SGU Episode 402: Difference between revisions
(This takes a lot of work, but it's doable.) |
(More proof-reading) |
||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
S: Karl, tell us a little bit about your journey into skepticism. | S: Karl, tell us a little bit about your journey into skepticism. | ||
K: My journey into skepticism—into actual skepticism, rather than just scientific inquiry really kinda started with a friend of mine's blog called Polite Dissent. It's a blog that's he—it's not really skepticism-related at all. He covers basically pop media, comic books and medicine topics and also, for many years, wrote a very well followed review of House MD the show{{Link_needed}} and he had some links to some other web sites, one of which was Respectful Insolence | K: My journey into skepticism—into actual skepticism, rather than just scientific inquiry really kinda started with a friend of mine's blog called Polite Dissent. It's a blog that's he—it's not really skepticism-related at all. He covers basically pop media, comic books and medicine topics and also, for many years, wrote a very well followed review of House MD the show{{Link_needed}} and he had some links to some other web sites, one of which was [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ Respectful Insolence]. Checking out other blogs he linked, to I found respectful insolence I started following Orac's site and then from there it kinda spread out to Science-Based Medicine and Neurologica and Skeptiblog and things just kinda grew from there. | ||
S: It's like the Borg{{Link_needed}} collective; you just sort of got assimilated into the whole— | S: It's like the Borg{{Link_needed}} collective; you just sort of got assimilated into the whole— | ||
| Line 244: | Line 244: | ||
R: Good. That's hilarious. | R: Good. That's hilarious. | ||
S: It is hilarious; of course I did. Yeah, so then that was it; that's like—that was the exchange, you know. He had one crappy study after another. And then I went to the clinical evidence and I presented the systematic reviews. Now I deliberately chose a systematic review that was not authored by Edzard Ernst | S: It is hilarious; of course I did. Yeah, so then that was it; that's like—that was the exchange, you know. He had one crappy study after another. And then I went to the clinical evidence and I presented the systematic reviews. Now I deliberately chose a systematic review that was not authored by {{w|Edzard Ernst}}, 'cause I know they hate him. But then I also included his systematic review of systematic reviews from 2010, 'cause it's still the most current thorough systematic review of clinical studies—of {{w|Cochrane_Collaboration|Cochrane}} systematic reviews of homeopathy and it's completely negative; I mean, he came to the conclusion that homeopathic remedies do not have any effects beyond placebo, and his response to that was "Edzard Ernst is not a real homeopath. He only took six months or whatever, not two years of homeopthic training, and he lies about being a homeopath and he's a nasty person"; just basically launched into an ad hominem attack against Edzard Ernst and against me for ''relying'' upon Edzard Ernst for my analysis, which is not true. | ||
R: Yeah, it's hardly reliance, quoting him once. | R: Yeah, it's hardly reliance, quoting him once. | ||
S: Also, I know how to look at studies myself. But in anyway, Edzard was conducting a systematic review of | S: Also, I know how to look at studies myself. But in anyway, Edzard was conducting a systematic review of Cochrane reviews. He was just collating what they said; he wasn't doing research; he wasn't even doing a systematic review, he was just co—directly; he was just summarizing the results of all the other systematic reviews that were high quality. | ||
E: Yeah, he was shooting the messenger. Ernst the messenger. | E: Yeah, he was shooting the messenger. Ernst the messenger. | ||
S: That's ridiculous. And then I—all right, so we did—what's fun about this debate is we were able to ask each other questions. So I asked him: "what is the indication for which homeopathic remedies have been shown to be effective in multiple high-quality reproducible clinical trials?" And you know, he did sort of try to dodge that a little bit but he says they exist, like Jacob's review of homeopathic remedies for diarrhea. That was his best case. That's the one that he threw out there. So I sort—again, he can throw anything at me; I do remember the details of the homeopathic clinical studies for diarrhea; I just didn't, like, review them right before the debate, so I couldn't cite them chapter and verse, but I did afterwards, for my blog review of it. Even at the time, I was able to say we're talking about several small methodologically flawed studies with mixed results. So Jacobs reviewed three studies of homeopathic remedies for diarrhea and—this is a homeopath; this is a guy trying to spin it in a positive direction, and he said that, you know, it indicates that there's possibly an effect here. Other authors reviewed the same three studies and said these results are mixed. So you have three studies with ''mixed results''; that's not compelling evidence. And Jacobs did a follow-up study that was more rigorous and was dead negative. So once again, we have this pattern of the better studies are negative; you never get any consistent signal; you know, a consistent effect from the clinical research. It's just these mixed results and then when you finally get around to doing a rigorous study, it's negative. And this is studies done by homeopaths. That was the best evidence he had to offer, clinically. Saine's thing is that he has studied the ''historical'' evidence for homeopathy. So he goes on and on about this plague in the 1800's; you know, where homeopaths treated cholera and cured everybody, you know. It's like, "really? 100-year-old anecdotes is compelling evidence?" If the claims that they made for the effectiveness of homeopathy during those plagues were true, it would be ''absolutely'' trivial to demonstrate that homeopathic remedies were effective against those epidemic illnesses. Right? It would be trivial. And if it's not as effective as they say, then they're lying. The the results are not reliable, which is the easier explanation. 150-year-old pre-scientific reports—anecdotal reports of homeopathy or all of physics, chemistry and physiology on the other side. What's more likely to be wrong? | S: That's ridiculous. And then I—all right, so we did—what's fun about this debate is we were able to ask each other questions. So I asked him: "what is the indication for which homeopathic remedies have been shown to be effective in multiple high-quality reproducible clinical trials?" And you know, he did sort of try to dodge that a little bit but he says they exist, like Jacob's review{{Link_needed}} of homeopathic remedies for diarrhea. That was his best case. That's the one that he threw out there. So I sort—again, he can throw anything at me; I do remember the details of the homeopathic clinical studies for diarrhea; I just didn't, like, review them right before the debate, so I couldn't cite them chapter and verse, but I did afterwards, for my blog review of it. Even at the time, I was able to say we're talking about several small methodologically flawed studies with mixed results. So Jacobs reviewed three studies of homeopathic remedies for diarrhea and—this is a homeopath; this is a guy trying to spin it in a positive direction, and he said that, you know, it indicates that there's possibly an effect here. Other authors reviewed the same three studies and said these results are mixed. So you have three studies with ''mixed results''; that's not compelling evidence. And Jacobs did a follow-up study that was more rigorous and was dead negative. So once again, we have this pattern of the better studies are negative; you never get any consistent signal; you know, a consistent effect from the clinical research. It's just these mixed results and then when you finally get around to doing a rigorous study, it's negative. And this is studies done by homeopaths. That was the best evidence he had to offer, clinically. Saine's thing is that he has studied the ''historical'' evidence for homeopathy. So he goes on and on about this plague in the 1800's; you know, where homeopaths treated cholera and cured everybody, you know. It's like, "really? 100-year-old anecdotes is compelling evidence?" If the claims that they made for the effectiveness of homeopathy during those plagues were true, it would be ''absolutely'' trivial to demonstrate that homeopathic remedies were effective against those epidemic illnesses. Right? It would be trivial. And if it's not as effective as they say, then they're lying. The the results are not reliable, which is the easier explanation. 150-year-old pre-scientific reports—anecdotal reports of homeopathy or all of physics, chemistry and physiology on the other side. What's more likely to be wrong? | ||
R: I've always thought that their best options were talking about times when homeopathic hospitals—people weren't dying as often because the doctors were bleeding people to death or doing... or having terrible sanitary conditions. And that's it. Like, it's not that they were doing any kind of effective treatment; it's just that they weren't killing them quite as quickly when doctors were using terrible techniques. | R: I've always thought that their best options were talking about times when homeopathic hospitals—people weren't dying as often because the doctors were bleeding people to death or doing... or having terrible sanitary conditions. And that's it. Like, it's not that they were doing any kind of effective treatment; it's just that they weren't killing them quite as quickly when doctors were using terrible techniques. | ||
| Line 370: | Line 370: | ||
* [http://www.smh.com.au/world/oklahomas-biggest-quake-tied-to-fracking-20130327-2gu2u.html Oklahoma's biggest quake tied to fracking] | * [http://www.smh.com.au/world/oklahomas-biggest-quake-tied-to-fracking-20130327-2gu2u.html Oklahoma's biggest quake tied to fracking] | ||
S: All right. Well, let's move on. Jay, you're going to tell us how fracking is causing earthquakes | S: All right. Well, let's move on. Jay, you're going to tell us how fracking is causing earthquakes | ||
J: So the question here is, "to frack or not to frack"—or should have said, "to frack or not to frack; that is the question," right? | |||
=== Never Eat Again <small>(33: | E: Yes. Yes, you should have. | ||
J: I thought at least you'd appreciate that, Evan. | |||
E: Absolutely. | |||
