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.

Anyone who has started a campfire without an accelerate knows that it can be surprisingly difficult to get a good strong self-sustaining flame going, even with the aid of matches or a lighter.   For early man, it was much more difficult still.  Simply being able to consistently create a fire and contain it for use demonstrates a high degree of intelligence and the ability to learn.

Now scientists have discovered evidence that it may have happened earlier than we had previously believed.

Via CBS News:

Humans used fire 1 million years ago, says study
(AP) NEW YORK – When did our ancestors first use fire? That’s been a long-running debate, and now a new study concludes the earliest firm evidence comes from about 1 million years ago in a South African cave.

The ash and burnt bone samples found there suggest fires frequently burned in that spot, researchers said Monday.

Over the years, some experts have cited evidence of fire from as long as 1.5 million years ago, and some have argued it was used even earlier, a key step toward evolution of a larger brain. It’s a tricky issue. Even if you find evidence of an ancient blaze, how do you know it wasn’t just a wildfire?

The new research makes “a pretty strong case” for the site in South Africa’s Wonderwerk Cave, said Francesco Berna of Boston University, who presents the work with colleagues in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

One expert said the new finding should be considered together with a previous discovery nearby, of about the same age. Burnt bones also have been found in the Swartkrans cave, not far from the new site, and the combination makes a stronger case than either one alone, said Anne Skinner of Williams College in Williamstown, Mass., who was not involved in the new study.

Another expert unconnected with the work, Wil Roebroeks of Leiden University in The Netherlands, said by email that while the new research does not provide “rock solid” evidence, it suggests our ancestors probably did use fire there at that time.

One thing I have always wondered about, and of course, we will never know, is how many ancients may have learned of fire only to abandon it out of fear. Certainly not all of early man’s encounters with fire were pleasant. It may first have been experienced in the wildfires started by spontaneous combustion of overheated turf or from a lightning strike. Such an experience would be terrifying, and once man began to experiment with fire, it’s all but certain that some mishaps and burns occurred.

Yet some groups stuck with it. Perhaps it was because it was recognized as useful or maybe because it frightened others. Maybe it was just curiosity. Whatever the case, at some point, someone began to create fires and, despite perhaps suffering a few burns or coughing on smoke and enduring the frustration of seeing the tiny smoldering embers go out, they learned how to tame and use fire.

Might there have been some tribes that had mastered fire and others that did not? If so, it’s almost certain that this advantage would have lead to those with fire succeeding and those who didn’t falling by the wayside. This could have even been a factor in early human evolution.

But what i early mankind looked at fire the way we look at new forms of energy today? Would they have used fire at all?  It’s a sobering thought to consider that if our ancestors had the same attitude we have today, we might still be eating raw meat, huddled in mud huts at the mercy of the cold darkness of night…

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.

Some might think it a bad idea to attend something like the Reason Rally when running for political office.  After all, atheists are not generally well received, especially in the Republican party.   I certainly considered this, but in the end I decided it was worth the risk.   I really need to raise money for my campaign badly and the Reason Rally was an opertunity to see a lot of politically active people with similar concerns for the nation.   I also saw a number of people I’m acquainted with.   I handed out campaign flyers and hopefully this will translate to some contributions.

As for whether it will hurt me with the more conservative members of the party back home, that is certainly a concern.   I don’t intend to make a big deal of my attendance of the rally when I’m at more conservative committee meetings, but I certainly won’t deny it if I am asked.  I’m not going to lie to win, so the fact that I’m a non-believer is not something I can really hide.   As far as I am concerned, it’s really not a valid campaign issue.

The Good:

The rally went quite well overall.  Despite rain, over 20,000 people attended.   There were many great speakers, each of them offering a slightly different take on the importance of reason and maintaining a secular government.   I didn’t entirely agree with every speaker on every point, but most of them I could stand behind.  There were also a lot of people of different ages and backgrounds, which is great to see.  Some had traveled a long distance to make the rally.   Overall, I don’t think there’s any denying it was a huge success.

It was a very enjoyable event in general.  The speakers were great, the attendees were generally in very good spirits and it was a lot of fun to walk around and meet people from all over the country and a variety of backgrounds.   There wasn’t any bickering over who had the better seat or who might have cut in line to get refreshments or any of the other scuffles common at big public events.

