It happened with Elvis and now it’s happening with Michael Jackson.  Some insist that he’s not dead, that it’s all a big conspiracy and that Jacko is actually hiding out somewhere, finally away from the media and those who vexed him and free to enjoy all the little boys a life without the persecution he faced.

To be honest, the idea that Michael Jackson would try to fake his own death does not seem entirely implausible to me.   He was definitely a freaky enough dude to do something as whacked out as that.   However, I still don’t think he did, in part, because while Jackson may have been freaky enough to do that, I don’t think he would have been able to get away with it for long and I certainly don’t think that the LA County Medical Examiner, the state and local police, the DA’s office, all the media and promoters and all the others required would have been so easy to convince to go along with it.

In any case, here’s some of the “proof” that has been offered to show he’s really alive:

You have to fast forward to about 2:17 on this video to show the individual some claim is Michael Jackson on the Larry King Show.

(more…)

Via Reuters:

US court rules again against vaccine-autism claims

WASHINGTON, March 12 (Reuters) – Vaccines that contain a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal cannot cause autism on their own, a special U.S. court ruled on Friday, dealing one more blow to parents seeking to blame vaccines for their children’s illness.

The special U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled that vaccines could not have caused the autism of an Oregon boy, William Mead, ending his family’s quest for reimbursement.

“The Meads believe that thimerosal-containing vaccines caused William’s regressive autism. As explained below, the undersigned finds that the Meads have not presented a scientifically sound theory,” Special Master George Hastings, a former tax claims expert at the Department of Justice, wrote in his ruling.

In February 2009, the court ruled against three families who claimed vaccines caused their children’s autism, saying they had been “misled by physicians who are guilty, in my view, of gross medical misjudgment”.

The families sought payment under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, a no-fault system that has a $2.5 billion fund built up from a 75-cent-per-dose tax on vaccines.

Instead of judges, three “special masters” heard the three test cases representing thousands of other petitioners.

They asked whether a combination vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella, or MMR, plus a mercury-containing preservative called thimerosal, caused the children’s symptoms.

Well this is certainly good, if not expected news. While courts don’t always make the right decision on issues of health and science (witness the breast implant fiasco for example), in this case, the data is so compelling, so one-sided and the claims so baseless that it’s all but impossible to imagine any sane judge or jury would find for the anti-vaccine movement, which has so strongly backed this bunk idea.

Interestingly, the whole anti-vaccine movement also seems to be incapable of figuring out exactly what they’re complaining about. Is it the thimerosal containing vaccines? Is it the MMR vaccine? Is it all vaccines in general? All of thee? Such inability to even express a consistent and logical argument is very typical of such baseless claims.

Indeed, this is the fourth time a US federal court has ruled on the issue and the fourth time that a US federal court has completely dismissed the claims.

It should be noted that the court was specially created to deal with vaccine-related issues as part of The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. It’s possible that the litigants will appeal this decision and attempt to get a hearing at a higher US federal court, possibly even the Supreme Court. If the courts do consider their appeal (which they very well may not even bother hearing) then it’s hard to imagine a favorable ruling for the litigants.

(more…)

In recent times, medical imaging procedures that utilize x-rays have come under increased scrutiny as numerous media outlets and even peer-reviewed studies have reported that these procedures are putting patients at risk of cancer and causing tens of thousands of new cases of cancer per year, with many of those resulting in death.   These reports are leading to not only increased fear of medical imaging, but also to calls for policy changes and reduced use of x-ray medical imaging.

The CT scan has become on of the biggest targets.   CT scans are rapidly becoming one of the most common forms of medical imaging.  They’re relatively quick, painless and provide excellent diagnostic data for a wide number of conditions.   The technology of CT scanning and imaging processing has improved dramatically in recent years, making the procedures both more economical and increasing data quality and resolution.    There’s no doubt that these procedures save lives and improve the quality of life by giving doctors a look inside the human body at both bone and soft tissue.