J: The basic idea of fracking, just to quickly remind the audience, is—fracking is when you inject water, sand, or chemicals into the deep shale formations and you're trying to break them apart underground. And what what you're doing is trying to release gases or oil or whatever it is that you're trying to pull out of the ground; you're trying to release it from breaking up all of that shale that's under there. So, it's like a big pressurized well; in essence, that's exactly what fracking is. The problem is that fracking uses quite a bit of water to do what it does. So on Tuesday the 26th of March, researchers from University of Oklahoma, Columbia University, and the US Geological Survey published their latest findings about hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas, also known as fracking. They published their findings in the journal ''Geology''. And what they found was—they referenced a earthquake that happened on November 6, 2011; it was a 5.7 magnitude earthquake that happened in Oklahoma and they say it was linked to drilling and the injection of water that, as I explained, is part of the fracking and drilling process. That earthquake was followed by an 11-fold increase in seismic activity across the central US in recent years. The earthquake was the biggest in the state's history and could be the largest link to the injection of water from the drilling process. But all the experts don't agree. The state's geological office said it was likely the result of natural causes, which I find interesting; I mean, they're still not 100 percent sure what's causing it. You know, we have different parties coming up with different conclusions. It seems to me, though, that there's a lot of people saying that fracking definitely can cause earthquakes. I thought that was really strange when you think about it. Like, you think an earthquake is kinda like a tornado; it's like a really big thing that can—how can humans have any real effect on that? But from what I read, the idea is that the injection of all of that lubricant, as you can think of it—essentially what water is doing is all that liquid that's in that region of the ground is loosening up; it's giving—it's making things able to slip in slide. And that can cause an earthquake. You know, I guess it is a little bit—it's not as stable as I thought it was, or would assume that was. The research paper warns that disposal of the millions of gallons of fluids from the hydraulic fracturing is most likely the cause and they propose that the government needs to have better monitoring and have oversight involved with all fracking procedures now. I thought this was interesting, so it—from 1970 to the year 2000, the seismic activity in the US's midregion averaged about 21 incidents in a year. That number went up to 50 in '09. It went up to 87 in 2010 and 134 in 2011. So you know, OK, it seems like that's a smoking gun. I don't really know what those results mean because who knows; there just could be some type of thing going on that we don't understand but they're using information like that to try to come up with some answers here. And because of concerns over earthquakes caused by fracking, the UK had stopped the practice of fracking temporarily until the late—until late 2012 and then at that time they said, "well, we're going to allow it again, but we're going to put some standards in place", so the oil and gas industry in the United States are now looking for other ways to deal with these waste waters for the same reasons. And that's where we're at with fracking. | |||
S: So, I did find another recent study, Jay, that showed that increased earthquakes only happen when the water injection is near a fault line, which makes sense. And that other areas—so the fracking itself without the water getting access to a fault line doesn't cause earthquakes. | |||
J: That makes sense; yep. | |||
S: I didn't find anything that addressed this question; maybe we just don't know the answer yet. Because it seems like—you know, the fluid near a fault line is making it easier for... you know, the rock to slide against each other—the different sides of the fault to slide against each other. So are we essentially triggering a lot of little quakes that would have inevitably happened anyway? You know what I mean? | |||
J: I don't know; I think it's an interesting point— | |||
S: Are we getting twenty small quakes because we're lubricating the fault line, which would have been one bigger quake if we had let nature take its course? | |||
J: I don't know. It's a hard question; I couldn't even begin to answer it. My only comment is: is it better to have these smaller earthquakes than one big one? Are those easier to deal with? Or maybe is the aggregate amount of damage from 20 small quakes versus one big one? Is there a big difference? I have no idea. It is very interesting topic, though, and I think I'm glad that people doing research into it. | |||
R: I don't know that there'd be any way for them to tell what the timetable would be in that circumstance, though, Steve. Like, you know, it—even if the answer were "yes"; that this is many small earthquakes instead of one large one that will eventually happen, I don't know that they could tell you when it would happen. You know, two years from now or a million years from now. | |||
S: We're just doing statistical information about how many quakes of what magnitudes are happening and just trying to correlate that with fracking activity. But it's hard to... obviously, you can't do a controlled study, right? You can't replay events and see what would have happened had we not fracked. You know, I think... they keep looking at this... sounds like they're showing that yes, there are more earthquakes, but only if the injected water is getting access to a fault line and now they have to do a lot more statistical analysis to see what the effects are and maybe compare areas that aren't being fracked over a longer period of time. Just keep gathering more data, you know? | |||
R: They better not accidently trigger that {{w|Yellowstone Caldera|Yellowstone supervolcano}} because I will be pissed. | |||
B: That's scary | |||
J: That's like on Phil-Plait-level of destroying the Earth; like, that's some epicly scary stuff. | |||
S: Not the Earth, just the United States. | |||
J: No, Steve; that could create a winter of sorts; you know, putting so much junk into the atmosphere. | |||
B: Oh, my God; effects would be world-wide, but it's not the worst volcanic eruption, though. {{w|Flood basalt}}'s worse; much worse. | |||
J: What's that? | |||
B: Oh, my God. | |||
''(laughter)'' | |||
J: Well, what is it? | |||
R: Oh my God; you don't even wanna know. | |||
E: Can't say; it's that bad. | |||
B: I read a description: imagine looking at—of an eruption from horizon to horizon, like a mile in the air spewing lava, and it lasts about, you know, a few thousand years and then it stops and then it starts again for like another thou—it like creates a— | |||
J: Wait, wait; has this happened on the Earth? | |||
B: Oh yeah. Look at the—what's it called—the {{w|Siberian Traps|Siberian Flats}}? What's that called? | |||
J: I think we talked about this{{Link_needed}}. Oh, man. | |||
B: They like... cover a continent in a kilometer, you know, of basalt. I mean, that makes a supervolcano look like, you know, not that much. | |||
J: My question is: how long will it take for me to die if I see that mile-high magma wall? | |||
B: Oh, my God. | |||
J: Seconds? Minutes? | |||
B: It depends how close you get, Jay. But it's like—it's a crack in the ''crust''. It's nasty, nasty, and... | |||
E: Crust crack. Yeah. | |||
K: As much as I like a good fracking story... I read a couple more articles on this and even followed the abstract on the thing and it looks to me like they're not actually talking about ''fracking'' in this case but they're talking about wastewater from injection wells, which is a little bit different than hydraulic fracking, in that this particular quake was created by injecting wastewater into depleted wells. Wastewater used in a slightly more conventional form of oil extraction, but nonetheless would have major implications for fracking because fracking produces a large amount of wastewater that need to be disposed of. | |||
J: Yeah, I agree, Karl; the article was a little unclear. They are predominantly talking about what they're going to do with fracking wastewater because there's so much of it and they are currently pumping all that water into the ground. | |||
K: Yeah. | |||
J: Another interesting thing: they said most of the water that they use doesn't even make it into the ground but it's still a phenomenal amount of water that's left in the Earth. | |||
=== Never Eat Again <small>(33:40)</small>=== | |||
* [http://www.vice.com/read/rob-rhinehart-no-longer-requires-food This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again] | * [http://www.vice.com/read/rob-rhinehart-no-longer-requires-food This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again] | ||
S: All right; well, Karl, you're going to tell us about the man who never has to eat again. | |||
B: Cool. | |||
K: Yep. Well, Rob Rhinehart has a blog or website— | |||
E: I remember him from ''All in the Family''! Oh, wait. | |||
K: —website that at least it has a nice name of "Mostly Harmless"; something somebody post about on Facebook and I found the link and... he apparently decided that he was really just tired and resentful of all the money and time he invested in having to prepare and consume food and then having to clean up after himself and so he decided he was going to reduce his diet to just all the essential nutrients and was going to create himself a simple beverage containing all the essential elements and nutrients he needs and he would call it "soylent". | |||
R: Good name. | |||
S: I like the name. | |||
B: That's awesome! | |||
S: And he put some green food dye in there... | |||
R: Well, soylent was tofu, right? And Soylent Green was people. | |||
K: Yes. | |||
R: So, calling it doesn't necessarily indicate that he meant the green variety; there were several varieties. | |||
E: Still, there's a certain image... | |||
B: Yeah, you can't help the association. Yeah, technically it wasn't, but... | |||
J: It's a cool word. I mean, it you know it's in the sci-fi thing and it's fun but—I think it was—it's not a bad name for it. | |||
E: You wouldn't name your kids "soylent" and say, "oh, well, it's OK". | |||
K: Not their first name, anyway. | |||
''(laughter)'' | |||
K: The thing that really fascinated me about it was fairly unscientific way he went about doing it; he basically he read a few books, searcher the Internet for nutrients and just kinda started hodgepodge putting in what he thought were essential nutrients and trying it out on himself, then tinkering with and adding things and when he started feeling sick or something and realized that he forgot to put iron in, he added iron in after the fact, 'cause I guess simple research on essential nutrients didn't mention iron. He didn't do what I would do in a situation like that where, I'd find a nutritionist and... one of my medical doctor friends and discuss with them what they thought I needed to do; he just kinda went out on his own. I think he has a bright future in the supplement industry. | |||
S: Or you know, he could have gone to the supermarket and bought a six pack of Ensure. | |||
K: Oh well, sure. But reinventing the wheel is fun! | |||
S: Yeah, he just reinvented in his kitchen something that already exists on the market; multiple brands. You know? Someone's already done all the science, has already completely balanced all the nutrients and put it all together for you and it actually tastes good, too. | |||
B: Is Ensure meant to be a complete diet replacement? | |||
S: Yes That's exactly what it is. It's meant to be a complete diet replacement. | |||
E: Wow. | |||
S: Or Boost, or whatever; there's a number of specific ones. They are for people who can't eat and to who need to live on milkshakes, basically | |||
J: I see what you're saying, Steve; I mean I don't... from an entrepreneurial perspective, like go ahead. I think it's fine that he's trying to do this and as long as he finally does get FDA approval, if he ever wanted to take it that way. But I think he's just cooking this up in his own kitchen for now, and I'm not— | |||
S: For himself, yeah. | |||
J: Karl, did he say in the article that he was going to try to sell this or go anywhere with it? | |||
K: Since he posted his original blog, he's had many people contact him for information and apparently he's got numerous people now also trying this out at the same time. | |||
J: You know, it's an interesting mentality, when you think about where the guy's coming from. He doesn't want to waste the time and the expense of eating; he just wants to get it over with as soon as he can, for the most part. I don't think he was eating this 100 percent. Wasn't he having a few normal meals here and there? | |||
K: He was something like—well, for 30 days he said he ate only this and then he kind of started going back to eating mostly this but, you know, when he gets together with friends he'd still dine and appreciate dining. But he still, I think, more than 75 percent drinking his soylent. | |||
J: Yeah. | |||
