Here’s a great one from a high school chemistry class.

Now I’m all for hands-on learning, because it shows how science can be fun and helps demonstrate basic principles.   I’m not sure exactly what they are demonstrating here, but I’m guessing that it’s the fact that methane gas, the primary component of natural gas is both lighter than air and flammable.

What could possibly go wrong?    My first concern would be that they could inadvertently set fire to the ceiling.   Hanging ceiling tiles are supposed to be fire resistant, but that only means they will usually char slowly and self-extinguish.  They can still, under the right conditions, catch fire, and there are exampled of hanging ceilings that, for whatever reason, did not seem to meet the standards for fire resistance.   Hence, given the low elevation of the ceiling and the potential to start a fire, I would not consider this an entirely safe demonstration.

Thankfully, that did not happen.   However, something even funnier did…

I have no idea whether the teacher kept his job. My guess would be that he did, since teachers unions tend to be quite protective and he didn’t seem to have done anything overtly indefensible. (like an inappropriate relationship with a student or stealing from the school) But regardless, it’s pretty certain that he had some real egg on his face after this, and that by the time they got to the valve to shut down the sprinklers, there was a pretty huge mess to clean up and some substantial water damage.

One should remember that as far as chemistry demonstration mishaps go, many have gone far worse than this one!

VIA CBS NEWS:

San Francisco sues Monster for marketing energy drink to kids
A fight between Monster Beverage and San Francisco’s city attorney is intensifying. The city attorney is filing a lawsuit against Monster Beverage Corp, the maker of Monster Energy Drinks, accusing the company of marketing to young children.

City Attorney Dennis Herrera said Monday that Monster markets it highly caffeinated drinks to children as young as 6 years old, despite scientific findings that such products can cause health problems including severe cardiac events.

The lawsuit comes after Monster last week sued Herrera over his demands that it reduce the caffeine levels in its drinks and stop marketing to minors.

On Monday, Herrera noted that his office had been working with Monster in “good faith to negotiate voluntary changes” when the company abruptly filed its lawsuit.

…
New York’s attorney general has subpoenaed energy drink makers including Monster about how the drinks are made and marketed, and Democratic Senators Richard Durbin of Illinois and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut have repeatedly called on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to look into the safety of the drinks.

Monster has been in the spotlight since October 2012, when the parents of 14-year-old Anais Fournier of Hagerstown, Md. sued the company after their daughter went into cardiac arrest after drinking two of popular energy drinks in 24 hours.

The FDA said in Oct. 2012 it was investigating five deaths and one heart attack linked to Monster Energy Drinks dating back to 2004. One can contains about 240 milligrams of caffeine.

The company denied its drink’s role in the girl’s death in March, with company lawyer Daniel Callahan telling the Associated Press at the time that physicians hired to review the girl’s case determined she died from natural causes, brought on by pre-existing heart conditions.

Oh great, my own Senator, Dick Blumenthal is now getting himself involved. In fact, Blumenthal does not just think that the drinks should not be marketed directly to minors, he actually has suggested that an ID be required to buy them, making them only available to those over 18. Presumably meaning they be kept behind the counter and being subject to carding like cigarettes and alcohol. (Sorry, I do not have a citation for that, as I heard this when he was speaking on a radio interview.)

There are a couple of problems with this:

1. Energy drinks, for all the hype are really nothing more than caffeinated beverages.   What makes an “energy drink” different than something like Coca-Cola or Pepsi is arbitrary.  Many have more caffeine than common sodas, but some don’t.  In general, all have much less caffeine than coffee, which, could legitimately be marketed as an energy drink, but usually is not.
2. There is no evidence that would indicate that there is anything especially dangerous about energy drinks.  It’s true that they are not very nutritious as far as foodstuffs go.  They’re loaded with sugar and their claims of having beneficial vitamins and enzymes are, at best dubious, but that does not make them any worse than any other soft drink.
3. The amount of caffeine in energy drinks is not so high as to preclude one from getting an equal or greater dose of the stuff from other means.  In other words, if you are going to go after energy drinks, you had best be ready to go after a large portion of soft drinks out there.

The example of Anais Fournier is certainly unfortunate, but there’s no reason to think that two Monster Energy Drink.   Based on the reports, she apparently drank two of the drinks over the period of 24 hours.   That means she had about 320 milligrams of caffeine during that period of time.

There is a great deal of hype over energy drinks, what they do and what active ingredients they may contain.   The truth is that, for all their claims of providing lasting energy from enzymes, vitamins, minerals, or some other special compound, they all work in exactly the same way that “energy drinks” have been working for centuries.

Although caffeine, the active ingredient in energy drinks was not isolated until 1820, the stimulating effects of caffeine-containing plant material, such as coffee beans, tea leaves and kola nuts had been known since antiquity.

Brewed coffee, which became popular across the Middle East and Europe in the 1600’s, remains one the largest sources of caffeine.  And, overall, brewed coffee is at least as potent a caffeine source as most energy drinks.

Common Ingredients which will not actually provide energy:

The following substances are common in energy drinks, and are often claimed to be the reason why these drinks produce an increase in alertness or energy. Not all energy drinks contain all the substances listed.

Creatine - Of all the substances in energy drinks that are reputed to produce energy, (aside from sugar and caffeine) this one is at least the most plausible. Creatine is a substance that is used as an energy source by skeletal muscles. Creatine is found in a number of supplements, primarily targeted at athletes.  Studies have shown that creatine supplementation does produce a small, but significant improvement in endurance for aerobic exertion, but appears to have no significant effect on aerobic endurance. Extended use of creatine supplements have been shown to have effects on insulin-like growth factor and testosterone levels.

There is no evidence that creatine has any effect on alertness or energy in general.  It does not produce stimulant-like effects and the ability to improve anerobic function is unlikely to have any noticeable effect on overall energy or endurance.

Ginseng - A plant native to the mainland Asia, which has been used in traditional medicines for centuries.  There are also similar plant species known s “Russian Ginseng” or “American Ginseng.”   Extracts of the plant tend to be expensive, so if energy drinks do contain them, they do not contain very much.

Ginseng has been reputed to be an aphrodisiac, a stimulant, a treatment for fatigue, a memory enhancer and a cure for various types of sexual dysfunction.  There has been a great deal of research on ginseng, and while it may have some therapeutic properties (although that remains in dispute) it does not seem to have any obvious stimulant-like effects, at least in the short term.

Large quantities of ginseng may p0roduce effects including diarrhea, skin irritation and potential interactions with prescription drugs.   Placebo-controlled studies have failed to show any significant effect on performance or alertness.

Ginkgo biloba – Also known as the maidenhair tree, Ginkgo biloba is a tree or shrub native to Japan and East Asia, which has been used for centuries in traditional medicine. Extracts are reputed to aid memory and mental function and to be an aphrodisiac. It is used in some traditional Chinese recipes and is brewed into herbal teas.

Placebo-controlled studies onto the effectiveness of ginkgo biloba have delivered mixed results. There is limited data which seems to indicate a positive effect on cardiovascular disease, in some individuals. Most studies that have examined the effect of ginkgo bilbao have found it is not effective in improving memory or mental performance.

It should be noted that the claims of benefit from ginkgo biloba are all based on the long-term use of the substance as a supplement.  There are no credible claims of any acute effect from a single dose, other than the possibility of toxicity in very large doses.   There is no evidence that ginko biloba has any acute stimulating effect.

Vitamins -There is no doubt that sufficient vitamins are vital to human health, and many energy drinks are fortified with vitamins. The body requires vitamins in for basic biological processes to work properly, and bellow certain levels, vitamin deficiencies can cause a variety of health problems.   In the first world, acute deficiencies tend to be rare, with a few exceptions.  Vegans and vegetarians may be deficient of vitamin B-12 if they do not take supplements or seek non-animal sources (although this has disputed).  Those with gastric problems may not properly absorb all vitamins sufficiently.  Supplements of vitamin B9 (folic acid) are often recommended for pregnant women.

In cases where sufficient levels of vitamins are already available, providing higher doses does not appear to have any detectable benefit.  In most circumstances, levels beyond those needed by biological processes will simply result in the body excreting the excess vitamins, although toxicity is possible with very high doses.   While the levels present in energy drinks are generally not high enough to raise concerns about toxicity, they are unlikely to contribute much to improved health, unless the individual already has sub-optimal vitamin levels.

Even in cases where vitamin levels may be sub-optimal, a single oral dose of vitamins will not provide a noticeable acute effect.  Adequate nutrition must be maintained for the body to function properly and avoid the symptoms associated with vitamin deficiency, but this is an ongoing need and a single dose of vitamin-supplemented energy drinks will not produce an increase in energy.

That is about as much as drinking one medium-sized cup of coffee.   In other words, unless you already have some very severe underlying problems, it will not cause you anything worse than a case of the jitters, and that’s only if you’re a real lightweight when it comes to caffeine.

Ingredients which will sometimes, but not usually, give you energy:

Sugar - Sugar is present in many energy drinks, but is absent from the diet versions.   It may be in the form of sucrose, cane sugar, but is more often in the form of high fructose corn syrup, since that tends to be cheaper.

