source_id
int64 1
4.64M
| question
stringlengths 0
28.4k
| response
stringlengths 0
28.8k
| metadata
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
39,041 | I was reading this article at theBlaze.com that talks about an interview Al Gore had with Chris Wallace (shown on Fox News on Sunday Jun 4, 2017). The article focuses on claims that Al Gore had made about climate change, such as that he made in his 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” and elsewhere that now seem alarmist. However here I would like to ask about the statement highlighted in bold in below quote from the article: “Greenland, for example, has been losing one cubic kilometer of ice
every single day. I went down to Miami and saw fish from the ocean
swimming in the streets on a sunny day. The same thing was true in
Honolulu just two days ago, just from high tides because of the sea
level rise now,” he added. There is no question that Al Gore said above, as it can be seen in this YouTube video starting at 9:17 point. Question: Can you see fish swim on the streets in Miami because of the sea level rise ? | Miami did have sunny day flooding, 3 feet above mean sea level , (2 feet higher than average high tide) in October and November of 2016. In November, it was reported that fish and an octopus were in a parking garage due to such flooding. However, this is primarily due to a local seasonal phenomenon, whereby tides are about 10 inches higher in mid-October than in the January to July time period (See slide 4 here ), coupled with the moon phase, especially the 14 November 2016 super moon . Overall, according to the slide presentation linked above, in the past 150 years, the sea level at Miami has risen 1 foot. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39041",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/41248/"
]
} |
39,053 | This morning, in an attempt to find inspiration for a name for my new puppy (who is a great talker), I googled "great orators". The second hit took me here , where JFK is again listed as one of history's great orators. However, I was surprised to read, Perhaps President’s Kennedy’s finest oration moment was his Ich Bin Ein Berliner speech – a notable moment of the Cold War. Delivered in front of the Berlin Wall in 1963, the speech provided a morale boost for West Berliners who feared an imminent East German occupation. “Two thousand years ago the proudest boast was civis Romanus sum [I am a Roman citizen]. Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is ‘Ich bin ein Berliner!’… All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words ‘Ich bin ein Berliner!’ Okay, so technical speaking what JFK told those German’s that summer day nearly 50 years ago actually meant: “I am a Jelly Donut” (No kidding, look it up). However, the crowd understood what the young president was speaking about and so did the Soviet Union. There is a jelly donut called a Berliner in English. Did the crowd think JFK said he (was) a jelly donut, and did they laugh? | No, it wasn't interpreted that way. Berliner is a name for a doughnut, similar to a Frankfurter being a type of sausage. However, it does also mean living in/being from Berlin, similar to Londoner. See this article, The Real Meaning of Ich Bin ein Berliner , as told by the director of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum: Afterward it would be suggested that Kennedy had got the translation
wrong—that by using the article ein before the word Berliner, he had
mistakenly called himself a jelly doughnut. In fact, Kennedy was
correct. To state Ich bin Berliner would have suggested being born in
Berlin, whereas adding the word ein implied being a Berliner in
spirit. His audience understood that he meant to show his solidarity. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39053",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/24840/"
]
} |
39,089 | Mark Joseph Stern wrote in a Slate article, This Is a Safe Space. No Jews Allowed : Why are some American progressives embracing overt anti-Semitism? ... Are you a Jew in Chicago who’d like to march for LGBTQ rights and gender equality? You’ll have to follow a few rules, helpfully laid out in recent weeks by the Chicago Dyke March and the Chicago SlutWalk. ... Second, you must express solidarity with Palestine. Marching in a parade with a pro-Palestinian stance is not sufficient, nor is advocating for a Palestinian state. As an openly Jewish person, you’ll need to satisfy more heightened scrutiny; other marchers may repeatedly demand that you disavow Israel and swear allegiance to the Palestinian cause. You must comply with these demands or else you will be expelled. There's a tweet from Chicago SlutWalk which I think contradicts that. It states: wrong. They were kicked out after a discussion where they made their Zionist beliefs known and refused to back down. Is that true that Jews who would like to join the Chicago SlutWalk march for gender equality have to follow such a rule? | An official statement from SlutWalk Chicago on Twitter is: [Question] will you afford protection to Jewish marchers [SlutWalkChicago Answer] all participants will be well protected, so ppl making Zionist or any other similarly nationalist, imperialist displays will be ejected Another official tweet is: we're v[ery] anti-Zionist For more information see: Chicago SlutWalk stands behind Dyke March, bans ‘Zionist displays’ from August protest this article explains that: Chicago Dyke March ejected three pro-LGBT, pro-Israel marchers who were reportedly waving flags with the Star of David superimposed over the LGBT rainbow Then ChicagoSlutWalk tweeted: "We still stand behind DykeMarchChi’s decision to remove the Zionist contingent from their event, & we won’t allow Zionist displays at ours" See also Chicago gay pride parade expels Star of David flags There is video and more information concerning the original ejection at Chicago woman kicked out of march over Jewish pride flag : They call it the Chicago Dyke March. Organizers say they call it that because they are trying to reclaim a term that has historically been used against people in the LGBTQ community. The march is separate from the Chicago Pride Parade and is billed as a more inclusive event focused on social justice. Laurie Grauer says she received her Jewish pride flag from Congregation Or Chadash, where she is a member. "It was Chicago's first, and for a while only, LGBT congregation," she said. Grauer says she and two other friends were told they were unwelcome at the 1,500-person march because their flags were offensive and threatening. A small part of the encounter after the march was caught on cell phone video. "For me, carrying this flag is a celebration of these identities I hold very dear -- being Jewish and being gay,” she said. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39089",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/32459/"
]
} |
39,112 | While browsing reddit , I saw the following graphic from the Late Stage Capitalism subreddit : (Two stick figures are shown, the second one with Shell's logo for a head) This is Bob. Bob gets $1,500/year in food stamps so his family doesn't starve. This is Shell. Shell gets $2 billion in subsidies a year. From the government for no real reason. I did a little internet searching and unsurprisingly there appears to be a lot of controversies around how oil companies receive tax breaks or subsidies. A lot of the debate seems to be focused on the semantics of the issue(s). Does Shell get around $2 billion a year in US government subsidies as the graphic suggests? | The infographic is false. Shell does not receive $2 Billion in subsidies a year. They do receive tax breaks, but not for "no real reason". The $2 Billion claim in the infographic seems to be either a misrepresentation or a misreading of values found on some websites online. An approximate value of $2 Billion for Royal Dutch Shell has been presented on mic.com , cheatsheet.com , The Washington Post , etc. However, this amount is for total tax subsidies received since 2003, as mic.com put it. Royal Dutch Shell has managed to nab over $2 billion in subsidies since just 2003 alone. This is backed up by the supposed source of the mic.com article, Good Jobs First , who self describe in their About Us page as [A] national policy resource center for grassroots groups and public officials, promoting corporate and government accountability in economic development and smart growth for working families. We provide timely, accurate information on best practices in state and local job subsidies, and on the many ties between smart growth and good jobs. Good Jobs First works with a very broad spectrum of organizations, providing research, training, communications and consulting assistance. Good Jobs First, among other things, serves as a watchdog for government subsidies, and maintains a database of subsidies and tax bonuses awarded to companies. Of note is the page for Royal Dutch Shell. There are four things of major note on this page. The value presented on the page for RDS is $1.725 Billion, not $2 Billion as mic.com claims (while linking to this site at the same time) $1.65 Billion, or 95.7%, comes from a single deal with the state of Pennsylvania for a tax-credit to build a massive petrochemical plant there . The tax subsidies are a summation of all subsidies since 2003, not per year as the image claims. The image tries to link federal SNAP benefits to total tax benefits for RDS. Of the $1.725 Billion listed on the page for RDS, total federal tax benefits account for $4.9 Million , or 0.2% of all total tax benefits . This is futher backed up by an article on Mother Jones . In the article, they estimate approximately $200 million in tax subsidies for RDS. However, there is no source for their estimate. Even though OP did not ask about the "no real reason" portion of the image, I've elected to at least address it. While "no real reason" is a subjective statement, the majority of tax write offs for RDS (and "Big Oil" companies as a whole) are not something exclusive to the Oil Industry. David Blackmon, writing for Forbes in an article entitled Oil And Gas Tax Provisions Are Not Subsidies For "Big Oil" The truth is that the oil and gas industry receives the same kinds of tax treatments that every other manufacturing or extractive industry receives in the federal tax code. Basically, Percentage Depletion is the oil and gas industry’s version of a depreciation deduction for its main asset, which is the oil and natural gas in the ground, commonly known as its reserves. Every industry of any kind is allowed a depreciation deduction on its assets under the U.S. Tax Code, but, far from being a “subsidy” for “big oil”, this tax treatment was in fact repealed for all integrated oil companies, i.e., ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, etc., in 1975, and is today available only to independent producers and royalty owners. Another great example of the specious mischaracterization of these tax treatments is the Manufacturer’s Tax Deduction, more commonly referred to as Section 199. The Section 199 provision was enacted by congress in 2004 as a means of encouraging manufacturers to relocate overseas jobs to the U.S., and is in no way specific to or limited to the oil and gas industry. In fact, the oil & gas industry’s ability to take advantage of this provision has already been singled out for limitation – in 2008, Congress reduced the industry’s deduction under this provision to 2/3rds of what other manufacturing industries are allowed to deduct. Finally, let’s talk about Intangible Drilling Costs (IDCs), another feature of the federal tax code that will enjoy its’ 100th birthday in 2013. Basically, IDCs are the costs incurred by the oil and gas industry in the drilling of its wells. Since drilling wells is the only means of finding oil and natural gas, IDCs essentially amount to what any other industry would be able to deduct as a part of its cost of goods sold, a concept of accounting and tax law as old as the tax code itself. Independent producers and royalty owners are allowed an election to either a) expense these costs in the year they are incurred, or b) amortize them over a 5-year period. Again, most media reports commonly characterize this as a “subsidy” for “big oil”, as does the Obama Administration. The truth is that “big oil” – the ExxonMobils, Chevrons, Shells and BPs of the world – benefit much less from this tax treatment, it having been severely limited to them by congress in 1986, and again in 1992. And the truth also is that IDCs are not a “subsidy” to anyone engaged in the oil and gas business. Ultimately, a large portion of tax write-offs that Oil Companies take advantage of are write-offs that are not native or exclusive to the Oil Industry itself, and the taxes that are specific to the Oil Industry are limited in their scope for larger companies. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39112",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/49/"
]
} |
39,130 | This image is doing the rounds on Facebook: It quotes a tweet by Donald Trump from early 2016, followed by claims that the Trump administration has performed these actions: Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs. Donald J. Trump – @realDonaldTrump Jan: Removed all content on LGBT civil rights from whitehouse.gov website Feb: Rescinded protections for transgender students on their use of restrooms in public schools Mar: Revoked protections for LGBT workers against discrimination in hiring employment Apr: drops federal lawsuit over North Carolina's statewide prohibition on LGBT equality July: Signals the US military will not "accept or allow" transgender people to serve Did the Trump administration perform all of the claimed actions, on the months cited? | Jan: removed all content on LGBT civil rights from whitehouse.gov website True During Barack Obama’s presidency, if you typed whitehouse.gov/lgbt into your browser, you reached a page highlighting the administration’s victories and policy changes regarding LGBT rights. It outlined historic court victories and even featured campaigns like the It Gets Better Project to help LGBT youth. Today, however -- just hours after President Donald J. Trump took the oath of office as the United States’ 45th president -- if you type in whitehouse.gov/lgbt, you are redirected to a new “transitionsplash” page. CBS News Feb: Rescinded protections for transgender students on their use of restrooms in public schools True The Trump administration on Wednesday revoked federal guidelines specifying that transgender students have the right to use public school restrooms that match their gender identity, taking a stand on a contentious issue that has become the central battle over LGBT rights. Washington Post , see also Reuters , NPR , NY Times . With regard to the effect of this guidance on court cases, see as an example, this order , which cites both the Obama administration guidance and the Trump administration withdrawal of that guidance as cause for, first, the 4th district to reverse a lower court opinion (the original Obama administration guidance) and then caused the Supreme Court to vacate the 4th district's decision (in response to the Trump administration withdrawal of that guidance). In response to Obama administration guidance In a decision dated April 19, 2016, we reversed the district court’s dismissal of
Grimm’s Title IX claim, relying on a guidance document issued by the U.S. Department
of Education and U.S. Department of Justice. In response to Trump administration withdrawal After the Supreme Court calendared the case for argument, the new Administration
issued a guidance document on February 22, 2017, that withdrew the prior Administration’s guidance document regarding the treatment of transgender students, and the Court then vacated our April 2016 decision and remanded the case to us “for further consideration in light of the [new] guidance document issued by the Department of Education and Department of Justice.” Mar: Revoked protections for LGBT workers against discrimination in hiring employment True - his action was limited to discrimination limits relating to federal contractors. Trump signed an order on Monday revoking protections signed into law by President Obama in 2014. Obama signed an executive order banning LGBT discrimination among federal contractors; he concurrently signed an order requiring contracted businesses prove they're complying with federal laws and executive orders. President Trump rescinded the latter order, making it much more difficult to know whether a business has committed to ending LGBT bias in hiring, firing, and promotions. The Advocate , see also Rolling Stone , Boston Globe , Salon Apr: drops federal lawsuit over North Carolina's statewide prohibition on LGBT equality True - the reason given for dropping the federal suit is that North Carolina repealed one bill and replaced it with another. The new bill was watered down but still attracted intense criticism by LGBT groups who believe the federal suit should have continued against the replacement bill. Officials said that they were abandoning the lawsuit because North Carolina lawmakers last month enacted a law repealing the bathroom bill and replacing it with another measure. The new law, however, has prompted intense criticism from the LGBT groups who long opposed the first bill and are vowing to keep fighting the new measure in court despite the Justice Department’s decision to bow out. Washington Post , see also CNN July: Signals the US military will not "accept or allow" transgender people to serve True Donald Trump said on Wednesday he would not allow transgender individuals to serve in the US military in any capacity, reversing a policy put in place by Barack Obama a year ago. The US president tweeted: “After consultation with my generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States government will not accept or allow … transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the US military.” The Guardian , see also NY Times | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39130",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/8366/"
]
} |
39,156 | Jeff Hunt, the Vice President of Public Policy at Colorado Christian University, wrote in a recent opinion piece in USA Today : In the years since, Colorado has seen an increase in marijuana related traffic deaths, poison control calls, and emergency room visits. The marijuana black market has increased in Colorado , not decreased. And, numerous Colorado marijuana regulators have been indicted for corruption. [...] According to the Colorado Department of Public Safety, arrests in Colorado of black and Latino youth for marijuana possession have increased 58% and 29% respectively after legalization. This means that Black and Latino youth are being arrested more for marijuana possession after it became legal. It seems unlikely that legalizing something would lead to an increase in black market activity around it. So, is the claim true? | This question has one claim in the title and four others in the body 1. The black market in Colorado has increased since legalization Possible. There are claims many places including here that legalization has created an environment where illegal and quasi-legal growers can grow and export to other states. But that's unlikely to be correlated with increased black market sales within Colorado, since it's only illegal for teenagers and children, and statewide surveys of youth in Colorado, Washington, Alaska, and Oregon found that there were no significant increases in youth marijuana use post-legalization. 2. Increase in marijuana-related traffic deaths Contrary to the data. A Drug Policy Alliance study says: Legalization has not led to more dangerous road conditions, as traffic fatality rates have remained stable in Colorado, Washington, Alaska, and Oregon. 3. Increase in poison control calls Contrary to the data. According to the Denver Post : Three years into regulated sales of recreational cannabis, the Retail Marijuana Public Health Advisory Committee says calls to poison control and marijuana-related emergency room visits are down, even though overall consumption of pot remains steady — signs that existing policy and education efforts may be working. 4. Increase in marijuana-related emergency room visits Partly, but that may be due to increased reporting (decreased hiding of marijuana usage). A recent report from Colorado's Department of Public Safety says: [...] it is too early to draw any conclusions about the potential effects of marijuana legalization or commercialization on public safety, public health, or youth outcomes, and this may always be difficult due to the lack of historical data.
Furthermore, the information presented here should be interpreted with caution. The decreasing social stigma regarding marijuana use could lead individuals to be more likely to report use on surveys and to health workers in emergency departments and poison control centers, making marijuana use appear to increase when perhaps it has not. 5. Arrests of black and Latino youths for possession have increased (58% and 29%)** Unlikely. According to the same Drug Policy Alliance study: Arrests in [all states] and Washington, D.C. for the possession, cultivation and distribution of marijuana have plummeted since voters legalized the adult use of marijuana, although disproportionate enforcement of marijuana crimes against black people continues. The quote above from the pdf says "all states", but refers to the set of states studied (in which recreational marijuana was legalized). Here's a quote from the summary (also from the DPA) of the study: Marijuana arrests have plummeted in the states that legalized marijuana, although disproportionate enforcement of marijuana crimes against black people continues. Specifics about youth arrests has been hard to find since the airspace is dominated by people worried about the white-vs-minority arrest rates. There's a Colorado Department of Public Safety report which finds The types of filings did change, with an increase in public consumption and offenses within 1,000 feet of schools, and a decrease for minor in possession and offenses around the 16 th Street Mall. (NOTE: not necessarily minors, but the "schools" part is suggestive) | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39156",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/32287/"
]
} |
39,216 | Was violence perpetrated by factions on both the left and the right side of the political spectrum during this rally? A specific quote by US president Donald Trump is: TRUMP: The driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family and this country. And that is, you can call it terrorism, you can call it murder, you can call it whatever you want. I would just call it as the fastest one to come up with a good verdict. That's what I'd call it. Because there is a question: Is it murder, is it terrorism? And then you get into legal semantics. The driver of the car is a murderer and what he did was a horrible, horrible, inexcusable thing. [...] [...] you had a group on one side that was bad. And you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that. But I'll say it right now. [...] You had a group, you had a group on the other side that came charging in without a permit and they were very, very violent. [...] I've condemned neo Nazis. I've condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists, by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue, Robert E. Lee. [...] REPORTER: Are you putting what you're calling the alt left and white supremacists on the same moral plane? TRUMP: I'm not putting anybody on a moral plane. What I'm saying is this. You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and it was horrible and it was a horrible thing to watch. But there is another side. There was a group on this side, you can call them the left, you've just called them the left, that came, violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that's the way it is. REPORTER: You said there was hatred and violence on both sides — TRUMP: Well, I do think there's blame, yes, I think there's blame on both sides. You look at both sides. I think there's blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it. And you don't have any doubt about it either. And, and if you reported it accurately, you would say it. | In the literal sense, yes. There's no question that both sides were mutually combative, engaging in fistfights and small-scale skirmishes with improvised melee weapons. There are many accounts of this: NY Times WTVR ABC News You can just watch some video of the event and make your own judgement. You'll see there were plenty of small scale fights where both individuals are throwing punches. If we take the literal meaning of Trump's words, it is factually correct that there was violence on both sides. I don't believe this claim is subject to any controversy or dispute. In the way that Trump means, no. The controversy comes from the implication that there was approximately the same amount of violence from both sides, or that the violence from one side somehow excuses or lessens the violence committed by the other. Both are false. Trump is using rhetoric to assert a false equivalence. His argument is that since both sides committed some amount of violence they are therefore as violent/deplorable/bad as each other. It admits no nuance around the disproportionate scale of the violence (ignoring the helicopter crash, for which details haven't been released yet, there was 1 death and "more than 3 dozen" reported injuries , the former and more than half of the latter attributable to the vehicle attack alone), nor the mutual nature of much of the smaller-scale incidents, nor the underlying motivation for the violence. Only one person committed murder. Only one person employed a tactic used by terrorists , deliberately driving a vehicle into a crowd of people. Only one person committed an act which the U.S. Attorney General described as "domestic terrorism" . This person's affiliation was not with the side claimed to have been "violently attacking the other group". He was an Ohio resident who traveled to Virginia to march alongside neo-Nazis, and his actions have been described by a member of that group as " points for us ". Both sides were violent and had people arrested for it . One side did objectively more and objectively more severe violence than the other. However, that's not the side Trump is referring to when he calls one group "very, very violent". He's deliberately overstating the violence committed by one side, and understating the violence committed by the other. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39216",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/40364/"
]
} |
39,232 | In "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" , James Damore wrote (emphasis added on claim): On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because: They’re universal across human cultures They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males The underlying traits are highly heritable They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective - "Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber" , James Damore (2017-07) [unverified reproduction] The claim about biological males that were castrated at birth seems rather odd as it would require a study to have been preformed that would be highly unethical. A search turned up David Reimer , a man who had this happen to him via a series of accidents that could be construed to have this effect. However, a single data point isn't sufficient to establish a trend. Is there evidence to support this claim? Are there scientific instances of this type of research that relates to male and female behavior? | tl;dr - This claim is true. It may sound weird that some biological males are castrated and then raised as though they were female, however it's been done to address a birth defect where genitals aren't properly formed. A recent survey suggests that this practice is in decline. Other studies show that sex-specific biology affects behavior in ways that aren't reversed by genital reconstruction or social conditioning. These biological differences include hormone levels and brain structure. Study The central claim in this question is addressed based on "Discordant Sexual Identity in Some Genetic Males with Cloacal Exstrophy Assigned to Female Sex at Birth" (2004) which isn't behind a paywall. Other sources seem to agree, and these findings seem to be noncontroversial from a scientific perspective. Related studies can be found by searching for literature that cites this paper. Related: Google Scholar has a list of papers that cite this one . Google Scholar has a list of related works . Why are males being castrated and raised as females? The background section explains why biological males are being castrated. In short, it's to resolve a birth defect: BACKGROUND Cloacal exstrophy is a rare, complex defect of the entire pelvis and its contents that occurs during embryogenesis and is associated with severe phallic inadequacy or phallic absence in genetic males. For about 25 years, neonatal assignment to female sex has been advocated for affected males to overcome the issue of phallic inadequacy, but data on outcome remain sparse. – "Discordant Sexual Identity in Some Genetic Males with Cloacal Exstrophy Assigned to Female Sex at Birth" (2004-01-22) Wikipedia describes this birth defect, cloacal exstrophy , as: Cloacal exstrophy (EC) is a severe birth defect wherein much of the abdominal organs (the bladder and intestines ) are exposed. It often causes the splitting of both male and female genitalia (specifically, the penis and clitoris respectively), and the anus is occasionally sealed. So, what do doctors do when a patient has deformed genitals? As described in the paper: THE CONCEPT OF SEXUAL IDENTITY IN persons with genital malformations has
