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.

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.

Things to include:

1. A Geiger counter - this is undoubtedly the most important part of the lab, but also one of the most problematic.  The cost could easily drive the price of the set way too high if a high quality Geiger counter is used. Detecting alpha particles would be great as a way of teaching of the different types of radiation but most inexpensive Geiger-Muller tubes can only detect gamma and high energy beta. Detecting alpha particles requires a very thin window, usually made of mica. That tends to drive the price up, so alpha detection may need to be omitted. Ideally the Geiger counter should connect to a computer to expand the types of experiments possible and allow data logging. This may drive the price up too high, however.
2. A set of shielding materials – One of the most fundamental lessons is understanding the nature of shielding, so a series of materials would be provided.  These would include Mylar, thin plastic, thicker plastic, metal sheets and lead foil, possibly coated in plastic to relieve fears of lead poisoning.
3. A spinthescope or scintillation screen material – This would provide one alternative for detecting alpha particles that the geiger counter can’t.  It also is a fun and interesting experiment to view the radiation-created flashes of light in a darkened room.
4. A cloud chamber - An absolute must for any basic nuclear energy lab kit.   Simple cloud chamber kits are already available
5. An electroscope – To demonstrate the ionizing effects of radiation and the earliest types of detectors
6. High power rare earth magnets - to demonstrate that particle radiation can be effected by magnetic fields.
7. A guide to identifying radioactive minerals – basically a book with types of uranium and thorium ore shown with their geographic distribution and general characteristics shown.
8. An experiment guidebook – A list of the different experiments possible

Included radioactive sources:

1. A sample or multiple samples of uranium ore
2. Uranium marbles - They’re cheap and easy enough to obtain and provide a safe base level for some experiments
3. License Exempt Sealed Sources – The company Spectrum Techniques manufactures samples of various radioactive substances, including thalium-204, strontium-90, cesium-137, lead-210 and polonium-210 that are available in either needle sources (used primarily for cloud chambers) or sealed in plastic discs.   The sources are approved for sale and possession without a license because the actual amount of material is tiny.   They run from about fifty to eighty US dollars each.  Since Po-210 has a very short halflife, including it with a cloud chamber or other product presents a problem, so Spectrum Techniques offers a coupon that can be included with such products and then mailed in to receive the sample once the consumer gets the product.

Possible Experiments:

1. Measuring radiation – Basic measurements with the Geiger counter, measuring various sources.
2. Measuring radiation in your environment – Use the Geiger counter to measure the baseline background in various areas and record how it changes by time of day.  Look for radioactive items.   What common items emit radiation and how much?    Go on a hunt in an antique store, your kitchen or somewhere else and see what you can find.
3. Prospecting - Using the Geiger counter and the guide to minerals, what types of ore can you find?
4. Shielding Experiment – Observe how various types of radiation can be shielded and attenuated.  Use the shielding to help determine the type of radiation being measured.
5. Cloud Chamber Experiments – Observe particle paths in the cloud chamber using various sources.  Also see how magnets can alter the paths of particles.
6. Spinthescope Experiments – Observe alpha radiation with the spinthescope and also use it to help determine what kind of radiation is being measured.
7. Find a hidden source – Have a friend hide one of the radioactive sources in a room and use the Geiger counter to find it.

Of course these experiments would have more descriptions and some of them might even be designed to dispel myths, for example, those who live near a nuclear power plant would be encouraged to measure radiation at various distances and plot the levels.  Also, cell phones could be on the list of items to examine to show they do not give off ionizing radiation.

Cost:

I’d like to keep the kit affordable, ideally, about 300 US dollars as the top end of what it should cost, but realistically, it may turn out to be more.  I’d consider 500 USD to be the absolute maximum that could be charged without making the set far too expensive for most people to afford.    I’m more than happy to put such a kit together at almost no profit.   To be perfectly fair, I think it’s reasonable that I would make a small amount of money (perhaps $25 or so) over the cost of the materials, because I’m going to incur other miscellaneous expenses like printer toner, paper, phone calls and my time spent putting such a kit together.   However, my primary goal is not to make money off of this so much as to produce an educational experiment kit. Most of the items included would not cost much.

The marbles, ore and shielding material could be acquired for under $50 and the cloud chamber for not much more.   United Nuclear sells a spinthariscope for $35.  It would probably be possible to get it a bit cheaper if such an item was purchased in bulk. Other expenses would include the packaging and instructions.   The cost before the sealed sources and Geiger counter is therefore going to be about $100.

The sealed sources are going to be the first big expense.   A complete set that includes a beta emitter, a gamma emitter and an alpha emitter is going to cost about $150.   I’m a little split on whether to include Po-210.  On one hand it’s the only exclusive alpha emitter that could be included, but on the other, it’s rather short lived.   The alternative would be to include lead-210 in equilibrium with polonium-210, which would produce both beta and alpha particles.   Adding another gamma emitter to demonstrate the differences in energy levels would be great too, but for a real complete set of radioisotopes, it starts to look more like $175-$200.  It’s possible it could be less if they are bought in bulk. Therefore, the kit is already reaching the $300 mark before the most important component, the Geiger counter is added.

Choosing exactly what Geiger counter to include will be a challenge.   I can definitely acquire Geiger counters that fit all the necessary criteria and are inexpensive, but generally those are units I’d get surplus or second hand, and thus are each different.   That won’t work here.  What is needed is a standard Geiger counter that will be the same for each Set.

The Russian Company Quartex makes a series of Geiger-Muller detectors that are fairly cheap and very simple to use.  Unfortunately, these units have some major drawbacks.  For one thing, they only measure gamma radiation and hard beta radiation.  That might be acceptable if not for the fact that they also only give readings in dose equivalent, not in counts per minute.  Since the point of the set is understanding how radiation is detected and measured, the more basic unit of CPM is preferable.

Still, it is a complete radiation detector in a nice, small and simple handheld unit.   It may be worth talking to the company to find out if it would be possible to make the one small modification of adding a counts per minute or counts per second reading.

Another option would be to build a GM detector-counter.  The Electronics Goldmine has a Geiger-Muller driver kit, which includes the high voltage supply and and detection circuitry for $30.  That price would be tough to beat by acquiring the components individually, and it has the big advantage of having a per-fabricated circuit board, which would be expensive to have manufactured and time consuming to fabricate individually.   The unit still needs an enclosure, battery holder and switch, but that should be obtainable for about ten US dollars.  The kit does not include a meter movement, so that will need to be added too.  An analog meter would need to have some kind of range switch (to allow for ranges such as 0-100 cpm, 0-1000 etc), which would complicate construction a bit.   There is a digital meter adapter available for about $60, which would work nicely and also adds the ability to hook the unit up to a PC.   The most expensive part of the counter will be the tube.  A suitable, although very small tube could be bought for about $60 each.   This tube would be sensitive to alpha, but given the small size, it would not work very well for general survey work.    All in all, the cost of this geiger counter, including shipping and expenses like solder and wire looks to be about $175, resulting in a total cost of the set of close to $500.

