In fact, the problem is nearly universal in most first world countries.  Across Western Europe, waste lines are growing.   Germany, Ireland, Finland, Greece, Spain and others have seen obesity skyrocket in recent years.   In both Australia and New Zealand, obesity rates are now described as “epidemic” and continue to rise.   The nations with the fastest growing obesity rates, however, are those which are still developing industrially.   Although the overall prevalence of obesity in Chile, Brazil and India are low, they are growing at the highest rates. In China, obesity was once extremely rare, but in the past decade has become common.   Even Japan and South Korea are seeing rising obesity, despite having had a reputation for generally lean populations.

The common yet false claims:

If you ever happen to watch a youtube video or visit a website claiming dangers associated with food irradiation, genetic modification or the use of vaccines, modern medicine etc etc, you will very often hear claims that it is the reason why the population is obese. Pictures of unhealthy, overweight kids are often shown alongside warnings of the evils of modern agriculture.

Others will say that we need to “detoxify” to become thinner. That seems to be an odd suggestion, since fat is not toxic but the result of your body absorbing and storing nutrients, which is what it’s supposed to do. Others insist that the answer is eating only organically-certified foods.

NOT reasons why people are fat:

• Vaccines
• Antibiotics
• Chemtrails
• Genetically modified foods
• High fructose corn syrup being used as a sweetener (as opposed to cane or beat sugar)
• Food irradiation
• Bisphenol A
• “Toxins”
• Insecticide residue
• Fluoridation of water
• A need to “detoxify” the body

Reasons why people are fat:

• Eating large amounts of high calorie food
• Sedentary lifestyles

Of these the first is by far the most important reason.   The second does have some impact and may be more true in children, since there has been a very strong shift toward less outdoor play and exertion than in decades past.   That said, there have long been large segments of the population who get minimal exercise and it is primarily the change in eating habits that is responsible for more obesity.

People in industrialized countries are eating more processed foods than ever before, more calorie-dense snacks and consuming more soft drinks than ever.   When one says “processed foods” it might seem to indicate that the problem is that they are a problem because there is something artificial or unnatural about them.  That’s not really the problem so much as it is that these foods tend to be very dense in calories and are easy to consume in bulk.  They also, by and large, are easy for the body to extract those calories from.   Fast foods and packaged snack foods are widely available and cheap.   It is very easy to eat a lot of them without even noticing.

Soft drinks are another big culprit.    It’s not uncommon for someone to drink sodas or sweetened juices with every meal of the day.   A single can of cola can easily contain 150 calories and it’s quite easy to put away 500+ calories of soda with a meal and hardly even notice it.   Sodas and soft drinks are so high in calories because they are loaded with sugar.   Often this is in the form of high fructose corn syrup, but that’s not what matters.  It could just as easily be cane sugar or beat sugar or any other kind of sugar.  It’s not the source of the sugar but the quantity and thus the caloric value.

The problem is not limited to sodas either.   Sweetened iced teas, sports drinks and other beverages can contain just as much sugar and calories.  Even “unsweetened” fruit juices can be very high in naturally occurring sugars from the fruits they are made from.

It’s become very common for people in industrial societies to drink large quantities of sodas and soft drinks every day.   It’s become very common for people in industrial societies to eat large quantities of processed, calorie-dense snack foods like cookies, candy bars and other sweets.   More and more people are also eating food from restaurants, fast food or otherwise on a daily basis.   These foods too tend to be high in calories, often being fried.

It’s important to remember that none of these foods are “bad” in and of themselves, should they be eaten in relative moderation.   Coca-Cola and Pepsi have both been around for more than one hundred years and were popular and ubiquitous around the world throughout the 20th century.   If the average person had a Coke or Pepsi every time they went to a ball game or barbecue, then there wouldn’t really be any problem.  If donuts were consumed a couple of times a week, they would not be much concern either.

The problem is that these foods have become staples.   It’s not uncommon for a person to eat a couple donuts for breakfast, chased with a coffee with lots of sugar then eat a burger and fries, with a large soft drink for lunch, snack on candy bars and soda in the afternoon and then have a large high-calorie dinner.

Why this has happened:

The reason that so many have excessive calorie intake is that they can.  It’s not the fault of restaurants or food producers, they are just filling a demand.   As a general rule, humans prefer foods that we would generally consider “unhealthy” by modern standards.

For most of human history, food has been scarce, so it was beneficial to eat the foods with the highest calories in high quantities, when they were available.  Calories are the most important consideration when it comes to nutrition and having a constant surplus is something that has only happened recently.   Foods with a lot of fat and sugar taste good and are satisfying.   Other options are there, but given the choice between a salad and a burger, most people will choose the burger.   Choosing the salad usually means making a conscious decision to do what is healthy, not what is more enjoyable.

Innovations in agriculture, automation and the general rise of more food services has made it easier and cheaper than ever to get these foods.   Soda machines are common and convenience stores and gas stations are stocked with every kind of sweet confection imaginable, primarily because that’s what people want.  Fast food restaurants can provide a quick breakfast, lunch or dinner with drive-through convince and do it for only a few dollars.   They often do have healthy options on the menu, but that’s not usually what customers buy.

Given the choice, consumers will also tend to prefer larger portions.  To some extent it is an issue of more value for one’s money, and simple economics come into play here.  The value to a consumer can be increased by either lowering the cost of a product or increasing the quantity.  For a restaurant, it’s more attractive to increase the quantity, since they are then taking in more revenue and have fixed preparation costs.  Additionally, consumers simply tend to gravitate toward greater portions.   French fries and other high calorie sides are cheap, so it makes business sense to pile them on, since consumers prefer to get more anyway.

There are also some cultural reasons for this happening.  People are more mobile than ever, and being on the go means more opertunity to grab a quick packaged snack.  Eating at home is less common than in decades past, and prepared foods and restaurants are part of the growing service-oriented economy.   With more women in the workplace and fewer traditional families, the old norm of having a woman spend her afternoon making a pot roast or meatloaf for the family to eat together at the dinner tables is no longer common.