R: It's interesting, 'cause there was a thread a couple years ago on the SGU forums where some people were talking about—a surprising number of them all hated eating. Like, it's not that they found it painful or anything, but they were—what I imagine it must be like to be asexual, you know, they just—they found absolutely no pleasure in eating. So they were talking to each other, trying to find a solution, because it was just a wasted expense, because they weren't getting anything out of it, so they wanted something that was basically like a shake that they could make, you know, days in advance and just keep in the fridge and drink as needed, you know, to save the time and the money. But the weird thing is that—and so that's what I thought of when I first was reading about this guy. But it doesn't sound like he's actually like that, it sounds like he's just like a nerd who wanted to do this for the hell of it, you know. 'Cause he says he likes eating. So it doesn't really make sense to me in that regard, but it does make sense to me for the people who take absolutely no joy in eating— | |||
B: No joy? | |||
R: Or people who... yeah, I mean, it's really bizarre to me— | |||
B: Even peanut butter? Have they ever tried peanut butter? | |||
R: I know! But I that's just the way they're built, I guess, so... | |||
B: That's kinda sad. | |||
J: But we're all—come on, guys; there are times—you get home from work and you just want to eat, like, a bowl of cereal for dinner; you don't want to have to go through the hour-long— | |||
B: There's no problem with that. | |||
J: —cooking, cleaning— | |||
R: Right; so just— | |||
E: That's OK. | |||
R: Eat a bowl of cereal; don't— | |||
K: That's what bowls of cereal are for. | |||
R: Don't develop a new formula ''(laughs)'' and spend weeks making yourself sick over something that you haven't researched properly. | |||
J: He said something interesting, where he was tweaking it like a chemistry experiment and he would plus or minus the calorie intake to regulate his body weight and he was—he kinda called it "hacking"; he was like hacking his body, in a way. That was the terminology used in the article. Overall, I find it interesting; you know, I think it's more—it's culturally interesting to me to find people that are finding eating inconvenient and everything. And I couldn't disagree more. You know, I would... like I said, yeah, I'll throw down a bowl of cereal here or there but for the most part, I want to sit down have a warm meal and overeat and enjoy myself. I love it ''way'' too much. Meat balls all the way. | |||
S: I can't believe that in all the articles about this, no one mentioned that this product already exists. I just found that... you know, very stunning— | |||
J: Don't be a party pooper, Steve. | |||
E: Yeah, right? Why detract from this guy's— | |||
R: Not only do they not mention that it exists, but a lot of the articles go on about how this is this solution to impoverished— | |||
S: World hunger. | |||
R: Yeah, hungry people. | |||
S: Really? | |||
R: Yeah. And it's like, no! Obviously, this is not the solution. | |||
J: I came up with something not too long ago. Like, I was at my desk and I'm like, "I'm thirsty but I don't want to have to put my lips on the faucet. Like, I need something... I don't know—" | |||
R: What?! | |||
J: "Some type of thing to put liquid in." | |||
''(laughing)'' | |||
S: Where you going with this, Jay? | |||
J: So I invented, like, this container for liquid. Now I keep it at my desk... | |||
R: You invented the cup. | |||
K: Was it cubical in shape or was it cylindrical? | |||
J: It's cylindrical shaped; it fits into my hand nicely. I'm going to run with this. | |||
K: Is it open on both ends? | |||
J: Only one end. No, no. Karl, one end is open, right? Then you put your mouth open end and just lift it up. It's really cool. It works. It works! | |||
R: I think you just solved world thirst! | |||
K: It's closed on the other end. Oh... | |||
J: That's right. Can't have a hole on both ends. | |||
K: I think you need to get a Kickstarter campaign to fund that. | |||
J: I'm already—I'm doing it right now. | |||
S: And you drink from the near end, right? Not the far end? | |||
''(laughing)'' | |||
E: Well... | |||
K: Unless you've got a drinking problem. | |||
R: More tests have to be done. | |||
E: Yes. | |||
J: We're working on it. | |||
=== Voyager at the Edge <small>(41:52)</small>=== | === Voyager at the Edge <small>(41:52)</small>=== | ||
Revision as of 08:50, 24 April 2013
|
This episode is in the middle of being proof read by av8rmike (talk) (as of {{{date}}}).
To help avoid duplication, please do not proof read this episode while this message is displayed. |
This transcript was done by the Google Web Speech API Demonstration and therefore will require careful proof reading.
|
|
This episode needs: proofreading, 'Today I Learned' list, categories, segment redirects. Please help out by contributing! |
How to Contribute |
| SGU Episode 402 |
|---|
| 30th March 2013 |
 |
| (brief caption for the episode icon) |
| Skeptical Rogues |
| S: Steven Novella |
B: Bob Novella |
R: Rebecca Watson |
J: Jay Novella |
E: Evan Bernstein |
| Guest |
K: Karl Withakay |
| Quote of the Week |
There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. |
| Links |
| Download Podcast |
| SGU Podcast archive |
| Forum Discussion |
Introduction
You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, March 27th, 2013, and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella...
B: Hey, everybody.
S: Rebecca Watson...
R: Hello, everyone.
S: Jay Novella...
J: Hey, guys.
S: And Evan Bernstein.
E: Good evening, everybody.
S: And we have a special guest rogue this week: Karl with a K. Karl, welcome to the Skeptics' Guide.
K: Thanks, guys. Hey howdy, everyone.
R: Hello, Karl.
E: Welcome.
J: Hey Karl, what's up man? Karl, why are you here?
(laughter)
E: How did you get on this channel?
K: Well, I won the auction at the TAM 2012 Skeptics' Guide to the Universe dinner for a guest rogue appearance.
S: Awesome.
J: Well, here you go. See, we're actually folllowing through.
S: We usually try to do it at the end of June, right before the following TAM.
(laughter)
R: To build trust.
E: Hey, remember? We did that—
J: Actually, this is the fastest we've ever done a guest rogue slot.
K: Faster than last year's guy.
J: Yeah, definitely.
R: That's really not something to brag about.
(laughter)
J: No, it's the anticipation; we don't want them to get it a week or two afterwards. We want them to think about it.
S: Karl, tell us a little bit about your journey into skepticism.
K: My journey into skepticism—into actual skepticism, rather than just scientific inquiry really kinda started with a friend of mine's blog called Polite Dissent. It's a blog that's he—it's not really skepticism-related at all. He covers basically pop media, comic books and medicine topics and also, for many years, wrote a very well followed review of House MD the show[link needed] and he had some links to some other web sites, one of which was Respectful Insolence. Checking out other blogs he linked, to I found respectful insolence I started following Orac's site and then from there it kinda spread out to Science-Based Medicine and Neurologica and Skeptiblog and things just kinda grew from there.
S: It's like the Borg[link needed] collective; you just sort of got assimilated into the whole—
K: Exactly.
S: —The whole network, right.
E: How's your implant going?
K: I can't talk about that
S: All right. Well, now your journey is complete, right? Because you're on the SGU.
K: Yes.
E: I like how you say that, Steve; reminds me of a certain Emperor[link needed] once who said that.
S: Yes, exactly. That's what I was thinking about.
This Day in Skepticism (2:39)
March 30: Happy birthday to Mary Whiton Calkins and happy death day to Ellen Swallow Richards. Two BAMF ladies for the price of one.
S: All right. Well, let's get started. Rebecca, you're going to tell us about March 30th.
R: Yes! Happy birthday to Mary Whiton Calkins and happy death day to Ellen Swallow Richards. That's right; it's a twofer. March 30th, 1863, Mary Calkins was born in Hartford, Connecticut not too far from you guys.
S: Yeah, just around the corner.
R: She developed an interest in philosophy and psychology, which at the time was a new discipline and was considered a part of philosophy. She studied at Smith and then she went on to teach at Wellesley but she wanted to learn more about psychology so that she could teach it. And so Harvard, nearby, was the perfect place for her to go because they were one of the few schools with a psychology lab at the time. Unfortunately, it was not the perfect place for her because they didn't admit women. She ended up getting permission from the professors there to sit in on their lectures despite the fact that the president of the college stated that she would not be considered a true student; that it would be informal learning. But she did it anyway and after a year there, she figured out enough stuff so that she could go back to Wells and set up her own psych lab but she returned Harvard to continue her education. And once again, she petitioned the Harvard president who said, "nope. You cannot be a real student; you can only sit on lectures informally". So she did. She conducted experiments; she sat in on lectures; she presented a thesis, which her professors unanimously agreed was more than sufficient for her to get her doctorate, but Harvard continued to refuse to give it to her. After many years, Harvard agreed to allow Radcliffe College the right to give doctorates to Calkins and a few other women who had informally studied at Harvard, but Calkins refused, due to the unfairness of it all and the symbolism. She still had a pretty great life; she went on to become the first female president of the American Psychological Association. She delivered several major contributions to psychology, mostly concerning the psychology of the self. Her discoveries are now a bit dated, but she did at the time, further the field quite a bit. She was also notable for openly questioning accepted scientific ideas about the differences between men and women, pointing out that her colleagues weren't adequately controlling for the environment when they made bold pronouncements about biological differences between men and women.
S: Good thing that doesn't happen anymore.
R: I know, right?
E: We've grown up since then.
R: So yeah. She was an early awesome woman in science. And the other person of the day is Ellen Swallow Richards, who died on March 30th, 1911, and she is the woman who came up with the idea of home economics, as she believed that women who worked in the home deserved to be educated and to be important contributing members of society. She had a ton of firsts for her life, so forgive me for a reading directly from Wikipedia for a moment. She was the first woman admitted to MIT; MIT's first female instructor; the first woman in America to be admitted to a school of science and technology, and the first American woman to earn a degree in chemistry. So, Ellen Swallow Richards and Mary Whiton Calkins: two bad-ass women in science for the price of one.
S: Trailblazers.
News Items
Homeopathy Debate (6:11)
S: So, did I tell you guys that I actually participated in a debate at UConn last week?
B: No, I had to read about it on your blog.
R: No, you did not.
E: I didn't get my invitation.
R: Yeah, thanks for nothing.
S: Yeah. It was about homeopathy; I debated a homeopath.
R: Was the homeopath's strongest argument just remaining silent?
(laughter)
E: That's called the homeopathic argument.
R: Thank you; I'll be here all week.
S: The homeopath was Andre Saine, who is a naturopath; a member of the Canadian naturopathic society and also a homeopath; also practices homeopathy. Actually, I did this—a similar debate in 2007[1] at UConn.
E: Yep.
S: Yeah, but then there was three on three. But this time was just one on one. Andrew Saine [sic] was there too, 6 years ago
E: Roy Rumsten, I think, was one of the—
S: Rustum Roy was there; absolutely. So, very interesting; it's always—not that there's anything new in the world of homeopathy, but it is interesting to see what they're saying now to—and how they handle specific arguments. Essentially, his approach was this: he would quote me from one of my many articles that I've written on homeopathy, saying that there is no critical evidence to support homeopathy or whatever, just some statement about homeopathy—homeopathic remedies have no active ingredient, whatever—and then he would present some study that contradicted my statement.
B: And they were really good studies that he pointed out, right?
S: (laughs) Yeah, right.
E: Oh yeah; ironclad.