Another option would be to use the venerable CDV-700 as the basis for the detector.   The CDV-700 is a Geiger counter manufactured for the US government during the Cold War.  It was standard issue for fallout shelters. Tens of thousands were manufactured.   Production ended in the 1970’s and since then, many have been sold off as surplus.   It’s about the cheapest Geiger counter that can be purchased, often available for about $50 from a surplus dealer and sometimes less if bought in bulk.  It comes with a small check-source mounted on the side.   This is often depleted uranium but occasionally may be a sealed radium source.  It would definitely be a nice bonus to have an extra source included.

Unfortunately, the CDV-700 has a number of major drawbacks.   For one thing, it will be important to find the right version of the unit.  It was produced by a number of manufacturers and went through a few design changes over the course of its production.   Some early models use high voltage batteries, so these should be avoided as the batteries are no longer widely available.  Another problem is that many CDV-700’s sold surplus do not work, as they have spent years in storage in damp bomb shelters and were not maintained.   Repair is usually fairly easy, as long as they are in good physical shape and not rusted out or otherwise physically damaged.

Assuming the counter is in good condition, it will still need a few modifications.   For one, the headphone connector is a rather obscure fitting known as a “Single button microphone plug.”  These are not found on many devices anymore and would only allow the original headphones to be used.   Replacing it with a more modern 1/8 or 1/4 inch plug will both allow for modern headphones to be used and allow the unit to be easily hooked up to the sound card on a computer so that it can be calibrated and data logged using available Geiger counter software.   It would also be worthwhile to replace some of the more failure-prone electronics with modern versions that are also more efficient and produce less RF noise.   Finally, a reasonably easy addition would be to add a small amplified speaker so that headphones would not be required for listening.  A speaker with a switch or knob would require drilling in the case, but would not be terribly expensive.  Since the meter would need to be taken apart anyway, it would be worthwhile to paint it to make it look more like a scientific instrument and less like a piece of emergency equipment. All in all, about fifty dollars invested in the internals would produce a very reasonable meter.

That does still leave one problem, however: the probe.   The CDV-700 comes with a Geiger-Muller tube that was originally intended for use after a nuclear war.  It only detects gamma radiation and relatively high energy beta particles.  Even as a gamma detector, it’s not terribly sensitive and thus leaves some to be desired for surveying relatively low background levels.  The probe on the CDV-700 is permanently attached to the unit, but that is relatively easily solved by disconnecting it and adding a BNC connector to the meter and to the end of the probe attachment, thus allowing the original probe or another probe to be used.

The next problem is finding a suitable alpha-sensitive probe to include.   This site has a surplus alpha-sensitive end window tube for only 37.95 plus shipping.  It would be fairly easy to make a probe out of it by using a small piece of PVC pipe with one end open to hold the probe and a BNC connector and cable to connect it to the modified CDV-700.   The only question is whether the tube is available in large enough quantity to make a reasonable number of lab sets.  If not, there may be other probes that can be acquired as surplus.

This approach seems to end up being the most favorable, as it would provide two probes for different types of use and would also give the option to add more probes in the future, possibly even including scintillation probes or other types of detectors.

In the end, the CDV-700 option with modifications and an additional probe seems to be the best one.

So while the $300 price tag seems unrealistic, it appears that a $500 price should be possible for a very well equipped set with an excellent Geiger counter, expandability, a good assortment of sources and a wide range of possible experiments.

Other considerations:

Many of the readers of this blog are from outside the United States.  Unfortunately that could present some problems for shipping radioactive sources, even those small enough not to require a license.   Simply being of very low quantity is not enough to make the sources legal – they generally must also be inspected and approved by the local regulatory body for radioactive substances, although this varies from country to country.   I’m told that shipping to Canada should be just fine and some countries in Europe are probably okay, although each would have to be individually verified.

Other countries may allow the sources but have restrictions on just who can import and sell them.  Spectrum Techniques has a worldwide network of affiliates and distributors.  In some cases, it may be necessary to sell the set without the actual sources and instead have them shipped separately from a domestic distributor in the country of the purchaser.

Interested? It’s expensive, admittedly. Perhaps I could come up with a partial lab or one that could be bought in pieces. I’m still looking into the possibilities. I’m not going to say that I’m definitely going to go for it, but I might. If I get enough interest I may go for it and start putting some of these lab sets together.

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.

About HPV:

HPV or the Human papillomavirus is a human-specific virus that can infect the mouth, respiratory system or skin. However, it is most problematic when it effects the genitals. Genital infection of HPV also tends to be quite contagious. Different strains of HPV tend to be more prone to infecting one area of the body than another, so while it is remotely possible that a strain of HPV associated with genital and oral infections could also result in an infection elsewhere, it’s unlikely that this would happen, except perhaps in an immune-compromised individual or in circumstances where there was an unusual level of exposure.

Most HPV infections are asymptomatic. The most common acute symptom of HPV infection is warts. HPV causes all varieties of warts, ranging from genital warts to plantar warts and common skin warts. There’s no cure for HPV, but the local infection is typically treated by removing the warts. Warts can be removed any number of means including cutting or freezing the warts off. Removing warts does not assure that they will not return, as the virus still exists in the region of the body. However, since the wart itself contains the highest concentration of the virus, removal of warts can help the body in clearing the infection. Ultimately, most HPV infections do clear the body due to the action of the immune system, but it can take months or more.

While warts are an unsightly, embarrassing and uncomfortable problem, the real danger from HPV is cancer. HPV is most strongly associated with cervical cancer. Indeed, more than 70% of cases of cervical cancer can be directly attributed on HPV. The strains of the virus that have the strongest association with cancer are not prone to causing warts. The greatest danger occurs in individuals who have the virus in their system for a long period of time. While most HPV infections clear the body in less than a year, 5-10% may last years. These long-lasting infections pose the greatest risk of cervical cancer. HPV is the reason it is recommended that women receive regular pap smears. Since the cancer-causing infection is usually asymptomatic, it is the only way of assuring early detection.

While HPV has the strongest association with cervical cancer, it is certainly not the only cancer that is caused by HPV. The same strains responsible for most cervical cancers are also responsible for at least 25% of anal cancers, a large percentage of oral cancers, cancers of the upper respiratory system, penil cancer and other types of cancer. More than 5% of new cancers detected are attributed to HPV, a whopping half a million cases per year, resulting in innumerable deaths. HPV may soon exceed tobacco usage as the single largest cause of oral cancers.