intrigued the medical world since Money and colleagues' pioneering studies of intersex in the 1950s. 1,2 They later reasoned that an infant's sex could be assigned if corresponding genitalia were constructed during infancy and the child's upbringing corresponded to that sex. 3 – "Discordant Sexual Identity in Some Genetic Males with Cloacal Exstrophy Assigned to Female Sex at Birth" (2004-01-22) The paper describes these patients as biological males with deformities rather than intersexed : Cloacal exstrophy is not an intersex condition: aphallia and phallic inadequacy are structural anomalies. 6-9,16 – "Discordant Sexual Identity in Some Genetic Males with Cloacal Exstrophy Assigned to Female Sex at Birth" (2004-01-22) Study's results However, it was unclear what actually happened to these newborns later in life; did the assigned gender stick after given the corresponding genitals and socialization? RESULTS Eight of the 14 subjects assigned to female sex declared themselves male during the course of this study, whereas the 2 raised as males remained male. Subjects could be grouped according to their stated sexual identity. Five subjects were living as females; three were living with unclear sexual identity, although two of the three had declared themselves male; and eight were living as males, six of whom had reassigned themselves to male sex. All 16 subjects had moderate-to-marked interests and attitudes that were considered typical of males. – "Discordant Sexual Identity in Some Genetic Males with Cloacal Exstrophy Assigned to Female Sex at Birth" (2004-01-22) This finding seems to conclusively support Damore's claim that " Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males ". Gender assignment practices appear to be changing It appears that the practice of raising biological males as female due to such structural issues is declining: CONCLUSIONS: Although there is an association between the external appearance of the genitalia and the choice of sex assignment, there are clear temporal trends in this practice pointing toward an increased likelihood of affected infants being raised as boys. The impact of this change in practice on long-term health outcomes requires additional focus. – "Changes Over Time in Sex Assignment for Disorders of Sex Development" (2014-09) Biology is known to cause behavioral differences It's probably common knowledge that behavior-affecting hormones vary significantly by sex. For example, adult males have about 20 times the the testosterone level of adult females. In popular culture, testosterone is often taken to characterize male behavior. In women the testosterone levels which were only about 5% of that of men from the same age group decreased only slightly, starting from a median of 0.9 to 0.6 nmol/l. – "Reference intervals for testosterone, androstenedione and SHBG levels in healthy females and males from birth until old age." (2005) There're also differences in brain structure, and these differences do affect behavior: During the intrauterine period the human brain develops in the male direction via direct action of a boy's testosterone, and in the female direction through the absence of this hormone in a girl. During this time, gender identity (the feeling of being a man or a woman), sexual orientation, and other behaviors are programmed. As sexual differentiation of the genitals takes places in the first 2 months of pregnancy, and sexual differentiation of the brain starts during the second half of pregnancy, these two processes may be influenced independently of each other, resulting in transsexuality. This also means that in the case of an ambiguous gender at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the same degree of masculinization of the brain. Differences in brain structures and brain functions have been found that are related to sexual orientation and gender. – "Sexual differentiation of the brain and behavior" (2007-09) Due to factors like these, it's unsurprising that biological males would still exhibit stereotypical male behaviors despite having had their genitals restructured and being raised as female. Reference: What's sex? In humans, sex is defined by the XY sex determination-system . Most other mammals use this same system, though it can be different for insects, fish, etc.. Almost all ( ~99.94% ) humans fall into this system, being either XX (female) or XY (male). However, some people can have an extra chromosome in some of their cells, such as in Down syndrome . Since a person with XXX chromosomes still uses just the X chromosome while a person with XXY still has a Y affecting their chemical makeup, the definition of sex has been extended to: People with a Y chromosome are male. Almost all males are XY; but XXY , XYY , XXYY , XXXXY , etc., qualify. People without a Y chromosome are female. Almost all females are XX; but X , XXX , XXXX , XXXXX , etc., qualify. People who can't really be said to be uniformly with-or-without a Y chromosome are intersexed . 1-in-1,666 (~0.06%) births aren't either XX or XY ( source ); some of these ~0.06% births are intersexed. For example, XX males have some of the content from a Y chromosome, but not a full Y chromosome. For example, people with chimeric / mosaic conditions can have a mix of cells with XX and XY chromosomes . The above study that this answer is based on didn't have any intersexed individuals; all males were male by the standard biological definition, not to be confused with gender identity. DISCUSSION Cloacal exstrophy is not an intersex condition: aphallia and phallic inadequacy are structural anomalies. 6-9,16 – "Discordant Sexual Identity in Some Genetic Males with Cloacal Exstrophy Assigned to Female Sex at Birth" (2004-01-22) So, that study demonstrates that unambiguously male infants, i.e. those with XY chromosomes, still retain male behaviors despite castration and being raised female. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39232",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/41574/"
]
} |
39,261 | According to the photo of an anti-gay poster depicted here : 92% of children of gay parents are abused 51% have depression 72% are obese My questions: Are these stats supported by other studies? If not, how much do they deviate from other studies? How many children in the USA (study was done in USA): are abused, have depression, are obese? I'm asking no 2. because stats are meaningless without the baseline to compare. Note that this poster mentions a source: Dr. Paul Sullins, "Invisible Victims: Delayed Onset Depression among Adults with Same-Sex Parents", Depression Research and Treatment, vol. 2016, article ID 2410392, 8 pages, 2016. doi: 10.1155/2016/2410392 | What the writings by Sullins say Invisible Victims: Delayed Onset Depression among Adults with Same-Sex Parents is available online: Retrospective questions at Waves III and IV asked about adult mistreatment during childhood, including whether a parent or caregiver had “slapped, hit or kicked you,” said “things that hurt your feelings or made you feel you were not wanted or loved,” or “touched you in a sexual way, forced you to touch him or her in a sexual way, or forced you to have sex relations.” Respondents reporting any physical, verbal, or sexual abuse at either Wave were coded positive for abuse victimization. Four-fifths (79%, 95% CI 77–80) of reported mistreatment was verbal abuse. Ninety percent of the same-sex parented children reported parental abuse at Wave III The 92% figure is from this table . The percentage for opposite-sex parents was 58.2%. Implication of the poster The image in the poster implies physical abuse by men. However, Sullins only looked at 20 cases, 17 of which were children of lesbians. Additionally, 79% of the abuse was verbal abuse. Criticism of Sullins and his writing The same journal that published his writings, published a comment on those which criticizes his methodology: Sullins achieves this through a crucial elision between households in which a child spent some time in a home headed by a same-sex couple and families in which a child was actually raised, from birth, by a stable same-sex couple, a situation more auspicious for healthy child development. This conflation of household stability with parent gender fatally mars his conclusions, which are much more damning of gay and lesbian parenting than are warranted by his data. Sullins claims that his study examines “children raised by same-sex parents into early adulthood.” But in fact, he has zero basis to draw this conclusion, as he is applying a wholly untenable definition of “raised by.” All he knows about his dataset is that his subjects, who ranged in age from 12 to 18, spent some of their teenage years with a parent who at some point had a same-sex partner. Since we do not know if that partner was ever actually a parent, legally or otherwise, it is inaccurate to characterize such households as “same-sex parented” as Sullins does eleven times. Not only is there no basis to conclude that these subjects were raised by same-sex parents, but also there is every reason to believe they likely were not. This descriptor, of course, is the key variable in the discourse on optimal child-rearing because of the well-established fact that children who experience divorce or other family disruptions are at higher risk for a number of disadvantages, including the ones that Sullins inaccurately associates with “same-sex parented” households. The main point here is that Sullins uses a poor definition of "raised by" which doesn't actually mean "raised by", and which includes a disproportionate number of children affected by divorce for same-sex couples. As children were not asked who abused them, in can happen that children that Sullins describes as "raised by" same sex couples were abused by their other parent. As T. Sar pointed out in the comments, further criticism - including criticism of the journal as low quality and pay to publish - is formulated in this Slate article . The publisher also commented on the publication: In June 2016, several readers raised concerns about this article. At that time, we evaluated the article’s peer review process and brought several concerns to the handling editor’s attention. These included: the study’s small sample of same-sex parents, the lack of discussion of other influences such as family breakup on the wellbeing of the children included in the study, the implied causation in the title “Invisible Victims,” and the potential conflict of interest implied by the author’s position as a Catholic priest . Paul Sullins is in fact not just a priest, he works with the Family Research Council, which is designated as a hate group by the SPLC. The FRC thinks that homosexuality is "harmful", "can never be affirmed", and is "by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects". They oppose acceptance of homosexuality in "law, in the media, and in schools". Same-sex parenting The APA answers the broader question regarding same-sex parenting: On the basis of a remarkably consistent body of research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, the American Psychological Association (APA) and other health professional and scientific organizations have concluded that there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation. That is, lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. This body of research has shown that the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children are unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39261",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/40934/"
]
} |
39,276 | From Fox News ESPN pulls Asian-American announcer from Virginia football game because he has a Confederate general's name In the wake of the events in Charlottesville, Va., ESPN decided to
pull one of its announcers from calling a University of Virginia
football game -- because his name is Robert Lee. Lee, an Asian-American sportscaster who started with the network in
2016, was moved to a different game "simply because of the coincidence
of his name," ESPN said, referencing the Confederate general Robert E.
Lee. The article continues with a mention of accusations of left-wing bias by ESPN: ESPN, which has faced accusations of liberal bias that some observers
believe has led to a downtick in viewership, said it moved its
announcer to the Youngstown State game at Pittsburgh. The claim seems to have originated from Outkick the Coverage, which also accuses ESPN of left-wing bias MSESPN Pulls Asian Announcer Named Robert Lee Off UVa Game To Avoid Offending Idiots In a story that seems made for The Onion, but is actually true,
according to multiple Outkick fans inside ESPN MSESPN decided to pull
an Asian college football announcer named Robert Lee off the William
and Mary at University of Virginia college football game because they
were concerned that having an ASIAN FOOTBALL ANNOUNCER NAMED ROBERT
LEE would be offensive to some viewers. Did I mention that Robert Lee is Asian? Is this even real life anymore? This might even be worse than MSESPN
apologizing for the fantasy football slave draft a couple of weeks
ago. To avoid offending left wing idiots Robert Lee, the Asian college
football announcer, not the Confederate General who died in 1870 and
shares a name with him, was switched to the Youngstown State at
Pittsburgh game and Dave Weekley will now call the William and Mary at
University of Virginia game. "MSESPN" is a derogatory term for ESPN. From the same blog, ESPN Profit Plummets As Network Turns Left : The result of this coming financial calamity has been panic, which has
primarily manifested itself in a desperate ploy for relevance. ESPN
decided to become a social justice warrior network, treating all
liberal opinion makers as those worthy of promotion and casting aside
all those who had the gall to challenge the new Disney world order. ESPN became MSESPN. Since then, the reports have spread, possibly virally, to media which don't allege left-wing bias by ESPN. I tried searching ESPN for official confirmation, but couldn't find any. I came across ESPN broadcaster Robert Lee taken off UVA game due to name , but that's an automated publishing of an article from a news agency: Copyright 2017 by The Associated Press This story is from ESPN.com's automated news wire. Wire index Did ESPN remove Robert Lee from announcing a game (moving him to announcing a different game), and have they cited the similarity between his name and that of a confederate general? | It is true that the announcer Robert Lee scheduled for the game in Charlottesville was switched to a different game by ESPN. From a New York Times article on the subject : After the violence in Charlottesville, which left one person dead,
ESPN executives and Mr. Lee decided that for his safety it would be
best to have him to work on a different game that Saturday, a network
spokesman said. “We collectively made the decision with Robert to switch games as the
tragic events in Charlottesville were unfolding, simply because of the
coincidence of his name,” ESPN said in a statement. ESPN states that the reason was safety issues, and that Robert Lee himself was involved in the decision. To clarify a few points mentioned in your quotes: he was reassigned to a different game, not simply removed from a game ESPN hasn't said anything about "avoiding offending" people according to the news articles so far the game this is about is actually in Charlottesville, this is not a random game just anywhere | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39276",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/104/"
]
} |
39,295 | The movie Silent Epidemic: The Untold Story of Vaccines presents arguments against vaccination. One of the arguments is that the alleged benefits of vaccines are actually due to modern health and sanitation. Nancy Banks is shown saying : many of the infectious diseases were already 90% reduced when the vaccines were introduced Sherri J. Tenpenny is shown saying : illnesses have spiked and been mostly been gone by the time a vaccine was introduced, making the vaccine the hero when in fact the illness was mostly gone before the vaccine came on the horizon I've often see similar claims paired with a graph like this, from Suzanne Humphries at Dissolving Illusions : A similar issue - restricted to measles - is covered in these questions: Was measles vaccine introduced after the disease was under control Would measles be no great health risk in the US, even without vaccines? The answers essentially say that measles deaths did drop before vaccines were introduced, but overall cases did not drop dramatically until vaccination programs were widespread. I haven't seen anything related to claims that it was a broader range of infectious diseases. Were many vaccine-preventable diseases almost gone before vaccines were introduced? | Summary: The main point of these claims is that the death rate for some diseases was declining before vaccines. While that is true, it misses the fact that even though the death rate was declining, plenty of people (mostly children) were still getting and suffering from these diseases. Vaccines dramatically decreased both the number of total cases, the severity of cases, and also the number of total deaths. (Another thing worth mentioning, although not directly related to the claim, is that preventing a disease with vaccines means that antibiotics won't be used, and thus antibiotic resistance can't develop.) There are several problems with your graph: no sources, lumps four diseases in one line (including Scarlet Fever), and only has mortality (except for when they inexplicably include diarrhea...WTF?). So I'm going to address a similar graph, from another antivax site: Archive Link I think that Scarlet Fever (also called Scarlatina) was included in the graph because it was grouped with diphtheria until 1861. (Or maybe they're trying to trick you.) There is currently no vaccine for Scarlet Fever, so it's pretty irrelevant here. The problem with only looking at the deaths is that for many of these diseases the treatment improved and fewer people died, but they were still getting infected in the first place. While there are...inconvenient...breaks in the graph, the data in the graph seems to be accurate. You can check the sources listed in the image if you want: The 20th Century Mortality Files, 1901-2000 (I think this is the right one...) Report to The Honourable Sir George Cornwell Lewis... Pearce's Essay on Vaccination Death rate: 19th century I found a paper that lists some 19th century disease statistics. The data is not as granular as in the graph, nor does it all go back as far as 1838 (and some of the stats cover the gap seen in the graph), but the data that is there matches up with the 19th century part of the graph well. The full paper also lists stats for Scarlet Fever and Smallpox. Measles mortality rate per 100 000 living: 1838-1910 1838-42 53.9 1847-52 40.3 1856-60 42.5 1866-70 42.8 1876-80 38.5 1886-90 46.8 1896-1900 42.1 1901-5 32.7 1906-10 29.1 Death rate per million from Diphtheria: 1855-1893 [Divide by 10 to get rate per 100,000 as in the image.] 1855 20 1860 261 1865 126 1870 120 1875 142 1880 109 1835 163 1890 179 1893 302 It was classified with scarlet fever until 1861; and because of the uncertainty of diagnosis, any conclusions about it must be speculative. An antitoxin was discovered in 1894, but, as with all early antitoxins,
it had to be administered within the first four days of infection, which
is when symptoms are the least evident. However, the mortality did
decline from 9 446 deaths in 1894 to 7 661 in 1898. This fall probably relates to the wealthier classes, since the antitoxin was expensive, and not distributed free. It was 1913 before there was an effective diphtheria prophylactic and 1923, before the first safe vaccine was produced. Whooping cough death rate per 1 000 [Multiply by 100 to get rate per 100,000 as in the image.] 1881-5 0.46 1886-90 0.44 1891-5 0.40 1896-1900 0.36 Anderson, Imogen (1993) The decline of mortality in the nineteenth century: with special reference to three English towns , Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/5687/ Death rate: 20th Century I already linked to data for the UK/Wales , so I'll cover some US data. The CDC has Vital Statistics of the United States which go as far back as 1900. The PDF Vital Statistics Rates in the United States, 1900-1940 lists how many people per year died from various causes (but I'm only listing some years for three diseases): Exclusive of stillbirths. By place of occurrence. Rates are the number of deaths per 100,000. Population estimated as of July 1 for 1900-1939 and enumerated as of Apr. 1 1940 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 Measles 13.3 12.4 18.8 3.2 0.5 Whooping Cough 12.2 11.6 12.5 4.8 2.2 Diphtheria[*] 40.3 21.1 15.3 4.9 1.1 [* includes Croup for years 1900-1920] And some graphs (from the CDC ): [No graph for whooping cough] Death rate vs. All cases Vaccines don't treat diseases; they prevent them. As a result, it's important to look at rates of incidence. If you look at the data, you'll notice that the rate of incidence is pretty high and then gets lowered after the vaccine is introduced. See this good article: Graphical proof that vaccines work (with sources) You may need to use Archive.org to view some of the sources, like Appendix E- Pink Book 2015 - Reported Cases . Here is a chart with lots of diseases: Image Source: Our World in Data These data are taken from Roush and Murphy (2007) – Historical comparisons of morbidity and mortality for vaccine-preventable diseases in the United States. In the Journal of the American Medical Association, 298, 18, 2155–2163. The same data can be viewed in a table here . More CDC Pink Book : Measles Pertussis Diphtheria CDC: What Would Happen If We Stopped Vaccinations? CDC: Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Control of Infectious Diseases | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39295",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/41688/"
]
} |
39,414 | The WikiQuote page for Karl Marx claims he wrote this in a letter to Pavel Annenkov, 28 December 1846: Freedom and slavery constitute an antagonism. There is no need for me to speak either of the good or of the bad aspects of freedom. As for slavery, there is no need for me to speak of its bad aspects. The only thing requiring explanation is the good side of slavery. I do not mean indirect slavery, the slavery of proletariat; I mean direct slavery, the slavery of the Blacks in Surinam, in Brazil, in the southern regions of North America. Direct slavery is as much the pivot upon which our present-day industrialism turns as are machinery, credit, etc. Without slavery there would be no cotton, without cotton there would be no modern industry. It is slavery which has given value to the European colonies, it is the colonies which have created world trade, and world trade is the necessary condition for large-scale machine industry. Consequently, prior to the slave trade, the colonies sent very few products to the Old World, and did not noticeably change the face of the world. Slavery is therefore an economic category of paramount importance. Without slavery, North America, the most progressive nation, would be transformed into a patriarchal country. Only wipe North America off the map and you will get anarchy, the complete decay of trade and modern civilisation. But to do away with slavery would be to wipe America off the map. Being an economic category, slavery has existed in all nations since the beginning of the world. All that modern nations have achieved is to disguise slavery at home and import it openly into the New World. Did Marx write this? | tl;dr: No. Marx wrote that Proudhon would say that slavery had good sides (as part of his criticism of Proudhon). This quote is from a letter from Marx to Annenkov. But it is important to look at the context to understand its meaning. The sentence prior to the quote from OP is: Let me now give you an example of Mr Proudhon's dialectics. The final sentence that is removed from the quote is: After these reflections on slavery, what will the good Mr Proudhon do? He will seek the synthesis of liberty and slavery, the true golden mean, in other words the balance between slavery and liberty. It is clear that these aren't ideas Marx holds, but a rhetorical attribution of these ideas to Proudhon. In The Poverty of Philosophy Marx lays out the same argument, and here it is again very clear that this is an attribution of these ideas to Proudhon: For him, M. Proudhon, every economic category has two sides – one good, the other bad. He looks upon these categories as the petty bourgeois looks upon the great men of history: Napoleon was a great man; he did a lot of good; he also did a lot of harm. [...] What would M. Proudhon do to save slavery? He would formulate the problem thus: preserve the good side of this economic category, eliminate the bad. Marx's actual opinion of slavery can be seen in writing such as his letter to Lincoln in which he celebrates death to slavery , The Civil War in the United States in which he argues for the Union side and against slavery, or in Das Kapital where he argues that the workers movement is paralysed as long as slavery exists, and that there can be no labour emancipation without black emancipation. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39414",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
39,429 | In the essay "We have always fought" by Kameron Hurley, she makes the following claim: We don’t kill “fifteen year old boys” but “enemy combatants” (yes, every boy 15 and over killed in drone strikes now is automatically listed as an enemy combatant. Not a boy. Not a child.). I have heard similar claims made by other sources, often referring to "fighting age" men instead. What is the evidence for this claim? Is there an official statement or policy that declares all adult males to be combatants? Are there examples of adult males killed by drone strikes counting as civilian casualties? | The New York Times reported in the 29 May 2012 article Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will : Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent. A few days later, Justin Elliot reported (in reference to the above NYT article): Crucially, the White House has done nothing to knock the story down. I gave the White House a chance to respond, and it declined to comment on the record. But speaking on condition of anonymity, an administration official acknowledged that the administration does not always know the names or identities of everyone in a location marked for a drone strike. "As a general matter, it [the Times report] is not wrong that if a group of fighting age males are in a home where we know they are constructing explosives or plotting an attack, it's assumed that all of them are in on that effort," the official said. "We're talking about some of the most remote places in the world, and some of the most paranoid organizations on the planet. If you're there with them, they know you, they trust you, there's a reason [you're] there." According article 38 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child , which the United States signed but did not ratify: States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39429",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/41861/"
]
} |
39,437 | My friend's mother is about to undergo some treatment in magnetic field therapy for osteoarthritis and he is trying to verify if this is useful as claimed, or if this has any harmful effects. The website of their institution claims that: In Yuri Gagarin’s historic flight to space, he returned in near
critical condition after only one hour and forty-eight minutes in
space. Clearly, there was some vital element missing in space that we
receive on earth. Yuri had plenty of food, water and oxygen and since
the flight was less than 2 hours, he only needed oxygen. The critical
missing element appears to be the earth’s magnetic field. Since that
first flight, pulsed magnetic devices have been used in every space
suit and space station. Further studies have been done on earth (zero
field studies) with both laboratory animals and human subjects. Did he really end up in critical condition as it is claimed? Was it verified that this was due to the missing magnetic field? | Nuts. Vostok 1 reached an Apogee of 327 km. That is well within Earth's magnetosphere . Aside from that, and aside from certain sensory effects that can be experienced when exposed to strong magnetic fields , the human body doesn't care much for magnetism, or the lack of it. The one thing that would make a lack of magnetism in space harmful would be solar wind (which Earth's magnetic field deflects). Before you get that high, you'd pass through the Van Allen radiation belt , where the presence of Earth's magnetic field results in an increase of radiation. Either way, "pulsed magnetic devices" in a space suit won't make a difference, and I seriously doubt they exist. (See comments -- they don't.) In the end, the most competent person to answer these kind of questions would be a doctor, not the internet (or someone who would directly make money from a given therapy). Post Scriptum: I had a look at the website you linked. This one (from the "about us" page) is a howler: Till date over 6500 cases of Osteoarthritis have been treated... Note that it says "treated", no mention on success rates. ...and clinical trials on terminally ill Cancer patients have been successfully completed. The trials have been "successfully completed", but not a word about the results. I think if they had been curing "terminally ill Cancer patients", even just a couple of them, we would have heard about it in mainstream media for sure. And I mean mainstream media, not the kind they present on their website . My personal favourite there is the DNA Sunday "article" which is marked "ADVI" (advertisment). So they list one of their own advertisments as media reference ? Stay well clear. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39437",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/34267/"