The solution:

There are no easy solutions here.   Encouraging people to eat more healthy foods and reduce intake can help.  Providing more low calorie options can help too.   Encouraging more exercise is also helpful.

On an individual basis, we can all decide to eat healthier and do so through willpower, but making the whole population do so is much harder.  To some extent, one is up against human nature, which is generally a losing proposition.   Making food more expensive or less available is not a good option, because doing so would result in greater burdens on the lower classes and more income going toward food purchases.  Trying to place restrictions on foods won’t generally work either.  Such restrictions are unlikely to be well received and would need to be draconian to have any chance of working at all.

Even if restrictions put in place, there will always be ways to skirt them.   Creating a “black market” for high calorie foods might seem like an absurd idea, but it has actually happened.  In Los Angeles, school districts instituted a policies for school lunch programs, replacing most of the high calorie foods with things like salads, whole wheat breads, grilled chicken and other foods generally considered healthy.   Unfortunately, a large portion of  students don’t like the new menu and prefer sodas, chips and candy enough to create a thriving black market.  More and more students now bring their own lunches, and now are selling to their peers. Food trucks and vendors set up shop around schools to fill the demand.  Now California is mulling banning such vendors, while some districts consider either inspecting bagged lunches or banning them altogether.

Trying to apply such rules and restrictions to greater segments of society would result in similar backlash, although it would likely be even worse.

Disclaimers:

[1]  I know already someone is going to point out that I personally could stand to lose a few pounds.  I don’t dispute this.  That’s not the point.  I’ll be the first to admit that the reason I am overweight is that I my eating habits are sub-optimal.

[2]  A lot of the readers of this blog seem to like hypertechicalities, so to clarify the “Not reasons why people are fat” should probably say “Not MAJOR reasons why people are fat.”  It is true that there are circumstances where antibiotics can result in some weight gain.  It’s also possible that one could make the logical connection between vaccines and more obesity by pointing out that vaccination has economic benefits and that these could, in turn, result in a population that could buy more food.

[3] Of course the subject is more complicated and there may well be other factors that come into play, but go beyond the scope of this blog post.

[4] Someone is almost certainly going to bring this up – it’s true that HFCS and sucrose (cane sugar) are not identical and that there’s some difference in the dietary effects.   In general, HFCS is lower in calories than sucrose of an equivalent sweetness which would suggest that it’s actually less problematic.   Claims have been made that HFCS is more readily converted to fat than glucose, although data to confirm this is, at best weak.   Regardless of these possibilities, it does not change the fact that the major problem is quantity, not type of sugar and HFCS does not appear to be significantly more prone to contributing to weight gain than other forms of sugar.

In a recent TED conference presentation, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to new vaccine efforts, speaks on the issue of CO2 emissions and its effects on climate change. He presents a formula for tracking CO2 emissions as follows: CO2 = P x S x E x C.

P = People S = Services per person E = Energy per service C = CO2 per energy unit

Then he adds that in order to get CO2 to zero, “probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty close to zero.”

Following that, Bill Gates begins to describe how the first number — P (for People) — might be reduced. He says:

“The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

You can watch this yourself at: http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A…
Reducing the world Population through vaccines

This statement by Bill Gates was not made with any hesitation, stuttering or other indication that it might have been a mistake. It appears to have been a deliberate, calculated part of a well developed and coherent presentation.

So what does it mean when Bill Gates says “if we do a really great job on new vaccines… we could lower [world population] by 10 or 15 percent?”

Perhaps that’s the whole point of it. Given that vaccines technology help almost no one from a scientific point of view (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v…), it raises the question: For what purpose are vaccines being so heavily pushed in the first place?

Bill Gates seems to be saying that one of the primary purposes is to reduce the global population as a mechanism by which we can reduce CO2 emissions. Once again, watch the video yourself to hear him say it in his own words: http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A…
How can vaccines actually be used to reduce world population?

Let’s conduct a mental experiment on this issue. If vaccines are to be used to reduce world population, they obviously need to be accepted by the majority of the people. Otherwise the population reduction effort wouldn’t be very effective.

And in order for them to be accepted by the majority of the people, they obviously can’t just kill people outright. If everybody started dropping dead within 24 hours of receiving the FLU shot, the danger of vaccines would become obvious rather quickly and the vaccines would be recalled.

Thus, if vaccines are to be used as an effective population reduction effort, there are really only three ways in which they might theoretically be “effective” from the point of view of those who wish to reduce world population:

#1) They might kill people slowlyin a way that’s unnoticeable, taking effect over perhaps 10 – 30 years by accelerating degenerative diseases.

#2) They might reduce fertility and therefore dramatically lower birth rates around the world, thereby reducing the world population over successive generations. This “soft kill” method might seem more acceptable to scientists who want to see the world population fall but don’t quite have the stomach to outright kill people with conventional medicine. There is already evidence that vaccines may promote miscarriages (http://www.naturalnews.com/027512_v…).

#3) They might increase the death rate from a future pandemic. Theoretically, widespread vaccination efforts could be followed by a deliberate release of a highly virulent flu strain with a high fatality rate. This “bioweapon” approach could kill millions of people whose immune systems have been weakened by previous vaccine injections.

Ohhhh kay…

Perhaps a little out of context? Note for example that he does not mention vaccines alone but rather in the context of healthcare and reproductive services.

It should be noted that in general, killing a lot of people in an epidemic or war is not a very effective means of population growth. Unless the stress on the population is continuous, it will bounce back remarkably fast. Beyond that, the idea of reducing human lifespans or increasing early deaths is also repugnant and something that most won’t take very kindly to. (But that’s apparently no problem for the evil conspirators)

The best way to reduce population growth is by increasing standards of living and healthcare, especially reproductive care and contraception. As a general rule, the better educated, the more industrialized and the greater the standard of living of a society, the lower the rate of population growth. This is where vaccination comes in, because vaccines don’t just directly save lives, but also result in a lot less people suffering from non-fatal, but extremely unpleasant illness. Diseases are very expensive for a society. Every time someone gets sick they can’t work to their full capacity or can’t work at all. They may be occupying a hospital bed and the time of a physician, which could have been used to care for someone else.

