If there’s one thing I don’t care for, it’s political correctness:  the forbidding of certain words, concepts or ideas because they might offend or the forcing of topics to be dealt with in a manner that attempts to sugar-coat them to whatever extent necessary to stop people from being upset.  Granted, it’s wrong to use overtly offensive terminology or derogatory practices, but sometimes you have to deal with the fact that reality is not as everyone wishes it was.

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.

(more…)

Between 1949 and 1951, the company Ac Gilbert produced and sold the “Atomic Energy Lab,” a kit of nuclear and radiation-related experiments intended for use by children in the same way that chemistry sets are used.   The kit included a sample of uranium-238, a Geiger counter, cloud chamber, spinthariscope and some other items used for educational experiments with radiation.  It also included at least three small radioactive sources.   It was modestly successful, likely due to the rather steep price of the set – $50, which would be equivalent to about $460 today.  (about 325 EUR, 285 GBP, 430 AUD)

The AC Gilbert set was certainly the most elaborate and complete atomic energy set sold, but it was not the only one. The American Basic Science Club produced a similar lab set around 1960, and Chemcraft produced a lab set in the late 1940’s to early 1950’s. In the 1950’s, some Chemcraft chemistry sets also included radioactive materials and experiments that could be done with radiation.

I have always thought that these sets were an incredibly good idea and a really excellent way to acquaint young people with the basics of radioactivity and, importantly, demonstrate that radiation is common and not something to be feared. These lab sets were extremely safe. The amount of radioactive materials present in the experimental sources was microscopic and not at all dangerous. The uranium ore or uranium compounds included are not a radiological hazard and are only a toxicity hazard if they are ground up and snorted or otherwise inhaled, and even then, are less toxic than an equivalent quantity of something like lead.

There’s really no better way to get a kid acquainted with science than to actually do some hands-on activities. They improve understanding and retention and allow them to participate directly in making exciting observations. Anyone lucky enough to have had one of these labs as a child probably grew up with a healthy understanding (and not fear) of radioactivity.

Sadly, the world has changed since the early 1950’s, and today most people seem to run around with rampant radiophobia. If something is “radioactive” (which nearly everything is) then it’s seen as being of the highest danger. Nothing is believed to be more environmentally destructive, more dangerous to health, more disastrous, more hazardous and more terrifying than radiation. The idea that at one time children were allowed to learn with materials that produce radiation significantly above background levels fills some with horror and others laugh at just how stupid everyone must have been fifty years ago.

Here’s some of the things that have been said about the AC Gilbert Atomic Lab:

From the Daily Grind:

World’s Most Dangerous Toys: Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Lab
If you thought choking hazards in toys were bad then spare a thought for American kids in the early 50′s.

Introducing the Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Laboratory. This toy lab set was produced by Alfred Carlton Gilbert between 1950 and 1951 and sold for $49.50US (which is equivalent to about $380 – $400US dollars today). So if you were lucky enough to have well off parents back in the day you may well have been ‘lucky’ enough to get your hands on this radioactive fun set.

From Liveleak:

Very bad toys: Atomic Energy Lab usa ca. 1960
t’s unclear what effects the Uranium-bearing ores might have had on those few lucky children who received the set, but exposure to the same isotope
U-238 has been linked to Gulf War syndrome, cancer, leukemia, and lymphoma, among other serious ailments. Even more uncertain is the longterm impact of being raised by the kind of nerds who would give their kid an Atomic Energy Lab.

From Cracked

The 8 Most Wildly Irresponsible Vintage Toys
#1. Atomic Energy Lab

As a kid, did you ever swallow or at least put in your mouth a small piece of a toy or play set? Did you grow an extra arm because of it? No? Then you probably didn’t have the Atomic Energy Lab.

You see, there was a different approach to nuclear power in the ’50s and early ’60s — atomic energy was our friend and the way of the future, and it would never do anything to hurt us. However, it’s still hard to believe that anyone would entrust kids with radioactive material (even in small doses).

Yet, the Atomic Energy Lab kit produced by the American Basic Science Club came with real samples of uranium (which is radioactive) and radium (which is a million times more radioactive than uranium). Since the mere presence of radioactive material in a children’s product clearly wasn’t insane enough, some of the experiments detailed in the manual also required kids to handle blocks of dry ice. Dry ice, by the way, has a temperature of minus 109.3 degrees Fahrenheit, and it’s recommended that it only be handled while wearing gloves (none were included).