]
} |
39,460 | Hillary Clinton has recently claimed unfair treatment in the media. “They were selling T-shirts and mugs at the Republican [National] Convention with Trump holding my head. Nobody said a word. Not a word!” - Hillary Clinton: 'Nobody Said A Word' When It Was My Fake Severed Head - HuffPost If true, she may have been treated unfairly. But that's the catch. Is it true that there were t-shirts and mugs with a picture showing Trump holding Clinton's severed head at the RNC? | This is a claim where we will likely only get circumstantial evidence for either side. We already have the statement of one reporter on Twitter stating that they didn't see these shirts in the convention and a radio host wondering if they may have been sold outside. Clinton brought this issue up in response to an image by Kathy Griffin which she says is "a play on Perseus holding the head of Medusa". The shirt motif in question is this one, also depicting Medusa, but with Clinton in her place: Mary Beard says in the London Review of Books that this was an often-used depiction: This scene of Perseus-Trump brandishing the dripping, oozing head of Medusa-Clinton was very much part of the everyday, domestic American decorative world: you could buy it on T-shirts and tank tops, on coffee mugs, on laptop sleeves and tote bags (sometimes with the logo triumph, sometimes trump). It is still available in various formats online (eg here , here , or here ). The timestamped comments on the third link go back to at least January 2016, so the shirt existed before the RNC convention in July 2016. Sexist merchandising was sold outside of the RNC, which for example called Clinton a "bitch", insulted her looks, or depicted her as the victim of physical violence. While there is no proof whether or not this exact shirt was sold, it is known that this shirt exists, and it is known that similar sexist and violent merchandise was sold. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39460",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
39,559 | This infographic shows the different number of lines that some software applications (or a general type of them) have on average. The number of lines shown for an average modern high-end car strikes me as implausible. I know modern cars have lots of control of several aspects related to the car and I also know that the languages used for programming them (C and assembly) are more verbose than more high-level programming languages, but still I don't see a car software taking notably more code than a huge social network like facebook, a full operating system with lots of features like Windows Vista, or a professional IDE like Microsoft Visual Studio. It looks like there are rather fewer things to control in car software. Maybe those lines refer to the lines in assembler code, if that were the case it would be plausible to me, but then in reality the number of coded lines would be let's say around 6 times lower, which would put it with the Boeing 787 software, which I think would make more sense. Are around 100 million lines the amount on average of lines in source code that programmers have to code in order to create the software for an average high-end car? | Ford has said that the F150 pickup has 150 million lines of code. According to the New York Times : Twenty years ago, cars had, on average, one million lines of code. The General Motors 2010 Chevrolet Volt had about 10 million lines of code — more than an F-35 fighter jet. Today, an average car has more than 100 million lines of code. So, even if the car isn't particularly high end, it could have that many lines. According to Embedded Systems Security: Practical Methods for Safe and Secure Software (2012): One of the first embedded systems within an automobile was the 1978 Cadillac Seville's trip computer, run by a Motorola 6802 microprocessor with 128 bytes of RAM and two kilobytes of ROM. ... In contrast, even the lowest-end automobile today contains at least a dozen microprocessors; the highest-end cars are estimated to contain approximately 100 microprocessors. With infotainment systems running sophisticated operating systems such as Microsoft Windows and Linux, the total embedded software content can easily exceed 100 million lines of code. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39559",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/42094/"
]
} |
39,573 | I've recently come across this Guardian article which cites a story by Orb Media . Tests show billions of people globally are drinking water contaminated by plastic particles, with 83% of samples found to be polluted The main point is In the first public scientific study of its kind, we found previously unknown plastic contamination in the tap water of cities around the world. Microscopic plastic fibers are flowing out of taps from New York to New Delhi, according to exclusive research by Orb and a researcher at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health. From the halls of the U.S. Capitol to the shores of Lake Victoria in Uganda, women, children, men, and babies are consuming plastic with every glass of water. More than 80 percent of the samples we collected on five continents tested positive for the presence of plastic fibers. (emphasis mine) Orb Media seems to have conducted/funded the study itself so is this a source to be trusted? In the Guardian article they also report that In Paris in 2015, researchers discovered microplastic falling from the air citing a study from 2015 . I don't have access to the full article, so I wonder if that sentence has any ground of truth. I find that none of these claims particularly surprising or unlikely, but I'm wondering why this story hasn't gotten more coverage . | The study by Orb Media was subject for articles in German news website Spiegel Online (commercial) and WDR (public service broadcasting). Both articles, quoting staff from the German Federal Environmental Agency, agree on criticism of the study: The study does a "plastic / no plastic" rating, without actually going into how many particles were found. Samples were transported in PE (polyethylene) containers, which could very easily lead to contamination of the samples (e.g. abrasion from the container cap). Samples were evaluated manually by microscope, which is no longer considered "state of the art", and introduces further potential sources for contamination. (Cotton fibres from lab coats, for example.) Either article agrees, though, that microplastics are much too common and widespread already, that they are a problem that needs to be addressed, and that the subject needs further study. As for "why hasn't this seen more coverage", the WDR article gives a kind of explanation (translation mine): {Quoting staff from the German Federal Environmental Agency} "Somehow finding plastic is not a problem. But how do I classify it?" To better determine number and type of the plastic particles, worldwide standardized chemical-analytical procedures should be developed. Via the Deutsche Institut für Normung (DIN), the German FEA supports corresponding efforts. "If we have those, we can better classify many of today's findings." So yes, plastics are there, they are a problem, but we don't really know how to test for them and how to classify them, yet. Sorry for linking German-language articles, but I can judge the merit of the sources much more easily in my native language, and it's a very emotional subject for some, leading to highly-vocal participants in the discussion I would rather not quote. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39573",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/42118/"
]
} |
39,703 | From https://twitter.com/hillelneuer/status/918519435832496128 (in a recent Twitter Moment): In 2009-2014, UNESCO adopted: 46 resolutions against Israel 1 on Syria 0 on Iran, North Korea, Sudan or any other country in the world Is this statistic true? | Short answer This is a very subjective way of classifying UNESCO resolutions. No resolution is officially against any country and the count of '46' is pretty dishonest as it considers resolutions and decisions of very different nature, and with more or less links to the state of Israel. Meanwhile, Unesco has often criticized other countries' cultural policies. However, some recent resolutions of Unesco are indeed not very pleasant for Israel, and use formulation that may sound harsher than for other countries. The second part of the claim, about "only 1 resolution against another country" than Israel between 2009 and 2014, is blatantly false. Claim The "46 anti-Israel" resolutions seems to come from this partisan website . This is a more credible source on Israeli complaints about Unesco Nature of Unesco Unesco's purpose is to contribute to peace and security by promoting international collaboration through educational, scientific, and cultural reforms in order to increase universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and human rights along with fundamental freedom proclaimed in the United Nations Charter. It has no political purpose. As a consequence, there is no official stand "against" any country as a whole in its resolutions. At most, Unesco will express praise or objections for or against specific cultural or educational programs of a given country. But it also means that the tweeter would be legitimate in its criticism if Unesco was to discriminate against Israel (or whomever) or to take political stands. Some examples of Unesco policies criticized in Israel Unesco partially founded and hosted an exhibition in its Parisian headquarters in 2014 about: "The People, The Book, The Land: The 3,500-year relationship between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel." Initially scheduled in January, this exhibition has been postponed by five months, officially by fear it would "harm the peace process". This postponement is criticized in the links in the "Claim" section above. Some of the "anti-Israel" resolutions are just support for cultural or educational projects in Palestine. Subjective interpretation : As pointed out by Skliwz in a comment, it takes a a very biased point of view to consider these resolutions to be "Anti-Israel" One of these may be more problematic: a chair in Islamic University of Gaza. From wikipedia , where you will find links to primary sources: In 2012, UNESCO decided to establish a chair at the Islamic University of Gaza in the field of astronomy, astrophysics, and space sciences, (...). Israel's foreign ministry criticized the move and stated the university supported Hamas and housed bomb laboratories for the organization. (...) Israeli ambassador to UNESCO Nimrod Barkan planned to submit a letter of protest with information about the university's ties to Hamas. I've found no evidence that that letter of protest has actually been submitted, nor of the information it was supposed to reveal. On the other hand, two wars have been fought meanwhile in the Gaza bank, so I'm not sure about the fate of the University and its alleged terrorist laboratories. A lot of criticism comes from Unesco allegedly "censoring" Israel. But such "censorship" doesn't appear in any resolution . As far as I understand, it would rather happen during the process of negotiating each resolution, which process can displease each country once in a while. It is very hard to document whether or not Israel has been discriminated in that respect. Three sites in Cisjordania, and one in East Jerusalem, have been classified as "World Heritage Sites". It is also true for 12 sites in Israel. subjective comment : I personally don't see why classifying Hebron would be more "anti-Israeli" than classifying Acre or Haifa "anti-Arab". The Occupied Palestine Resolution of 2016 is very controversial. Two points in particular are considered as negative towards Israel: While the text acknowledged the "importance of the Old City of Jerusalem and its walls for the three monotheistic religions", it referred to the sacred hilltop compound in Jerusalem's Old City only by its Muslim name "Al-Haram al-Sharif", rather than using more neutral and inclusive vocabulary. The resolution was also heavily criticized for its apparent demonization of Israel, an example being the condemnation of Israel for preventing further construction on the grounds of the Temple Mount in order to prevent damage subjective comment : While the resolution is about culture and not politics, all parties negotiating its wording knew the political implications and they could not ignore that referring to a site that is holy for both parts with only the denomination of one of them would be considered as an offence by Israel. A resolution passed in May 2017 defines Israel as "the occupying power" in East-Jerusalem (thus denying its annexion). This wording matches the UN official position (btw, this is also the US official position...) but it is not received well by Israeli leaders, and it is not usually used in diplomatic exchanges with Israel. Examples of criticism of other states by Unesco During the 2009-2014 period Dresden was deleted from the World Heritage List to protest about Germans building a four-lane bridge. Urban development is also an issue in Panama . " Madagascar continues to provide export permits for illegally logged timber." Bolivia was criticized in 2014 for failing to protect the city of Potosi. Others Urbanism plans are citicized in Vienna Unesco seems to have been active in prosecuting a Yugoslav (later, Serbian) general Only a few countries recognized Taliban Afghanistan as a state in 2001. Unesco condemnation for destroying the Bamiyan Buddhas should therefore not count as condemnation of a state. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39703",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/104/"
]
} |
39,714 | I often hear people lecturing about how to open a banana from the "right" end, including an explanation that this is how monkeys do it. A quick search in the internet offers a lot of examples (for example: this Youtube video or this Instructables page ), but I fail to find a proof that monkeys either open bananas consistently this way, or that they don't do it. Is there truth behind this claim, or is this merely an urban legend? | This is a myth, because monkeys don't normally eat bananas in the wild. "The entire wild monkey-banana connection in fact is total fabrication," Katharine Milton, who has studied the diets of primates for decades, told Tech Insider. "The edible banana is a cultivated domesticated plant and fruit. Wild monkeys never encounter bananas at all ever unless they are around human habitation where bananas are or have been planted." Business Insider This is of course an appeal to authority, however Katharine Milton is a world class expert on primate nutrition. Furthermore, according to this other Tech Insider video she also stated that Monkeys don't eat bananas in the wild and if they were handed a banana, they would probably just bite into the peel. A more general interview in which she talks about the diet of monkeys and apes--bonus, she also talks against fad diets after that. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39714",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/42333/"
]
} |
39,752 | Kevin Majeres, a psychiatrist claims that porn destroys dopamine receptors. A quote from his website: This is why pornography causes a vicious circle. When someone views
pornography, he gets overstimulated by dopamine; so his brain destroys
some dopamine receptors . This makes him feel depleted, so he goes back
to pornography, but, having fewer dopamine receptors, this time it
requires more to get the same dopamine thrill; but this causes his
brain to destroy more receptors; so he feels an even greater need for
pornography to stimulate him. Source: http://www.purityispossible.com/the-science-behind-pornography/ | No, or, at least, there is no evidence that it does. The first problem with this is the source - obviously a site like "purityispossible.com" is going to have a moral agenda, and is going to be decidedly anti-pornography. As such, we would certainly, while not dismissing the possibility, ask that they offer research to back up their claims. The next problem is referring to porn, love of chocolate, use of marijuana, listening to Taylor Swift songs, having sex with golf groupies (Tiger Woods' claimed addiction) as "addiction." While there might be some similar mechanisms involved in things we have trouble controlling our impulses for, the use of "addiction" as a much broader umbrella of behaviors, as opposed to the traditional "physical" addiction (body develops a physical tolerance, leading to increased dosages to achieve effect, and also leading to physical dependency and withdrawal when the substance is not available..... so the subject actually needing the substance, not just wanting or preferring) causes people to incorrectly over-equate the very different processes at work. This sets the stage for false equivalence. In this case, here's a transcript from an online Q&A where someone asked a retired neurologist about "porn addiction" - Okay, well the theoretical premise proposed by this science lecturer is nothing more than the application of the well-known and studied neurological basis for drug addiction upon porn addiction which unfortunately is entirely unsupported by scientific fact with regard to the latter. A retired neurologists opinion | Your Brain Rebalanced Furthermore, the claim that dopamine is an "addictive rewarding neurochemical" is not an accurate claim. This article addresses the claims of dopamine behind all these different "behavior addictions," which is not accepted science, and what dopamine does and does not. The entire article is relevant to this discussion, BTW (bold emphasis mine) - Dopamine serves many complex functions in the brain, and and only kindergarten brain science describes it as an addictive drug . Dopamine is connected to rewarding experiences, but not in that it makes you feel good....Dopamine's role here is NOT that it makes you feel good. It doesn't - ...... Dopamine's role in pleasure and reward is it helps your brain to recognize "incentive salience".... A critical issue here is that a lack of dopamine doesn't actually make the experience feel less good. No, Dopamine is Not Addictive | Psychology Today The scientists in the field do not agree with the claims, either, when responding to papers or editorials offered in journals - ... Hilton and Watts offer some interesting neuroscience perspectives on their conceptualization of pornography problems as an addictive disorder.... Hilton and Watts offered little, if any convincing evidence to support their perspectives.... Instead, excessive liberties and misleading interpretations of neuroscience research are used to assert that excessive pornography consumption causes brain damage..... Depending on how addiction is defined, this is either well supported.... or whole speculative as in the case of pornography consumption. Neuroscience research fails to support claims that excessive pornography consumption causes brain damage | Surgical Neurology International It appears that the claims are based on false equivalence and poor, misleading interpretations of the science. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39752",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/32827/"
]
} |
39,768 | In reference to the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos, a mathematician, Peter Lax, described his time working there as "living science fiction". He said : we were told essentially the basic thing: we are building an atomic bomb, that there are two bombs, one built of a special isotope of uranium, and a second bomb built of plutonium, which is an element that doesn’t exist in the world, except that they are manufacturing it. Was this correct, that plutonium "is an element that doesn’t exist in the world, except that they [were] manufacturing it"? | The Royal Society of Chemistry states: Plutonium was first made in December 1940 at Berkeley, California, by Glenn Seaborg, Arthur Wahl, Joseph Kennedy, and Edwin McMillan. They produced it by bombarding uranium-238 with deuterium nuclei (alpha particles). This first produced neptunium-238 with a half-life of two days, and this decayed by beta emission to form element 94 (plutonium). Within a couple of months element 94 had been conclusively identified and its basic chemistry shown to be like that of uranium. To begin with, the amounts of plutonium produced were invisible to the eye, but by August 1942 there was enough to see and weigh, albeit only 3 millionths of a gram. However, by 1945 the Americans had several kilograms, and enough plutonium to make three atomic bombs, one of which exploded over Nagasaki in August 1945 The US effort to build a nuclear bomb got the name Manhattan project no earlier than 1941 * , so there is no contradiction there. But plutonium does exist in nature (note that you are not asking about a specific isotope), as is e.g. shown in The Occurrence of Plutonium in Nature by Charles A. Levine and Glenn T. Seaborg ( PDF avalable here ): Plutonium has been chemically separated from seven different ores and the ratios of plutonium to uranium determined. This ratio was found to be fairly constant (approx. 10 -11 ) in pitchblende and monazite ores, ... In his autobiography ( G.T. Seaborg and E. Seaborg - Adventures in the atomic age: from Watts to Washington ), Seaborg says more about the naming of Plutonium: It was so difficult to make, from such rare materials, that we thought it would be the heaviest element ever formed. So we considered names like extremium and ultimium. Fortunately, we were spared the inevitable embarrassment that one courts when proclaiming a discovery to be the ultimate in any field by deciding to follow the nomenclatural precedents of the two prior elements. A new planet had been discovered in 1781 and, like the rest of the planets, named for a Greek or Roman deity-Uranus. A scientist who discovered a heavy new element eight years later named it after the planet: uranium. The planet Neptune was discovered in 1846, so Ed McMillan followed this precedent and named element 93 neptunium. Conveniently for us, the final planet, Pluto, had been discovered in 1930. We briefly considered the form plutium, but plutonium seemed more euphonious. So the element has existed since the formation of the Earth (and maybe earlier), but a) it was not known before December 1940 and b) it did not have the name plutonium. * I cannot find the exact date. As mentioned in this NY Times Article , that information is in the book The Manhattan Project: The Birth of the Atomic Bomb in the Words of Its Creators, Eyewitnesses, and Historians by Cynthia C. Kelly | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39768",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/42192/"
]
} |
39,817 | Paul Fassa writes in German Supreme Court Upholds Biologist’s Claim that Measles Virus Does Not Exist : At first it appeared he had lost. But Dr. Lanka took his loss to a higher court with more experts and the backing of two independent laboratories. He wound up not having to pay. It turned out that the “proof” provided was a composite of several different electron microscope images. And the composite involved different components of damaged cells. The composite could not be duplicated. The German Federal Supreme Court confirmed that there was not enough evidence to prove the existence of the measles virus. Is this an accurate representation of the court case? | No. The court cases are not represented accurately . The denialist Stefan Lanka promised to pay 100 000 Euros to anyone that provided him proof that a measles virus causing the illness exists . Soon after a Mr David Bardens sent 6 publications to Lanka doing just that. Lanka refused to pay out. In 2014 Bardens sued him and the local court (Landgericht Ravensburg) sentenced Lanka to pay . Bardens had to hire bodyguards for fear of anti vaccination fanatics. Of course Lanka wasn't happy to be proven wrong and forced to pay. So he appealed that decision. And won this. Because his competition offer was formulated so "that someone please sent him just one scientific article that proves that measles exist". Bardens sent 6 so Lanka won this time on technicalities, although for fear of jail he did pay in the meantime. The term "just one" is used here to clarify how Lanka surely meant his challenge and how everyone including Bardens understood it. The German eine is ambiguous as an indefinite article or a numeral. That Lanka wanted one and just one single paper, containing all criteria Lanka demanded fulfilled at the same time, only came up in court. The chronology of the antics of this case up to that point are documented here: The Bardens vs Lanka Case | Chronolgy and documentation This time Bardens apealed that decision and unfortunately the highest court Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal Court of Justice ) rejected that appeal on Jan 26 2017, so that the previous decision on prize competition technicalities still stands. The formalities of the 'competition' were set by Lanka: 1 Anders als bei einer Wette oder einer Preisausschreibung hätte Lanka die Regeln bei der Auslobung selber bestimmen können – so die Frage, welche Artikel als Nachweis akzeptiert wurden. „Sie hätten aber auch 600 einreichen können, er hätte keine akzeptiert“, sagte der Vorsitzende Richter zu Bardens. (In contrast to a bet or a competition, Lanka defined the rules of this Auslobung on what kind of evidence would be acceptable or not. "You could have presented 600 pieces of evidence as well, and he would not have accepted any of them." explained the presiding judge.) Never did any court of justice in these cases uphold "that the measles virus didn't exist". To the contrary: the publications sent by Bardens were deemed by the judges and their expert consultants to provide the proof – but only when read together did they meet all requirements as formulated by Lanka. Reading the ruling further highlights how outrageously comic the experts consulted found 2 all other statements emanating from Lanka regarding the matter at hand and his "scientific" arguments. Quotes from the court ruling: „Das Preisgeld wird ausgezahlt, wenn eine wissenschaftliche Publikation vorgelegt wird, in der die Existenz des Masern-Virus nicht nur behauptet, sondern auch bewiesen und darin u. a. dessen Durchmesser bestimmt ist.“ (Quoting the competition rules as set forth by Lanka. Highlighting that one scientific publication was required. Translation: "The prize money is paid when one scientific publication is presented in which the existence of the measles virus is not only asserted, but also proved, and among others the diameter of the virus is to be determined.") Im Ergebnis hat die Berufung, soweit sie zulässig ist, jedenfalls Erfolg, weil das Kriterium der Auslobung, den Beweis der Existenz des Masernvirus durch „eine wissenschaftliche Publikation“ zu führen, durch den Kläger nicht erfüllt wurde. (Stating the appeal was succesful because the exact wording was calling for a single scientific publication. Translation: "As a result, the appeal, in so far as it is admissible, is successful in any event, since the criterion of the claim to prove the existence of the measles virus by 'one scientific publication' has not been fulfilled by the applicant.") The Stuttgart judges commentating the ruling publicly : However, this is by no means to be understood as confirmation of the theories of Lanka, according to the court: "It is by no means the opinion of the court that a measles virus does not exist". And addressed to the members of the press the presiding judge said: "Watch your headlines." 1 Further explanation: Scientific journal articles are usually very space constrained and tend to focus on answering one research question (sound familiar?). The trick for going scot free here was that from the beginning the diameter was called for. – For example in an article that describes and explains the complete decoding and analysis of the virus' genome there usually would be no need and no room for a dropping that states the measurement of the diameter as well. Since Lanka still claims there is no proof whatsoever, (no shred of a piece of real evidence to be found anywhere) his bet, as originally formulated, has to be read so that he lost that bet thoroughly and decisively. Only the exact fulfilment of later specified competition rules was 'on trial'. (Bardens got those specified after he asked Lanka if he was serious about this.) And even those rules where so sloppily phrased that his lawyer only convincingly applied higher forms of grammatical precision interpretation in the second round. 2 That link goes to a page controlled by Lanka and contains the reproduction and transcript of the first trial expert consultation in court. The expert explains to the court details from his assessment of the papers submitted and also some fundamentals of biology and virology to the lawyers, and Lanka. That is quite remarkable because Lanka now keeps telling his followers that he has now legal proof that no viruses exit at all. Although Lanka got his diploma and PhD in biology by describing an algae attacking virus and acknowledging its pathogenic potential. Many videos on YouTube to witness that: Asked how measles outbreaks in schools can be explained, he now says measles are caused by e.g. lack of hugging ("knuddeln") from teachers! Basically, he indirectly states himself that all his credentials as a biologist were acquired by means of a huge error. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39817",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/196/"
