
J: ...morphing into reality here, you know let's cash in on the fact that we write about magic and sell magic.<br />
<br />
E: Yep.<br />
<br />
J: So, I'm a little twigged at Marvel right now.<br />
<br />
S: What has this world come to.<br />
<br />
E: Payin' the bills, it's payin' the bills.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, on the website it shows a picture of the bracelet and underneath it says: "The superhero's secret"<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Oh wow really that's the secret huh? Two little magnets on their wrist, that's what it does it.<br />
<br />
R: I thought it was leaking radiation, we should try that.<br />
<br />
E: Bob, that's a secret<br />
<br />
S: So you're saying it doesn't work, Jay?<br />
<br />
E: Can we agree that DC maybe is taken a notch up due to this? And maybe...<br />
<br />
J: Yeah absolutely,<br />
<br />
E: ...and maybe Marvel have suffered a hit.<br />
<br />
J: It comes out April first, I couldn't find any pricing, I bet you it's going to be in the 60 to 100 dollar range. (note, $199 as of 29/5/2012<ref>Magtitan Neo Legend bracelet: Colantotte links to [http://www.trionzdirect.com/?cmd=cart&type=29&sub=1 trionzdirect.com] for US purchases</ref> <br />
<br />
S: April first really?<br />
<br />
E: April first? Hmmm.<br />
<br />
J: Well what do you think do you think the whole thing is a hoax?<br />
<br />
E: Something hoaxy this way comes, no.<br />
<br />
J: I don't think so and I'll tell you why, the company that produces the bracelet, I researched them, they make a lot of other BS stuff, the negative ion crap and all that stuff.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Of course.<br />
<br />
=== High Altitude Skydiving <small>(10:54)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17399985 BBC: Skydiver Felix Baumgartner on track for super jump]<br />
<br />
S: All right well let's move on, we have a bit of a follow-up to a previous discussion, we had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Cain Fraser Cain] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Gay Pamela Gay] on the show a few weeks ago, we talked about the up-coming attempted world-record-breaking high skydive, high altitude sky dive from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Baumgartner Felix Baumgartner]. And there's a discussion and bit of a news update, the news update is that he completed a test jump recently. He jumped from 71,500 ft or 22 Km above New Mexico, landing safely 8 minutes later. Although this is only a test jump, that puts him in the top three! In terms of the highest altitude skydives ever. This is a preparation for his planned jump later this year in which he will break the world record. He's planning to jump from 120,000 feet, so the current record stands at 102,800 ft in 1960 by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Kittinger Joe Kittinger] who was a US Air Force colonel at the time, when we were talking about Baumgartner's planned jump on the last episode we mentioned the fact that it's inherently dangerous to jump from such a high altitude because of the velocities involved and that Kittinger during his jump in 1960 actually spun out of control, blacked out, and didn't regain consciousness until after his chute had automatically deployed. So when I was researching this for this piece, I found out that that's sorta true but one thing we didn't mention is that was, that occurred on the first of Kittinger's three jumps this was the excelsior mission, is what it was called, there was excelsior one two and three.<br />
<br />
J: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excelsior#Motto_and_catchphrase Excelsior!]<br />
<br />
S: Yeah the third one was the one where he you know, is the record still stands now at 102,800 feet, it was the first one, excelsior one where he spun out of control, the reason he spun out of control didn't have anything to do with the conditions of the jump, the aerodynamics or the thin atmosphere, or the velocity, it had to do with the fact that his pilot chute deployed too early. He, in releasing you know from the gondola he had to yank on you know the cord a few times before it came loose but he actually started the timer on the first yank so the timer was going before he jumped off the gondola and then his pilot chute deployed too early so he wasn't going fast enough. Normally it'll only deploy after you get up sufficient speed that the aerodynamics are such that it will be you know pulled back away from you, but he was going too slow when it deployed and then therefore it flopped around more than it should have and it actually wrapped around his neck and this started him spinning. He basically got tangled up in the pilot chute, he started spinning out of control, they estimate I think 80 RPMs, and he blacked out. Then he fell all the way to 10,000 feet when the barometric release triggered his reserve parachute and this didn't, this got tangled too, but they had installed a backup contingency where the original chute would break away and that worked allowing the reserve chute to inflate at about 6000 feet. And he survived obviously and landed safely. So the spinning out itself was more of an equipment thing and didn't have anything to do with just the difficulty of dropping from such a high altitude. But this whole discussion started an email discussion with the listener who essentially said that this is his point, he said, if you jump at a very high altitude, the airody... the experience for the skydiver is the same because you're going to reach terminal velocity and terminal velocity is, by definition is the wind resistance is going to equal the acceleration due to gravity and therefore it doesn't really matter if it's a thin atmosphere and a high velocity or a thicker atmosphere at a lower velocity. The net resistance against the sky diver is the same so it feels the same to the sky diver. So I ''totally'' get that, and I see no problems with that line of logic. But here was my counter point. The difference here is that when you jump from very high where the atmosphere is thin, terminal velocity is a lot faster you're going to be going a lot faster and then you have to lose all of that extra velocity so when you get down into the thicker atmosphere you're not just approaching terminal velocity you're already exceeding the terminal velocity of the lower-down denser atmosphere and therefore the wind resistance has to actually decelerate you, it has to slow you down.<br />
<br />
E: Drag, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah so therefore the drag is greater than if you jumped at the lower altitude and were just getting up to terminal velocity. But he didn't agree with that point he thought, yeah but it depends on how, what the curve of the change in atmospheric density is but, I just don't buy it. For example it's estimated that during Kittinger's record-breaking jump he reached a maximum speed of 625 miles per hour. Terminal velocity at lower down, the normal altitudes that people sky dive from is somewhere between 117 and 125 miles per hour depending on, you know, your position and your size and whatnot, and in like a head-down bullet position it's about 210 miles per hour. So you figure Kittinger had to loose about 500 miles per hour of velocity when he descended into the lower atmosphere that's gotta be a lot of extra force from wind resistance that you wouldn't have on you if you were jumping from, you know say, 10,000 feet right? I tried to find, that's just my reasoning, I don't know what the final answer is I kinda propose it as an interesting physics question but no one has given me like a real definitive answer, what do you guys think about all that?<br />
<br />
J: Steve I agree with you I think you know, correct me where I'm wrong here, from what you're saying, if you're in a thinner atmosphere, terminal velocity is going to be faster.<br />
<br />
S: right, that we all agree on yep.<br />
<br />
J: then the idea is that you will eventually stop accelerating and maintain a speed when you hit enough air molecules basically get piled up underneath you that pretty much matches what it would be like say jumping at 10,000 feet, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah so it's thinner air but it's rushing past you faster and the net wind resistance is the same, that's right.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah ok,<br />
<br />
S: but the difference I'm saying is, yeah but then you descend into denser atmosphere where you have to, you're not just maintaining a terminal velocity you're actually significantly slowing down because the terminal velocity is getting lower as you descend into the thicker atmosphere, the other point I raised which no one's given me a good answer to is, all right so I understand the wind resistance will be the same but you still are going faster your velocity is greater so if you ''do'' spin out at a higher velocity, would there be the potential for the RPMs to be greater? Will you spin out faster? And that's the real risk, that you'll spin out so fast that you'll black out, right?<br />
<br />
J: Right yeah so, in other words, so if you do a spin out, at say, 70 or 80 thousand feet, you might actually be going so fast that, you know, your blood pressure goes totally crazy, whereas maybe...<br />
<br />
S: If you're going 500 miles an hour, and you spin out, is that more dangerous than when you're going at 120 miles an hour, that's the question. It's interesting, I posed it on my blog, but nobody really gave me a good answer. You know, Jay and I have been chatting about this and we asked a physics friend of ours who really didn't add anything to what we just said. So I dunno, it's an interesting thought experiment and we'll put it out there to our listeners to further the conversation. I still, it still seems to me that it would be more difficult and more risky to do the high sky dive because, it's the deceleration and the absolute velocity, how that translates into spin, those are the two points that I'd like to hear discussed. But Baumgartner is going to be making his next jump later this year where he's going to try and break the record and his one observation, I mean all the equipment tested out and worked fine but he said the cold was like really hard to handle. So before he goes...<br />
<br />
B: His hands were actually sort of numb he could't use them.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah so before he goes up higher, so his test dive was from 71,500 feet, he's going to 120,000 feet, that's going to be a lot thinner, a lot colder, so yeah I think they're going to have to tweak the spacesuit there that he has, if he's going to be able to tolerate the cold at that height.<br />
<br />
B: So put those heat packets in the gloves that's all.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: or those mittens that you put in the microwave.<br />
<br />
S: There are those people who like go into like the minus 120 degree refrigerators for like ten seconds, you guys hear about that?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Why would you do that?<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: 'cause why do you think? Because it's supposed to have some magical health benefit.<br />
<br />
R: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: I think I read it's supposed to be invigorating.<br />
<br />
S: Invigorating!<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: Invigorating? OK.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah you know what else is? Cold shower.<br />
<br />
S: They used to throw cold, wet blankets on psychotic patients to calm them down. <br />
<br />
J: Yeah. A real calming effect. It's a good...<br />
<br />
S: It would shock them, you know, they would be having you know whatever, they would be out of control, and that would shock them into just shutting down. You know that just that real sudden extreme cold.<br />
<br />
J: Steve aren't you really just supposed to slap someone silly when they freak out like that?<br />
<br />
E: Oh you know, an electrode that real electricity to...<br />
<br />
S: That's about as scientifically valid.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah according to like the fifties movies you know, all you got to do when someone's having a hissy fit you just smack 'em one and go you know...<br />
<br />
R: Get yourself together man!<br />
<br />
J: Get a hold of yourself woman you know something like that right?<br />
<br />
E: Stop crying or I'll give you something to cry about<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
=== Quickie with Bob: Designer Electrons <small>(21:33)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120314142841.htm ScienceDaily: Molecular Graphene Heralds New Era of 'Designer Electrons']<br />
<br />
E: You know what I just read? Rebecca wants a quickie with Bob<br />
<br />
S: (knowingly) Oooh.<br />
<br />
R: That's true, that's true I do.<br />
<br />
B: Oh sure Rebecca but will you hold me afterwards..<br />
<br />
R: (thinking) Mehh..<br />
<br />
B: Don't answer that question.<br />
<br />
R: I'm not into that cuddly shit.<br />
<br />
B: Ok this week's quickie with Bob...<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: For this week's quickie with Bob I've got a new era of designer electrons. Researchers at Stanford and the S.L.A.C national accelerator lab have learned how to control the behavior of electrons in such a way that we may see whole new classes of materials which in turn could comprise new and amazing electrical devices. Hari Manoharan who is associate professor of physics at Stanford who lead the research said: "The behavior of electrons in materials is at the heart of essentially all of today's technologies. We are now able to tune the fundamental properties of electrons so they behave in ways rarely seen in ordinary materials." So what they did was to use an STM. A [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope scanning tunneling microscope] to precisely position carbon monoxide molecules on a very, very smooth copper surface. So they did it in such a way so that electrons flowing over the surface are repelled by these molecules and they're forced into these patterns of flows that are identical to what their behaviors would be if there were a magnetic or electrical field present. Even though there were no such fields present at the time. So one example that they pulled off was that they were able to produce a flow of electrons that acted as if they were under the influence of a magnetic field of 60 Tesla. This is incredible because this is 30 percent more power than any field ever sustained by science. So these electrons were behaving in ways that there's probably no other way to make them behave 'cause science isn't even up to the take of creating a field and sustaining it that long. So who knows what kind of materials and devices this may lead to? Perhaps video displays and mobile phones and a host of other devices that we would hardly believe today. Do a Google search for designer electrons if you wanna read more about this.<br />
<br />
S: Thanks Bob.<br />
<br />
R: That's very satisfying.<br />
<br />
J: Thank-you Bob.<br />
<br />
===New Hampshire Abortion Bill <small>(23:31)</small> ===<br />
<!-- link broken http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2012/03/20/abortion_bill_goes_back_to_committee_of_nh_house/ --><br />
<br />
[http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view/2012/HB1659/2012-01-03 Women's Right to Know Act - January 3 2012]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca,<br />
<br />
R: Yo.<br />
<br />
S: Tell us about the lovely science based laws that are, bills that are being proposed up in our neighboring state New Hampshire, or nearby state I should say.<br />
<br />
R: Well, it's very, very exciting time to be a lady, in that it states, our listeners may be aware that right now in state legislatures around the US there's been this on going war on behalf of the religious right attempting to limit women's access to contraception, sexual health education and abortion in any way possible. And they can't just come out and make all that illegal, so much like the creationist, they have employed a wedge strategy of making life as difficult as possible for women who want control of their own reproductive health. Some of the bills that have been passing in the US have included those mandating that women be unnecessarily penetrated with an ultrasound wand prior to getting an abortion, some are allowing pharmacists and doctors to refuse to provide contraception based on religious convictions. And there are even some politicians that are trying to mandate that women need a signed permission slip from a man before getting an abortion. So that's just to give you like a slight context for those of you who maybe aren't in the US or aren't paying attention. Last week the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_House_of_Representatives New Hampshire House of Representatives] passed a bill that would require physicians to give certain materials to any woman seeking an abortion. Those materials are provided under the auspices of informed consent. You know we need to make sure women have as much information as possible before getting an abortion. The problem is that those materials include statements such as: "It is scientifically undisputed that full term pregnancy reduces a woman's lifetime risk of breast cancer. It is also undisputed that the earlier a woman has a first full-term pregnancy the lower her risk of breast cancer becomes because following a full term pregnancy the breast tissue exposed to estrogen through the menstrual cycle is more mature and cancer resistant. In fact for each year that a woman's first full-term pregnancy is delayed her risk of breast cancer rises three point five percent. The theory that there is a direct link between abortion and breast cancer builds upon this undisputed foundation."<br />
<br />
E: Where do they pull that information from?<br />
<br />
R: Their asses, actually.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: (Sarcastically) Oh they're proctologists, I see.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Yeah ah, this particular bit of pseudoscience, the idea that abortion increases a woman's chance of breast cancer has been bandied about particularly in anti-choice circles for a number of years now. And In-fact up until into the mid 1990s there have only been a few small but heavily flawed studies that had been done on this particular topic, and a few of those studies did show that there might be a connection between breast cancer and abortions and miscarriages. However, in the past several decades we've seen several large-scale studies conducted that show absolutely no connection at all. The organizations like the [http://www.nih.gov/ National Institutes of Health], [http://www.cancer.org/ American Cancer Society], the [http://www.acog.org/ American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists], and even the [http://ww5.komen.org/ Susan G. Komen Foundation],which is run by anti-choice fundamentalists, all stand by the fact that there's absolutely no link between abortion and breast cancer.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah I did my own literature research, just to see what it was, not reading political sites, just look at the literature and see what it shows, if you go back into the 1980s it looks like there was some, you know debate about it actually, you could find articles that come to either conclusion. But then when you look at reviews that are written in the last few years, they all agree that there is absolutely no link, between abortions and the risk of breast cancer.<br />
<br />
R: Right those papers that were done in the 80's and early 90's were very small, very small [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination sample sizes], and have a lot of flaws in them.<br />
<br />
E: So a coordinated disinformation campaign is underway.<br />
<br />
S: Exactly<br />
<br />
R: Well yeah now this is one of those things, another one I may have mentioned before on the show, definitely on [http://skepchick.org/ skepchick] though is, the idea that, one is the idea that abortion leads to depression, which is another thing that is absolutely not supported by the scientific evidence. And the other is that, that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus fetus], a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. This is a quote-unquote ''fact'' that is becoming commonplace in political discussions in the US these days and it's talked about as thought it's scientific fact, when in-fact it is not. The question of when a fetus can feel pain is actually still up for debate. And by no means is 20 weeks an actual medical diagnosis. you know, this is something that they've gone with that specific number because these politicians have an agenda, and that agenda is to outlaw abortion, and so they're using the idea of fetuses feeling pain at 20 weeks to convince courts to outlaw abortion at 20 weeks, despite the fact that it's unconstitutional.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah and there's good reason to think that it's actually not possible for a fetus to perceive pain before 24 weeks of gestation just in terms of the development of the nervous system.<br />
<br />
R: Right.<br />
<br />
S: So that's probably, that's a better guess at this point. Getting back.. can I comment on the mental health aspect of it?<br />
<br />
R: Yep.<br />
<br />
S: 'Cause you guys, just again looking at the literature just to see what it says. There's a lot of complexities actually to the mental health issue, because as you might imagine, you could look at studies in a lot of different ways. [http://www.statsdirect.com/help/basics/prospective.htm Retrospectively vs prospectively], you know, you can pick out different sub-populations you know for example a correlation obviously, just saying that women who are getting abortions are more depressed for example; well, probably something to do with their life situation that lead them to the abortion that may have something to do with it, that's not the same thing as saying that abortion ''causes'' depression. And when you control for those factors, there really isn't any evidence that abortions are causally linked to any mental health problem at all. But again they're cherry picking and exploiting the complexities in that particular part of the research in order to make their case. And If you have your desired conclusion in mind, you get, you know there's enough studies out there, you can cherry pick, you could support almost any position you want. But the systematic reviews out there done by researchers who are ''trying'' to get to the bottom of it and know how to control for different variables, are all coming to the same conclusion that there is just no causal relationship between abortion and mental illness.<br />
<br />
R: Right, and to get back to this particular bill in New Hampshire, the idea that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. So there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that's true. There ''is'' evidence to suggest that you, women who have children before the age of 30, do, they may have a decreased risk of breast cancer.<br />
<br />
S: So there is a difference between the outcomes of prospective and retrospective studies. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrospective_cohort_study Retrospective] basically means you take women who 'have' breast cancer and you ask them if they have had an abortion, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospective_cohort_study prospective] means you follow women who have had an abortion and then you see what their risk of, is of developing breast cancer compared to other women you know in the same cohort or who didn't have an abortion. The retrospective studies did show a higher correlation with having had an abortion but the prospective studies ''didn't'', and the likely interpretation there is that women who had breast cancer may have been more willing to disclose their prior history of abortion. We're relying upon women to disclose that information, when you follow them going forward, prospectively, there's no correlation. So prospective data is always better, it's always more reliable, because there isn't this recall bias, or maybe this willing to disclose bias that could alter the data. So the current consensus is that there's no correlation.<br />
<br />
R: Right, and despite this fact this bill ''did'' pass through the house, and the way that the original bill passed was not just to declare that the doctors needed to give these particular pseudoscientific materials to women seeking abortions, but it also wrote down exactly how those doctors should be punished if they failed to follow through with that. And in the original bill they recommended class A felonies for any doctor who didn't abide by the law and that came with up to 15 years in prison for a doctor.<br />
<br />
E: Ouch.<br />
<br />
S: For telling the truth.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, yeah, basically for telling the truth, and luckily I guess that original bill that passed through the house was then reconsidered and went back through the house. The criminal Justice and public safety committee just barely voted in favor of recommending the removal of the class A felony part. Even if that happens though, the way this bill is written, doctors will still be open to malpractice law suits or disciplinary action by the New Hampshire state board of medicine if they do in fact tell women the truth about abortion and breast cancer.<br />
<br />
S: Which means they can lose their license basically.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, so, you know, for those of you in New Hampshire you may want to contact your state representatives immediately. For those of you in the United States but not in New Hampshire you can't rest so easy because there are similar pseudoscientific bills exactly like this in several other states, and this is basically the religious right's standard operating procedure is to introduce the same or very similar bills simultaneously in many different states at once. So Kansas and Oklahoma, you have similar measures that have been proposed. So no matter where you are if you are in the US it might be a good idea to contact your local representatives and just let them know that you support science and reason.<br />
<br />
S: You know the thing I hate you know I feel obligated to say; it's not like, we're not taking a political position on this show regarding the abortion debate, I mean this is, you know people have the right to come to different moral and ethical decisions, you know, obviously Rebecca you have a certain position on that.<br />
<br />
R: I do have a certain position.<br />
<br />
S: But the point is you can't lie about the science...<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Yes right.<br />
<br />
S: ... in order to make your political position, and not only lying about the science by trying to pass a law ''mandating'' that physicians make the same lie and and trying to punish them for ''not'' lying; That is such an abuse of not only professionalism but of science and reason, and that stands aside from the political debate about abortion.<br />
<br />
R: Exactly yeah.<br />
<br />
S: It's a completely separate issue yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
=== Nuclear Clock <small>(34:53)</small> ===<br />
[http://phys.org/news/2012-03-blueprint-nuclear-clock-accurate-billions.html Phys.org: Researchers develop blueprint for nuclear clock accurate over billions of years]<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, let's move on. Bob, you got another item. Your full item to talk about has to do with nuclear clocks or atomic clocks.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, this one was...this one was pretty cool. Get ready for timekeeping that makes atomic clocks look like hourglasses. Scientists have demonstrated the potential of a nuclear clock that could gain or lose only a fraction of a second over &ndash; get this &ndash; fourteen ''billion'' years, the age of the universe.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
B: A team of researchers from the University of New South Wales, the University of Nevada, and Georgia Tech have thought up this...well, they didn't actually think this up, they actually...merely just demonstrated what it could actually do...of this super atomic clock of sorts that's based on the oscillations of neutrons instead of electrons. So to put this into perspective a bit, I think I'll just briefly go over some of the key clock technologies of the past few centuries that we're all familiar with, although you might not know some of the details. For example, pendulum clocks &ndash; the first appeared in the mid-1600s. Now, these clocks work because their consistent swing depends only on the length of the arm and not on the weight or the weight of the arm itself or the...or whatever weight there might be at the bottom of it or even the arc of its swing really doesn't really matter. They were revolutionary when they appeared because they improved the accuracy of timekeeping from about fifteen minutes a day to fifteen ''seconds'', and that actually was probably the most dramatic improvement in clock technology for the average person that I think there ever was. I think it must have been very dramatic. The other thing that surprised me about pendulum clocks was the fact that they got so good, that they would only drift by about a hundredth of a second a ''day'', which is a lot more accurate than I thought. And actually, it is more accurate than a quartz clock, which was a surprise because this technology came afterwards. Now, they...the quartz clocks are probably the most common of all clocks if you add...I mean, so, everyone's got...got wristwatches.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I think their big appeal, Bob, was not that they were just more accurate; they're just...they're cheap, yeah, they're cheap and portable.<br />
<br />
B: Cheap and portability, right; they were huge.<br />
<br />
E: Mine says "The Avengers" on it.<br />
<br />
B: And as it turns out, you know, they only lose ten to twenty seconds a year. I mean, that's nothing. That's really nothing. Who cares? So you're at the point where it's just, for the average person, that level of accuracy is perfectly fine. And yeah, like you said, Steve, it's...you know, portability is a huge factor. Now, just real quickly, the quartz clocks, of course, depends on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezoelectric_Effect piezoelectric effect]. Essentially, electricity passing through would cause the crystal to vibrate very consistently, which then you could use as a basis for your timekeeping. Then, of course, you've got atomic clocks that are the current gold standard of timekeeping. Now, they're...they keep incredibly accurate time using the orbits of electrons, kind of like a pendulum. Depending on your source, they can lose one second in an amazing twenty to sixty million years, which, of course, is amazingly accurate.<br />
<br />
J: Wow! That's awesome, man.<br />
<br />
B: Isn't that...yeah, isn't that amazing? One second in many millions of years is incredible. But as awesome as that is, it's nothing compared to what the potential of nuclear clocks may be.<br />
<br />
J: Don't even, you're scaring me now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: This proposed method would use a UV laser to orient electrons of a thorium atom in a very specific way, and essentially what this does is it opens a door to tweak the energy state of the nucleus and use the resulting oscillations of a neutron to make a clock that's a hundred times more accurate than the best thing that we have today. Now, this potential revolution in accuracy is because the neutrons are denser and much more tightly packed than electrons. This makes them pretty much immune to electric fields and magnetic fields, which cause atomic clocks to drift by as much as they do over millions of years, and, I mean, they don't drift much, obviously, but they've even now figured out potentially a way to get rid of even that tiny drift. So while researching this, I found a lot of online commenters that...that they really didn't understand what the big deal was, and they thought that this...an accuracy at this level is just total overkill. You know, what's the point? What possible advantage could nuclear clocks have over atomic clocks? But clocks at that level of accuracy...it's definitely not, you know, a superfluous improvement. [http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/ACADEMIC/flambaum.html Professor Victor Flambaum], who's the head of theoretical physics at the UNSW school of physics, said that it would allow scientists to test fundamental physical theories at unprecedented levels of precision and provide an unmatched tool for applied physics research. We could also &ndash; this was interesting &ndash; we could also pair up an atomic and nuclear clock and potentially discover that some laws of physics are not constant in time. Now, that would be an incredible discovery. You know, finding out that some of these laws that we think are constant and unchanging...if we could find even a tiny bit of change over, you know, expanses of time, that truly would be revolutionary. And, of course, we could also greatly improve the accuracy of GPS satellites so that your navigator in your car wouldn't tell you to take a left turn at the next lake. And I'm not sure, I couldn't, I couldn't find any...so when do you think that we're going to see this? When's it going to be real? And my answer is who the hell knows? I don't know how long it's going to take. Although, they did have some surprising confidence in their ability to figure this out. The biggest hurdle apparently is finding the exact laser frequency. Now, these lasers, they're using petahertz frequencies. They're using petahertz frequency lasers to do this, at least that's what they envision. And one scientist described this not as a needle in a haystack, but a needle in a million haystacks, trying to find that precise frequency that can achieve this result. Apparently, it could take some time.<br />
<br />
S: Maybe they can use this to measure how long it takes for neutrinos to go from their source to the detector.<br />
<br />
B: (laughs) Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: (laughs) Right.<br />
<br />
=== NDE and Lucid Dreaming <small>(40:44)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.livescience.com/19106-death-experiences-lucid-dreams.html LiveScience.com: Near-Death Experiences are Lucid Dreams, Experiment Finds]<br />
<br />
S: So, Evan, tell us what you know about near-death experiences. We've chatted about these on the show before, but maybe we have some new information.<br />
<br />
E: We have, and we've talked about the near-death experience and is it in fact a way of proving life after death? That's the...that's the main point.<br />
<br />
S: I'm guessing no.<br />
<br />
E: Well...(laughs)<br />
<br />
S: (laughs)<br />
<br />
E: Look, you can believe what you want to believe.<br />
<br />
J: Come on, Steve, don't you have any faith? Come on, what are you talking about?<br />
<br />
S: I'm guessing no.<br />
<br />
E: (laughs) Well, there are folks that actually study lucid dreaming. You guys know what lucid dreaming is?<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Oh yeah, love it.<br />
<br />
E: Love it too.<br />
<br />
B: I love it!<br />