Therefore:
Greater vaccination -> less diseases -> less stress on the healthcare system -> better healthcare
and
Greater vaccination -> less diseases -> less economic loss from disease -> better economics
and
Greater vaccination -> less diseases -> less people suffering, less disabled persons, less pain -> higher average standard of living

All of the above contribute to reduced birth rates.

The reasons are varied and complex. Many births are unplanned and those who have the knowledge of birth control and access to it will therefore take the steps necessary to prevent it. Substance agriculture can result in pressure to produce more, not less children because of their value as workers. When disease is rampant, increased birth rates may be valued as a way of insuring at least some of the offspring survive. In impoverished areas, women may have no choice but to submit to unprotected sex and thus get pregnant.

This is why in India, where most live in very poor conditions, the population is exploding and yet in Japan, where most live in a highly industrial and comfortable urban setting, birth rates are so low there is concern that population reduction is leaving the country with two few elderly and not enough young people to care for them.

Vaccines, of course, can’t do it alone and were not mentioned alone. In the short term, they may even result in a small increase in population growth by reducing death rates, but not enough to make a huge difference. In the long run, vaccines are part of a broader effort to improve life and increase economic development and healthcare quality. That can and will reduce population growth.

(Note: I actually disagree with Bill Gates on his CO2 formula. Energy does not need to be CO2 intensive. But that’s beyond the point.)

There’s a way of knowing whether a given compound has therapeutic properties and whether it’s safe in general – scientifically controlled clinical studies.   Alternative remedies, which include many traditional and regional preparations were not the result of scientific study.  A few have been subjected to scientific scrutiny and proven to be worthwhile.  When this happens, they stop being “alternative medicine” and become simply “medicine.”

For all the rest, it’s just hit or miss, and more often than not, it’s miss.  Guided by old traditions, anecdotes and old wives tales, the actual effect on the body could be just about anything.

Such would seem to be the case with birthwort.   Birthwort is a family of plants which have been regarded as medicinally beneficial for centuries, despite complete lack of evidence for this.   The exact reason for the belief is unclear, although it might have to do with the fact that some of the compounds in the plant do have antimicrobial properties and thus could be useful as an antiseptic, if only topically.   Another reason for the belief that it has useful medical properties is the so-called doctrine of signatures – a discredited belief that herbs are useful in treating a part of the body which they resemble.   Birthwort is noted for having a shape that is similar to the human uterus.  For this reason, it was believed to be useful for reproductive and genital health and for fertility.

It also has been used for various kidney problems, including kidney stones and urinary tract problems.   Again, the reasoning for this is not entirely clear.  It may be an extension of the belief that it is helpful for health issues involving the genitals or it could just be that it gained a reputation for being something that people with kidney problems swore by.   Whatever the case, it was not science-based.  That said, it was accepted for many years.

Like many “alternative” remedies, it remained on shelves, largely unquestioned until people started getting sick and dying enough to catch someone’s attention.   This happened in 1991 when a clinic in Brussels, Belgium started offering the herb as part of a weight loss regime.   Although it was known for some time that the plant contained potent toxins, it was not until a large number of women in Brussels began to show up at doctors with acute kidney failure that it became evident that the plant was more dangerous than anyone had suspected.

Upon further investigation it turns out that the long trusted, yet untested herb is in fact, a potent carcinogen and that use of the quantities common in traditional preparations can cause kidney damage, amongst other things.

Via USA Today:

Kidney stones. Snakebites. Head wounds. To the ancients, a weed called birthwort was a wonder drug that treated them all, and more.

Medical detectives, however, are finding that the ancient remedy likely has caused centuries of kidney failure and cancer, as well as being the culprit in a widespread syndrome of kidney disease in some parts of the world.

“The big clue was the plant itself,” says pharmacologist Arthur Grollman of Stony Brook (N.Y.) University. “Once it was appreciated that it contained a potent kidney toxin and human carcinogen, we could get to the bottom of things.”

Grollman and colleagues have unraveled a genetic signature left behind by birthwort in cases of cancers and kidney failure, as reported in the March journal ofKidney International. And in upcoming work, they report signs that use of the drug in Chinese medicines may be responsible for Taiwan’s sky-high rate of kidney disease.

…

Modern medicine became alarmed by birthwort in 1991, when dozens of young women from a “slimming” clinic in Brussels, Belgium, appeared in doctor’s offices with kidney failure. The case triggered warnings and a 2000 New England Journal of Medicine report noting that about 5% of 1,800 women given the Chinese herb, Aristolochia fangchi (another birthwort species), in a weight-loss treatment at the clinic had developed kidney failure. That triggered a Food and Drug Administration warning about the herb that mentioned 16 weight-loss products then on store shelves, and also offered a clue that only some people suffered from a genetic susceptibility to the herb causing kidney failure, Grollman says.

But it wasn’t until a 2007 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper that Grollman and his colleagues showed the Balkan and Belgian cases were caused by the same toxin, finding mutations in the genes of Croatian patients that exactly matched those of mice poisoned with aristolochic acid. The mutations were pinpoint changes in a well-known tumor-suppressing gene called p53. The finding “was a breakthrough,” says kidney expert Marc De Broe of Belgium’s University of Antwerp, in a commentary in Kidney International. DeBroe added, “this magic plant turned out to contain a powerful nephrotoxic (kidney-poisoning) substance with an ability to induce urothelial (urinary tract) cancer.”

But the damage from birthwort poisoning may well go beyond clusters of unexplained kidney failure, Grollman suggests. In an upcoming study, he and his colleagues looked at Taiwan, the “Land of Dialysis” in some news reports, where the herb is widely used in traditional medicine. A 2006 survey in The Lancet suggested that nearly 12% of Taiwan’s population suffers chronic kidney disease. Health service statistics there also show that about 1 in 3 patients are prescribed Aristolochia as part of traditional medical treatments delivered at doctor’s offices. And Taiwanese kidney failure patients in the upcoming study widely show the same pinpoint changes in the p53 gene seen in patients in the Balkans and Belgium, Grollman says.