]
} |
39,825 | Urban dictionary (and many other articles on the internet) claim that the Finnish word " kalsarikännit " means: to drink by yourself at your house in your underwear with no intention of going out I couldn't find any Finnish source supporting this and I do not speak Finnish anyway. Does this word exist in the Finnish language? And if yes, does it mean this? | Yes, it actually is a Finnish word used by the Finnish people. ThisisFinland is a site for the promotion of Finland: It is associated with the Finnish Government. Produced by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland and published by the Finland Promotion Board This is Finland - About Us Regarding kalsarikännit , they claim: The feeling when you are going to get drunk home alone in your underwear – with no intention of going out. A drink. At home. In your underwear. And there is a word for it. Kalsarikännit. They even have Finnish emoji's to describe the activity: Apparently, Google translates it as underweardrunk [sic] . | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39825",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/40846/"
]
} |
39,880 | PragerU is a YouTube channel for expressive conservative views. They published a video titled Are The Police Racist? (with over a million views) that has this claim [at 2:48]: a police officer is eighteen and a half times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be by a police officer I presume it means that the rate of deaths of officers caused by black males is 18 times larger than the rate of unarmed black males deaths caused by officers. Is this claim true? | The claim about 18 times more likely is published with more detail by Heather McDonald in the Washington Post article Academic research on police shootings and race 19 July 2016. the per capita rate of officers being feloniously killed is 45 times higher than the rate at which unarmed black males are killed by cops. And an officer’s chance of getting killed by a black assailant is 18.5 times higher than the chance of an unarmed black getting killed by a cop ... The 36 unarmed black male victims of police shootings in 2015 measured against the total black male population [nearly 19 million in mid-2014, per the Census Bureau] amounts to a per capita rate of 0.0000018 unarmed fatalities by police. By comparison, 52 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in 2015 while engaged in such duties as traffic stops and warrant service, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. The FBI counted nearly 628,000 full-time law enforcement officers in the United States in 2014. Assuming that the number of officers did not markedly increase in 2015, the per capita rate of officers being feloniously killed is 0.000082, or 45 times the rate at which unarmed black males are killed by cops. The Memorial Fund does not have data on the race of cop-killers in 2015, but applying the historical average over the last decade in which 40 percent of all cop-killers were black would yield 21 cops killed by blacks in 2015. An officer’s chance of getting killed by a black person is 0.000033, which is 18.5 times the chance of an unarmed black person getting killed by a cop. After this year’s 72 percent increase in felonious killings of police officers, these ratios will be even more lopsided. In other words, based upon past statistics, the chances of a cop being killed by a black male is 18.5 times greater than an unarmed black male being killed by a cop. The Washington Post article is relying on data from the National Law Enforcement Officer's Memorial Fund 2015 Law Enforcement
Officer Fatalities Report which says: Fifty-two officers were killed feloniously in 2015, a 15 percent decrease from 2014 when 61 officers died as a result of a criminal act. Of the 52 officers feloniously killed this year, 39 were shot and killed; 11 officers were killed in traffic-related incidents and two officers were killed in incidents unrelated to traffic or firearms. Of the 11 officers feloniously killed in traffic-related incidents, seven were struck, and four were killed in automobile crashes. One officer died as a result of a physical altercation with a suspect, and one officer was beaten to death. The FBI gives somewhat lower numbers for officers feloniously killed. The number of officers feloniously killed in 2014 was 51 and in 2015 was 41 and in 2016 was 66 according to the FBI. The "36 unarmed black male victims of police shootings" corresponds to this database for police shootings. This dropped to 16 in 2016 according to this database . As far as the approximation that 40% of felonious killings of officers are by black males. According to the FBI , in the 2004-2013 time period, out of 565 such perpetrators, 243, or 43%, were black. Almost all were male. In more recent data , 2007-2016, 38% were black. The data are quite variable from year to year. So, in conclusion, the statistic (for what, if anything, it is worth) is approximately true. The two main criticisms of the methodology are 1. using Officer's Memorial Fund statistics rather than FBI statistics, and 2. no attempt to justify equating the number of unarmed black males killed by officers to the number shot by officers. Additional black males may have been killed by other means. (Note: when I answered the question, the phrase "are the police racist?" did not appear in the question. The statistic has no relevance to the subquestion "are the police racist?". This answer is only meant address the truth of the statistic itself, and does not attempt to address the issue of whether or not the police are racist.) | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39880",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/42650/"
]
} |
39,891 | In 2013, CNN made this claim: Each day - Three or more women are murdered by their boyfriends or husbands on average, according to the American Psychology Association . Indeed, the linked APA website makes the claim: On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends every day. Unfortunately, this statistic is unreferenced (or, at least, it's not directly referenced; there's a bunch of references, but it's not clear which the statistic might be in). I found a similar unreferenced claim in the article 3 Women Are Killed Every Day By Their Partners ... at the Huffington Post and in the article Three Women Are Murdered by Their Husbands, Boyfriends Every Day in America at AlterNet. Question : In the US, are three women killed each day by their male partners? | This appears to be mostly correct and derived from a report published by the CDC: Racial and Ethnic Differences in Homicides of Adult Women and the Role of Intimate Partner Violence — United States, 2003–2014 . The report seems to look at two numbers: 2015 for all of the US and statistics 2003-2014 but only for 18 states. There is also an older report by the department of justice ( Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008 ) which has more consistent data. The numbers don't quite add up, but seem to align to the following conclusions There are around 3000 female homicide victims per year about half of those are killed by a male partner That would result in an average of about 4 per day The absolute number, of course, doesn't mean much without putting in context: how many males are killed by their female partner. The Department of Justice report puts the "males killed by females" rate at about 7% vs 40% of "females killed by males". On the other hand the total number of males killed overall is also about 3.5 times higher (see for example Wikipedia: Homicide statistics by gender ). Putting this all together, one could estimate that the total number of females killed by male partners is about 60% higher than the other way around. In terms of daily average that would be around 4 for females and around 2.5 for males. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39891",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/25398/"
]
} |
40,084 | I come across this image below circulation on the internet. The image is comparing the human trafficking arrests during Trump's and Obama's administrations. Are these figures true? | The earliest mention online - and thus likely the source for this - seems to be maga1776.com . The numbers for 2010 to 2016 are official statistics - the 2016 numbers are directly from ICE, the earlier numbers are not from a reliable source ( washington examiner ), but I don't think that they are in doubt. Note that these numbers are specifically about arrests made by ICE - or more specifically the Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) created under Obama in 2010 - , not all arrests related to trafficking. The numbers for 2017 are not from ICE, but collected by maga1776.com from various news articles. Just looking at the links with the highest cases, we can see that they are fake or misleading. The 900 cases for example link to RT (not a reliable source). They were in fact 870 arrests, not 900, and they were world wide and not related to ICE arrests (which is what the Obama stats are about). The 1035 arrests are sourced to daytondailynews.com , but again not ICE arrests but arrests made by the police. The second 1012 arrests are sourced to theconservativetreehouse.com , but again they were not arrests made by ICE, but by the DOJ. According to the source, they are also not about human trafficking, but sexual assault of children. The 350 number is sourced to breaking911.com and is about documentation of rape of children, which is not directly related to human trafficking. The arrests were also not made by ICE. As mentioned in the comments, the real numbers for 2017 are not out yet, so we cannot say how many human trafficking arrests ICE has made. What we can say is that the 6355 number is made up. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40084",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/24889/"
]
} |
40,096 | This image was recently shared by an Australian Facebook friend: The source appears to be a Facebook post of a man from India with a staggering 380,000 shares from around the world! There are many different species of venomous snakes (and I assume that they mean venomous, not poisonous ) and I struggle to see how this could be true. Is it true? Is it true just for snakes in India? | No, this is not true. Not even for just India, as Indian cobra (Naja naja) has round pupils and subcaudal (tail) scales are divided. There is also no pit visible. It is venomous species of snake. This answer assumes, that author means venomous snakes instead of poisonous, as this is common mistake. Also, Wikipedia should have enough credibility for this answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_cobra | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40096",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/23/"
]
} |
40,098 | Dave Rubin's interview with Stefan Molyneux on race and IQ in this video talks about how the U.S. Army have been giving IQ tests for about 100 years to measure the intelligence of recruits and find out if they're either officer material or not. Apparently, they then discover the following racial hierarchy of intelligence in IQ: Ashkanazi Jews: <115 (spatial reasoning), >115 (verbal reasoning) East Asians: 103-5 (general), very high (spatial reasoning) Caucasians: 100 Hispanics: 85-90 African-Americans: 85 Sub-Saharan Africans: 70 Pygmies: 60 Australian Aborigines: 50 He doesn't actually give any exact source of these figures, and I highly doubt the U.S. Army have been giving IQ tests to Pygmies and the Aborigines of Australia. Is there an exact source of these figures? Are there any similar sources that support or refute these figures? | The ASVAB (AFQT) is not technically an IQ test. IQ Tests, per se, are not issued to recruits for the armed forces. The U.S. Army does test people's capabilities, but not in a standardized IQ test (at least on the scale of the entire military recruit base) because they use a different testing method, the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). The ASVAB is also listed as the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT). This test looks for different information than an IQ test does, though there are scores for generalized testing. The areas that the ASVAB tests are: General Science - measures knowledge of life science, earth and space science, and physical science Arithmetic Reasoning - measures ability to solve basic arithmetic word problems Word Knowledge - measures ability to understand the meaning of words through synonyms Paragraph Comprehension - measures ability to obtain information from written material Mathematics Knowledge - measures knowledge of mathematical concepts and applications Electronics Information - measures knowledge of electrical current, circuits, devices and electronic systems Auto and Shop Information - measures knowledge of automotive maintenance and repair, and wood and metal shop practices Mechanical Comprehension - measures knowledge of the principles of mechanical devices, structural support and properties of materials Assembling Objects - measures ability with spatial relationships - "Understanding the ASVAB Test" , U.S. Army From this information, the test is scored in order to determine if someone is capable of joining at all, and what Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) they qualify for. The extrapolated scores are in the following areas: Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) - Paragraph Comprehension, Word Knowledge, Mathematics Knowledge, and Arithmetic Reasoning. Clerical (CL) – Word Knowledge, Paragraph Comprehension, Arithmetic Reasoning and Mathematics Knowledge. Combat (CO) - Word Knowledge, Paragraph Comprehension, Auto & Shop and Mechanical Comprehension. Electronics (EL) – General Science, Arithmetic Reasoning, Mathematics Knowledge and Electronic Information. Field Artillery (FA) - Arithmetic Reasoning, Mathematics Knowledge and Mechanical Comprehension. General Maintenance (GM) – General Science, Auto & Shop, Mathematics Knowledge and Electronics Information. General Technical (GT) - Word Knowledge, Paragraph Comprehension and Arithmetic Reasoning (AR). Mechanical Maintenance (MM) – Auto & Shop, Mechanical Comprehension and Electronic Information. Operators and Food (OF) - Word Knowledge, Paragraph Comprehension, Auto & Shop and Mechanical Comprehension. Surveillance and Communications (SC) - Word Knowledge, Paragraph Comprehension, Arithmetic Reasoning, Auto & Shop and Mechanical Comprehension. Skilled Technical (ST) - Word Knowledge, Paragraph Comprehension, General Science, Mechanical Comprehension and Mathematics Knowledge. - "Understanding the ASVAB Test" , U.S. Army It should also be noted that although the General Technical "GT" score is used to determine whether certain programs are available to recruits, such as the "Green to Gold" program, it is not used specifically to determine who is able to become an officer. College is required for entry as an officer, and even the "Green to Gold" program is designed to help someone who has a desire, a minimum GT score, good recommendations, and is still young enough in order to obtain the college education required (Bachelor's Degree) to become an officer (through a contract). I was at the age that I would have been too old before getting through the program when I looked into it (about 27 or so, IIRC). The AQFT scores are used to determine which fields within a branch of Armed Services you qualify for. High enough generalized scores such as the GT score will, however, provide the ability to join in a job that you are not technically qualified for according to sectionalized scores. (e.g. My Mechanical Maintenance score was relatively low compared to the rest of my scores, but my GT qualified me to learn any occupation I wanted to, so long as slots were available, including auto-mechanic.) Most Army soldiers will know their GT score, and specific scores are required for certain levels of promotion. A soldier can opt to take the test later in order to improve their sectional scores, or may be required to take the ASVAB again if they have a break in service (as happened with me). Rare racial backgrounds and the ASVAB The ASVAB only tests those who are applying to try to join the United States armed forces, thus the number of people that are joining that would qualify as "Ashkenazi Jews," "Sub-Saharan Africans," "Pygmies," or "Australian Aborigines" would be too low to establish any form of baseline, especially since the only tracking data requested for racial demographics in the military, based on my personal experience of having taken it twice, are: White, Black, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, Pacific-Islander/Native Hawaiian, Two or more, Unknown, and Hispanic (any race). Enlistment into any branch of the U.S. military, by citizens of countries other than the United States is limited to those foreign nationals who are legally residing in the United States and possess a Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services Alien Registration Card (INS Form I-151/551 - commonly known as a "Green Card"). Applicants must be between 17 and 35; meet the mental, moral, and physical standards for enlistment; and must speak, read and write English fluently. Army FAQ Emphasis mine. This does not allow foreign nationals to become commissioned officers or warrant officers. Note that the ASVAB, the current standard of testing, was introduced the the U.S. Armed Services in 1968, though it didn't become standard use until 1972. From 1950 to 1972, the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) was used. It was intentionally used as a screening test. "History Of Military Testing" The AFQT was criticized because it claimed to be used to determine a candidates ability to learn, but focused on testing what they had already learned instead, putting those living in poorer communities (and, thus, minorities) at a disadvantage, and studies by Herrnstein and Murray stated that there was no known way to significantly increase a national IQ average, even ignoring those contemporary studies that showed that educational intervention did so. Stephen Molyneux and Racial Bias It should be noted that Stephen Molyneux frequently tries to push a difference as being inherent based upon race because it fits his personal goals. Whether he is presenting it based on the personal decisions of people based upon race, or their genetics differences (or, more realistically, is being attributed to both factors by him), he is explaining the differences as being based on the status of being non-white/asian. He appears to explain differences based purely in an academic effort, but his cited research leaves much context out of the research (and appears to do so intentionally to show inferiority of others). This allows him to look like he is offering educated points that are heavily vested in research to the lay person that hasn't dug into these topics, and offers those with racial biases to quote him as an 'intellectual,' thus creating a Genetic Fallacy among those that quote him or his sources without doing further research into the studies. Studies need to be controlled for economic status and similar impacts. All of this said, it should be noted that many studies conducted on racial disparities in testing such as IQ do not properly address extenuating factors and control for things like economic background. It is a well established truth of our society that there are large disparities in socioeconomic status in our society split on racial lines. Since Caucasians tend live, on average, at a higher SES than most minorities (with the exception of Asian-Americans, based on median income), it makes sense that tests would show that Caucasians fare better on IQ tests. Unless the tests isolate their data to control for factors like this, the results may be true, but are highly unlikely representative of capacity for intellect at birth. Socioeconomic status (SES) encompasses not just income but also educational attainment, financial security, and subjective perceptions of social status and social class. Socioeconomic status can encompass quality of life attributes as well as the opportunities and privileges afforded to people within society. Poverty, specifically, is not a single factor but rather is characterized by multiple physical and psychosocial stressors. Further, SES is a consistent and reliable predictor of a vast array of outcomes across the life span, including physical and psychological health. Thus, SES is relevant to all realms of behavioral and social science, including research, practice, education and advocacy. - "Ethnic and Racial Minorities & Socioeconomic Status" , American Psychological Association The research isn't considered definitive on the impact of SES and education right now, but the correlation between the two is strong and consistent. I can't validate the specific numbers you state, but they do fall, for the most part, in line with the divisions in standard Socioeconomic Status deviations based off of information like median income. Race and Intelligence The studies involved that generated your numbers were generated by IQ tests administered over the course of the 100 years, but the military didn't have anything to do with it (for the reasons above), and the results were analyzed in the 1990s not the modern day. These tests showed some interesting observations. These studies were collected by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, creating averages for each of 113 nations and estimates of another 79 nations. IQ and the Wealth of Nations and IQ and Global Inequality James Flynn and and Richard Nisbett's research showed that there were differences in IQ between races. Some people tried to interpret the differences between races in these tests as being genetically determined, but that during the initial time-frames examined, the IQ of all sectors of Americans studies went up close to proportionally, and African-Americans increased their IQ faster than European-Americans from 1945 to 1995. This indicated that, according to Flynn, increases in general education for all Americans, but particularly for African-Americans, had a very positive effect on IQ. This lends heavily toward nurture, not nature, being the cause for the discrepancies. It was also noted that the overall average IQ, regardless of race, raised far faster than could be attributed to genetic factors (evolution being a slow change over multiple generations). A 2012 review of the literature found that the IQ gap had diminished by 0.33 standard deviations since first reported. This shows, even more, that it is likely level of available education that creates the difference, not any genetic racial bias. "Intelligence
New Findings and Theoretical Developments" Non-Inline Source 12 years U.S. Army Experience - including taking both written and computerized versions of the ASVAB | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40098",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
40,107 | In this article in the Guardian , Rachel Roberts claims that: "Five major systematic reviews have also been carried out to analyse
the balance of evidence from RCTs [randomized controlled trials] of
homeopathy – four were positive ( Kleijnen, J, et al ; Linde, K,
et al ; Linde, K, et al ; Cucherat, M, et al ) and one was
negative ( Shang, A et al )." Is this claim true? And if so, is it representative? I am aware of the risk of cherry-picking trials to support one's hypothesis, but I would expect that systematic reviews would remove this selection bias. To be clear, I'm not interested in whether there is a scientific basis for homeopathy (since the author of the article does not argue that there is one, apart from anything else). | This statement is only true if you heavily distort the meaning of the word "positive". The following are quotes from the abstract of all four meta-analyses the article claimed are positive: At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not
sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of
low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of
publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for
further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed
trials. We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear
evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to
yield less positive results. There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective
than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of
the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high
methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower
quality studies. Further high quality studies are needed to confirm
these results. the results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the
hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due
to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies
that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical
condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is
rigorous and systematic. One of these didn't actually address the question whether homeopathy works or not, they examined the influence of study design and came to the conclusion that better studies tend to show more negative results on homeopathy. All other three essentially said that their results are not conclusive and that more research is necessary. They all state that the quality of the studies they're based on is often low, and that this affects their conclusion. It's very misleading at least to claim that these meta-analyses support homeopathy. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40107",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/39940/"
]
} |
40,288 | Nothing like the Daily Mail for raising an eyebrow : The bizarre requests to use CT scanners, normally intended for four-legged animals, at the UK’s leading veterinary college in north London were revealed as hospitals face pressure to adapt beds and wards for an increasingly obese population. [...] The practice of referring patients to zoos is commonplace in America where obesity has reached epidemic levels. Is there more systematic evidence or at least coming from non-tabloid sources on the common use of animal CT scanners for obese patients in the US? (I'm pretty sure that's what the newspaper meant by "America" because the US tops the obesity charts, although apparently Brazil and Mexico are not that far behind .) A reason to doubt the newspaper statement is that simple supply and demand theory suggests that in a country with a high number of obese people equipment manufacturers would make suitable equipment. On the other hand, it's possible for demand to outstrip supply for any number of reasons, including a more rapid change in demand (rapid obesity increase). | A 2011 literature review looked at the problem as it related to one particular condition: Difficulties in diagnosing pulmonary embolism in the obese patient:
A literature review . They conclude that there is a problem - not only are many CT scanners unable to handle morbidly obese patients (although this is improving), there are no guidelines for when this poses a problem: With the increasing prevalence of morbidly obese patients,
clinicians will more frequently be faced with obese patients
with signs and symptoms suggestive of PE who either cannot
receive thoracic imaging at their hospital because of
their size or the imaging is inconclusive [...]. The
clinician in this situation must first decide whether they
should transfer the patient to another facility with a ‘heavyweight’
CT scanner. There are no guidelines to aid the physician
in this situation. Locating these facilities is difficult
since there is no website or national registry cataloging
these CT scanners. In addition, risks are involved with such
transfers, especially the risk of re-embolization during
travel. Often there are questions about whether third party
payors will provide reimbursement for these transfers.
Finally, even though the patient may be transferred for the
study, there is no guarantee that the study will be diagnostic
since image quality may be poor, as described previously. So, there is no protocol to contact local zoos. Further, they reference another paper that considered the zoo angle for CTPA. ( CT pulmonary angiography is a particular subset of CT (computer tomography) diagnostic test. In 2008, Ginde et al. published a study in which they
surveyed 136 US academic hospitals and a random sampling
of all non-federal USA hospitals with emergency
departments to determine the availability of CT scanners
capable of imaging obese patients. They located two 500
lb (227 kg) weight capacity scanners in their sample of
hospitals and eight in the 136 academic centers they contacted.