Overall, the risks of HPV are considerably greater for women than men, but it should not be considered an exclusively female problem. Men rarely get genital warts from the infection and male genital cancers from HPV are far more rare than in females, but they certainly can and do happen.

Transmission and Prevention:

HPV is extremely common. By some estimates, more than 75% of sexually active individuals will contract at least one strain of HPV at some point in their life. The prevalence of the virus varies by age, with sexually active women in their early 20’s having the highest rate of HPV infection – upwards of 40%, although most of these infections are considered “low risk” and will probably clear the body without ever causing any complications. Most infections are asymptomatic, so the majority of individuals are never aware of their exposure to HPV.

Sexual contact is the most common way in which HPV is spread and is the cause of nearly all genital tract infections with HPV. While it’s remotely possible that the infection could be spread by contact with some intermittent surface or object, such cases are rare to the point of being nearly unheard of.   There are no documented cases of HPV being spread by a toilet seat, and evidence indicates the risk of this happening is approximate zero.

The risk of spreading HPV from one partner to another can be reduced by the use of a condom, but condom use is far from completely effective. Fluid transfer is not necessary to spread HPV, only skin contact is needed. Therefore, condoms offer, at best, very limited protection. Intercourse is not required either. Simply engaging in activities that involve touching of the genitals can spread the infection.

There are really only two methods of effectively reducing transmission of genital HPV. The most obvious would be complete abstinence from all sexual contact. Obviously, one who never comes in contact with the genital region of anyone else is not likely to acquire the infection. Needless to say, this is not something that is likely to have very broad appeal as a method of reducing transmission.

The second, generally more effective and realistic method is the use of the HPV vaccine, which is highly effective at preventing infection by the most high risk strains of the virus.

The vaccine:

There are currently two vaccines for HPV. Both vaccines are relatively new. Gardasil, developed by Merck was approved by the US government in 2006 and within the next year gained approval in the European Union, Australia and elsewhere. A similar vaccine, Cervarix, was developed by by GlaxoSmithKline. Cervarix was first approved in Australia in 2007 and later that year by the European Union. It won final approval in the US in 2009. The vaccines have now been approved in nearly all industrial countries.

While hundreds of strains of HPV are known to exist, the vaccine targets four strains that are known to cause the overwhelming majority of both cancers and genital warts. The vaccine has been shown to reduce the probability of cervical cancer by 70%, the risk of genital warts by over 90% and significantly reduce the risk of HP V-related cancers in other areas of the body. Of course, the vaccine does not only protect the individual who receives it, but also stops the infection from being transmitted to others.

To be most effective, the vaccine should be used prior to an individual becoming sexually active. When used as such, it avoids that individual ever acquiring the highest risk HPV strains. The effectiveness of the vaccine in individuals who have already been infected by one or more strains of HPV is not established. Most sexually active adults don’t know whether they’ve ever had an HPV infection and certainly would not know what strain. Therefore, it is considered optimal for the vaccine to be given at a relatively young age. It is not specifically approved for those older than their mid-20’s, although older individuals can be vaccinated, it’s not entirely clear what level of protection they will receive, if they already have been exposed to HPV.

The HPV vaccine has primarily been marketed for use in females, but it can be used in either gender and has increasingly been suggested for males. Use of the vaccine in both males and females can deny the HPV virus a host. Ultimately, wide deployment of the vaccine can wipe out the most dangerous strains of the virus and avoid at least 70% of cervical cancers. If everyone was vaccinated against HPV, hundreds of thousands of cancers would be avoided each year.

On a personal note:

I have had the HPV vaccine. This despite the fact that I’m a male and that I was technically above the cutoff age. I don’t know if I’ve ever had an HPV infection. There’s a very good chance that I have and a very good chance that I haven’t. If I have had an HPV infection, it was asymptomatic and there’s a very good chance that it was not one of the strains that is of concern and that the vaccine protects against.

Since I don’t know, I thought it was worth the cost of the vaccine to at least reduce the probability that I’d host the HPV virus. If I have not had any of the strains the vaccine protects against, I should be completely protected. If I have had one, I should be protected against at least the other three, but the effectiveness against the one I’ve already had is unknown. It may help or it may not. It’s also possible that I already have a naturally acquired immunity to that infection.

More importantly, I got the vaccine because I thought it was the responsible thing to do. I believe everyone should get it, even if there’s a good chance they’ve had exposure to one or more HPV strains before. The recommendation is more based on economics than safety, recommending the vaccine for those who most benefit. I want to protect humanity and when I say that the vaccine is safe I want to be able to back that up by saying that I was willing to put it into my own body. That was worth the couple hundred dollars I had to pay for it.

And no… it’s not because I’m some kind of playa’ or man-whore.

The Controversy:

There is really no debate over the safety or effectiveness of the HPV vaccine, but you might not know that based on what a lot of socially conservative and Christian groups have to say. In fact, they are not opposed to the vaccine because of any legitimate concerns over the possible side effects or medical validity of the vaccine, but simply because, in their minds, it somehow interferes with the message that all sex is wrong unless it is within the confines of a religiously-sanctioned marriage between and man and a woman.

One could go so far as to say that, if everyone practiced sex as most fundamentalist Christians demand, it would mean that genital infections with HPV would not be a problem.   If every person maintained absolute sexual abstinence, never engaging in sexual intercourse or any other sexual contact with anyone until the day they were married and thereafter had sex with only their partner, then HPV would have a very hard time spreading very far within the population.   Therefore, in the minds of some, HPV is associated with sinning and the vaccine is only helping the dirty, sinful people who would do such a thing.

For most, it might not be so direct as saying those who have sex deserve to get cancer, but some of the arguments include the following:

• Giving a young girl the HPV vaccine effectively conveys the message that you expect she’ll have sex at some point in her life with someone other than her virginal husband and that it’s okay for her to do so.
• Protecting young girls from a sexually transmitted disease will make them go out and have sex.
• If the vaccine is paid for in any way by the government or insurance then we’re all subsidizing protection of the segment of the population that engages in sinful behavior.
• The vaccine would be unnecessary if everyone practiced the christian ideal of sex.  We should focus efforts on just getting people to stop having sex.

If you do not believe me, here are some quotes on the subject:
Bridget Maher, Family Research Council:

Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV… Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex.