CT scans do subject patients to some radiation exposure, however.   The levels of radiation which a patient receives from a CT scan (or even several of them) has never been shown to actually cause any long term harm, but the long-standing and many times debunked linear non-threshold model presumes that it will.  LNT was conceived as a “worst case scenario” for the effect that ionizing radiation might have on the human body in the earliest days of radiation research, when data was scarce.

LNT holds that radiation effect is directly proportional to dose, all the way down to zero and therefore assumes that the human body is incapable of repairing damage caused by radiation, recovering from radiation-induced cellular damage or in any way mitigating the effects of radiation.   It further assumes that the effect of a few atoms in a human cell being ionized is smaller, but otherwise no different than an enormous amount of ionization of the cells.

There’s no doubt that cancer risk is increased by radiation if the dose is high enough.   Radiation can damage the body on both a macroscopic and cellular level.   A high enough dose of radiation can cause tissue damage, internal bleeding and even death.  Those who do recover from multiple incidence of near-fatal acute radiation poisoning may face life-long complications and health issues relating to the damage caused by radiation.   At high enough levels, the dangers appear to be relatively linear in relation to radiation dose.  In other words, a person exposed to 1000 rems has approximately twice the risk of complications like cancer as someone exposed to 500.

By this logic, one rem should result in .1% the likelihood of developing cancer as 1000 rems.   This has been likened to observing that when a person is thrown off a ten story building they die 100% of the time, when thrown off of a 5 story building, they die 50% of the time and therefore assuming that 10% will die from a one story fall and 1% will die after falling 12 inches.  Furthermore, the implication is that the optimal living situation is zero radiation exposure (something which is effectively impossible) and the higher the exposure is over zero, the worse off you are for cancer risk.

Needless to say, many have pointed out that there’s a flaw in this logic and as knowledge of radiation has increased, LNT has begun to look less and less likely.  Unfortunately for the promoters of LNT, examination of the cancer rates in populations living in high radiation background areas shows no increase in cancer and in fact, has produced some evidence of a decreased risk of cancer.

Yet what these reports on the dangers of medical imaging really are is nothing more than a combination of the LNT hypothysis and fifth grade level mathematics.

In the media:
SF Gate: CT scan cancer warnings worry patients
WEB MD: Multiple CT Scans Raise Cancer Risk
Daily Mail: CAT scan cancer fear: Radiation ‘could trigger the disease in one in 80 patients’
US News and World Report: Too Many CT Scans Pose Cancer Risk, Studies Say
Wall Street Journal: Radiation Risks Prompt Push to Curb CT Scans

The math:
(more…)

Recently the magazine Popular Science ran a major story on individuals who believe they have electrosensitivity or electrohypersensitivity.   I’m sorry to say that it was an example of horrible reporting that really only talked about the issue as if it were proven real.   It stated the claims of the various individuals who claimed to have the condition without once considering that it might be “all in their head” and not real at all.   (I’m working on a post with a more definitive and full report on all the problems with the PopSci article.)

While it did contain some language about how long term harm, such as cancer, is not proven to be related to RF radiation, it reported about being “Allergic to radio Waves” is if it were conclusively proven as fact. Not surprisingly, the story has generated a lot of hype and has been championed by those who insist that the condition exists.

Well then, I’m going to make an offer.   I contend that electrohypersensitivity is not real.   The condition is psychosomatic.  RF fields do not produce nausea, headache, fainting, skin rashes or any other acute effect on the human body.   No person can, under controlled conditions, show that they manifest these symptoms more often around a low power rf transmitter than when away from radio sources.

Do you think I’m wrong?    Then prove it.   I’m willing to put up one grand of my own money to be proven wrong.   Honestly, I’m so confident about this, I’d put up more than that, but I want this to be a credible challenge and so I’ll put up an amount I know I can provide if I need to. I’m very serious and I’m willing to make the effort of setting up a test to conclusively and fairly settle the issue. And I will eat my words and fork over the money if you can prove me wrong!