The human body certainly does need sugar in order to produce energy.  Enzymes break down complex sugars to glucose, which is metabolized in individual cells to produce energy.  This, however, does not mean that consuming sugar will result in an immediate and noticeable increase in energy.   Despite the pervasive myth of the “sugar high,” the consumption of sugar does not usually increase energy levels.   There are several reasons for this.   One is that the availability of sugar is not usually the limiting factor in cellular energy production.  Another is that the human body tends to maintain a relatively stable level of blood sugar.  While blood sugar does fluctuate and is affected by diet, the effect of this on energy levels is minor.  Double-blind studies have found no coloration between sugar consumption and immediate energy.

There are a few exceptions to this.   In individuals who have diabetes, and must regulate their blood sugar through the use of artificial insulin, low blood sugar is common and consuming sugars can correct this.  In some cases, healthy individuals may have especially  low blood sugar after a period of fasting or if they are have a great deal of athletic exertion and have not eaten in a while.   In such circumstances, a little extra sugar may be helpful.

Still, based on all available evidence, for most people, a little extra sugar is not going to produce immediate, noticeable increases in endurance or alertness.

Ingredients which actually will give you energy:

Caffeine – Yes, that’s it.   That’s the only item on the list.  All energy drinks contain caffeine and many contain lots of it.   It’s an effective stimulant.  It will make you more alert, it will temporarily ward off drowsiness.  It will increase endurance, at least to a point.  Caffeine content in energy drinks varies quite a bit, but most have sufficient caffeine to give a noticeable increase in energy.

The bottom line is energy drinks, for all their marketing and supposedly beneficial additives are just delivery vehicles for caffeine.   That doesn’t mean they don’t work.   They are every bit as effective as any other method of getting caffeine.  Caffeine has been used for centuries to improve alertness and endurance.  Whether it comes in the form of a pill, a carbonated soda or coffee, the effects are the same.

How energy drinks stack up against other sources of caffeine:

Compared to other caffeine sources, energy drinks are actually not abnormally high.

Energy Drinks:

• Monster Energy Drink (16 fl. oz. – Large sized can) – 160 mg
• AMP Energy Boost Original (16 fl. oz. – Large sized can) – 142 mg
• Full Throttle (16 fl. oz. – Large sized can) – 200  mg
• NOS Energy(16 fl. oz. – Large sized can) – 260  mg
• NOS Power Shot (2 fl. oz. – Small bottle) – 125  mg
• Rock Star (16 fl. oz. – Large sized can) – 120 mg
• Rockstar Punched Guava (20 fl. oz – Extra large can) – 339 mg
• Rockstar Energy Shot (2.5 fl oz – Small bottle) – 200 mg
• Red Bull (8.46 fl oz – Small can) – 80 mg
• Red Bull (11.1 fl oz – Medium can) – 106 mg
• Red Bull Energy Shit (2 fl oz – Small Bottle) – 200 mg
• Five Hour Energy (2 fl oz – Small Bottle) – 200 mg

Tea:

• Brewed Tea (one cup black tea, brewed from bag about 3 min):  30-80mg
• Bottled Ice Tea (12-18.5 ounce bottle major brands):  30-60mg
• Starbucks Brand Tazo (Grande, 16 ounces):  95-135 mg (depends on variety)

Coffee:

• Dunken Donuts Medium Coffee:  178 mg
• Starbucks Large “venti” coffee:  415 mg
• Starbucks Medium “grande” coffee: 330 mg
• One cup of major brand brewed coffee:  100-175 mg
• Large Esperesso (major brands, such as Starbucks or Dunken Donuts): 130-165 mg

Soda:

• Coca-Cola (one 12 ounce/355 ml bottle):  35 mg
• Diet Coke (one 12 ounce/355 ml bottle): 47 mg
• Pepsi (one 12 ounce/355 ml bottle):  38 mg
• Diet Pepsi (one 12 ounce/355 ml bottle): 35 mg
• Pepsi Max(one 12 ounce/355 ml bottle) :  69 mg
• Mountain Dew (one 12 ounce/355 ml bottle):  54 mg

Other Sources of Caffeine

• No Doz brand Caffeine tablets  (per tablet) – 100 mg
• Maximum strength No Doz tablets (per tablet) – 200 mg
• Crackheads Espresso Bean Candies, hyper – 600 mg
• Crackheads Espresso Bean Candies, regular – 200 mg
• Perky Jerky (caffeinated jerky -par package) – 150 mg
• Jolt Caffeinated gum – 45 mg

Caffeine Content Data:  source1 source2 source3

Five Hour Energy: The High Caffeine, Small Bottle Energy Drink

Five Hour Energy stands out amongst the so-called “energy drinks” for its extremely high caffeine concentration and for the small volume of the product. In fact, it’s really not a drink at all. It’s more like a shot, coming in a small bottle of only about 60 milliliters (2 fl oz). Certainly not enough to actually quench ones thirst, but enough to deliver quite a bit of caffeine.

While the product does not list its caffeine content, other than to say “about as much as a cup of coffee,” at least two independent labs have analyzed the product. Consumerlab determined the caffeine content to be 207 mg per bottle, while Consumer Reports determined it to be 215 mg for the original version and 242 mg for the extra strength version of the product. That is quite a bit of caffeine for such a small amount of product.

However, even if Five Hour Energy does contain upwards of 240 mg of caffeine, that still does not mean that consuming it would result in more caffeine than other sources can provide. Even the smallest serving size of coffee at Starbucks – the 12 fl oz “tall” coffee cup provides more caffeine, at 260 mg. The largest cup of coffee available at Starbucks provides a whopping 415 mg of caffeine.

Still, the argument could be made that the small size of five hour energy makes it feasible for a person to consume far more caffeine in a short period of time than they might otherwise. A person could, quite easily, down five or six bottles of Five Hour Energy at once. That would be a stupid thing to do, given that the product warns you not to do so. Five hour energy can be bought in cartons of five bottles. A teenager on a dare or someone looking to see how much buzz they can get just might drink the whole thing at once.

Doing so would result in upwards of 1500 milligrams of caffeine. That’s quite a lot of the stuff. In general, that should not be enough to kill anyone, at least, providing they do not have a heart condition or some other drug in their system, but it’s more caffeine than anyone would generally want to have and would certainly result in some unpleasant symptoms.

Of course, it’s also not impossible for someone to be exposed to an equally high amount of caffeine from sources other than energy drinks.   Four large cups of Starbucks coffee would result in an even higher dose of caffeine, although one might argue that it would be a lot harder to put down that much coffee in one sitting and would be especially unappealing to children.  Caffeinated candies or tablets seem like a more realistic way of getting that much caffeine, although it would have to be intentional. Still, I’ve seen some people manage to consume some pretty extreme amounts of coffee in a short period of time, so it certainly could happen.

Additionally, if one considers the quantity of caffeine in five hour energy drink, as compared to products like caffeine tablets, caffeinated candies and gums, the actual amount of caffeine seems quite mild.   If you wanted to get a very large dose of caffeine, you could do so more easily with crackheads espresso bean candies.

Overdosing on Caffeine:

It is certainly possible to die of a caffeine overdose, although it would not be easy to ingest enough caffeine to do so. The standard lethal dose (ld50) of caffeine has been established as 192 milligrams per kilogram in rats. For humans, it is likely to be between 150 and 200 milligrams per kilogram. For an adult, that makes a lethal dose of more than ten grams.  It would be lower for smaller individuals and children.

Still, the quantity necessary would mean that an individual would have to be making an extreme effort to get that much caffeine.  Taking a handful of No Doz tablets, for example, could be lethal, as could eating a couple dozen boxes of Crackheads Espresso Bean Candies.  To get a lethal dose from an energy drink would also require a concerted effort, downing a large number  shots of the highest potency “shot” style energy drinks.

Of course, the LD50 does not give the entire picture of toxicity.   Caffeine is a stimulant, and at doses well bellow the average lethal dose, a person would experience such things as elevated heart rate, agitation and irritability.   These symptoms, although unpleasant, would not be lethal in a healthy individual.   However, the increased heart rate and cardiac stress could certainly contribute to arrhythmia or even cardiac arrest in someone who already has a heart condition.

The risk of serious health effects is increased if caffeine is combined with other drugs or with strenuous physical activity.  In such circumstances, the caffeine could be a contributing factor to cardiac problems, but again, except for absurdly large doses, this is not likely to be fatal in healthy individuals.

Taking a closer look at the case of Anais Fournier:

A fourteen year old girl died, suddenly and without any apparent warning, and there is no denying that is a tragedy and a terrible loss to her loved ones.  However, that does not mean that the circumstances and claims about her death are not worth examination.

Via the Huffington Post:

Anais Fournier, 14-Year-Old Girl, Dies After Drinking 2 Energy Drinks

A 14-year-old girl from Maryland died last December after downing two Monster energy drinks in a 24-hour-period, according to news reports, and the incident is stirring concern over the safety of the beverages for kids.

It should be noted that the girl, Anais Fournier, had a heart condition, called mitral valve prolapse — which means that one of her heart valves has malfunctioned. The National Institutes of Health reports that the condition is usually harmless, and as many as one in 10 people has a minor form of the condition.