There were some Christian protestors, as one might expect.  They kept to the side.   There were not many of them, perhaps a dozen.   Their presence seemed to be larger than it really was because they all had very big signs proclaiming the need to worship Jesus, obey the bible and so on.    They openly asked rally attenders to come over and talk to them and many did.   The protestors were quickly surrounded by atheists from the rally, who took them up on their challenge ton debate.

There were no incidents at all.  Some of the debates became spirited.  On occasion voices were raised.   I never heard any unrestrained name-calling, just a few arguments that got slightly loud, perhaps out of frustration.  Nobody was threatened and nothing even approaching violence occurred.  In most cases, the exchanges were entirely civil.

The Bad:

Atheists are a minority and one that is not generally well received by non-atheists, especially in the United States.  One of the biggest arguments made against atheists is that it’s out goal to forcibly take away the religious freedoms of other groups, to destroy their beliefs, burn down their churches and ban them from praying or raising their families as they see fit.   Of course, this is not true at all, at least not for most of us.  What we want is a secular government.  Secularism is not itself anti-religious, but simply religiously neutral.   We don’t want the government to endorse religion or directly support it, but we certainly don’t want to stop people from doing it themselves, on their own time and with their own money.

Being a minority whose beliefs are subject to controversy and discrimination, we’re in no position to say that others should be discriminated against or have their beliefs taken away from them.   It’s true that many atheists believe the world would be better without religion, but that’s just our personal take on it.   I’m sure most would also think the world would be better without Jersey Shore, but that does not mean we want to bomb the coast of New Jersey.

That said, it’s not uncommon for atheists to lampoon religion or point out that it can get ridiculous.   We have the right to do this and would prefer to keep it that way, but that’s a lot different than forcing it on people through the government.

Unfortunately, I found that there were times when religious intolerance seemed to rear its ugly head.   Many of the signs held up by protestors poked fun at religion, and in general they were in good humor and not overly hostile.   There was a guy walking around in a costume of Jesus riding a dinosaur, which was obviously intended to poke fun at Christianity.   A few speakers cut pretty hard at organized religion, including PZ Meyers, who stated that we should view religion “with contempt.”  In the context of his speech the comment was not overly harsh, but taken out of that context, as I am sure it will be, it can be used to make the whole movement seem as radical and militant as too many already believe it is.

I believe we need to be very cautious in this case.   Lets remember, we may think religion is stupid and useless, but we are a minority who is fighting for more respect and acceptance amongst people who already believe we’re trying to oppress them, even if we’re not.   We need to avoid giving them more ammo.   This rally is supposed to make us seem reasonable and show why secularism has value.  Lets not forget the audience is the whole country!

The ugly:

When it comes to showing the world what we DO NOT want to show them and reenforcing the stereotypes we need to get away from, there was one sign that really stood out.   As soon as I saw it I thought to myself “Oh no, this is going to be the number one sign in all the headlines and news reports on this.”   I was right.   It’s absolutely perfect when it comes to summing up the movement in exactly the way we do not want to and in exactly the way our enemies want us to be seen.   In fact, when I saw it, I actually thought “Wow, coming to this rally might have been a really bad idea.”

And… I was right.   If this was a ploy to get media attention, then it worked great, but it also really did an amazing job at making us seem like the enemy of everyone who is not an atheist.

Yep.  There it is.   It’s a reference to the fact that many religious individuals find it offensive that some of the mandates of President Obama’s healthcare bill would make religious-affiliated organizations provide coverage to things like contraception to employees, even if they are opposed to it on the grounds of what they believe.  People are hyper-sensitive to the idea that their beliefs might be somehow limited by government action, so it’s something that they get very upset about.   Others have simply felt Obama is not religious enough.

The message is pretty clear:  You think Obama and the others who are more secular in government are bad?   Well, I actually do, literally, really want to take your religion away from you, burn down your churches, take your children away from you if you pray with them, forbid any public display of religion etc etc etc.  I’m an atheist and this is what atheists are all about.

You can argue that’s not the message of the sign, perhaps that it’s more that she wants a world without religion and will educate people to try to dispel their beliefs or that it’s tongue-in-cheek or a dramatic over statement.   It does not matter, because it will be taken as a literal threat and hostile to most religious people.   This sign is so clear cut, militant, hostile and to the point, it’s bound to offend even the most liberal and accepting Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and everyone else.   It does say “I” but it is going to be used as an example of what atheists are all about.