The Challenge:

To prove that you manifest symptoms of electrohypersensitivity and that these symptoms are reliably linked to RF radiation by demonstrating the ability to detect the state of RF transmissions in a controlled enviornment.

The Reward:

1.   One thousand US Dollars, provided in the form of a certified check, money order or other mutually acceptable monetary instrument.

2.   I will admit I was wrong about electrosenstivity / electrohypersensitivity not existing.

3.  Your case will be brought to the attention of researchers, with whom I am in communication, and efforts will be made to report your condition and the verification in peer reviewed journals.

The Test Setup:

(more…)

Many countries in Europe like to talk about how “Green” they are and indeed in many of these countries the Green Party has become one of the most powerful political parties and has gained control of the government, either directly or as part of a coalition in the past decade.   But for all the talk of programs for renewable energy, reduced greenhouse emissions and better enviornmental policy, how have these countries actually been doing and how do they compare to the less “green” countries?

For the purposes of this comparison, a “green” energy policy is defined by the following:

• Rejects nuclear power, in the most extreme examples, calling for its complete phaseout or banning it outright.
• Strong focus on wind and/or solar power
• Favors enormous subsidies to wind and solar power
• Generally has a fairly favorable stand on natural gas, even if it is rarely (if ever) mentioned
• Attempts to reduce energy consumption through effeciency
• Believes it is acceptable to heavily tax or penalize energy usage as a means of encouraging reduced consumption
• Is supported by Greenpeace, the Green Party, Friends of the Earth, Earth First and other groups with similar agendas

The following numbers are from the US Energy Information Administration. Some of the data is a couple of years old, but if anyone knows of any other source of information that provides better country profiles with comprehensive data of this type, let me know.

Lets take a look..

(more…)

One would generally think that a buisiness model that involves violating the laws of physics is probably not going to result in a very sound enterprise.   However, it appears that some in Missouri feel differently about that.

Via the Kansas City Star:

Odessa, Mo., cheers news of manufacturing plant

A Utah company announced Thursday that it planned to build a manufacturing and research complex in Odessa, Mo., that could eventually employ more than 3,000 people.

The company, Manna of Utah, said it would build facilities to make home generators that use magnets to make electricity, produce food products from soybeans and rice, and manufacture portable medical emergency rooms that could be sent quickly anywhere in the world.

There also would also be a research and testing center, which would have 1,200 employees and a day care center.

The announcement was made to more than 300 people gathered in Odessa, including several state legislators and U.S. Rep. Ike Skelton.

“This is a magic moment for Odessa, a magic moment for Lafayette County and a magic moment for the Missouri,” said Skelton, a Democrat.

But the announcement also raised questions, including whether Manna of Utah, which has an office in Provo, can bring it off. The company started just last year and has 23 employees.

….
The Missouri Department of Economic Development said discussions have just begun about state incentives. But at this point, an official said, no request for state incentives or other help has been received.

“Our project managers have had very preliminary discussions with representatives of the business to determine what information they would need to provide if they were to apply for any state incentive program,” said John Fougere, a department spokesman.

Officials in Odessa were clearly happy in the hours leading up to the announcement. Rep. Mike McGhee said that Odessa would be producing technology that would be “world-changing” and that the announcement would shake the earth and the product would be the equivalent of the light bulb.

The Odessa Republican was referring to a home generator developed by Maglev Energy in Largo, Fla. The home generator, which Manna of Utah is licensing, uses magnets.

Maglev said that it filed for a patent on the generator in 2005 and that it has a prototype. However, the generator isn’t commercially available.

(more…)

The ridiculous thing isn’t that Switzerland is denying animals the right to an attorney to represent their interest, the ridiculous thing is that they almost did!   70% of the Swiss people turned out not to be quite that insane, but the politicians of Switzerland apparently took the idea pretty seriously – seriously enough to call for a referendum on the issue.