Okay, they’ve got a point about the dry ice, although it’s reasonably safe to handle with basic precautions. Still, I’m downright offended by the way that people completely ignorant of what radiation is or the dangers can sit there and smugly dismiss the idea of a radiation experiment set as being insane. It’s often ranked the most dangerous toy of all time, but in fact, it’s not dangerous at all for any normal 12 year old to learn from a microscopic amount of a radioisotope or a little bit of uranium ore, which they may well have sitting in their backyard anyway.

I’ll go one further:  Not only do I think this was a great idea and a very positive learning experience, I also think that there has never been a better time for something like a radiation and nuclear energy lab set!  Having a set that had a good variety of experiments would be fairly expensive but not unaffordable.  It would be targeted at ages 12 to adult and could also be something science departments at schools might be interested in.

I’m seriously considering doing it!  I’ll take the flack for selling kids a horrible cancer-causing evil material if I have to, because somebody has got to do it, and if I get enough interest I may very well start putting some kits together.

(more…)

(Browsers that cannot view embedded content, click here for the original Youtube video.)

You may notice that there’s something a bit off here.   Claims that vaccines are a dangerous conspiracy purported by horrible pharmaceutical companies are usually associated more with the Loony Left of the political spectrum, while Bachman is decidedly on the Loony Right side of the isle.  It’s interesting to note that different ridiculous beliefs tend to come from different sides of the isle.   Vaccine conspiracy theories tend to center on mistrust of corporations and capitalism in general and are often part and parcel of theories of how the military and big corporations are killing us with fluoride, chemtrails and depleted uranium, which means we all need to embrace the “natural way” and move back to mud huts where we can practice free love and drop acid.

You’ll notice, however, that Backmann is not opposed to vaccinations in general, but is singling out one vaccine which apparently has a nearly magical power to steal the innocence of sweet lovely little twelve year old and make them retarded.   The reason that conservatives are so opposed to the HPV vaccine is that it’s seen as somehow encouraging sex or that requiring it is somehow offering a government endorsement of premarital sex.   It’s an extremely warped view when one considers that they’re effectively saying that they are so opposed to what they consider to be offensive forms of sex that it’s worth avoiding a vaccine that could wipe out most cervical cancer.

Her sentiment seems to have been touched off in part by the state of Texas adding the HPV vaccine to the required immunizations for school admission for girls.   This was done by another Republican presidential candidate, Rick Perry.   Some have accused Perry of taking pharmaceutical money for this policy, it really does not change the fact that it’s a good idea to have girls vaccinated.   If he did do so because he was paid off, then all he can be accused of is doing the right thing for the wrong reason.
(more…)

This is the kind of story that really burns me up.   General fear and ignorance by both authorities and the public is once again making life unnecessarily problematic for someone who didn’t do anything wrong.

Daytona Beach News-Journal:

Stetson student found with uranium on DeLand campus
Stetson University officials confiscated a package containing low-grade uranium from a student Thursday, DeLand police said.

Volusia County’s HAZMAT team, DeLand police and firefighters were called to the scene. Authorities discovered that the amount of uranium was small enough that it could be possessed legally.

Police said there was no immediate threat to the campus, but the Public Safety Office was temporarily sealed off as a precaution.

According to Cindi Brownfield, Stetson spokeswoman, possession of uranium falls under the university’s weapons policy, and the student will go through Stetson’s judicial process.

DeLand Deputy Chief Randel Henderson said in an email that police are “conferring with the FBI as a routine protocol.”

And also, here’s a clip from a local news station:

(more…)

Our friend James Randi has been promoting critical thinking and opposing ridiculous nonsensical and unproven beliefs for decades, including homeopathy. It’s therefore not really news that he is actively going after the medical sham that has taken hold across the world.

However, a renewed effort by the James Randi Educational Foundation, the 10:23 campaign and others has recently kicked in to take on quackery. Efforts now have begun to target the mainstream companies that support this scam and are focused on raising awareness of the ineffectiveness of homeopathy, which, as it was recently pointed out, is becoming increasingly integrated into pharmacies, right along side real medicine.

For his part, Mr. Randi has been promoting the fact that his foundation is offering one million dollars to prove homeopathy works.

There’s a lot of crap on television, and there’s really no denying that. Yet despite this, the medium does occasionally deliver world class programing that actually is good enough to redeem its overall value. There are a huge number of shows that promote illogical thinking and unfounded claims from UFO’s to paranormal beliefs to conspiracy theories and precious few good shows with a skeptical, rational theme that portray reality for what it is.

Since others have asked for examples of such shows, and because of the general lack of programing in this nitche, I’ve started to compile a list of the few TV programs that actually do provide good rational, reality-based debunking and informing on superstition and other unfounded claims.

I will add more as I find them, so please feel free to contribute any ideas. I live in the US so this list may be skewed toward American programing, since that’s what I happen to be personally familiar with. If you know of any good additions please let me know!