This kind of thing worries and sickens me.   It sets us back in being accepted.  It reenforces all the crap we’ve tried to get away from.

That, by the way, is Jen McCreigh who blogs at “Blag Hag.” Now I should state that I’ve disagreed with Jen quite a bit before.  I don’t like the way that she seems to find sexism in everything anyone ever says that might happen to involve a woman.   I’m not crazy about her constant taking of offense to damn near anyone who disagrees with her and usually labeling them as being a sexist, racist or otherwise bigoted.   I’m not sure I like her attitude in general.   That said, I’ve generally kept this to myself, because I respect the fact that she has contributed to the secular movement and I don’t want to spark unnecessary infighting by going after unimportant things in her arguments.

That said, this sign has done such a perfect job of illustrating everything we are not and don’t want the world to think of us, I’m just going to come out and say it…

JEN, YOU ARE A F***ING IDIOT

It should not surprise you at all that journalists have made us look bad and like fundamentalists looking to oppress others. You gave them the most perfect photo op I can imagine for that. Sure, there were others who expressed pretty hardcore intolerance, and they hurt the cause too, but none of them managed to do it in a way that was so concise and perfect for a press photo to illustrate the point.

One of the important messages of the reason rally is that it should be okay to be openly atheists and not have to defend yourself as being a good person or assure your theistic friends that you don’t hate them or want to forcibly oppress their beliefs.   Many of us would like to have it be something that is not seen with hostility or something we have to worry about being totally open about.   Those who so publicly flaunt their desire to destroy religion don’t help get us there.

(and yes, I’d think that even if you were a male.)

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.

It’s a rundown of some of the more interesting incidents of mass hysteria, where numerous people began to manifest symptoms based entirely on their belief that something existed when it didn’t. It’s actually more common than one might think. History is littered with examples of whole populations erupting in uncontrollable laughter, people believing they could not breathe and thus passing out, men panicking that their penises were retracting into their bodies or the female equivalent, where women believe their reproductive tracts are closing up. In some cases, individuals have injured themselves in an attempt to stop the fictional condition from progressing.

Never put 100% trust in anyone, not even yourself!

A number of studies have been conducted on the use of various SSRI drugs during various stages of pregnancy and breast feeding. The majority of the studies done have not found any harmful effects of the use of SSRI’s on developing fetuses or infants who breastfeed. While these drugs do pass through the placenta, the concentration of exposure is at least two thirds less for the developing fetus than for the mother.

However, one study, done in 2007, did find a slight increase in a few birth defects in mothers who received relatively high doses of certain SSRI medications during the first trimester of their pregnancy. The study did not find any significant increase in overall odds of most birth defects, but did find an increase in a few birth defects, such as certain cardiac defects. Still, the total risk remains tiny with or without SSRI’s, and while the increase was greater than the statistical error of the study, confounding factors cannot be ruled out, such as the possibility that depressed mothers might have less healthy babies for a variety of reasons.

You can read the entire study here.

The reception of the study in the medical community was generally more one of reassurance than concern. While it indicated that there was at least a possibility that a few narrow birth defects might possibly be associated with SSRI’s, the overall risk is very low. Interestingly, the study did not find that these risks increased for all types of SSRI drugs. Zoloft and Paxil did appear to produce slight increases in some birth defects, but Prozac, Lexapro and other antidepressants did not produce any detectable increase in any birth defects.

Given that the risks are not completely proven and appear to be extremely low, the Mayo Clinic says the following about the use of antidepressants during pregnancy:

Overall, the risk of birth defects and other problems for babies of mothers who take antidepressants during pregnancy is low. Still, few medications have been proved safe without question during pregnancy and some types of antidepressants have been associated with health problems in babies.

It should also be noted that these slight increases in risk have been speculated about since before the 2007 study, and most women who received the drugs during pregnancy would have been told (or should have been told) by their doctor that the possibility existed that there could be a small increase in some birth defects.

Now enter the lawyers. Lets say, you happen to have had a child with a common and minor birth defect, like a cleft lip or a club foot, both of which are fairly common and correctable. You might have just put your child’s foot in a brace or taken them for minor plastic surgery and then thought nothing of it. Well, if you happen to have been taking an anti-depressent, there are lawyers out there who want to be sure you don’t just go on with your life without giving them a crack at the drug companies. And they’re paying for advertising to make sure you know.