S: Each step of the way, it was the most patheticly crappy study you could imagine that he found entirely compelling. As if this is established—he even said that at some point—"this is done; this is established; this is now—we can take this is a fact".
B: And that's the crux of the difference—isn't it, Steve—between pseudoscientists and normal real people.
S: And normal people? That was certainly the difference between me and him, in terms of how we defended our positions. I think that... there are probably other differences in terms of where we're coming from—for example, I can't go over everything, 'cause it was a long debate, but one new thing that homeopaths are saying these days—there was a paper published in India in the last year where the researchers found that even so-called "ultra-molecular dilutions"—ultra-molecular means greater than Avogadro's Number, so there shouldn't be any active ingredient left—that's what they do to get their papers published, you know? 'Cause if they say "homeopathy", no respectable journal will look at them. So now they call it "ultra-molecular aqueous dilutions".
E: That's a creationist tactic!
S: Yeah. Or, it's like cold fusion is now "low energy nuclear reactions", right? So they—to get away from the stink of cold fusion. It's the same kind of—
J: So, the new—the new homeopathy terminology is "ultra-molecular"?
S: Yes. Ultra-molecular dilutions.
J: It sounds kinda comic book-y to me.
S: Yeah. It should be "delusions". Yeah.
E: (laughs) Ultra-molecular delusions! That's awesome.
S: They published a paper where they ultra-molecular dilutions and they still found "nano-particles" of the starting ingredient.
J: Nano-particles? Are those molecules? What are they?
S: So, here's the thing: the study was small, uncontrolled, and of course, because it's uncontrolled, it's un-blinded; there's nothing to blind; there's no control; it was uncontrolled!
E: (laughs) A study's a study, isn't it?
J: So Steve, explain what that means, though, when you say "uncontrolled", give me specifics.
S: There's no control group. There's no control group. So, the researchers knew what they were looking for, and lo and behold, they found it.
E: Yeah.
S: They didn't compare it to anything. So they have no idea if this is a contaminant; what it actually is; where it comes from; what it means. It's just they found an anomaly and that was it.
E: That's the dowser knowing which pipe has the water running through it. It's like, "Hey look, the sticks point that way."
J: And the reason why that sucks is it totally skews the results.
S: It invalidates the results.
K: I think I remember reading about that. They didn't even do a test of their water before to compare to the after to determine if it already had the contaminants in it to begin with.
B: Oh, nice.
S: Now don't get crazy now.
J: Karl, come on; you're getting all science-y on us over here.
S: Interestingly, one of the authors of this paper wrote an email to Harriet Hall at Science-Based Medicine and saying, "hey, look at our paper. we know you guys are skeptical of homeopathy, but we've proven that there's actual stuff in there and would be happy to engage with you in a dialogue about this new exciting scientific evidence" and Harriet wrote back—very polite, as she is, and said "that's nice. can you—here's my opening question for you guys: can you tell me why there were no controls—no control samples in your study." The author wrote back and said, "We don't discuss things with nasty skeptics. This is the end of the conversation."
R: What?!
E: Oh! There's your scientific debate.
S: There we go. End of debate.
J: Did they actually use the word "nasty"?
S: I might have paraphrased that.
J: All right. That being said, though, that was their "oh yeah?!" Right?
S: They basically said "oh, yeah?" Excuse me; you emailed us and now you don't want to have a discussion 'cause we asked you one question: why did you not include a control group? That was it; end of discussion. That's the... that is the study that Andre quoted as contradicting my claim that ultra-molecular dilutions don't have any active ingredients.
J: Steve, you know what Gollum would say to all this? (imitating Gollum) "You nasty little skepticsss!"
B: (laughs) Nice.
R: Well, Steve, did you tell that story on stage?
S: Yes, I did. Course I did!
R: Good. That's hilarious.
S: It is hilarious; of course I did. Yeah, so then that was it; that's like—that was the exchange, you know. He had one crappy study after another. And then I went to the clinical evidence and I presented the systematic reviews. Now I deliberately chose a systematic review that was not authored by Edzard Ernst, 'cause I know they hate him. But then I also included his systematic review of systematic reviews from 2010, 'cause it's still the most current thorough systematic review of clinical studies—of Cochrane systematic reviews of homeopathy and it's completely negative; I mean, he came to the conclusion that homeopathic remedies do not have any effects beyond placebo, and his response to that was "Edzard Ernst is not a real homeopath. He only took six months or whatever, not two years of homeopthic training, and he lies about being a homeopath and he's a nasty person"; just basically launched into an ad hominem attack against Edzard Ernst and against me for relying upon Edzard Ernst for my analysis, which is not true.
R: Yeah, it's hardly reliance, quoting him once.
S: Also, I know how to look at studies myself. But in anyway, Edzard was conducting a systematic review of Cochrane reviews. He was just collating what they said; he wasn't doing research; he wasn't even doing a systematic review, he was just co—directly; he was just summarizing the results of all the other systematic reviews that were high quality.
E: Yeah, he was shooting the messenger. Ernst the messenger.
S: That's ridiculous. And then I—all right, so we did—what's fun about this debate is we were able to ask each other questions. So I asked him: "what is the indication for which homeopathic remedies have been shown to be effective in multiple high-quality reproducible clinical trials?" And you know, he did sort of try to dodge that a little bit but he says they exist, like Jacob's review[link needed] of homeopathic remedies for diarrhea. That was his best case. That's the one that he threw out there. So I sort—again, he can throw anything at me; I do remember the details of the homeopathic clinical studies for diarrhea; I just didn't, like, review them right before the debate, so I couldn't cite them chapter and verse, but I did afterwards, for my blog review of it. Even at the time, I was able to say we're talking about several small methodologically flawed studies with mixed results. So Jacobs reviewed three studies of homeopathic remedies for diarrhea and—this is a homeopath; this is a guy trying to spin it in a positive direction, and he said that, you know, it indicates that there's possibly an effect here. Other authors reviewed the same three studies and said these results are mixed. So you have three studies with mixed results; that's not compelling evidence. And Jacobs did a follow-up study that was more rigorous and was dead negative. So once again, we have this pattern of the better studies are negative; you never get any consistent signal; you know, a consistent effect from the clinical research. It's just these mixed results and then when you finally get around to doing a rigorous study, it's negative. And this is studies done by homeopaths. That was the best evidence he had to offer, clinically. Saine's thing is that he has studied the historical evidence for homeopathy. So he goes on and on about this plague in the 1800's; you know, where homeopaths treated cholera and cured everybody, you know. It's like, "really? 100-year-old anecdotes is compelling evidence?" If the claims that they made for the effectiveness of homeopathy during those plagues were true, it would be absolutely trivial to demonstrate that homeopathic remedies were effective against those epidemic illnesses. Right? It would be trivial. And if it's not as effective as they say, then they're lying. The the results are not reliable, which is the easier explanation. 150-year-old pre-scientific reports—anecdotal reports of homeopathy or all of physics, chemistry and physiology on the other side. What's more likely to be wrong?
R: I've always thought that their best options were talking about times when homeopathic hospitals—people weren't dying as often because the doctors were bleeding people to death or doing... or having terrible sanitary conditions. And that's it. Like, it's not that they were doing any kind of effective treatment; it's just that they weren't killing them quite as quickly when doctors were using terrible techniques.
S: Yeah, 200 years ago, doing nothing was an advantage. So... that's the update on debating homeopathy.
J: So did you have a good time?
S: Yeah, I always enjoy doing that. It was fun.
R: And what was the audience response?
S: The audience was packed with homeopaths.
R: Oh.
E: (laughs)
Small Pterosaur (17:10)
So Evan, you're going to tell us about a tiny fossil hunter and a tiny fossil.
E: Yes I am. But first I'm going to ask you all this: so what were you doing when you were nine years old?
J: Four foot one!
E: (laughs) That is a long time. Karl, what were you doing when you were nine years old. Can you remember?
K: Wow. That would have been '81. Probably thinking about Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back.
S: Sounds about right.
E: Right? Typical. As best as I can remember myself, I was in some kind of fog, right? I was just constantly daydreaming, in this prepubescent state and that I had a healthy fascination with fire, to put it lightly. Well, you know, you're nine years old; you're a boy; you know, these things fascinate you at that age. But I'd like you to meet Daisy Morris. She's nine years old. She hails from the Isle of Wight in the United Kingdom and she just had her first prehistoric creature named after her. Daisy's mother says that her daughter has been a fossil hunter since the age of three and by the time Daisy was 5 years old—so this is 2008; she's already into her 3rd year of her paleontology hobby; she's walking along the beach, looking for fossils and sure enough, she hit the paleo jackpot: some dark-colored bones were protruding from the sand in her path; she stumbled across the remains. And with a gleam in her eye that could only be generated by that of a five-year-old girl, she took a deep breath and she said aloud, "Look at the bones!"[2]
(laughing)
J: That had to come out at some point.
R: It's like you're there.
E: (laughs) OK. So she carefully collected the bones and together with her mother, they brought the bones to Southampton University. There the professors studied the bones, did their tests and they were able to determine that these fossils were a new genus and species of a small pterosaur.
B: Holy crap.
E: That in its—look, you're finding—finding fossils is exciting enough. Discovering any kind of fossil is a rare experience for anybody. But to have found the fossil remains of a new genus and species I'd say is practically beyond belief.
S: Yeah. And you get to have it named after you.
E: Absolutely.
B: I was a total loser when I was nine.
E: Pterosaurs, in case you don't know, were flying reptiles from the Lower Cretaceous period, which... ranging from 65 million to 220 million years ago. And they're saying that this particular find is estimated to be around 125 million years old and the reason that it was in the news just recently is that this new species name was officially confirmed in the scientific paper published just a few days ago. So the SGU would like to officially welcome Vectidraco daisymorrisae to the collective sum of human scientific understanding.
S: Awesome.
B: That is so cool.
S: Pterosaurs are cool. Their wings are other mainly supported by their pinky that just is hugely extended. Very different birds or bats. Birds, bats, and pterosaurs all evolved flight, but with completely different anatomy. Bats have all her fingers support their wing; their wings are basically their fingers; Birds—their wings are their arms, and pterosaurs, it's just their one finger—hugely elongated finger. Isn't that cool?
R: That doesn't seem like a good idea.
B: Sounds painful, too.
J: So what are these what does this creature actually look like. Do they have a drawing of it or anything, Ev?