<br />
E: A lucid dream is any dream in which, well, you are aware that you are dreaming. And in the lucid dream, you may be able to exert some degree of control over the participation within the dream, manipulate the images you see, manipulate&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: The environment.<br />
<br />
E: &mdash;manipulate the environment. And it's actually a scientifically well-established phenomenon that lucid dreaming does happen.<br />
<br />
J: Sure!<br />
<br />
E: Well, the folks who actually study lucid dreaming for a living rounded up some volunteers and conditioned them to dream about near-death experiences specifically, including the classic scenario of a near-death experience, which is the scenario in which you're flying or drifting towards a light at the end of a tunnel. And what the researchers are saying is that their experiments have demonstrated that these sorts of visions are likely the product of the human mind, rather than supernatural phenomenon, because they are able to condition these dreamers to dream about that very thing. These experiments were done at the [http://research.obe4u.com/ Out-of-Body Experience Research Center] in Los Angeles, in which they had groups of people &ndash; they're saying four groups of ten-to-twenty volunteers; I'm saying that's probably roughly sixty people &ndash; were trained to perform a series of mental steps upon awakening during the night that might lead them to have that out-of-body experience that &ndash; or near-death experience &ndash; that so many people have described. And they were conditioned to try and dream about floating through the tunnel to the bright light that you typically hear about. Eighteen of these volunteers were able to dream that exact experience, as described.<br />
<br />
J: Just by prepping themselves before they went to sleep, like, you know, saying, "I want to think about this."<br />
<br />
E: Exactly, right. They were given essentially this target to go after, and they were able to achieve it. You know, near-death experiences have been widely reported. They often get big headlines, and...including famous people that have said they have had these sort of near-death experiences one way or the other, either from a tragic accident that they were involved with or undergoing a surgery &ndash; right? &ndash; in the hospital and they see themselves kind of floating up above the operating table, and they can talk about things that are in the room, and then, of course, the white light at the end of the tunnel. Eight million Americans are reported to have a near-death experience, and it could be even more than that; those are just the ones that have been reported. Neurologists believe that near-death experiences are generated by the same brain mechanisms that cause lucid dreams, so there is...there's overlap here (inaudible)<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that was the hypothesis they were testing, basically. So, I mean, you can look at this a few ways. You know, there's lots of evidence to suggest that the near-death experience is a brain experience. All the elements can be produced by different physiological conditions &ndash; lack of oxygen, for example, or drugs or sometimes during seizures &ndash; so there's lots of reasons to think that this is a ''brain'' experience. This is one more bit of evidence that these types of experiences can be generated by the brain &ndash; in this case, by techniques that induce lucid dreaming. The one thing I found most compelling about this were those individuals who not only reported going through the tunnel, but actually like got to the end of the tunnel and then had an experience where they were visiting with their dead relatives. So they actually confabulated the rest of, you know, the near-death experience, which just shows how easy it is for that to happen. But, of course, those who believe in...that that near-death experience is a spiritual experience and not a brain experience could always say that, "Well, okay, you're ''simulating'' a near-death experience by specifically training people to have a dream-like experience that just mimics the details or some of the features of a near-death experience," and that's a legitimate point.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I agree with that.<br />
<br />
S: I don't think this proves that it's not a brain experience.<br />
<br />
E: Right.<br />
<br />
S: I think you could say at best, it's consistent evidence to show that the brain ''can have'' these experiences, but it certainly doesn't prove that there aren't near-death experiences that are spiritual. I don't think there's any evidence that they are, but this...you know, that's the limitation in terms of the implications of this experiment. It could just be a simulation and not actually producing the same experience. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: The researchers were quick to point that out, Steve, that this is by no means conclusive; it is one study; there should be more research done, more replication; it needs to pass the peer-review process. So they certainly did this and presented it in the correct context, and that was very good to hear.<br />
<br />
S: Right. Yeah. And it'll be interesting to see how far they can take this paradigm, you know, this lucid dreaming in order to investigate the near-death experience and see what else we can learn from it, but it's...I think it's always going to be this one piece to a more complicated puzzle, but an interesting one.<br />
<br />
E: When I'm lucid dreaming, I'm always...the first thing I typically think about is restraining myself to not expand the dream so much that I'm going to break the dream and wake up. There's that fine line of doing things that'll pop you out of it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but it always happens, doesn't it? It always happens.<br />
<br />
E: Eventually it does, but you try to stay in there as long as you can.<br />
<br />
B: I have found in my lucid dreaming experiences and from what I've read that the more excited you become, the greater the odds that you're going to fall out of it and wake up or potentially segue into another dream where you're not lucid. And one method that I've used and also read about &ndash; if you find yourself kind of losing your grasp on your lucidity in your dream &ndash; is look at your hands. For some reason, if you look at your hand when you feel the dream slipping away, it actually can re-anchor you into the lucid dream and maintain your, you know, your lucidity, which was a pretty cool little trick.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, but then you can't concentrate on moving the planets and the stars in the sky and all (inaudible) cool stuff.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, well, just do that after you look at your hands a little bit.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: I always try to fly. That's like the default thing I do when I become conscious or slightly conscious in a dream.<br />
<br />
S: You know what Freud said about that, Jay?<br />
<br />
J: No, what do you...what does it mean, that I'm...<br />
<br />
R: Gay.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, gay.<br />
<br />
S: Dreaming that you're flying is an expression of latent homosexuality.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Really.<br />
<br />
R: Freud thought&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: ''Latent?''<br />
<br />
R: &mdash;everything was (laughs) an expression of latent homosexuality.<br />
<br />
S: Times when I've lucid dreamed, I've marveled at how realistic it is. But the problem is I'm marveling with my dream brain, you know, which is not...doesn't have as much reality testing as my waking brain. So you're much more easy to impress, you know, when you're dreaming, in other words. But nevertheless&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: To a certain...to a certain extent.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's, well, again, when you're lucid, it's partway, you know. It's like halfway between being awake and dreaming. When you're full-on dreaming, you have like almost no reality testing, so...you know, you'll take almost anything as real. That's what keeps you asleep. It keeps you from waking up because of the unreality of your dreams. The lucidity is a breakdown of that. When you have a ''little'' bit of reality testing, you're saying, "Hey, this doesn't make sense. This isn't real. I must be dreaming." But it's not enough to fully wake you up, but that's an inherently unstable state, which is why you eventually either, you know, either wake up for real or ''dream'' you wake up, which is another way of losing the lucidity. Although, I'll point out that the same is true when you're awake, in that you're assessing the reality of things ''with your brain'', you know? Things feel real ''to your brain'', but that's flawed and artefactual and constructed and biased and subject to illusions. It's just that we don't know any better. It's just...that's the most lucid state that we have. So we can compare ''different'' states, and we can say, "Oh yeah, when I'm ''dreaming'', I'm not making sense," et cetera. The same may be true when you're awake; you just have nothing better to compare it to. It's all we know. It's still...in every state, it's still ''your'' brain assessing your own brain, and not...you're not assessing it with something outside of your brain that's objective, so, you know, in a way it kind of makes sense that it always seems real to you at the time.<br />
<br />
J: Right, so your brain can actually be fooling you into thinking that you are more lucid than you may actually be.<br />
<br />
S: Right. That's another way of saying it. That's exactly right.<br />
<br />
E: That's a good point.<br />
<br />
=== Designer Electrons <small>()</small> ===<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120314142841.htm Science Daily: Molecular Graphene Heralds New Era of 'Designer Electrons']<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails: Here Comes the Metric System <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Just a quick question. I often wondered why America kept the Imperial system for measurements, miles, inches etc. Do you think it would be better (for science teaching in particular), if you switched to the metric system, and what problems do you think it would create? Thanks for the great show. Liz. Scotland </blockquote><br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy <small>()</small> ==<br />
From the comments to NeuroLogica <br />
<blockquote>"natural selection (or selection in general) explains how two horses can become all the different breeds we have today- including zebras. This is also how the finches of Darwin fame have longer beaks some years and shorter beaks other years… Everyone knows this happens. The question is this– does that explain how a single celled life form could become an elephant? Some question that it does. (I would be one who questions- BTW) This is called micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution– aka the development of species or kinds vs. the development of breeds. To make an analogy– Everyone knows you can make a ladder to the roof of the house. Does that mean you can make a ladder to the sun?"</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
*[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120321172208.htm Item number 1]: 'New measurements indicate that Venice continues to sink into the ocean, contradicting the prior conclusion that the city is stable'<br />
*[http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/health/sharp-rise-cases-new-strain-whooping-cough Item number 2]: 'A new study finds that the whooping cough epidemic currently occurring in Australia is mostly due to a new strain of B. pertussis which is not well covered by the vaccine' <br />
*[http://www.buffalo.edu/news/13271 Item number 3]: 'A new survey finds that parents of children with cancer trust information they find on the internet as much or more than information from their health care provider' <br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.</blockquote><br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Haisch Bernhard Haisch]<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_349&diff=4171SGU Episode 3492012-10-24T09:06:42Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Nuclear Clock (34:53) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y TK proof-read up to, and including, New Hampshire Abortion Bill --><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 349<br />
|episodeDate = 24<sup>th</sup> March 2012<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Baumgartner.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2012-03-24.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=349<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,40991.0.html<br />
|qowText = Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Haisch Bernard Haisch]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the skeptics guide to the universe. Today is Wednesday March 21st 2012 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: (Jewish Accent) What is this? Pod-casting?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: ...and Evan Bernstein<br />
<br />
E: Good evening ladies and gentleman, how's everyone?<br />
<br />
J: Hola Evan.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
S: Good, Fine and dandy.<br />
<br />
E: Now this was some winter huh?<br />
<br />
J: Oh, crazy right?<br />
<br />
S: This is my kind of winter.<br />
<br />
E: We barely had ''any'' snow this year in New England, it was in the 50s for a large part of the winter in southern New England which is unheard of.<br />
<br />
S: I love the vernal equinox because it means the next six months the sun is in the upper half of its course through the sky.<br />
<br />
B: I hope all of you have released your white owls.<br />
<br />
S: Well anyway Rebecca, what else is special about this day?<br />
<br />
== This day in skepticism <small>(0:58)</small> ==<br />
<br />
=== March 24, 1989: The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill ===<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdex_oil_spill Wikipedia:Exxon Valdez Oil Spill]<br />
<br />
R: Well, this day marks the anniversary of a quite horrific event, March 24th 1989 was the day that the Exxon Valdez spilled oil into [http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Prince%20William%20Sound Prince William Sound].<br />
<br />
S: You just can't let it go can you Rebecca?<br />
<br />
R: No, no me and the otters...<br />
<br />
S: (laughs) the otters.<br />
<br />
R: ...are really pissed about it still.<br />
<br />
E: One drunk sea captain, you know, guides the boat into the low into the shoals and he pays for it for the rest of his life.<br />
<br />
R: I think, apparently that's a... apparently that's a bit of a myth, the captain apparently was drunk but was not at the helm. The third mate was, and on the list of things, what went wrong, the biggest ones seems to be that the radar for detecting possible collisions had been broken for nearly a year. Also...<br />
<br />
E: And the captain was too drunk to know it. Apparently.<br />
<br />
S: We'll get to that eventually.<br />
<br />
R: And apparently all of the crew was severely overworked and exhausted and had been for quite some time. So those were identified as being the main causes of why it ended up striking a reef and spilling up to possibly seven hundred fifty thousand barrels of oil. It's not however...<br />
<br />
E: Think of all the cars and furnaces that it would have provided heat and energy for. It's very sad.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, despite how devastating that oil spill was, it's not even in the top ten worst oil spills of all time. It ''was'' though the worst one in the US up until the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster]. But yeah it's kinda crazy to think that there are oils spills happening all the time and some of them are much much worse than the Exxon Valdez. Yeah, there's a happy thought for you. The ship itself was recently auctioned off, actually. Just the tanker, just this week it was sold for scrap so apparently it was renamed the "Oriental Nicety".<br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm?<br />
<br />
B: For real?<br />
<br />
R: I guess as some way to trick people into to thinking it was err...<br />
<br />
E: Oh my gosh, you might as well call it the "Happy Ending".<br />
<br />
S: (laughing) The little nicety?! That's odd. I've a funny Exxon Valdez story, I was in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epcot Epcot Centre] in Disney World shortly after that oil spill and the dinosaur exhibit was, I guess, funded by Exxon and before you get to see the dinosaurs, there's essentially a big commercial for Exxon. At one point they have this aerial shot of an oil tanker going through a harbor and they go: "The beautiful Exxon Valdez..." 'Course everyone starts laughing 'cause this is like right after the disaster they hadn't updated the ride yet.<br />
<br />
S: (laughs)<br />
<br />
E: Time to update the rides...<br />
<br />
B: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27oh! D'OH!]<br />
<br />
R: That's a little embarrassing. Here's my question; I've always heard people call it the Exxon Val-deeze but I don't understand why they pronounce it Val-deeze, when it's obviously Valdez.<br />
<br />
S: I don't know I'm just slavishly following what I hear.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah I don't know, I think it's weird.<br />
<br />
S: But at least we can have our super hero magical bracelets to make it all better right jay?<br />
<br />
B: Nice segue.<br />
<br />
R: That was a good segue Steve.<br />
<br />
S: You know it kinda takes away from it when you say it's a good segue.<br />
<br />
R: I know that's why it's funny, and every single time, Steve, you will never be able to do a segue without us calling attention to it.<br />
<br />
S: (laughs) OK.<br />
<br />
R: This is your curse.<br />
<br />
== News Items <small>(4:39)</small> ==<br />
<br />
=== Superhero Pseudoscience ===<br />
[http://colantotte.com Colantotte.com]<br />
<br />
J: Steve jumped right into it, I wanted to loosen up a little bit before we say bad things about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Studios Marvel], to say some good things about Marvel like, you know I think that for their super hero movies they've done a great job. You know for the most part I've liked all of them, and you know, the Avengers movie is coming out and I'm really psyched to see it, its totally right in my sweet spot. I mean I love super heroes I love like you know science fictiony stuff like that. So it really was disappointing to find out that Marvel, and probably even more involved is the production company that they're using, the marketing company that they've hired for the Avengers film, sadly has, is selling some crazy wacky merchandise. So they are selling a magic bracelet a ''real'' magic bracelet. A-la [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Balance Powerband] type BS.<br />
<br />
E: As opposed to those fake magic bracelets? <br />
<br />
S: They're not a toy, they're making actual claims for it.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah they are, here I'll get into some of the details here, the limited edition Magtitan Neo Legend has a carbon fibre surface finished with a coat of transparent resin that yields an attractive stylish design.<br />
<br />
S: Oh I thought you were going to say transparent aluminum. That would have been impressive.<br />
<br />
J: A 100 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millitesla mT] 1000 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss_unit Gauss] ferrite permanent magnets arranged in Colantotte's unique alternating north-south polarity orientation which is<br />
<br />
B: Oooh<br />
<br />
E: (laughs) *Sarcastic* unique!<br />
<br />
J: They've trademarked A-N-S-P-O. ANSPO trademark.<br />
<br />
R: I'm holding out for the east-west polarity.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah I'm there too.<br />
<br />
S: They're saying because they have alternating strips of magnets with the north-south polarity alternating, and that's supposed to be unique to this, that's exactly how you make a refrigerator magnet.<br />
<br />
E: Now wait a minute, what are you accusing them of?<br />
<br />
S: That's how the refrigerator magnets have a very you know, narrow, of depth but relatively strong for the power of the magnets used, attraction right? That's why like when you pull a refrigerator magnet off of the refrigerator it's really strong over a very short distance but they're very quickly gives way<br />
<br />
J: Right, drops off.<br />
<br />
S: That's because they have alternating strips of north and south, you know of poles in the magnet.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah but Steve is a refrigerator magnet made of adimantium, I don't think so?<br />
<br />
J: I don't think so, Steve come on.<br />
<br />
S: A really good refrigerator magnet.<br />
<br />
J: Steve you can say what you will, and put it down, but each 'limited edition Magtite Neo Legend comes in a special limited edition package commemorating Marvel's The Avengers movie'. So of course it's works, it works Steve you gotta buy this thing.<br />
<br />
S: Because the Avengers are real.<br />
<br />
J: Now I saw something I'm perusing the ah, website and I have to admit the design of it is pretty cool, but you know go around the website and I was nosing around the SGU forums and they were chit chatting about it and they came up with a couple of interesting things. Somebody on our forums said that this is basically proven to work in Japan, like they have real medical benefit in Japan. I couldn’t find any proof of that so if anybody does I'd be interested to read it for myself but what they do have on the website is of course they have first hand comments by professional athletes.<br />
<br />
S: Oh here we go.<br />
<br />
J: "The Magtite Neo Legend is Colantotte's finest gear, the combination of pure titanium and carbon fibre is great, plus it's been created specifically to commemorate Marvel's Avengers movie"<ref name=rory>Rory McIlroy endorses Magtitan Neo Legend on [http://colantotte.com/products/ colantotte.com]</ref>. Two things! Two comments, ready? One: That guy did not write that, he did not say that.<br />
<br />
E: Oh no!<br />
<br />
J: If that guy walks around talking like that, he needs help<br />
<br />
S: Don't you love it when anecdotes like that are written in ad-copy? <br />
<br />
J: Right.<br />
<br />
S: It's so ''obviously'' written by some sales guy, and it's supposed to be a spontaneous endorsement or anecdote from somebody. You know what I mean, it's so transparent.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, pretend I'm [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_McIlroy Rory McIlroy] and ask me about that bracelet I'm wearing?<br />
<br />
S: Hey can you tell me about that bracelet you're wearing?<br />
<br />
J: "The Magtight Neo Legend is Colantotte's finest gear, the combination of pure titanium and carbon fibre is great". Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
R: That's really natural.<br />
<br />
E: I think Rory has a Scottish accent actually...<br />
<br />
J: Don't even...<br />
<br />
E: ...if memory serves.<br />
<br />
J: (attempting Scottish accent) "The Magtight Neo Legend is Colantotte's finest gear".<br />
<br />
R: What? What was that?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: I'll take (unintelligible) for four hundred.<br />
<br />
B: I think you just invented a new accent that's never been heard of before.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah it think it was just shouting. It was like a Klingon variant.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: So anyway the second thing from that guy's endorsement that makes me shudder is he says, "I can't wait to go see this movie with my mates to watch Colantotte's Magtite Neo Legend in action"<ref name=rory/>. Does this mean it's in the movie? Is it in the movie, Marvel?<br />
<br />
E: Clearly.<br />
<br />
J: Seriously<br />
<br />
B: Oh god.<br />
<br />
S: I guess so.<br />
<br />
E: Someone had to pay for this movie.<br />
<br />
S: You gotta give it to 'em, I mean it's pretty brilliant, having a magic bracelet be on a super hero I mean, right?<br />
<br />
R: Yeaaah?<br />
<br />
E: OK, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: The marketing is good, the marketing idea is good, especially because most people will probably buy into it, even if it's just because it looks good but you know, it's very...<br />
<br />
R: It's probably still better than those Green Lantern rings.<br />
<br />
S: (laughs)<br />
<br />
B: Ha!<br />
<br />
E: I've got two of those.<br />
<br />
J: It's a sad state of affairs when a company like Marvel a company which produces fantasy, you know, they're actually...<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: They're still doing it.<br />
<br />
J: ...morphing into reality here, you know let's cash in on the fact that we write about magic and sell magic.<br />
<br />
E: Yep.<br />
<br />
J: So, I'm a little twigged at Marvel right now.<br />
<br />
S: What has this world come to.<br />
<br />
E: Payin' the bills, it's payin' the bills.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, on the website it shows a picture of the bracelet and underneath it says: "The superhero's secret"<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Oh wow really that's the secret huh? Two little magnets on their wrist, that's what it does it.<br />
<br />
R: I thought it was leaking radiation, we should try that.<br />
<br />
E: Bob, that's a secret<br />
<br />
S: So you're saying it doesn't work, Jay?<br />
<br />
E: Can we agree that DC maybe is taken a notch up due to this? And maybe...<br />
<br />
J: Yeah absolutely,<br />
<br />
E: ...and maybe Marvel have suffered a hit.<br />
<br />
J: It comes out April first, I couldn't find any pricing, I bet you it's going to be in the 60 to 100 dollar range. (note, $199 as of 29/5/2012<ref>Magtitan Neo Legend bracelet: Colantotte links to [http://www.trionzdirect.com/?cmd=cart&type=29&sub=1 trionzdirect.com] for US purchases</ref> <br />
<br />
S: April first really?<br />
<br />
E: April first? Hmmm.<br />
<br />
J: Well what do you think do you think the whole thing is a hoax?<br />
<br />
E: Something hoaxy this way comes, no.<br />
<br />
J: I don't think so and I'll tell you why, the company that produces the bracelet, I researched them, they make a lot of other BS stuff, the negative ion crap and all that stuff.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Of course.<br />
<br />
=== High Altitude Skydiving <small>(10:54)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17399985 BBC: Skydiver Felix Baumgartner on track for super jump]<br />
<br />
S: All right well let's move on, we have a bit of a follow-up to a previous discussion, we had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Cain Fraser Cain] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Gay Pamela Gay] on the show a few weeks ago, we talked about the up-coming attempted world-record-breaking high skydive, high altitude sky dive from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Baumgartner Felix Baumgartner]. And there's a discussion and bit of a news update, the news update is that he completed a test jump recently. He jumped from 71,500 ft or 22 Km above New Mexico, landing safely 8 minutes later. Although this is only a test jump, that puts him in the top three! In terms of the highest altitude skydives ever. This is a preparation for his planned jump later this year in which he will break the world record. He's planning to jump from 120,000 feet, so the current record stands at 102,800 ft in 1960 by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Kittinger Joe Kittinger] who was a US Air Force colonel at the time, when we were talking about Baumgartner's planned jump on the last episode we mentioned the fact that it's inherently dangerous to jump from such a high altitude because of the velocities involved and that Kittinger during his jump in 1960 actually spun out of control, blacked out, and didn't regain consciousness until after his chute had automatically deployed. So when I was researching this for this piece, I found out that that's sorta true but one thing we didn't mention is that was, that occurred on the first of Kittinger's three jumps this was the excelsior mission, is what it was called, there was excelsior one two and three.<br />
<br />
J: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excelsior#Motto_and_catchphrase Excelsior!]<br />
<br />
S: Yeah the third one was the one where he you know, is the record still stands now at 102,800 feet, it was the first one, excelsior one where he spun out of control, the reason he spun out of control didn't have anything to do with the conditions of the jump, the aerodynamics or the thin atmosphere, or the velocity, it had to do with the fact that his pilot chute deployed too early. He, in releasing you know from the gondola he had to yank on you know the cord a few times before it came loose but he actually started the timer on the first yank so the timer was going before he jumped off the gondola and then his pilot chute deployed too early so he wasn't going fast enough. Normally it'll only deploy after you get up sufficient speed that the aerodynamics are such that it will be you know pulled back away from you, but he was going too slow when it deployed and then therefore it flopped around more than it should have and it actually wrapped around his neck and this started him spinning. He basically got tangled up in the pilot chute, he started spinning out of control, they estimate I think 80 RPMs, and he blacked out. Then he fell all the way to 10,000 feet when the barometric release triggered his reserve parachute and this didn't, this got tangled too, but they had installed a backup contingency where the original chute would break away and that worked allowing the reserve chute to inflate at about 6000 feet. And he survived obviously and landed safely. So the spinning out itself was more of an equipment thing and didn't have anything to do with just the difficulty of dropping from such a high altitude. But this whole discussion started an email discussion with the listener who essentially said that this is his point, he said, if you jump at a very high altitude, the airody... the experience for the skydiver is the same because you're going to reach terminal velocity and terminal velocity is, by definition is the wind resistance is going to equal the acceleration due to gravity and therefore it doesn't really matter if it's a thin atmosphere and a high velocity or a thicker atmosphere at a lower velocity. The net resistance against the sky diver is the same so it feels the same to the sky diver. So I ''totally'' get that, and I see no problems with that line of logic. But here was my counter point. The difference here is that when you jump from very high where the atmosphere is thin, terminal velocity is a lot faster you're going to be going a lot faster and then you have to lose all of that extra velocity so when you get down into the thicker atmosphere you're not just approaching terminal velocity you're already exceeding the terminal velocity of the lower-down denser atmosphere and therefore the wind resistance has to actually decelerate you, it has to slow you down.<br />
<br />
E: Drag, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah so therefore the drag is greater than if you jumped at the lower altitude and were just getting up to terminal velocity. But he didn't agree with that point he thought, yeah but it depends on how, what the curve of the change in atmospheric density is but, I just don't buy it. For example it's estimated that during Kittinger's record-breaking jump he reached a maximum speed of 625 miles per hour. Terminal velocity at lower down, the normal altitudes that people sky dive from is somewhere between 117 and 125 miles per hour depending on, you know, your position and your size and whatnot, and in like a head-down bullet position it's about 210 miles per hour. So you figure Kittinger had to loose about 500 miles per hour of velocity when he descended into the lower atmosphere that's gotta be a lot of extra force from wind resistance that you wouldn't have on you if you were jumping from, you know say, 10,000 feet right? I tried to find, that's just my reasoning, I don't know what the final answer is I kinda propose it as an interesting physics question but no one has given me like a real definitive answer, what do you guys think about all that?<br />
<br />
J: Steve I agree with you I think you know, correct me where I'm wrong here, from what you're saying, if you're in a thinner atmosphere, terminal velocity is going to be faster.<br />
<br />
S: right, that we all agree on yep.<br />
<br />
J: then the idea is that you will eventually stop accelerating and maintain a speed when you hit enough air molecules basically get piled up underneath you that pretty much matches what it would be like say jumping at 10,000 feet, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah so it's thinner air but it's rushing past you faster and the net wind resistance is the same, that's right.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah ok,<br />
<br />
S: but the difference I'm saying is, yeah but then you descend into denser atmosphere where you have to, you're not just maintaining a terminal velocity you're actually significantly slowing down because the terminal velocity is getting lower as you descend into the thicker atmosphere, the other point I raised which no one's given me a good answer to is, all right so I understand the wind resistance will be the same but you still are going faster your velocity is greater so if you ''do'' spin out at a higher velocity, would there be the potential for the RPMs to be greater? Will you spin out faster? And that's the real risk, that you'll spin out so fast that you'll black out, right?<br />
<br />
J: Right yeah so, in other words, so if you do a spin out, at say, 70 or 80 thousand feet, you might actually be going so fast that, you know, your blood pressure goes totally crazy, whereas maybe...<br />
<br />
S: If you're going 500 miles an hour, and you spin out, is that more dangerous than when you're going at 120 miles an hour, that's the question. It's interesting, I posed it on my blog, but nobody really gave me a good answer. You know, Jay and I have been chatting about this and we asked a physics friend of ours who really didn't add anything to what we just said. So I dunno, it's an interesting thought experiment and we'll put it out there to our listeners to further the conversation. I still, it still seems to me that it would be more difficult and more risky to do the high sky dive because, it's the deceleration and the absolute velocity, how that translates into spin, those are the two points that I'd like to hear discussed. But Baumgartner is going to be making his next jump later this year where he's going to try and break the record and his one observation, I mean all the equipment tested out and worked fine but he said the cold was like really hard to handle. So before he goes...<br />
<br />