Also, to be clear: Most of the conditions listed in the above ad have never been associated with Paxil or Zoloft, and it’s pure speculation that they would have any effect on those conditions simply because they MAY have effects on other conditions. Also, most of the drugs listed have, despite extensive study, never been linked to ANY birth defect. They are in the same class as the drugs Paxil and Zoloft, but it is pure speculation to think that because they have a similar mechanism of action that they MIGHT have an effect, even despite the fact that all studies to date have shown they do not and that the drugs that they are related to have not been linked to the conditions listed.

Worse still, there are several ads now running (sorry I could not find a video) that are saying the same thing about autistic children, despite there being not a shred of evidence that SSRI’s during pregnancy would have an impact on the probability of a child developing autism. It seems to be some kind of assumption that if some do possibly increase the risk of some birth defects then they must all cause autism.

Go figure…

Sorry, to say “I hate lawyers” is a rather rash and harsh statement, but this stuff really makes me sick.

Now there has been a turn toward trying to blockade ports.   I’m not sure what the reasoning is.  Perhaps it’s a hatred of imports or a belief that blocking trade will somehow undermine the big businesses.  Regardless of their goals, it seems that some of the tactics have gone far beyond just getting in the way to the point of absolutely astounding danger.

Here is an amazing example of how bad it has gotten.

Faith in humanity? Okay, that’s fine. I really don’t think that any train driver wants to blow through a crowd or run over a toddler. I’ll even go so far as to say that the majority of the evil corporate executives at a railroad or transportation company would be horrified by the idea of a young child being torn apart under the wheels of a massive locomotive. I’m sure that the train driver, upon realizing that there is a child in the track will do everything possible to avoid running them over, which, unfortunately, is not much.

Perhaps this is just evidence that the educational system is failing, because in addition to humanity, there are some things you should always count on because they always work.

Inertia – It’s the property of an object to resist any change in its motion. It’s directly proportional to mass. In other words, heavy objects are more difficult to get moving that light objects. Makes sense, right? Well, conversely, once you get them moving, they’re also hard to stop.

Ever try pushing a car because it wouldn’t start? It’s hard to get it going but once you do it’s also hard to stop, which is why you need someone inside it to push the brake when it needs to. A two ton car has too much inertia for a human to easily stop it, even when it’s moving quite slow.

Trains have a lot more. A locomotive can weigh over one hundred tons. Fully loaded, each of the additional cars weighs anywhere from fifty to one hundred or more tons. So even a small freight train weighs thousands of tons. The ones that are used for transporting containers to and from ports are not small, however, and weigh a real real lot. They have a lot of inertia. When they get going, even at slow speed, it’s not easy to stop them.

Friction – It’s the property of two solid surfaces to resist motion against each other.  With wheels, it’s often considered to be synonymous with traction, the ability of the wheels to “grip” a surface and provide control and acceleration or stopping ability.   When you hit the brakes in a car, it’s the friction of a surface that keeps the car from just sliding away forever.

Not all surfaces have the same friction.  You will notice this if you are driving in different conditions.   Dry asphalt against rubber has quite a lot of friction, so if you hit the brakes on an asphalt road, you’ll stop pretty fast.   You may skid a bit, but it won’t be that much because the road provides plenty of friction against your wheels.   Now if you do the same on a wet road, which has less friction, you’re going to skid a lot farther.  Do it on an icy road and you’ll skid further still.  If you hit your brakes on a patch of smooth ice you will keep going almost like you didn’t hit them at all, although your car may also spin out.   One thing that will not happen on ice is a nice sudden stop, because there’s not enough friction.

You know what else doesn’t have a lot of friction?   Smooth steel rails against steel wheels.

And this is why, regardless of the humanity of a train driver, the train is not going to stop unless it has a good mile or so of warning that you’ve put your kid on the track.  It will keep going and kill you and your child.

For those interested in what actually happened: The original story can be read here. While it’s pretty clear from the video that the idiots were in the track right in front of a train, there are no reports of any deaths. Either the train was already coming to a stop and was light enough to not kill them all, or they realized it was not going to stop before it ran them over. Note that they are on the tracks but not chained to the tracks.

Just the same, this is one of the worst parents I have ever seen. It makes not vaccinating your children seem rather mild.