S: Oh yeah.
E: Yep. They do have some drawings of it. Had a wing span of about two and a half feet and was just over a foot from snout to tail. So, picture the size of a gull or large crow of today. So, pretty small, especially when you compare to its larger cousin, Quetzalcoatlus, which had a wingspan of more than 30 feet. Huge.
S: It's very small but its close cousin was the largest thing to ever fly on earth (that we know of).
E: It's cool for lots of different reasons. Obviously the age of the person involved, Daisy. It's fantastic that—
S: It's cool
E: —she's hunting bones at that age, you know. Like I said, where most of us don't even remember what we were doing back then. And I think it drives home the point that there's a little bit of luck involved in the scientific process, right? I mean, timing is... was essential here. This... these bones on the beach eventually would have found their way into the ocean; they would have been swept away; eroded away and set adrift or whatever.
S: One question about the situation is that... like, normally if you find a fossil embedded in rock somewhere, and you're an amatuer—whether you're just a fossil hunter or not; you're not a scientist; and you come across fossils, you're probably better off leaving the bones where they are and... because the scientists are going to want to investigate where the bones are embedded, not just the bones themselves. They may date them based upon the rock that they're in, but this situation was a little different because she found them on the beach, right? So these are probably already washed away from wherever they were deposited.
E: Right.
S: And... So probably the... if it was just the sand on the beach, that doesn't really matter.
E: Right; there's nothing to be gained by finding those bones in that beach. It doesn't tell you much about it—about when or the surrounding area or anything.
J: You know, when something is fossilized or goes through that process and the tissue decays around the bones and everything, I mean... is there anything in the immediate ground right where... that's touching the bones that gives any DNA or any kind of samples for scientists to find out more about the tissue of the creature, or is that all just completely obliterated?
S: When bones fossilize, by definition, minerals around the bone replace the calcium in the bones, and they literally become stone but they retain their structure. But fossilized bone can still retain some DNA, and we can extract tiny amounts of DNA even from afar slides cost wise bones up to tens of thousands of years old.
J: Not where the actual real tissue used to live outside off the bone, like the meat of the leg or whatever. There's nothing in the dirt right there were that use to be, right?
S: Oh, no, no, no; I'm not at— by the time it fossilizes, any soft tissue is completely destroyed.
B: That's why we'll probably never pull a Jurassic Park and get DNA... and grow a dinosaur because DNA just does not last that long. There's an upper limit where... where DNA will survive. I don't know what that limit is now, Steve; do you know what the limit is?
E: We talked about that recently
S: Yeah, it's thousands of years.
E: Six million years?
B: It's certainly not 65 million years.
S: Yeah
J: You would just think bacteria would gobble it all up as food.
S: I mean, it has to be very special conditions; low-oxygen conditions, for example; like, things that's fallen to the silt at the bottom of a river. Yeah, that's where things get fossilized. Most of the stuff that just dies on the surface somewhere, it does get completely decomposed and does not fossilize. Only a very tiny percentage of bones end up getting fossilized because they wind up in some special environment.
B: Same reason why we don't see—we talked about this—same reason why we don't see bones laying around everywhere outside because it's taken away by rodents and aliens and things.
S: Yeah. Very efficiently destroyed, yeah.
Fracking Earthquakes (25:05)
S: All right. Well, let's move on. Jay, you're going to tell us how fracking is causing earthquakes
J: So the question here is, "to frack or not to frack"—or should have said, "to frack or not to frack; that is the question," right?
E: Yes. Yes, you should have.
J: I thought at least you'd appreciate that, Evan.
E: Absolutely.
J: The basic idea of fracking, just to quickly remind the audience, is—fracking is when you inject water, sand, or chemicals into the deep shale formations and you're trying to break them apart underground. And what what you're doing is trying to release gases or oil or whatever it is that you're trying to pull out of the ground; you're trying to release it from breaking up all of that shale that's under there. So, it's like a big pressurized well; in essence, that's exactly what fracking is. The problem is that fracking uses quite a bit of water to do what it does. So on Tuesday the 26th of March, researchers from University of Oklahoma, Columbia University, and the US Geological Survey published their latest findings about hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas, also known as fracking. They published their findings in the journal Geology. And what they found was—they referenced a earthquake that happened on November 6, 2011; it was a 5.7 magnitude earthquake that happened in Oklahoma and they say it was linked to drilling and the injection of water that, as I explained, is part of the fracking and drilling process. That earthquake was followed by an 11-fold increase in seismic activity across the central US in recent years. The earthquake was the biggest in the state's history and could be the largest link to the injection of water from the drilling process. But all the experts don't agree. The state's geological office said it was likely the result of natural causes, which I find interesting; I mean, they're still not 100 percent sure what's causing it. You know, we have different parties coming up with different conclusions. It seems to me, though, that there's a lot of people saying that fracking definitely can cause earthquakes. I thought that was really strange when you think about it. Like, you think an earthquake is kinda like a tornado; it's like a really big thing that can—how can humans have any real effect on that? But from what I read, the idea is that the injection of all of that lubricant, as you can think of it—essentially what water is doing is all that liquid that's in that region of the ground is loosening up; it's giving—it's making things able to slip in slide. And that can cause an earthquake. You know, I guess it is a little bit—it's not as stable as I thought it was, or would assume that was. The research paper warns that disposal of the millions of gallons of fluids from the hydraulic fracturing is most likely the cause and they propose that the government needs to have better monitoring and have oversight involved with all fracking procedures now. I thought this was interesting, so it—from 1970 to the year 2000, the seismic activity in the US's midregion averaged about 21 incidents in a year. That number went up to 50 in '09. It went up to 87 in 2010 and 134 in 2011. So you know, OK, it seems like that's a smoking gun. I don't really know what those results mean because who knows; there just could be some type of thing going on that we don't understand but they're using information like that to try to come up with some answers here. And because of concerns over earthquakes caused by fracking, the UK had stopped the practice of fracking temporarily until the late—until late 2012 and then at that time they said, "well, we're going to allow it again, but we're going to put some standards in place", so the oil and gas industry in the United States are now looking for other ways to deal with these waste waters for the same reasons. And that's where we're at with fracking.
S: So, I did find another recent study, Jay, that showed that increased earthquakes only happen when the water injection is near a fault line, which makes sense. And that other areas—so the fracking itself without the water getting access to a fault line doesn't cause earthquakes.
J: That makes sense; yep.
S: I didn't find anything that addressed this question; maybe we just don't know the answer yet. Because it seems like—you know, the fluid near a fault line is making it easier for... you know, the rock to slide against each other—the different sides of the fault to slide against each other. So are we essentially triggering a lot of little quakes that would have inevitably happened anyway? You know what I mean?
J: I don't know; I think it's an interesting point—
S: Are we getting twenty small quakes because we're lubricating the fault line, which would have been one bigger quake if we had let nature take its course?
J: I don't know. It's a hard question; I couldn't even begin to answer it. My only comment is: is it better to have these smaller earthquakes than one big one? Are those easier to deal with? Or maybe is the aggregate amount of damage from 20 small quakes versus one big one? Is there a big difference? I have no idea. It is very interesting topic, though, and I think I'm glad that people doing research into it.
R: I don't know that there'd be any way for them to tell what the timetable would be in that circumstance, though, Steve. Like, you know, it—even if the answer were "yes"; that this is many small earthquakes instead of one large one that will eventually happen, I don't know that they could tell you when it would happen. You know, two years from now or a million years from now.
S: We're just doing statistical information about how many quakes of what magnitudes are happening and just trying to correlate that with fracking activity. But it's hard to... obviously, you can't do a controlled study, right? You can't replay events and see what would have happened had we not fracked. You know, I think... they keep looking at this... sounds like they're showing that yes, there are more earthquakes, but only if the injected water is getting access to a fault line and now they have to do a lot more statistical analysis to see what the effects are and maybe compare areas that aren't being fracked over a longer period of time. Just keep gathering more data, you know?
R: They better not accidently trigger that Yellowstone supervolcano because I will be pissed.
B: That's scary
J: That's like on Phil-Plait-level of destroying the Earth; like, that's some epicly scary stuff.
S: Not the Earth, just the United States.
J: No, Steve; that could create a winter of sorts; you know, putting so much junk into the atmosphere.
B: Oh, my God; effects would be world-wide, but it's not the worst volcanic eruption, though. Flood basalt's worse; much worse.
J: What's that?
B: Oh, my God.
(laughter)
J: Well, what is it?
R: Oh my God; you don't even wanna know.
E: Can't say; it's that bad.
B: I read a description: imagine looking at—of an eruption from horizon to horizon, like a mile in the air spewing lava, and it lasts about, you know, a few thousand years and then it stops and then it starts again for like another thou—it like creates a—
J: Wait, wait; has this happened on the Earth?
B: Oh yeah. Look at the—what's it called—the Siberian Flats? What's that called?
J: I think we talked about this[link needed]. Oh, man.
B: They like... cover a continent in a kilometer, you know, of basalt. I mean, that makes a supervolcano look like, you know, not that much.
J: My question is: how long will it take for me to die if I see that mile-high magma wall?
B: Oh, my God.
J: Seconds? Minutes?
B: It depends how close you get, Jay. But it's like—it's a crack in the crust. It's nasty, nasty, and...
E: Crust crack. Yeah.
K: As much as I like a good fracking story... I read a couple more articles on this and even followed the abstract on the thing and it looks to me like they're not actually talking about fracking in this case but they're talking about wastewater from injection wells, which is a little bit different than hydraulic fracking, in that this particular quake was created by injecting wastewater into depleted wells. Wastewater used in a slightly more conventional form of oil extraction, but nonetheless would have major implications for fracking because fracking produces a large amount of wastewater that need to be disposed of.
J: Yeah, I agree, Karl; the article was a little unclear. They are predominantly talking about what they're going to do with fracking wastewater because there's so much of it and they are currently pumping all that water into the ground.
K: Yeah.
J: Another interesting thing: they said most of the water that they use doesn't even make it into the ground but it's still a phenomenal amount of water that's left in the Earth.
Never Eat Again (33:40)
S: All right; well, Karl, you're going to tell us about the man who never has to eat again.
B: Cool.
K: Yep. Well, Rob Rhinehart has a blog or website—
E: I remember him from All in the Family! Oh, wait.