After she drank two of the energy drinks — which together contained 480 milligrams of caffeine — she went into cardiac arrest a day later and died from cardiac arrhythmia due to caffeine toxicity, TODAY reported.

“She was at the mall with her friends the night before, and had a 24-ounce energy drink,” Fournier’s mother, Wendy Crossland, told the Record Herald. “She drank another one less than 24 hours later, even though she knew I do not allow them because I know they are bad for you. She went into cardiac arrest three hours later at home.”

TODAY reported that the amount of caffeine Fournier drank in the two Monster energy drinks is about the same as that found in 14 cans of Coca Cola — and is almost five times the recommended caffeine limit from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Caffeine is a stimulant, and is found in a multitude of food products, from coffee, to chocolate, to sodas — and the amounts found in those products usually are not enough to cause any harm to health, Medscape noted.

A few things stand out. First, the fact that she had a heart condition. Yes, this condition is normally minor, but we do not know the severity of her condition. Presumably, that would tend to put her at a higher risk than the average person. Caffeine does raise ones heart rate and thus, someone with an underlying condition might be more likely to suffer cardiac problems. However, strenuous activity also increases strain on the heart. Every year, about one hundred children in the US alone suddenly die of cardiac arrest. This often happens when playing sports or during other times of high exertion, when undiagnosed conditions can cause the heart to give out under such stress.

The details given are sketchy, but it sounds as if Anais was probably enjoying a spirited couple of days with friends, which could well contribute to the strain on her weakened heart.

In total, Anais consumed 320 milligrams of caffeine, although not at once.   The exact timing is not given, but since it was at least the better part of a day, it is reasonable to assume that by the time she consumed the second drink, most of the caffeine from the first was probably no longer in her body, as caffeine has a standard biological half-life of about five hours.

320 milligrams is indeed the amount of caffeine in fourteen cans of Coca-Cola.   Here is how it works out with other products:

It may be a large amount of caffeine for a 14 year old, but it’s not an astronomically high amount.  It’s not beyond what 14 year olds consume all the time at day-long parties.  I, for one, could easily put down a bottle of mountain dew in a 24 hour period when I was 14.

It would be unreasonable to single out products, simply because they are marketed as “energy drinks” as being especially sinister or dangerous.

As it turns out, I also live in the same town where she did, but sadly I did not know this until after her passing.

Obituary Via the New York Times:

Eleanor R. Adair, Microwave Proponent, Dies at 86

Eleanor R. Adair, a scientist who spent decades exposing monkeys and eventually people (including herself) to microwave radiation to determine whether it posed serious health risks — she concluded, emphatically and somewhat controversially, that it did not — died on April 20 in Hamden, Conn. She was 86.

The cause was complications of a stroke, her daughter, Margaret Adair Quinn, said.

In the early 1970s, Dr. Adair, who had done her doctoral work in sensory psychology, was pursuing an interesting but not necessarily provocative topic: how people and animals react physiologically to external heat sources. Yet over the next three decades — after her research led her to study heat generated through microwave radiation, which is used in microwave ovens and emitted at low levels by things like cellphones and electrical transmission lines — Dr. Adair became an increasingly prominent and firm voice of assurance that microwave radiation posed no health risk.

“All the emphasis that we need more research on power line fields, cellphones, police radar — this involves billions of dollars that could be much better spent on other health problems,” Dr. Adair said in an interview with The New York Times in 2001. “Because there is really nothing there.”

For some people close to the issue, those were fighting words.

Even as numerous studies have found that microwave ovens are safe and many scientists say there is no evidence that cellphones cause cancer or other health problems, the rising use of cellphones, wireless Internet signals and some medical and military devices has continued to raise questions about their risk. Last year, a panel of the World Health Organization listed microwave radiation as “possibly carcinogenic.” In March, the Federal Communications Commission announced that it would review its standards for cellphone use for the first time since 1996.

Some scientists do not use the term microwave radiation because they are concerned it is misleading and scares people unnecessarily. Microwave radiation is far weaker than the radiation in X-rays or gamma rays.

Advocates for more research count Dr. Adair in to a camp that focuses too much on heat or thermal effects from microwaves and is too quick to dismiss other ways microwaves might affect health.

“There’s something going on, and the question is what that is and whether it’s dangerous,” said Louis Slesin, the editor of Microwave News, a Web site that is often skeptical of the role industry and the military play in influencing health standards related to the issue. “Don’t let anyone tell you they know the answer to that question.”

Although Dr. Adair said she did not receive money from cellphone makers or industries whose products released microwave radiation, she served for five years late in her career as a senior scientist at the Air Force Research Laboratory in San Antonio. The Air Force uses radar that emits microwaves.

Dr. Adair should be remembered for being a rare voice of reason who stood up and said what needed to be said: That we have volumes of data on the effects of non-ionizing radiation and that it all indicates the only potential for harm is the thermal effects of very high power levels. Adair did not ignore other effects, she simply did not find any significant ones, despite spending decades in the field and becoming one of the foremost experts on the subject.

It is also worth noting that she was never hired by or given any significant amount of money from the telecommunications industry. She did serve in advisory for the International Electrical and Electronic Engineers organization on microwave safety, and thus contributed to some of the current safety standards, but most of her work was done entirely with university and government backing. Her detractors have pointed out that some of her work was done for the military, but it’s hard to imagine any researcher in the area of microwave radiation would not have military backers, especially during the height of the Cold War.

As an honest, straight forward, impeccably qualified and unnconflicted scientist, Dr. Adair is exactly the kind of researcher that public health policy often seems to be lacking.

That all began to change in the late 1990’s.   Evidence for bacterial infections being involved in peptic ulcer disease had existed for many years, but conflicting experimental results lead early researchers to conclude that the bacteria detected in the stomachs of ulcer patients was caused by laboratory contamination.  Indeed, the treatment of ulcers with antibiotics had been established as early as the 1950’s, but failed to gain widespread acceptance.  It was not until the late 1990’s that a number of clinical studies conclusively proved that the overwhelming majority of peptic ulcers are caused by the bacteria Helicobacter pylori and that its treatment with antibiotics can cure upwards of 80-90% of ulcers.  Doctors Robin Warren and Barry Marshall, both of Australia had spearheaded the research that ultimately discovered the role of bacterial infections in ulcers.  They shared the Nobel Prize for this discovery in 2005.

The discovery forever changed how we view and treat peptic ulcers.   It did not entirely invalidate the role of stress in the formation of ulcers, since it likely plays a roll in producing the conditions where a bacterial infection can take root, but it resulted in new tests and protocols and the use of antibiotics in treating and curing peptic ulcers.  Countless lives have thus been improved.

We may now be on the cusp of a breakthrough that will dwarf the discovery of bacterial infections as the root cause of most ulcers

Via the Guardian:

Back pain breakthrough could eliminate need for major operations

The figures make for grim reading. When all costs are considered, the NHS spends more than £1bn each year on back pain. More than half goes on hospital costs. But £140m covers GP consultations, with even more spent on physiotherapy sessions. On any given day, 1% of the national workforce is on leave with a back problem.

Most people recover from acute back pain within six weeks but for a fair portion, around 8%, the problem becomes long-term. In the past, doctors prescribed bed rest for back pain. They now accept that only makes the pain worse, and instead recommend physical exercise, or at least staying active.

In more than 80% of cases, there is no clear cause of back pain. But to the long list of factors, from lifting and posture, to stress and anxiety, scientists in Denmark have now added bacteria.

Microbes should not be lurking in the spine, but Hanne Albert and her team at the University of Southern Denmark found a common bug called Propionibacterium acnes inside the slipped discs of patients who had operations for the problem. The bacteria normally live without oxygen, in hair follicles, or at the bottom of crevices in teeth, but brushing teeth can sweep them into the bloodstream.

The bacteria should pose no threat as they circulate around the body, but when a person has a slipped disc, the body grows fresh blood vessels that reach into the soft disc to repair the tissue. This gives the bacteria a route in, where they can thrive, scientists believe. As the bacteria grow, they cause inflammation around the disc, and release propionic acid, which irritates nerves, and may even cause the painful microfractures seen in vertebrae around the disc.

The Danish researchers found that a long course of common antibiotics, lasting three months, killed off the bacteria, and alleviated pain in most patients who took part in their trial. All had been in pain for more than six months and showed signs of vertebrae damage in MRI scans. They took six to eight weeks to feel better.

The drugs must be taken for so long because the blood supply to spinal discs is very poor. Once the disc is free from infection, the inflammation dies down, and the vertebrae begin to heal.

The discovery could transform the treatment of chronic lower back pain and save health services millions of pounds by doing away with unnecessary operations. When patients have no other options, surgeons can fuse damaged vertebrae, or transplant artificial discs into their spines, but both of these operations might largely be replaced with courses of antibiotics.

WOW!

You probably know someone with chronic back pain. Perhaps you have it. It’s very common. Millions around the world suffer from chronic back pain and it can have an enormous effect on quality of life. For many, it’s not the severity of the pain as much as the fact that it never goes away. For others, back pain flares frequently to the point of extreme intensity. Many live for their entire life without ever getting lasting relief from back pain.