B: His hands were actually sort of numb he could't use them.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah so before he goes up higher, so his test dive was from 71,500 feet, he's going to 120,000 feet, that's going to be a lot thinner, a lot colder, so yeah I think they're going to have to tweak the spacesuit there that he has, if he's going to be able to tolerate the cold at that height.<br />
<br />
B: So put those heat packets in the gloves that's all.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: or those mittens that you put in the microwave.<br />
<br />
S: There are those people who like go into like the minus 120 degree refrigerators for like ten seconds, you guys hear about that?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Why would you do that?<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: 'cause why do you think? Because it's supposed to have some magical health benefit.<br />
<br />
R: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: I think I read it's supposed to be invigorating.<br />
<br />
S: Invigorating!<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: Invigorating? OK.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah you know what else is? Cold shower.<br />
<br />
S: They used to throw cold, wet blankets on psychotic patients to calm them down. <br />
<br />
J: Yeah. A real calming effect. It's a good...<br />
<br />
S: It would shock them, you know, they would be having you know whatever, they would be out of control, and that would shock them into just shutting down. You know that just that real sudden extreme cold.<br />
<br />
J: Steve aren't you really just supposed to slap someone silly when they freak out like that?<br />
<br />
E: Oh you know, an electrode that real electricity to...<br />
<br />
S: That's about as scientifically valid.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah according to like the fifties movies you know, all you got to do when someone's having a hissy fit you just smack 'em one and go you know...<br />
<br />
R: Get yourself together man!<br />
<br />
J: Get a hold of yourself woman you know something like that right?<br />
<br />
E: Stop crying or I'll give you something to cry about<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
=== Quickie with Bob: Designer Electrons <small>(21:33)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120314142841.htm ScienceDaily: Molecular Graphene Heralds New Era of 'Designer Electrons']<br />
<br />
E: You know what I just read? Rebecca wants a quickie with Bob<br />
<br />
S: (knowingly) Oooh.<br />
<br />
R: That's true, that's true I do.<br />
<br />
B: Oh sure Rebecca but will you hold me afterwards..<br />
<br />
R: (thinking) Mehh..<br />
<br />
B: Don't answer that question.<br />
<br />
R: I'm not into that cuddly shit.<br />
<br />
B: Ok this week's quickie with Bob...<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: For this week's quickie with Bob I've got a new era of designer electrons. Researchers at Stanford and the S.L.A.C national accelerator lab have learned how to control the behavior of electrons in such a way that we may see whole new classes of materials which in turn could comprise new and amazing electrical devices. Hari Manoharan who is associate professor of physics at Stanford who lead the research said: "The behavior of electrons in materials is at the heart of essentially all of today's technologies. We are now able to tune the fundamental properties of electrons so they behave in ways rarely seen in ordinary materials." So what they did was to use an STM. A [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope scanning tunneling microscope] to precisely position carbon monoxide molecules on a very, very smooth copper surface. So they did it in such a way so that electrons flowing over the surface are repelled by these molecules and they're forced into these patterns of flows that are identical to what their behaviors would be if there were a magnetic or electrical field present. Even though there were no such fields present at the time. So one example that they pulled off was that they were able to produce a flow of electrons that acted as if they were under the influence of a magnetic field of 60 Tesla. This is incredible because this is 30 percent more power than any field ever sustained by science. So these electrons were behaving in ways that there's probably no other way to make them behave 'cause science isn't even up to the take of creating a field and sustaining it that long. So who knows what kind of materials and devices this may lead to? Perhaps video displays and mobile phones and a host of other devices that we would hardly believe today. Do a Google search for designer electrons if you wanna read more about this.<br />
<br />
S: Thanks Bob.<br />
<br />
R: That's very satisfying.<br />
<br />
J: Thank-you Bob.<br />
<br />
===New Hampshire Abortion Bill <small>(23:31)</small> ===<br />
<!-- link broken http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2012/03/20/abortion_bill_goes_back_to_committee_of_nh_house/ --><br />
<br />
[http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view/2012/HB1659/2012-01-03 Women's Right to Know Act - January 3 2012]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca,<br />
<br />
R: Yo.<br />
<br />
S: Tell us about the lovely science based laws that are, bills that are being proposed up in our neighboring state New Hampshire, or nearby state I should say.<br />
<br />
R: Well, it's very, very exciting time to be a lady, in that it states, our listeners may be aware that right now in state legislatures around the US there's been this on going war on behalf of the religious right attempting to limit women's access to contraception, sexual health education and abortion in any way possible. And they can't just come out and make all that illegal, so much like the creationist, they have employed a wedge strategy of making life as difficult as possible for women who want control of their own reproductive health. Some of the bills that have been passing in the US have included those mandating that women be unnecessarily penetrated with an ultrasound wand prior to getting an abortion, some are allowing pharmacists and doctors to refuse to provide contraception based on religious convictions. And there are even some politicians that are trying to mandate that women need a signed permission slip from a man before getting an abortion. So that's just to give you like a slight context for those of you who maybe aren't in the US or aren't paying attention. Last week the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_House_of_Representatives New Hampshire House of Representatives] passed a bill that would require physicians to give certain materials to any woman seeking an abortion. Those materials are provided under the auspices of informed consent. You know we need to make sure women have as much information as possible before getting an abortion. The problem is that those materials include statements such as: "It is scientifically undisputed that full term pregnancy reduces a woman's lifetime risk of breast cancer. It is also undisputed that the earlier a woman has a first full-term pregnancy the lower her risk of breast cancer becomes because following a full term pregnancy the breast tissue exposed to estrogen through the menstrual cycle is more mature and cancer resistant. In fact for each year that a woman's first full-term pregnancy is delayed her risk of breast cancer rises three point five percent. The theory that there is a direct link between abortion and breast cancer builds upon this undisputed foundation."<br />
<br />
E: Where do they pull that information from?<br />
<br />
R: Their asses, actually.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: (Sarcastically) Oh they're proctologists, I see.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Yeah ah, this particular bit of pseudoscience, the idea that abortion increases a woman's chance of breast cancer has been bandied about particularly in anti-choice circles for a number of years now. And In-fact up until into the mid 1990s there have only been a few small but heavily flawed studies that had been done on this particular topic, and a few of those studies did show that there might be a connection between breast cancer and abortions and miscarriages. However, in the past several decades we've seen several large-scale studies conducted that show absolutely no connection at all. The organizations like the [http://www.nih.gov/ National Institutes of Health], [http://www.cancer.org/ American Cancer Society], the [http://www.acog.org/ American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists], and even the [http://ww5.komen.org/ Susan G. Komen Foundation],which is run by anti-choice fundamentalists, all stand by the fact that there's absolutely no link between abortion and breast cancer.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah I did my own literature research, just to see what it was, not reading political sites, just look at the literature and see what it shows, if you go back into the 1980s it looks like there was some, you know debate about it actually, you could find articles that come to either conclusion. But then when you look at reviews that are written in the last few years, they all agree that there is absolutely no link, between abortions and the risk of breast cancer.<br />
<br />
R: Right those papers that were done in the 80's and early 90's were very small, very small [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination sample sizes], and have a lot of flaws in them.<br />
<br />
E: So a coordinated disinformation campaign is underway.<br />
<br />
S: Exactly<br />
<br />
R: Well yeah now this is one of those things, another one I may have mentioned before on the show, definitely on [http://skepchick.org/ skepchick] though is, the idea that, one is the idea that abortion leads to depression, which is another thing that is absolutely not supported by the scientific evidence. And the other is that, that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus fetus], a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. This is a quote-unquote ''fact'' that is becoming commonplace in political discussions in the US these days and it's talked about as thought it's scientific fact, when in-fact it is not. The question of when a fetus can feel pain is actually still up for debate. And by no means is 20 weeks an actual medical diagnosis. you know, this is something that they've gone with that specific number because these politicians have an agenda, and that agenda is to outlaw abortion, and so they're using the idea of fetuses feeling pain at 20 weeks to convince courts to outlaw abortion at 20 weeks, despite the fact that it's unconstitutional.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah and there's good reason to think that it's actually not possible for a fetus to perceive pain before 24 weeks of gestation just in terms of the development of the nervous system.<br />
<br />
R: Right.<br />
<br />
S: So that's probably, that's a better guess at this point. Getting back.. can I comment on the mental health aspect of it?<br />
<br />
R: Yep.<br />
<br />
S: 'Cause you guys, just again looking at the literature just to see what it says. There's a lot of complexities actually to the mental health issue, because as you might imagine, you could look at studies in a lot of different ways. [http://www.statsdirect.com/help/basics/prospective.htm Retrospectively vs prospectively], you know, you can pick out different sub-populations you know for example a correlation obviously, just saying that women who are getting abortions are more depressed for example; well, probably something to do with their life situation that lead them to the abortion that may have something to do with it, that's not the same thing as saying that abortion ''causes'' depression. And when you control for those factors, there really isn't any evidence that abortions are causally linked to any mental health problem at all. But again they're cherry picking and exploiting the complexities in that particular part of the research in order to make their case. And If you have your desired conclusion in mind, you get, you know there's enough studies out there, you can cherry pick, you could support almost any position you want. But the systematic reviews out there done by researchers who are ''trying'' to get to the bottom of it and know how to control for different variables, are all coming to the same conclusion that there is just no causal relationship between abortion and mental illness.<br />
<br />
R: Right, and to get back to this particular bill in New Hampshire, the idea that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. So there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that's true. There ''is'' evidence to suggest that you, women who have children before the age of 30, do, they may have a decreased risk of breast cancer.<br />
<br />
S: So there is a difference between the outcomes of prospective and retrospective studies. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrospective_cohort_study Retrospective] basically means you take women who 'have' breast cancer and you ask them if they have had an abortion, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospective_cohort_study prospective] means you follow women who have had an abortion and then you see what their risk of, is of developing breast cancer compared to other women you know in the same cohort or who didn't have an abortion. The retrospective studies did show a higher correlation with having had an abortion but the prospective studies ''didn't'', and the likely interpretation there is that women who had breast cancer may have been more willing to disclose their prior history of abortion. We're relying upon women to disclose that information, when you follow them going forward, prospectively, there's no correlation. So prospective data is always better, it's always more reliable, because there isn't this recall bias, or maybe this willing to disclose bias that could alter the data. So the current consensus is that there's no correlation.<br />
<br />
R: Right, and despite this fact this bill ''did'' pass through the house, and the way that the original bill passed was not just to declare that the doctors needed to give these particular pseudoscientific materials to women seeking abortions, but it also wrote down exactly how those doctors should be punished if they failed to follow through with that. And in the original bill they recommended class A felonies for any doctor who didn't abide by the law and that came with up to 15 years in prison for a doctor.<br />
<br />
E: Ouch.<br />
<br />
S: For telling the truth.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, yeah, basically for telling the truth, and luckily I guess that original bill that passed through the house was then reconsidered and went back through the house. The criminal Justice and public safety committee just barely voted in favor of recommending the removal of the class A felony part. Even if that happens though, the way this bill is written, doctors will still be open to malpractice law suits or disciplinary action by the New Hampshire state board of medicine if they do in fact tell women the truth about abortion and breast cancer.<br />
<br />
S: Which means they can lose their license basically.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, so, you know, for those of you in New Hampshire you may want to contact your state representatives immediately. For those of you in the United States but not in New Hampshire you can't rest so easy because there are similar pseudoscientific bills exactly like this in several other states, and this is basically the religious right's standard operating procedure is to introduce the same or very similar bills simultaneously in many different states at once. So Kansas and Oklahoma, you have similar measures that have been proposed. So no matter where you are if you are in the US it might be a good idea to contact your local representatives and just let them know that you support science and reason.<br />
<br />
S: You know the thing I hate you know I feel obligated to say; it's not like, we're not taking a political position on this show regarding the abortion debate, I mean this is, you know people have the right to come to different moral and ethical decisions, you know, obviously Rebecca you have a certain position on that.<br />
<br />
R: I do have a certain position.<br />
<br />
S: But the point is you can't lie about the science...<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Yes right.<br />
<br />
S: ... in order to make your political position, and not only lying about the science by trying to pass a law ''mandating'' that physicians make the same lie and and trying to punish them for ''not'' lying; That is such an abuse of not only professionalism but of science and reason, and that stands aside from the political debate about abortion.<br />
<br />
R: Exactly yeah.<br />
<br />
S: It's a completely separate issue yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
=== Nuclear Clock <small>(34:53)</small> ===<br />
[http://phys.org/news/2012-03-blueprint-nuclear-clock-accurate-billions.html Phys.org: Researchers develop blueprint for nuclear clock accurate over billions of years]<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, let's move on. Bob, you got another item. Your full item to talk about has to do with nuclear clocks or atomic clocks.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, this one was...this one was pretty cool. Get ready for timekeeping that makes atomic clocks look like hourglasses. Scientists have demonstrated the potential of a nuclear clock that could gain or lose only a fraction of a second over &ndash; get this &ndash; fourteen ''billion'' years, the age of the universe.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
B: A team of researchers from the University of New South Wales, the University of Nevada, and Georgia Tech have thought up this...well, they didn't actually think this up, they actually...merely just demonstrated what it could actually do...of this super atomic clock of sorts that's based on the oscillations of neutrons instead of electrons. So to put this into perspective a bit, I think I'll just briefly go over some of the key clock technologies of the past few centuries that we're all familiar with, although you might not know some of the details. For example, pendulum clocks &ndash; the first appeared in the mid-1600s. Now, these clocks work because their consistent swing depends only on the length of the arm and not on the weight or the weight of the arm itself or the...or whatever weight there might be at the bottom of it or even the arc of its swing really doesn't really matter. They were revolutionary when they appeared because they improved the accuracy of timekeeping from about fifteen minutes a day to fifteen ''seconds'', and that actually was probably the most dramatic improvement in clock technology for the average person that I think there ever was. I think it must have been very dramatic. The other thing that surprised me about pendulum clocks was the fact that they got so good, that they would only drift by about a hundredth of a second a ''day'', which is a lot more accurate than I thought. And actually, it is more accurate than a quartz clock, which was a surprise because this technology came afterwards. Now, they...the quartz clocks are probably the most common of all clocks if you add...I mean, so, everyone's got...got wristwatches.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I think their big appeal, Bob, was not that they were just more accurate; they're just...they're cheap, yeah, they're cheap and portable.<br />
<br />
B: Cheap and portability, right; they were huge.<br />
<br />
E: Mine says "The Avengers" on it.<br />
<br />
B: And as it turns out, you know, they only lose ten to twenty seconds a year. I mean, that's nothing. That's really nothing. Who cares? So you're at the point where it's just, for the average person, that level of accuracy is perfectly fine. And yeah, like you said, Steve, it's...you know, portability is a huge factor. Now, just real quickly, the quartz clocks, of course, depends on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezoelectric_Effect piezoelectric effect]. Essentially, electricity passing through would cause the crystal to vibrate very consistently, which then you could use as a basis for your timekeeping. Then, of course, you've got atomic clocks that are the current gold standard of timekeeping. Now, they're...they keep incredibly accurate time using the orbits of electrons, kind of like a pendulum. Depending on your source, they can lose one second in an amazing twenty to sixty million years, which, of course, is amazingly accurate.<br />
<br />
J: Wow! That's awesome, man.<br />
<br />
B: Isn't that...yeah, isn't that amazing? One second in many millions of years is incredible. But as awesome as that is, it's nothing compared to what the potential of nuclear clocks may be.<br />
<br />
J: Don't even, you're scaring me now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: This proposed method would use a UV laser to orient electrons of a thorium atom in a very specific way, and essentially what this does is it opens a door to tweak the energy state of the nucleus and use the resulting oscillations of a neutron to make a clock that's a hundred times more accurate than the best thing that we have today. Now, this potential revolution in accuracy is because the neutrons are denser and much more tightly packed than electrons. This makes them pretty much immune to electric fields and magnetic fields, which cause atomic clocks to drift by as much as they do over millions of years, and, I mean, they don't drift much, obviously, but they've even now figured out potentially a way to get rid of even that tiny drift. So while researching this, I found a lot of online commenters that...that they really didn't understand what the big deal was, and they thought that this...an accuracy at this level is just total overkill. You know, what's the point? What possible advantage could nuclear clocks have over atomic clocks? But clocks at that level of accuracy...it's definitely not, you know, a superfluous improvement. [http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/ACADEMIC/flambaum.html Professor Victor Flambaum], who's the head of theoretical physics at the UNSW school of physics, said that it would allow scientists to test fundamental physical theories at unprecedented levels of precision and provide an unmatched tool for applied physics research. We could also &ndash; this was interesting &ndash; we could also pair up an atomic and nuclear clock and potentially discover that some laws of physics are not constant in time. Now, that would be an incredible discovery. You know, finding out that some of these laws that we think are constant and unchanging...if we could find even a tiny bit of change over, you know, expanses of time, that truly would be revolutionary. And, of course, we could also greatly improve the accuracy of GPS satellites so that your navigator in your car wouldn't tell you to take a left turn at the next lake. And I'm not sure, I couldn't, I couldn't find any...so when do you think that we're going to see this? When's it going to be real? And my answer is who the hell knows? I don't know how long it's going to take. Although, they did have some surprising confidence in their ability to figure this out. The biggest hurdle apparently is finding the exact laser frequency. Now, these lasers, they're using petahertz frequencies. They're using petahertz frequency lasers to do this, at least that's what they envision. And one scientist described this not as a needle in a haystack, but a needle in a million haystacks, trying to find that precise frequency that can achieve this result. Apparently, it could take some time.<br />
<br />
S: Maybe they can use this to measure how long it takes for neutrinos to go from their source to the detector.<br />
<br />
B: (laughs) Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: (laughs) Right.<br />
<br />
=== NDE and Lucid Dreaming <small>(40:44)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.livescience.com/19106-death-experiences-lucid-dreams.html LiveScience.com: Near-Death Experiences are Lucid Dreams, Experiment Finds]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Designer Electrons <small>()</small> ===<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120314142841.htm Science Daily: Molecular Graphene Heralds New Era of 'Designer Electrons']<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails: Here Comes the Metric System <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Just a quick question. I often wondered why America kept the Imperial system for measurements, miles, inches etc. Do you think it would be better (for science teaching in particular), if you switched to the metric system, and what problems do you think it would create? Thanks for the great show. Liz. Scotland </blockquote><br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy <small>()</small> ==<br />
From the comments to NeuroLogica <br />
<blockquote>"natural selection (or selection in general) explains how two horses can become all the different breeds we have today- including zebras. This is also how the finches of Darwin fame have longer beaks some years and shorter beaks other years… Everyone knows this happens. The question is this– does that explain how a single celled life form could become an elephant? Some question that it does. (I would be one who questions- BTW) This is called micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution– aka the development of species or kinds vs. the development of breeds. To make an analogy– Everyone knows you can make a ladder to the roof of the house. Does that mean you can make a ladder to the sun?"</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
*[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120321172208.htm Item number 1]: 'New measurements indicate that Venice continues to sink into the ocean, contradicting the prior conclusion that the city is stable'<br />
*[http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/health/sharp-rise-cases-new-strain-whooping-cough Item number 2]: 'A new study finds that the whooping cough epidemic currently occurring in Australia is mostly due to a new strain of B. pertussis which is not well covered by the vaccine' <br />
*[http://www.buffalo.edu/news/13271 Item number 3]: 'A new survey finds that parents of children with cancer trust information they find on the internet as much or more than information from their health care provider' <br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.</blockquote><br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Haisch Bernhard Haisch]<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_349&diff=4159SGU Episode 3492012-10-24T01:58:56Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Nuclear Clock (34:53) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y TK proof-read up to, and including, New Hampshire Abortion Bill --><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 349<br />
|episodeDate = 24<sup>th</sup> March 2012<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Baumgartner.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2012-03-24.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=349<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,40991.0.html<br />
|qowText = Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Haisch Bernard Haisch]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the skeptics guide to the universe. Today is Wednesday March 21st 2012 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: (Jewish Accent) What is this? Pod-casting?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: ...and Evan Bernstein<br />
<br />
E: Good evening ladies and gentleman, how's everyone?<br />
<br />
J: Hola Evan.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
S: Good, Fine and dandy.<br />
<br />
E: Now this was some winter huh?<br />
<br />
J: Oh, crazy right?<br />
<br />
S: This is my kind of winter.<br />
<br />
E: We barely had ''any'' snow this year in New England, it was in the 50s for a large part of the winter in southern New England which is unheard of.<br />
<br />
S: I love the vernal equinox because it means the next six months the sun is in the upper half of its course through the sky.<br />
<br />
B: I hope all of you have released your white owls.<br />
<br />
S: Well anyway Rebecca, what else is special about this day?<br />
<br />
== This day in skepticism <small>(0:58)</small> ==<br />
<br />
=== March 24, 1989: The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill ===<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdex_oil_spill Wikipedia:Exxon Valdez Oil Spill]<br />
<br />
R: Well, this day marks the anniversary of a quite horrific event, March 24th 1989 was the day that the Exxon Valdez spilled oil into [http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Prince%20William%20Sound Prince William Sound].<br />
<br />
S: You just can't let it go can you Rebecca?<br />
<br />
R: No, no me and the otters...<br />
<br />
S: (laughs) the otters.<br />
<br />
R: ...are really pissed about it still.<br />
<br />
E: One drunk sea captain, you know, guides the boat into the low into the shoals and he pays for it for the rest of his life.<br />
<br />
R: I think, apparently that's a... apparently that's a bit of a myth, the captain apparently was drunk but was not at the helm. The third mate was, and on the list of things, what went wrong, the biggest ones seems to be that the radar for detecting possible collisions had been broken for nearly a year. Also...<br />
<br />
E: And the captain was too drunk to know it. Apparently.<br />
<br />
S: We'll get to that eventually.<br />
<br />
R: And apparently all of the crew was severely overworked and exhausted and had been for quite some time. So those were identified as being the main causes of why it ended up striking a reef and spilling up to possibly seven hundred fifty thousand barrels of oil. It's not however...<br />
<br />
E: Think of all the cars and furnaces that it would have provided heat and energy for. It's very sad.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, despite how devastating that oil spill was, it's not even in the top ten worst oil spills of all time. It ''was'' though the worst one in the US up until the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster]. But yeah it's kinda crazy to think that there are oils spills happening all the time and some of them are much much worse than the Exxon Valdez. Yeah, there's a happy thought for you. The ship itself was recently auctioned off, actually. Just the tanker, just this week it was sold for scrap so apparently it was renamed the "Oriental Nicety".<br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm?<br />
<br />
B: For real?<br />
<br />
R: I guess as some way to trick people into to thinking it was err...<br />
<br />
E: Oh my gosh, you might as well call it the "Happy Ending".<br />
<br />
S: (laughing) The little nicety?! That's odd. I've a funny Exxon Valdez story, I was in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epcot Epcot Centre] in Disney World shortly after that oil spill and the dinosaur exhibit was, I guess, funded by Exxon and before you get to see the dinosaurs, there's essentially a big commercial for Exxon. At one point they have this aerial shot of an oil tanker going through a harbor and they go: "The beautiful Exxon Valdez..." 'Course everyone starts laughing 'cause this is like right after the disaster they hadn't updated the ride yet.<br />
<br />
S: (laughs)<br />
<br />
E: Time to update the rides...<br />
<br />
B: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27oh! D'OH!]<br />
<br />
R: That's a little embarrassing. Here's my question; I've always heard people call it the Exxon Val-deeze but I don't understand why they pronounce it Val-deeze, when it's obviously Valdez.<br />
<br />
S: I don't know I'm just slavishly following what I hear.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah I don't know, I think it's weird.<br />
<br />
S: But at least we can have our super hero magical bracelets to make it all better right jay?<br />
<br />
B: Nice segue.<br />
<br />
R: That was a good segue Steve.<br />
<br />
S: You know it kinda takes away from it when you say it's a good segue.<br />
<br />
R: I know that's why it's funny, and every single time, Steve, you will never be able to do a segue without us calling attention to it.<br />
<br />
S: (laughs) OK.<br />
<br />
R: This is your curse.<br />
<br />
== News Items <small>(4:39)</small> ==<br />
<br />
=== Superhero Pseudoscience ===<br />
[http://colantotte.com Colantotte.com]<br />
<br />
J: Steve jumped right into it, I wanted to loosen up a little bit before we say bad things about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Studios Marvel], to say some good things about Marvel like, you know I think that for their super hero movies they've done a great job. You know for the most part I've liked all of them, and you know, the Avengers movie is coming out and I'm really psyched to see it, its totally right in my sweet spot. I mean I love super heroes I love like you know science fictiony stuff like that. So it really was disappointing to find out that Marvel, and probably even more involved is the production company that they're using, the marketing company that they've hired for the Avengers film, sadly has, is selling some crazy wacky merchandise. So they are selling a magic bracelet a ''real'' magic bracelet. A-la [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Balance Powerband] type BS.<br />
<br />
E: As opposed to those fake magic bracelets? <br />
<br />
S: They're not a toy, they're making actual claims for it.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah they are, here I'll get into some of the details here, the limited edition Magtitan Neo Legend has a carbon fibre surface finished with a coat of transparent resin that yields an attractive stylish design.<br />
<br />
S: Oh I thought you were going to say transparent aluminum. That would have been impressive.<br />
<br />
J: A 100 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millitesla mT] 1000 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss_unit Gauss] ferrite permanent magnets arranged in Colantotte's unique alternating north-south polarity orientation which is<br />
<br />
B: Oooh<br />
<br />
E: (laughs) *Sarcastic* unique!<br />
<br />
J: They've trademarked A-N-S-P-O. ANSPO trademark.<br />
<br />
R: I'm holding out for the east-west polarity.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah I'm there too.<br />
<br />
S: They're saying because they have alternating strips of magnets with the north-south polarity alternating, and that's supposed to be unique to this, that's exactly how you make a refrigerator magnet.<br />
<br />
E: Now wait a minute, what are you accusing them of?<br />
<br />
S: That's how the refrigerator magnets have a very you know, narrow, of depth but relatively strong for the power of the magnets used, attraction right? That's why like when you pull a refrigerator magnet off of the refrigerator it's really strong over a very short distance but they're very quickly gives way<br />
<br />
J: Right, drops off.<br />
<br />
S: That's because they have alternating strips of north and south, you know of poles in the magnet.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah but Steve is a refrigerator magnet made of adimantium, I don't think so?<br />