Via BBC News:

Switzerland rejects move to provide lawyers for animals
Voters in Switzerland have rejected a proposal to introduce a nationwide system of state-funded lawyers to represent animals in court.

Animal rights groups had proposed the move, saying that without lawyers to argue the animals’ case, many instances of cruelty were going unpunished.

But the measure was rejected by around 70% of voters in a referendum.

Opponents had argued that Switzerland did not need more legislation. The government had opposed the idea.

Voters were almost certainly swayed by worries about how much such a system might cost taxpayers, and by objections from Switzerland’s farmers already struggling with reduced subsidies and falling milk prices.

Switzerland already has some of the strictest animal welfare legislation in the world.

Pigs, budgies, goldfish and other social animals cannot be kept alone; horses and cows must have regular exercise outside in summer and winter; and dog owners have to take training courses to learn how to care for their pets.

(more…)

Paul Watson is many things:  a pathological liar, a terrorist (and I don’t use that word lightly), an attempted murderer, a coward, an attention whore, a criminal, an attempted murderer and someone who generally is not to be trusted.   Watson likes to play pirate and pretend he’s at war on a ship that was bought by the money from those stupid enough to donate money to his group.   If he really was at war, he’d have been blown to pieces a long time ago.   In his warped mind, ramming other ships, throwing glass bottles and trying to entangle their props is legitimate “law enforcement” activity.

Now that his organization has a television deal, they’ve been trying to outdo themselves for dramatic footage and news stories that will grab headlines and get some more donations. Ratings, news coverage, donations – after all, it’s all about the money.

One notorious incident includes Watson claiming he was shot by the Japanese Coast Guard, who were tasked with protecting the whalers. The situation was as follows: after repeatedly coming dangerously close to the whaling vessels, the Sea Shepherd crew began hurling glass bottles of butyric acid at the crew of the Nisshin Maru. It is claimed that this was only because butyric acid smells bad, but one should consider that these glass bottles could still have caused injury and the contents were not known to the Japanese.

The Japanese Coast Guard responded with the use of “flash bang” grenades. These are little more than firecrackers and are typically designed to create an unpleasantly loud sound and otherwise stun or confuse. They’re not very effective at repelling an attack, but the Japanese Coast Guard seems to have been under orders not to use lethal force (which I stress, they would have been justified in using.)

At this point, Watson claims he was shot and survived only because of a bullet proof vest and a badge, which just happened to catch the bullet.

Recently it seems that there’s a new scam out there.   For years, there have been various quacks out there saying that we need to “energize,” “detoxify” or “rebalanced” our bodies, but now there are many who think the answer is to “alkalize” the body. To this end, a number of products have been pushed which claim to do the trick when it comes to making your body “more alkaline.”

As you probably know from basic chemistry, an alkaline, or base is the opposite of an acid and the level of acidity or alkalinity of a substance is measured by pH.   Seven represents neutral and lower pH values represent a more acidic substance while higher pH represents a more basic substance.   Acids and bases, of course, will react with each other and, if equal, result in a neutral solution of water an an ionic salt.

There’s not a lot you can do to change the pH of your body by very much.   You can take antacids to neutralize some of the acid in your stomach, and if you have heartburn, that might be desirable, but the effect is temporary.   The pH of urine may also be altered by what you consume, but that’s also temporary.

The above graphic comes from an actual “alkalize your body” website.    It appears to indicate that it’s preferable for your body to have a pH similar to that of bleach or lithium hydroxide than one closer to lemon juice or stomach acid. I don’t think I’d want to be either one of those levels, but given the choice between the two, I’d rather be acidic.

(more…)

As I get a lot of questions on what my position is on global warming, I’ve decided to answer them and hopefully put the issue to rest (although I’m sure that won’t happen).   Here are some of the common questions I get.

(more…)