This is a potent example of a basic fact about traditional remedies: The fact that something has been “used for centuries” or that it is common in rural China or that it is natural means absolutely nothing in terms of safety or effectiveness. We can’t know if something is safe or effective unless it is actually subjected to a battery of scientific tests. The fact that something has been considered a valid remedy for a given condition does not mean it works on that condition or even that the claim is based on anecdotal evidence – it could be something as bunk as the fact that the plant looks like a body part.

If you choose to take a traditional or alternative remedy, keep in mind that it may well make your condition worse, or it might do nothing.  While it’s possible that it could also have therapeutic benefit, if it has not been subjected to scientific tests and evaluation we just don’t know.  It’s a stab in the dark.   You may as well go outside, pick up the first random plant you find on the ground and eat it.

A little anal? I’d say so, considering how bad science and history are generally portrayed in movies. I doubt anyone actually noticed this besides Dr. Tyson.

Whatever your side on this, I also think James Camron did have a pretty good shoot-down for Dr. Tyson.

But he did get his way…

Via Contact Music:

Cameron Changes Stars In Titanic
Moviemaker James Cameron has re-edited a scene in Titanic showing stars sparkling in the night sky – after a leading astronomer told him the astral alignment was incorrect.

The director unveiled a 3D version of his multi-Oscar winning classic last month (Mar12) and he resisted the temptation to use its reworking as an excuse to cut scenes he’s no longer happy with.

But there was one shot Cameron felt obliged to alter, because a top stargazer informed him the astral pattern onscreen was incorrect for the night the liner sank in 1912.

The scene involves Kate Winslet’s character, Rose DeWitt Bukater, drifting on a piece of wood and gazing at the night sky as the disaster unfolds.

Cameron tells British magazine Culture, “Oh, there is one shot that I fixed. It’s because Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is one of the U.S.’ leading astronomers, sent me quite a snarky email saying that, at that time of year, in that position in the Atlantic in 1912, when Rose is lying on the piece of driftwood and staring up at the stars, that is not the star field she would have seen, and with my reputation as a perfectionist, I should have known that and I should have put the right star field in.

“So I said, ‘All right, you son of a b**ch, send me the right stars for the exact time, 4.20am on April 15, 1912, and I’ll put it in the movie.’ So that’s the one shot that has been changed.”

It’s always been a problem in education, but recently it’s gotten way way out of hand, and it seems to be happening around the world.

In the UK, schools are now banning children making “best friends.”

Via the Sun:

TEACHERS are banning schoolkids from having best pals — so they don’t get upset by fall-outs.
Instead, the primary pupils are being encouraged to play in large groups.

Educational psychologist Gaynor Sbuttoni said the policy has been used at schools in Kingston, South West London, and Surrey.

She added: “I have noticed that teachers tell children they shouldn’t have a best friend and that everyone should play together.

“They are doing it because they want to save the child the pain of splitting up from their best friend. But it is natural for some children to want a best friend. If they break up, they have to feel the pain because they’re learning to deal with it.”

Russell Hobby, of the National Association of Head Teachers, confirmed some schools were adopting best-friend bans.

First, I’d like to know how you can ban kids from having a “best friend,” although I can see how you could force them to drive their unacceptable relationship underground. I wonder what the punishment is for making a “best friend” or not spending equal time with all. And what if you’ve already established a friendship before entering the school?

This is the height of absurdity on every level. It’s perfectly natural for some kids to gravitate toward a play buddy or have a friend who is closer than the rest. Most people have a small inner circle of close friends who they associate with more than the rest of their peers. Clearly some of these relationships will end, either because kids drift apart or because they have an argument or falling out. That might or might not be unpleasant, depending on the circumstances, but really, that’s just life.

I’m not entirely surprised by the policy, however. It seems to be perfectly in line with where society is going.

In New Jersey and elsewhere, it’s hugging:

Via ABC News:

New Jersey School Bans Hugging
The 900 students at Matawan-Aberdeen Middle School in Cliffwood, N.J., will have to find another way to show affection after the principal declared the campus a “no hugging school”.

Principal Tyler Blackmore issued the mandate after the school observed “some incidents of unsuitable, physical interactions between students,” the school district said in a statement.

“We have a responsibility to teach children about appropriate interactions and about having a structured, academically focused environment,” David M. Healy, superintendent of the Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District, said in a statement.

Healy said the students, who range in ages 11 to 14, would not be suspended for hugging.

Matawan-Aberdeen joins the company of a handful of schools across the United States that have instituted no hugging rules.

West Sylvan Middle School in Portland, Ore., banned students from hugging in 2010 after the principal said the embrace had become a disruption and even a bullying mechanism.

“I was observing students hugging other students and the other students didn’t feel comfortable,” principal Allison Couch told ABCNews.com at the time.

Girls eager to see each other would also run the length of the hallway, hugging all of their friends, she said.

A 14-year-old student at Southwest Middle School in Palm Bay, Fla., was suspended in November for a brief hug he shared with a female student between classes.

Nick Martinez said he hugged his best friend, a female student, and never thought the gesture would result in suspension. The principal saw the hug and brought the two students to the dean, who issued a one-day in-school suspension.

In this case, I will acknowledge that there may be a legitimate need to provide some basic rules for physical interaction. Certainly touching someone, even if it is considered a “hug” can be unacceptable if it’s done in a manner that is uninvited. Furthermore, I’m sure we can all remember incidents from Junior High and High School where students engaged in public displays of affection that were disruptive and bordered on downright obscene.

Still, banning “hugging” in general is a pretty extreme way of dealing with interactions, especially if the act could lead to something like a suspension. I wonder if there’s any exception for extreme circumstances. After all, hugging someone seems to be a natural response to a traumatic or emotional situation. If a close friend confides that “I just found out my mom has cancer,” it would be hard to fault them for wanting a hug, and the idea that this could lead to a suspension is pretty ridiculous.