Tony Perkins, Family Research Council President:

Because HPV infection is caused by sexual activity, it is not transmitted by casual contact and therefore is not in the same class as other diseases like polio for which mandatory, school-based vaccination is a public-health imperative

David Bereit, American Life League

Gov. Perry has turned his back on the pro-life and pro-family people who elected him and is now playing into the agenda of Planned Parenthood, a group which regularly opposes parents’ rights and which praised his action as ‘a great day for women and for future generations of Texas women and families
…
Gardasil is a vaccination against a sexually transmitted virus, and parents should be the ones to decide whether their young daughters should receive these shots – not Planned Parenthood, and not the governor of any state. American Life League strongly opposes such a mandatory vaccine because it completely removes parents from these important medical decisions and makes children the innocent victims
…
Planned Parenthood’s own internal documents show that the organization makes most of its income from sexually active, young, single women . Not only does Planned Parenthood stand to profit by selling these expensive HPV vaccines, but it also will profit enormously from the aftermath of the sexual promiscuity that will surely follow when young girls are led to believe they can be sexually carefree without consequence once they receive these shots.

Steven W. Mosher, Population Research Institute

I (Steve) think that they see Gardasil as what one might call a “wedge” drug. For them, the success of this public vaccination campaign has less to do with stopping cervical cancer, than it does with opening the door to other vaccination campaigns for other sexually transmitted diseases, and perhaps even including pregnancy itself. For if they can overcome the objections of parents and religious organizations to vaccinating pre-pubescent—and not sexually active—girls against one form of STD, then it will make it easier for them to embark on similar programs in the future.

After all, the proponents of sexual liberation are determined not to let mere disease—or even death—stand in the way of their pleasures. They believe that there must be technological solutions to the diseases that have arisen from their relentless promotion of promiscuity. After all, the alternative is too horrible to contemplate: They might have to learn to control their appetites. And they might have to teach abstinence.

Human Life International (A Christian Pro-Life Group):

Excluding children from school for refusal to be vaccinated for a disease spread only by penetrating vaginal intercourse is a serious, precedent-setting action that trespasses on the right of parents to make medical decisions for their children as well as on the rights of the children to attend school. In addition, this vaccine prevents a disease which is exclusively sexually transmitted; mandating it as early as 9 years of age places the medical provider in an ethical dilemma.

The Pro-Family Law Center:

The Pro-Family Law Center opposes this proposed legislation on the grounds that it infringes on parental rights, unequally protects female students over male students from HPV, and disturbs a natural incentive for teenage students to abstain from sexual intercourse to avoid the contraction of certain sexually transmitted infections.

Jacob Puliyel, St Stephens Hospital in Delhi:

The underlying assumption here is that adolescent girls in India may all become promiscuous

Leslie Unruh, the National Abstinence Clearinghouse

I personally object to vaccinating children against a disease that is 100 percent preventable with proper sexual behavior

Gene Rudd, Christian Medical and Dental Associations:

I’ve talked to some who have said, This is going to sabotage our abstinence message

Conclusion (yes it should be mandated):

Requiring vaccination as a condition of entry into school is nothing new.  It’s a well established health policy that has resulted in numerous diseases being wiped out.  Since the vaccine is an unavoidable requirement, health insurers have to cover it.  For those who do not have insurance, required vaccines are usually available through state programs.  Wide distribution of such vaccines can reduce the individual cost.  Of course, the vaccines will eventually reduce healthcare costs dramatically due to less need for cancer treatment, although in this case, the majority of those savings will take some time to be realized – although reduction in genital wart treatment will occur much sooner.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of girls will eventually have sexual contact with more than one person.   Most will not wait until they are married to do so and even for the few who do, they usually will not be marrying a man who has likewise been completely sexually sequestered.    Providing the maximum protection requires that they receive the vaccine early in life, before they have had any chance to be exposed to the virus.   For those who might not be exposed, such as those who plan on going into the convent and becoming nuns, getting the vaccine still does them no harm.

The idea that parents should decide whether their girl “needs it” is ridiculous.  It’s totally unreasonable to expect that a girl is going to go to her parents and reveal that she is thinking she might engage in some sexual activity and therefore, it’s about time she gets that vaccine.   It’s also completely absurd to expect that parents are somehow completely aware of their kid’s sexual experimentation.   It’s one thing to be open with your children, but lets be reasonable here!   If nothing else, the mandate allows for girls to receive the vaccine without having to go through the uncomfortable process of requesting it.  It gives them an “out” to simply say “I need it for school” and not “I might someday have sex.”  (Even though they generally will.)

It won’t turn innocent little girls into whores or even encourage sex.   It’s not as though risks like sexually transmitted diseases have ever been that much of a deterrent anyway, and eliminating one of the less high risk ones is not going to make anyone suddenly feel liberated to go screw the entire town.   The whole ideas is as absurd as thinking that getting a tetanus shot encourages anyone to go play with dirty, rusty nails.

There is one thing, however, that is missing from most of the requirements:  it only applies to half of the population.   We already know that the HPV vaccine protects boys from genital warts and a variety of cancers.   Overall, the chances that HPV will cause harm to a male are far less than those for females, but that’s not the entire issue.  If the vaccine were given to both boys and girls, it would deny the virus hosts and eventually the most harmful strains would be driven to extinction.

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:

CONGRATULATIONS, STETSON UNIVERSITY, HE’S NOT EVEN GRADUATED AND YOU’VE ALREADY MANAGED TO TEACH HIM/HER HOW MUCH INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY WILL BE PUNISHED!

Now lets actually consider what we have here. A student acquired a small amount of uranium, a substance less toxic than the lead found in solder, car batteries and any number of other products. No, this was not enriched uranium. It was either natural or depleted uranium. It’s a metal. A mildly toxic, ever so slightly radioactive metal that is 100% legal to own and possess in the United States. It’s a material that occurs very commonly in nature. It’s found in many varieties of sandstone and nearly all granite contains significant levels of the stuff. In many places you can go outside and pick up a rock which has a visible amount of uranium oxide right on the surface. Rocks containing very high levels of uranium would be part of any respectable mineral collection and the geology department certainly would have a few samples. Perhaps they need to be investigated and disciplined too!

It’s not a weapon. It’s not dangerous and can’t be used as a weapon in any manner other than by throwing it at someone. If it’s small, it will leave a bruise. If it’s large enough, it may well cause some damage. That’s it. But then again, the same could be said about anything hard and heavy. No, you can’t build a bomb out of it. Acquiring raw uranium is not even the difficult part of building a nuclear weapon.

There’s no word on what form the uranium was in, but some common forms include the following:

• Uranium ore – While many rocks contain uranium “ore” normally means rocks that have a high enough concentration to make it worth recovering
• Vaseline Glass – A green fluorescent glass popular in the 1930’s and still prized by collectors and artists
• Orange glazed ceramics – Uranium oxide was the primary pigment for orange glaze prior to about 1980
• Uranium metal – Available from various suppliers (though harder to get because of this idiocy) as a scientific item or collectable

I have had inquiries many times by individuals looking to buy small amounts of uranium. Because of these kind of news stories, I no longer feel comfortable selling the stuff, although I have sold a few samples in the past. It is still totally legal to do so, but it could raise this kind of idiotic response. The primary reason I am given for wanting to acquire uranium is for element collections. Some others are nuclear energy or science enthusiasts who would like a small sample of the material for educational purposes, to show others or to observe its unique properties. At one time, it was not unusual for educators to have some uranium metal for students to pass around and feel the weight of.