Note that there are plenty of good science documentaries, so I’ve tried to keep this toward ones that focus on myths, unfounded beliefs and other areas where skepticism should be applied, as opposed to just general science-related content.

Series and Mini-Series:

Carl Sagan’s Cosmos: A Personal Voyage – PBS, 1980

Arthur C. Clarke’s Mysterious World – ITV, 1980
Arthur C. Clarke’s World of Strange Powers – ITV, 1985
Arthur C. Clarke’s Mysterious Universe – ITV, 1994-1995

James Randi: Psychic Investigator – ITV, 1991

Is it Real? – National Geographic TV, 2005-2007

Mythbusters – Discovery Communications, 2003 – Present

Penn and Teller’s Bullshit – Showtime TV, 2003- Present

Naked Science – National Geographic Television, 2004-Present

Best Evidence – Discovery Communications, 2007-Present

Single Event Shows, Documentaries:

The Search for the Loch Ness Monster – BBC Television, 2003

The Kennedy Assassination – Beyond Conspiracy – ABC News, 2004

9/11 Conspiracy Theories – Fact or Fiction? – A&E Television (the History Channel), 2007

Peter Jennings Reporting – UFOs: Seeing is Believing – ABC News, 2007

Conspiracy Moon Landing – National Geographic TV, 2007

The Enemies of Reason – Channel 4 Television Corp, 2007

Recently a friend of mine posted the following message on her Facebook account:

2011 is just going to suck just as much as 2010. i hate the whole idea of this “new year” optimism bullshit. just sayin

Wow. It’s sad to see someone really that down about the current period of time.   I suppose I’m not surprised.  I do know that I tend to look at the world a lot differently than most people, who don’t really ever to stop and think about how great it is that we have the Haber-Bosch Process or that, thanks to showers, toilet paper and anti-perspirant, most people no longer walk around with severe body odor.

I admit it’s easy to get down about the state of things these days. The economy is in the worst shape it’s been in in a long long time. China is becoming more and more dominant of a world power. Unemployment is high. The National Debt of the US is climbing at an alarming rate, while in some other other countries (Greece, Spain, Ireland) it’s climbing even faster. Crime has risen in many countries that had previously experienced reductions. NATO troops are stalemated in Afgahnistan, and Pakistan is looking more corrupt than ever. Energy prices are rising.

Yet I submit that right now, if you live in the US, Canada, Australia, Western Europe, Japan or any other fully industrialized modern country, life is actually really good right now. Perhaps it’s not as good as it was a couple of years ago, but it’s a hell of a lot better than at any other time in human history. If those who lived a few generations back could see how we lived today they’d be shocked by the near paradise that exists. Seriously.

It’s easy to forget, but here are a few reasons why 2011 does not suck:

(more…)

There are times when words have more than one meaning. One of the most confusing circumstances is when they have completely different meanings in common speech versus in scientific and technical contexts.   It can cause a great deal of confusion when these terms are used by lay persons.

I’ve read a few news articles that quoted a study and then went on to say “but this study was found to have an error in it,” when in fact, what the reporter was reading was not that the study contained a mistake but rather that the statistical analysis contained reports of what the standard error was.

A few examples are listed bellow, but I’m sure readers can think of many more.

(more…)

This is the Playpump:

The basic idea is that children in Africa play on a manually driven merry-go-round, not unlike those found in many playgrounds and enjoy themselves, not even thinking of it as work, but in the process they pump water out from a well into a tank so that it can be used by their communities.   Of course, there’s no doubt water wells provide a much healthier alternative to carrying water miles or using surface streams and ponds for water, and the makers of the Playpump claim it is superior to the traditional hand-operated pumps that have generally been used to provide water because it’s powered by children playing as they would anyway.

Seems like a good idea, right?
(more…)

Radiometric dating is a pretty awesome area of science that involves dating materials by using isotopic ratios and the decay rates of radioisotopes found in various samples.   It’s the most accurate means of dating the earth and based on radiometric dating, scientists have concluded that the earth is 4.54 billion years old.   So called “young earth” creationists hate this, because they insist the earth is actually six thousand years old.   Thus they love to attack radiometric dating.  Here’s a great video that explains the issue and how radiometric dating really works

I’d like to add that it’s not as if radiometric dating needs to stand on its own on this one.   Yes, it is the gold standard for dating of geological material, but there are many other observations that can be made which indicate that the earth must be on the order of billions of years old.   The fact that there is room for discourse in refining the accuracy of the calculated dates does not mean that the data is completely wrong by many orders of magnitude.
(more…)