While this discovery does not apply to all back pain sufferers, it is still a very large portion. If infections are to blame, then this is not simply a treatment to relieve the symptoms, but rather a cure that can offer the potential for lasting relief of the chronic pain that has plagued some for decades.

The benefits go beyond just easing suffering, however. Back pain results in billions of dollars being spent by individuals, health insurance companies and national health benefits. Surgeries are common and include such things as spinal fusion. Many go through long physical therapy or use products like orthopedic shoe inserts, back braces or supports for relief. Regular Botox injections have been used to treat lower back pain. Other therapies include transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, pain killers, anti-inflammatory drugs and muscle relaxants.

Even beyond the direct cost of treating so many, massive savings could potentially be had from everything from disability payments to workers compensation to overall reduced productivity. The prevalence of back pain really makes the potential for revolutionary changes mind-boggling.

There is another point here that should not be lost. There are many out there who will claim that the big pharmaceutical companies are so powerful that any research which could hurt their bottom line simply won’t happen or the discoveries will be suppressed. Yet, that is exactly what this study is. Granted, curing 40% of back pain sufferers is not likely to drive any drug companies bankrupt, but it will not help them when it comes to profits. Back pain sufferers are exactly the kind of customers drug companies love. For decades on end, they are reliable customers, taking huge doses of pain killers, anti-inflammatory drugs, muscle relaxants and drugs to aid in their sleep. Chronic pain often leads to the need for antidepressants. Surgeries and hospital stays result in the need for numerous drugs and medical supplies.

Antibiotics, on the other hand, are cheap, and drug companies only make modest profits off the sale of most antibiotics. The treatment of a back infection, even if it requires one hundred days of therapy is still a one-shot event. It’s not the kind of reliable decades-long drug consumer that pharmaceutical companies make so much of their money off of.

Note that, as with any such study, one must be cautious and not assume this is yet proven. That said, the data looks very very good and compelling. I would say there is every reason to be optimistic. Perhaps cautiously optimistic, but still optimistic on this one.

You can read the actual study here. Sorry, it’s not free, unless you have access to an academic journal service. 

(Someone was kind enough to send me a copy but asked that I not post any part of it)

Via the Atlantic Wire:

Conspiracy	Percent believing	Number of Americans believing
JFK was killed by conspiracy	51 percent	160,096,160
Bush intentionally misled on Iraq WMDs	44 percent	138,122,178
Global warming is a hoax	37 percent	116,148,195
Aliens exist	29 percent	91,035,072
New World Order	28 percent	87,895,931
Hussein was involved in 9/11	28 percent	87,895,931
A UFO crashed at Roswell	21 percent	65,921,948
Vaccines are linked to autism	20 percent	62,782,808
The government controls minds with TV	15 percent	47,087,106
Medical industry invents diseases	15 percent	47,087,106
CIA developed crack	14 percent	43,947,966
Bigfoot exists	14 percent	43,947,966
Obama is the Antichrist	13 percent	40,808,825
The government allowed 9/11	11 percent	34,530,544
Fluoride is dangerous	9 percent	28,252,264
The moon landing was faked	7 percent	21,973,983
Bin Laden is alive	6 percent	18,834,842
Airplane contrails are sinister chemicals	5 percent	15,695,702
McCartney died in 1966	5 percent	15,695,702
Lizard people control politics	4 percent	12,556,562

The margin of error of the poll is 2.8 percent. As with any poll, it’s important to remember that the margin of error may not reflect the true accuracy of the poll, as it can depend on factors like how careful the pollsters were in selecting an appropriate demographic cross-section of the US.  It’s very easy to get skewed results with polling, because telephone surveys tend to get more responses from certain demographics, such as retirees, the unemployed and others who are more likely to be home and willing to answer questions.   Still, the numbers certainly seem plausible and are in line with other polls that have been conducted.

Of course, one also wonders how many people might say yes to certain conspiracy theories while only harboring a slightly sarcastic belief in them.   As with any such numbers, it’s hard to be sure who is a hard-core believer and who has only a passing belief.   One can certainly hope that they might be lower.

You can read more about the poll here. According to Public Policy Polling, the total respondents were 1,247 all of whom were registered voters.   That’s a reasonably good size sample.  The questions were also direct and avoided bias.   The figures also show the breakdown between Republican and Democratic-registered voters.  As one might expect, Republicans tend to be more prone to believing things like Bin Laden is alive, while Democrats are far more likely to think Bush lied about WMD’s.

It’s not surprising that the Kennedy Assassination ranks at the top of the poll.  If anything, it’s surprising it is not higher.   The Kennedy Assassination has always fascinated me, because, despite being a relatively straight-forward shooting, it spawned the single most widespread and enduring conspiracy theory in the US.   There are many reasons for this, including the efforts of those like Oliver Stone and the fact that the events were shocking and the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald seemed so anti-climactic for such an event.

The Kennedy Assassination is unique in that the conspiracy theories have transcended the normal conspiracy theory subculture and become entirely mainstream.  A large number of Americans did not accept the Warren Commission report as soon as it was published in 1964.  That number continued to climb after a second investigation by the House Select Committee on Assassinations and with the production of numerous books and documentaries supporting conspiracy theories.

The most dangerous of all these conspiracy theories, however, is likely to be the 20% number for autism being connected to vaccines.   This is directly responsible for a number of outbreaks in the US.  Indeed, this belief is hardly just American.  Fear of vaccines has become a major problem across the industrial world.   It goes to show that more effort still needs to be mounted against these harmful myths.

One of the strangest things to note about this poll is that there is a small percentage of the respondents who believe that Barack Obama is the Antichrist but voted for him anyway. There are at least three explanations for this:

1. They were simply not paying very much attention to the questions.  This is common.  Some of those polled just say yes or no without even really listening.   Some (better) pollsters instruct their employees to either determine if the person is paying attention, by asking the same question, phrased differently, more than once, or by simply excusing those who are clearly not actually listening.   This can help, but it also results in more calls being placed and thus more expense.
2. They may have changed their mind since voting, although this seems unlikely, as the election was only a few months before the poll and there has not been any major or unexpected policy change from the Obama administration.
3. Finally, and most bizarrely, there are some Christian fundamentalists who would willingly vote for someone they believed to be the Antichrist.  The reason for this is that they believe that the rise to power of the antichrist is a necessary  event, which will precede the second coming of Christ and the end of days.  Thus, the election of Barack Obama represents a step toward Armageddon, where Satan will make his last stand and be defeated.

   That might seem like a crazy reason to vote for someone, but I would not put it past some.

It would be interesting to see polls from other parts of the world and gauge how the US ranks compared to elsewhere.   The United States is considered an especially fertile ground for conspiracy theories, yet they are certainly not uncommon elsewhere.   The belief that vaccines cause autism, for example, has had a global impact.

For those interested in my own response:

Personally, there are only two questions that I *might* answer yes to.   The question that “aliens exist” can mean one of two things.  It could mean that extra terrestrial life exists somewhere in the vastness of the universe.   I believe that the answer to that is most likely yes.   However, in this context, I tend to think they are really looking for the belief of whether alien visitors have come to earth.

The second question is “Bush intentionally mislead on Iraq WMDs.”  Again, the question has some room for interpretation.  I do not believe that George W. Bush actually expected Iraq to have no stocks of chemical or biological weapons.  We know Saddam Husein had them in the 1990’s, and given there was lack of good human intelligence, there was every reason to presume he probably still did.  It also seems highly unlikely (or at least incredibly stupid) to lie about something like the presence of chemical weapons, knowing full well the lie would be found out, once the country was invaded and chemical weapons were not discovered.

On the other hand, the Bush administration clearly did try very hard to persuade the American people that Saddam Husein presented an imminent threat to the security of the US.  There’s little evidence of this, and, even if he had chemical weapons, by 2003, his military had been decimated and the country was well contained, having not really threatened its neighbors in two decades.  This itself, is not lying outright, but may qualify as “misleading” depending on how one defines it.

Thus, I would conclude that a reasonable person could answer this question either way.

Via USA Today:

Calif. wildfire threatens 4,000 homes as flames spread

LOS ANGELES — A fast-growing wildfire along the Pacific Coast Highway northwest of Los Angeles nearly doubled in size Friday and was threatening more than 4,000 homes as crews battled strong winds, tinder-dry conditions and record-breaking temperatures.

The Springs Fire had burned more than 18,000 acres of rugged, brush-covered terrain by late afternoon and was 20% contained, the state’s fire agency reported. Forecasters said that 45-mph wind gusts would taper off and that cooling may begin by evening.

At midday, the temperature hit a record 96 in Camarillo, where the blaze began, about 50 miles north of Los Angeles.

Thousands of residents had already evacuated the Ventura County fire, including 118 families ordered from a premier Navy base because of heavy smoke after flames jumped the scenic highway Friday morning.

The fire began Thursday during the morning rush hour near U.S. 101, which is the major commuter route into Los Angeles’ San Fernando Valley. After reaching the coast overnight, the fire headed back inland Friday.

The fire had damaged 15 homes and destroyed at least 25 outbuildings and other property by midday. Large animals and livestock were being taken to the county fairgrounds.