Uranium is very heavy, surprisingly so. Holding even a small amount in your hand it is very obvious that it is significantly heavier than lead. It’s very hard. Uranium is dark grey with a dull luster. It oxidizes quickly so it is best kept in oil or in a sealed atmosphere to prevent oxidation.

Although relatively low in radioactivity, uranium is more than radioactive enough to make it an excellent source of calibration of Geiger counters and other radiological equipment. Because the half-life is so long, a sample provides relatively stable radiation levels over a long period of time for checking and calibrating equipment. It is especially invaluable when calibrating equipment intended for geological work, such as uranium prospecting. It can also be used for calibrating spectroscopy equipment to the unique signature of uranium and its daughters.

Because uranium is an alpha emitter, it can be used in cloud chambers. Prior to the recent radiophobia, cloud chambers were popular at science fairs and with amateur science geeks. Another homebrew experiment using uranium is the construction of a spinthaiscope. In such a device, a small amount of an alpha emitter, such as uranium is placed near a fluorescent screen. When viewed in the dark, the alpha particles produce tiny flashes of light. It’s a fun demonstration.

It’s also possible that the uranium was to be part of a class project, which could have been something like a hardware-based random number generator.

But even if it was nothing more than a scientific novelty, a piece of a unique material as a curiosity, so what? It’s harmless and such enthusiasm for learning is what universities are supposed to encourage.

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.

Via the LA Times:

Magician James Randi, skeptics launch attack on makers of homeopathic ‘drugs’
Magician James Randi, who has devoted the latter part of his career to exposing fraud, scams and charlatans, and a network of skeptics known as the 10:23 Campaign launched a major campaign Saturday against the manufacturers of so-called homeopathic drugs, charging that the companies that sell the drugs are packaging worthless products that are cheating customers out of their money.

In an online video, Randi consumed an overdose of homeopathic sleeping pills to demonstrate that they have no effect, and skeptics elsewhere consumed large overdoses of other homeopathic drugs in similar demonstrations. Randi also offered $1 million of his own money to any manufacturer of a homeopathic product who could prove that the product actually worked as claimed, and challenged major retailers like CVS, Rite-Aid and Walgreens to remove the products from their shelves.

“Consumers have the right to know what they are buying,” he said. “No one should walk out of a drugstore with a homeopathic product without knowing these basic facts: There is no credible evidence that the product does what it says. There is not one bit — not a single atom — of the claimed ‘active ingredient’ in the package, and no U.S. health agency has tested or approved the product.”

The fact that the press is taking wind of this at all is a very big thing, because it’s extremely difficult to get the attention of the press or general public focused on this. Therefore, everyone should be encouraged to continue to stoke the fires that will ultimately consume this quackery. If nothing else, keep posting comments on blogs, videos and forums, keep telling your friends what a load of bull it. Together, we can make a difference and bring this important issue to the forefront, exposing homeopathy for what it is.

Most people still don’t even realize what homeopathy is. That is beginning to change, potentially undermining the scam. When the light of skeptical inquiry is focused on homeopathy it crumbles like a vampire in the sun.

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

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:

• You can be reasonably certain that the food you buy at your local market or restaurant will not kill you.  Even the cheapest canned meats or corn is generally free of dangerous pathogens.
• You have all the fresh, clean water you could ever want.   Water is pumped to you of a purity so high you can drink it, and in quantities large enough that you can bathe in it every day.   It even comes out heated.
• You can purchase the amount of food necessary to fulfill your daily nutritional requirements for less than the amount of money paid for one hour of work at minimum wage.   You never have to worry about starving to death or suffering from scurvy or any other major nutritional deficiency because of lack of food.
• You can have a cold drink with ice in it in the summer.  You can have icecream any time you want.  You can have fresh fruit and vegetables even out of season.   Produce that is bought out of season is transported some distance and thus might not be A+ quality, but it’s still a solid B+ to A-, which really ain’t too bad for a watermelon in January.
• It is possible to travel at near supersonic speeds through the air to any city across the world.  Doing so is extremely safe, about as safe as you could ever hope for a form of transportation to be.   Not only that, but it’s affordable enough that even the lower middle class can afford to take a trip by air from time to time.
• No matter how cold it is outside, you can be comfortably warm.
• If you ever want a piece of basic factual information, such as “what is the conversion between pounds and kilograms” or “When did Henry VIII die” you can find it in less than a minute, without having to go out to track down the information in a library or some other location.   Even information that would be difficult to find in printed material can be found in the comfort of your home very easily.
• You won’t be made miserable for much of the year by biting insects.  Structures are screened and effective replants exist.
• The air is fairly clean.   Granted, it could be better, but even in cities, about the worst you’ll have to contend with regularly is a bit of diesel and gasoline exhaust.  Cities are not filled with coal-heated buildings, homes are not heated by smokey open fireplaces.   Filthy coal burners (sadly) still exist, but they have at least been banished from population centers and most of their exhaust usually receives some treatment.    The general quality of the air breathed by citizens of the industrialized world is superior to what it has been for most of the past 200 years.
• You won’t die or suffer from smallpox or polio nor dysentery will anyone else you know.  Chances are you’ll also never know anyone who suffers from cholera, typhoid and any number of other diseases that have plagued humanity for most of history.
• There are no parasites living in your gut.  (if there are, you’re in a small minority and probably should do something about it)
• When you relieve yourself, you do so indoors in relative comfort and the waste is taken away by a system that eliminates the unpleasant material in a way that is sanitary and odor-free.   You don’t need to carry it around in a chamber pot, it doesn’t run in the streets and it doesn’t sit in fly-ridden pits in the summer.
• You can communicate with anyone anytime and pretty much anywhere you are.  If you can’t get a hold of them, it’s most likely because they have chosen not to be connected at the time.  Loved ones who live half a world away can be talked to and even seen.
• If you ever have a true emergency – an accident, a medical crisis, being the victim of a crime, etc – you can summon help and professional rescuers will rush to your aid.   Unless you happen to be very far from civilization, it will probably only be a few minutes before help arrives.
• You can have music of any kind any time you want easily.   That might not sound like a big deal, but in fairly recent human history, the only music most of the population was likely to hear was amateur singing and the occasional single-piece instrumental performance.  Concerts with multi-piece instrumental assemblies were at best a rarity for the average person.   Within living memory, the extent of private home music was limited by how large a gramophone collection a family could afford.    In 2011, you can have Beethoven, Bach or Led Zeppelin, any time and any where you want.
• You can see a great performance any time you want.   Similar to above.   Performance entertainment does not require a theater troop and traveling to a stage.   Even in very very recent history, it was impossible to see a film when you wanted.   If a movie was no longer playing in theaters, you couldn’t see it.   You either had to wait for a television station to decide to broadcast it or just not see the film, if none ever did.   Today you can see “Gone With the Wind” or “Doctor Strangelove” in your home, in their windscreen glory.   You can also see “Dude Where’s My Car,” though…  but it’s not like you have to.
• You don’t have to have children if you don’t want to or are not at the point in your life where you want to be a parent.   This is especially important for young women.   Hooking up with a guy and having sex does not mean you are risking your education, career and future in general, as it once did.   There are very effective birth control methods available, and if you use them properly, you really don’t have to worry.
• A device most people can afford and that fits in the palm of your hand can tell you where you are, anywhere on the surface of the earth and provide reliable directions to where you want to go.
• You can preserve an image of any important event you want to remember, of loved ones as they are or of places and things that you want to keep for yourself or posterity.   You don’t need to find an artist and the image won’t be subject to the bias of human observation.   You can record extended full motion.  You don’t even have to wait for them to be developed.