Perhaps there should be some kind of committee to approve of each hug and grant a hug permit based on the circumstances?

In the UK, some US states and elsewhere in the world, it’s red-colored ink:

When correcting and grading papers, teachers often use a colored pen to make their statements stand out and mark areas that need improvement. The most common, of course, being red. But this, apparently, is no longer acceptable in many areas. The color, it seems, is just too upsetting, or so it has been said.

Via the Mail Online:

Teachers banned from using ‘confrontational’ red ink in case it upsets children
Hundreds of schools have barred teachers from marking in red in case it upsets the children.

They are scrapping the traditional method of correcting work because they consider it ‘confrontational’ and ‘threatening’.

Pupils increasingly find that the ticks and crosses on their homework are in more soothing shades like green, blue, pink and yellow, or even in pencil.

Traditionalists have branded the ban ‘barmy’, saying that red ink makes it easier for children to spot errors and improve. There are no set government guidelines on marking and schools are free to formulate their own individual policies.

Crofton Junior School, in Orpington, Kent, whose pupils range from seven to 11, is among those to have banned red ink. Its Marking Code of Practice states: ‘Work is
generally marked in pen – not red – but on occasion it may be appropriate to indicate errors in pencil so that they may be corrected.’

Headmaster Richard Sammonds said: ‘Red pen can be quite demotivating for children. It has negative, old-school connotations of “See me” and “Not good enough”.

‘We are no longer producing clerks and bookkeepers. We are trying to provide an education for children coming into the workforce in the 21st century.

‘The idea is to raise standards by taking a positive approach.

‘We highlight bits that are really good in one colour and use a different colour to mark areas that could be improved.’

At Hutton Cranswick Community Primary School in Driffield, East Yorkshire, the Marking and Feedback Policy reads: ‘Marking should be in a different colour or medium from the pupil’s writing but should not dominate. For this reason, red ink is inappropriate.’

Shirley Clarke, an associate of the Institute of Education, said: ‘Banning red ink is a reaction to years of children having nothing but red over their work and feeling demoralised. When children, especially young children, see every single spelling mistake covered in red, they can feel useless and give up.’

Hmm.. interesting that a color would be considered so upsetting. I wonder if it’s considered “confrontational” if a teacher writes “A+” or “Great Job” on a paper in red? The ban, whether official or unofficial has lead to many teachers adopting a purple marker or pen for making correction and grading marks.

This brings up a an interesting question: just how much of the aversion to red is inherent to the color, which is, after all, the color of blood and has been associated with war in the past and how much might be just the fact that it’s traditionally used for correcting papers? If kids grow up being demoralized by seeing papers covered in purple correction marks, will purple become the new red? Will purple have to be banned next and will we have to go back to red?

Maybe one should consider what the ink says rather than its color.  I’d take an angry red A+ over a subdued purple F any day!

In California, it’s dictionaries (Yes, dictionaries):

Why on earth would a school ban dictionaries?   Because most dictionaries contain some terms that are taboo or even sexual.   Just open a dictionary and start looking and you’re bound to find words like “penis,” and “sadism” or “prostitute.”   Oh the horror!   Obviously these dirty books must be banned.

Via the Guardian:

‘Oral sex’ definition prompts dictionary ban in US schools
Dictionaries have been removed from classrooms in southern California schools after a parent complained about a child reading the definition for “oral sex”.

Merriam Webster’s 10th edition, which has been used for the past few years in fourth and fifth grade classrooms (for children aged nine to 10) in Menifee Union school district, has been pulled from shelves over fears that the “sexually graphic” entry is “just not age appropriate”, according to the area’s local paper.

The dictionary’s online definition of the term is “oral stimulation of the genitals”. “It’s hard to sit and read the dictionary, but we’ll be looking to find other things of a graphic nature,” district spokeswoman Betti Cadmus told the paper.

While some parents have praised the move – “[it's] a prestigious dictionary that’s used in the Riverside County spelling bee, but I also imagine there are words in there of concern,” said Randy Freeman – others have raised concerns. “It is not such a bad thing for a kid to have the wherewithal to go and look up a word he may have even heard on the playground,” father Jason Rogers told local press. “You have to draw the line somewhere. What are they going to do next, pull encyclopaedias because they list parts of the human anatomy like the penis and vagina?”

It seems in this case, it’s not all dictionaries, just dictionaries that are not heavily censored to remove all references to anything that might be even slightly sexual in nature. It’s quite amazing, especially given that the definition of oral sex given is pretty straight forward and bland, saying exactly what it is without any graphic description at all. Still, some felt that the very acknowledgment that it existed negated the value of the dictionary.

So what if a 5th grader hears that word and wonders what it is? I suppose they’ll just have to ask their schoolyard friends or hit up a search engine. Yeah, I’m sure that will result in a much less graphic description.

Finally, taking the cake is New York City, which has proposed banning almost any word that seems negative, is associated with upper versus lower classes, might disturb someone, is divisive, refers to something scary, might be sad or is otherwise not absolutely politically neutral in every way:

The words are apparently to be banned from standardized tests specifically, but since those are what usually dictates how subjects are taught and what is put into text books, it’s likely to extend into the general curriculum.  This apparently is part of a larger policy to reduce the use of terms that might “distract” some of the schools students.

Via SILive:

50 words banned from NYC school tests
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. — You’ve heard of banned books? Get ready for banned words.

The city Department of Education is aiming to get 50 words removed from some city-issued standardized tests, and some of them are real head-scratchers.

Among the off-limits terms: “politics,” “poverty,” and “religion.”

The reasoning: The words might be distracting to segments of the city’s diverse student population.

….