In addition to 4,000 homes, the wildfire was threatening 100 businesses in its southwestern race toward Malibu. Officials said Friday afternoon that the famous beach community was not threatened.

When these fires threaten homes and communities, it’s firefighting aircraft that can be used to make a big impact. Aircraft can rapidly lay down large strips of water or fire retardant. For this reason, they have been the mainstay of wildfire fighting for decades.

Unfortunately, the current fleet of firefighting aircraft is nowhere near as capable or as new as one would hope. In fact, it’s a hodge-podge of new and old aircraft, some dating back to the Second World War. A few are very large aircraft, such as C-130’s, and are capable of dropping large loads of water or retardant, but many are vintage 1940’s flying boats and bombers, with only a few thousand pounds of capacity.

Even the highly capable C-130’s are showing their age. In 1994, a C-130 broke apart in mid flight while fighting forest fires. The aircraft had been an ex-military transport and was long past its prime, having experienced more than its recommended flight hours and been subject to some extremely stressful maneuvers. Last year, two 50+ year old Lockheed P2V’s experienced problems while fighting fires, one of them crashing.

When it comes to fighting fires, there are a few things that are clear:  bigger is always better.  A bigger aircraft can deliver more retardant or water than a smaller one.  If it is big enough, it may even be able to put out a large fire in one pass, without having to return for more water, giving the fire time to grow.   It’s also clear that fire fighting aircraft should be designed to fight fires without exceeding their normal flight characteristics.   And, since aerial firefighting is so demanding, newer aircraft with fewer flight hours are always preferable.

Thankfully, someone stepped up to the plate and built one…

This is the Evergreen Supertanker.   A firefighting aircraft engineered and built by Evergreen Aviation.   It’s a Boeing 747-100, but it’s a lot more than just a jumbo jet with big tanks slapped on.   The Supertanker uses a specially engineered system of tanks and pressurized nozzles to allow it to disperse water or retardant while maintaining a flight profile entirely within the normal margins of a 747 during flight and landing.  With a total capacity of 20,500 US gallons, the supertanker dwarfs most other firefighting aircraft.

The aircraft was manufactured in 1971 but is still well within the typical flight hours for a 747 and has undergone a complete structural inspection.   It has been extensively tested and represents an investment of many millions of dollars in design and construction.

The Supertanker has proved itself highly capable, putting out fires in Israel and Spain.  It has the ability to lay down a strip of fire retardant three miles long (5 km) or can drop its load in segments, putting out hot spots without needing to discharge it all at once.   This capability has proven to be extremely valuable in real world fire fighting.

So where is it?   Is it in California fighting the fires?   If not, why isn’t it?

Unfortunately, I can find no information to indicate the Evergreen Supertanker has actually been deployed to fight these fires.   In fact, it seems that it has not generally been sitting out from most American wild fires.

Last summer, when fires were devastating the state of Colorado, I wrote an E-mail to Evergreen Aviation asking what the status of their aircraft was.   This is the response I received:

Evergreen International Aviation Statement Concerning the Supertanker

We felt compelled to release this statement due to the overwhelming amount of calls we have received concerning the availability of the Evergreen Supertanker. We at Evergreen are saddened by the fire devastation now taking place in many Western US states.

For over 60 years, we have supported the US Forest Service in its important mission to battle and control fires, and it is our desire to continue this rich history of service. While our helicopters continue to work fires for the State of Alaska under State contracts, unfortunately, our Boeing 747 Supertanker Very Large Air Tanker (VLAT) aircraft awaits activation with the US Forest Service.
We have never been told why we have not been activated by the US Forest Service, so we can only speculate as to why we face this outcome:

1. We were offered a Call-When-Needed (CWN) contract a few years ago by the US ForestService (proving our technical viability), but we were never called into action resulting in a multi-million dollar loss to our company as we were required to maintain and have  flight crew available should we be called. The only contract that will sustain a VLAT program is an Exclusive-Use contract, which provides an income stream to sustain the program even if the asset is not utilized. We invested over $50M to develop this asset in the firm belief that we could better control fires as we proved in Israel and Mexico under CWN contracts that we could afford to offer at the time.

2. There have been recent changes to the US Forest Service procurement policies.  Today, only small businesses are eligible for contract awards concerning air tanker assets;  Evergreen is not a small business and, therefore, is excluded from consideration for any  award.

3. The US Forest Service’s specification for Next Generation Air Tanker aircraft limits tank size to 5,000 gallons. The Supertanker’s tanks hold about 20,000 gallons, which is considered outside the USFS specification. The USFS just awarded contracts to four small businesses with aircraft equipped with these smaller tanks, and excluded the
Evergreen Supertanker. Since World War II, tank capacities have been in the 3,000 to 5,000 gallon range, yet we continue to face the growing threat from mega fires today. We believe the Supertanker represents an overwhelming response to this growing threat. Please contact your state representatives in Washington DC to demand an examination of their current procurement policies concerning VLAT aircraft.

The US Forest Service says it best: “Only YOU can prevent wildfires.”
Evergreen International Aviation, Inc. Tel: 503.472.9361 http://www.EvergreenAviation.com

Unfortunately, this seems to still be the case. Despite the fact that the Supertanker was created to satisfy the US Government’s request for next-generation air tankers, it has not been utilized, either because it is too large to meet their out of date specifications or because it is made by a big company and not a small company. (On that note, does anyone know of any little mom and pop shops that make jumbo jets?)

While I realize that this topic is outside the general science-based content of this blog, this kind of boneheaded government policy really kills me.   The aircraft is an excellent fire-fighting asset and we should be using it.   Homes and even lives may be lost because the best aircraft at the government disposal are not being pressed into service.   This will surely also result in greater expenditure for tax payers, both in longer time to contain the fire and greater damage.

But lest be careful, because it’s not quite what it seems.

Via Science Daily:

First Vaccine to Help Control Some Autism Symptoms

A first-ever vaccine created by University of Guelph researchers for gut bacteria common in autistic children may also help control some autism symptoms.

The groundbreaking study by Brittany Pequegnat and Guelph chemistry professor Mario Monteiro appears this month in the journal Vaccine.

They developed a carbohydrate-based vaccine against the gut bug Clostridium bolteae.

C. bolteae is known to play a role in gastrointestinal disorders, and it often shows up in higher numbers in the GI tracts of autistic children than in those of healthy kids.

More than 90 per cent of children with autism spectrum disorders suffer from chronic, severe gastrointestinal symptoms. Of those, about 75 per cent suffer from diarrhea, according to current literature.

“Little is known about the factors that predispose autistic children to C. bolteae,” said Monteiro. Although most infections are handled by some antibiotics, he said, a vaccine would improve current treatment.

“This is the first vaccine designed to control constipation and diarrhea caused by C. bolteae and perhaps control autism-related symptoms associated with this microbe,” he said.

Autism cases have increased almost sixfold over the past 20 years, and scientists don’t know why. Although many experts point to environmental factors, others have focused on the human gut.

Some researchers believe toxins and/or metabolites produced by gut bacteria, including C. bolteae, may be associated with symptoms and severity of autism, especially regressive autism.

There are some real red flags that stand out right away. First, the statement “Autism cases have increased almost sixfold over the past 20 years, and scientists don’t know why.” In fact, most scientists agree that the apparent rise in cases is simply due to greater awareness and broadening of diagnostic criteria.

Anyone who knows the first thing about autism will realize that it’s not a digestive disorder. Autism is primarily a social development disorder, which also has cognitive and general behavioral symptoms. It’s neurological, not gastric. The hypothesis that autism was caused by or exacerbated by gastric problems has been around for some time, but has never gained much favor in the mainstream scientific community. In part, because no known mechanism could account for how a change in gut flora would have such profound neurological effects, and in part because there is no real scientific data to show a causal link. Also, this seems to apply mostly to those with severe autism.

There is some truth that autistic children will have a high incidence of gastric problems, although a large percentage of children who are non-autistic will also suffer gastric discomfort at some point. The fact that severely autistic children tend to be more prone to some gastric issues has been the subject of research, and the conclusion has generally been that it is the behavior that causes these issues, rather than the other way around.

As one major study in the Journal Pediatrics concluded:

As constipation and feeding issues/food selectivity often have a behavioral etiology, data suggest that a neurobehavioral rather than a primary organic gastrointestinal etiology may account for the higher incidence of these gastrointestinal symptoms in children with autism.

In other words, the fact that autistic children do not behave and eat in the same manner as non-autistic children is then most likely cause of differences in gut flora, rather than the other way around.

As such, this vaccine really does not treat or prevent any symptom associated with autism. What it does is possibly suppress one strain of bacteria that is known to cause gastric problems. These problems do not cause autism or the symptoms of autism. But, of course, gastric discomfort can certainly make a difficult child even more difficult.

Therefore, while it might be able to help some autistic children with gastric problems, it does not actually have much to do with autism itself.

Jaczko was first appointed as a commissioner in 2005 and was promoted to the head commissioner and chairman of the agency in 2009.   He served until his resignation last year.  Jaczko was controversial for the entirety of his time at the NRC, and especially after becoming chairman.  He was widely accused of withholding information, in an attempt to slow or stop regulatory approval.  For example, in 2011, Jaczko failed to release sufficient information to allow the Yucca Mountain project to be evaluated properly, effectively halting approval from moving forward.   Jaczko was also accused by NRC staffers of frequently losing his temper and verbally assaulting those working under him.