<br />
J: I don't think so, Steve come on.<br />
<br />
S: A really good refrigerator magnet.<br />
<br />
J: Steve you can say what you will, and put it down, but each 'limited edition Magtite Neo Legend comes in a special limited edition package commemorating Marvel's The Avengers movie'. So of course it's works, it works Steve you gotta buy this thing.<br />
<br />
S: Because the Avengers are real.<br />
<br />
J: Now I saw something I'm perusing the ah, website and I have to admit the design of it is pretty cool, but you know go around the website and I was nosing around the SGU forums and they were chit chatting about it and they came up with a couple of interesting things. Somebody on our forums said that this is basically proven to work in Japan, like they have real medical benefit in Japan. I couldn’t find any proof of that so if anybody does I'd be interested to read it for myself but what they do have on the website is of course they have first hand comments by professional athletes.<br />
<br />
S: Oh here we go.<br />
<br />
J: "The Magtite Neo Legend is Colantotte's finest gear, the combination of pure titanium and carbon fibre is great, plus it's been created specifically to commemorate Marvel's Avengers movie"<ref name=rory>Rory McIlroy endorses Magtitan Neo Legend on [http://colantotte.com/products/ colantotte.com]</ref>. Two things! Two comments, ready? One: That guy did not write that, he did not say that.<br />
<br />
E: Oh no!<br />
<br />
J: If that guy walks around talking like that, he needs help<br />
<br />
S: Don't you love it when anecdotes like that are written in ad-copy? <br />
<br />
J: Right.<br />
<br />
S: It's so ''obviously'' written by some sales guy, and it's supposed to be a spontaneous endorsement or anecdote from somebody. You know what I mean, it's so transparent.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, pretend I'm [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_McIlroy Rory McIlroy] and ask me about that bracelet I'm wearing?<br />
<br />
S: Hey can you tell me about that bracelet you're wearing?<br />
<br />
J: "The Magtight Neo Legend is Colantotte's finest gear, the combination of pure titanium and carbon fibre is great". Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
R: That's really natural.<br />
<br />
E: I think Rory has a Scottish accent actually...<br />
<br />
J: Don't even...<br />
<br />
E: ...if memory serves.<br />
<br />
J: (attempting Scottish accent) "The Magtight Neo Legend is Colantotte's finest gear".<br />
<br />
R: What? What was that?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: I'll take (unintelligible) for four hundred.<br />
<br />
B: I think you just invented a new accent that's never been heard of before.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah it think it was just shouting. It was like a Klingon variant.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: So anyway the second thing from that guy's endorsement that makes me shudder is he says, "I can't wait to go see this movie with my mates to watch Colantotte's Magtite Neo Legend in action"<ref name=rory/>. Does this mean it's in the movie? Is it in the movie, Marvel?<br />
<br />
E: Clearly.<br />
<br />
J: Seriously<br />
<br />
B: Oh god.<br />
<br />
S: I guess so.<br />
<br />
E: Someone had to pay for this movie.<br />
<br />
S: You gotta give it to 'em, I mean it's pretty brilliant, having a magic bracelet be on a super hero I mean, right?<br />
<br />
R: Yeaaah?<br />
<br />
E: OK, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: The marketing is good, the marketing idea is good, especially because most people will probably buy into it, even if it's just because it looks good but you know, it's very...<br />
<br />
R: It's probably still better than those Green Lantern rings.<br />
<br />
S: (laughs)<br />
<br />
B: Ha!<br />
<br />
E: I've got two of those.<br />
<br />
J: It's a sad state of affairs when a company like Marvel a company which produces fantasy, you know, they're actually...<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: They're still doing it.<br />
<br />
J: ...morphing into reality here, you know let's cash in on the fact that we write about magic and sell magic.<br />
<br />
E: Yep.<br />
<br />
J: So, I'm a little twigged at Marvel right now.<br />
<br />
S: What has this world come to.<br />
<br />
E: Payin' the bills, it's payin' the bills.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, on the website it shows a picture of the bracelet and underneath it says: "The superhero's secret"<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Oh wow really that's the secret huh? Two little magnets on their wrist, that's what it does it.<br />
<br />
R: I thought it was leaking radiation, we should try that.<br />
<br />
E: Bob, that's a secret<br />
<br />
S: So you're saying it doesn't work, Jay?<br />
<br />
E: Can we agree that DC maybe is taken a notch up due to this? And maybe...<br />
<br />
J: Yeah absolutely,<br />
<br />
E: ...and maybe Marvel have suffered a hit.<br />
<br />
J: It comes out April first, I couldn't find any pricing, I bet you it's going to be in the 60 to 100 dollar range. (note, $199 as of 29/5/2012<ref>Magtitan Neo Legend bracelet: Colantotte links to [http://www.trionzdirect.com/?cmd=cart&type=29&sub=1 trionzdirect.com] for US purchases</ref> <br />
<br />
S: April first really?<br />
<br />
E: April first? Hmmm.<br />
<br />
J: Well what do you think do you think the whole thing is a hoax?<br />
<br />
E: Something hoaxy this way comes, no.<br />
<br />
J: I don't think so and I'll tell you why, the company that produces the bracelet, I researched them, they make a lot of other BS stuff, the negative ion crap and all that stuff.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Of course.<br />
<br />
=== High Altitude Skydiving <small>(10:54)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17399985 BBC: Skydiver Felix Baumgartner on track for super jump]<br />
<br />
S: All right well let's move on, we have a bit of a follow-up to a previous discussion, we had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Cain Fraser Cain] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Gay Pamela Gay] on the show a few weeks ago, we talked about the up-coming attempted world-record-breaking high skydive, high altitude sky dive from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Baumgartner Felix Baumgartner]. And there's a discussion and bit of a news update, the news update is that he completed a test jump recently. He jumped from 71,500 ft or 22 Km above New Mexico, landing safely 8 minutes later. Although this is only a test jump, that puts him in the top three! In terms of the highest altitude skydives ever. This is a preparation for his planned jump later this year in which he will break the world record. He's planning to jump from 120,000 feet, so the current record stands at 102,800 ft in 1960 by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Kittinger Joe Kittinger] who was a US Air Force colonel at the time, when we were talking about Baumgartner's planned jump on the last episode we mentioned the fact that it's inherently dangerous to jump from such a high altitude because of the velocities involved and that Kittinger during his jump in 1960 actually spun out of control, blacked out, and didn't regain consciousness until after his chute had automatically deployed. So when I was researching this for this piece, I found out that that's sorta true but one thing we didn't mention is that was, that occurred on the first of Kittinger's three jumps this was the excelsior mission, is what it was called, there was excelsior one two and three.<br />
<br />
J: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excelsior#Motto_and_catchphrase Excelsior!]<br />
<br />
S: Yeah the third one was the one where he you know, is the record still stands now at 102,800 feet, it was the first one, excelsior one where he spun out of control, the reason he spun out of control didn't have anything to do with the conditions of the jump, the aerodynamics or the thin atmosphere, or the velocity, it had to do with the fact that his pilot chute deployed too early. He, in releasing you know from the gondola he had to yank on you know the cord a few times before it came loose but he actually started the timer on the first yank so the timer was going before he jumped off the gondola and then his pilot chute deployed too early so he wasn't going fast enough. Normally it'll only deploy after you get up sufficient speed that the aerodynamics are such that it will be you know pulled back away from you, but he was going too slow when it deployed and then therefore it flopped around more than it should have and it actually wrapped around his neck and this started him spinning. He basically got tangled up in the pilot chute, he started spinning out of control, they estimate I think 80 RPMs, and he blacked out. Then he fell all the way to 10,000 feet when the barometric release triggered his reserve parachute and this didn't, this got tangled too, but they had installed a backup contingency where the original chute would break away and that worked allowing the reserve chute to inflate at about 6000 feet. And he survived obviously and landed safely. So the spinning out itself was more of an equipment thing and didn't have anything to do with just the difficulty of dropping from such a high altitude. But this whole discussion started an email discussion with the listener who essentially said that this is his point, he said, if you jump at a very high altitude, the airody... the experience for the skydiver is the same because you're going to reach terminal velocity and terminal velocity is, by definition is the wind resistance is going to equal the acceleration due to gravity and therefore it doesn't really matter if it's a thin atmosphere and a high velocity or a thicker atmosphere at a lower velocity. The net resistance against the sky diver is the same so it feels the same to the sky diver. So I ''totally'' get that, and I see no problems with that line of logic. But here was my counter point. The difference here is that when you jump from very high where the atmosphere is thin, terminal velocity is a lot faster you're going to be going a lot faster and then you have to lose all of that extra velocity so when you get down into the thicker atmosphere you're not just approaching terminal velocity you're already exceeding the terminal velocity of the lower-down denser atmosphere and therefore the wind resistance has to actually decelerate you, it has to slow you down.<br />
<br />
E: Drag, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah so therefore the drag is greater than if you jumped at the lower altitude and were just getting up to terminal velocity. But he didn't agree with that point he thought, yeah but it depends on how, what the curve of the change in atmospheric density is but, I just don't buy it. For example it's estimated that during Kittinger's record-breaking jump he reached a maximum speed of 625 miles per hour. Terminal velocity at lower down, the normal altitudes that people sky dive from is somewhere between 117 and 125 miles per hour depending on, you know, your position and your size and whatnot, and in like a head-down bullet position it's about 210 miles per hour. So you figure Kittinger had to loose about 500 miles per hour of velocity when he descended into the lower atmosphere that's gotta be a lot of extra force from wind resistance that you wouldn't have on you if you were jumping from, you know say, 10,000 feet right? I tried to find, that's just my reasoning, I don't know what the final answer is I kinda propose it as an interesting physics question but no one has given me like a real definitive answer, what do you guys think about all that?<br />
<br />
J: Steve I agree with you I think you know, correct me where I'm wrong here, from what you're saying, if you're in a thinner atmosphere, terminal velocity is going to be faster.<br />
<br />
S: right, that we all agree on yep.<br />
<br />
J: then the idea is that you will eventually stop accelerating and maintain a speed when you hit enough air molecules basically get piled up underneath you that pretty much matches what it would be like say jumping at 10,000 feet, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah so it's thinner air but it's rushing past you faster and the net wind resistance is the same, that's right.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah ok,<br />
<br />
S: but the difference I'm saying is, yeah but then you descend into denser atmosphere where you have to, you're not just maintaining a terminal velocity you're actually significantly slowing down because the terminal velocity is getting lower as you descend into the thicker atmosphere, the other point I raised which no one's given me a good answer to is, all right so I understand the wind resistance will be the same but you still are going faster your velocity is greater so if you ''do'' spin out at a higher velocity, would there be the potential for the RPMs to be greater? Will you spin out faster? And that's the real risk, that you'll spin out so fast that you'll black out, right?<br />
<br />
J: Right yeah so, in other words, so if you do a spin out, at say, 70 or 80 thousand feet, you might actually be going so fast that, you know, your blood pressure goes totally crazy, whereas maybe...<br />
<br />
S: If you're going 500 miles an hour, and you spin out, is that more dangerous than when you're going at 120 miles an hour, that's the question. It's interesting, I posed it on my blog, but nobody really gave me a good answer. You know, Jay and I have been chatting about this and we asked a physics friend of ours who really didn't add anything to what we just said. So I dunno, it's an interesting thought experiment and we'll put it out there to our listeners to further the conversation. I still, it still seems to me that it would be more difficult and more risky to do the high sky dive because, it's the deceleration and the absolute velocity, how that translates into spin, those are the two points that I'd like to hear discussed. But Baumgartner is going to be making his next jump later this year where he's going to try and break the record and his one observation, I mean all the equipment tested out and worked fine but he said the cold was like really hard to handle. So before he goes...<br />
<br />
B: His hands were actually sort of numb he could't use them.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah so before he goes up higher, so his test dive was from 71,500 feet, he's going to 120,000 feet, that's going to be a lot thinner, a lot colder, so yeah I think they're going to have to tweak the spacesuit there that he has, if he's going to be able to tolerate the cold at that height.<br />
<br />
B: So put those heat packets in the gloves that's all.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: or those mittens that you put in the microwave.<br />
<br />
S: There are those people who like go into like the minus 120 degree refrigerators for like ten seconds, you guys hear about that?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Why would you do that?<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: 'cause why do you think? Because it's supposed to have some magical health benefit.<br />
<br />
R: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: I think I read it's supposed to be invigorating.<br />
<br />
S: Invigorating!<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: Invigorating? OK.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah you know what else is? Cold shower.<br />
<br />
S: They used to throw cold, wet blankets on psychotic patients to calm them down. <br />
<br />
J: Yeah. A real calming effect. It's a good...<br />
<br />
S: It would shock them, you know, they would be having you know whatever, they would be out of control, and that would shock them into just shutting down. You know that just that real sudden extreme cold.<br />
<br />
J: Steve aren't you really just supposed to slap someone silly when they freak out like that?<br />
<br />
E: Oh you know, an electrode that real electricity to...<br />
<br />
S: That's about as scientifically valid.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah according to like the fifties movies you know, all you got to do when someone's having a hissy fit you just smack 'em one and go you know...<br />
<br />
R: Get yourself together man!<br />
<br />
J: Get a hold of yourself woman you know something like that right?<br />
<br />
E: Stop crying or I'll give you something to cry about<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
=== Quickie with Bob: Designer Electrons <small>(21:33)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120314142841.htm ScienceDaily: Molecular Graphene Heralds New Era of 'Designer Electrons']<br />
<br />
E: You know what I just read? Rebecca wants a quickie with Bob<br />
<br />
S: (knowingly) Oooh.<br />
<br />
R: That's true, that's true I do.<br />
<br />
B: Oh sure Rebecca but will you hold me afterwards..<br />
<br />
R: (thinking) Mehh..<br />
<br />
B: Don't answer that question.<br />
<br />
R: I'm not into that cuddly shit.<br />
<br />
B: Ok this week's quickie with Bob...<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: For this week's quickie with Bob I've got a new era of designer electrons. Researchers at Stanford and the S.L.A.C national accelerator lab have learned how to control the behavior of electrons in such a way that we may see whole new classes of materials which in turn could comprise new and amazing electrical devices. Hari Manoharan who is associate professor of physics at Stanford who lead the research said: "The behavior of electrons in materials is at the heart of essentially all of today's technologies. We are now able to tune the fundamental properties of electrons so they behave in ways rarely seen in ordinary materials." So what they did was to use an STM. A [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope scanning tunneling microscope] to precisely position carbon monoxide molecules on a very, very smooth copper surface. So they did it in such a way so that electrons flowing over the surface are repelled by these molecules and they're forced into these patterns of flows that are identical to what their behaviors would be if there were a magnetic or electrical field present. Even though there were no such fields present at the time. So one example that they pulled off was that they were able to produce a flow of electrons that acted as if they were under the influence of a magnetic field of 60 Tesla. This is incredible because this is 30 percent more power than any field ever sustained by science. So these electrons were behaving in ways that there's probably no other way to make them behave 'cause science isn't even up to the take of creating a field and sustaining it that long. So who knows what kind of materials and devices this may lead to? Perhaps video displays and mobile phones and a host of other devices that we would hardly believe today. Do a Google search for designer electrons if you wanna read more about this.<br />
<br />
S: Thanks Bob.<br />
<br />
R: That's very satisfying.<br />
<br />
J: Thank-you Bob.<br />
<br />
===New Hampshire Abortion Bill <small>(23:31)</small> ===<br />
<!-- link broken http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2012/03/20/abortion_bill_goes_back_to_committee_of_nh_house/ --><br />
<br />
[http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view/2012/HB1659/2012-01-03 Women's Right to Know Act - January 3 2012]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca,<br />
<br />
R: Yo.<br />
<br />
S: Tell us about the lovely science based laws that are, bills that are being proposed up in our neighboring state New Hampshire, or nearby state I should say.<br />
<br />
R: Well, it's very, very exciting time to be a lady, in that it states, our listeners may be aware that right now in state legislatures around the US there's been this on going war on behalf of the religious right attempting to limit women's access to contraception, sexual health education and abortion in any way possible. And they can't just come out and make all that illegal, so much like the creationist, they have employed a wedge strategy of making life as difficult as possible for women who want control of their own reproductive health. Some of the bills that have been passing in the US have included those mandating that women be unnecessarily penetrated with an ultrasound wand prior to getting an abortion, some are allowing pharmacists and doctors to refuse to provide contraception based on religious convictions. And there are even some politicians that are trying to mandate that women need a signed permission slip from a man before getting an abortion. So that's just to give you like a slight context for those of you who maybe aren't in the US or aren't paying attention. Last week the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_House_of_Representatives New Hampshire House of Representatives] passed a bill that would require physicians to give certain materials to any woman seeking an abortion. Those materials are provided under the auspices of informed consent. You know we need to make sure women have as much information as possible before getting an abortion. The problem is that those materials include statements such as: "It is scientifically undisputed that full term pregnancy reduces a woman's lifetime risk of breast cancer. It is also undisputed that the earlier a woman has a first full-term pregnancy the lower her risk of breast cancer becomes because following a full term pregnancy the breast tissue exposed to estrogen through the menstrual cycle is more mature and cancer resistant. In fact for each year that a woman's first full-term pregnancy is delayed her risk of breast cancer rises three point five percent. The theory that there is a direct link between abortion and breast cancer builds upon this undisputed foundation."<br />
<br />
E: Where do they pull that information from?<br />
<br />
R: Their asses, actually.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: (Sarcastically) Oh they're proctologists, I see.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Yeah ah, this particular bit of pseudoscience, the idea that abortion increases a woman's chance of breast cancer has been bandied about particularly in anti-choice circles for a number of years now. And In-fact up until into the mid 1990s there have only been a few small but heavily flawed studies that had been done on this particular topic, and a few of those studies did show that there might be a connection between breast cancer and abortions and miscarriages. However, in the past several decades we've seen several large-scale studies conducted that show absolutely no connection at all. The organizations like the [http://www.nih.gov/ National Institutes of Health], [http://www.cancer.org/ American Cancer Society], the [http://www.acog.org/ American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists], and even the [http://ww5.komen.org/ Susan G. Komen Foundation],which is run by anti-choice fundamentalists, all stand by the fact that there's absolutely no link between abortion and breast cancer.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah I did my own literature research, just to see what it was, not reading political sites, just look at the literature and see what it shows, if you go back into the 1980s it looks like there was some, you know debate about it actually, you could find articles that come to either conclusion. But then when you look at reviews that are written in the last few years, they all agree that there is absolutely no link, between abortions and the risk of breast cancer.<br />
<br />
R: Right those papers that were done in the 80's and early 90's were very small, very small [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination sample sizes], and have a lot of flaws in them.<br />
<br />
E: So a coordinated disinformation campaign is underway.<br />
<br />
S: Exactly<br />
<br />
R: Well yeah now this is one of those things, another one I may have mentioned before on the show, definitely on [http://skepchick.org/ skepchick] though is, the idea that, one is the idea that abortion leads to depression, which is another thing that is absolutely not supported by the scientific evidence. And the other is that, that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus fetus], a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. This is a quote-unquote ''fact'' that is becoming commonplace in political discussions in the US these days and it's talked about as thought it's scientific fact, when in-fact it is not. The question of when a fetus can feel pain is actually still up for debate. And by no means is 20 weeks an actual medical diagnosis. you know, this is something that they've gone with that specific number because these politicians have an agenda, and that agenda is to outlaw abortion, and so they're using the idea of fetuses feeling pain at 20 weeks to convince courts to outlaw abortion at 20 weeks, despite the fact that it's unconstitutional.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah and there's good reason to think that it's actually not possible for a fetus to perceive pain before 24 weeks of gestation just in terms of the development of the nervous system.<br />
<br />
R: Right.<br />
<br />
S: So that's probably, that's a better guess at this point. Getting back.. can I comment on the mental health aspect of it?<br />
<br />
R: Yep.<br />
<br />
S: 'Cause you guys, just again looking at the literature just to see what it says. There's a lot of complexities actually to the mental health issue, because as you might imagine, you could look at studies in a lot of different ways. [http://www.statsdirect.com/help/basics/prospective.htm Retrospectively vs prospectively], you know, you can pick out different sub-populations you know for example a correlation obviously, just saying that women who are getting abortions are more depressed for example; well, probably something to do with their life situation that lead them to the abortion that may have something to do with it, that's not the same thing as saying that abortion ''causes'' depression. And when you control for those factors, there really isn't any evidence that abortions are causally linked to any mental health problem at all. But again they're cherry picking and exploiting the complexities in that particular part of the research in order to make their case. And If you have your desired conclusion in mind, you get, you know there's enough studies out there, you can cherry pick, you could support almost any position you want. But the systematic reviews out there done by researchers who are ''trying'' to get to the bottom of it and know how to control for different variables, are all coming to the same conclusion that there is just no causal relationship between abortion and mental illness.<br />
<br />
R: Right, and to get back to this particular bill in New Hampshire, the idea that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. So there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that's true. There ''is'' evidence to suggest that you, women who have children before the age of 30, do, they may have a decreased risk of breast cancer.<br />
<br />
S: So there is a difference between the outcomes of prospective and retrospective studies. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrospective_cohort_study Retrospective] basically means you take women who 'have' breast cancer and you ask them if they have had an abortion, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospective_cohort_study prospective] means you follow women who have had an abortion and then you see what their risk of, is of developing breast cancer compared to other women you know in the same cohort or who didn't have an abortion. The retrospective studies did show a higher correlation with having had an abortion but the prospective studies ''didn't'', and the likely interpretation there is that women who had breast cancer may have been more willing to disclose their prior history of abortion. We're relying upon women to disclose that information, when you follow them going forward, prospectively, there's no correlation. So prospective data is always better, it's always more reliable, because there isn't this recall bias, or maybe this willing to disclose bias that could alter the data. So the current consensus is that there's no correlation.<br />
<br />
R: Right, and despite this fact this bill ''did'' pass through the house, and the way that the original bill passed was not just to declare that the doctors needed to give these particular pseudoscientific materials to women seeking abortions, but it also wrote down exactly how those doctors should be punished if they failed to follow through with that. And in the original bill they recommended class A felonies for any doctor who didn't abide by the law and that came with up to 15 years in prison for a doctor.<br />
<br />
E: Ouch.<br />
<br />
S: For telling the truth.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, yeah, basically for telling the truth, and luckily I guess that original bill that passed through the house was then reconsidered and went back through the house. The criminal Justice and public safety committee just barely voted in favor of recommending the removal of the class A felony part. Even if that happens though, the way this bill is written, doctors will still be open to malpractice law suits or disciplinary action by the New Hampshire state board of medicine if they do in fact tell women the truth about abortion and breast cancer.<br />
<br />
S: Which means they can lose their license basically.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, so, you know, for those of you in New Hampshire you may want to contact your state representatives immediately. For those of you in the United States but not in New Hampshire you can't rest so easy because there are similar pseudoscientific bills exactly like this in several other states, and this is basically the religious right's standard operating procedure is to introduce the same or very similar bills simultaneously in many different states at once. So Kansas and Oklahoma, you have similar measures that have been proposed. So no matter where you are if you are in the US it might be a good idea to contact your local representatives and just let them know that you support science and reason.<br />
<br />
S: You know the thing I hate you know I feel obligated to say; it's not like, we're not taking a political position on this show regarding the abortion debate, I mean this is, you know people have the right to come to different moral and ethical decisions, you know, obviously Rebecca you have a certain position on that.<br />
<br />
R: I do have a certain position.<br />
<br />
S: But the point is you can't lie about the science...<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Yes right.<br />
<br />
S: ... in order to make your political position, and not only lying about the science by trying to pass a law ''mandating'' that physicians make the same lie and and trying to punish them for ''not'' lying; That is such an abuse of not only professionalism but of science and reason, and that stands aside from the political debate about abortion.<br />
<br />
R: Exactly yeah.<br />
<br />
S: It's a completely separate issue yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
=== Nuclear Clock <small>(34:53)</small> ===<br />
[http://phys.org/news/2012-03-blueprint-nuclear-clock-accurate-billions.html Phys.org: Researchers develop blueprint for nuclear clock accurate over billions of years]<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, let's move on. Bob, you got another item. Your full item to talk about has to do with nuclear clocks or atomic clocks.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, this one was...this one was pretty cool. Get ready for timekeeping that makes atomic clocks look like hourglasses. Scientists have demonstrated the potential of a nuclear clock that could gain or lose only a fraction of a second over &ndash; get this &ndash; fourteen ''billion'' years, the age of the universe.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
B: A team of researchers from the University of New South Wales, the University of Nevada, and Georgia Tech have thought up this...well, they didn't actually think this up, they actually...merely just demonstrated what it could actually do...of this super atomic clock of sorts that's based on the oscillations of neutrons instead of electrons. So to put this into perspective a bit, I think I'll just briefly go over some of the key clock technologies of the past few centuries that we're all familiar with, although you might not know some of the details. For example, pendulum clocks &ndash; the first appeared in the mid-1600s. Now, these clocks work because their consistent swing depends only on the length of the arm and not on the weight or the weight of the arm itself or the...or whatever weight there might be at the bottom of it or even the arc of its swing really doesn't really matter. They were revolutionary when they appeared because they improved the accuracy of timekeeping from about fifteen minutes a day to fifteen ''seconds'', and that actually was probably the most dramatic improvement in clock technology for the average person that I think there ever was. I think it must have been very dramatic. The other thing that surprised me about pendulum clocks was the fact that they got so good, that they would only drift by about a hundredth of a second a ''day'', which is a lot more accurate than I thought. And actually, it is more accurate than a quartz clock, which was a surprise because this technology came afterwards. Now, they...the quartz clocks are probably the most common of all clocks if you add...I mean, so, everyone's got...got wristwatches.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I think their big appeal, Bob, was not that they were just more accurate; they're just...they're cheap, yeah, they're cheap and portable.<br />
<br />
B: Cheap and portability, right; they were huge.<br />
<br />
E: Mine says "The Avengers" on it.<br />
<br />
B: And as it turns out, you know, they only lose ten to twenty seconds a year. I mean, that's nothing. That's really nothing. Who cares? So you're at the point where it's just, for the average person, that level of accuracy is perfectly fine. And yeah, like you said, Steve, it's...you know, portability is a huge factor. Now, just real quickly, the quartz clocks, of course, depends on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezoelectric_Effect piezoelectric effect]. Essentially electricity passing through would cause the crystal to vibrate very consistently, which then you could use as a basis for your timekeeping. Then, of course, you've got atomic clocks that are the current gold standard of timekeeping. Now, they're...they keep incredibly accurate time using the orbits of electrons, kind of like a pendulum. Depending on your source, they can lose one second in an amazing twenty to sixty million years, which, of course, is amazingly accurate.<br />
<br />
J: Wow! That's awesome, man.<br />
<br />
B: Isn't that...yeah, isn't that amazing? One second in many millions of years is incredible. But as awesome as that is, it's nothing compared to what the potential of nuclear clocks may be.<br />
<br />