Here is the complete list of words:
Abuse (physical, sexual, emotional, or psychological)
Alcohol (beer and liquor), tobacco, or drugs
Birthday celebrations (and birthdays)
Bodily functions
Cancer (and other diseases)
Catastrophes/disasters (tsunamis and hurricanes)
Celebrities
Children dealing with serious issues
Cigarettes (and other smoking paraphernalia)
Computers in the home (acceptable in a school or library setting)
Crime
Death and disease
Divorce
Evolution
Expensive gifts, vacations, and prizes
Gambling involving money
Halloween
Homelessness
Homes with swimming pools
Hunting
Junk food
In-depth discussions of sports that require prior knowledge
Loss of employment
Nuclear weapons
Occult topics (i.e. fortune-telling)
Parapsychology
Politics
Pornography
Poverty
Rap Music
Religion
Religious holidays and festivals (including but not limited to Christmas, Yom Kippur, and Ramadan)
Rock-and-Roll music
Running away
Sex
Slavery
Terrorism
Television and video games (excessive use)
Traumatic material (including material that may be particularly upsetting such as animal shelters)
Vermin (rats and roaches)
Violence
War and bloodshed
Weapons (guns, knives, etc.)
Witchcraft, sorcery, etc.

This story has gotten so much attention that it’s likely that this will be reversed, because it’s so stupid! For one thing, it’s ridiculous to pretend that the world does not have unpleasant and controversial things in it. If you do, you’ve sheltering students to the point where they are being done an enormous disservice.

A number of subjects would be all but impossible to teach. I’m hard pressed to think of how it would even be possible to write a standardized test on history at all. Some of the most important events in history, which changed the way nations existed and resulted in revolutions were wars. You’d have a hard time explaining the 1960’s without mentioning the Vietnam War or the 20th century in general while ignoring World War I and II. It would be impossible to talk about the Great Depression, since poverty and homelessness can’t be discussed. Banning alcohol means prohibition is a topic that can’t be discussed. If you can’t talk about hunting, a very large portion of the life of Native Americans and early settlers is out, but I suppose you can’t really talk about them much anyway, because there was often violent conflict and oppression involved. Most of the 1800’s in the United States is out, since the Civil War, slavery and other taboo issues were big factors in history. The colonization of the US would have to be further restricted because many early settlers were tobacco farmers.

Biology would not fare much better. You can’t discuss death, so that would make it very difficult to describe life cycles or how the biosphere recycles material from dead organisms. With violence and hunting banned, any discussion of predators or food chain is impossible. Not being able to discuss disease cuts out a huge area as does the ban on anything related to sex. If you can’t discuss bodily functions, then philology and medical-related topics are impossible. The inclusion of evolution is not surprising, but assures that absolutely nothing important about biology can be taught.

Beyond that, you can’t teach much about computer technology or development if you have to pretend that a private user is never involved. Civics and government-related classes are out. I suppose you can still teach math, although you’d have to be very careful with any word problems or you might offend someone.

What A NYC Text Book Might Look Like:

Note:  I hope I did not offend anyone with my use of red.  Next time I’ll use purple so it does not seem so traumatic and confrontational.

One would think that such a clear cut case of insane actions would be pretty hard to frame as something heroic.  One would think that stealing an armored personnel carrier and using it to run through private yards and public streets, potentially endangering ones own life and others would not be the kind of thing that could be reasonably reported as some kind of desperate, selfless attempt to stop harm from befalling others.

Yet somehow, the Australian media has done just that.   Menace in an armored vehicle?  No, just a concerned citizen facing a moral conflict.   Actions of a disturbed lunatic?  No, he just couldn’t deal with the frustration of seeing the harm those transmitters cause everyone.

For example, see this video:

Yet while a perfectly sane person might well get really angry at their employer after being dismissed, only a complete nutter would get in an armored vehicle and take it to the streets.   Does he seem sane now?   Perhaps, but it’s hard to tell from a well edited media piece, especially considering he may well have received medication or counseling while in prison.  Regardless, I’d never let this guy anywhere near my wifi router.

There is something very striking about this image even at first glance.  Notice that the no-entry zone has absolutely no correspondence whatsoever to radiation levels.  It’s simply a circle drawn around the nuclear plant.   Much of the area has quite low radiation levels and some of the area outside the exclusion zone has higher radiation levels than the area within it.  Since there’s now no real danger of the reactors being further damaged or experiencing uncontrolled discharges, there’s absolutely no reason to enforce a no-entry zone based on such a blind method of drawing the map.   If a no-entry zone is to exist at all (which it really, at this point, does not need to)

Actual Doses experienced:

Few areas exceed 20 uSv per hour by very much.  The red area signifies areas with higher than this level, but most of this area is only slightly above 20 uSv/hr.  Areas with 20 uSv/hr or more exist in a relatively narrow strip running northwest from the area of the nuclear plant.

A person lives in an area where the external radiation dose rate is 20 uSv/hr.    Of course, this is really only outdoors and inside there will be less contamination, but for the sake of argument, lets assume the worst:  They get 20 uSv/hr and they stay in that are all the time.  There are 8760 hours in a year, so if they spend all their time outdoors in the 20 uSv/hr area, they receive 175,200 uSv per year or about 175 mSv per year.

This is still a bit unreasonable for what a person would actually be exposed to because it assumes they are always outdoors and standing over ground that has not been in any way cleaned of contamination.  Indoors, the level will be a lot lower.  If they travel outside the area of highest radiation, their dose is also reduced.   As time goes on, both radioactive decay and natural weathering and erosion will reduce levels further.   Therefore, after a year in such an area, it’s more reasonable to expect a total exposure of something like 100-150 mSv and maybe quite a bit less.

Most of the no-entry zone is far bellow this.  The yellow areas would produce only about half the dose of the highest regions and the areas shaded green would result in an annual dose of only about 10-30 mSv her year.  That’s hardly a lot of radiation.

How much radiation a person is exposed to in a year from background sources varies greatly depending on things like location, diet, travel and things like whether they happen to cook with natural gas, live in a granite structure or have radon seeping into their home’s foundation.   About 3 mSv is a normal average for those living at sea level in much of the world.   Of course, it’s quite common for it to be much higher than this.   Areas with background radiation in excess of 10 mSv per year are quite common.  A few areas have much higher.   In the Guarpari region of Brazil, background levels can exceed 175 mSv per year due to local deposits of uranium and thorium.  Residents of Kerala India experience doses of over 70 mSv per year.   Ramsir Iran is famous for having some of the highest levels in the world at over 260 mSv per year.  Locations across Africa and Australia may produce levels above 40 mSv per year.