It has always been clear that Jaczko’s opinion of nuclear energy has been generally unfavorable.  Indeed, he was the only commissioner to vote against approval of new plant licenses in the United States in 2012.   He was also generally not well received by the nuclear industry.

Yet the extent of Gregory Jaczko’s anti-nuclear feelings did not become entirely apparent until after his resignation from the NRC, in July 2012.   As a commissioner, Jaczko was not able to provide entirely candid comments on nuclear energy.  Had he spoken out directly against nuclear energy, it would have shown a very obvious conflict of interest with his regulatory position.  Yet, after resigning, Jaczko stated that he believed that ALL US nuclear reactors are so flawed and unsafe that they should be shut down as soon as possible. When asked why he did not state this during his time on the commission, Jaczko stated ” didn’t really come to it until recently.”

Calling for what amounts to a complete phase-out of nuclear energy puts Jaczko on a very extreme end of the spectrum.   It is very disturbing, though not entirely surprising, to learn that NRC had been chaired for three years by someone who is so anti-nuclear that he wants a full nuclear phase-out.   It’s the equivalent of someone who believes that humans are not fit for flight being the head of the Federal Aviation Administration.   Indeed, with such extreme views, they may as well have just made Helen Caldicott or Amory Lovins the NRC chair.

Unfortunately, if you thought we were done with this guy, that is not the case.

In addition to the distinct possibility that his mindset is not entirely uncommon at the NRC, it seems Jaczko has found his way back into a federal position.   He was just appointed to oversee the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Via the Hill:

Reid appoints former NRC chief Jaczko to nuclear panel

Former Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chairman Gregory Jaczko was appointed Thursday to a new panel charged with monitoring the agency that oversees the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tapped Jaczko — a former aide for the Nevada Democrat — for the position with the Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise.

The panel was created by the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. Its purpose is to make recommendations for improving operations at the Energy Department’s (DOE) nuclear weapons agency.

Those suggestions regarding the DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) will be revealed in a report that’s due by February, 2014.

Jaczko has kept a low profile following an unceremonious departure from the NRC in which he resigned his post following allegations that he verbally abused staff.

His appointment to the 12-member panel, as well as a book deal he signed with Simon and Schuster on Wednesday about “Jaczko’s controversial years as the top nuclear regulator in the country,” will change that.

The controversial former NRC chairman’s appointment to the panel will likely rile conservatives.

Well, it has certainly riled me!

The NNSA is the US agency tasked with all things nuclear weapons and security against nuclear weapon threats. As such, the NNSA is responsible for both maintaining the safety and security of US nuclear weapons and weapons material, for responding to accidents involving weapons or weapons materials and for mitigating the potential for nuclear threats as a result of insecure foreign weapons or nuclear materials. The NNSA is also the US government’s major agency for nuclear non-proliferation projects.

This might not seem like the kind of position where someone like Gregory Jaczko could do much to stop nuclear energy, but that’s not the case.  Although nuclear power is not the same as nuclear weaponry, the two share many materials and technologies and the conflation of nuclear energy with nuclear weapons has been used as a major argument against nuclear energy in general.

The NNSA has engaged in a number of activities of questionable merit and with the potential to reduce the availability of nuclear energy and technology before.  For example, the NNSA has taken a strong stand against what it has defined as highly enriched uranium, even when that uranium is well bellow the enrichment level necessary to produce a weapon.  In doing so, the NNSA has forced numerous research reactors to reduce their capabilities or shut down entirely.   The agency has even gone so far as to pressure foreign governments to relinquish the highly enriched uranium used in research and isotope reactors, even when the material has been so heavily irradiated that it has become entirely unusable for nuclear weapons.

As the agency in charge of all US materials deemed to be weapons grade, the NNSA is also the agency which resp0nsible for US stockpiles of uranium-233.  The U-233 of vital importance in the production of certain therapeutic isotopes and is also an attractive startup fuel for future thorium-cycle reactors.  The NNSA’s current plans are to destroy the entire US supply of uranium-233, rendering this valuable resource unusable by blending it with depleted uranium and burning it in power reactors. This is something liquid fluoride reactor supporters have been fighting to stop.

Claims of proliferation dangers have resulted in the United States abandoning fuel reprocessing and have also prevented the US from deploying new enrichment capability.  It is the primary reason why the US still relies primarily on gaseous diffusion enrichment, a technique which has been considered obsolete for decades and is no longer used elsewhere.

There is no doubt that inflating the dangers of proliferation or placing unreasonable restrictions on technologies that are considered “dual use” has had a detrimental effect on the state of nuclear power and nuclear reactor technology in the United States, and as the agency responsible for proliferation and security policy, the NNSA is in a position to drastically affect the future of nuclear power.   Imposing draconian security requirements, reducing the level of enrichment considered to be high level, restricting enrichment and reprocessing or declaring reactor types to be insecure can easily tie the hands of the US nuclear industry.

It should be deeply disturbing to any nuclear energy supporter to see someone with the kind of mindset of Gregory Jaczko return to a position where he can exert influence on US government policy and regulation.

Of course, despite the death toll being relatively light, the event was shocking, due to the bombing happening at a public event that is high profile and because the attack seems to have come out of the blue, at a time and place that had not been suspected to be at risk.

It is important to note that at the time of this writing, the person or persons who perpetrated this.

While there is no solid information on who was behind it, what is currently known seems to indicate that this was an attack of relatively low sophistication which would not have required a large group or resources to carry out.  The explosives were low velocity and not especially difficult to obtain.  The bombs were likely contained within pressure cookers and surrounded by shrapnel made from commonly available items, such as ball bearings and nails.

The image to the left shows a portion of the bomb’s casing, which was recovered shortly after the blast.  It has been identified as the lid to a pressure cooker.  The results of analysis of bomb residue has not yet been made public, but it is known that the explosive was of the low velocity type, which is more easily obtained than more powerful explosives like TNT.

At this point it could be anyone.   Islamic terrorism is one possibility, although no group has claimed responsibility.  Political terrorism or domestic groups is another, although there were no claims of responsibility or political messages included.   It could certainly have been a “lone nut.”  It could have been a doomsday cult.  It could have been a right wing group or a left wing group.  It could have been related to tax day, but it might not have been.

There is, however, no reason to believe that this attack would have required anything like the resources of the Federal government.  Nor is there any evidence to indicate that it was part of a massive conspiracy.  If nothing else, there is no obvious gain to any grand conspiracy by committing an act of this type.

That has still not stopped conspiracy theorists from coming out of the woodwork, literally within hours.

Here’s what pathological nutball Alex Jones had to say, within just hours of the bombings:

Our hearts go out to those that are hurt or killed, But this thing stinks to high heaven #falseflag.

Wow.  Really?    It takes the government now to stuff gunpowder into a cooking pot.

Jones went on to post a video, which you can see here.   His rambling claims include stating that he had predicted that the government was preparing to attack Americans before the explosion even happened.  That might seem amazing, except he says that every day.

Even more ridiculous are claims that the show Family Guy contained references to the planned attack.   This is based on two clips from the show, edited together.  In one episode, the main character wins the Boston Marathon by using his car to plow through runners.   In another unrelated clip, from the same episode, the character starts hanging out with a Muslim man, only to discover he was a terrorist. Conspiracy theorists claim this is foreshadowing of the planned attack and go on to point out that the World Trade Center was also featured in a number of television shows and movies.   Well, yes, that is true, it was a prominent place.  But how that relates to anything, they do not explain.

Others have said that the bombing was a complete hoax, perhaps with nobody killed or injured.   At least one has claimed that a video shows that the blood seen after the bombing is fake.   In one video, it is claimed that the blood disappears when a man walks by in the video.   It’s hard to say what is happening, however, as the video is extremely low quality and the station’s logo obscures much of the area in interest. Another video (WARNING GRAPHIC) shows an image of a victim who had literally had most of their leg blown off, with bone sticking out from the gaping wound. It claims that the proof of the hoax is that there is no blood seen. Of course, the victim was not at the location where the injury occurred and had a tourniquet applied to stop the bleeding.

A large number of conspiracy theorists have latched onto the presence of bomb-sniffing dogs as evidence of a government conspiracy.   Their observations, however, seem to indicate a lack of understanding of how bomb sniffing dogs are used.   For example, it is not surprising that the dogs would not have found the bomb, since, given their small number, they cannot inspect every single area of an event, and because the best current evidence is that the devices were planted shortly before detonation, making it less likely that the area in question would have been inspected in time.  In crowded events, dogs trained to sniff explosives are a valuable, but far from foolproof tool. It is also not unusual that the dogs were training at the event, as large events are often used to train bomb dogs, something which was announced before the bombings.   In order for bomb dogs to be effective, they need near constant training and practice.

This site helps explain the facts about the bomb dogs seen at the event.

Yet more conspiracy theories have arisen over a picture taken shortly after the bombing.  It show a man on the roof of one of the nearby buildings. The Sun reported it as “Chilling image of mystery figure on rooftops above Boston bomb blasts.” It has been noted that the man does not appear to be reacting with shock to the blasts.