J: Don't even, you're scaring me now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: This proposed method would use a UV laser to orient electrons of a thorium atom in a very specific way, and essentially what this does is it opens a door to tweak the energy state of the nucleus and use the resulting oscillations of a neutron to make a clock that's a hundred times more accurate than the best thing that we have today. Now, this potential revolution in accuracy is because the neutrons are denser and much more tightly packed than electrons. This makes them pretty much immune to electric fields and magnetic fields, which cause atomic clocks to drift by as much as they do over millions of years, and, I mean, they don't drift much, obviously, but they've even now figured out potentially a way to get rid of even that tiny drift. So while researching this, I found a lot of online commenters that...that they really didn't understand what the big deal was, and they thought that this...an accuracy at this level is just total overkill. You know, what's the point? What possible advantage could nuclear clocks have over atomic clocks? But clocks at that level of accuracy...it's definitely not, you know, a superfluous improvement. [http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/ACADEMIC/flambaum.html Professor Victor Flambaum], who's the head of theoretical physics at the UNSW school of physics, said that it would allow scientists to test fundamental physical theories at unprecedented levels of precision and provide an unmatched tool for applied physics research. We could also &ndash; this was interesting &ndash; we could also pair up an atomic and nuclear clock and potentially discover that some laws of physics are not constant in time. Now, that would be an incredible discovery. You know, finding out that some of these laws that we think are constant and unchanging...if we could find even a tiny bit of change over, you know, expanses of time, that truly would be revolutionary. And, of course, we could also greatly improve the accuracy of GPS satellites so that your navigator in your car wouldn't tell you to take a left turn at the next lake. And I'm not sure, I couldn't, I couldn't find any...so when do you think that we're going to see this? When's it going to be real? And my answer is who the hell knows? I don't know how long it's going to take. Although, they did have some surprising confidence in their ability to figure this out. The biggest hurdle apparently is finding the exact laser frequency. Now, these lasers, they're using petahertz frequencies. They're using petahertz frequency lasers to do this, at least that's what they envision. And one scientist described this not as a needle in a haystack, but a needle in a million haystacks, trying to find that precise frequency that can achieve this result. Apparently, it could take some time.<br />
<br />
S: Maybe they can use this to measure how long it takes for neutrinos to go from their source to the detector.<br />
<br />
B: (laughs) Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: (laughs) Right.<br />
<br />
=== NDE and Lucid Dreaming <small>(40:44)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.livescience.com/19106-death-experiences-lucid-dreams.html LiveScience.com: Near-Death Experiences are Lucid Dreams, Experiment Finds]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Designer Electrons <small>()</small> ===<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120314142841.htm Science Daily: Molecular Graphene Heralds New Era of 'Designer Electrons']<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails: Here Comes the Metric System <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Just a quick question. I often wondered why America kept the Imperial system for measurements, miles, inches etc. Do you think it would be better (for science teaching in particular), if you switched to the metric system, and what problems do you think it would create? Thanks for the great show. Liz. Scotland </blockquote><br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy <small>()</small> ==<br />
From the comments to NeuroLogica <br />
<blockquote>"natural selection (or selection in general) explains how two horses can become all the different breeds we have today- including zebras. This is also how the finches of Darwin fame have longer beaks some years and shorter beaks other years… Everyone knows this happens. The question is this– does that explain how a single celled life form could become an elephant? Some question that it does. (I would be one who questions- BTW) This is called micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution– aka the development of species or kinds vs. the development of breeds. To make an analogy– Everyone knows you can make a ladder to the roof of the house. Does that mean you can make a ladder to the sun?"</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
*[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120321172208.htm Item number 1]: 'New measurements indicate that Venice continues to sink into the ocean, contradicting the prior conclusion that the city is stable'<br />
*[http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/health/sharp-rise-cases-new-strain-whooping-cough Item number 2]: 'A new study finds that the whooping cough epidemic currently occurring in Australia is mostly due to a new strain of B. pertussis which is not well covered by the vaccine' <br />
*[http://www.buffalo.edu/news/13271 Item number 3]: 'A new survey finds that parents of children with cancer trust information they find on the internet as much or more than information from their health care provider' <br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.</blockquote><br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Haisch Bernhard Haisch]<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_349&diff=4156SGU Episode 3492012-10-24T00:26:42Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Nuclear Clock (34:53) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y TK proof-read up to, and including, New Hampshire Abortion Bill --><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 349<br />
|episodeDate = 24<sup>th</sup> March 2012<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Baumgartner.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2012-03-24.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=349<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,40991.0.html<br />
|qowText = Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Haisch Bernard Haisch]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the skeptics guide to the universe. Today is Wednesday March 21st 2012 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: (Jewish Accent) What is this? Pod-casting?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: ...and Evan Bernstein<br />
<br />
E: Good evening ladies and gentleman, how's everyone?<br />
<br />
J: Hola Evan.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
S: Good, Fine and dandy.<br />
<br />
E: Now this was some winter huh?<br />
<br />
J: Oh, crazy right?<br />
<br />
S: This is my kind of winter.<br />
<br />
E: We barely had ''any'' snow this year in New England, it was in the 50s for a large part of the winter in southern New England which is unheard of.<br />
<br />
S: I love the vernal equinox because it means the next six months the sun is in the upper half of its course through the sky.<br />
<br />
B: I hope all of you have released your white owls.<br />
<br />
S: Well anyway Rebecca, what else is special about this day?<br />
<br />
== This day in skepticism <small>(0:58)</small> ==<br />
<br />
=== March 24, 1989: The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill ===<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdex_oil_spill Wikipedia:Exxon Valdez Oil Spill]<br />
<br />
R: Well, this day marks the anniversary of a quite horrific event, March 24th 1989 was the day that the Exxon Valdez spilled oil into [http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Prince%20William%20Sound Prince William Sound].<br />
<br />
S: You just can't let it go can you Rebecca?<br />
<br />
R: No, no me and the otters...<br />
<br />
S: (laughs) the otters.<br />
<br />
R: ...are really pissed about it still.<br />
<br />
E: One drunk sea captain, you know, guides the boat into the low into the shoals and he pays for it for the rest of his life.<br />
<br />
R: I think, apparently that's a... apparently that's a bit of a myth, the captain apparently was drunk but was not at the helm. The third mate was, and on the list of things, what went wrong, the biggest ones seems to be that the radar for detecting possible collisions had been broken for nearly a year. Also...<br />
<br />
E: And the captain was too drunk to know it. Apparently.<br />
<br />
S: We'll get to that eventually.<br />
<br />
R: And apparently all of the crew was severely overworked and exhausted and had been for quite some time. So those were identified as being the main causes of why it ended up striking a reef and spilling up to possibly seven hundred fifty thousand barrels of oil. It's not however...<br />
<br />
E: Think of all the cars and furnaces that it would have provided heat and energy for. It's very sad.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, despite how devastating that oil spill was, it's not even in the top ten worst oil spills of all time. It ''was'' though the worst one in the US up until the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster]. But yeah it's kinda crazy to think that there are oils spills happening all the time and some of them are much much worse than the Exxon Valdez. Yeah, there's a happy thought for you. The ship itself was recently auctioned off, actually. Just the tanker, just this week it was sold for scrap so apparently it was renamed the "Oriental Nicety".<br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm?<br />
<br />
B: For real?<br />
<br />
R: I guess as some way to trick people into to thinking it was err...<br />
<br />
E: Oh my gosh, you might as well call it the "Happy Ending".<br />
<br />
S: (laughing) The little nicety?! That's odd. I've a funny Exxon Valdez story, I was in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epcot Epcot Centre] in Disney World shortly after that oil spill and the dinosaur exhibit was, I guess, funded by Exxon and before you get to see the dinosaurs, there's essentially a big commercial for Exxon. At one point they have this aerial shot of an oil tanker going through a harbor and they go: "The beautiful Exxon Valdez..." 'Course everyone starts laughing 'cause this is like right after the disaster they hadn't updated the ride yet.<br />
<br />
S: (laughs)<br />
<br />
E: Time to update the rides...<br />
<br />
B: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27oh! D'OH!]<br />
<br />
R: That's a little embarrassing. Here's my question; I've always heard people call it the Exxon Val-deeze but I don't understand why they pronounce it Val-deeze, when it's obviously Valdez.<br />
<br />
S: I don't know I'm just slavishly following what I hear.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah I don't know, I think it's weird.<br />
<br />
S: But at least we can have our super hero magical bracelets to make it all better right jay?<br />
<br />
B: Nice segue.<br />
<br />
R: That was a good segue Steve.<br />
<br />
S: You know it kinda takes away from it when you say it's a good segue.<br />
<br />
R: I know that's why it's funny, and every single time, Steve, you will never be able to do a segue without us calling attention to it.<br />
<br />
S: (laughs) OK.<br />
<br />
R: This is your curse.<br />
<br />
== News Items <small>(4:39)</small> ==<br />
<br />
=== Superhero Pseudoscience ===<br />
[http://colantotte.com Colantotte.com]<br />
<br />
J: Steve jumped right into it, I wanted to loosen up a little bit before we say bad things about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Studios Marvel], to say some good things about Marvel like, you know I think that for their super hero movies they've done a great job. You know for the most part I've liked all of them, and you know, the Avengers movie is coming out and I'm really psyched to see it, its totally right in my sweet spot. I mean I love super heroes I love like you know science fictiony stuff like that. So it really was disappointing to find out that Marvel, and probably even more involved is the production company that they're using, the marketing company that they've hired for the Avengers film, sadly has, is selling some crazy wacky merchandise. So they are selling a magic bracelet a ''real'' magic bracelet. A-la [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Balance Powerband] type BS.<br />
<br />
E: As opposed to those fake magic bracelets? <br />
<br />
S: They're not a toy, they're making actual claims for it.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah they are, here I'll get into some of the details here, the limited edition Magtitan Neo Legend has a carbon fibre surface finished with a coat of transparent resin that yields an attractive stylish design.<br />
<br />
S: Oh I thought you were going to say transparent aluminum. That would have been impressive.<br />
<br />
J: A 100 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millitesla mT] 1000 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss_unit Gauss] ferrite permanent magnets arranged in Colantotte's unique alternating north-south polarity orientation which is<br />
<br />
B: Oooh<br />
<br />
E: (laughs) *Sarcastic* unique!<br />
<br />
J: They've trademarked A-N-S-P-O. ANSPO trademark.<br />
<br />
R: I'm holding out for the east-west polarity.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah I'm there too.<br />
<br />
S: They're saying because they have alternating strips of magnets with the north-south polarity alternating, and that's supposed to be unique to this, that's exactly how you make a refrigerator magnet.<br />
<br />
E: Now wait a minute, what are you accusing them of?<br />
<br />
S: That's how the refrigerator magnets have a very you know, narrow, of depth but relatively strong for the power of the magnets used, attraction right? That's why like when you pull a refrigerator magnet off of the refrigerator it's really strong over a very short distance but they're very quickly gives way<br />
<br />
J: Right, drops off.<br />
<br />
S: That's because they have alternating strips of north and south, you know of poles in the magnet.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah but Steve is a refrigerator magnet made of adimantium, I don't think so?<br />
<br />
J: I don't think so, Steve come on.<br />
<br />
S: A really good refrigerator magnet.<br />
<br />
J: Steve you can say what you will, and put it down, but each 'limited edition Magtite Neo Legend comes in a special limited edition package commemorating Marvel's The Avengers movie'. So of course it's works, it works Steve you gotta buy this thing.<br />
<br />
S: Because the Avengers are real.<br />
<br />
J: Now I saw something I'm perusing the ah, website and I have to admit the design of it is pretty cool, but you know go around the website and I was nosing around the SGU forums and they were chit chatting about it and they came up with a couple of interesting things. Somebody on our forums said that this is basically proven to work in Japan, like they have real medical benefit in Japan. I couldn’t find any proof of that so if anybody does I'd be interested to read it for myself but what they do have on the website is of course they have first hand comments by professional athletes.<br />
<br />
S: Oh here we go.<br />
<br />
J: "The Magtite Neo Legend is Colantotte's finest gear, the combination of pure titanium and carbon fibre is great, plus it's been created specifically to commemorate Marvel's Avengers movie"<ref name=rory>Rory McIlroy endorses Magtitan Neo Legend on [http://colantotte.com/products/ colantotte.com]</ref>. Two things! Two comments, ready? One: That guy did not write that, he did not say that.<br />
<br />
E: Oh no!<br />
<br />
J: If that guy walks around talking like that, he needs help<br />
<br />
S: Don't you love it when anecdotes like that are written in ad-copy? <br />
<br />
J: Right.<br />
<br />
S: It's so ''obviously'' written by some sales guy, and it's supposed to be a spontaneous endorsement or anecdote from somebody. You know what I mean, it's so transparent.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, pretend I'm [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_McIlroy Rory McIlroy] and ask me about that bracelet I'm wearing?<br />
<br />
S: Hey can you tell me about that bracelet you're wearing?<br />
<br />
J: "The Magtight Neo Legend is Colantotte's finest gear, the combination of pure titanium and carbon fibre is great". Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
R: That's really natural.<br />
<br />
E: I think Rory has a Scottish accent actually...<br />
<br />
J: Don't even...<br />
<br />
E: ...if memory serves.<br />
<br />
J: (attempting Scottish accent) "The Magtight Neo Legend is Colantotte's finest gear".<br />
<br />
R: What? What was that?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: I'll take (unintelligible) for four hundred.<br />
<br />
B: I think you just invented a new accent that's never been heard of before.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah it think it was just shouting. It was like a Klingon variant.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: So anyway the second thing from that guy's endorsement that makes me shudder is he says, "I can't wait to go see this movie with my mates to watch Colantotte's Magtite Neo Legend in action"<ref name=rory/>. Does this mean it's in the movie? Is it in the movie, Marvel?<br />
<br />
E: Clearly.<br />
<br />
J: Seriously<br />
<br />
B: Oh god.<br />
<br />
S: I guess so.<br />
<br />
E: Someone had to pay for this movie.<br />
<br />
S: You gotta give it to 'em, I mean it's pretty brilliant, having a magic bracelet be on a super hero I mean, right?<br />
<br />
R: Yeaaah?<br />
<br />
E: OK, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: The marketing is good, the marketing idea is good, especially because most people will probably buy into it, even if it's just because it looks good but you know, it's very...<br />
<br />
R: It's probably still better than those Green Lantern rings.<br />
<br />
S: (laughs)<br />
<br />
B: Ha!<br />
<br />
E: I've got two of those.<br />
<br />
J: It's a sad state of affairs when a company like Marvel a company which produces fantasy, you know, they're actually...<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: They're still doing it.<br />
<br />
J: ...morphing into reality here, you know let's cash in on the fact that we write about magic and sell magic.<br />
<br />
E: Yep.<br />
<br />
J: So, I'm a little twigged at Marvel right now.<br />
<br />
S: What has this world come to.<br />
<br />
E: Payin' the bills, it's payin' the bills.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, on the website it shows a picture of the bracelet and underneath it says: "The superhero's secret"<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Oh wow really that's the secret huh? Two little magnets on their wrist, that's what it does it.<br />
<br />
R: I thought it was leaking radiation, we should try that.<br />
<br />
E: Bob, that's a secret<br />
<br />
S: So you're saying it doesn't work, Jay?<br />
<br />
E: Can we agree that DC maybe is taken a notch up due to this? And maybe...<br />
<br />
J: Yeah absolutely,<br />
<br />
E: ...and maybe Marvel have suffered a hit.<br />
<br />
J: It comes out April first, I couldn't find any pricing, I bet you it's going to be in the 60 to 100 dollar range. (note, $199 as of 29/5/2012<ref>Magtitan Neo Legend bracelet: Colantotte links to [http://www.trionzdirect.com/?cmd=cart&type=29&sub=1 trionzdirect.com] for US purchases</ref> <br />
<br />
S: April first really?<br />
<br />
E: April first? Hmmm.<br />
<br />
J: Well what do you think do you think the whole thing is a hoax?<br />
<br />
E: Something hoaxy this way comes, no.<br />
<br />
J: I don't think so and I'll tell you why, the company that produces the bracelet, I researched them, they make a lot of other BS stuff, the negative ion crap and all that stuff.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Of course.<br />
<br />
=== High Altitude Skydiving <small>(10:54)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17399985 BBC: Skydiver Felix Baumgartner on track for super jump]<br />
<br />
S: All right well let's move on, we have a bit of a follow-up to a previous discussion, we had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Cain Fraser Cain] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Gay Pamela Gay] on the show a few weeks ago, we talked about the up-coming attempted world-record-breaking high skydive, high altitude sky dive from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Baumgartner Felix Baumgartner]. And there's a discussion and bit of a news update, the news update is that he completed a test jump recently. He jumped from 71,500 ft or 22 Km above New Mexico, landing safely 8 minutes later. Although this is only a test jump, that puts him in the top three! In terms of the highest altitude skydives ever. This is a preparation for his planned jump later this year in which he will break the world record. He's planning to jump from 120,000 feet, so the current record stands at 102,800 ft in 1960 by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Kittinger Joe Kittinger] who was a US Air Force colonel at the time, when we were talking about Baumgartner's planned jump on the last episode we mentioned the fact that it's inherently dangerous to jump from such a high altitude because of the velocities involved and that Kittinger during his jump in 1960 actually spun out of control, blacked out, and didn't regain consciousness until after his chute had automatically deployed. So when I was researching this for this piece, I found out that that's sorta true but one thing we didn't mention is that was, that occurred on the first of Kittinger's three jumps this was the excelsior mission, is what it was called, there was excelsior one two and three.<br />
<br />
J: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excelsior#Motto_and_catchphrase Excelsior!]<br />
<br />
S: Yeah the third one was the one where he you know, is the record still stands now at 102,800 feet, it was the first one, excelsior one where he spun out of control, the reason he spun out of control didn't have anything to do with the conditions of the jump, the aerodynamics or the thin atmosphere, or the velocity, it had to do with the fact that his pilot chute deployed too early. He, in releasing you know from the gondola he had to yank on you know the cord a few times before it came loose but he actually started the timer on the first yank so the timer was going before he jumped off the gondola and then his pilot chute deployed too early so he wasn't going fast enough. Normally it'll only deploy after you get up sufficient speed that the aerodynamics are such that it will be you know pulled back away from you, but he was going too slow when it deployed and then therefore it flopped around more than it should have and it actually wrapped around his neck and this started him spinning. He basically got tangled up in the pilot chute, he started spinning out of control, they estimate I think 80 RPMs, and he blacked out. Then he fell all the way to 10,000 feet when the barometric release triggered his reserve parachute and this didn't, this got tangled too, but they had installed a backup contingency where the original chute would break away and that worked allowing the reserve chute to inflate at about 6000 feet. And he survived obviously and landed safely. So the spinning out itself was more of an equipment thing and didn't have anything to do with just the difficulty of dropping from such a high altitude. But this whole discussion started an email discussion with the listener who essentially said that this is his point, he said, if you jump at a very high altitude, the airody... the experience for the skydiver is the same because you're going to reach terminal velocity and terminal velocity is, by definition is the wind resistance is going to equal the acceleration due to gravity and therefore it doesn't really matter if it's a thin atmosphere and a high velocity or a thicker atmosphere at a lower velocity. The net resistance against the sky diver is the same so it feels the same to the sky diver. So I ''totally'' get that, and I see no problems with that line of logic. But here was my counter point. The difference here is that when you jump from very high where the atmosphere is thin, terminal velocity is a lot faster you're going to be going a lot faster and then you have to lose all of that extra velocity so when you get down into the thicker atmosphere you're not just approaching terminal velocity you're already exceeding the terminal velocity of the lower-down denser atmosphere and therefore the wind resistance has to actually decelerate you, it has to slow you down.<br />
<br />
E: Drag, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah so therefore the drag is greater than if you jumped at the lower altitude and were just getting up to terminal velocity. But he didn't agree with that point he thought, yeah but it depends on how, what the curve of the change in atmospheric density is but, I just don't buy it. For example it's estimated that during Kittinger's record-breaking jump he reached a maximum speed of 625 miles per hour. Terminal velocity at lower down, the normal altitudes that people sky dive from is somewhere between 117 and 125 miles per hour depending on, you know, your position and your size and whatnot, and in like a head-down bullet position it's about 210 miles per hour. So you figure Kittinger had to loose about 500 miles per hour of velocity when he descended into the lower atmosphere that's gotta be a lot of extra force from wind resistance that you wouldn't have on you if you were jumping from, you know say, 10,000 feet right? I tried to find, that's just my reasoning, I don't know what the final answer is I kinda propose it as an interesting physics question but no one has given me like a real definitive answer, what do you guys think about all that?<br />
<br />
J: Steve I agree with you I think you know, correct me where I'm wrong here, from what you're saying, if you're in a thinner atmosphere, terminal velocity is going to be faster.<br />
<br />
S: right, that we all agree on yep.<br />
<br />
J: then the idea is that you will eventually stop accelerating and maintain a speed when you hit enough air molecules basically get piled up underneath you that pretty much matches what it would be like say jumping at 10,000 feet, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah so it's thinner air but it's rushing past you faster and the net wind resistance is the same, that's right.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah ok,<br />
<br />
S: but the difference I'm saying is, yeah but then you descend into denser atmosphere where you have to, you're not just maintaining a terminal velocity you're actually significantly slowing down because the terminal velocity is getting lower as you descend into the thicker atmosphere, the other point I raised which no one's given me a good answer to is, all right so I understand the wind resistance will be the same but you still are going faster your velocity is greater so if you ''do'' spin out at a higher velocity, would there be the potential for the RPMs to be greater? Will you spin out faster? And that's the real risk, that you'll spin out so fast that you'll black out, right?<br />
<br />
J: Right yeah so, in other words, so if you do a spin out, at say, 70 or 80 thousand feet, you might actually be going so fast that, you know, your blood pressure goes totally crazy, whereas maybe...<br />
<br />
S: If you're going 500 miles an hour, and you spin out, is that more dangerous than when you're going at 120 miles an hour, that's the question. It's interesting, I posed it on my blog, but nobody really gave me a good answer. You know, Jay and I have been chatting about this and we asked a physics friend of ours who really didn't add anything to what we just said. So I dunno, it's an interesting thought experiment and we'll put it out there to our listeners to further the conversation. I still, it still seems to me that it would be more difficult and more risky to do the high sky dive because, it's the deceleration and the absolute velocity, how that translates into spin, those are the two points that I'd like to hear discussed. But Baumgartner is going to be making his next jump later this year where he's going to try and break the record and his one observation, I mean all the equipment tested out and worked fine but he said the cold was like really hard to handle. So before he goes...<br />
<br />
B: His hands were actually sort of numb he could't use them.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah so before he goes up higher, so his test dive was from 71,500 feet, he's going to 120,000 feet, that's going to be a lot thinner, a lot colder, so yeah I think they're going to have to tweak the spacesuit there that he has, if he's going to be able to tolerate the cold at that height.<br />
<br />
B: So put those heat packets in the gloves that's all.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: or those mittens that you put in the microwave.<br />
<br />
S: There are those people who like go into like the minus 120 degree refrigerators for like ten seconds, you guys hear about that?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Why would you do that?<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: 'cause why do you think? Because it's supposed to have some magical health benefit.<br />
<br />
R: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: I think I read it's supposed to be invigorating.<br />
<br />
S: Invigorating!<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: Invigorating? OK.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah you know what else is? Cold shower.<br />
<br />
S: They used to throw cold, wet blankets on psychotic patients to calm them down. <br />
<br />
J: Yeah. A real calming effect. It's a good...<br />
<br />
S: It would shock them, you know, they would be having you know whatever, they would be out of control, and that would shock them into just shutting down. You know that just that real sudden extreme cold.<br />
<br />
J: Steve aren't you really just supposed to slap someone silly when they freak out like that?<br />
<br />
E: Oh you know, an electrode that real electricity to...<br />
<br />
S: That's about as scientifically valid.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah according to like the fifties movies you know, all you got to do when someone's having a hissy fit you just smack 'em one and go you know...<br />
<br />
R: Get yourself together man!<br />
<br />
J: Get a hold of yourself woman you know something like that right?<br />
<br />
E: Stop crying or I'll give you something to cry about<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
=== Quickie with Bob: Designer Electrons <small>(21:33)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120314142841.htm ScienceDaily: Molecular Graphene Heralds New Era of 'Designer Electrons']<br />
<br />
E: You know what I just read? Rebecca wants a quickie with Bob<br />
<br />
S: (knowingly) Oooh.<br />
<br />
R: That's true, that's true I do.<br />
<br />
B: Oh sure Rebecca but will you hold me afterwards..<br />
<br />
R: (thinking) Mehh..<br />
<br />
B: Don't answer that question.<br />
<br />
R: I'm not into that cuddly shit.<br />
<br />
B: Ok this week's quickie with Bob...<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: For this week's quickie with Bob I've got a new era of designer electrons. Researchers at Stanford and the S.L.A.C national accelerator lab have learned how to control the behavior of electrons in such a way that we may see whole new classes of materials which in turn could comprise new and amazing electrical devices. Hari Manoharan who is associate professor of physics at Stanford who lead the research said: "The behavior of electrons in materials is at the heart of essentially all of today's technologies. We are now able to tune the fundamental properties of electrons so they behave in ways rarely seen in ordinary materials." So what they did was to use an STM. A [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope scanning tunneling microscope] to precisely position carbon monoxide molecules on a very, very smooth copper surface. So they did it in such a way so that electrons flowing over the surface are repelled by these molecules and they're forced into these patterns of flows that are identical to what their behaviors would be if there were a magnetic or electrical field present. Even though there were no such fields present at the time. So one example that they pulled off was that they were able to produce a flow of electrons that acted as if they were under the influence of a magnetic field of 60 Tesla. This is incredible because this is 30 percent more power than any field ever sustained by science. So these electrons were behaving in ways that there's probably no other way to make them behave 'cause science isn't even up to the take of creating a field and sustaining it that long. So who knows what kind of materials and devices this may lead to? Perhaps video displays and mobile phones and a host of other devices that we would hardly believe today. Do a Google search for designer electrons if you wanna read more about this.<br />
<br />
S: Thanks Bob.<br />
<br />
R: That's very satisfying.<br />
<br />
J: Thank-you Bob.<br />
<br />
===New Hampshire Abortion Bill <small>(23:31)</small> ===<br />
<!-- link broken http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2012/03/20/abortion_bill_goes_back_to_committee_of_nh_house/ --><br />
<br />
[http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view/2012/HB1659/2012-01-03 Women's Right to Know Act - January 3 2012]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca,<br />
<br />
R: Yo.<br />
<br />
S: Tell us about the lovely science based laws that are, bills that are being proposed up in our neighboring state New Hampshire, or nearby state I should say.<br />
<br />
R: Well, it's very, very exciting time to be a lady, in that it states, our listeners may be aware that right now in state legislatures around the US there's been this on going war on behalf of the religious right attempting to limit women's access to contraception, sexual health education and abortion in any way possible. And they can't just come out and make all that illegal, so much like the creationist, they have employed a wedge strategy of making life as difficult as possible for women who want control of their own reproductive health. Some of the bills that have been passing in the US have included those mandating that women be unnecessarily penetrated with an ultrasound wand prior to getting an abortion, some are allowing pharmacists and doctors to refuse to provide contraception based on religious convictions. And there are even some politicians that are trying to mandate that women need a signed permission slip from a man before getting an abortion. So that's just to give you like a slight context for those of you who maybe aren't in the US or aren't paying attention. Last week the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_House_of_Representatives New Hampshire House of Representatives] passed a bill that would require physicians to give certain materials to any woman seeking an abortion. Those materials are provided under the auspices of informed consent. You know we need to make sure women have as much information as possible before getting an abortion. The problem is that those materials include statements such as: "It is scientifically undisputed that full term pregnancy reduces a woman's lifetime risk of breast cancer. It is also undisputed that the earlier a woman has a first full-term pregnancy the lower her risk of breast cancer becomes because following a full term pregnancy the breast tissue exposed to estrogen through the menstrual cycle is more mature and cancer resistant. In fact for each year that a woman's first full-term pregnancy is delayed her risk of breast cancer rises three point five percent. The theory that there is a direct link between abortion and breast cancer builds upon this undisputed foundation."<br />