Studies have been done of the populations of these areas and no ill effects have been documented as a result of the high radiation exposure.   Of course, the expected radiation exposure from living in such an area for an extended period of time would be much higher than for those in the Fukushima area.   Since the radioactivity in the Fukushima region is mostly limited to the surface and includes many relatively short-lived radioisotopes, it will diminish significantly in the years to come.   Natural sources, on the other hand, are constantly replenished.  So a person who lives in an area with increased radiation levels as a result of the Fukushima incident will not experience the same dose next year as they will this year.  It will be less.

And no, there have been no calls that high background areas of the world be evacuated and declared off limits.

Visitation:

Living in the vast majority of the area around Fukushima would result in a radiation dose lower than living in many areas of the world and which could reasonably be considered acceptable.   Visiting these areas, even for extended periods of time, in order to recover property, secure damaged structures and begin the cleanup would result in even lower levels of exposure.  If a person were allowed to travel to the area and spent a cumulative few days in one of the highest areas of radiation, they would receive less exposure than from a dental x-ray.  A person could spend a month in the regions of highest radiation and experience a total increase in annual dose that would be less than that millions of people around the world live with for their entire lives.   Traveling through the area would result in even lower radiation exposure.

A More Reasonable Proposal:

I’d like to propose a more science-based and less restrictive zoning for the area around the Fukushima nuclear power plant.   Under this proposal, the evacuation and no-entry order would be immediately lifted and the vast majority of the area would be available for immediate resettlement, property recovery and rebuilding.

Two zones would remain for the immediate future, the exclusion zone and the limited access zone.

The Exclusion Zone:

The area immediately around the plant boundary.  This area would be accessible to plant workers, recovery teams and others involved in the cleanup, survey and general maintenance. The reason for keeping members of the public out is not only to reduce radiation exposure but also because this area is the primary area of remediation activity and is being used as a staging area for equipment and personnel.  Those working in the area would need to follow standard procedure for dosimeter.

Limited, escorted visits by those who may live just outside the plant perimeter would be allowed for the purposes of recovering property, surveying damage and securing structures that may remain intact.

Limited Access Zone:

This area is defined not by simple distance from the plant but rather follows the approximate area of the highest radiation levels.  Visitation to this area and travel through it would not be subject to major restrictions.   The only restriction to access would be that the area would not be zoned for full time resettlement.   While those living in that area would be allowed to visit their homes without supervision, they would continue to be offered shelter elsewhere and it would be requested that they not permanently settle into the area or remain there for several consecutive days, although such restrictions would be more of a request than a strongly enforced rule.

Recovery efforts, repair of infrastructure traversing the area and recovery efforts would begin immediately with little or no restriction.  As the area would be considered to be free to visit but not designated for resettlement, schools, post offices and other facilities catering to residents would remain closed, but would be repaired and secured.   Basic services like fire and ambulances would be restored as soon as possible.

Those wishing to resettle sooner in the area could begin remediation work, such as power washing surfaces and removing top soil and could have their property surveyed for safety and radiation levels.   If a government-approved surveyor confirms that the total radiation levels for a structure and surrounding area are within certain standards and that the structure has been repaired to meet building codes, that property could be issued a certificate for residency.

The limited access zone would be the only area subject to government sponsored cleanup and radiation remediation measures.  Areas outside this region would only receive such attention if an exceptionally high reading was found on a “hot spot.”  Other than that, it’s just not worth the amount it would cost to reduce already low levels.

Eventually all resettlement limits would be lifted and the exclusion zone around the plant would also be eventually withdrawn, pending how the future of the recovery plays out.

They may be the most hated and feared form of animal life for humans.  This is not entirely universal, of course.  Snaked do appear in a positive context in some mythology and religion, but in western religion, they tend to be seen in a very negative manner.   In the Bible, the first evil entity introduced is Satan taking the form of a snake.  Whether it’s the Biblical connotation of snakes or simply their unsettling appearance, snakes are often used as a metaphor for the sneaky, evil and dishonorable in Western society.

Yet, if you consider snakes more objectively, there’s really not much to dislike about them.   A few species of snakes are venomous, but the vast majority of snakes are not venomous at all and are quite harmless.  Of those which do have potentially lethal venom, most are shy and will try to escape if they encounter humans.  There are a few varieties of snake which might be considered to be legitimately frightening animals, because they are both highly aggressive and venomous.  But this hardly makes the entire suborder worthy of fear or dislike.

Moreover, snakes have quite a few major benefits to humans.  The number one way in which snakes benefit mankind is by virtue of the fact that they primarily eat rodents.   A population of field snakes can do a lot to keep the population of rats and mice down in an area.   Rodents, of course, do harm human settlement quite a lot.  They eat or contaminate food stocks and can be a vector for diseases like bubonic plague.   In places like Northern Europe, rats commonly sought shelter in the poorly enclosed structures built by humans.   They have historically been both a nuance and a major danger to public health.

It’s been said that Saint Patrick drove the snakes from Ireland.  To this day I’ve heard the Irish say how he did a great thing because Ireland is free of snakes.   This is rubbish, of course.  There are no snakes native to Ireland and the climate of Ireland is simply not suitable for snakes to flourish.   If introduced to Ireland, a group of snakes might make it through a few seasons, but ultimately it’s just too cool and wet for snakes to make it.  The climate of modern Ireland is what keeps it snake-free, not a saint who drove them away.

But even if he had, why would this be something worth thanking him for?   A relatively harmless animal driven from a land where people had lived largely in poverty with rodents causing far more harm than snakes.   Had Ireland had snakes, it would have been more of a benefit than a problem.  During the potato famine, starving rats consumed some of the few food stocks remaining for humans.  They also tormented those too weak to fend them off, even gnawing on those in the throws of death.   As was the case in much of Northern Europe, the rat was a source of intense misery – one snakes could have made quite a dent in.