However, the figure is really less chilling than it might seem on first glance. First, the roof in question is clearly setup as a deck, complete with railings and sun chairs. It would not be unusual for someone to be on such a roof to observe the marathon or just enjoy a nice day. In fact, the Smoking Gun reports that the roof in question is a sun deck which is accessible to any of the residents of the apartment building located at 755 Boylston Street.

The man on the deck may be running or walking. It’s hard to tell, given the poor resolution of the photo. It’s also possible he just has not realized what has happened yet.

It is highly unlikely that this man had anything to do with the bombings and there’s no reason to think he would be part of a government conspiracy or was another other than a spectator.  Unfortunately, conspiracy theorists can make it hard to put such things to rest.  The man in question could certainly come forward o explain his presence on the roof, but given how many of those involved in various events have become unwitting targets of harassment by conspiracy theorists, it would be understandable if he decided not to do so.

The proliferation of conspiracy theories is not helped by the inaccurate and inconsistent information that came out shortly after the event.   Although most of the details are not of great consequence, the fact that stories have changed has only added fuel to the fire.   It is understandable that there would be confusion after such a surprising and sudden event, and most of the inaccurate reports have reasonable explanations.

A few examples include the following:

1. Early reports were that the police had found a number of additional bombs along the route of the marathon, which did not explode.  It now seems that these were not bombs, but only packages or items that they were concerned might be bombs after the explosion.  Several suspicious boxes or bags were initially treated as being potential explosives, but none seem to have been real bombs.
2. An explosion was reported at the John F. Kennedy library, a short distance from the marathon route.  Initially, this was believed to be a possible third bomb, but it now appears to have been a fire in a mechanical room due to equipment malfunction.
3. It was reported that police were talking to a Saudi man, who was suspected in the bombing.  In fact, the police were talking to all the persons who were injured in the bombing.  All those who were in the hospital, but in a condition to talk were being interviewed about what they had seen.   One of them happened to be Saudi.
4. Cell phone service was not turned off to the Boston area, as some news organizations initially reported.   This may have been the result of an unnamed law enforcement official making this statement without being properly informed.   However, as a result of a massive surge in mobile phone traffic in the area, many calls made to or from downtown Boston may have failed to connect.   This is known to happen after disasters, when so many people attempt to call loved ones that all mobile phone frequencies become occupied with traffic.

More information on the various rumors and false reports can be found from Snopes.

Shortly after the bombing, the following article appeared in Slate:

Why the Conspiracy Theorists Will Have a Tough Time With Boston
By David Weigel

Shortly before 9 p.m. I got out of a much-needed, much-delayed catch-up with a friend who shared my desire to escape—briefly—the news from Boston. It was inescapable. A bar next door had turned a flatscreen toward the street, then cranked up the sound so that CNN’s live feed/interviews/speculation echoed around the block, attracting a steady crowd.

We walked past it right in time to hear the “false flag” guy. Dan Bidondi, a “reporter/analyist” (sic) for Alex Jones’ Infowars, managed to ask Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick the very first question in a nationally televised press conference.

…

But the truthers have a tough road ahead. The attacks in Boston lack a number of the factors they need to concoct a really compelling conspiracy theory. They’re always on the lookout for a “false flag” attack, a government-run ruse intended to bring public opinion in line. In reality, the last example they can point to of this is the Reichstag Fire; in fiction, it’s usually fun to point to Watchmen. But the Boston bombings are going to present some challenges.

Weigel lists a number of reasons why this event is so unlikely to be part of a huge governmental conspiracy. He points out that there is little any politician would appear to have to gain from the incident, that there were many cameras and wittnesses to document the events and that the claims made by conspiracy theorists are extremely weak.

While these are all perfectly good and logical reasons to dismiss conspiracy theories, I disagree with Weigle’s conclusion that thuthers will have a hard time coming up with conspiracy theories. In fact, I think he badly underestimates just how convoluted and illogical conspiracy theorists are willing to get in order to justify their idea of what happened. For some, the lack of an obvious motive only proves that there must be an even more sinister unobvious one and the huge number of witnesses only proves the conspiracy must have been enormous.

One expects that vested interests will tweak data or publish biased studies to support their own causes from time to time.  It’s dishonest and unacceptable, but it happens.  Still, sometimes the level of dishonesty is so severe it really shocks the conscious.

Such is the case with a recent “study” from the Radiation and Public Health Project.   It is so dishonest in its claims it really makes me wonder about the pathology of those who are behind it.  What is their goal?  To they, deep down, think they are serving a greater good with these lies?   Have they justified this to themselves through some rationalization that preserves their need for attention and to appear to be heros?   I’m sure a psychologist could have a field day.

Here is how it was reported in Yahoo News:

Fukushima fallout may be causing illness in American babies: Study
A new study from the Radiation and Public Health Project found that babies born in the western United States as well as other Pacific countries shortly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan in March 2011 may be at greater risk for congenital hypothyroidism.

Babies born in places including Hawaii, Alaska, California, Oregon and Washington shortly after Fukushima were 28 percent more likely to suffer from the illness, according to the study, than children born in those same regions one year earlier. The illness, if untreated, can cause permanent handicaps in both the body and brain.

According to the U.S. National Library of Medicine, “If untreated, congenital hypothyroidism can lead to intellectual disability and abnormal growth. In the United States and many other countries, all newborns are tested for congenital hypothyroidism. If treatment begins in the first month after birth, infants usually develop normally.”

But… how could this possibly be?

It is true that nuclear fission produces a significant quantity of iodine-131, a radioactive isotope which can cause damage to the thyroid, due to its high biological uptake and tendency to accumulate in the thyroid.   Thyroid tissue is radiation-sensitive to begin with, so in nuclear accidents, iodine-131 is one of the greatest concerns.

Of course, we are talking about the United States of America.  This is thousands of miles from Japan and any iodine-131 that might make it across the Pacific would be expected to be extremely dilute.   Not only that, but with a half-life of only eight days, the fact that it takes a minimum of a few days for atmospheric material to traverse the Pacific (and usually more than that) means that a good portion of the isotope would have decayed by the time it reached the US.

This is born out by the fact that when iodine-131 (which normally does not occur in nature) was detected in the US, after the Fukushima incident, the levels were miniscule.  Radioisotopes like iodine-131 can be detected at extremely low levels. This is done by collecting samples of precipitation, dust or air and placing them in a detector which can detect the characteristic energy levels of the gamma ray photons radioisotopes emit.  When a gamma ray of the energy associated with iodine-131 is detected, it indicates an atom of the isotope has decayed.  Since its half-life is so short, even a few hundred atoms of iodine-131 will produce detectable radiation, if they are present in a sample.

It is a testament to the precision of modern gamma spectrometers that iodine-131 could be detected at all in both the US and Europe.  Yet, although it was detected, in some cases, the levels were so low that the actual concentration could not even be reliably established.    This is not a big surprise, given that even in Tokyo, which was thousands of miles closer to Fukushima, the levels of iodine-131 only briefly exceeded what is considered the “safe” standard for infants.   It should be noted that the standard is extremely conservative.

If that is not compelling reason enough to be skeptical of claims that the iodine-131 levels in the US were high enough to cause harm to infants, it should also be noted that an entire generation of US citizens was exposed to hundreds or thousands of times more iodine-131 from atmospheric nuclear testing.   What harm this may have caused is still a matter of debate.  it likely did result in some additional cases of thyroid cancer, but it certainly did not lead to a large number of kids of the 1950’s and 1960’s with major thyroid problems.

So how could these babies possibly have been damaged by Fukishima fallout?

IT DIDN’T

Lets take a look at the actual study, which can be downloaded here.

The study starts off by citing examples of data that is either extraneous or just plain misleading.   For example, it claims that those born near certain nuclear power plants displayed higher rates of congenital hypothyroid than the general population, but it fails to show any demographic data or controls and does not provide any greater context about the variance of hypothyroid nor does it give any indication about the severity of the condition.

For example, it provides data that indicates there is a higher incidence of congenital hypothyroid in infants born in the four counties surrounding Indian Point Nuclear Power Station versus the United States average.   But what does this mean?   With no further context it’s impossible to tell.  Perhaps the rate of hypothyroid is very low in some parts of the country and that drives down the national average.   Or, perhaps an increase is associated with certain demographic factors, like living in densely populated regions versus more rural areas.  With no demographic control or context, it’s impossible to tell.  For all we know, these might be much lower than many other counties.

The study provides the following data, regarding Iodine-131 detected in the US:

A team from California State University-Long Beach measured I-131 in kelp on the California coast on April 20, 2011 just over a month after the Fukushima meltdowns. The highest levels in the dry seaweed were found in Orange County in southern California (250 times greater than before the accident), Santa Cruz in northern California (200 times greater), and Los Angeles County (60 times greater) [40]. In New Hampshire, close to the Atlantic coast, during the period March-May 2011 I-131 doubled from prior periods [41].