In addition, they contacted 145 zoos and 28 veterinary
schools to see if any of these facilities had scanners
used for large animal studies which could be used for
obese humans. Only two zoos had CT scanners; both
would not image humans. Sixteen of the veterinary
schools had large weight capacity scanners but only four
would consider scanning humans. Most of the veterinary
schools had policies specifically prohibiting imaging
human patients. Therefore, the rumor that zoos and veterinary
schools will perform CTPA on very obese patients
with suspected PE is false. I checked the abstract of the cited 2008 paper and it concurred, on an even broader scale - all CT and MRI imaging: Animal facilities are not a viable alternative for diagnostic imaging of human patients. This is not evidence that it never happens - anecdotes would counter that - but merely that, as of 2008, it wasn't a common occurrence and wasn't a recommended practice. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40288",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/29579/"
]
} |
40,320 | The BBC has reported that the city of Berlin was setting up “safe zones” for women for New Year’s Eve. It was very heavily reported on by RT, Sputnik and other media. New Year's Eve party in Berlin to have 'safe zone' for women Organisers of Berlin's New Year's Eve celebrations are to set up a "safe zone" for women for the first time. ... Women who have been assaulted or feel harassed will be able to get support at a special "safety zone", staffed by the German Red Cross, on Ebertstrasse. ... But the idea of a special safe zone for women at large public events has not been welcomed by everyone. Critics say it does not tackle the perpetrators of sexual violence, while some others complain it is discriminatory. The article said “for women”, but didn’t say that it was only for women (except by saying that it’s been described as “discriminatory”), or that women are being given the option to party in women-only areas. Examples of coverage in other media. The Daily Mail: Berlin New Year's Eve party to have a 'safe space' for women after hundreds reported being assaulted by men with migrant backgrounds at Cologne celebrations two years ago (emphasis added) Berlin's main New Year's Eve party is to have a ' safe space ' for women
after hundreds reported being assaulted by men with migrant
backgrounds at Cologne celebrations two years ago. The secure zone , staffed by the German Red Cross, will be set up for
the December 31 celebrations at the capital city's famous Brandenburg
Gate. Women have been told to seek help from other revellers if they feel
harassed or threatened. The New York Times: Germans Will Ring in New Year With Extra Security, Especially for Women (emphasis added) BERLIN — While Germans are stocking up on firecrackers and Champagne
to welcome the New Year, officials are setting up roadblocks and safety zones for women to ensure that festivities in cities across the
country remain peaceful and safe. For the first time this year, organizers in Berlin have designated a “women’s safety area” where girls and women who feel threatened or
have been assaulted can turn for help. But it is in and around Cologne
where security has been especially fortified. Prominent Twitter users interpreted this as involving large-scale, gender-segregated areas where they can avoid sexual harassers, which is what a “safe space” (note: space rather than zone) or an “autonomous space” often refers to in English. For example, Miranda Devine, a columnist for Sydney’s Daily Telegraph, a News Corp tabloid which has the biggest circulation of any newspaper in Sydney, wrote on her verified Twitter account “Berlin New Year party to have women's zone”. Another example is this tweet (warning: all I know about him is that he is a Twitter verified user). Mainstream media has reported that Rainer Wendt, head of a police union, said that if such interpretations were true, the zones were a bad thing. The report did not explicitly state that such interpretations were incorrect. From DW: 'Safety zone' for women in Berlin during New Year festivities German police chiefs plan extra New Year’s Eve safeguards, two years
after women were molested in Cologne. But a police trade union leader
said a mooted "women's safety area" in Berlin sent a "disastrous
message." Rainer Wendt, the head of Germany's second-largest police officers'
union, said a women's zone planned for the area around Berlin's
Brandenburg Gate sent a "disastrous message." "With this message, you're saying that there are safe and unsafe
zones," Wendt told the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung newspaper's Saturday
edition. He said that this, if true, would amount to "the end of
equality, freedom of movement and self-determination." "Whoever came up with that idea has not understood the political
dimension," said Wendt of the German DPoIG police trade union. Women had a right to be safe everywhere, he said. This very low profile, non-verified twitter user alleged that the news was being distorted by “nazis” - that there would be a space where women can report sexual assault, but not somewhere where they can stay to avoid sexual harassment. As does this tweet which referred to German-language media. I’m concerned partially that ideological bias is at play, but also that faulty reporting is occurring when reporting about another country, especially one with a different native language. Did Berlin set up places that could reasonably be translated from German to English as “safe zones”? If so, did these “safe zones” involve large-scale, gender-segregated areas where women can flee to, or even just spend the evening partying in? | The German Red Cross will put up a sign at their emergency tent and have psychologically trained staff standing by. A spokesperson for the event pointed out that the Oktoberfest in Munich has a similar arrangement since 2003 to absolutely no controversy. Dem Magazin "bento" bestätigten Veranstalter und DRK, dass an der
Unfallhilfstelle ein zusätzliches Schild mit der Aufschrift "Women's
Safety Area" angebracht werde. Dort sollen Frauen, die sexuell
belästigt worden sind, Hilfe finden. "The Red Cross and the organization that runs the event confirmed to the magazine bento that at the emergency tent there would be an additional sign put up, saying 'Women's Safety Area'. Women who have been sexually harassed could find help there". Note that even for a native speaker it is not easy to find out what is going on, since the controversy you refer to in your question plays out here as well, to a large part in the headlines and on ideological fault lines. Here is a quote from the bento article referred to in the other quote: In diesem Jahr gibt es lediglich ein zusätzliches Schild mit der
Aufschrift "Women's Safety Area". So haben es die Sprecherin der
Partyveranstalter und eine Sprecherin des DRK bento bestätigt. Es
werden keine zusätzlichen Mitarbeiter eingesetzt, es ist auch kein
Kriseninterventionsteam des DRK vor Ort. Die Mitarbeiter werden sich
lediglich in einen kleinen Bereich im Innern des Zeltes zurückziehen
können, um mit Opfern sexueller Gewalt zu sprechen. Wenn die Opfer
Anzeige erstatten wollen, werden sie zur nahe gelegenen Wache der
Polizei begleitet. "This year there is nothing more than an additional sign [...]. This was confirmed by a spokeswoman for the event and a spokesperson from the Red Cross. There is no additional staff, and no special intervention team from the Red Cross. The staff can merely withdraw to a secluded area within the tent to talk to victims of sexual violence. If victim want to make a report to the police they will be accompanied there". | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40320",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/104/"
]
} |
40,371 | How was this photo captured? Is it CGI? It looks a little odd to me. EDIT: No, nobody claimed this was a real photo, I was personally curious and skeptical to whether it was, and unaware of the requirement before I posted. (This was my first question on skeptics.SE) | No, it is not a real photo. It is computer rendering created by Anton Balazh, a graphic artist who lives in St. Petersburg, Russia This graphic is available in his portfolio on Shutterstock : Highly detailed Earth, illuminated by moonlight. The glow of cities sheds light on the detailed exaggerated terrain and translucent water of the oceans. Elements of this image furnished by NASA. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40371",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/41219/"
]
} |
40,397 | A selected letter in The Guardian talking about electric vehicles claims: The rare metals in lithium batteries are produced only in inconvenient places. More than 85% of the world’s supply comes from China. How dependent will that make us upon them? What metals might it be talking about (no details in there) and is it confirmed from other sources? Bonus question: are these rare metals essential for making lithium batteries or just convenient? | ...but China only has 37% of the world's reserves Michael Karnerfors has provided evidence that China produces 95% of the world's rare earth elements. However, China does not hold that much of the world's reserves of such metals. The US Geological Survey mineral commodity summary for 2017 for rare earths gives China's 2016 rare earth's production at 105,000 tons of a world total production of 126,000 tons; 83% of the world total. However, China's known reserves are given as 44,000,000 tons, out of a total of 120,000,000; 37%. Other nations with a large portion of world reserves include Brazil (18%), Vietnam (18%) and Russia (15%). To answer the question in the title, China does control roughly 85% of the current supply, but they don't control nearly that much of the potential supply. Were China to raise prices, it would simply allow mines in other regions of the world to be economical. This has in fact happened in the past , if I may be allowed to steal a link from matt_black's comment. So while literally true that China controls the supply of 85%, they cannot leverage this position to any economic advantage. To answer the question in the quote from the OP, we (all the non-Chinese) are not dependent on them. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40397",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/29579/"
]
} |
40,400 | President Donald Trump claims that moving the US embassy in the United Kingdom to a different location was a bad decision and a "bad deal". He puts the blame on the Obama administration. Reason I canceled my trip to London is that I am not a big fan of the Obama Administration having sold perhaps the best located and finest embassy in London for “peanuts,” only to build a new one in an off location for 1.2 billion dollars. Bad deal. Wanted me to cut ribbon-NO! —Donald J. Trump, 5:57 am · 12 Jan 2018 The above tweet blames the Obama administration for the decision to move the embassy, selling the old one for too low a price, and the budget to build a new one. I have a few questions about that, all related, so I'll ask them in one go. Did the Obama administration have any say in the decision to move the embassy? Was the Obama administration responsible for the size of the budget for building a new one? Was the Obama administration responsible for the sale of the old one and the price it fetched? | TL;DR Trump has several key details wrong or incomplete. 1. Did the Obama administration have any say in the decision to move the embassy? A quick google search on "US Embassy London Moved" gets you the Wikipedia entry : On October 8, 2008 , the embassy announced a conditional agreement with the real estate developer Ballymore to purchase property for a new embassy site on the south bank of the River Thames in the Nine Elms area of the London Borough of Wandsworth. The site lies within the Vauxhall/Nine Elms/Battersea Opportunity Area as set out in the London Plan. The proposed plan would only go forward if approved by the United States Congress and by the local planning authority. The Northern line extension to Battersea will have new stations at Battersea and Nine Elms—combined with major local development. The United States Department of State announced in January 2009 that it was choosing among nine architectural firms, all "modern" and "upmarket", to replace the ageing embassy headquarters. In March 2009 the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations announced that four architectural firms had been selected for the final phase of the design competition. By law, the architect for a U.S. embassy must be an American firm with "numerous security clearances". The agreement for the embassy's new location was made before Obama even won the election. It's safe to assume that the decision to move had been made long before that, because negotiations of that kind of level take a lot of time. So that's an immediate and definite "No". 2. Was the Obama administration responsible for the size of the budget for building a new one? Technically "yes" because ultimately the running administration has responsibility for everything that happens during said administration. The buck, as they say, stops there. That said, according to an article in the Independent , the London US Embassy Building is the most expensive embassy in the world and features numerous innovations against terrorist attacks, threats of which were one of the reasons behind the move: The current embassy in Grosvenor Square has been the target of terrorist threats in the past and a nuisance to its wealthy neighbours, prompting one aristocrat - a countess named Anca Vidaeff - to stage a hunger strike in protest of it, according to the newspaper. 3. Was the Obama administration responsible for the sale of the old one and the price it fetched? Yes, obviously. It's what you do when you no longer need an incredibly expensive building. EDIT : The statement made Politifact overnight, and they're rating it " Mostly false ": Trump said Obama sold the otherwise fine American embassy in London and relocated at a cost of $1.2 billion. Actually, the Bush administration put the plan in place after concluding that the existing embassy could not meet security requirements. The cost was about $200 million less than Trump said, $1.02 billion rather than $1.2 billion, and was financed through the sale of the old embassy and two other State Department properties in London. While he is correct that the sale occurred on Obama’s watch, the wheels were turning and preliminary contracts had been signed earlier. Trump’s tweet blows past those key details. We rate this claim Mostly False. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40400",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/16121/"
]
} |
40,423 | I have found several articles regarding a Russian scientist, Anatoli Brouchkov: Anatoli Brouchkov is a soft-spoken guy with silver hair, and when he lets out a reserved chuckle, his eyes light up like he was belly laughing. If you met him on the street, you'd never guess that he once injected himself with a 3.5 million-year-old strain of bacteria, just to see what would happen. When I spoke with him at VICE's Toronto office in October, the permafrost scientist—also known as a geocryologist, currently stationed at Moscow State University—told me that he's feeling just fine. In fact, he says he's feeling healthier and less tired than ever. His most famous claim is that he hasn't had the flu in two years, which he coyly says may or may not have anything to do with the ancient bacteria he injected into his body. - "Meet the Scientist Who Injected Himself with 3.5 Million-Year-Old Bacteria" , Motherboard (2015-12-09) "Russian Scientist Injects Himself with 3.5-Million-Year-Old Bacteria, Reckons He Might Now Live Forever" , Vice (2015-10-01) "Has the secret to eternal life been found? Russian scientist says he is stronger and healthier after injecting himself with 3.5 MILLION year old bacteria " , DailyMail (2015-09-30) I am not skeptical about whether this happened, I am skeptical about whether this had (or could potentially have) any of the positive health benefits that the Russian scientist claims. Is there any scientific evidence to support any of this? Or even a scientific theory on how 3+ million year old bacteria could boost our own immune system? | The "mad scientist" seems to be Anatoli V. Brouchkov , one of the authors of Draft Genome Sequence of Bacillus cereus Strain F, Isolated from Ancient Permafrost , detailing the organism's name as " Bacillus cereus Strain F", not "Bacillus F" as so commonly plagiarised in connection with this sensational news bait. Other subjects beyond what he did to himself make up a highly unusual minority group at best. In that video from the DailyMail Brouchkov is quoted explicitly and on tape himself (starting at 5:45 min): Narrator: "Anatoli Brouchkov tested an extract of the bacteria on mice and has taken it himself. Though he says it's a food supplement. So Manoush's decision to inject is a new, possibly riskier stage of the experiment." Brouchkov: "I didn't recommend her any injections and I told her it was no injection. It was just, ah, consuming the extract of the bacteria. Well, I, what I can say. She is a very brave lady." That makes the conclusion quite obvious that Brouchkov did not inject living bacteria into himself. In whatever way he took the bacteria or an extract of them: his claims are not about injections, but about improved health in test animals and himself. Any claim about "injections" is up to the media to substantiate, sometime perhaps? More factual reporting, even as events unfold, seems to have been possible in this case: Anatoli Brouchkov, head of the geocryology department at Moscow State University, says he drank million-year-old bacteria, and he tells the Russian TV network RT that he’s been working longer and hasn’t gotten the flu in two years. A more balanced account on the surroundings of this experiment is found here: some lifeforms may have been alive since the dinosaur era . A first clue into these claimed "benefits" of introducing the bacteria to currently living organisms is published in: Relict Microorganisms of Cryolithozone as Possible Objects of Gerontology : Testing Bacillary Cultures in Higher Organisms Testing in Drosophila melanogaster:
The experiment was carried out in Drosophila melanogaster flies of the same age (24 h). Five pairs were placed in test tubes with a nutrient medium (5–7 ml). The volume of sampling was 100 flies for each group. Flies were selected for the experiment by etherization; the dead and surviving flies were counted every 3 days. The experiment was carried out with a 24 h culture of Bacillus sp. (strain 3M) grown in a meat–peptone broth. The culture (20 μl) was added to the test tube with the experimental group. In the control group, the flies were kept in the medium with yeasts; in the experimental group, the flies were kept in the medium with yeasts for the first 5 days and then in the medium with the bacillus for 24 h (alternated during the whole period of observation). And that is a very preliminary study design. One group with this bacterium, the other without these bacteria (possibly sterile?). A better design would have included "younger" or just other bacteria to compare with the current experiment and control groups. Either way, the results were less impressive than popular headlines: Improving on this design flaw the same author tried two different strains of bacteria against a control: Permafrost Bacteria in Biotechnology: Biomedical Applications Effect of treatment with Bacillus cereus var. toyoi and Bacillus cereus strain BF on mortality in outbred mice after oral inoculation with S. enterica var. enteritidis (5 × 106 CFU per mouse on day 0; ten mice in each group): Note that both bacteria are shown to have some effect in this very small sample study. However, the one strain showing an effect here is not particularly known to be very effective either ( Development of intestinal microflora and occurrence of diarrhoea in sucking foals: effects of Bacillus cereus var. toyoi supplementation : We conclude that the supplementation of B. cereus var. toyoi had no effect on the occurrence of diarrhoea and health status in the foals.) They followed this up with the detailed speculation on possible mechanisms: The following three basic mechanisms could be proposed for how orally ingested nonindigenous bacteria can have a probiotic effect in a host: immunomodulation, that is, stimulation of the gut-associated lymphoid tissue, e.g., induction of cytokines; competitive exclusion of gastrointestinal pathogens, e.g., competition for adhesion sites; and secretion of antimicrobial compounds which suppress the growth of harmful bacteria (Duc et al. 2004). We propose that the notable probiotic properties of Bacillus cereus strain BF as compared with Bacillus cereus var. toyoi can be explained by the production of unknown bacteriocin-like inhibitory substances (unpublished data). We described the S. enterica var. enteritidis model as a variant to cause a chronic carrier state in mice after oral inoculation, as a model for a human carrier state. The pathogenic mechanism of S. enterica var. enteritidis action was connected with the gastrointestinal tract. Therefore, we used oral infection and treatment of mice. To protect mice from Salmonella infection, antibiotics or bacterial extracts can be used (Deng et al. 2007). Viable microorganisms such as yeast and bacterial species have been used to protect mice from Salmonella infection (Szabó et al. 2009). In our case, Bacillus cereus strain BF protected mice from Salmonella infection. Probiotic bacteria reduced colonization by pathogens and decreased host defense mechanisms. Preliminary results for Bacillus cereus strain BF showed an increase of the humoral and cell immunity of mice (Brouchkov et al. 2009). Thus, the possibility of oral treatment of mice infected with S. enterica var. enteritidis with probiotic Bacillus cereus strain BF, obtained from relict permafrost, was clearly demonstrated. Given the assumed age of this strain, whether it was "living", that is metabolising, the whole time or just thawed up and reactivated, it is possible that this variant is one of a non-pathogenic subspecies. Maybe it outcompetes pathogens, maybe it has pro-biotic effects: Probiotic Activity of a Bacterial Strain Isolated from Ancient Permafrost Against Salmonella Infection in Mice. Other lines of inquiry may lie in specific compounds produced by this species, for example certain lipopeptides: Agricultural Sciences Effects of Bacillus cereus F-6 on Promoting Vanilla (Vanilla planifolia Andrews.) Plant Growth and Controlling Stem and Root Rot Disease . Or DNA-repair enzymes An unprecedented nucleic acid capture mechanism for excision of DNA damage (2010) or similar mechanisms of various types A new protein architecture for processing alkylation damaged DNA: the crystal structure of DNA glycosylase AlkD (2008). Whether this species simply lost its pathogenic potential, never developed it in the first place, all bacteria do stimulate an immune response. The official word on probiotics and their relation to "flu" or more precise the common cold is currently: The evidence that probiotic supplements may help to prevent colds is weak, and little is known about their long-term safety. Currently there is some interesting research going on. As preliminary tests and studies the design problems encountered so far are forgivable. But since they were always present, no definitive answer can be given to that question. Even for other species of bacteria known, used and investigated since 1917 we do not have a complete picture of what they do or how they do it ( Upregulation of Intestinal Mucin Expression by the Probiotic Bacterium E. coli Nissle 1917 (2012): The probiotic E. coli Nissle 1917 (EcN) has been reported to have various health benefits; however, very little is known about their underlying mechanisms.). The cereus group is much less well studied for basic functioning or health effects. (E.g. The putative drug efflux systems of the Bacillus cereus group (2017).) Brouchkov's own assessment in peer reviewed journals now says: Permafrost microorganisms are possibly a perspective object for the search of new probiotics. (First Online: 24 June 2017) Whether he really injected himself with living bacteria, with inactivated/dead bacteria or whether he only ingested them: He told The Siberian Times , “After successful experiments on mice and fruit flies, I thought it would be interesting to try the inactivated bacterial culture. […] “The permafrost is thawing, and I guess these bacteria get into the environment, into the water, so the local population, the Yakut people, in fact, for a long time are getting these cells with water, and even seem to live longer than some other nations. So there was no danger for me.” However, he admitted that he had no idea what the bacteria was actually doing to his body, as scientists are not yet sure exactly how it works as they claimed “we cannot understand the mechanism, but we see the impact.” 'Now we have applied for a grant to conduct further research, especially on human blood cells, and we hope that we will get it, because the research is extremely promising.' This article, or one like that (in other Russian newspapers) seems to have started this whole thing. Note the mismatch between headline and body text regarding 'injections'. – Conclusion – As an anecdotal evidence Brouchkov claims about his personal health are irrelevant. If he were to market this strain as a probiotic, he'd have a tough time regarding these health claims in many markets . The possible effects claimed more by certain media than by him from a one-time shot of dead bacteria are wholly unlikely. For any effect over the claimed time span the procedure would have to be repeated. Live bacteria might have colonised him (that would be easily testable, but was apparently not carried out) and show beneficial effects (although that too is not very likely to the extent claimed in the articles in question). Most of the possible reasons for "health benefits" given by Brouchkov initially ('the bacteria are old, … therefore you grow older'/'exotic people living where we found them get older than expected…') are just nonsense. More accurate headlines would have to read like: Russian geocryologist (scientist specialising on permafrost soils) finds 3.5 million-year-old bacteria in thawing Siberian soil, assumes after preliminary testing the bacteria's potential as a trendy pro-biotic, eats it, says he is fine. and as a follow up: Global yellow press goes ape over misleading headline involving "Russian Scientist" – For years now, media fails to do basic research and just copies outrageously exaggerated claims over and over – Possible harm to actress Only one effect of this bacterium is crystal clear: it makes you immortal – by getting you into the news. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40423",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/38077/"
]
} |
40,438 | According to dumblaws.com , in New York (City? State? or both?): The penalty for jumping off a building is death. It is the second most-voted weird law in NY in ranker.com also: If Jumping Off a Building Doesn't Kill You... the City of NYC Will The penalty for jumping off a building is death. I couldn't find anything in the website below but maybe I didn't search properly: http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/navigate.cgi Is this a made-up law or could it be a historical law? | No, New York does not have the death penalty. According to the Death Penalty Information Center : In 1995 newly-elected Governor George Pataki fulfilled a campaign promise and signed legislation reinstating the death penalty in New York, designating lethal injection as the new method of execution. In 2004, that statute was declared unconstitutional by the New York Court of Appeals, and in 2007 the last remaining death sentence was reduced to life, leaving New York with a vacant death row and no viable death penalty laws . In 2008 Governor David Paterson issued an executive order requiring the removal of all execution equipment from state facilities. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40438",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/21976/"
]
} |
40,461 | It is common knowledge that after a car accident (presumably other types too), one shouldn't say they are sorry to the other person. While probably intended as an expression of empathy, the claim is that it can be taken as admission of fault and establish liability. Is this just an urban legend or rational legal advice based on laws or precedent? I can add some citations if needed, but I've found this to be a very commonly held belief amongst Americans and Europeans that I've heard independently expressed dozens of times. | I focused on the US for this answer. An apology does not automatically lead to the party being found guilty: The apology may not be admissible in court (but the laws are complicated, as usual). When it is admissible, the judge or jury will be deciding if anyone is guilty or not. In many cases, an apology is not seen as strong enough evidence on its own. A sincere apology can convince people not to press charges in the first place. The paper Does 'Sorry' Incriminate? Evidence, Harm and the Protection of Apology explains about the laws: [A] growing number of states have sought to encourage
apologies by explicitly denying their admissibility as evidence; the current wave of apology legislation, which has already swept through thirty-seven states and inspired similar versions in Canada and Australia, was reportedly set off in part by a single person’s adverse experience. Yes, Australia and (of course!) Canada have apology laws too. But let's get back to the paper: Indeed, the dozens of state “apology laws” passed in the last two
decades were drafted in part to encourage apologies by expressly denying,
in a highly publicized way, the admissibility of these apologies to
prove liability. Their motivation, in other words, is in part psychological: legislators meant the new measures to cause injurers to feel freer to apologize to their victims. For that reason the statutes should not be read as necessarily adding substantively to existing evidence law. Some clearly do, protecting even factually incriminating apologies in certain contexts, as we will see. Many, however, deny admissibility only to statements that were arguably inadmissible already. Even without the legislative protection, for example, a defendant could exclude certain apologetic statements, such as “I’m sorry you’re in pain,” by showing that the remark admits no point confirming or undermining a party’s position at trial, which would disqualify it as an “admission” under the exceptions to the hearsay rule. Alternatively, he might show that the prejudicial impact of admitting a statement, such as “I’m sick about what I did to you. It was horrible!,” substantially outweighs its probative value and therefore warrants exclusion under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and analogous state rules. Many of the legislative measures arguably add nothing to these grounds for exclusion. The paper Legal Consequences of Apologizing is an older paper (1996), but it still gives some valuable insight. It "illustrates that judges and juries understand that expression of sympathy, regret, remorse and apology are not necessarily admissions of responsibility or liability". Two particularly relevant cases that it brings up, where just an apology was not enough to win the case, are as follows: Apology for Serious Mistake During Surgery Did Not Establish any Element of a Malpractice Claim. In its 1982 decision in Senesac v. Associates in Obstetrics and Gynecology , the Supreme Court of Vermont held that a doctor's admission of a mistake did not automatically prove the doctor departed from the appropriate standards of medical care. In June of 1973, defendant Mary Jane Gray, M.D., performed a therapeutic abortion upon plaintiff Mary Senesac. During the procedure, Gray perforated Senesac's uterus and had to perform an emergency hysterectomy. Gray allegedly apologized to Senesac shortly after the operation, saying that she had "made a mistake, that she was sorry, and that [this] had never happened before." At trial, Senesac introduced no expert medical testimony to show that Gray departed from the standard of care ordinarily exercised by the average reasonably skillful gynecologist. She attempted to satisfy this element of the tort with the admission of mistake and the apology. The trial court ordered a directed verdict in favor of the defendant. Senesac appealed the granting of the motion for a directed verdict. On appeal, Senesac argued that the directed verdict was improper because the jury could reasonably have concluded from Gray's statement that she had admitted negligence. The Supreme Court of Vermont, in reviewing the directed verdict, assumed, without deciding, that the apology had actually occurred. The court acknowledged that it is possible for a plaintiff to win without expert medical testimony when the defendant's own testimony establishes the standard of care and subsequent departure. However, they affirmed the directed verdict because
Gray's statement did not establish a departure from the standards of care and skill ordinarily exercised by physicians in similar cases." The court saw this statement as simply being the physician's belief and expression of the belief that her performance was not in accordance with her own personal standards of care and skill." This statement, without additional expert medical evidence, was not enough to establish the second element of the tort. This case appears to say that plaintiffs, supposedly armed with an apology, must prove their cases just as if the apology did not exist. A mere apology does not prove any of the elements of the case because evidence about particular medical facts or events is still missing from the plaintiff's case. Since a mere apology pertains to a doctor's self-image and feelings, it is not evidence of any particular medical fact or event. This leaves the plaintiff legally in the same position as one who did not receive an apology. Apology for the Inadequate Outcome of a Medical Procedure was Not an Admission of Liability In Phinney v. Vinson , defendant Robert Vinson, M.D., performed a
transurethral resection of the prostrate upon plaintiff Robert Phinney. After the operation, recurring pain caused the plaintiff to go to another doctor. The second doctor allegedly told Dr. Vinson that he had performed an "inadequate resection," and the first doctor allegedly apologized to the plaintiff "for his failure to [perform an adequate resection]. Plaintiff sued and the trial court granted
defendant's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Phinney argued that the apology, without more, was sufficient
evidence of liability to allow the case to go to trial. Plaintiff relied on a few cases in which statements by the defendant were used to establish liability. The Supreme Court of Vermont affirmed, however, and distinguished an apology from a clear admission of liability. The cases plaintiff relied upon were clear admissions of liability, such as the defendant admitting an injury was caused by "negligence" and defendant stating that injuries would have been avoided "if he had checked on [plaintiff] as he should." The lesson Phinney teaches is how difficult it is for a plaintiff to win based on an apology alone. It appears safe for a practitioner to apologize for an inadequate outcome or result, as long as there is no admission that the inadequate outcome was caused by the practioner's negligence. It appears that there is an understanding that the result of an operation is not guaranteed, not every operation will be successful, and an apology for the inadequacy of an operation does not mean the doctor is liable for negligence. This is a practical precedent in that it
allows a doctor to express sympathy or empathy, without fear of reprisal, when the result of a procedure is not as good as was hoped for. Such expressions usually help heal the feelings and relationships of all persons involved. It seems that an admission of negligence by doctors to their patients can get doctors into trouble. Where there is no actual negligence (something patients can hardly determine), doctors should be careful in choosing their words. When apologizing, expressing sympathy or delivering bad news, words should be chosen to convey sympathy and empathy in a way that cannot be misconstrued as an admission of negligence or fault. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40461",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/8323/"
]
} |
40,499 | According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration , About 19.6 pounds [8.89 kg] of CO 2 are produced from burning a gallon of gasoline that does not contain fuel ethanol. About 12.7 pounds [5.76 kg] of CO 2 are produced when a gallon [3.8 litre] of pure ethanol is combusted. I am not a climate change denier, but this just seems like an unreasonable statement without explanation. How is it possible for 5-10 pounds (2.3—4.6 kg) of liquid to produce 20 pounds (9 kg) of gas? | This is directly addressed by the US Department of Energy at FuelEconomy.gov : It seems impossible that a gallon of gasoline, which weighs about 6.3 pounds [2.9 kg], could produce 20 pounds [9.1 kg] of carbon dioxide (CO2) when burned. However, most of the weight of the CO2 doesn't come from the gasoline itself, but the oxygen in the air. [...] Therefore, to calculate the amount of CO2 produced from a gallon of gasoline, the weight of the carbon in the gasoline is multiplied by 44/12 or 3.7. [...] We can then multiply the weight of the carbon (5.5 pounds [2.5 kg]) by 3.7, which equals 20 pounds [9.1 kg] of CO2! So the answer is: Yes . An article at Slate draws similar conclusions. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40499",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/43636/"
]
} |
40,567 | One common trope in fiction over the decades has been someone putting a file in a cake—or other baked good—that then is passed onto someone in prison to help them escape. As the website TV Tropes explains : The stereotypical way to smuggle escape tools into a prison is by hiding them in a cake and giving them to the prisoner. Most often a nail file is hidden in the cake. Granted, most of the time I have seen this trope played out it was with a larger “ rasp ” file. But that minor quibble in TV Tropes wording aside, has this ever actually happened in the real world in the history of people being imprisoned? Looking for an early example of this happening if possible. Source can be pretty much anything as long as it is valid, verifiable and legitimate. Illustrative picture below of a literal file baked into the middle of a cake. | There have, and there's a very nice comprehensive article at Smithsonian.com detailing literal files in cakes and other escape tools: The earliest case I found was recorded in an 1804 compendium of criminal behavior—and it’s an instance of successful use of cake as a means of securing freedom, albeit in a backhanded way. William Blewitt was a gang member known for his pickpocketing prowess and tendencies toward housebreaking. Sentenced to seven years for an undisclosed offense, Blewitt was placed aboard a prison ship where he learned that several felons procured saws and files by way of gingerbread cakes and were planning to escape before the ship set sail. Blewitt alerted the authorities to the plot and was pardoned. This specific story also appears in The Criminal Recorder: Or, Biographical Sketches of Notorious Public Characters, Including Murderers, Traitors, Pirates, Mutineers, Incendiaries ... and Other Noted Persons who Have Suffered the Sentence of the Law for Criminal Offenses ; Embracing a Variety of Curious and Singular Cases, Anecdotes, &c, Volume 1 ,
available online here : William Blewitt, another of his gang, was the son of poor parents near Cripplegate, who apprenticed him to a glover; but before he had served above three years of his time, he associated with ill company, and became a pickpocket and house-breaker. Having been apprehended and lodged in Newgate, he was tried for an offence, of which he was convicted, and sentenced to be transported for seven years; in consequence of which he was put on board a ship in the river, in company with several other felons, Some of these had procured saws and files to be concealed in cakes of gingerbread, and by means of these instruments they hoped to effect their escape before the ship sailed to any distance. Blewitt having discovered their intention, disclosed it to the captain of the vessel, who seized the implements, and gave Blewitt his liberty, as a reward for the information. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40567",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/22266/"
]
} |
40,569 | I've seen some various claims that the Super Bowl was originally called the Super Ball. Is this true? | There have, and there's a very nice comprehensive article at Smithsonian.com detailing literal files in cakes and other escape tools: The earliest case I found was recorded in an 1804 compendium of criminal behavior—and it’s an instance of successful use of cake as a means of securing freedom, albeit in a backhanded way. William Blewitt was a gang member known for his pickpocketing prowess and tendencies toward housebreaking. Sentenced to seven years for an undisclosed offense, Blewitt was placed aboard a prison ship where he learned that several felons procured saws and files by way of gingerbread cakes and were planning to escape before the ship set sail. Blewitt alerted the authorities to the plot and was pardoned. This specific story also appears in The Criminal Recorder: Or, Biographical Sketches of Notorious Public Characters, Including Murderers, Traitors, Pirates, Mutineers, Incendiaries ... and Other Noted Persons who Have Suffered the Sentence of the Law for Criminal Offenses ; Embracing a Variety of Curious and Singular Cases, Anecdotes, &c, Volume 1 ,
available online here : William Blewitt, another of his gang, was the son of poor parents near Cripplegate, who apprenticed him to a glover; but before he had served above three years of his time, he associated with ill company, and became a pickpocket and house-breaker. Having been apprehended and lodged in Newgate, he was tried for an offence, of which he was convicted, and sentenced to be transported for seven years; in consequence of which he was put on board a ship in the river, in company with several other felons, Some of these had procured saws and files to be concealed in cakes of gingerbread, and by means of these instruments they hoped to effect their escape before the ship sailed to any distance. Blewitt having discovered their intention, disclosed it to the captain of the vessel, who seized the implements, and gave Blewitt his liberty, as a reward for the information. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40569",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/42192/"
]
} |
40,626 | EveningStandard claims in Masturbation 'kills up to 100 Germans a year', new study shows that up to 100 Germans a year die to masturbation for using risky methods like auto-erotic asphyxiation or electric shock. Similar claims can be found in these sources, among others: Dailymail: Masturbation kills 100 Germans every year: Study discovers bizarre ways people died pleasuring themselves including a man who tried to melt sliced cheese over himself The Sun: Up to 100 Germans are killed every year… by extreme MASTURBATING Are up to 100 Germans per year killed by using risky techniques for masturbating? | Even though the article was published by Bild (which is a strong indicator that you have to check the sources yourself) and has no verifiable source, it sounds correct . In 2009, Sandra Kuhn wrote a dissertation in medicine at the University of Hamburg about "Auto-erotic deaths in Hamburg and Munich 1983-2002" [ 1 ] In the 20 years, she found 101 cases (100 male, 1 female), so around 5 per year. With that data, she got a final number of 0.6 to 1 deaths per year per million. For 82 million people in Germany, this leads to 50-80 deaths per year. This publication is most likely the source for the articles as EveningStandard as well as Dailymail refer to the 1983-2003 timeframe. If you take a high dark figure into account (e.g. relatives removing embarrassing evidence) the given figure of 100 is acceptable. The dissertation also contains a small literature research with different results: [chapter 1.5.1] Hazelwood et al. (1983): 1-2 cases/year/million for USA/Canada Flobecker et al. (1993): 0.1 for Sweden | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40626",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/26319/"
]
} |
40,687 | CBC Radio (Canada) reported earlier this evening that the Florida shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School " was the 18th school shooting in the U.S. since the beginning of 2018. ". On its face this seems a bit unlikely; also due to the fact that these incidents tend to be widely reported in the media, and I have only heard of one school shooting so far in 2018 (in Kentucky). However a quick Google search shows this factoid also being reported by many media outlets in the US. How is it possible that 16 school shootings have occurred so far this year in the USA and it has largely escaped public notice? | In summary there appears to be at least 18 gun incidents in, or around, schools between 1st January and 14th February 2018. They are not all of the "mass shooting" variety one might expect from the headlines but they have certainly all involved the accidental or intentional letting off of a firearm. A few notes I count 17, not 18 The 18th has been found (H/T @BradC) 2 were suicides 3 others involved fatalities 4 further incidents involved some injuries The remaining 9 led to no injuries or deaths This figure has been widely reported after the terrible incident in Florida on February 14th, 2018 . That is one school shooting in 2018. A quick rundown of others: 2nd Jan: LA teen accidentally discharges weapon – injures 4 people (How?!?) A 12-year-old girl was booked on suspicion of negligent discharge of a firearm Thursday after a shooting at Sal Castro Middle School left four students injured, authorities said.Los Angeles police do not believe that the shooting was intentional, spokesman Josh Rubenstein said Thursday evening.