I’m just pointing this out to show how ridiculous religious myths can be if you examine them.   St. Patrick not only did not drive the snakes out of Ireland, but if he had, he’d be more a villain than a hero.

CORRECTION:

Upon doing some additional research, I have to correct the point that the climate of Ireland is not suitable for snakes.  While it is fairly cold and damp, and therefore not the best place for many species of snakes, there are snakes in Scotland, Scandinavia and elsewhere which are capable of enduring the kind of climate Ireland has.   It seems that they simply never had a chance to migrate to the island.  It would have been far too cold and harsh during the glacial period and by the time the area had a more suitable climate for snakes, there was no way for them to migrate.  The cold Irish Sea provided a barrier.

There is no fossil evidence of snakes ever existing in Ireland.  They simply never arrived.

To the health physicists, radiation safety officers, radiologists, reactor operators and other radiation safety professionals of the world:

In most circumstances professionalism and a desire to remain impartial to political matters dictates that those who art part of highly scientific professions exercise a great deal of restraint while addressing pressing policy concerns.   Research scientists especially tend to be very tight lipped about policy matters and are not prone to engaging the media directly.   In many circumstances, there is no direct response from professionals, or if there is, it comes in the form of highly moderated and subdued official statements from organizations.

There is certainly good reason for this.  Science professionals must remain impartial and not risk having their loyalties called into question.   Strong statements about pressing issues of policy can result in criticism which degenerates to mudslinging.  Some experts would simply rather not have to engage non-professionals who are likely to respond with a frustrating lack of understanding of their fields and believe their talents are better utilized in the world of scholarly journals and professional research.  There is, of course, some risk to ones reputation and to the integrity of ones work that can come from becoming heavily involved in issues of advocacy and direct engagement of the government, media and public.

That said, there exists a humanitarian crisis that is only getting worse due to a combination of unjustified fear of ionizing radiation and pressure to exploit this fear to advance a political or social agenda.   The result has been a enormous unnecessary human suffering.  Those with professional credentials and credibility in the field of radiation safety are in a unique position to help bring this crisis to an end, and, as such, have an ethical duty to do so.

Since the tragic earthquake and tsunami struck Japan almost a year ago, hundreds of thousands of Japanese remain in limbo due to unnecessary evacuations and continued restrictions on habitation or even visitation to the area around the Fukushima Daiichi power plant.   The earthquake and tsunami killed tens of thousands and left whole communities devastated.   In such circumstances, the survivors want nothing more than to recover what property they can and begin to rebuild their lives.  Yet this has not been allowed to happen.  Despite the fact that the radiation exposure in the exclusion zone is well within any reasonable safety limits, many have been bared from even visiting their homes.   In the time after the disaster, domestic animals needlessly starved, property that could have been recovered was lost and serious chemical and biological hazards were allowed to fester.   This continues to happen even as the reactors have been stabilized and the most worrisome isotopes have long decayed away.

In addition to this tragedy, the Japanese government continues to spend enormous amounts of money in the cleanup of areas where radiation “hot spots” would result in only the most minimal of exposure and in a policy of idling most of the country’s nuclear power plants, resulting in huge economic losses.   What the people of Japan sorely need is to have the damaged regions of their nation rebuilt.  Every Yen spent on the unnecessary removal of soil is one more Yen that cannot be spent on the necessary rehabilitation of the areas effected by the quake and tsunami.  The message being given to citizens is that they are in grave danger, especially their children.  Inconsistent information, panic and confusion have resulted in enormous psychological stresses to those who have already suffered from the terrible natural disaster.

I therefore ask all radiation safety professionals of the world to stop biting your tongues and speak out loudly and in no uncertain terms, engaging the public, the media and the Japanese government as directly and candidly as possible.  The Japanese people need to be told the truth, without the fear-based spin that politicians often use to try to scare their way into office or special interest groups try to exploit.   The Japanese government must be urged to begin a far more measured and scientifically consistent approach to resettlement and repair that is based on the anual exposure from living in a region as compared with normal background in locations around the world.   Resources should not be wasted in the removal of small “hot spots” which are no more radioactive than clusters of uranium-bearing rock.   All areas should be made accessible to visitation and most to resettlement.    Repairs to local infrastructure and economic assets must take precedent over concerns of radioactivity that have little or no basis in science.

As experts in this field, you are the only ones who can challenge these policies and overrule them by virtue of the authority you have gained through education and experience.   Doing so may well open you to the mud-slinging of certain groups, who would rather not face the truth.   Yet in the face of such suffering, caving to the fear of being attacked by dishonorable interests is the height of cowardice.

In conclusion, I once again ask that all professionals in this field take individual initiative to take a stand against these harmful policies and messages and that groups like the Health Physics Society and others step up to the plate and pull no punches in defense of the well being of the people of Japan.  Your field stands for the furtherance of human understanding and for improved human safety and health.  These ideals demand that you step up to the plate and fight for the refugees of fear who continue to suffer in Japan.

Respectfully,

Stephen M. Packard
depletedcranium.com

What can I say about Randi that hasn’t already been said?   He’s been a giant in the skeptic movement, and over the years he has been personally responsible for toppling many scam artists and exposing charlatans around the world.  Now in his 80’s, he’s still a dynamo who is always out there advancing the cause of empirical skepticism.

I’ve disagreed with Randi on many occasions.   However, he has still been one of the most important mentors I have had in becoming an activist for good science and skepticism.  Randi’s most striking feature is that, despite his status, he is never too busy to provide some personal guidance or help to any aspiring skeptic.   He’s easily approachable and has endless enthusiasm for helping others get involved in the cause.

There is no doubt that Mr. Randi is largely responsible for the recent explosion of skepticism and expansion of skeptical advocacy to include those who had not previously been heavily involved.   For many years, one of the biggest problems with skepticism is that it has been limited primarily to older white male academics.  Randi, with his charisma, showmanship and understanding of the importance of inclusion, has helped transform it into a movement which now includes more young people and a greater diversity of gender, race and background than ever before.