K: —website that at least it has a nice name of "Mostly Harmless"; something somebody post about on Facebook and I found the link and... he apparently decided that he was really just tired and resentful of all the money and time he invested in having to prepare and consume food and then having to clean up after himself and so he decided he was going to reduce his diet to just all the essential nutrients and was going to create himself a simple beverage containing all the essential elements and nutrients he needs and he would call it "soylent".
R: Good name.
S: I like the name.
B: That's awesome!
S: And he put some green food dye in there...
R: Well, soylent was tofu, right? And Soylent Green was people.
K: Yes.
R: So, calling it doesn't necessarily indicate that he meant the green variety; there were several varieties.
E: Still, there's a certain image...
B: Yeah, you can't help the association. Yeah, technically it wasn't, but...
J: It's a cool word. I mean, it you know it's in the sci-fi thing and it's fun but—I think it was—it's not a bad name for it.
E: You wouldn't name your kids "soylent" and say, "oh, well, it's OK".
K: Not their first name, anyway.
(laughter)
K: The thing that really fascinated me about it was fairly unscientific way he went about doing it; he basically he read a few books, searcher the Internet for nutrients and just kinda started hodgepodge putting in what he thought were essential nutrients and trying it out on himself, then tinkering with and adding things and when he started feeling sick or something and realized that he forgot to put iron in, he added iron in after the fact, 'cause I guess simple research on essential nutrients didn't mention iron. He didn't do what I would do in a situation like that where, I'd find a nutritionist and... one of my medical doctor friends and discuss with them what they thought I needed to do; he just kinda went out on his own. I think he has a bright future in the supplement industry.
S: Or you know, he could have gone to the supermarket and bought a six pack of Ensure.
K: Oh well, sure. But reinventing the wheel is fun!
S: Yeah, he just reinvented in his kitchen something that already exists on the market; multiple brands. You know? Someone's already done all the science, has already completely balanced all the nutrients and put it all together for you and it actually tastes good, too.
B: Is Ensure meant to be a complete diet replacement?
S: Yes That's exactly what it is. It's meant to be a complete diet replacement.
E: Wow.
S: Or Boost, or whatever; there's a number of specific ones. They are for people who can't eat and to who need to live on milkshakes, basically
J: I see what you're saying, Steve; I mean I don't... from an entrepreneurial perspective, like go ahead. I think it's fine that he's trying to do this and as long as he finally does get FDA approval, if he ever wanted to take it that way. But I think he's just cooking this up in his own kitchen for now, and I'm not—
S: For himself, yeah.
J: Karl, did he say in the article that he was going to try to sell this or go anywhere with it?
K: Since he posted his original blog, he's had many people contact him for information and apparently he's got numerous people now also trying this out at the same time.
J: You know, it's an interesting mentality, when you think about where the guy's coming from. He doesn't want to waste the time and the expense of eating; he just wants to get it over with as soon as he can, for the most part. I don't think he was eating this 100 percent. Wasn't he having a few normal meals here and there?
K: He was something like—well, for 30 days he said he ate only this and then he kind of started going back to eating mostly this but, you know, when he gets together with friends he'd still dine and appreciate dining. But he still, I think, more than 75 percent drinking his soylent.
J: Yeah.
R: It's interesting, 'cause there was a thread a couple years ago on the SGU forums where some people were talking about—a surprising number of them all hated eating. Like, it's not that they found it painful or anything, but they were—what I imagine it must be like to be asexual, you know, they just—they found absolutely no pleasure in eating. So they were talking to each other, trying to find a solution, because it was just a wasted expense, because they weren't getting anything out of it, so they wanted something that was basically like a shake that they could make, you know, days in advance and just keep in the fridge and drink as needed, you know, to save the time and the money. But the weird thing is that—and so that's what I thought of when I first was reading about this guy. But it doesn't sound like he's actually like that, it sounds like he's just like a nerd who wanted to do this for the hell of it, you know. 'Cause he says he likes eating. So it doesn't really make sense to me in that regard, but it does make sense to me for the people who take absolutely no joy in eating—
B: No joy?
R: Or people who... yeah, I mean, it's really bizarre to me—
B: Even peanut butter? Have they ever tried peanut butter?
R: I know! But I that's just the way they're built, I guess, so...
B: That's kinda sad.
J: But we're all—come on, guys; there are times—you get home from work and you just want to eat, like, a bowl of cereal for dinner; you don't want to have to go through the hour-long—
B: There's no problem with that.
J: —cooking, cleaning—
R: Right; so just—
E: That's OK.
R: Eat a bowl of cereal; don't—
K: That's what bowls of cereal are for.
R: Don't develop a new formula (laughs) and spend weeks making yourself sick over something that you haven't researched properly.
J: He said something interesting, where he was tweaking it like a chemistry experiment and he would plus or minus the calorie intake to regulate his body weight and he was—he kinda called it "hacking"; he was like hacking his body, in a way. That was the terminology used in the article. Overall, I find it interesting; you know, I think it's more—it's culturally interesting to me to find people that are finding eating inconvenient and everything. And I couldn't disagree more. You know, I would... like I said, yeah, I'll throw down a bowl of cereal here or there but for the most part, I want to sit down have a warm meal and overeat and enjoy myself. I love it way too much. Meat balls all the way.
S: I can't believe that in all the articles about this, no one mentioned that this product already exists. I just found that... you know, very stunning—
J: Don't be a party pooper, Steve.
E: Yeah, right? Why detract from this guy's—
R: Not only do they not mention that it exists, but a lot of the articles go on about how this is this solution to impoverished—
S: World hunger.
R: Yeah, hungry people.
S: Really?
R: Yeah. And it's like, no! Obviously, this is not the solution.
J: I came up with something not too long ago. Like, I was at my desk and I'm like, "I'm thirsty but I don't want to have to put my lips on the faucet. Like, I need something... I don't know—"
R: What?!
J: "Some type of thing to put liquid in."
(laughing)
S: Where you going with this, Jay?
J: So I invented, like, this container for liquid. Now I keep it at my desk...
R: You invented the cup.
K: Was it cubical in shape or was it cylindrical?
J: It's cylindrical shaped; it fits into my hand nicely. I'm going to run with this.
K: Is it open on both ends?
J: Only one end. No, no. Karl, one end is open, right? Then you put your mouth open end and just lift it up. It's really cool. It works. It works!
R: I think you just solved world thirst!
K: It's closed on the other end. Oh...
J: That's right. Can't have a hole on both ends.
K: I think you need to get a Kickstarter campaign to fund that.
J: I'm already—I'm doing it right now.
S: And you drink from the near end, right? Not the far end?
(laughing)
E: Well...
K: Unless you've got a drinking problem.
R: More tests have to be done.
E: Yes.
J: We're working on it.
Voyager at the Edge (41:52)
Show her right Bob your team is a quick update on the Voyager probe yep way too was yet again in the news on this past week or so of paper published in the American Geophysical Union sweats I claimed dad 421 appears to have trouble be on the influence of the Sun and exited the huge beer but it turns out that to celebration which was perhaps a premature a national quickly reported the announcement saying that its a consensus of the warrior science Team Edward 21 has not yet left a solar system or reached interstellar space so whatcha what happened here who's right who's wrong with of person to know what would he lose your is it so it can be considered a boundary of the solar system is kind of a bubble surrounding our solar system will be on Pluto that contains essentially the Sun solar wind and its magnetic field is too to two main things kind of this plaza puzzle bubble as signals from 40 to Renee the fall of 2012 indicated two things that seem consistent with the idea of it being outside the heliosphere number one without a number less cosmic rays drops to a hundred of their former levels and I wish I was to wear these but apparently these are these your comment cuz you're crazy or trapped in the outskirts of the heliosphere and kick it out so I did they dropped to up what percent of winter formal it was work and the number to galactic cosmic rays greatly increased to put those together kinda makes sense you know things that are within the soul sister mmm kinda went away and things that are kinda outside increase ODOT reasonable to assume that a its going its left a solar system but nah she apparently has a number 3 on its list and according to them this linchpin indicator of the ID out your the end of the solar system is a reversal of the directions to make a text field in the solar system disk read about the Sun and this refers was not been detected next the bottom line for them if that did it hasn't been for first then were not outside yet today where is where you're right it's not outside at national bleach in it at this new features of the solar system call the magnetic highway this is kinda where the magnetic magnetic field of the Sun connects2 out outside and I surprise you that we find a new layer I to the solar system once we actually Center instrumentation out there so that's that doesn't surprise and very interesting and that's pretty much all I've got another one thing I wanted to cover Steve I think you made into creatures mistake I did last week or so and said that the two player on the board you know that did Golden Disk up with the church again edit images there is no playback mechanism on Voyager about that they said that there are instructions for how to play the record and voice your I assumed that meant the restrictions for how to use the player on the Prophet SAW II see the structure how to build a player not even that not even at it really to Heather how to play it theres is it image in the upper left of the off the record cell phone that seems pretty clear what it is and also apparently does a stylus does a stylus sexy there that they can use it shows how to edit use a stylus how to or into the way you can play it back and it also says things like what the rotation speed is to be one rotation for 3.6 second set of course she didn't express it the second was some it was simply a fundamental unit of time 25 I thought they had an actual fun band in Voyager Nike s style uh instruction booklet and scratching their heads in Wonder Years when I plan on it but I forgot those sexy well before iPod we don't have to worry about it Steve we know from Star Trek 5 to cling on to stress wagered target practice Oh I knew somebody was your day hahahaha you're 24 hrs the other ones easier became sentient don't forget hahahaha
Who's That Noisy? (46:01)
- SGU Forums: Who's That Noisy? Episode #402
- Why Worry? Answer to last week: Amanda Peet
It's that time again for you to tell us about who's that noisy yes indeed Stephen I'm going to play for everyone last week's who said no easy here we go porn when I talk to you tomorrow about 15 min early side that carries new wife no guesses lleno de ninos the lot of guests came in it was Jenny McCarthy play the clip that you have their pizza it's not obvious if this person thinks it there is an association between fact that there isn't right keywords it in such a way that it's a bit ambiguous of the rest of what she said she was definitely defending the practice of a vaccination and taking this way the anti vaxer so that is none other than our friend Amanda Peet's who's awesome you're awesome in 2008 people into the Xbox womens for every child by two to say non profit organization that advocates childhood vaccinations and she's been praised for her outspoken stance in those efforts cool aol.com and there were a handful of people actually got that corrected and from a random drawing this week's winners none other than Fred Rahmer a friend random thought they were over there were four correct guess I feel like a hundred or something bad kinda hoped but the notes for correct yes is in red you guys this week well done my friend Jason aldeans doesn't know Fred Bremer is the guy that is made it to every single issue dinner that we had a raven 20 after this week okay this week we have a logic puzzles for everybody three scientists Albert Isaac and Marie are talking to each other about a collection of scientific books owned by Jonas Albert says Jonas has at least four books by Maxwell Isaac says no Jonas has less than four books by Maxwell Marie says well according to me Jonas has at least one book by Maxwell if you know that only one of the three scientists is correct and how many books by Maxwell does Jonas possess my notes on Isaac the condition of you rinse it lasts a few Redbox your books nope I want to sing room how to make you c** when fewer vs less alright so WTN at the skeptics guide that word is the email address and SQ forms.com is our forums go ahead and post their send us an email however you like good luck everyone.