<br />
E: Where do they pull that information from?<br />
<br />
R: Their asses, actually.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: (Sarcastically) Oh they're proctologists, I see.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Yeah ah, this particular bit of pseudoscience, the idea that abortion increases a woman's chance of breast cancer has been bandied about particularly in anti-choice circles for a number of years now. And In-fact up until into the mid 1990s there have only been a few small but heavily flawed studies that had been done on this particular topic, and a few of those studies did show that there might be a connection between breast cancer and abortions and miscarriages. However, in the past several decades we've seen several large-scale studies conducted that show absolutely no connection at all. The organizations like the [http://www.nih.gov/ National Institutes of Health], [http://www.cancer.org/ American Cancer Society], the [http://www.acog.org/ American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists], and even the [http://ww5.komen.org/ Susan G. Komen Foundation],which is run by anti-choice fundamentalists, all stand by the fact that there's absolutely no link between abortion and breast cancer.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah I did my own literature research, just to see what it was, not reading political sites, just look at the literature and see what it shows, if you go back into the 1980s it looks like there was some, you know debate about it actually, you could find articles that come to either conclusion. But then when you look at reviews that are written in the last few years, they all agree that there is absolutely no link, between abortions and the risk of breast cancer.<br />
<br />
R: Right those papers that were done in the 80's and early 90's were very small, very small [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination sample sizes], and have a lot of flaws in them.<br />
<br />
E: So a coordinated disinformation campaign is underway.<br />
<br />
S: Exactly<br />
<br />
R: Well yeah now this is one of those things, another one I may have mentioned before on the show, definitely on [http://skepchick.org/ skepchick] though is, the idea that, one is the idea that abortion leads to depression, which is another thing that is absolutely not supported by the scientific evidence. And the other is that, that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus fetus], a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. This is a quote-unquote ''fact'' that is becoming commonplace in political discussions in the US these days and it's talked about as thought it's scientific fact, when in-fact it is not. The question of when a fetus can feel pain is actually still up for debate. And by no means is 20 weeks an actual medical diagnosis. you know, this is something that they've gone with that specific number because these politicians have an agenda, and that agenda is to outlaw abortion, and so they're using the idea of fetuses feeling pain at 20 weeks to convince courts to outlaw abortion at 20 weeks, despite the fact that it's unconstitutional.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah and there's good reason to think that it's actually not possible for a fetus to perceive pain before 24 weeks of gestation just in terms of the development of the nervous system.<br />
<br />
R: Right.<br />
<br />
S: So that's probably, that's a better guess at this point. Getting back.. can I comment on the mental health aspect of it?<br />
<br />
R: Yep.<br />
<br />
S: 'Cause you guys, just again looking at the literature just to see what it says. There's a lot of complexities actually to the mental health issue, because as you might imagine, you could look at studies in a lot of different ways. [http://www.statsdirect.com/help/basics/prospective.htm Retrospectively vs prospectively], you know, you can pick out different sub-populations you know for example a correlation obviously, just saying that women who are getting abortions are more depressed for example; well, probably something to do with their life situation that lead them to the abortion that may have something to do with it, that's not the same thing as saying that abortion ''causes'' depression. And when you control for those factors, there really isn't any evidence that abortions are causally linked to any mental health problem at all. But again they're cherry picking and exploiting the complexities in that particular part of the research in order to make their case. And If you have your desired conclusion in mind, you get, you know there's enough studies out there, you can cherry pick, you could support almost any position you want. But the systematic reviews out there done by researchers who are ''trying'' to get to the bottom of it and know how to control for different variables, are all coming to the same conclusion that there is just no causal relationship between abortion and mental illness.<br />
<br />
R: Right, and to get back to this particular bill in New Hampshire, the idea that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. So there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that's true. There ''is'' evidence to suggest that you, women who have children before the age of 30, do, they may have a decreased risk of breast cancer.<br />
<br />
S: So there is a difference between the outcomes of prospective and retrospective studies. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrospective_cohort_study Retrospective] basically means you take women who 'have' breast cancer and you ask them if they have had an abortion, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospective_cohort_study prospective] means you follow women who have had an abortion and then you see what their risk of, is of developing breast cancer compared to other women you know in the same cohort or who didn't have an abortion. The retrospective studies did show a higher correlation with having had an abortion but the prospective studies ''didn't'', and the likely interpretation there is that women who had breast cancer may have been more willing to disclose their prior history of abortion. We're relying upon women to disclose that information, when you follow them going forward, prospectively, there's no correlation. So prospective data is always better, it's always more reliable, because there isn't this recall bias, or maybe this willing to disclose bias that could alter the data. So the current consensus is that there's no correlation.<br />
<br />
R: Right, and despite this fact this bill ''did'' pass through the house, and the way that the original bill passed was not just to declare that the doctors needed to give these particular pseudoscientific materials to women seeking abortions, but it also wrote down exactly how those doctors should be punished if they failed to follow through with that. And in the original bill they recommended class A felonies for any doctor who didn't abide by the law and that came with up to 15 years in prison for a doctor.<br />
<br />
E: Ouch.<br />
<br />
S: For telling the truth.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, yeah, basically for telling the truth, and luckily I guess that original bill that passed through the house was then reconsidered and went back through the house. The criminal Justice and public safety committee just barely voted in favor of recommending the removal of the class A felony part. Even if that happens though, the way this bill is written, doctors will still be open to malpractice law suits or disciplinary action by the New Hampshire state board of medicine if they do in fact tell women the truth about abortion and breast cancer.<br />
<br />
S: Which means they can lose their license basically.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, so, you know, for those of you in New Hampshire you may want to contact your state representatives immediately. For those of you in the United States but not in New Hampshire you can't rest so easy because there are similar pseudoscientific bills exactly like this in several other states, and this is basically the religious right's standard operating procedure is to introduce the same or very similar bills simultaneously in many different states at once. So Kansas and Oklahoma, you have similar measures that have been proposed. So no matter where you are if you are in the US it might be a good idea to contact your local representatives and just let them know that you support science and reason.<br />
<br />
S: You know the thing I hate you know I feel obligated to say; it's not like, we're not taking a political position on this show regarding the abortion debate, I mean this is, you know people have the right to come to different moral and ethical decisions, you know, obviously Rebecca you have a certain position on that.<br />
<br />
R: I do have a certain position.<br />
<br />
S: But the point is you can't lie about the science...<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Yes right.<br />
<br />
S: ... in order to make your political position, and not only lying about the science by trying to pass a law ''mandating'' that physicians make the same lie and and trying to punish them for ''not'' lying; That is such an abuse of not only professionalism but of science and reason, and that stands aside from the political debate about abortion.<br />
<br />
R: Exactly yeah.<br />
<br />
S: It's a completely separate issue yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
=== Nuclear Clock <small>(34:53)</small> ===<br />
[http://phys.org/news/2012-03-blueprint-nuclear-clock-accurate-billions.html Phys.org: Researchers develop blueprint for nuclear clock accurate over billions of years]<br />
<br />
S: All right, well, let's move on. Bob, you got another item. Your full item to talk about has to do with nuclear clocks or atomic clocks.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, this one was...this one was pretty cool. Get ready for timekeeping that makes atomic clocks look like hourglasses. Scientists have demonstrated the potential of a nuclear clock that could gain or lose only a fraction of a second over - get this - fourteen ''billion'' years, the age of the universe.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
B: A team of researchers from the University of New South Wales, the University of Nevada, and Georgia Tech have thought up this...well, they didn't actually think this up, they actually...merely just demonstrated what it could actually do...of this super atomic clock of sorts that's based on the oscillations of neutrons instead of electrons. So to put this into perspective a bit, I think I'll just briefly go over some of the key clock technologies of the past few centuries that we're all familiar with, although you might not know some of the details. For example, pendulum clocks - the first appeared in the mid-1600s. Now, these clocks work because their consistent swing depends only on the length of the arm and not on the weight or the weight of the arm itself or the...or whatever weight there might be at the bottom of it or even the arc of its swing really doesn't really matter. They were revolutionary when they appeared because they improved the accuracy of timekeeping from about fifteen minutes a day to fifteen ''seconds'', and that actually was probably the most dramatic improvement in clock technology for the average person that I think there ever was. I think it must have been very dramatic. The other thing that surprised me about pendulum clocks was the fact that they got so good, that they would only drift by about a hundredth of a second a ''day'', which is a lot more accurate than I thought. And actually, it is more accurate than a quartz clock, which was a surprise because this technology came afterwards. Now, they...the quartz clocks are probably the most common of all clocks if you add...I mean, so, everyone's got...got wristwatches.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I think their big appeal, Bob, was not that they were just more accurate; they're just...they're cheap, yeah, they're cheap and portable.<br />
<br />
B: Cheap and portability, right; they were huge.<br />
<br />
E: Mine says "The Avengers" on it.<br />
<br />
B: And as it turns out, you know, they only lose ten to twenty seconds a year. I mean, that's nothing. That's really nothing. Who cares? So you're at the point where it's just, for the average person, that level of accuracy is perfectly fine. And yeah, like you said, Steve, it's...you know, portability is a huge factor. Now, just real quickly, the quartz clocks, of course, depends on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezoelectric_Effect piezoelectric effect]. Essentially electricity passing through would cause the crystal to vibrate very consistently, which then you could use as a basis for your timekeeping. Then, of course, you've got atomic clocks that are the current gold standard of timekeeping. Now, they're...they keep incredibly accurate time using the orbits of electrons, kind of like a pendulum. Depending on your source, they can lose one second in an amazing twenty to sixty million years, which, of course, is amazingly accurate.<br />
<br />
J: Wow! That's awesome, man.<br />
<br />
B: Isn't that...yeah, isn't that amazing? One second in many millions of years is incredible. But as awesome as that is, it's nothing compared to what the potential of nuclear clocks may be.<br />
<br />
J: Don't even, you're scaring me now.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: This proposed method would use a UV laser to orient electrons of a thorium atom in a very specific way, and essentially what this does is it opens a door to tweak the energy state of the nucleus and use the resulting oscillations of a neutron to make a clock that's a hundred times more accurate than the best thing that we have today. Now, this potential revolution in accuracy is because the neutrons are denser and much more tightly packed than electrons. This makes them pretty much immune to electric fields and magnetic fields, which cause atomic clocks to drift by as much as they do over millions of years, and, I mean, they don't drift much, obviously, but they've even now figured out potentially a way to get rid of even that tiny drift. So while researching this, I found a lot of online commenters that...that they really didn't understand what the big deal was, and they thought that this...an accuracy at this level is just total overkill. You know, what's the point? What possible advantage could nuclear clocks have over atomic clocks? But clocks at that level of accuracy...it's definitely not, you know, a superfluous improvement. [http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/ACADEMIC/flambaum.html Professor Victor Flambaum], who's the head of theoretical physics at the UNSW school of physics, said that it would allow scientists to test fundamental physical theories at unprecedented levels of precision and provide an unmatched tool for applied physics research. We could also - this was interesting - we could also pair up an atomic and nuclear clock and potentially discover that some laws of physics are not constant in time. Now, that would be an incredible discovery. You know, finding out that some of these laws that we think are constant and unchanging...if we could find even a tiny bit of change over, you know, expanses of time, that truly would be revolutionary. And, of course, we could also greatly improve the accuracy of GPS satellites so that your navigator in your car wouldn't tell you to take a left turn at the next lake. And I'm not sure, I couldn't, I couldn't find any...so when do you think that we're going to see this? When's it going to be real? And my answer is who the hell knows? I don't know how long it's going to take. Although, they did have some surprising confidence in their ability to figure this out. The biggest hurdle apparently is finding the exact laser frequency. Now, these lasers, they're using petahertz frequencies. They're using petahertz frequency lasers to do this, at least that's what they envision. And one scientist described this not as a needle in a haystack, but a needle in a million haystacks, trying to find that precise frequency that can achieve this result. Apparently, it could take some time.<br />
<br />
S: Maybe they can use this to measure how long it takes for neutrinos to go from their source to the detector.<br />
<br />
B: (laughs) Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: (laughs) Right.<br />
<br />
=== NDE and Lucid Dreaming <small>(40:44)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.livescience.com/19106-death-experiences-lucid-dreams.html LiveScience.com: Near-Death Experiences are Lucid Dreams, Experiment Finds]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Designer Electrons <small>()</small> ===<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120314142841.htm Science Daily: Molecular Graphene Heralds New Era of 'Designer Electrons']<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails: Here Comes the Metric System <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Just a quick question. I often wondered why America kept the Imperial system for measurements, miles, inches etc. Do you think it would be better (for science teaching in particular), if you switched to the metric system, and what problems do you think it would create? Thanks for the great show. Liz. Scotland </blockquote><br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy <small>()</small> ==<br />
From the comments to NeuroLogica <br />
<blockquote>"natural selection (or selection in general) explains how two horses can become all the different breeds we have today- including zebras. This is also how the finches of Darwin fame have longer beaks some years and shorter beaks other years… Everyone knows this happens. The question is this– does that explain how a single celled life form could become an elephant? Some question that it does. (I would be one who questions- BTW) This is called micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution– aka the development of species or kinds vs. the development of breeds. To make an analogy– Everyone knows you can make a ladder to the roof of the house. Does that mean you can make a ladder to the sun?"</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
*[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120321172208.htm Item number 1]: 'New measurements indicate that Venice continues to sink into the ocean, contradicting the prior conclusion that the city is stable'<br />
*[http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/health/sharp-rise-cases-new-strain-whooping-cough Item number 2]: 'A new study finds that the whooping cough epidemic currently occurring in Australia is mostly due to a new strain of B. pertussis which is not well covered by the vaccine' <br />
*[http://www.buffalo.edu/news/13271 Item number 3]: 'A new survey finds that parents of children with cancer trust information they find on the internet as much or more than information from their health care provider' <br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.</blockquote><br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Haisch Bernhard Haisch]<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_349&diff=3818SGU Episode 3492012-10-19T13:34:55Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Nuclear Clock (34:53) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y TK proof-read up to, and including, New Hampshire Abortion Bill --><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 349<br />
|episodeDate = 24<sup>th</sup> March 2012<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Baumgartner.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2012-03-24.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=349<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,40991.0.html<br />
|qowText = Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Haisch Bernard Haisch]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the skeptics guide to the universe. Today is Wednesday March 21st 2012 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: (Jewish Accent) What is this? Pod-casting?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: ...and Evan Bernstein<br />
<br />
E: Good evening ladies and gentleman, how's everyone?<br />
<br />
J: Hola Evan.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
S: Good, Fine and dandy.<br />
<br />
E: Now this was some winter huh?<br />
<br />
J: Oh, crazy right?<br />
<br />
S: This is my kind of winter.<br />
<br />
E: We barely had ''any'' snow this year in New England, it was in the 50s for a large part of the winter in southern New England which is unheard of.<br />
<br />
S: I love the vernal equinox because it means the next six months the sun is in the upper half of its course through the sky.<br />
<br />
B: I hope all of you have released your white owls.<br />
<br />
S: Well anyway Rebecca, what else is special about this day?<br />
<br />
== This day in skepticism <small>(0:58)</small> ==<br />
<br />
=== March 24, 1989: The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill ===<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdex_oil_spill Wikipedia:Exxon Valdez Oil Spill]<br />
<br />
R: Well, this day marks the anniversary of a quite horrific event, March 24th 1989 was the day that the Exxon Valdez spilled oil into [http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Prince%20William%20Sound Prince William Sound].<br />
<br />
S: You just can't let it go can you Rebecca?<br />
<br />
R: No, no me and the otters...<br />
<br />
S: (laughs) the otters.<br />
<br />
R: ...are really pissed about it still.<br />
<br />
E: One drunk sea captain, you know, guides the boat into the low into the shoals and he pays for it for the rest of his life.<br />
<br />
R: I think, apparently that's a... apparently that's a bit of a myth, the captain apparently was drunk but was not at the helm. The third mate was, and on the list of things, what went wrong, the biggest ones seems to be that the radar for detecting possible collisions had been broken for nearly a year. Also...<br />
<br />
E: And the captain was too drunk to know it. Apparently.<br />
<br />
S: We'll get to that eventually.<br />
<br />
R: And apparently all of the crew was severely overworked and exhausted and had been for quite some time. So those were identified as being the main causes of why it ended up striking a reef and spilling up to possibly seven hundred fifty thousand barrels of oil. It's not however...<br />
<br />
E: Think of all the cars and furnaces that it would have provided heat and energy for. It's very sad.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, despite how devastating that oil spill was, it's not even in the top ten worst oil spills of all time. It ''was'' though the worst one in the US up until the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster]. But yeah it's kinda crazy to think that there are oils spills happening all the time and some of them are much much worse than the Exxon Valdez. Yeah, there's a happy thought for you. The ship itself was recently auctioned off, actually. Just the tanker, just this week it was sold for scrap so apparently it was renamed the "Oriental Nicety".<br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm?<br />
<br />
B: For real?<br />
<br />
R: I guess as some way to trick people into to thinking it was err...<br />
<br />
E: Oh my gosh, you might as well call it the "Happy Ending".<br />
<br />
S: (laughing) The little nicety?! That's odd. I've a funny Exxon Valdez story, I was in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epcot Epcot Centre] in Disney World shortly after that oil spill and the dinosaur exhibit was, I guess, funded by Exxon and before you get to see the dinosaurs, there's essentially a big commercial for Exxon. At one point they have this aerial shot of an oil tanker going through a harbor and they go: "The beautiful Exxon Valdez..." 'Course everyone starts laughing 'cause this is like right after the disaster they hadn't updated the ride yet.<br />
<br />
S: (laughs)<br />
<br />
E: Time to update the rides...<br />
<br />
B: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27oh! D'OH!]<br />
<br />
R: That's a little embarrassing. Here's my question; I've always heard people call it the Exxon Val-deeze but I don't understand why they pronounce it Val-deeze, when it's obviously Valdez.<br />
<br />
S: I don't know I'm just slavishly following what I hear.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah I don't know, I think it's weird.<br />
<br />
S: But at least we can have our super hero magical bracelets to make it all better right jay?<br />
<br />
B: Nice segue.<br />
<br />
R: That was a good segue Steve.<br />
<br />
S: You know it kinda takes away from it when you say it's a good segue.<br />
<br />
R: I know that's why it's funny, and every single time, Steve, you will never be able to do a segue without us calling attention to it.<br />
<br />
S: (laughs) OK.<br />
<br />
R: This is your curse.<br />
<br />
== News Items <small>(4:39)</small> ==<br />
<br />
=== Superhero Pseudoscience ===<br />
[http://colantotte.com Colantotte.com]<br />
<br />
J: Steve jumped right into it, I wanted to loosen up a little bit before we say bad things about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Studios Marvel], to say some good things about Marvel like, you know I think that for their super hero movies they've done a great job. You know for the most part I've liked all of them, and you know, the Avengers movie is coming out and I'm really psyched to see it, its totally right in my sweet spot. I mean I love super heroes I love like you know science fictiony stuff like that. So it really was disappointing to find out that Marvel, and probably even more involved is the production company that they're using, the marketing company that they've hired for the Avengers film, sadly has, is selling some crazy wacky merchandise. So they are selling a magic bracelet a ''real'' magic bracelet. A-la [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Balance Powerband] type BS.<br />
<br />
E: As opposed to those fake magic bracelets? <br />
<br />
S: They're not a toy, they're making actual claims for it.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah they are, here I'll get into some of the details here, the limited edition Magtitan Neo Legend has a carbon fibre surface finished with a coat of transparent resin that yields an attractive stylish design.<br />
<br />
S: Oh I thought you were going to say transparent aluminum. That would have been impressive.<br />
<br />
J: A 100 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millitesla mT] 1000 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss_unit Gauss] ferrite permanent magnets arranged in Colantotte's unique alternating north-south polarity orientation which is<br />
<br />
B: Oooh<br />
<br />
E: (laughs) *Sarcastic* unique!<br />
<br />
J: They've trademarked A-N-S-P-O. ANSPO trademark.<br />
<br />
R: I'm holding out for the east-west polarity.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah I'm there too.<br />
<br />
S: They're saying because they have alternating strips of magnets with the north-south polarity alternating, and that's supposed to be unique to this, that's exactly how you make a refrigerator magnet.<br />
<br />
E: Now wait a minute, what are you accusing them of?<br />
<br />
S: That's how the refrigerator magnets have a very you know, narrow, of depth but relatively strong for the power of the magnets used, attraction right? That's why like when you pull a refrigerator magnet off of the refrigerator it's really strong over a very short distance but they're very quickly gives way<br />
<br />
J: Right, drops off.<br />
<br />
S: That's because they have alternating strips of north and south, you know of poles in the magnet.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah but Steve is a refrigerator magnet made of adimantium, I don't think so?<br />
<br />
J: I don't think so, Steve come on.<br />
<br />
S: A really good refrigerator magnet.<br />
<br />
J: Steve you can say what you will, and put it down, but each 'limited edition Magtite Neo Legend comes in a special limited edition package commemorating Marvel's The Avengers movie'. So of course it's works, it works Steve you gotta buy this thing.<br />
<br />
S: Because the Avengers are real.<br />
<br />
J: Now I saw something I'm perusing the ah, website and I have to admit the design of it is pretty cool, but you know go around the website and I was nosing around the SGU forums and they were chit chatting about it and they came up with a couple of interesting things. Somebody on our forums said that this is basically proven to work in Japan, like they have real medical benefit in Japan. I couldn’t find any proof of that so if anybody does I'd be interested to read it for myself but what they do have on the website is of course they have first hand comments by professional athletes.<br />
<br />
S: Oh here we go.<br />
<br />
J: "The Magtite Neo Legend is Colantotte's finest gear, the combination of pure titanium and carbon fibre is great, plus it's been created specifically to commemorate Marvel's Avengers movie"<ref name=rory>Rory McIlroy endorses Magtitan Neo Legend on [http://colantotte.com/products/ colantotte.com]</ref>. Two things! Two comments, ready? One: That guy did not write that, he did not say that.<br />
<br />
E: Oh no!<br />
<br />
J: If that guy walks around talking like that, he needs help<br />
<br />
S: Don't you love it when anecdotes like that are written in ad-copy? <br />
<br />
J: Right.<br />
<br />
S: It's so ''obviously'' written by some sales guy, and it's supposed to be a spontaneous endorsement or anecdote from somebody. You know what I mean, it's so transparent.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, pretend I'm [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_McIlroy Rory McIlroy] and ask me about that bracelet I'm wearing?<br />
<br />
S: Hey can you tell me about that bracelet you're wearing?<br />
<br />
J: "The Magtight Neo Legend is Colantotte's finest gear, the combination of pure titanium and carbon fibre is great". Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
R: That's really natural.<br />
<br />
E: I think Rory has a Scottish accent actually...<br />
<br />
J: Don't even...<br />
<br />
E: ...if memory serves.<br />
<br />
J: (attempting Scottish accent) "The Magtight Neo Legend is Colantotte's finest gear".<br />
<br />
R: What? What was that?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: I'll take (unintelligible) for four hundred.<br />
<br />
B: I think you just invented a new accent that's never been heard of before.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah it think it was just shouting. It was like a Klingon variant.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: So anyway the second thing from that guy's endorsement that makes me shudder is he says, "I can't wait to go see this movie with my mates to watch Colantotte's Magtite Neo Legend in action"<ref name=rory/>. Does this mean it's in the movie? Is it in the movie, Marvel?<br />
<br />
E: Clearly.<br />
<br />
J: Seriously<br />
<br />
B: Oh god.<br />
<br />
S: I guess so.<br />
<br />
E: Someone had to pay for this movie.<br />
<br />
S: You gotta give it to 'em, I mean it's pretty brilliant, having a magic bracelet be on a super hero I mean, right?<br />
<br />
R: Yeaaah?<br />
<br />
E: OK, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: The marketing is good, the marketing idea is good, especially because most people will probably buy into it, even if it's just because it looks good but you know, it's very...<br />
<br />
R: It's probably still better than those Green Lantern rings.<br />
<br />
S: (laughs)<br />
<br />
B: Ha!<br />
<br />
E: I've got two of those.<br />
<br />
J: It's a sad state of affairs when a company like Marvel a company which produces fantasy, you know, they're actually...<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: They're still doing it.<br />
<br />
J: ...morphing into reality here, you know let's cash in on the fact that we write about magic and sell magic.<br />
<br />
E: Yep.<br />
<br />
J: So, I'm a little twigged at Marvel right now.<br />
<br />
S: What has this world come to.<br />
<br />
E: Payin' the bills, it's payin' the bills.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, on the website it shows a picture of the bracelet and underneath it says: "The superhero's secret"<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Oh wow really that's the secret huh? Two little magnets on their wrist, that's what it does it.<br />
<br />
R: I thought it was leaking radiation, we should try that.<br />
<br />
E: Bob, that's a secret<br />
<br />
S: So you're saying it doesn't work, Jay?<br />
<br />
E: Can we agree that DC maybe is taken a notch up due to this? And maybe...<br />
<br />
J: Yeah absolutely,<br />
<br />
E: ...and maybe Marvel have suffered a hit.<br />
<br />
J: It comes out April first, I couldn't find any pricing, I bet you it's going to be in the 60 to 100 dollar range. (note, $199 as of 29/5/2012<ref>Magtitan Neo Legend bracelet: Colantotte links to [http://www.trionzdirect.com/?cmd=cart&type=29&sub=1 trionzdirect.com] for US purchases</ref> <br />
<br />
S: April first really?<br />
<br />
E: April first? Hmmm.<br />
<br />
J: Well what do you think do you think the whole thing is a hoax?<br />
<br />
E: Something hoaxy this way comes, no.<br />
<br />
J: I don't think so and I'll tell you why, the company that produces the bracelet, I researched them, they make a lot of other BS stuff, the negative ion crap and all that stuff.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Of course.<br />
<br />
=== High Altitude Skydiving <small>(10:54)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17399985 BBC: Skydiver Felix Baumgartner on track for super jump]<br />
<br />