Really, is it so bad to be alive right now? There have been over 100 billion humans who have walked the earth. For the vast majority, it sucked much much more.

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.

A few examples:

Error:

• In Common Context: A mistake.  Something done unintentionally.
• In Computer Science: A misread or incorrect value, usually a bit.   A one where there should be a zero or vice-versa, usually the result of noise or equipment problems.
• In Statistics (and the context of scientific studies): “Error” basically means the degree of confidence of the results.   In most circumstances error is calculated according to the standard deviation of data.   In some circumstances error may be based on the accuracy and precision of the instrument used to make a measurement.     When a study is reported to “have found an increase of 20% with an error of +/- 2%” that does not mean someone made a mistake during the study, but rather that the data indicates a increase of between 18% and 22%.

(note that the above description of error is very simplified, and in reality, statistical error is a more complex subject which includes degrees of confidence, but this is a reasonably accurate, if abridged, definition)

Salt:

• In Common Context: Usually simply refers to sodium chloride, the primary component of table salt and rock salt.   The majority of sea salt is also sodium chloride.  Sodium chloride is that familiar “salty” tasting granular white substance.
• In Chemistry: Salt, or more accurately “salts” are an entire class of chemicals.  This includes sodium chloride, but also a huge number of other chemicals.   Salts are ionic compounds that can result of an acid-base reaction.  Most salts are inorganic, but a few, such as acetate salts, are organic.   Not all salts are white, many are not.  Not all salts taste salty either, but many are toxic and thus would not be safe to taste to begin with.

Pinch:

• In Common Context: To grasp with thumb and forefinger in a way that can be painful or sexy.
• In Physics and Electrical Engineering: The compression of a conductor (often a plasma) by the magnetic field produced by a strong electrical current.

Fluid:

• In Common Context: A liquid
• In science: A liquid or gas.  Most would probably not think of a gas when a “fluid” is described, but in fact, a is a fluid.

Flip-Flop

• In Common Context:  A beach sandel
• In Electrical and Computer Engineering: A circuit element that can exist in one of two logical states and can be switched between those two states. Sometimes likened to a latch, a flip-flops are the basis of bit counters and used in solid state memory systems.

Clock:

• In Common Context: A device for measuring time.
• In Electronics (in the context of circuit components): A pulser or a device that generates a regular timing signal for synchronizing circuit components.

Steam

• In Common Context – “Steam” is often used to describe the white misty cloud seen coming from a tea kettle or from a steam engine or the cooling towers of power plants. Even hot food that is giving off a wispy cloud may be described as “steaming.” A hot humidifying shower may be described as a steam shower.

  These clouds are actually composed of tiny droplets of liquid water, so small that they may remain suspended in air and carried by currents. When large volumes of water vapor are present, some of it may condense into these tiny droplets.

In Science or Engineering: Technically, real “steam” is a vapor, an invisible gas that is entirely composed of gas-phased water. Steam may be considered “dry” if there are no microscopic droplets of water present and heated dry steam can even be used to light a match. Since steam exists at high temperatures, when it is released into the atmosphere it will rapidly condense into a mist of droplets, producing the familiar clouds, but when it does, it is no longer truly steam.

Organic:

• In Common Context: It does not seem to have any consistent or coherent definition other than a belief that something is somehow “natural” or lacks “chemicals” (more on that bellow) or that something is produced by an organism grown in a manner that does not use modern technology (except for the mechanics of harvesting).  The term organic is often applied to food and is increasingly applied to clothing and personal care products.   Standards to exist, but there is very little rhyme or reason as to why certain things are considered organic and others are not.  It appears to be primarily based on the concept of things being believed to be natural.
• In Scientific Context: “Organic” has a very concise and non-ambiguous definition.  Organic chemicals are based on the covalent bonds of carbon, usually with hydrogen and often also including oxygen and nitrogen.  By convention, carbides and carbon dioxide are not considered organic.  Organic chemicals are associated with life and were once believed to be produced exclusively by organisms, but this was found not to be the case.Plastics are all organic, as are many industrial chemicals.   Hydrocarbons, such as petroleum-derived chemicals are all organic.  An easy way to identify organic chemicals:  Most anything that is squishy, slimy, gooey or smelly (with the exception of sulfur-based smelly chemicals) are organic.   Many (but not all) organic chemicals will rot.  Most will burn.  Most highly complex molecules are organic.

Chemical:

• In Common Context: The word “Chemical” is often used to define something artificial or possibly dangerous, toxic or otherwise fitting within the pre-conceived notion of what a “chemical” is.   The term seems to have little formal definition, which results in what are essentially meaningless statements, such as “we don’t use chemical fertilizers.”
• In Scientific Context: A chemical is any substance with a fixed formula or composition.  With the exception of subatomic particles, all matter is either a chemical or a combination of chemicals.  A chemical can be a compound, an element or a mixture of compounds and elements.    Things which are *not* chemicals would be objects composed of many chemicals.   An automobile, for example is not a chemical – although it is a combination many chemicals.The use of the word “chemical” in scientific context may also indicate that something relates to the chemistry of a substance.   A chemical change is distinct from a physical change and a chemical reaction is distinct from a nuclear reaction or any other kind of reaction.