Questions and Emails (49:12)
Question 1: More than Gravity ()
I'm a friend of Rebecca's, a former CFI employee, and a huge fan of SGU, so let me start by thanking you for all that you do! My editor at Buffalo Spree magazine sent me a press release about two local scientists affiliated with Ecology and Environment, Inc. just outside of Buffalo, New York. They have apparently established something called the "More than Gravity" theory. I did some Googling and had trouble finding anything about this that didn't seem to come right from the press release; if two local scientists are using a prominent Buffalo company to promote woo, I want to know about it and write about it; that said, if there's something to this I am obviously interested in covering that as well. Have you heard anything about this? Having no physics background I don't have a lot of frame of reference, but the lead to the press release prickled my skeptic senses: "Through 50 years of research and observation, scientific and engineering experts, Gerhard and Kevin Neumaier, have developed a new theory that refutes the 400-year old assumptions currently held by the scientific community." Any help you could give me would be much appreciated! Thanks, Julia Burke
email Blake good luck everyone else to do one email this week this one comes from Juliet Burke have Rebecca's United Julie Burke awesome guest host restriction Julie Wright a friend of Bacchus a former see if I employ in a huge fan of SU so let me start by thanking you for all that you do iOS financial people thank me for all that I do really everything for right sitting at my garage activities to pick that hanging thing in the world to me mean my skin on my schedule things that I did not finish for you killed by the way don't get me started on my part cut the cornerstone live Thank You she writes Miami River flows free magazine send a press release about to lock a scientist affiliated with ecology and environment aight just outside of Buffalo New York and Paris tablet something called the more than gravity theory I did some googling and had trouble finding anything about this that didn't seem to come right from the car the press release if to local sin sister using a prominent public company to promote boo I want to know about it right if I did that said if there's something to this I'm obviously interested in covering that as well have you heard anything about this having a physics background I don't have a lot of favors reference but the lead to the press release pickled by skeptic senses and then here's a quote for the press release through 50 years of research in elevation certificate engineering expert Gerhard in Kevin Neumeier have developed a new series every few to 400,000 the simpsions currently held by the scientific community any help you can give me would be much appreciated so it I know you guys had to take a look at the more than gravity bedside my oh my this is like this is Neal Adams territory this is its not quite wanted jumping but it's getting close is there Siri P if you read their executive summary is daddy rose Retirement the planets are positions are quantized order found a simple equation actually predict a velocity of planetary orbits and distances from the Sun so do you say that what governs the movement of planets around the Sun and Moon and planets is not just gravity there's something else going on and what is their main pillars of evidence is the fact that the your pits of the planets around the Sun appear to exist in some kind of mathematical sequence you guys heard of that place before right yeah olds law facelock right which is interesting in talking to strangers before as well the is there anything to base line is it just a coincidence and eat your dizzy TV reading about it some more and good thing is now that we're finding lots of EXO planet will be contested boobs live you look at other solar systems then you David POS what is a law and not just a mathematical enumerate numerological Clinton city should hold up cash really gather enough data yet we don't really have complete solar system si no pin up to know but what send a strong reducing now is that well it's essentially pattern recognition if you have any solar system one thing you can say is that planets you're not going to be right next to each other because it would be stable they would bump into each other eventually so by necessity planet Earth to space them out to some degree once you settle into the remaining planet unstable orbits they have to be someone's face down and did you have any system like that you're going to be able to find some factors that send ratio that will match the Orbitz so its not that there isn't a pattern is that there's a going to be a pattern just a random chance alone to the fact that there is some kind of boat like pattern to any solar system doesn't mean anything. essentially I think with the destroyers saying now now leave you even have some additional data from EXO planet the disc I say nope this is a long distance is quantized like electric electrons are quantized in Adam Anderson relationship numerological stuff to try to show that it's something meaningful so you guys know what the extra thing is that is governing the movement of planets and moons wind is solar wind blow everything away yeah don't say so they fix the solar wind energy work space bunny where to now to take the cannon and heat treat wish sit in on the Kindle comes out the cannibal continues to travel in and she look like yes or classic so that's what they think is gonna eat your food at the seniors and doesn't travel straight arrow in rays from the Sun that it travels how in like an expanding spiral from the Sun Savannah cheese and veggies spirals what are pushing the planets in their orbits around the Sun oMFG well they have to overcome a lot of science saying the contrary if any wants to take them seriously come on Newton I'm Stein Kepler other guys are morons Mira my first question is why why why would you even speculate on this and I mean its not like I don't want to jinx JB cuz they thought they saw something profound and and then they ran with it rather than find it you ask in the question is this really real or is this just a pattern which seems to be real he didn't honestly ask that question and then before they finish going down that rabbit hole Dave completely reinvented physics and astronomy and everything and you know I saw on believable its been on since these guys are you in 4th but with mathematical equations and precision and everything so it is just so many interesting P here's a count the fundamental problems with their with their series you know you didn't save and doesn't travel that way even after solar wind follow the path they said it would still be pushing the plan it out its not allowed to reinforce it still would be a net force we from the Sun thinking it's more like water going down the drain uh vs going away I am I not towards the Sun they also used to explain why the moon's most of the big moon in the solar system are in a lock to orbit uh like the army now we should the same face to the Sun to the earth state of the solar wind is with pushing things down to the planet oh yeah I don't know when you're out when its night time oh you know when you're ready office into the planet pushing you down to grant the fundamental problems with this is their writers of course at work this solar wind and gravity doesn't explain precisely and completely explain the movement of the plan to the moon then the series by which we have been sending troops out to other planets would not work HM we did not we would not have been getting pretty pictures back of Jupiter and Saturn does probes landed precisely where we wanted to be recruited not have been profoundly of these guys claim. Justin just Impossible II read through all 43 pages are you a mess and I mean there's just way too much to even get all the highlights just a couple points I know if its older women that keep this on the planet didn't even explain how galaxies are bound together gravitationally babe there's no star in the center their basic cares like at one point they start talking about Dark matter energy quitting dark matter with black hole body piercing took from that was that dirt better it is easy is really a manifestation detector theories of gravity don't work headed to grab it doesn't work that's why we have to invent dark matter so thats it thats the least crazy of the things you say because it is pious some astronomers have been thinking of maybe modified to Tony in gravity is really the solution to dark matter how it turns out that ends in the ensuing years we discovered actual dark matter what it is but we could see that it's there it's not just that my new Tony gravity has to be modified but at least they have an argument Arizona Recreation's about gravity might be a seat and that's the real explanation for the missing gravity's states its not as dark matter sorry crazy for us well I got to do that but when ur talking about dark matter they were talking about scientist were searching for dark matter into quitting that to searching for black hole yeah I have that is if they thought they just suck dark matter with black hole yeah very hard to follow their arguments to hear it and I always felt like I was left hanging did you have this feeling kinda like you're in your building you up to this day exclamation exclamation never comes yeah it's like and here's your explanation it this way will know that's a statement you haven't actually given any explanations we're talking about the surgeon what evidence it's not in the ego goes into out this is also believe me but its just fun to take on how many things completely and utterly by them self contradictory 30 East ocean one is comments how do comets fallin towards the Sun if the solar wind is with moving things around the Sun and the pathway that, steak and perfectly explained by a gravitational Siri coming to tell species differently if I disable the wind had that effect yeah that's right shark to win the paper they say that no one's ever measured the gravitational constant so apparently they never heard of the Cavendish experiment where we are scientist measured directly measured it today haven't heard it or do you think that they're trying to send someone so they have an interactive part of their website and other people brought up some of what about the experiments and then again there's a had some response to that but it was incoherent it didn't make any sense that's just looking at the effective iron balls on each other yeah your face in but even they say they're the one on the 30 billion chance that the planets all orbit the Sun in the same direction could be the result of random chance right right right so completely ignoring it feels to be that they will all rotate the same direction because they were part of the same rotating swirling cloud of gas that collapse yeah but that's just you just focus something that happened in the past big planet nobody was here to see that happen really what they say when you see it what about the swirly discs are you decide to invent stuff that happened in the past in order to explain what's happening today Siri beautifully explains it without having to invoke the invisible forces or things that happened in the past me this is unbelievably ridiculous.
Science or Fiction (1:01:48)
Item #1. Scientists report the discovery of new lizard species, tetrahymena, that exists in seven distinct sexes. Item #2. Nature recently reported that two counterfeit scientific journals successfully scammed hundreds of researchers out of author fees. And item #3. New genetic evidence suggests that primates evolved trichromatic color vision while still nocturnal, rather than as an adaption to diurnal living, as previously believed.
S: Well let's move on, we're going to go on now with Science or Fiction.
Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious, then I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake.