- Los Angeles Times 3rd Jan: 31-year-old Michigan man commits suicide – happens to be at an elementary school The Clinton County Sheriff's Office says a man who called 911 shot himself in the parking lot of East Olive Elementary School in St. Johns.
Deputies were called to the former school just before 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday afternoon.
The man had called 911, stated he was suicidal and told dispatch that he had a handgun with him.
A Clinton County negotiator talked to the 31-year-old man from Potterville for several hours before the man took his own life.
- WILX News 10 4th Jan: Shots fired off campus in Seattle enter the building – no injuries Shots were fired and a bullet entered a building at New Start High School near Burien Thursday afternoon. King County Sheriff's Office officials said no one was hit or injured. Officials said a round was fired from outside of the school around 1:15 p.m. into the main administrative office. The office was occupied at the time.
- KIRO-TV 10th Jan: Arizona teen commits suicide at school The Cochise County Sheriff's Office said Wednesday a 14-year-old boy shot himself with a family member's firearm inside an elementary school bathroom in southern Arizona.
Sheriff Mark Dannels said in a news release that investigators recovered the weapon in Tuesday's shooting from the bathroom at Coronado Elementary School
- azcentral.com 10th Jan: Shots fired off campus happen to hit California State University building Authorities say a gun was fired and a bullet hit a building on a Southern California college campus, but there were no reports of any injuries.
Officials at California State University, San Bernardino said the gunfire was reported at about 6 p.m. Wednesday local time.
San Bernardino police say the shot most likely came from just off campus and hit a window of the visual arts building on its west side.
- CBS News 10th Jan: Accidental weapon discharge at Texas school – no injuries School officials said a bullet from an accidental discharge went through a classroom wall, came out through the other side and exited through a window.
It happened at the Grayson College Criminal Justice Center on Jan. 10.
- KXII News 12 15th Jan: Person in Texas drove into a school parking lot, let off some shots, and crash into a wall. No injuries The Marshall Police Department is investigating a shooting that occurred on the Wiley College campus. On Monday, January 15, at approximately 12:15 a.m., officers responded to the area of University Avenue near Wiley Avenue on reports of gunshots. Preliminary reports indicate that a black sedan entered the Strickland Hall parking lot and possibly exchanged gunfire with a person who was in the parking lot. It is believed the black sedan was occupied by two subjects. The suspects in the sedan crashed into a retaining wall, causing damage to the retaining wall and the vehicle. The vehicle left the scene prior to officers arrival.
- KTBS 3 20th Jan: North Carolina university student shot and killed on campus A Winston-Salem State University football player died after being shot at an event at Wake Forest University early Saturday morning.
Najee Ali Baker, 21, was taken to a hospital and died, according to a Winston-Salem police press release.
Police were called to The Barn, an event venue on the school's campus in the 1800 block of Wake Forest Drive, at about 1 a.m. after a gunshot was fired.
- WTHI-TV 10 22nd Jan: Someone drives past and shoots at kids outside of a school. Injures one, not seriously New Orleans Police are investigating a shooting outside of a Gentilly high school Monday (Jan. 22) that left one 14-year-old boy injured with a "superficial" abrasion wound.
Police said someone in a dark pickup truck drove by The NET Charter High School, in the 6600 block of Franklin Avenue, and fired while a group of students were in front of the school, in the parking lot. The shooting took place about 1:30 p.m., principal Elizabeth Ostberg said.
- NOLA.com 22nd Jan: In Texas a high school student opens fire in the school cafeteria injuring one A 16-year-old boy is in custody after a shooting at a Texas high school cafeteria Monday morning that injured one student, authorities said.
Just before 8 a.m. local time, police responded to reports of an active shooter at Italy High School in the town of Italy, about 50 miles south of Dallas.
A 15-year-old girl was wounded in the shooting and airlifted to Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, according to the Ellis County Sheriff’s Office.
- The Washington Post 23rd Jan: Kentucky high school kid kills two at his high school Two students were killed Tuesday and 18 other people were wounded when a 15-year-old boy armed with a handgun opened fire inside a Kentucky high school, authorities said.
Terrified students ditched their backpacks and scrambled to get away, and within minutes of the shots' having been fired, sheriff's deputies were at Marshall County High School in Benton, where they disarmed the student and took him into custody, officials said.
- NBC News 25th Jan: Two Alabama high school kids have a disagreement, one fires shots, nobody injured Investigators said what started out as just a disagreement between two teenagers escalated to shots fired at Murphy High School.
Mobile Police identified the student as 16-year-old Jonah Neal. Neal has been booked into Mobile County Metro Jail.
- FOX10 News 31st Jan: Philadelphia Man dies outside (or near) a school after an altercation A man has died following a shooting outside a Philadelphia high school.
It happened around 3:50 p.m. Wednesday near Lincoln High School located in the 3200 block of Ryan Ave.
Police say they were called out to the school for reports of a large fight and gunshots being fired in the parking lot. 31st Jan: Shots fired in a Michigan school carpark – no deaths Shots were fired in the parking lot of Dearborn High School during a basketball game Friday night.
Two individuals were involved in an altercation in the hallway, according to an email from Dearborn Public Schools Superintendent Glenn Maleyko.
The individuals were not students of the school district and were reportedly "settling a score" from a previous encounter that occurred in another city.
- WXYZ.com 5th Feb: Maryland high school student shot in the chest. Is "Critical" but leaves hospital a few hours later. A teenage boy who was shot outside his high school this week was set up by an ex-girlfriend, charging documents say.
Police have charged 17-year-old Zanaya Bryant and 18-year-old Anthony Hollingsworth with attempted murder and related charges in connection with the shooting.
- NBC4 Washington 5th Feb: Minnesota third grader manages to pull the trigger of police officer's gun (I really shouldn't laugh at this should I?) Nobody was injured Monday afternoon when a student at the Harmony Learning Center fired a school liaison officer’s gun, Maplewood police say.
The officer was sitting on a bench talking with some students about 1:45 p.m., when a third-grader pressed the trigger of the officer’s holstered weapon, according to a news release issued by the Maplewood Police Department.
The gun discharged through the bottom of the holster and a bullet struck the floor, the news release said.
- Twin Cities 8th Feb: Gun fired in a Bronx classroom – no deaths Police are investigating after a gunshot was fired in a Bronx school Thursday.
It happened Metropolitan High School in the Longwood section around 3 p.m.
Police responded to the call at 3:20 p.m. They found a bullet hole in the floor of a classroom inside the school.
- ABC7 14th Feb: Florida shooting linked at the top of this answer A former student unleashed a hail of gunfire in a Florida high school on Wednesday, killing at least 17 adults and children, authorities said. - CNN | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40687",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/39845/"
]
} |
40,697 | During debates about gun control, I have seen gun advocates quote a statistic that the UK homicide rate increased in 1996 following a ban on handguns. Furthermore, the claim usually goes on to suggest that what bought violent crime back down to current, historically low, levels was the introduction of 20,000 police. The inference we are supposed to draw from this is that the answer to gun crime is more police, not less guns. Here's an example of the argument in action: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing. That's from Mint Press News . There's another example at the Crime Prevention Research Center . When you dig into sites that present this argument, they all appear to be strong advocates against regulating firearms, which makes me suspicious. Is this statistic true? If it is accurate, on the surface, are there deeper conclusions we can draw from it? | The numbers are cherry-picked. When you dig into sites that present this argument, they all appear to be strong advocates against regulating firearms, which makes me suspicious. Is this statistic true? If it is accurate, on the surface, are there deeper conclusions we can draw from it? Correlation is not causality, and they ignore other factors on crime. This particular quote has cherry picked some data to support their argument, and ignored others. Let's look at their data claim again. From 1990 until the ban was enacted [1997], the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Very low UK homicide numbers are susceptible to how individual events are reported. The absolute rate of homicides in England and Wales (the data I'm using does not include Scotland) is so low, about 500 to 1000 persons per year, that individual events and how they're reported can throw off the trend. Let's begin by using the numbers in Homicide In England and Wales from the Office of National Statistics ... (Note: Reporting switched from Jan-Dec to April-March in 1997.) However, there are notes about anomalous events included in each year's numbers. Since the numbers are so low these can throw the graph off. In particular two large events which happened in previous years were reported for 2003 and 2017 respectively which accounts for their anomalous spikes. 2003 includes 172 victims of Dr Harold Shipman , one of the most prolific serial killers in history. While these killings happened over 25 years, they're recorded for 2003. 2017 includes 96 victims of Hillsborough which happened in 1989. The data notes other large, anomalous events are noted which can explain spikes in individual years. 2001 includes 58 Chinese nationals who suffocated in a lorry en route into the UK. 2004 includes 20 cockle pickers who drowned in Morecambe Bay. 2006 includes 52 victims of the 7 July London bombings. 2011 includes 12 victims of Derrick Bird . Once we remove the 171 deaths mis-attributed to 2003, the 2003 spike is replaced with a smooth plateau. Similarly once we move the 96 victims of Hillsborough from 2017 to 1989 where they belong, the 2017 uptick is diminished. The corrected data shows a smooth upward trend until a small spike in 2001, followed by a plateau for a few years, then a rapid fall off. There was a slow upward trend through 2000. Note that homicides are generally on a slow climb for decades. That trend continued smoothly, going past the 1997 handgun ban and all the way to a spike from 2001 to 2005 before falling off. The "spike" happened years after the ban. Handguns were rounded up quickly, The British Handgun Ban Logic, Politics, and Effect by Colin Greenwood claims... The whole process of confiscating virtually all legally held handguns took place between July 1997 and February 1998. but there was no corresponding spike in 1998, 1999, nor 2000, those years follow the existing upward trend. (Note: I am not a statistician.) One way to determine if a given rise or fall is an anomaly, or simply part of a larger trend, is to look at a window of time and compare it to another window of time. If you take, say, 1990-2000 it doesn't look much different from 1980-1990 or 1970-1980, they all have their drops and climbs, they all follow the same basic trend; you can pass a ruler through it. Another way to look at it, 1977-1979 features an even larger rise than 1998-2000, but there's no corresponding gun control initiative to explain it. This indicates gun control wasn't the driving factor. The trend is definitely broken by 2001, 3-4 years after the ban. US and UK gun crime and ownership are very, very different. The conclusion the authors are pushing is that "gun control doesn't work in the US " and "guns reduce crime in the US ", but they omit some key information which makes it difficult to draw such a conclusion using the UK as a template. 0.1% of the population turned in handguns. Greenwood states of the handgun ban... Fifty-seven thousand people were compelled to hand in 162,000 pistols, 700 tons of ammunition, propellants and related equipment. The population of England and Wales in 1997 was about 51 million. 0.1% of the population turned in handguns. One might question how confiscating so few legally owned guns had any impact on crime at all. That's exactly what Greenwood concludes. The situation is not, as some people have claimed, that the
ban on handguns caused an increase in their use in crime. The truth is that it is a total irrelevance. Crime and the use of pistols has been increasing continuously over the period and everything that politicians and police have done has tended to exacerbate rather than tackle the problem, but the ban on handguns is neither here nor there in the equation. As a side note, it did not significantly reduce the number of legal gun owners in the UK. They just switched to carbines. The confiscation did not significantly reduce the number of
active shooters. Most pistol clubs turned to shooting pistol-calibre carbines which are more powerful and have a larger magazines than most pistols. The total number of licence holders was reduced by only about 2,000. ~7% of UK homicides are with a gun, ~67% in the US. While in both countries about 3/4 of gun homicides are committed with handguns, there is an enormous difference in the ratio of gun vs non-gun homicides in general. According to the UNODC Homicides By Firearms , about 67% of homicides in the US are committed with a firearm vs about 7% (the number varies a bit) in the UK. Given this very, very large disparity in gun violence and ownership, one cannot draw conclusions about the effect of a similar handgun ban in the US. US homicide rates are 5x the UK, yet they have so many more guns. The US murder rate is the highest in the Western world at about 5 per 100,000 people, whereas the UK is at about 1 per 100,000, but the US has 16 times as many guns. If their argument is correct, if handgun ownership even at the minuscule 1997 UK level of 0.1% is supposed to be the most important negative factor in homicide rates (ie. more legal handguns means less homicides), then the US with 20-25% gun ownership should have a very low homicide rate. But this clearly is not true. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40697",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/20863/"
]
} |
40,718 | This site already has a question on the general relationship of video games and violence. But the recent Florida school shooting has raised a more specific set of claims that deserve to be addressed. According to this Rolling stone report , the Kentucky State governor blamed video games: "Why do we need a video game, for example, that encourages people to kill people?" he said. "Whether it's lyrics, whether it's TV shows, whether it's movies, I'm asking the producers of these products, these video games and these movies, ask yourselves what redemptive value, other than shock value, other than the hope you'll make a couple of bucks off it. At what price? At what price?" A Fox contributor was more specific (my highlight): Fox News contributor Tammy Bruce claimed that talking about firearms doesn’t get to the “core issue” of “the human condition.” She and the hosts of Fox & Friends also blamed drugs, virtual reality, and video games for the shooting . This seems fairly specific: it isn't access to guns that is the problem, it is, among other things, video games. A related Rolling Stone article , by two psychology professors, makes the opposite claim (equally worth some skepticism but not deserving a separate question, I suspect): "...those who perpetrate acts of violence in schools are more than three times less likely to play violent video games than an average high school student." Is there any evidence that violent video games have a more significant contribution to school shootings than access to guns? | This is a very contentious issue, and both sides have numerous studies to cherry-pick to support their side. In a search of academic articles (as opposed to blog posts), I have come across a couple that I feel are relevant, well sourced and conducted, and impartial. Harvard University published a report in October of 2010 . Some key points: Much of the research on violent video game use relies on measures to assess aggression that don't correlate with real-world violence. Some studies are observational and don't prove cause and effect. Federal crime statistics suggest that serious violent crimes among youths have decreased since 1996, even as video game sales have soared. Parents can protect children from potential harm by limiting use of video games and taking other common-sense precautions. A key point (emphasis mine): Other researchers have challenged the association between violent video game use and school shootings, noting that most of the young perpetrators had personality traits, such as anger, psychosis, and aggression, that were apparent before the shootings and predisposed them to violence . The Michigan Youth Violence Prevention Center also speaks of there being a more nuanced view of this. While they support a link between violent video games and aggressive behavior, this doesn't translate well into school shootings. Without easy access to guns, this aggressive behavior is limited to giving study participants extra hot sauce, or bullying in school. They conclude with: Finally, most researchers would agree that violent behavior is determined by many factors which may combine in different ways for different youth. These factors involve neighborhoods, families, peers, and individual traits and behaviors. Researchers, for example, have found that living in a violent neighborhood and experiencing violence as a victim or witness is associated with an increased risk for violent behavior among youth. Yet, this factor alone may not cause one to be violent and most people living in such a neighborhood do not become violent perpetrators. Similarly, researchers have found consistently that exposure to family violence (e.g., spousal and child abuse, fighting and conflict) increases the risk for youth violent behavior, but does not necessarily result in violent children. Likewise, researchers have found that first person killing video game playing is associated with increased risk for violent behavior, but not all the time. Yet, constant exposure to violence from multiple sources, including first person violent video games, in the absence of positive factors that help to buffer these negative exposures is likely to increase the probability that youth will engage in violent behavior. Despite disagreements on the exact nature of the relationship between violent video game playing and violent or aggressive behavior, significant evidence exists linking video game playing with violent behavior and its correlates. Although we are somewhat agnostic about the role of social controls like laws banning the sale of violent video games to minors, an argument against such social controls based on the conclusion that the video games have no effect seems to oversimplify the issue. A more in-depth and critical analysis of the issue from multiple perspectives may both help more completely understand the causes and correlates of youth violence, and provide us with some direction for creative solutions to this persistent social problem. I did also find this site that outlines both sides of the issue side by side . One surprising item in the list: Gun violence is less prevalent in countries with high video game use. Per capita video game sales were $5.20 in the United States compared to $47 in Japan. In 2005, the United States had 2,279 murders committed by teenagers (27.9 per million residents) compared to 73 in Japan (3.1 per million).[11][12][13] A study of the countries representing the 10 largest video game markets internationally found no correlation between playing video games and gun-related killings. [97] Even though US gun violence is high, the nine other countries with the highest video game usage have some of the lowest violent crime rates (and eight of those countries spend more per capita on video games than the United States). [97] Of note on the side saying video games cause violence, there is a lack of direct association to mass shootings except as a post hoc argument. And in this entire debate, the notable outlier statistic is the ease and prevalence of guns in the US. All other countries have similar (or even greater) rates of violent video game consumption, mental illness, or whatever excuse the pro-gun lobby wants to blame it on. Source for the plot: an article on the Washington Post Source for the plot: a scientific paper on the Lancet one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals in medicine. Access to the paper is free, but it requires a registration on the Lancet's site. Source for the plot: this archived website , citing multiple Wikipedia sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_by_country | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40718",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/3943/"
]
} |
40,725 | During a lecture with Jennifer Egan, writer and Pulitzer-Prize winner, she was telling stories about the Brooklyn Navy Yard and one of those was that at one point during the second world war, 2 ships were brought in which were both damaged beyond repair. However because each ship still had one half which was sort of usable, it was decided to cut both of them in half then weld them together again. An amazing story, and probably correct, but I couldn't find any reference for it and keep on wondering how this was done practically as it seems quite challenging. (I do not have a link to back this story up, but I heard it just last night so it's still fresh in memory, and Egan is more than notable enough for me.) | From TWO INTO ONE Shipbuilding and Shipping Record 28 June 1945: The U.S. destroyer escort Menges is back in service again. But only two thirds of her is the original ship; the other third was U.S.S. Holder another destroyer escort. Both ships were badly damaged in the Mediterranean, the Menges by two torpedoes, which killed 30 men and destroyed a large part of her stern. They were both docked at Brooklyn Navy Yard, where the Holder's stern was removed and grafted on to the Menges . See also Menges and Holder and photos of the repair process here: http://www.navsource.org/archives/06/320.htm | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40725",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/25727/"
]
} |
40,733 | A post circulating on social media - 48,000 shares and counting so far - depicts still images of two news reports, one in California in August 2017 and one in Florida in February 2018 after the Parkland school shooting. The post alleges that both images depict the same man, David Hogg: The allegation is that he is a "crisis actor", paid to pretend to be a witness/survivor of events that he was not actually present at, or that did not take place at all. I know there were similar allegations about the Sandy Hook shooting a couple of years back. I don't think we can answer whether he's a crisis actor or not and I don't know what the event he "witnessed" in August 2017 is. Is it the same man in both of these images? | Both photos are legitimate and depict the same person (David Hogg), but the picture on top from August 2017 is from a story about Hogg and his friend getting in an argument with a beach lifeguard . The picture on the bottom shows Hogg in a CNN interview pertaining to his experience in the Florida shooting . While Hogg was involved in both events, most would not consider the incident in California a "crisis." | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40733",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/39658/"
]
} |
40,808 | There are countless sources claiming that There are more deaths from being attacked by hammers than by guns. http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2017/10/second_amendment_gun_control_a.html http://gunssavelives.net/assault-weapons-ban/more-people-killed-by-hammers-clubs-bats-each-year-than-by-rifles/ I've heard similar claims before, often with 'knives are worse in Country X' thrown in for good measure. Is this true? Are hammers the instrument of more deaths than guns? Where does this common assertion come from? | According to the FBI homicide data , there were 15,070 reported murders in the United States in 2016, 11,004 of which were victims of murder by guns: 7,105 handgun victims, 374 rifle victims, 262 shotgun victims, and 3,263 victims of murder by a different type of gun, or by an unspecified gun. In comparison, there were 472 reported victims of murder by blunt objects. The following figure illustrates these data. The green bars correspond to the number of gun victims; rifle victims are shaded in dark green, and all other gun victims are shaded in light green. The orange bar shows the number of victims that were killed by a blunt object, and the gray bar corresponds to all remaining homicide victims. Thus, it's apparently not true that there are more homicides per year by hammers than by guns. The particular claim that there are more hammer homicides than rifle homicides may be true for 2016, but given that the FBI subsumes this weapon under a broader category, we cannot say for sure. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40808",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/36594/"
]
} |