Radiation:

• In Common Context: For most people, the term “radiation” relates to ionizing radiation, the type created by radioactive decay or x-ray tubes. It is also commonly used to describe the RF fields produced by wireless devices – this often causes a great deal of confusion to those who do not have a full understanding of the differences between the two types of radiation. The term has caused a great deal of confusion overall.
• In Scientific Context: Ionizing radiation is certainly a form of radiation, and so too is rf radiation, but so too is light and infrared radiation, like that created by a radiant heater. All forms of electromagnetic energy are forms of radiation. Radiation is also the term used to describe radiant cooling or radiant heat transfer, in which the mechanism is electromagnetic energy. Radiation can also be in the form of emissions of classical particles, such as alpha, beta and neutron radiation.Radiation is not necessarily artificial, dangerous or in any way related to nuclear energy. Indeed, all objects that are not at a temperature of absolute zero do emit some form of radiation.

Alcohol

• In Common Context: The word “alcohol” normally refers to ethyl alcohol or ethanol.   This is the type of alcohol that is found in alcoholic beverages and is also commonly used in alcohol-based solvents as well as in medical uses such as “rubbing alcohol.”  It may also be called “grain alcohol” to distinguish it from “wood alcohol” (methanol) or isopropanol, another common rubbing alcohol.
• In Chemistry: There is not a single alcohol in chemistry but rather, “alcohols” are class of organic chemicals.  This include ethanol, methanol and isopropanolbut also includes pentanol and butanol. Other compounds such as glycerin and ethylene glycol are also considered alcohols.

Theory:

• In Common Context: To most people the word “Theory” means something close to what “hypothesis” really means, or indicates an unproven possibility or proposed idea about something.  It could also be considered analogous to “hunch” or “educated guess.”   For example “My theory about why the car won’t start is that the cold temperature has caused the battery output to drop.”   The use of theory in this context in common context has lead to a great deal of misunderstanding over concepts like the theory of evolution, which some would say “is just a theory,” assuming this means it is thus unproven or just a guess.
• In Scientific Context: In science, a theory is an explanation for how or why certain things are observed.   Theories are based on constant logical rules which govern a system and can be used to make predictions.  The hallmark of a theory is the ability to make predictions and the accuracy of these predictions is ultimately how the validity of the theory is tested.The fact that a theory is able to make some predictions accurately does not ultimately validate the theory.In some cases, a theory will show initial success in making accurate predictions in some circumstances, but will fail when it is examined more completely or is used in more varied situations.   An example of this would be the ptolemaic planetary model, which makes reasonably accurate predictions of planetary motion in the short term, but cannot explain all aspects of planetary motion over the course of a longer period of time.

  The theory of evolution could be used as an example of how a theory is applied. Some of the observations made included: There is a great diversity of life; many lifeforms appear to share similar structures or traits; life forms are well adapted to their local enviornment; in areas that are distinct but geographically close to each-other, it is very common to find organisms which are similar but have differing traits adapted to each enviornment; changes in an enviornment produce changes in the life forms that inhabit it. Evolution by natural selection was proposed as a mechanism which would explain all these observations, and it has since been tested repeatedly and proven to accurately predict the development of life.The greater the amount of examination and testing a theory is put to the greater the confidence in its validity becomes. However, if it ever fails, the theory will have to be either revised or rejected entirely.

Even more confusing:  When terms mean different things in different fields

Plasma:

• In Physics: Sometimes described as the “fourth state of matter,” plasmas are superheated ionized gasses.   Stars are made of high density plasmas, while low density plasmas can be found in things like neon signs.
• In Medicine: The primary component of blood. Plasma is a yellowish liquid similar to lymphatic fluid.  It represents the portion of blood left after the red cells, white cells and platelets have been removed.

Condenser:

• In Chemistry, Thermodynamics and Mechanical Engineering: A device which converts gases to liquids.     The most familiar type being found on refrigerators and air conditioners.
• In Electronics: A generally antiquated term for a capacitor.   The one circumstance where the term is still commonly used being condenser microphones.
• In Optics: A lens assembly primarily used to concentrate light and commonly found in microscopes.

Fusion:

• In Physics: Usually means nuclear fusion of two nuclei to create a heavier nuclei.
• In Chemistry: May mean the physical change of a substance between solid and liquid, as in “heat of fusion.”
• In Biology: May refer to cell fusion.
• In Materials and Structural Engineering: refers to bonding by fusing of materials, as in welding.

If this is not all confusing enough, the phrase “the circuits were fused” can mean two entirely different things.   It could mean that they were soldered together (either intentionally or due to overheating) or that they are protected by a fuse.  If the circuit in question is part of a bomb, it could mean yet another thing:  fused meaning armed and primed for detonation.

Nuclear:

• In Physics and Most Scientific Context: Referring to reactions or properties of an atom’s nucleus.
• In Cellular Biology: Referring to reactions or properties of an  cells s nucleus – as in nuclear DNA.  This has lead to circumstances where descriptions of nuclear DNA have caused some to think that the reference was somehow related to nuclear radiation or nuclear technology.

Burn:

• In Common Context (many scientific circumstances): Combustion, burning as with fire.
• In Medicine: An injury often associated with heat, but which can also be caused by chemicals (such as acids and bases) or by light (as with a sunburn), friction or ionizing radiation.
• In Nuclear Engineering: Fission.  A reactor may be said to “burn” its fuel, even though it does not use combustion. This usage shows up frequently in the term burnup.
• In Information Technology: To write information to media, often implying permanently, as in “burning a CD” but also used to describe “burning a rom,” meaning to write data or a configuration to a storage chip or FPGA.
• In Aerospace: To activate a rocket engine or thruster for a period of time.   This term is used even if the rocket engine is a mono-propellant rocket and thus does not actually use combustion.

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?

Well it does to many groups, which is why it’s not surprising to see that the concept has been embraced by so many of the most high profile philanthro-publicity groups.  Peace Portal, The Clinton Foundation, MTV and many many celebrities can’t seem to get enough Playpumps.

The Playpump costs about $14,000 per installation, which is at least four times more than a comparable well with a hand-operated pump.   However, some might say that it’s worth paying a bit more for bountiful, clean, safe, water. They’re manufactured and installed by Roundabout Outdoor, which is contracted through Playpumps international (now part of Water for People), with production facilities primarily in South Africa and pumps installed at hundreds villages across the continent.   In many cases, the pumps replace older wells with buckets of handpumps used to collect water and in doing so are the only source of water available to the villages.

But, as with so many things, this seemingly innovative, benevolent and wonderful idea is not quite all that it seems.

While a number of aid organizations and fund drives continue to enthusiastically support the Playpump concept and focus on installing more and more of them, other groups have been less than satisfied with the systems.   The group Wateraid reviewed the Playpump system and found it inadequate for most circumstances, citing the fact that it was only for use in playgrounds, was expensive and could not be easily fixed with local parts.