How you ready for your first signs of fiction yeah I guess so now that's the spirit haha I am love I have a love hate relationship with science fiction cause it for what to do something I don't do who is that Steely Dan things that I don't know about without researching them first is Taylor photography poker I will talk later not for long time okay here we go item number one scientist report a Discovery of a new lizard species touch your hiney NHA exists in seven distinct sex it's time to nature recently reported that to counterfeit scientific journals successfully scam hundred to researchers out of their fees hey darling three new genetic evidence suggests that primate to fall to try chromatic color vision well still nocturnal rather than as an adaptation to die in a living as previously believed Kyle as our guest to have the extreme privilege of going first si nos procedure um no good luck this the first one scientist report discovery of new lizard species exist in seven distinct sections that's an interesting one that could be kinda complicated right back atcha like his relationships how do you pair up dancers that we need one that seems so crazy you almost think theres gotta be something to it but to I like that one but let's move on to the next one nature recently reported to counterfeit Journal successfully skin hundred the researchers out of author fees that one seems very plausible ah I don't really have a problem with that one new genetic evidence suggest primates evolve Tri Tronics color vision while still nocturnal that's interesting because I always thought the color vision with pre week under low light conditions I wonder how you would evolve color vision in low light when you're mostly nocturnal show that one seems problematic but now that first one is so crazy this into steaks sexist thing if its true that'll be fasting and I need to read about that but I just have a hard time buying that one Lesters something subtle hear that I'm not thinking of I'm going to say this dih 6x is what is wrong okay pop ah I want to go now the 70s the sexes add lizards just seem to fall too complicated for that to make sense you know if it was something much more simple I could buy that some having a big problem with that one counterfeit Journal scamming yeah sure when I mean a problem could I have with that Spa be easy to do and get away with yeah see I did try to make color vision hi Bobby I drink during the the night yeah that makes no sense because color vision is essentially useless at night I which is and because the other cones are close to the phobia the right now that's why people say at night do you want to see something really sharply don't look directly at it look a little away from its of your you're on your ride coming to play for night vision and I tell you could see things more clearly at night and tonight makes no sense unless perhaps those primates you know you I guess you can you could be nocturnal but still have some minimal activity during the day and you would have a benefit to you if you have color vision on during those brief. Of time so I think I can kinda justify that I did doesn't make much sense to make a case for all of them to know what the hell I'm going to do you get your going to pick one I know sometime tonight I'm going to go to go with the scientific journal Texan okay Jay are the 17 sex is done lots of questions about this one is really provocative science fiction I don't like is it beer can only two of the other seven of them and can I can sex one in sex to only mate 63 and 64 only mate there's an odd number maybe like three of them can only make it is very complicated relationships going on it's kind of weird nature of the one
It's kind of weird nature of the one about nature reporting did the three scam journals scamming people I have no reason to doubt that throw scams all over the web site that was is absolute fact the last one about the genetic evidence that is suggesting the color vision one so between the first and last 1i think I'm going to go with the one about the lizard species is being fake okay for Becca and I really want to do a color visions perfectly helpful to nocturnal animals because there are plenty of times when its bright enough at night to see color like dust Don and full moons the counterfeit journals yes it totally makes sense we talk about craps rules all the time and they always have really fancy sounding names and is just crap and uh so I can completely believe that some having counterfeit and have made off with lots of money losers pcs Bob totally said the right answer and then I think and then continued on East you said please use the space heater too complex and maybe a smaller organism and I agree with that stops final answer Adega that so I'm going to say that the lizard species one is to fix that and heaven I'm going to go with the lizard species I'm going to say that sounds top big mistake so you angry that new genetic evidence suggests that primate evolve try chromatic color vision all still not turn on resident has an annotation to Diana living as previously believed I think that one is signs and that one is science who hey guys I'm surprising to me to go to previous studies about this is a new study looking at the genetics of tartar Sears tarsiers branched off very big is Lee from the primate tree basically yes very close to the beginning of the primate Rakesh and today for looking at their genetic freak and say something about how early primates may have look like s*** and Alice is indicated was that the end of the day haven't had a common ancestor with the rest of primates with tri chromatic vision that would suggest that try Christmas evolved to be four monkeys and apes became diarrheal and that therefore it evolved even while probably won't really probably crystal nocturnal isnt only possible interpretations vidoes strongly suggest that and Rebecca they do hypothesize what you said that rather then primate became Darnell and then that provide the selective advantage for track from a Sears card reader color vision that Prime 85 tricromes she probably because of Oz vision at Twilight or during a full moon on the temples and add to your other assholes Center nocturnal that have color vision right I remember reading before and I always thought the reason for that was because it is a useful adaptation even turn on the most other vertebrates have touched your privacy soon they just haven't figured you nocturnal just never lost character color vision ShoeMint most mammals hat and just have to pick meant but primita marsupials Family app yeah haha r have tried from see all of the mammals are died from it maybe was the other way around maybe it was the utilities fortuitous development of try chrome to see which was selected for because he will be Peter Dante Tinga full moon ur during during twilight that allowed primates to become Darnell who's to the causative factors reversed.
Did you get a teaching came first In N Out led to the ability to strip to uh to shift to more of daytime activity yesterday hit the ground running so to speak show alright Little River source let's go number two major reasons reported the to try to fit scientific journal successfully scammed hundreds of researchers out of altar fees Bob you think this one is the fiction everyone else thinks this one is sin send this one is science sorry sorry Bob sorry other stuff yeah so I know I feel bad for saying yea these for counterfeit counterfeit online web sites of real science journals counterfeit to work Justin on the Charles they were the one at Wonderland was the archives day see it science is this is published by the Society of physics and it actually is Trey of Geneva in switch 126 account if interested was 80 mocked up a website of a real journal but a journal that doesn't have its own website for paper only girls don't have a website and then they did a really good job of making it look legit it on and then they would steal authors would submit papers through the online site online with a picture on there it is it would pay the fees for the Beano to some some journals, for you don't have enough revenue to public two to 2 printing out the journals we just make all the pain feat a to publish their paper which I was not was cranky but whatever cash and then um they would take the fees and they and then there was just a conduit them I delete the editor of the real journalist it was getting enquire res from sin to say hey when's my paper going to be published in a had no idea what they were talking about and Dan on an indexing Thomson routers indexes data usage is an index of scientific publications favor by using the website in order to index published articles and discharge notice discrepancies between the Articles that were being published on the website to the website said were being published in the Charles any articles at Rex EP ring in the printer now hey bud you for a while they're actually in indexing the fake website yeah before they figured out that it was all a front row seat quickly remove that covered so for that hundreds of researchers were scammed out of their other fees and apparently they tracked the money to Armenia show the journals are trying to get the site shut down but they can't do it my not I don't know International I guess just kick it and s*** down other country is it's complicated yeah so I didn't wanna listen series even if your print only Journal you know you got a scarf up your your URL with your name on it and you gotta park a website on your brand new these retarded because they had no web presence so is a vacuum at these kind of fish were able to fill 2013 Yeah right okay so let's go number one side to support the discovery menu lizard species text me know that existed seven distinct 6.1 is the fiction but tetrahydride a does exist and it does exist in seven different sexes but its a protozoan start a blizzard the new study that inspired my fake news I what is a loser dated the genetics of the different sexes who is actually really interesting and protozoans species that is used a lot in research what they found was dad to just two genes determine which of the seven sex is an organism the one individual text your hymen it would be found out to win to touch your hiney to come together to mate At that point the essential you decide which of the seven sex is there going to be and ending mate and then there aspirin and also is this the sex of the offspring is also randomly tournament history of them yeah I see read this paper this morning and I was going to write a post about it on skype I couldn't think of the perfect joke show ended up not doing it at his other issue to scene and yes it's always check skeptic before I decide which theater is it is really cool because it's me and mines stray cat in the fact it is two different sexes making a baby and the babies sex has nothing to do with his parents sex I don't get around the parents sex stories are interesting about this species in probably why its a used frequently in genetic research said it has two nuclei well I know how it has a germline nucleus Instamatic Nicolas does the Zagg are separated out and that of that allows for experimental manipulation you can control over things been working you know you're the only some jeans are in one nucleus and other teams are in the other day hi Steve I'm going to hit you with some randomness from the road I ready okay here I go number one rated free clever I think it died sheets and alright well good job everyone the Fox River Song Bob Lorsch by Bob and Myra courage for going concern to BK good job Bob 110 carb burger the game again Dometic I.
Skeptical Quote of the Week (1:17:04)
There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.
Søren Kierkegaard
So Jay, do you have a quote for us this week? I do have a cool quote this week this quote was sent in by listener named Jim Kelly from Austin Texas to quote is from someone named Soren Kierkegaard he was a Danish philosophers theologian poet social critic and religious author and the crew is there are two ways to be fooled one is to believe what is it true the other is to refuse to believe what is true card goodnight I get rid of this isn't for that was summer before you don't mind if you see you don't like either one is fine its just a s***** a yes and then what you're saying you're smarter than cute saying something its not sure now please ok a cute guy was walking around the mid 1800 so that yes pretty aggressive thinking maybe it's only obvious because he thought of it a long time ago yeah yeah standing on the shoulders.
Announcements
NECSS (1:18:12)
So hey next week we are at NECSS in New York City there is still time to get tickets if you going to be able to come and join us should be doing a live show as well to private recording and don't forget that there are four tickets left for the private as you recording Saturday evening I to these will be raffled off to anyone who pre registered for the show by midnight Monday Eastern Time on that's a pretty first and two are available for auction on eBay how you could find the links to those in the show notes as well as on the Nexus homepage any CSS to work on it also on my block your electric to speak in Iowa
Rebecca at Academia Film Olomouc (1:18:58)
I have a plug speaking of events ah I am going to be in Prague April 16th to 20th at the Act TV and film all movies to phone sorry NFL AFL .cz ah I will be at of science on Facebook I love with Richard Saunders apparently and maybe some other fun skeptics doing talk soon and watching movies since I seen what is cc in Prague its near Prague thats it thats all I know I buy any windows I don't understand in 10 minutes delineated finished rated oh nice when Steve Nash wind hahaha I knew that word what eventually sneak away and I don't get it probably definition of Prague oh really yeah at the Tower window to the death shall have the first racin frog.
Cordial Deconstruction (1:20:00)
can I just throw out a little with Cheeni self plugs for my life my blog that may or may not exist anymore now that the TV show Friends of the rabbit might my blog the cordial de construction.com anybody's interested especially if you like to show Fringe a must see what I did there was do scientific reviews of episodes of fringe move on to some other series yeah I am trying to find one that works in their shows like revolution insta friends just had a great variety of new stuff every week to cover thank you all for joining me this weekend Carl thank you for joining us No thank you for having me know thanks Kara thanks Carl thanks man and until next week this is your Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.
References
- ↑ NeuroLogica: My Day With the Homeopaths Part I
- ↑ IMDb: Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975) - Quotes
|
|
|