S: All right well let's move on, we have a bit of a follow-up to a previous discussion, we had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Cain Fraser Cain] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Gay Pamela Gay] on the show a few weeks ago, we talked about the up-coming attempted world-record-breaking high skydive, high altitude sky dive from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Baumgartner Felix Baumgartner]. And there's a discussion and bit of a news update, the news update is that he completed a test jump recently. He jumped from 71,500 ft or 22 Km above New Mexico, landing safely 8 minutes later. Although this is only a test jump, that puts him in the top three! In terms of the highest altitude skydives ever. This is a preparation for his planned jump later this year in which he will break the world record. He's planning to jump from 120,000 feet, so the current record stands at 102,800 ft in 1960 by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Kittinger Joe Kittinger] who was a US Air Force colonel at the time, when we were talking about Baumgartner's planned jump on the last episode we mentioned the fact that it's inherently dangerous to jump from such a high altitude because of the velocities involved and that Kittinger during his jump in 1960 actually spun out of control, blacked out, and didn't regain consciousness until after his chute had automatically deployed. So when I was researching this for this piece, I found out that that's sorta true but one thing we didn't mention is that was, that occurred on the first of Kittinger's three jumps this was the excelsior mission, is what it was called, there was excelsior one two and three.<br />
<br />
J: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excelsior#Motto_and_catchphrase Excelsior!]<br />
<br />
S: Yeah the third one was the one where he you know, is the record still stands now at 102,800 feet, it was the first one, excelsior one where he spun out of control, the reason he spun out of control didn't have anything to do with the conditions of the jump, the aerodynamics or the thin atmosphere, or the velocity, it had to do with the fact that his pilot chute deployed too early. He, in releasing you know from the gondola he had to yank on you know the cord a few times before it came loose but he actually started the timer on the first yank so the timer was going before he jumped off the gondola and then his pilot chute deployed too early so he wasn't going fast enough. Normally it'll only deploy after you get up sufficient speed that the aerodynamics are such that it will be you know pulled back away from you, but he was going too slow when it deployed and then therefore it flopped around more than it should have and it actually wrapped around his neck and this started him spinning. He basically got tangled up in the pilot chute, he started spinning out of control, they estimate I think 80 RPMs, and he blacked out. Then he fell all the way to 10,000 feet when the barometric release triggered his reserve parachute and this didn't, this got tangled too, but they had installed a backup contingency where the original chute would break away and that worked allowing the reserve chute to inflate at about 6000 feet. And he survived obviously and landed safely. So the spinning out itself was more of an equipment thing and didn't have anything to do with just the difficulty of dropping from such a high altitude. But this whole discussion started an email discussion with the listener who essentially said that this is his point, he said, if you jump at a very high altitude, the airody... the experience for the skydiver is the same because you're going to reach terminal velocity and terminal velocity is, by definition is the wind resistance is going to equal the acceleration due to gravity and therefore it doesn't really matter if it's a thin atmosphere and a high velocity or a thicker atmosphere at a lower velocity. The net resistance against the sky diver is the same so it feels the same to the sky diver. So I ''totally'' get that, and I see no problems with that line of logic. But here was my counter point. The difference here is that when you jump from very high where the atmosphere is thin, terminal velocity is a lot faster you're going to be going a lot faster and then you have to lose all of that extra velocity so when you get down into the thicker atmosphere you're not just approaching terminal velocity you're already exceeding the terminal velocity of the lower-down denser atmosphere and therefore the wind resistance has to actually decelerate you, it has to slow you down.<br />
<br />
E: Drag, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah so therefore the drag is greater than if you jumped at the lower altitude and were just getting up to terminal velocity. But he didn't agree with that point he thought, yeah but it depends on how, what the curve of the change in atmospheric density is but, I just don't buy it. For example it's estimated that during Kittinger's record-breaking jump he reached a maximum speed of 625 miles per hour. Terminal velocity at lower down, the normal altitudes that people sky dive from is somewhere between 117 and 125 miles per hour depending on, you know, your position and your size and whatnot, and in like a head-down bullet position it's about 210 miles per hour. So you figure Kittinger had to loose about 500 miles per hour of velocity when he descended into the lower atmosphere that's gotta be a lot of extra force from wind resistance that you wouldn't have on you if you were jumping from, you know say, 10,000 feet right? I tried to find, that's just my reasoning, I don't know what the final answer is I kinda propose it as an interesting physics question but no one has given me like a real definitive answer, what do you guys think about all that?<br />
<br />
J: Steve I agree with you I think you know, correct me where I'm wrong here, from what you're saying, if you're in a thinner atmosphere, terminal velocity is going to be faster.<br />
<br />
S: right, that we all agree on yep.<br />
<br />
J: then the idea is that you will eventually stop accelerating and maintain a speed when you hit enough air molecules basically get piled up underneath you that pretty much matches what it would be like say jumping at 10,000 feet, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah so it's thinner air but it's rushing past you faster and the net wind resistance is the same, that's right.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah ok,<br />
<br />
S: but the difference I'm saying is, yeah but then you descend into denser atmosphere where you have to, you're not just maintaining a terminal velocity you're actually significantly slowing down because the terminal velocity is getting lower as you descend into the thicker atmosphere, the other point I raised which no one's given me a good answer to is, all right so I understand the wind resistance will be the same but you still are going faster your velocity is greater so if you ''do'' spin out at a higher velocity, would there be the potential for the RPMs to be greater? Will you spin out faster? And that's the real risk, that you'll spin out so fast that you'll black out, right?<br />
<br />
J: Right yeah so, in other words, so if you do a spin out, at say, 70 or 80 thousand feet, you might actually be going so fast that, you know, your blood pressure goes totally crazy, whereas maybe...<br />
<br />
S: If you're going 500 miles an hour, and you spin out, is that more dangerous than when you're going at 120 miles an hour, that's the question. It's interesting, I posed it on my blog, but nobody really gave me a good answer. You know, Jay and I have been chatting about this and we asked a physics friend of ours who really didn't add anything to what we just said. So I dunno, it's an interesting thought experiment and we'll put it out there to our listeners to further the conversation. I still, it still seems to me that it would be more difficult and more risky to do the high sky dive because, it's the deceleration and the absolute velocity, how that translates into spin, those are the two points that I'd like to hear discussed. But Baumgartner is going to be making his next jump later this year where he's going to try and break the record and his one observation, I mean all the equipment tested out and worked fine but he said the cold was like really hard to handle. So before he goes...<br />
<br />
B: His hands were actually sort of numb he could't use them.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah so before he goes up higher, so his test dive was from 71,500 feet, he's going to 120,000 feet, that's going to be a lot thinner, a lot colder, so yeah I think they're going to have to tweak the spacesuit there that he has, if he's going to be able to tolerate the cold at that height.<br />
<br />
B: So put those heat packets in the gloves that's all.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: or those mittens that you put in the microwave.<br />
<br />
S: There are those people who like go into like the minus 120 degree refrigerators for like ten seconds, you guys hear about that?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Why would you do that?<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: 'cause why do you think? Because it's supposed to have some magical health benefit.<br />
<br />
R: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: I think I read it's supposed to be invigorating.<br />
<br />
S: Invigorating!<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: Invigorating? OK.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah you know what else is? Cold shower.<br />
<br />
S: They used to throw cold, wet blankets on psychotic patients to calm them down. <br />
<br />
J: Yeah. A real calming effect. It's a good...<br />
<br />
S: It would shock them, you know, they would be having you know whatever, they would be out of control, and that would shock them into just shutting down. You know that just that real sudden extreme cold.<br />
<br />
J: Steve aren't you really just supposed to slap someone silly when they freak out like that?<br />
<br />
E: Oh you know, an electrode that real electricity to...<br />
<br />
S: That's about as scientifically valid.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah according to like the fifties movies you know, all you got to do when someone's having a hissy fit you just smack 'em one and go you know...<br />
<br />
R: Get yourself together man!<br />
<br />
J: Get a hold of yourself woman you know something like that right?<br />
<br />
E: Stop crying or I'll give you something to cry about<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
=== Quickie with Bob: Designer Electrons <small>(21:33)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120314142841.htm ScienceDaily: Molecular Graphene Heralds New Era of 'Designer Electrons']<br />
<br />
E: You know what I just read? Rebecca wants a quickie with Bob<br />
<br />
S: (knowingly) Oooh.<br />
<br />
R: That's true, that's true I do.<br />
<br />
B: Oh sure Rebecca but will you hold me afterwards..<br />
<br />
R: (thinking) Mehh..<br />
<br />
B: Don't answer that question.<br />
<br />
R: I'm not into that cuddly shit.<br />
<br />
B: Ok this week's quickie with Bob...<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: For this week's quickie with Bob I've got a new era of designer electrons. Researchers at Stanford and the S.L.A.C national accelerator lab have learned how to control the behavior of electrons in such a way that we may see whole new classes of materials which in turn could comprise new and amazing electrical devices. Hari Manoharan who is associate professor of physics at Stanford who lead the research said: "The behavior of electrons in materials is at the heart of essentially all of today's technologies. We are now able to tune the fundamental properties of electrons so they behave in ways rarely seen in ordinary materials." So what they did was to use an STM. A [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope scanning tunneling microscope] to precisely position carbon monoxide molecules on a very, very smooth copper surface. So they did it in such a way so that electrons flowing over the surface are repelled by these molecules and they're forced into these patterns of flows that are identical to what their behaviors would be if there were a magnetic or electrical field present. Even though there were no such fields present at the time. So one example that they pulled off was that they were able to produce a flow of electrons that acted as if they were under the influence of a magnetic field of 60 Tesla. This is incredible because this is 30 percent more power than any field ever sustained by science. So these electrons were behaving in ways that there's probably no other way to make them behave 'cause science isn't even up to the take of creating a field and sustaining it that long. So who knows what kind of materials and devices this may lead to? Perhaps video displays and mobile phones and a host of other devices that we would hardly believe today. Do a Google search for designer electrons if you wanna read more about this.<br />
<br />
S: Thanks Bob.<br />
<br />
R: That's very satisfying.<br />
<br />
J: Thank-you Bob.<br />
<br />
===New Hampshire Abortion Bill <small>(23:31)</small> ===<br />
<!-- link broken http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2012/03/20/abortion_bill_goes_back_to_committee_of_nh_house/ --><br />
<br />
[http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view/2012/HB1659/2012-01-03 Women's Right to Know Act - January 3 2012]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca,<br />
<br />
R: Yo.<br />
<br />
S: Tell us about the lovely science based laws that are, bills that are being proposed up in our neighboring state New Hampshire, or nearby state I should say.<br />
<br />
R: Well, it's very, very exciting time to be a lady, in that it states, our listeners may be aware that right now in state legislatures around the US there's been this on going war on behalf of the religious right attempting to limit women's access to contraception, sexual health education and abortion in any way possible. And they can't just come out and make all that illegal, so much like the creationist, they have employed a wedge strategy of making life as difficult as possible for women who want control of their own reproductive health. Some of the bills that have been passing in the US have included those mandating that women be unnecessarily penetrated with an ultrasound wand prior to getting an abortion, some are allowing pharmacists and doctors to refuse to provide contraception based on religious convictions. And there are even some politicians that are trying to mandate that women need a signed permission slip from a man before getting an abortion. So that's just to give you like a slight context for those of you who maybe aren't in the US or aren't paying attention. Last week the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_House_of_Representatives New Hampshire House of Representatives] passed a bill that would require physicians to give certain materials to any woman seeking an abortion. Those materials are provided under the auspices of informed consent. You know we need to make sure women have as much information as possible before getting an abortion. The problem is that those materials include statements such as: "It is scientifically undisputed that full term pregnancy reduces a woman's lifetime risk of breast cancer. It is also undisputed that the earlier a woman has a first full-term pregnancy the lower her risk of breast cancer becomes because following a full term pregnancy the breast tissue exposed to estrogen through the menstrual cycle is more mature and cancer resistant. In fact for each year that a woman's first full-term pregnancy is delayed her risk of breast cancer rises three point five percent. The theory that there is a direct link between abortion and breast cancer builds upon this undisputed foundation."<br />
<br />
E: Where do they pull that information from?<br />
<br />
R: Their asses, actually.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: (Sarcastically) Oh they're proctologists, I see.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Yeah ah, this particular bit of pseudoscience, the idea that abortion increases a woman's chance of breast cancer has been bandied about particularly in anti-choice circles for a number of years now. And In-fact up until into the mid 1990s there have only been a few small but heavily flawed studies that had been done on this particular topic, and a few of those studies did show that there might be a connection between breast cancer and abortions and miscarriages. However, in the past several decades we've seen several large-scale studies conducted that show absolutely no connection at all. The organizations like the [http://www.nih.gov/ National Institutes of Health], [http://www.cancer.org/ American Cancer Society], the [http://www.acog.org/ American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists], and even the [http://ww5.komen.org/ Susan G. Komen Foundation],which is run by anti-choice fundamentalists, all stand by the fact that there's absolutely no link between abortion and breast cancer.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah I did my own literature research, just to see what it was, not reading political sites, just look at the literature and see what it shows, if you go back into the 1980s it looks like there was some, you know debate about it actually, you could find articles that come to either conclusion. But then when you look at reviews that are written in the last few years, they all agree that there is absolutely no link, between abortions and the risk of breast cancer.<br />
<br />
R: Right those papers that were done in the 80's and early 90's were very small, very small [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination sample sizes], and have a lot of flaws in them.<br />
<br />
E: So a coordinated disinformation campaign is underway.<br />
<br />
S: Exactly<br />
<br />
R: Well yeah now this is one of those things, another one I may have mentioned before on the show, definitely on [http://skepchick.org/ skepchick] though is, the idea that, one is the idea that abortion leads to depression, which is another thing that is absolutely not supported by the scientific evidence. And the other is that, that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus fetus], a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. This is a quote-unquote ''fact'' that is becoming commonplace in political discussions in the US these days and it's talked about as thought it's scientific fact, when in-fact it is not. The question of when a fetus can feel pain is actually still up for debate. And by no means is 20 weeks an actual medical diagnosis. you know, this is something that they've gone with that specific number because these politicians have an agenda, and that agenda is to outlaw abortion, and so they're using the idea of fetuses feeling pain at 20 weeks to convince courts to outlaw abortion at 20 weeks, despite the fact that it's unconstitutional.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah and there's good reason to think that it's actually not possible for a fetus to perceive pain before 24 weeks of gestation just in terms of the development of the nervous system.<br />
<br />
R: Right.<br />
<br />
S: So that's probably, that's a better guess at this point. Getting back.. can I comment on the mental health aspect of it?<br />
<br />
R: Yep.<br />
<br />
S: 'Cause you guys, just again looking at the literature just to see what it says. There's a lot of complexities actually to the mental health issue, because as you might imagine, you could look at studies in a lot of different ways. [http://www.statsdirect.com/help/basics/prospective.htm Retrospectively vs prospectively], you know, you can pick out different sub-populations you know for example a correlation obviously, just saying that women who are getting abortions are more depressed for example; well, probably something to do with their life situation that lead them to the abortion that may have something to do with it, that's not the same thing as saying that abortion ''causes'' depression. And when you control for those factors, there really isn't any evidence that abortions are causally linked to any mental health problem at all. But again they're cherry picking and exploiting the complexities in that particular part of the research in order to make their case. And If you have your desired conclusion in mind, you get, you know there's enough studies out there, you can cherry pick, you could support almost any position you want. But the systematic reviews out there done by researchers who are ''trying'' to get to the bottom of it and know how to control for different variables, are all coming to the same conclusion that there is just no causal relationship between abortion and mental illness.<br />
<br />
R: Right, and to get back to this particular bill in New Hampshire, the idea that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. So there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that's true. There ''is'' evidence to suggest that you, women who have children before the age of 30, do, they may have a decreased risk of breast cancer.<br />
<br />
S: So there is a difference between the outcomes of prospective and retrospective studies. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrospective_cohort_study Retrospective] basically means you take women who 'have' breast cancer and you ask them if they have had an abortion, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospective_cohort_study prospective] means you follow women who have had an abortion and then you see what their risk of, is of developing breast cancer compared to other women you know in the same cohort or who didn't have an abortion. The retrospective studies did show a higher correlation with having had an abortion but the prospective studies ''didn't'', and the likely interpretation there is that women who had breast cancer may have been more willing to disclose their prior history of abortion. We're relying upon women to disclose that information, when you follow them going forward, prospectively, there's no correlation. So prospective data is always better, it's always more reliable, because there isn't this recall bias, or maybe this willing to disclose bias that could alter the data. So the current consensus is that there's no correlation.<br />
<br />
R: Right, and despite this fact this bill ''did'' pass through the house, and the way that the original bill passed was not just to declare that the doctors needed to give these particular pseudoscientific materials to women seeking abortions, but it also wrote down exactly how those doctors should be punished if they failed to follow through with that. And in the original bill they recommended class A felonies for any doctor who didn't abide by the law and that came with up to 15 years in prison for a doctor.<br />
<br />
E: Ouch.<br />
<br />
S: For telling the truth.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, yeah, basically for telling the truth, and luckily I guess that original bill that passed through the house was then reconsidered and went back through the house. The criminal Justice and public safety committee just barely voted in favor of recommending the removal of the class A felony part. Even if that happens though, the way this bill is written, doctors will still be open to malpractice law suits or disciplinary action by the New Hampshire state board of medicine if they do in fact tell women the truth about abortion and breast cancer.<br />
<br />
S: Which means they can lose their license basically.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, so, you know, for those of you in New Hampshire you may want to contact your state representatives immediately. For those of you in the United States but not in New Hampshire you can't rest so easy because there are similar pseudoscientific bills exactly like this in several other states, and this is basically the religious right's standard operating procedure is to introduce the same or very similar bills simultaneously in many different states at once. So Kansas and Oklahoma, you have similar measures that have been proposed. So no matter where you are if you are in the US it might be a good idea to contact your local representatives and just let them know that you support science and reason.<br />
<br />
S: You know the thing I hate you know I feel obligated to say; it's not like, we're not taking a political position on this show regarding the abortion debate, I mean this is, you know people have the right to come to different moral and ethical decisions, you know, obviously Rebecca you have a certain position on that.<br />
<br />
R: I do have a certain position.<br />
<br />
S: But the point is you can't lie about the science...<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Yes right.<br />
<br />
S: ... in order to make your political position, and not only lying about the science by trying to pass a law ''mandating'' that physicians make the same lie and and trying to punish them for ''not'' lying; That is such an abuse of not only professionalism but of science and reason, and that stands aside from the political debate about abortion.<br />
<br />
R: Exactly yeah.<br />
<br />
S: It's a completely separate issue yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
=== Nuclear Clock <small>(34:53)</small> ===<br />
[http://phys.org/news/2012-03-blueprint-nuclear-clock-accurate-billions.html Phys.org: Researchers develop blueprint for nuclear clock accurate over billions of years]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== NDE and Lucid Dreaming <small>(40:44)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.livescience.com/19106-death-experiences-lucid-dreams.html LiveScience.com: Near-Death Experiences are Lucid Dreams, Experiment Finds]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Designer Electrons <small>()</small> ===<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120314142841.htm Science Daily: Molecular Graphene Heralds New Era of 'Designer Electrons']<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails: Here Comes the Metric System <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Just a quick question. I often wondered why America kept the Imperial system for measurements, miles, inches etc. Do you think it would be better (for science teaching in particular), if you switched to the metric system, and what problems do you think it would create? Thanks for the great show. Liz. Scotland </blockquote><br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy <small>()</small> ==<br />
From the comments to NeuroLogica <br />
<blockquote>"natural selection (or selection in general) explains how two horses can become all the different breeds we have today- including zebras. This is also how the finches of Darwin fame have longer beaks some years and shorter beaks other years… Everyone knows this happens. The question is this– does that explain how a single celled life form could become an elephant? Some question that it does. (I would be one who questions- BTW) This is called micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution– aka the development of species or kinds vs. the development of breeds. To make an analogy– Everyone knows you can make a ladder to the roof of the house. Does that mean you can make a ladder to the sun?"</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
*[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120321172208.htm Item number 1]: 'New measurements indicate that Venice continues to sink into the ocean, contradicting the prior conclusion that the city is stable'<br />
*[http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/health/sharp-rise-cases-new-strain-whooping-cough Item number 2]: 'A new study finds that the whooping cough epidemic currently occurring in Australia is mostly due to a new strain of B. pertussis which is not well covered by the vaccine' <br />
*[http://www.buffalo.edu/news/13271 Item number 3]: 'A new survey finds that parents of children with cancer trust information they find on the internet as much or more than information from their health care provider' <br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.</blockquote><br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Haisch Bernhard Haisch]<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Jacquie ohttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_349&diff=3817SGU Episode 3492012-10-19T13:31:29Z<p>Jacquie o: /* Nuclear Clock (34:53) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y TK proof-read up to, and including, New Hampshire Abortion Bill --><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 349<br />
|episodeDate = 24<sup>th</sup> March 2012<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Baumgartner.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2012-03-24.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=349<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,40991.0.html<br />
|qowText = Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Haisch Bernard Haisch]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the skeptics guide to the universe. Today is Wednesday March 21st 2012 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: (Jewish Accent) What is this? Pod-casting?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: ...and Evan Bernstein<br />
<br />
E: Good evening ladies and gentleman, how's everyone?<br />
<br />
J: Hola Evan.<br />
<br />
R: Super.<br />
<br />
S: Good, Fine and dandy.<br />
<br />
E: Now this was some winter huh?<br />
<br />
J: Oh, crazy right?<br />
<br />
S: This is my kind of winter.<br />
<br />
E: We barely had ''any'' snow this year in New England, it was in the 50s for a large part of the winter in southern New England which is unheard of.<br />
<br />
S: I love the vernal equinox because it means the next six months the sun is in the upper half of its course through the sky.<br />
<br />
B: I hope all of you have released your white owls.<br />
<br />
S: Well anyway Rebecca, what else is special about this day?<br />
<br />
== This day in skepticism <small>(0:58)</small> ==<br />
<br />
=== March 24, 1989: The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill ===<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdex_oil_spill Wikipedia:Exxon Valdez Oil Spill]<br />
<br />
R: Well, this day marks the anniversary of a quite horrific event, March 24th 1989 was the day that the Exxon Valdez spilled oil into [http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Prince%20William%20Sound Prince William Sound].<br />
<br />
S: You just can't let it go can you Rebecca?<br />
<br />
R: No, no me and the otters...<br />
<br />
S: (laughs) the otters.<br />
<br />
R: ...are really pissed about it still.<br />
<br />
E: One drunk sea captain, you know, guides the boat into the low into the shoals and he pays for it for the rest of his life.<br />
<br />
R: I think, apparently that's a... apparently that's a bit of a myth, the captain apparently was drunk but was not at the helm. The third mate was, and on the list of things, what went wrong, the biggest ones seems to be that the radar for detecting possible collisions had been broken for nearly a year. Also...<br />
<br />
E: And the captain was too drunk to know it. Apparently.<br />
<br />
S: We'll get to that eventually.<br />
<br />
R: And apparently all of the crew was severely overworked and exhausted and had been for quite some time. So those were identified as being the main causes of why it ended up striking a reef and spilling up to possibly seven hundred fifty thousand barrels of oil. It's not however...<br />
<br />
E: Think of all the cars and furnaces that it would have provided heat and energy for. It's very sad.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, despite how devastating that oil spill was, it's not even in the top ten worst oil spills of all time. It ''was'' though the worst one in the US up until the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster]. But yeah it's kinda crazy to think that there are oils spills happening all the time and some of them are much much worse than the Exxon Valdez. Yeah, there's a happy thought for you. The ship itself was recently auctioned off, actually. Just the tanker, just this week it was sold for scrap so apparently it was renamed the "Oriental Nicety".<br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm?<br />
<br />
B: For real?<br />
<br />
R: I guess as some way to trick people into to thinking it was err...<br />
<br />
E: Oh my gosh, you might as well call it the "Happy Ending".<br />
<br />
S: (laughing) The little nicety?! That's odd. I've a funny Exxon Valdez story, I was in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epcot Epcot Centre] in Disney World shortly after that oil spill and the dinosaur exhibit was, I guess, funded by Exxon and before you get to see the dinosaurs, there's essentially a big commercial for Exxon. At one point they have this aerial shot of an oil tanker going through a harbor and they go: "The beautiful Exxon Valdez..." 'Course everyone starts laughing 'cause this is like right after the disaster they hadn't updated the ride yet.<br />
<br />
S: (laughs)<br />
<br />
E: Time to update the rides...<br />
<br />
B: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27oh! D'OH!]<br />
<br />
R: That's a little embarrassing. Here's my question; I've always heard people call it the Exxon Val-deeze but I don't understand why they pronounce it Val-deeze, when it's obviously Valdez.<br />
<br />
S: I don't know I'm just slavishly following what I hear.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah I don't know, I think it's weird.<br />
<br />
S: But at least we can have our super hero magical bracelets to make it all better right jay?<br />
<br />
B: Nice segue.<br />
<br />
R: That was a good segue Steve.<br />
<br />
S: You know it kinda takes away from it when you say it's a good segue.<br />
<br />
R: I know that's why it's funny, and every single time, Steve, you will never be able to do a segue without us calling attention to it.<br />
<br />
S: (laughs) OK.<br />
<br />
R: This is your curse.<br />
<br />
== News Items <small>(4:39)</small> ==<br />
<br />
=== Superhero Pseudoscience ===<br />
[http://colantotte.com Colantotte.com]<br />
<br />
J: Steve jumped right into it, I wanted to loosen up a little bit before we say bad things about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Studios Marvel], to say some good things about Marvel like, you know I think that for their super hero movies they've done a great job. You know for the most part I've liked all of them, and you know, the Avengers movie is coming out and I'm really psyched to see it, its totally right in my sweet spot. I mean I love super heroes I love like you know science fictiony stuff like that. So it really was disappointing to find out that Marvel, and probably even more involved is the production company that they're using, the marketing company that they've hired for the Avengers film, sadly has, is selling some crazy wacky merchandise. So they are selling a magic bracelet a ''real'' magic bracelet. A-la [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Balance Powerband] type BS.<br />
<br />
E: As opposed to those fake magic bracelets? <br />
<br />
S: They're not a toy, they're making actual claims for it.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah they are, here I'll get into some of the details here, the limited edition Magtitan Neo Legend has a carbon fibre surface finished with a coat of transparent resin that yields an attractive stylish design.<br />
<br />
S: Oh I thought you were going to say transparent aluminum. That would have been impressive.<br />
<br />
J: A 100 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millitesla mT] 1000 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss_unit Gauss] ferrite permanent magnets arranged in Colantotte's unique alternating north-south polarity orientation which is<br />