A national study conducted by the National Geological Survey examined concentrations of wet depositions of fission-produced isotopes in soil at sites across the US, for several radioisotopes, between March 15 and April 5, 2011. Results showed that for I-131, the highest depositions, in becquerels per cubic meter, occurred in north-west Oregon (5100), central California (1610), northern Colorado (833), coastal California (211), and western Washington (60.4). No other station recorded concentrations above 13. Similar results were observed for Cesium-134 and Cesium-137 [42]. All the cited locations are on or near the Pacific coast, with the exception of Colorado, in the western US.

It is surprising to learn that the I-131 levels were only two hundred times higher than normal. Normally, there is virtually no iodine-131 in the environment. The largest contributor is actually the iodine-131 excreted by those who have been given it for medical tests or therapy. Again, this goes to show just how astoundingly sensitive the analysis can be.

But there is another point here that can easily be missed. The level of analysis required to detect iodine-131 and quantify its concentration requires such sophisticated tests that data is not available for a very large number of samples. Only a handful of areas had samples taken for such extremely sensitive analysis. Had the levels been much higher, a simple gamma ray analyzer could have given a good measure of the iodine-131, but for such minute levels, large samples would have had to been placed for extended periods in very precise spectrometers.

This would seem to present a problem, because, obviously, you can’t quantify the effects of iodine-131 if you do not have reliable measurements.

A review of US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data measuring airborne levels of gross beta was conducted, to compare 2010 and 2011 levels. The EPA uses
air filters to measure aerosols at points close to ground level. The Agency typically does measurements about twice a week for 69 US sites. At the time of the analysis,
data were only available up to October 4, 2011, and thus results for the periods January 1 to October 4 were compared for 2010 and 2011 [46]. Beta measurements include a variety of radioisotopes, of which I-131 is a portion, meaning gross beta as a proxy for relative exposures to the thyroid gland.

The largest amounts of radioactive fallout in the US environment from Fukushima occurred in late March and all of April 2011, before declining to levels typically recorded in 2010. Thus, 2010-2011 comparisons were made for two periods. The first was March 15-April 30, and the second was the remainder of the period (January 1-
March 14 plus May 1-October 4). To identify an “exposed” population, we selected 18 EPA stations in the five Pacific/West Coast States for which at least 20 gross beta measurements were made during both 2010 and 2011. Many stations had considerably more, and thus a total of 1,043 and 1,083 measurements were used in the two years for the 18 stations.

I am absolutely floored that they would use such a method to estimate iodine-131 levels. It’s so unreliable that it is just about meaningless. Basically what they did is take the total amount of beta radiation recorded at a series of stations and presume was directly proportional to the levels of iodine-131.

Here’s how it basically works: The EPA has a number of radiation monitoring stations around the US. These stations include air samplers, which draw in air through a filter and then use radiation detectors to determine the radioactivity of the samples taken.   Some of these stations are sophisticated enough to distinguish iodine-131 and other isotopes, and they did indeed detect some iodine-131.

For whatever reason, the authors of this study decided not to use the actual iodine-131 readings at all.  Perhaps they would justify this by saying that there were too few sampling stations that could register iodine-131 or that the sampling was done too infrequently.   Instead, they used the “gross beta measurements.”

These measurements are in no way a measure of iodine-131.  They are simply a measurement of detected beta emissions.   Beta emissions come from a any number of isotopes, including many natural ones.  The level of beta radiation varies considerably depending on the atmospheric conditions and other factors.   For example, if there is a wind storm and a lot of dust is kicked up, the beta emission levels will go up.   If the barometric pressure drops and more radon escapes the earth, the beta emissions will go up.  If there is an increase in sunspots, the beta emissions will go up.

To assume that gross beta radiation is going to be proportional to iodine-131 is just absurd.

It goes on to say:

We identified a “control” group representing the remainder of the US. Thus, 31 sites were selected, representing a wide geographic diversity. These sites recorded 59 to 79 airborne beta measurements each year for the 288-day period January 1-October 4, approximately twice-weekly measurements for the entire period. In all, 2,211 and 2,057 measurements were included in each respective year for the 31 sites. The list of these 18 exposed and 31 control sites is given in Appendix 1

I’m having some major problems with this “control” group. It seems they selected sites that were not on the west coast and therefore, they presume, not as exposed to Fukushima fallout. But really? I have to wonder the logic on that, since if you are already thousands of miles from Japan, is it really fair to presume, given the already limited data, that moving a few hundred miles is going to make a huge difference in exposure?

I’d also love to know what the criteria were for selecting the 31 sites to represent the “control.” They say they were just representing wide geographic diversity. That does not sound like a rigorous control at all. They really should represent good geographic and demographic proxies for the “exposed” group.

The “average” beta for each group was calculated by dividing the arithmetic mean by the number of sites (18 or 31). Table 3 presents the changes in average beta for
exposed and control groups, for the periods of higher and lower/no exposure.

Just lumped the data from all the stations into two groups and averaged it for those groups? Seriously? Really? Are you kidding me?

With the greatest airborne gross beta increases documented on the west coast, we can assess any changes in CH incidence. All US newborns diagnosed with primary
CH born March 17-December 31, 2011 were exposed in utero to radioactive fallout from the Fukushima meltdowns. While these newborns were exposed at different phases of pregnancy, effects of exposure is elevated during the fetal period, compared to those during infancy, childhood, and adulthood.

NO! You do not know that! This is an extrapolation of an extrapolation of poor data of invalid data!

1. The gross beta count at stations does not provide a reliable measure of iodine-131 levels.
2. But even if it did, that would not mean that it was a good measure of exposure over a large geographic area, since there are a small number of stations.
3. But even if it did, that would not mean it was a good measure of how much iodine-131 was actually being absorbed by pregnant women, since that would depend on everything from diet to lifestyle to the chemical form the iodine took.
4. But even if it did, that would not be a very good measure for the effect on a fetus, since we do not have any kind of standardized development level and the authors freely admit that the pregnancies were at various stages.

If you actually wanted to measure this with any kind of reliability, the only way of doing it would be to directly measure the levels of iodine-131 exposure in the bloodstream of pregnant women and do so at established stages of the pregnancy, so you could have some meaningful data.

Basically, the study is doing this:  They’re trying to justify their position that a portion of the United States, namely the West Coast region received a very high level of iodine-131 exposure relative to the rest of the country.   They are trying to say that the rest of the country is a valid “control” and the west coast a valid experiment group for iodine-131.  They are doing this based on very limited and poor instrument data.

What they finally did was, having established that apparently the West Coastal states got more iodine-131 than the rest of the US, they simply looked at the numbers of babies born with hypothyroid based on state health department reports.

Phone calls to state newborn screening program coordinators for monthly confirmed primary CH cases for 2010 and 2011 provided data for 41 of 50 states, representing 87% of all US births.  Included in the 41 states were all five Pacific/West Coast States. Most of the other states not sharing statistical data were small states with under 10 cases per year, whose policies would not permit release of small numbers of cases due to confidentiality concerns. States reporting data are given in Appendix 2.

…

For births March 17 to December 31, the 2010-2011 change in confirmed CH cases in the five Pacific/West Coast States was significantly  greater than for 36 other US States (p < 0.02). These 41 states represent 87% of US births, meaning that this result likely represents the pattern for the entire nation. The largest gap between the two groups of states occurred in the period March 17 to June 30, which represents fetuses exposed to environmental radioiodine during the third trimester of pregnancy, after the thyroid gland is more fully developed than in the first two trimesters.

Once again, bear in mind that they don’t actually know any of these infants were exposed to high I-131 levels. It’s assumed based on extremely indirect and unreliable data.

Lets take a look at what they found:

So the rate of children born with hypothyroid basically held steady in the states they deemed “control” but went up in the states deemed “exposed.”

(And no, it does not matter where the mother lived during the pregnancy.  They assume that they lived in the area where the birth happened.  That may be true for most, but it’s one more assumption on top of already shaky data)

Does that mean anything? Given the data available, not really. The number is low to begin with and given the number of groups and quantity of data, it’s all but meaningless. There’s no context as to the variance of hypothyroid. Does it fluctuate much year to year? Impossible to know from the data.

And notice that the states deemed “Control” saw no increase at all and even a small decrease.   If we are to believe that this was actually caused by iodine-131, then the only explanation is that somehow the radioisotope stops completely at state borders, resulting in no increase, not even a small one, for births beyond the most western states of the US.  Somehow, it traveled thousands of miles and affected babies on the coast, but then stopped dead a couple hundred miles inland and produced no effect for the rest of the US.

The most glaring omission, however, is the number of children born and thus the actual ratio of hypothyroid. Remember, this is the total number per state. This is not the proportion of children born with hypothyroid. Therefore, if there were simply many people who moved to the West Coast in 2011, and many of them had children, the number would be expected to rise. Of course, there is also no accounting for demographic changes.

A look at demographic data provides more reason to doubt the conclusions of the study.   For example, in California, the largest state in the “exposed” group, there was a small decline in total births from 2010 to 2011, but a rise in births to mothers over the age of 30. It is established that births to older mothers have a higher rate of hypothyroid than to younger mothers.

There’s just nothing here. A minor, year to year, fluctuation in congenital hypothyroid that probably has nothing to do with iodine-131.

This study is so poor it never should have been published.