Owen Scott, a Canadian developer with Engineers Without Borders traveled to Africa to see the system in action and found that the Playpump hardly lived up to the hype.  He reported:

Each time I’ve visited a Playpump, I’ve always found the same scene: a group of women and children struggling to spin it by hand so they can draw water…. As soon as the foreigner with a camera comes out (aka me), kids get excited. And when they get excited, they start playing. Within 5 minutes, the thing looks like a crazy success…. I’ve always figured that as soon as I leave the excitement wears off and the pump reverts back to its normal state: being spun manually by women and kids

Having investigated how the pump is used after the ribbon cutting is over and the cameras have been packed up and hauled away, Scott found the pumps were not living up to the claims and in many cases, were inferior to the hand pumps they replaced.   He called the Playpump “a pretty weak idea.”

Some Of The Major Problems Which Have Been Cited:

1. The Playpump has proven to be prone to malfunction.   They break significantly more often than the traditional hand pumps, which are very mechanically simple and have few parts to fail.   Many Playpump installations have malfunctioned and do not provide water at all.
2. Unlike simpler pumps, when a Playpump breaks, it’s not easy to fix and generally can’t be repaired by locals.    When a traditional hand pump breaks, it does not require any special skill or parts to repair and can usually be taken care of quickly.   However, the Playpump system is not designed to be user-serviceable and uses parts that are not common.   When it breaks, a village can be without safe reliable drinking water until a Playpump technician visits to repair the pump.   This can take many months.
3. Children don’t actually like playing with the rotating pump wheel all that much and don’t necessarily provide a reliable source of energy.   It really should not be a surprise that a single playground item like a small underpowered merry-go-round would not be enthusiastically used for hours on end by children.  They may play on it a bit, but for the pump to really be productive, it has to be used very heavily.   When it is first installed, children may use it heavily, but the novelty wears off fast.   Before long, children have to be told to use it, making it a chore and defeating the whole purpose.
4. It is often necessary for adults to turn the wheel to pump water.   This is not only because of the lack of constant enthusiasm by children, but because in many villages, children spend a large portion of the year out working in the fields.   In these circumstances, the ones left at the village to turn the pump are primarily pregnant and elderly women.   For them the walking in constant circles to turn the wheel is considerably more effort than a hand pump.

The saddest thing about the program is that, for all it’s good intentions, many villages which had the system installed to replace their old hand-operated well pumps simply would like to have their old pumps back, in such cases, the Playpump has clearly been a lot of money spent to do more harm than good.

As with many such blunders, there are lessons to be learned from the Playpump. Some of the important ones include the importance of listening to the people who you are trying to help. They may be poor, but that does not make them stupid. If they say that the hand pumps are superior, don’t shove a system you think is better down their throats. Also, follow up on aid and make sure it is actually working before continuing to supply the same aid elsewhere and never assume that what looks like a good idea at first will turn out so rosy in the real world.

Would-be well-doers should learn a thing or two about the culture and above all else, make sure that the locals are aware that you want to help out and that therefore it’s more important that they be honest than they they put on a good show for the cameras. Clearly many of the villages where this was installed are trying not to disappoint or insult the visitors who come to photograph their Playpump.   It may very well be more useful to talk to them when there is not a big camera shoved in their faces.

Above all else, remember that the fact that you’re from Europe or North America and have light colored skin does not mean you know what is best for everyone.

There are many suffering in Africa without safe water and food and nobody can claim the continent does not have many problems that need to be addressed. Yet with enough money and effort, the wealthy countries of the world are working to make sure that every one of those hungry, thirsty children will have a laptop.

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.

What other data indicates:

• Rock formation and strata – At least hundreds of millions of years old.   While we do not have rock layers that go all the way back to the time shortly after the earth’s formation, the rock layers we do have do go back hundreds of millions to over a billion years.  Based on the rate of rock formation and material disposition, it can be inferred that the earth must be at least hundreds of millions of years old, if not considerably older.   The oldest known rock strata are estimated to be about 2.4 billion years old.
• Temperature – Over one hundred years ago, Lord Kelvin calculated that the earth would have required between 20 and 400 million years to cool from a molten state to its present form.    These calculations were correct but did not take into account the heating effects of radioactive decay, which was not known about at the time.   Factoring in radioactive decay, it is clear that the earth must have gone through more than a half billion years of cooling to have the solid and relatively thick crust it currently has.
• Plate tectonics – Fossils and geological formations can be found on different continents indicating that they were once connected.  Rock formations on the sea floor can be determined to have been produced from oceanic ridges. The earth is constantly erasing the record by recycling the crustal material in subduction zones, but the existing record and the known rates of continental drift, crust creation and seafloor indicate that the process has been going on for more than a billion years.
• Fossil Fuels - The surveyed reserves of fossil fuels such as coal and oil would have taken many millions of years to accumulate.   The processes that create fossil fuel continue today, such as accumulation of turf which is compressed into peat, the precursor of coal.   Based on the chemical and physical forces that create these materials and the rate of accumulation, it can be determined that the oldest forms of bituminous coal are at least 300 million years old.   Anthracite coal comes from reserves which go back even further.
• The age of the sun – The sun is dated at about thirty million years older than the earth (a very short period of time in such time scales).  The age of the sun can be determined through analysis of star life cycles, the ratio of hydrogen to helium in the sun, the rate of nuclear fusion and the propagation of solar vibrations.  The sun is about 4.57 billion years old.
• Dating of lunar samples – Samples of rock from the moon have been radiometrically dated and also analyzed extensively both physically and chemically.   These samples contain particles embedded from solar winds, such as helium-3 and deuterium.   They also are “weathered” by solar radiation, cosmic radiation and micrometeorites.   Based on both radiometric dating and the disposition of particles in lunar samples, their age has been determined to be about 2.4 to more than three billion years old.

Conclusion:

Radiometric dating is the most precise method of dating and allows for accurate dating of the very oldest samples of material, allowing the solar system and earth to be dated all the way back to the beginning.   However, it is not the only method of dating.   Many others don’t provide an absolute age of the earth, but do clearly indicate that the earth must be more than hundreds of millions or billions of years old.   Furthermore, these observations are all completely in agreement.   None indicate that the earth appears to be “young.”

When combined with radiometric dating, the evidence is clear and entirely one sided.   The earth is billions of years old.

There is some room for scientific discourse over the actual age as indicated by radiometric dating and other methods.  Based on what factors are taken into account, it’s possible that the data can be interpreted differently to within a few million years.   However, for the “young earth” to be the case, the data would not simply need to be off slightly, as might be the case with a minor variation in material distribution or elemental abundance, it would have to be off by many orders of magnitude.   Not only would radiometric dating need to be so completely wrong as to be off by orders of magnitude, but our understanding and observations of nearly all geological forces would need to be.