<br />
B: Oooh<br />
<br />
E: (laughs) *Sarcastic* unique!<br />
<br />
J: They've trademarked A-N-S-P-O. ANSPO trademark.<br />
<br />
R: I'm holding out for the east-west polarity.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah I'm there too.<br />
<br />
S: They're saying because they have alternating strips of magnets with the north-south polarity alternating, and that's supposed to be unique to this, that's exactly how you make a refrigerator magnet.<br />
<br />
E: Now wait a minute, what are you accusing them of?<br />
<br />
S: That's how the refrigerator magnets have a very you know, narrow, of depth but relatively strong for the power of the magnets used, attraction right? That's why like when you pull a refrigerator magnet off of the refrigerator it's really strong over a very short distance but they're very quickly gives way<br />
<br />
J: Right, drops off.<br />
<br />
S: That's because they have alternating strips of north and south, you know of poles in the magnet.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah but Steve is a refrigerator magnet made of adimantium, I don't think so?<br />
<br />
J: I don't think so, Steve come on.<br />
<br />
S: A really good refrigerator magnet.<br />
<br />
J: Steve you can say what you will, and put it down, but each 'limited edition Magtite Neo Legend comes in a special limited edition package commemorating Marvel's The Avengers movie'. So of course it's works, it works Steve you gotta buy this thing.<br />
<br />
S: Because the Avengers are real.<br />
<br />
J: Now I saw something I'm perusing the ah, website and I have to admit the design of it is pretty cool, but you know go around the website and I was nosing around the SGU forums and they were chit chatting about it and they came up with a couple of interesting things. Somebody on our forums said that this is basically proven to work in Japan, like they have real medical benefit in Japan. I couldn’t find any proof of that so if anybody does I'd be interested to read it for myself but what they do have on the website is of course they have first hand comments by professional athletes.<br />
<br />
S: Oh here we go.<br />
<br />
J: "The Magtite Neo Legend is Colantotte's finest gear, the combination of pure titanium and carbon fibre is great, plus it's been created specifically to commemorate Marvel's Avengers movie"<ref name=rory>Rory McIlroy endorses Magtitan Neo Legend on [http://colantotte.com/products/ colantotte.com]</ref>. Two things! Two comments, ready? One: That guy did not write that, he did not say that.<br />
<br />
E: Oh no!<br />
<br />
J: If that guy walks around talking like that, he needs help<br />
<br />
S: Don't you love it when anecdotes like that are written in ad-copy? <br />
<br />
J: Right.<br />
<br />
S: It's so ''obviously'' written by some sales guy, and it's supposed to be a spontaneous endorsement or anecdote from somebody. You know what I mean, it's so transparent.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, pretend I'm [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_McIlroy Rory McIlroy] and ask me about that bracelet I'm wearing?<br />
<br />
S: Hey can you tell me about that bracelet you're wearing?<br />
<br />
J: "The Magtight Neo Legend is Colantotte's finest gear, the combination of pure titanium and carbon fibre is great". Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
R: That's really natural.<br />
<br />
E: I think Rory has a Scottish accent actually...<br />
<br />
J: Don't even...<br />
<br />
E: ...if memory serves.<br />
<br />
J: (attempting Scottish accent) "The Magtight Neo Legend is Colantotte's finest gear".<br />
<br />
R: What? What was that?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: I'll take (unintelligible) for four hundred.<br />
<br />
B: I think you just invented a new accent that's never been heard of before.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah it think it was just shouting. It was like a Klingon variant.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: So anyway the second thing from that guy's endorsement that makes me shudder is he says, "I can't wait to go see this movie with my mates to watch Colantotte's Magtite Neo Legend in action"<ref name=rory/>. Does this mean it's in the movie? Is it in the movie, Marvel?<br />
<br />
E: Clearly.<br />
<br />
J: Seriously<br />
<br />
B: Oh god.<br />
<br />
S: I guess so.<br />
<br />
E: Someone had to pay for this movie.<br />
<br />
S: You gotta give it to 'em, I mean it's pretty brilliant, having a magic bracelet be on a super hero I mean, right?<br />
<br />
R: Yeaaah?<br />
<br />
E: OK, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: The marketing is good, the marketing idea is good, especially because most people will probably buy into it, even if it's just because it looks good but you know, it's very...<br />
<br />
R: It's probably still better than those Green Lantern rings.<br />
<br />
S: (laughs)<br />
<br />
B: Ha!<br />
<br />
E: I've got two of those.<br />
<br />
J: It's a sad state of affairs when a company like Marvel a company which produces fantasy, you know, they're actually...<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: They're still doing it.<br />
<br />
J: ...morphing into reality here, you know let's cash in on the fact that we write about magic and sell magic.<br />
<br />
E: Yep.<br />
<br />
J: So, I'm a little twigged at Marvel right now.<br />
<br />
S: What has this world come to.<br />
<br />
E: Payin' the bills, it's payin' the bills.<br />
<br />
B: Jay, on the website it shows a picture of the bracelet and underneath it says: "The superhero's secret"<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Oh wow really that's the secret huh? Two little magnets on their wrist, that's what it does it.<br />
<br />
R: I thought it was leaking radiation, we should try that.<br />
<br />
E: Bob, that's a secret<br />
<br />
S: So you're saying it doesn't work, Jay?<br />
<br />
E: Can we agree that DC maybe is taken a notch up due to this? And maybe...<br />
<br />
J: Yeah absolutely,<br />
<br />
E: ...and maybe Marvel have suffered a hit.<br />
<br />
J: It comes out April first, I couldn't find any pricing, I bet you it's going to be in the 60 to 100 dollar range. (note, $199 as of 29/5/2012<ref>Magtitan Neo Legend bracelet: Colantotte links to [http://www.trionzdirect.com/?cmd=cart&type=29&sub=1 trionzdirect.com] for US purchases</ref> <br />
<br />
S: April first really?<br />
<br />
E: April first? Hmmm.<br />
<br />
J: Well what do you think do you think the whole thing is a hoax?<br />
<br />
E: Something hoaxy this way comes, no.<br />
<br />
J: I don't think so and I'll tell you why, the company that produces the bracelet, I researched them, they make a lot of other BS stuff, the negative ion crap and all that stuff.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Of course.<br />
<br />
=== High Altitude Skydiving <small>(10:54)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17399985 BBC: Skydiver Felix Baumgartner on track for super jump]<br />
<br />
S: All right well let's move on, we have a bit of a follow-up to a previous discussion, we had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Cain Fraser Cain] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Gay Pamela Gay] on the show a few weeks ago, we talked about the up-coming attempted world-record-breaking high skydive, high altitude sky dive from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Baumgartner Felix Baumgartner]. And there's a discussion and bit of a news update, the news update is that he completed a test jump recently. He jumped from 71,500 ft or 22 Km above New Mexico, landing safely 8 minutes later. Although this is only a test jump, that puts him in the top three! In terms of the highest altitude skydives ever. This is a preparation for his planned jump later this year in which he will break the world record. He's planning to jump from 120,000 feet, so the current record stands at 102,800 ft in 1960 by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Kittinger Joe Kittinger] who was a US Air Force colonel at the time, when we were talking about Baumgartner's planned jump on the last episode we mentioned the fact that it's inherently dangerous to jump from such a high altitude because of the velocities involved and that Kittinger during his jump in 1960 actually spun out of control, blacked out, and didn't regain consciousness until after his chute had automatically deployed. So when I was researching this for this piece, I found out that that's sorta true but one thing we didn't mention is that was, that occurred on the first of Kittinger's three jumps this was the excelsior mission, is what it was called, there was excelsior one two and three.<br />
<br />
J: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excelsior#Motto_and_catchphrase Excelsior!]<br />
<br />
S: Yeah the third one was the one where he you know, is the record still stands now at 102,800 feet, it was the first one, excelsior one where he spun out of control, the reason he spun out of control didn't have anything to do with the conditions of the jump, the aerodynamics or the thin atmosphere, or the velocity, it had to do with the fact that his pilot chute deployed too early. He, in releasing you know from the gondola he had to yank on you know the cord a few times before it came loose but he actually started the timer on the first yank so the timer was going before he jumped off the gondola and then his pilot chute deployed too early so he wasn't going fast enough. Normally it'll only deploy after you get up sufficient speed that the aerodynamics are such that it will be you know pulled back away from you, but he was going too slow when it deployed and then therefore it flopped around more than it should have and it actually wrapped around his neck and this started him spinning. He basically got tangled up in the pilot chute, he started spinning out of control, they estimate I think 80 RPMs, and he blacked out. Then he fell all the way to 10,000 feet when the barometric release triggered his reserve parachute and this didn't, this got tangled too, but they had installed a backup contingency where the original chute would break away and that worked allowing the reserve chute to inflate at about 6000 feet. And he survived obviously and landed safely. So the spinning out itself was more of an equipment thing and didn't have anything to do with just the difficulty of dropping from such a high altitude. But this whole discussion started an email discussion with the listener who essentially said that this is his point, he said, if you jump at a very high altitude, the airody... the experience for the skydiver is the same because you're going to reach terminal velocity and terminal velocity is, by definition is the wind resistance is going to equal the acceleration due to gravity and therefore it doesn't really matter if it's a thin atmosphere and a high velocity or a thicker atmosphere at a lower velocity. The net resistance against the sky diver is the same so it feels the same to the sky diver. So I ''totally'' get that, and I see no problems with that line of logic. But here was my counter point. The difference here is that when you jump from very high where the atmosphere is thin, terminal velocity is a lot faster you're going to be going a lot faster and then you have to lose all of that extra velocity so when you get down into the thicker atmosphere you're not just approaching terminal velocity you're already exceeding the terminal velocity of the lower-down denser atmosphere and therefore the wind resistance has to actually decelerate you, it has to slow you down.<br />
<br />
E: Drag, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah so therefore the drag is greater than if you jumped at the lower altitude and were just getting up to terminal velocity. But he didn't agree with that point he thought, yeah but it depends on how, what the curve of the change in atmospheric density is but, I just don't buy it. For example it's estimated that during Kittinger's record-breaking jump he reached a maximum speed of 625 miles per hour. Terminal velocity at lower down, the normal altitudes that people sky dive from is somewhere between 117 and 125 miles per hour depending on, you know, your position and your size and whatnot, and in like a head-down bullet position it's about 210 miles per hour. So you figure Kittinger had to loose about 500 miles per hour of velocity when he descended into the lower atmosphere that's gotta be a lot of extra force from wind resistance that you wouldn't have on you if you were jumping from, you know say, 10,000 feet right? I tried to find, that's just my reasoning, I don't know what the final answer is I kinda propose it as an interesting physics question but no one has given me like a real definitive answer, what do you guys think about all that?<br />
<br />
J: Steve I agree with you I think you know, correct me where I'm wrong here, from what you're saying, if you're in a thinner atmosphere, terminal velocity is going to be faster.<br />
<br />
S: right, that we all agree on yep.<br />
<br />
J: then the idea is that you will eventually stop accelerating and maintain a speed when you hit enough air molecules basically get piled up underneath you that pretty much matches what it would be like say jumping at 10,000 feet, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah so it's thinner air but it's rushing past you faster and the net wind resistance is the same, that's right.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah ok,<br />
<br />
S: but the difference I'm saying is, yeah but then you descend into denser atmosphere where you have to, you're not just maintaining a terminal velocity you're actually significantly slowing down because the terminal velocity is getting lower as you descend into the thicker atmosphere, the other point I raised which no one's given me a good answer to is, all right so I understand the wind resistance will be the same but you still are going faster your velocity is greater so if you ''do'' spin out at a higher velocity, would there be the potential for the RPMs to be greater? Will you spin out faster? And that's the real risk, that you'll spin out so fast that you'll black out, right?<br />
<br />
J: Right yeah so, in other words, so if you do a spin out, at say, 70 or 80 thousand feet, you might actually be going so fast that, you know, your blood pressure goes totally crazy, whereas maybe...<br />
<br />
S: If you're going 500 miles an hour, and you spin out, is that more dangerous than when you're going at 120 miles an hour, that's the question. It's interesting, I posed it on my blog, but nobody really gave me a good answer. You know, Jay and I have been chatting about this and we asked a physics friend of ours who really didn't add anything to what we just said. So I dunno, it's an interesting thought experiment and we'll put it out there to our listeners to further the conversation. I still, it still seems to me that it would be more difficult and more risky to do the high sky dive because, it's the deceleration and the absolute velocity, how that translates into spin, those are the two points that I'd like to hear discussed. But Baumgartner is going to be making his next jump later this year where he's going to try and break the record and his one observation, I mean all the equipment tested out and worked fine but he said the cold was like really hard to handle. So before he goes...<br />
<br />
B: His hands were actually sort of numb he could't use them.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah so before he goes up higher, so his test dive was from 71,500 feet, he's going to 120,000 feet, that's going to be a lot thinner, a lot colder, so yeah I think they're going to have to tweak the spacesuit there that he has, if he's going to be able to tolerate the cold at that height.<br />
<br />
B: So put those heat packets in the gloves that's all.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: or those mittens that you put in the microwave.<br />
<br />
S: There are those people who like go into like the minus 120 degree refrigerators for like ten seconds, you guys hear about that?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Why would you do that?<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: 'cause why do you think? Because it's supposed to have some magical health benefit.<br />
<br />
R: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
B: I think I read it's supposed to be invigorating.<br />
<br />
S: Invigorating!<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: Invigorating? OK.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah you know what else is? Cold shower.<br />
<br />
S: They used to throw cold, wet blankets on psychotic patients to calm them down. <br />
<br />
J: Yeah. A real calming effect. It's a good...<br />
<br />
S: It would shock them, you know, they would be having you know whatever, they would be out of control, and that would shock them into just shutting down. You know that just that real sudden extreme cold.<br />
<br />
J: Steve aren't you really just supposed to slap someone silly when they freak out like that?<br />
<br />
E: Oh you know, an electrode that real electricity to...<br />
<br />
S: That's about as scientifically valid.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah according to like the fifties movies you know, all you got to do when someone's having a hissy fit you just smack 'em one and go you know...<br />
<br />
R: Get yourself together man!<br />
<br />
J: Get a hold of yourself woman you know something like that right?<br />
<br />
E: Stop crying or I'll give you something to cry about<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
=== Quickie with Bob: Designer Electrons <small>(21:33)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120314142841.htm ScienceDaily: Molecular Graphene Heralds New Era of 'Designer Electrons']<br />
<br />
E: You know what I just read? Rebecca wants a quickie with Bob<br />
<br />
S: (knowingly) Oooh.<br />
<br />
R: That's true, that's true I do.<br />
<br />
B: Oh sure Rebecca but will you hold me afterwards..<br />
<br />
R: (thinking) Mehh..<br />
<br />
B: Don't answer that question.<br />
<br />
R: I'm not into that cuddly shit.<br />
<br />
B: Ok this week's quickie with Bob...<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: For this week's quickie with Bob I've got a new era of designer electrons. Researchers at Stanford and the S.L.A.C national accelerator lab have learned how to control the behavior of electrons in such a way that we may see whole new classes of materials which in turn could comprise new and amazing electrical devices. Hari Manoharan who is associate professor of physics at Stanford who lead the research said: "The behavior of electrons in materials is at the heart of essentially all of today's technologies. We are now able to tune the fundamental properties of electrons so they behave in ways rarely seen in ordinary materials." So what they did was to use an STM. A [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope scanning tunneling microscope] to precisely position carbon monoxide molecules on a very, very smooth copper surface. So they did it in such a way so that electrons flowing over the surface are repelled by these molecules and they're forced into these patterns of flows that are identical to what their behaviors would be if there were a magnetic or electrical field present. Even though there were no such fields present at the time. So one example that they pulled off was that they were able to produce a flow of electrons that acted as if they were under the influence of a magnetic field of 60 Tesla. This is incredible because this is 30 percent more power than any field ever sustained by science. So these electrons were behaving in ways that there's probably no other way to make them behave 'cause science isn't even up to the take of creating a field and sustaining it that long. So who knows what kind of materials and devices this may lead to? Perhaps video displays and mobile phones and a host of other devices that we would hardly believe today. Do a Google search for designer electrons if you wanna read more about this.<br />
<br />
S: Thanks Bob.<br />
<br />
R: That's very satisfying.<br />
<br />
J: Thank-you Bob.<br />
<br />
===New Hampshire Abortion Bill <small>(23:31)</small> ===<br />
<!-- link broken http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2012/03/20/abortion_bill_goes_back_to_committee_of_nh_house/ --><br />
<br />
[http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view/2012/HB1659/2012-01-03 Women's Right to Know Act - January 3 2012]<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca,<br />
<br />
R: Yo.<br />
<br />
S: Tell us about the lovely science based laws that are, bills that are being proposed up in our neighboring state New Hampshire, or nearby state I should say.<br />
<br />
R: Well, it's very, very exciting time to be a lady, in that it states, our listeners may be aware that right now in state legislatures around the US there's been this on going war on behalf of the religious right attempting to limit women's access to contraception, sexual health education and abortion in any way possible. And they can't just come out and make all that illegal, so much like the creationist, they have employed a wedge strategy of making life as difficult as possible for women who want control of their own reproductive health. Some of the bills that have been passing in the US have included those mandating that women be unnecessarily penetrated with an ultrasound wand prior to getting an abortion, some are allowing pharmacists and doctors to refuse to provide contraception based on religious convictions. And there are even some politicians that are trying to mandate that women need a signed permission slip from a man before getting an abortion. So that's just to give you like a slight context for those of you who maybe aren't in the US or aren't paying attention. Last week the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_House_of_Representatives New Hampshire House of Representatives] passed a bill that would require physicians to give certain materials to any woman seeking an abortion. Those materials are provided under the auspices of informed consent. You know we need to make sure women have as much information as possible before getting an abortion. The problem is that those materials include statements such as: "It is scientifically undisputed that full term pregnancy reduces a woman's lifetime risk of breast cancer. It is also undisputed that the earlier a woman has a first full-term pregnancy the lower her risk of breast cancer becomes because following a full term pregnancy the breast tissue exposed to estrogen through the menstrual cycle is more mature and cancer resistant. In fact for each year that a woman's first full-term pregnancy is delayed her risk of breast cancer rises three point five percent. The theory that there is a direct link between abortion and breast cancer builds upon this undisputed foundation."<br />
<br />
E: Where do they pull that information from?<br />
<br />
R: Their asses, actually.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: (Sarcastically) Oh they're proctologists, I see.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Yeah ah, this particular bit of pseudoscience, the idea that abortion increases a woman's chance of breast cancer has been bandied about particularly in anti-choice circles for a number of years now. And In-fact up until into the mid 1990s there have only been a few small but heavily flawed studies that had been done on this particular topic, and a few of those studies did show that there might be a connection between breast cancer and abortions and miscarriages. However, in the past several decades we've seen several large-scale studies conducted that show absolutely no connection at all. The organizations like the [http://www.nih.gov/ National Institutes of Health], [http://www.cancer.org/ American Cancer Society], the [http://www.acog.org/ American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists], and even the [http://ww5.komen.org/ Susan G. Komen Foundation],which is run by anti-choice fundamentalists, all stand by the fact that there's absolutely no link between abortion and breast cancer.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah I did my own literature research, just to see what it was, not reading political sites, just look at the literature and see what it shows, if you go back into the 1980s it looks like there was some, you know debate about it actually, you could find articles that come to either conclusion. But then when you look at reviews that are written in the last few years, they all agree that there is absolutely no link, between abortions and the risk of breast cancer.<br />
<br />
R: Right those papers that were done in the 80's and early 90's were very small, very small [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination sample sizes], and have a lot of flaws in them.<br />
<br />
E: So a coordinated disinformation campaign is underway.<br />
<br />
S: Exactly<br />
<br />
R: Well yeah now this is one of those things, another one I may have mentioned before on the show, definitely on [http://skepchick.org/ skepchick] though is, the idea that, one is the idea that abortion leads to depression, which is another thing that is absolutely not supported by the scientific evidence. And the other is that, that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus fetus], a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. This is a quote-unquote ''fact'' that is becoming commonplace in political discussions in the US these days and it's talked about as thought it's scientific fact, when in-fact it is not. The question of when a fetus can feel pain is actually still up for debate. And by no means is 20 weeks an actual medical diagnosis. you know, this is something that they've gone with that specific number because these politicians have an agenda, and that agenda is to outlaw abortion, and so they're using the idea of fetuses feeling pain at 20 weeks to convince courts to outlaw abortion at 20 weeks, despite the fact that it's unconstitutional.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah and there's good reason to think that it's actually not possible for a fetus to perceive pain before 24 weeks of gestation just in terms of the development of the nervous system.<br />
<br />
R: Right.<br />
<br />
S: So that's probably, that's a better guess at this point. Getting back.. can I comment on the mental health aspect of it?<br />
<br />
R: Yep.<br />
<br />
S: 'Cause you guys, just again looking at the literature just to see what it says. There's a lot of complexities actually to the mental health issue, because as you might imagine, you could look at studies in a lot of different ways. [http://www.statsdirect.com/help/basics/prospective.htm Retrospectively vs prospectively], you know, you can pick out different sub-populations you know for example a correlation obviously, just saying that women who are getting abortions are more depressed for example; well, probably something to do with their life situation that lead them to the abortion that may have something to do with it, that's not the same thing as saying that abortion ''causes'' depression. And when you control for those factors, there really isn't any evidence that abortions are causally linked to any mental health problem at all. But again they're cherry picking and exploiting the complexities in that particular part of the research in order to make their case. And If you have your desired conclusion in mind, you get, you know there's enough studies out there, you can cherry pick, you could support almost any position you want. But the systematic reviews out there done by researchers who are ''trying'' to get to the bottom of it and know how to control for different variables, are all coming to the same conclusion that there is just no causal relationship between abortion and mental illness.<br />
<br />
R: Right, and to get back to this particular bill in New Hampshire, the idea that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. So there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that's true. There ''is'' evidence to suggest that you, women who have children before the age of 30, do, they may have a decreased risk of breast cancer.<br />
<br />
S: So there is a difference between the outcomes of prospective and retrospective studies. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrospective_cohort_study Retrospective] basically means you take women who 'have' breast cancer and you ask them if they have had an abortion, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospective_cohort_study prospective] means you follow women who have had an abortion and then you see what their risk of, is of developing breast cancer compared to other women you know in the same cohort or who didn't have an abortion. The retrospective studies did show a higher correlation with having had an abortion but the prospective studies ''didn't'', and the likely interpretation there is that women who had breast cancer may have been more willing to disclose their prior history of abortion. We're relying upon women to disclose that information, when you follow them going forward, prospectively, there's no correlation. So prospective data is always better, it's always more reliable, because there isn't this recall bias, or maybe this willing to disclose bias that could alter the data. So the current consensus is that there's no correlation.<br />
<br />
R: Right, and despite this fact this bill ''did'' pass through the house, and the way that the original bill passed was not just to declare that the doctors needed to give these particular pseudoscientific materials to women seeking abortions, but it also wrote down exactly how those doctors should be punished if they failed to follow through with that. And in the original bill they recommended class A felonies for any doctor who didn't abide by the law and that came with up to 15 years in prison for a doctor.<br />
<br />
E: Ouch.<br />
<br />
S: For telling the truth.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, yeah, basically for telling the truth, and luckily I guess that original bill that passed through the house was then reconsidered and went back through the house. The criminal Justice and public safety committee just barely voted in favor of recommending the removal of the class A felony part. Even if that happens though, the way this bill is written, doctors will still be open to malpractice law suits or disciplinary action by the New Hampshire state board of medicine if they do in fact tell women the truth about abortion and breast cancer.<br />
<br />
S: Which means they can lose their license basically.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, so, you know, for those of you in New Hampshire you may want to contact your state representatives immediately. For those of you in the United States but not in New Hampshire you can't rest so easy because there are similar pseudoscientific bills exactly like this in several other states, and this is basically the religious right's standard operating procedure is to introduce the same or very similar bills simultaneously in many different states at once. So Kansas and Oklahoma, you have similar measures that have been proposed. So no matter where you are if you are in the US it might be a good idea to contact your local representatives and just let them know that you support science and reason.<br />
<br />
S: You know the thing I hate you know I feel obligated to say; it's not like, we're not taking a political position on this show regarding the abortion debate, I mean this is, you know people have the right to come to different moral and ethical decisions, you know, obviously Rebecca you have a certain position on that.<br />
<br />
R: I do have a certain position.<br />
<br />
S: But the point is you can't lie about the science...<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Yes right.<br />
<br />
S: ... in order to make your political position, and not only lying about the science by trying to pass a law ''mandating'' that physicians make the same lie and and trying to punish them for ''not'' lying; That is such an abuse of not only professionalism but of science and reason, and that stands aside from the political debate about abortion.<br />
<br />
R: Exactly yeah.<br />
<br />
S: It's a completely separate issue yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
=== Nuclear Clock <small>(34:53)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== NDE and Lucid Dreaming <small>(40:44)</small> ===<br />
[http://www.livescience.com/19106-death-experiences-lucid-dreams.html LiveScience.com: Near-Death Experiences are Lucid Dreams, Experiment Finds]<br />
<br />
{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = jacquie_o<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Designer Electrons <small>()</small> ===<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120314142841.htm Science Daily: Molecular Graphene Heralds New Era of 'Designer Electrons']<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails: Here Comes the Metric System <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Just a quick question. I often wondered why America kept the Imperial system for measurements, miles, inches etc. Do you think it would be better (for science teaching in particular), if you switched to the metric system, and what problems do you think it would create? Thanks for the great show. Liz. Scotland </blockquote><br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy <small>()</small> ==<br />
From the comments to NeuroLogica <br />
<blockquote>"natural selection (or selection in general) explains how two horses can become all the different breeds we have today- including zebras. This is also how the finches of Darwin fame have longer beaks some years and shorter beaks other years… Everyone knows this happens. The question is this– does that explain how a single celled life form could become an elephant? Some question that it does. (I would be one who questions- BTW) This is called micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution– aka the development of species or kinds vs. the development of breeds. To make an analogy– Everyone knows you can make a ladder to the roof of the house. Does that mean you can make a ladder to the sun?"</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
*[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120321172208.htm Item number 1]: 'New measurements indicate that Venice continues to sink into the ocean, contradicting the prior conclusion that the city is stable'<br />
*[http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/health/sharp-rise-cases-new-strain-whooping-cough Item number 2]: 'A new study finds that the whooping cough epidemic currently occurring in Australia is mostly due to a new strain of B. pertussis which is not well covered by the vaccine' <br />
*[http://www.buffalo.edu/news/13271 Item number 3]: 'A new survey finds that parents of children with cancer trust information they find on the internet as much or more than information from their health care provider' <br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.</blockquote><br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Haisch Bernhard Haisch]<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Jacquie o