40,868 | I just watched the episode "Night of April 14th" of the 1950s television show "One Step Beyond." The premise of the series is to present real life stories involving paranormal supernatural occurrences. In this particular episode, it is claimed five passengers of the Titanic predicted its sinking. Here are three that really stood out to me: A woman and her fiance had planned a honeymoon trip from their home in England to Switzerland. Shortly before leaving on their trip, the woman has a nightmare about drowning, but her fears are assuaged by her mother who tells her no one ever drowns in Switzerland. The next day her fiance visits her to tell her there is a change of plans and they will instead spend their honeymoon in New York City; having secured two tickets on the Titanic for the trip to America. Despite the young woman's premonitions and instinct, the couple go anyways, and she is saved on a lifeboat after being forced to leave her husband behind. A painter who is traveling on the ship paints a highly detailed work depicting the sinking of a ship similar to the Titanic. A priest who holds religious services on the ship, and just before giving his last service before the ship sank, he decides he will sing a hymn related to those imperiled while traveling on the sea. I've tried to verify that these stories exist in Titanic literature, or even lore, but haven't found anything at all. Is there any evidence these premonitions actually took place? Or are they, and possibly the entire series, nothing more than the work of a creative writer? | The episode in question that OP saw is available on YouTube. Story 1 : Newlyweds on Honeymoon Unless details of the story have been extremely modified, this story is false. Upon watching the story, several inconsistencies arrive. The couple are identified as an Eric and Mrs. Farley. According to this source there was no one who boarded the Titanic under the surname Farley, nor anyone under either Eric or Erik with a last name resembling Farley phonetically. The husband states that they are right next to a Mr. John Jacob Astor , Boat Deck, 111-B. Several things wrong here. The Boat Deck had no accommodations for passengers B Deck did not go to room 111. C Deck , where room 111 actually would have been for First Class Passengers, was occupied by a Mr. Benjamin Laventall Foreman , who was traveling alone Mr. Astor was staying in rooms C-62 and C-64, far away from C-111. The wife is said to have escaped the sinking on Lifeboat 4. According to this list , no woman on board Lifeboat 4 has a last name resembling Farley phonetically in any way. It was likely picked for this work of fiction as it was the same boat that Mr. Astor's widow, Madeleine Talmadge Force Astor , escaped on. Story 2 : The Minister The story lists a Dr. Morgan as the Minister of the Rosedale Methodist Church in Winnipeg, Canada during the time of the Titanic sinking. There was indeed a Charles Morgan who was the Cleric of the Rosedale Methodist Church in Winnipeg in 1912. While there are places online that claim this story to be true, no trustworthy sources seem to be available. None cite their sources, and most of the stories seem to be copy/pasted from each other. The only place where I was able to find anything to be sourced was on Atlantis Rising Magazine which claims that the Toronto Sun was the originator. A google search points to the Lowell Sun actually being the source, although from the (admittedly terrible) OCR job on the page available as a free sample, it seems to be the same version of the story seen on other pages available online. The article was written in 1975, decades after this episode came out. Story 3 : The Cartoonist The man in the story is named as Harry Teller. A google search for "Harry Teller" Titanic only brings up references to the episode in question. A google search for "Harry Teller" cartoonist bring up no relevant results outside of references to the episode. Similarly, the supposed painting predicting the sinking is shown in the episode. While it's entirely possible that the painting was destroyed, there are no news references to a painting made prior to the Titanic sinking. This story seems to be wholly invented for the purposes of this episode. Story 4 : The Wreck of the Titan: Or, Futility TIME Magazine wrote an article about the similarities between the book and the actual disaster. While there are some eerie similarities between the two stories, it seems to be more a case of Pareidolia than anything else. Notable excerpts from the TIME article: “He was someone who wrote about maritime affairs,” (Paul) Heyer said. “He was an experienced seaman, and he saw ships as getting very large and the possible danger that one of these behemoths would hit an iceberg .” The story’s main focus is a Titan naval officer who finds God, gets the love of his life back and fights alcoholism after the Titan’s sinking . Robertson also throws in some interesting action sequences — like one where the protagonist slays a polar bear to rescue a small child . After the sinking of the Titanic, Robertson gained great acclaim for being a clairvoyant, a title he denied. “No,” he would reply. “ I know what I’m writing about, that’s all. ” Furthermore, the Titanic was not the first, nor would it be the last, ship to sink due to icebergs. Wikipedia provides a non-exhaustive list of ships that have confirmed to have been sank with icebergs. A web archive of icedata.ca provides a larger list of confirmed and suspected sinkings due to icebergs. Nor would it even be the only ship to sink due to icebergs with a name similar to "Titan". The same source listed a Titani a (note the slightly different spelling from Titanic) sinking due to an iceberg in 1880. So, in conclusion, you have A story directly contradicted by freely available evidence A story whose only verified claim is that they get the name of a church minister correct A story with no available evidence of it being true A book that, while bearing similarities to the sinking, uses a highly dangerous and well known sea hazard to sink a ship using a naming convention that was popular at the time | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40868",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/44297/"
]
} |
40,881 | According to this article at dailymail.co.uk and this article at news.com.au a declassified document "APO 696" (purportedly in the U.S. National Archives) includes testimony that indicates a possible nuclear explosion in Germany in early October 1944. Above newspaper articles say that the "APO 696" document contains the following statement by a German test pilot Hans Zinsser: In early October 1944 I flew away 12-15 km from a nuclear test station
near Ludwigslust (south of Lübeck). A cloud shaped like a mushroom
with turbulent, billowing sections (at about 7000 metres) stood,
without any seeming connections over the spot where the explosion took
place. Strong electrical disturbances and the impossibility to
continue radio communication as by lighting turned up. The Daily Mail article continues that Hans Zinsser estimated the cloud stretching for 6.5miles and described further
'strange colourings' followed by a blast wave which translated into a
'strong pull on the stick' - meaning his cockpit controls. I have not found online access to the "APO 696" document in the U.S. National Archives so I cannot confirm whether it states what is claimed in these articles. However both articles also refer to the explosion to have been seen by a reporter named Luigi Romersa. According to this article in Spiegel Online (dated March 14, 2005) and the Wikipedia article about him , Mr. Romersa was a former war reporter for the Milanese newspaper Corriere della Sera (engl. "Evening Courier"). The Spiegel article states that: For years Romersa, a Roman who is now 87, has been telling the story
of how he visited Hitler in October 1944 and then was flown to an
island in the Baltic Sea. Romersa says that he was taken to a dugout
where he witnessed an explosion that produced a bright light, and that
men wearing protective suits then drove him away from the site,
telling him that what he had witnessed was a "fission bomb." The news.com.au article relates above report to an incident involving a German treasure hunter by name Bernd Thälmann who, as it is told, had located a lump of uranium in the soil near Oranienburg (a German article about this is here at berliner-kurier.de , and an English one can be found here at independent.co.uk ). A problem I have with determining the truthfulness of these claims is that each story seems to me refer to a different location for the explosion. Consequently we have reports that would indicate WW2-era nuclear activity in Ludwigslust (south of Lübeck) an island in the Baltic Sea near Oranienburg (seems to be near Berlin?) Question: Is it plausible that there was a nuclear explosion in Germany during WW2? | Most likely not, at least not in the way these claims are suggesting. The article's claims are shaky at best, and go against both US and German reports regarding Germany's nuclear program at the time. APO 696 : Two problems here. The linked articles base their claims on the "Recently declassified file APO 696 from the National Archives in Washington". A quick search through the national archives doesn't show any such document, though admittedly it could be part of some other documents and hard to find. Regardless, if it was declassified and public, there would have been no reason for them to not link the documents in the article. Furthermore, 'APO' seems to mean 'Army Post Office', and according to this document 'APO 696' seems to have been located in New York. Perhaps the actual document the claims are referring was found at that post office and has another official name, however this again leads to question as to why the articles wouldn't give the actual name of the document or where to find it. It's more likely that 'APO 696' sounded official enough to be a believable document, so they used it without verifying whether it existed. Luigi Romersa's Claim : The references to Romersa are likely references to the book Hitlers Bombe by Rainer Karlsch. However, a quick look at the Wikipedia article for it shows that not only did Karlsch's sources not claim to have witnessed a fission bomb but rather a dirty bomb or some other related device, he himself stated that he did not have any conclusive proof to back up the claims. So, clearly not the best source, but perhaps his sources were correct and they are the only people willing to talk about seeing it. Feasibility : There is a lot of documentation on the German nuclear program , all of which points to the fact the German nuclear program was, at best, many years away from producing a bomb. One source of info regarding Germany's nuclear program is Albert Speer's Inside the Third Reich . I don't have the actual text to cite, however according to Speer there was little hope in producing a working nuclear weapon. They had apparently solved the physics behind making a bomb, however the project to develop such a bomb was scrapped in mid-1942 when estimates stated that they would have it working no sooner than 1947, and only if they put their full focus behind it. Furthermore, by mid-1943 Speer allocated Germany's uranium stock to the production of ammunition. Further German nuclear research focused mainly on energy production, not bombs. The Sites : It is very obvious where nuclear weapons are tested, as they leave behind various types of radioactive material that can rarely be found naturally. At least one site, the location mentioned by Karlsch, was tested in 2006 and no abnormal radiation levels were found. Although a lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean a lack of an event, if any serious tests occurred there would certainly be some radiological evidence today, not to mention the fact that seismological data from the explosion could have been collected a thousand kilometers away . | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40881",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/44053/"
]
} |
40,900 | In the recent U.N. Security Council meeting, U.K. Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations Jonathan Allen quoted Putin by the following words (YouTube link, the relevant part starts at 1:07:30): Traitors will kick the bucket, believe me. Those other folks betrayed their friends, their brother in arms, whatever they got in exchange for it, those 30 pieces of silver they were given, they will choke on them. Is this an accurate quote? In what context has this been said, i.e., to whom was it referring? | No, on the occasion in question Putin did not say that traitors would be killed. The quote in your question comes from a March 5, 2018 broadcast of BBC Newsnight . It is a concatenation of three soundbites from a three-minute statement in which Putin says that Russia no longer kills traitors. The soundbites come from the last paragraph of his statement in which Putin paints a melodramatic picture of traitors as broken men living out their remaining days in abject misery leading to an early death. The particular traitor to whom Putin alludes is not Sergei Skripal as some have claimed. He is correctly understood to allude to Colonel Aleksander Poteyev convicted in absentia of betraying deep-cover spies in the United States. The actual fate of enemies of the Russian state is beyond the scope of the question and this answer. Instead we will discuss the beliefs on this subject which Putin was attempting to instill. He was inviting the Russian people to picture traitors dying friendless and alone Men Without a Country, presumably in apartments strewn with empty vodka bottles. The translation in the BBC broadcast alters the tone of Putin's statement and broadens the set of possible meanings of his words to the point that, when they are read in the style used by Western comedians portraying Putin, they seem to convey veiled threats of violence. Chinese Whispers The next day (March 6th) the composite soundbite from the BBC broadcast appeared at the head of article on the website of The Sun , now shorn of the context provided in the BBC broadcast. The article describes the statement as a "threat to 'choke traitors'", thereby changing the BBC's poor translation into an unambiguously false one (as discussed below). The day after that (March 7th) the Independent put up an article with its own version of the BBC video. The article incorrectly identifies it as a video which "re-emerged online" and describes Putin's words as "apparent death threats". Also on March 7th the Telegraph described Putin's words unambiguously as a "death threat" . This despite the fact that in 2010 they had reported on the very same statement and found exactly the opposite meaning in it. What is more, the Telegraph goes beyond saying that Putin's words were spoken close to the time of Sergei Skripal's release to assert that Putin was speaking of him explicitly. On March 7th on Good Morning Britain Piers Morgan asked Alexander Nekrassov (former Kremlin adviser) what Putin meant by "kick the bucket" . Mr. Nekrassov's answers are apparently interpretations of "they will croak all by themselves" which Putin can be heard saying in Russian in the BBC audio. Mr. Morgan sees this as an evasion. Mr. Nekrassov in turn sees Mr. Morgan's interpretation that Putin meant "they will be killed" as perverse and becomes annoyed. Neither one of them seemed to know the context of the quote. On March 12th the video was mentioned in an editorial in the New York Times . The editorial links to the March 7th article in the Independent and quotes the translation from the video. The editors seem to have obtained some information about the TV show during which the statement was made, but this is a bit garbled too. In particular their description of the question is incorrect and they make no mention of the overall import of Putin's answer. Also on March 12th Newsweek made explicit the hitherto unspoken assumption that Putin had spoken in the style of "a Mafia boss in the Godfather series" while somewhat incongruously expressing doubt that Putin had been involved in the attempted assasination. On March 14th an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council was held. Vassily Nebenzia (Russian ambassador to the United Nations) compared high British officials who accused Russia of the poisoning of Sergei Skripal with Inspector Lestrade who regularly got stuck on superficially plausible theory of the crime and when it turned out to be a dead-end was unable to extricate himself without the aid of Sherlock Homes. To this Jonathan Allen, deputy ambassador to the United Nations rejoined: An finally, my colleague quotes fiction. Let me quote the Russian president when we think about who benefits. In 2010 he said, quote "Traitors will kick the bucket, believe me. Those other folks betrayed their friends, their brothers in arms. Whatever they got in exchange for it, those thirty pieces of silver they were given, they will choke on them." Mr. Allen can perhaps be excused for thinking the quote authentic. It had been bandied about in the press for more than a week almost unchallenged. Putin had spoken on national TV and so nothing stopped the press from going back to look at the original video. Earlier Western Press Coverage of Putin's Statement A preliminary verification would not even have required a knowledge of the Russian language. Putin's statement had attracted some press coverage in the West at the time he made it. A number of these reports are available online with fuller, more illuminating versions of the quote in superior translations: Vladimir Putin: Russian secret services don't kill traitors ( The Telegraph ) Vladimir Putin says Russian secret service no longer kills traitors ( Mirror ) Putin: Russia's Secret Services Don't Kill Traitors ( NBC News ) Putin: We Don't Kill Traitors Anymore ( CBS News ) RT's Coverage of Putins Statement On December 16, 2010 the English-language Russian TV network ran a story on its website about the call-in show. They reported on Putin's "traitors" statement under the subheading "No more 'squads against traitors'". On December 19, 2010 RT did a 60-second TV spot on Putin's question-and-answer session. It begins with two glamor photos of Anna Chapman (one of the spies deported in the Illegals affair as described below) and follows with Putin's statement about what would happen to traitors. The segment can be viewed on Archive.org . The Illegals Affair In the part of the Putin's statement from which the BBC took its soundbites he refers to the exposure and arrest of agents of the Illegals Program on June 27, 2010. The Illegals Program (which is the name given it by the US Department of Justice) planted Russian sleeper agents in the United States under deap cover as private citizens. They posed as ordinary people, generally married couples, living ordinary lives in suburbia. The incident was the inspiration for the TV program The Americans . In July of 2010 the ten spies arrested in the United States were exchanged for three Russian nationals who had been convicted of high treason for espionage. One them was Sergei Skripal, included in the exchange at the request of Great Britain. (This appears to be his only connection to the affair.) In August the deported Russian spies were “warmly greeted” by Vladimir Putin who "led them in singing patriotic songs" . Later in June 2016 Putin claimed a personal connection to sleeper spy cells (details below). After the program was exposed, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service began an investigation in an attempt to determine whether the agents had been betrayed. Suspicion fell on one Colonel Aleksander Poteyev who was in charge of undercover spying in the US. He is thought to have fled Russia a few days before the arrest of the undercover agents. Where he is now is unclear, but the opinion in the Russian press is that he went to the US, that his children are also in the US , and that he may or may not have died in 2016 . The Statement Putin's comment on the Illegals affair came at the end of a longer statement in answer to a question on another subject. He is speaking during the program Direct Line: A Conversation with Vladimir Putin in December 2010. Direct Line is a marathon ask-me-anything-style show which he does once a year. The broadcast is on Youtube (the question is asked at about 3:12:15 and Putin concludes his answer at about 3:15:15) and there is a written transcript . Here is an English translation. The parts included in some form in the quote from your question are in bold: M. Sittel: Vladimir Vladimirovich, I’m taking a question from the website, this time it is one of those personal ones. It is clearly written by someone who loves memoirs. “When you spoke of the recent spy scandal, you noted: traitors do not live long. The leaders of many countries, as know from recollections, have signed orders for the the liquidation of the enemies of the homeland oversees. The French have done so, the Israelis. Have you, as the head of state, had occasion to make such a decision in the past?” V. Putin: I do not think that leaders of state signed such orders personally even in the past. That is the work of the special services. And during Soviet times, in Stalin’s time, it is no secret, there were special subunits which carried out, including (these were military subunits, it was not all they did), which when necessary carried out such assignments: the liquidation of traitors. Such subunits were themselves liquidated long ago. It is known that actually many, say the Israeli special services have (pause) used such methods. Yes, all things considered, as for today, far from all have given this up even now. The Russian special services do not use such means. With regard to traitors , they will curl up on their own, I assure you. That’s because...because... Well picture for yourself, take this latest instance of betrayal in which they exposed a group of our illegals. And these are officers! Do you get it? Officers. A man betrayed his friends, his comrades in arms. These are people who laid their entire lives on the altar of patriotism. What is it like to learn a language at native level, to give up one’s relatives, not to be able to come home to bury one’s loved...um...loved ones? Think about that for a minute! Someone has given his entire life to serve his homeland and now this brute comes along who betrays people like that. How is he going to live with that for the rest of his life? How will he look his children in the eye, the swine?! And um...Whatever went on there, whatever 30 pieces of silver those people may have gotten, they will stick in their throat , I assure you. And that um...To spend your whole life trying to keep out of view, to be unable to talk with your loved ones. That's...you know, someone who chooses such a fate will be regretting it a thousand times over. So the quotation in the form you cite is garbled and has been interpreted in a manner which is at odds with the original context which is a specific denial that Russia assassinates traitors. Notes on Translation The word “загнуться” famously translated “kick the bucket” literally means “to curl up” or "to curl down". What it means here is open to interpretation. The translation “kick the bucket” can be found in Wiktionary as a possible translation of a very informal use of the word. @bashbino’s assertion that such use refers to decline and death rather than sudden death is probably correct. I suspect it is an allusion to the way plants whither and die. In 2010 the phrase was translated "they will croak all by themselves" ( The Telegraph , NBC News ) In translating “прятаться” as “trying to keep out of view” I am trying to leave the question of whether the traitor is hiding from assassins or simply from people he cannot look in the eye up to the reader’s interpretation. This word can refer to social avoidance such as the behavior of a child who hides behind his mother’s skirt. The phrase “колом станут у них в горле” refers to difficulty swallowing due to revulsion , not to airway obstruction. To make this clear I have translated it “will stick in their throat”. In 2010 it was translated "it will get stuck in their throats" ( The Telegraph , NBC News ) Similar Statements Putin's December 2010 statement on deep-cover spies and those who betray them was not the first. On July 25, 2010 the Guardian reported a statement on the subject: "Just imagine," he said. "First you have to master a language as if it were your own, think in that language, talk in it, [then] fulfil the task set in the interests of your motherland over many years, suffering daily dangers for you and your loved ones, who don't even know who you are or for whom you work." Putin also said he knew the names of those who betrayed the agents. "It was the result of treason," he said, predicting a grim future for those responsible. "It always ends badly for traitors: as a rule, their end comes from drink or drugs, lying in a ditch. And for what?" In June 2017 on Russia's TV Channel One he addressed spies currently living in deep cover abroad and again expressed his admiration for them. He also described a personal connection: All of my work in the USSR's foreign intelligence agencies was connected not simply with foreign intelligence service but specifically with "illegal" intelligence. So I know what kind of people they are. They are special people with special qualities and special convictions, people with a particular type of personality. Not everyone can give up his present life, his loved ones, his family and leave the country for many, many years and dedicate his live to service of the Motherland. Only the chosen few can do this. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40900",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/38612/"
]
} |
40,906 | Reichsbürger have recently made the news in Germany. These are people who are convinced that the Federal Republic of Germany is not a sovereign state and therefore has no authority over them. This makes them believe they can defy court orders, fines, postage fees and other interactions with authorities. Mostly they justify this by pointing out that Germany does not have a peace treaty, but instead is still under occupation by allied forces. They go on to say that Germany's constitution ( Grundgesetz ) is not a "real" constitution and not legally binding. To what degree is this claim true? | The claim that Germany has no constitution and no treaty that ended the occupation is not true in any way. Constitution : Here is the German constitution , called The Basic Law ('Das Grundgesetz' in German). It was formally adopted in May 1949 by the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany), and continued to be used as the German constitution when West Germany absorbed East Germany. Here is the (translated) first line of the page containing the document: The Basic Law (GG) is the constitution for the Federal Republic of Germany. And part of the first sentence of the document's preamble: ...animated by the will to serve as an equal member of a united Europe the peace of the world, the German people has given this Basic Law by virtue of its constitutional power. Granted, this is the translated text, so perhaps the German concept/linguistics behind 'constitution' and 'constitutional' is different. Regardless, there is no 'standard' constitution for it to follow, so since it serves the function of a constitution it is a constitution. Treaty : The Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany is the treaty signed in 1990 by all foreign parties involved with the situation in Germany. Here is the full text , and Article 7 is the most relevant part for this question: ARTICLE 7 (1) The French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America hereby terminate
their rights and responsibilities relating to Berlin and to Germany as a whole. As a result,
the corresponding, related quadripartite agreements, decisions and practices are
terminated and all related Four Power institutions are dissolved. (2) The United Germany shall have accordingly full sovereignty over its internal and external affairs. I don't see how it can be more clear: every country that had occupied parts of Germany signed this treaty to return full sovereignty to the reunited Germany. They agreed to renounce all of the responsibilities and direct influence that resulted from previous occupation agreements, as Germany was no longer considered occupied territory. Although it is not specifically called a 'peace treaty', this was only because everyone involved didn't think it needed to be called such, as can be seen in these quotes from the opening paragraph and Article 2: The Federal Republic of Germany, the German Democratic Republic, the French
Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America, Conscious of the fact that their peoples have been living together in peace since 1945; The Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic
Republic reaffirm their declarations that only peace will emanate from German soil. In short, although it's not explicitly called a peace treaty, it served the function of a peace treaty: West Germany is not at war anymore because all of the relevant parties agreed that it wasn't, and the West German government would absorb East Germany in order to become unified. Again, there is no standard peace treaty to follow, so since it functions as a peace treaty it is a peace treaty. Regarding German successor states and the Reichsbürger's claims : As pointed out in some comments, the Reichsbürger aren't necessarily claiming that Germany doesn't have a constitution or peace treaty. Rather, they believe that the current Federal Republic of Germany is illegitimate because they consider the Weimar Republic (a.k.a. Deutsche Reich, Reichsbürger -> Reich's Citizens) to have been the true government that automatically came into existence after the defeat of Nazi Germany. They seem to base their claims on a 1973 decision by Germany's Federal Constitutional Court (I can't speak German, so I'll have to trust Wikipedia's version of it for this answer). Part of that decision is that the Deutsche Reich (Weimar Republic) survived the collapse of Nazi Germany as a state in terms of international law, but that it could not act as a state due to having no government. Thus, the Federal Republic of Germany was created, despite the Deutsche Reich still technically existing at the time. Because of this, the Reichsbürger claim that the real German government is still the Deutsche Reich, and the Federal Republic of Germany is essentially an illegitimate foreign puppet government. However, they fail to acknowledge the rest of that court decision, which states that the Federal Republic of Germany is not a successor government, rather that it is a continuation of the Deutsche Reich. Following this, the current German government is not a successor state to either East and West Germany, rather it is a continuation of West Germany, and thus a continuation of the Deutsche Reich. In summary: Reichsbürger's claim: Deutsche Reich still existed at the end of WWII, so it is the real German government. The Federal Republic of Germany was created by the occupying forces and therefore not the legitimate government, and thus they don't have to follow the current government's laws. Legal reality: Deutsche Reich still existed at the end of WWII, and was simply renamed to the Federal Republic of Germany. They aren't separate governments. Furthermore, the German reunification did not result in a new government, rather the current German government is simply the same as the West German government. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40906",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/38612/"
]
} |
40,925 | This sentence appears in the Wikipedia article on Rub' al Khali . The Rub' al Khali desert [note 1] (Arabic: الربع الخالي, i.e., "the Empty Quarter") is the largest continuous sand desert (erg) in the world (...) I was wondering how this sentence can be true, especially when combined with: It is part of the larger Arabian Desert. The Rub' al Khali has 650,000 square kilometres, Arabian Desert has 2,330,000 square kilometres and Sahara has 9,200,000 square kilometres. If Rub' al Khali is part of the larger Arabian Desert then isn't the Arabian Desert the largest sand desert in the world? I was always told (and taught) that "Sahara is the largest sand desert in the world", so I must admit that I am a little bit confused by above cited Wikipedia articles. | These rankings are all a matter of what counts and what doesn’t. For examples, I’ve constructed three similar rankings, each one a little stricter—which forces out some contenders, and gives those below them that are still left higher rankings. This way we can see how Rub' al Khali can be largest in one ranking, while larger-still deserts are found in the more permissive rankings: Any desert The largest deserts (and select desert subsets) on Earth are... Antarctica— 5,500,000 sq mi or 14,000,000 km 2 Arctic— 5,400,000 sq mi or 13,985,000 km 2 Sahara— 3,300,000 sq mi or 9,000,000 km 2 Arabian— 900,000 sq mi or 2,330,000 km 2 Gobi— 500,000 sq mi or 1,000,000 km 2 Kalahari— 360,000 sq mi or 900,000 km 2 Rub' al Khali— 250,000 sq mi or 650,000 km 2 Part of the Arabian Great Victoria— 220,000 sq mi or 647,000 km 2 Great Sandy–Gibson— 210,000 sq mi or 556,000 km 2 Authorities vary on whether this is one desert or two; see below [...] Great Sandy— 150,000 sq mi or 400,000 km 2 As a separate desert from the Gibson [...] Erg Chech— 123,000 sq mi or 320,000 km 2 Part of the Sahara [...] Gibson— 60,000 sq mi or 156,000 km 2 As a separate desert from the Great Sandy Hot desert The largest hot deserts (and select desert subsets) on Earth are... Sahara Antarctica and the Arctic are left off because they are very cold Arabian Kalahari Gobi is kind of a mixed case, getting cold in the winter and hot in the summer; leaving it off here since this is defined as “hot” deserts Rub' al Khali Still a subset of the Arabian Great Victoria Great Sandy–Gibson Still arguably two deserts [...] Great Sandy Separately from the Gibson The Patagonian and Great Basin dropped out of that ellipsis [...] Erg Chech Part of the Sahara Karakum and Colorado Plateau removed from the list in that ellipsis [...] Gibson Separately from the Great Sandy Kyzylkum and Taklamakan removed from the list in that ellipsis Hot, sandy desert The largest continuous areas of hot, sandy desert on Earth are... Rub' al Khali Per the Wikipedia article , the rest of the Arabian consists of A corridor of sandy terrain known as the Ad-Dahna desert connects the large An-Nafud desert (65,000 km 2 or 40,389 square miles) in the north of Saudi Arabia to the Rub' Al-Khali in the south-east. [citation needed] The Tuwaiq escarpment is a region of 800 km (500 mi) arc of limestone cliffs, plateaux, and canyons. [citation needed] Brackish salt flats: the quicksands of Umm al Samim [citation needed] The Wahiba sands of Oman: an isolated sand sea bordering the east coast[citation needed] Since there are non-sand areas within the Arabian, it cannot count as a whole in this list. Rub' al Khali is the largest sandy section, and thus tops this list. “The Sahara is mainly rocky hamada (stone plateaus), Ergs (sand seas - large areas covered with sand dunes) form only a minor part,” quoth Wikipedia . “The Kalahari Desert is a large semi-arid sandy savanna,” “A semi-desert, with huge tracts of excellent grazing after good rains,” and so on, all per Wikipedia again . Low rainfall, but not so low; you don’t get the “sand sea” effect here due to the presence of some plant life. Great Sandy–Gibson Again, if we treat them as one desert. The Great Victoria Desert “consists of many small sandhills, grassland plains, areas with a closely packed surface of pebbles (called desert pavement or gibber plains) and salt lakes,” from yet more Wikipedia , so that’s why that’s gone. Great Sandy Without Gibson Dropped from the list here are the Syrian (“The land is open, gravely desert pavement, cut with occasional wadis.”) and the Chihuahuan (“Several larger mountain ranges [...] create ‘sky islands’ of cooler, wetter, climates adjacent to, or within the desert, and such elevated areas have both coniferous and broadleaf woodlands, including forests along drainages and favored exposures,” “According to the World Wide Fund for Nature the Chihuahuan Desert may be the most biologically diverse desert in the world,” “it receives more precipitation than other warm desert ecoregions.”) Erg Chech After having dropped the Sonoran Desert, because, well, this: which is the image on the top-right of the Wikipedia page . [...] Gibson The Gibson Desert is still behind the Thar Desert , as “Most of the desert is covered by huge shifting sand dunes that receive sediments from the alluvial plains and the coast.” All numbers come from Wikipedia’s list of largest deserts , Wikipedia’s article on Rub' al Khali , and DavePhD’s answer, for Erg Chech , though I have created my own lists to emphasize various points. Note that these rankings are fairly arbitrary: I just used Wikipedia’s list, added in Rub' al Khali, Great Sandy–Gibson as a single desert, and Erg Chech, to address the desert subsets that have been discussed in answers here, and applied my own (fairly arbitrary) filtering to the first list to produce the second and third. There is nothing special about my rankings; you could easily come up with different rules for what does or doesn’t count, and achieve different rankings. The point is that you have to pay very close attention to exactly what competition someone is coming in 1st in—qualifiers on it may make the achievement less than it first appears. Also note that the numbers don’t always agree: DavePhD’s answer has a larger area for the Great Sandy–Gibson than Wikipedia does (possibly by including areas between the two deserts that would not be considered part of either when separated), as well as a smaller area for Rub' al Khali. Natural borders are not always fixed, and are not always clear, hard lines—differences of opinion in where the limit is, what does or doesn’t count as still being part of the same desert, etc. all can come into play, to say nothing of the possibility that they can and do shift over time. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40925",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/14836/"
]
} |
40,929 | This article from The Guardian features a quote from Putin claiming that Russia destroyed all their chemical weapons: “Secondly, Russia does not have such [nerve] agents. We destroyed all
our chemical weapons under the supervision of international
organisations and we did it first, unlike some of our partners who
promised to do it, but unfortunately did not keep their promises.” However, I was unable to confirm or refute this claim as it is not mentioned when or with whom Russia cooperated for this. | According to the Russian government, their country officially complied with the terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention on September 27, 2017. According to broadcasts from Russian State Media , Russian President Vladimir Putin destroyed the last of Russia's chemical weapons stockpile that were banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention on September 27, 2017, in a highly publicized and choreographed event. The New York Times President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia presided over the destruction of his country’s last declared chemical weapons on Wednesday Newsweek “We trust that Russia’s efforts on liquidating chemical weapons will serve as an example for other countries,” Putin concluded. He spoke as he hailed the “historic” closing of a chemical arms facility in Russia’s Udmurtia region—the last facility of its kind, according to Putin. and Reuters President Vladimir Putin said Russia was destroying its last supplies of chemical weapons on Wednesday, three years ahead of schedule, hailing the development as “an historic event”. all independently published the story regarding the destruction of the last of the Russian military stockpile of chemical weapons. The event was described as follows by the New York Times. State television showed Mr. Putin ordering officials at a destruction center in the central Russian village of Kizner to dismantle the last shells containing lethal chemical agents. The green shells, each unscrewed by a machine in a sealed container, bore the words “Farewell, chemical weapons” painted in white in Russian. Valery Kapashin, the head of the Russian agency responsible for the storage and destruction of chemical arms, told Mr. Putin by video link to the president’s country home outside Moscow: “Comrade commander-in-chief! The chemical weapons of the Russian Federation have now been entirely eliminated.” The chemical weapons were destroyed as part of an international agreement between Russia and the United States. From the New York Times article above Both Russia and the United States — which hold the world’s biggest stockpiles — were supposed to destroy all of their chemical weapons by 2012 under an international agreement, the Chemical Weapons Convention, that they each signed in 1993 and which went into force in 1997. The final deadline for the elimination of chemical weapons was initially set for 2007. But with neither of the two countries close to meeting that goal, the deadline was extended to 2012. Neither Russia nor the United States met that new deadline either, although Mr. Putin boasted on Wednesday that Russia was three years ahead of a 2020 deadline it had set for itself. The full text of the original agreement is available here . A few things to note from the agreement, however. Countries party to the agreement are self reporting, and not done by inspectors searching the country for weapons. If a country does not declare a chemical weapon cache to inspectors then they do not know about it. Countries party to the agreement are allowed to manufacture small amounts of chemical weapons (100 grams) for "research, medical or pharmaceutical purposes" According to some , new chemical agents are not banned under the agreement and are allowed to be produced by countries party to the agreement. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40929",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/25617/"
]
} |
40,991 | From this tweet , by a tweeter who claims to be located in Sweden: No Joke: Sweden’s board of health and welfare and the migration authority just released this pamphlet called “information to the person who is married to a child”, meant to help guide men who marry underage girls through the Swedish welfare system. The picture has a logo of Socialstyrelsen and Migrationsverket, and the title "Information till dig som är gift med ett barn" I can find the publication here , so it exists. But is it an accurate description of what it is? The page, when translated by google, says Information for you who are married to a child This folder is aimed at adults who are married to a child. It contains information about what is happening in Sweden about child marriages and children's rights. The folder can be left to the spouse of the social service and other professionals who meet the child. However, the contents in the pamphlet seem to be opposed to child marriage. From Google Translate: Barnäktenskap är förbjudet i Sverige
I Sverige är det förbjudet att gifta sig med någon under 18
år. Det finns många anledningar till det. Child marriages are prohibited in Sweden
In Sweden it is forbidden to marry someone under 18
year. There are many reasons for it. [long list of reasons] Is this pamphlet, apparently published by the Swedish government (the web site involved would be an extremely elaborate hoax if it was made up by extremists), a guide for men who've "married" a child on how to use the Swedish welfare system? | The pamphlet is/was real; the claim "a guide to welfare" is false The pamphlet is/was real and caused a stir in the Swedish news, for example: Aftonbladet (in Swedish) The pamphlet was published on Socialstyrelsens website on this link (in Swedish), but was quickly retracted (in Swedish) when the criticism poured in. The main objections were that the language was too soft and not conveying harsh condemnation. The pamphlet was not however "a guide for men who've married a child on how to use the Swedish welfare system". The claim is false because Sweden has no welfare for being married at all in Sweden, not even for people that are married legally. And in order to get welfare for having a child you must be the legal guardian or trustee of the child, which the pamphlet states clearly is not applicable in cases where someone married a child outside of Sweden. Edit after obtaining a copy of the pamphlet Translation by jkej from the post below (thank you very jkej much for letting me use that; readers, please give the post +1's). I have made some additional some edits as well. The order is: page above, corresponding translation below. Information to you who are married to a child Child marriage is illegal in Sweden In Sweden it is illegal to marry anyone under the age of 18.
There are many reasons for this. Children have a right to be children and to not have the
responsibilities that come with a marriage. Children should go to
school, educate themselves, develop as their own person, develop their own
interests. Early marriage often lead to early parenthood, which leads
to increased risks for the child, both in the short term and in the
long term. Getting married early can also lead to both
physical and psychological ill-health, an increased risk of
living in poverty, or to be subject to oppression and violence. This applies in Sweden: All children, girls and boys, have the same rights. Anyone who has entered marriage has the right to get a divorce, even if the other partner does not want to get a divorce. Sex is voluntary, also within marriage. Everyone shall have access to information about sexual and reproductive health and rights. A girl/woman has the right to an abortion if she wishes to end a pregnancy. When a person has reached the age of 18 that person has the right to self-determination. Legal guardian, trustee, or specially appointed legal guardian has responsibility for the child Children who come to Sweden without a legal guardian are treated as
unaccompanied refugee children. If the parents of the child are here
in Sweden, they are the legal guardians of the child. Unaccompanied
refugee children are appointed a trustee who helps the child with
issues that parents otherwise help with. If you are married to a child you can never assume the parents' or a trustee's responsibilities. You as the husband/wife of a child
also cannot speak on behalf of the child. Illegal to have sex with children under the age of 15 In Sweden it is illegal to have sex with someone under the age of 15.
This applies even if you are married and even if you have children
together. Children under 15 have an absolute right to be protected
from sexual activities. Someone who has sexual intercourse or engages
in another type of sexual activity with a child is committing a sexual
crime. The purpose of these rules is to protect the child. If the one you are married to is an unaccompanied refugee child Social services have the de facto responsibility for all
unaccompanied refugee children. This includes arranging accommodation
for the child. It is the responsibility of the Swedish Migration
Agency to arrange accommodation for adult asylum seekers. Social
services investigate the child's need for protection and support and
suggests an accommodation for the child. Social services can suggest that you do not live together for a shorter
or longer period. The purpose is to ensure that the child receives the
protection and support it is entitled to. Since children under the age of 15 have an absolute right to
protection from sexual activity, it is inappropriate that you live
together if the child is under the age of 15. This applies even if you
have children together. Both social services and the Swedish Migration
Agency will work to give the child the opportunity to express its
opinion regarding where to live and under what circumstances. It is
with the child and the trustee that the social services will cooperate
and that together with social services may decide for the child. If you want more information about what applies to Sweden, you can
turn to the public servants at the Swedish Migration Agency or to
social services. On the website New in Sweden you will find out more about the Swedish
society in several languages. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40991",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/104/"
]
} |
41,065 | My Facebook feed includes a report that fluoride has recently been officially classified as a neurotoxin. Awareness Act, 5 April 2018 A big step has been made here recently. In the most prestigious medical journal. One known as The Lancet. fluoride has been at last classified as a neurotoxin one hundred percent. This puts it in the same category as things like lead, arsenic, and mercury. This news was released by the author Stefan Smyle who actually cited a report that had been published in The Lancet Neurology, Volume 13, Issue 3 to be exact in the March of 2014 edition. I am not entirely sure what it means to be "officially classified", but has such a classification been made? (Whether fluoride actually is a neurotoxin is a separate claim, if anyone wants to ask a separate question about it.) | No. Quoting user Yaverland from Reddit : This blog goes into great detail about the paper published by The Lancet. In addition to the point that "The Lancet" doesn't classify anything, rather it published a paper online that may or may not stand up to further scrutiny... There was one reference to fluoride in the entire study , which was repeating the claims in another paper . This paper has been met with much scepticism. Some commentary repeated in the blog: In comments prepared by the Science Media Centre, epidemiologist Jean Golding of the University of Bristol accused the pair [Grandjean and Landrigan] of issuing scare statements. “To implicate high fluoride, which they quote as one of the new chemicals… they quote only one paper; this only compares the mean IQs of children in villages with different levels of fluoride, with no allowance made for any other differences, and no actual measurement of fluoride in individual children and comparison with their IQs. This is not good evidence.” Read the whole blog, it is scathing. I don't quite know what to add to that. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41065",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/23/"
]
} |
41,073 | The astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has said that during the Islamic Golden Age, especially in Baghdad, science and discovery flourished for a few centuries. Then an Islamic scholar named al-Ghazali became prominent, whose ideas took root. Among these was something along the lines that mathematics was, to use Tyson's words "the work of the devil". I've listened to many of Tyson's talks, and he's mentioned this many times. Today I came across the Wikipedia article for al-Ghazali and thought I'd spend some time reading about him. He was a rather influential Islamic scholar in many ways, but specific to the claim that his philosophy led to the decline of science within the Islamic world, I only found the following: His reforms are widely seen as having initiated the decline of
scientific research in the Islamic world.[by whom?][citation needed]
Against this view, Saliba (2007) has given a number of examples
especially of astronomical research flourishing after the time of
al-Ghazali Wikipedia article Here is a video of Tyson making this claim. Sorry about the disputatious annotations made by the poster, but this was the first result I got for "Tyson al-Ghazali". Is there any evidence that al-Ghazali said something like manipulating numbers or math is the work of the devil, or maybe sinful, or immoral? And as corollary to that, did he damage the spirit of scientific inquiry in the Islamic world? Here is a quote written from one of the versions, found in video link 2 below: "And in that interpretation (al-Ghazali's) it included the perspective
that the manipulation of numbers is the work of the Devil. This cuts the kneecaps out of any mathematical advances that would unfold." Links to other occasions he's said this before, here are two: video 1 video 2 Edit: OK, I'm pretty sure I know what happened. Steven Weinberg is a physics Nobel laureate and acquaintance of Neil Tyson. Steven Weinberg is critical of religion, and has written: "Alas, Islam turned against science in the twelfth century. The most
influential figure was the philosopher Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, who
argued in The Incoherence of the Philosophers against the very idea of
laws of nature, on the ground that any such laws would put God’s hands
in chains. According to al-Ghazali, a piece of cotton placed in a
flame does not darken and smoulder because of the heat, but because
God wants it to darken and smoulder. After al-Ghazali, there was no
more science worth mentioning in Islamic countries." Here is a video of Weinberg explaining this, just before Neil deGrasse Tyson comes to the podium to do his talk. It's possible that Neil Tyson's explanation of al-Ghazali has come from what Weinberg has told him. | This is an old myth from the days of Orientalism. Unfortunately Wikipedia is often edited precisely by people who have simply seen popular accounts by people like Tyson (or Skeptoid podcast , or The New Atlantis ) produced with no understanding of the history of science or human thought. The fact is that Ghazzālī nowhere professed that reason or knowledge is useless. On the contrary, he tried to construct a better model of human reason and natural knowledge than past philosophers, hence the title of his book The Incoherence of the Philosophers . The "philosophers" in the title are literally "lovers of knowledge" (φιλόσοφος) from the Platonic tradition; Ghazzālī is not criticizing knowledge itself. In the words of a historian of philosophy, Ghazali makes it plain that his purpose is to refute the Islamic
philosophers' metaphysical theories and not their natural science. [...] Indeed, the misguided zealot who attacks science in the mistaken belief that he is defending religion, inflicts damage, not on science, but on religion. He inflicts this damage, Ghazali argues, precisely because science is demonstrable and certain. If it does, in fact, contradict religion, then it is the latter that becomes suspect and not science. Michael Marmura, " Ghazali and Demonstrative Science ." Journal of the History of Philosophy , Volume 3, Number 2, October 1965, pp. 183-204 Or to quote Ghazzālī's own words, The greatest thing in which the atheists rejoice is for the defender of religion to declare [that the results of an astronomical observation] are contrary to religion. Thus, the [atheists'] path for refuting religion becomes easy if the likes [of such an argument] are rendered a condition [for its truth]. Quoted in Basit Bilal Koshul, " Ghazzālī, Ibn Rushd and Islam's Sojourn into Modernity: A Comparative Analysis " Islamic Studies Vol. 43, No. 2 (Summer 2004), pp. 207-225 Ghazzālī lived from 1058 to 1111 AD. His critique of religionists' blind devotion to Aristotelian metaphysics would emerge in France over a century later (the famous Condemnations of 1210 and 1277 ). A history of science writer and evangelical Christian, Richard P. Aulie , suggests a causal connection between the two events: The place of al-Ghazali in the rise of modern science is distinct and of consequence. It lies in his opposition to major portions of Aristotelian thought and that by means of his theistic affirmation of creation. For him, creation meant a coming into being; the creation was an expression of the divine will; for him, coming into being meant that the creation was separate from the creator. By his affirmation of creation and rejection of eternality he helped to lodge an ineluctable doubt at the heart of Aristotelian thought. ... [T]his affirmation of faith was bequeathed by Islam to Christianity in the later Middle Ages, to become integral to the rise of science during the Renaissance. Richard P. Aulie, " Al-Ghazali Contra Aristotle: An Unforeseen Overture to Science In Eleventh-Century Baghdad ". Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith vol. 45 (March 1994): 26-46. It's completely anachronistic, not to mention philosophically dubious, to object to Ghazzālī's philosophy on the grounds that he gave too much weight to theology and divine revelation. One might as well object to Thomas Aquinas or Duns Scotus
on these grounds. Like Aquinas and Scotus, Ghazzālī's intent was not to describe natural mechanisms, but to give an accurate account of human reason and its relationship to the world. His work is frequently compared to Descartes, although they have great differences over epistemology . He is also compared to Kant and Wittgenstein, namely: While Ghazzālī does not state the issue in such terms, the fundamental mistake made by the philosophers is that they conflate the results of logical reasoning with empirical reality. Centuries before Wittgenstein, Ghazzālī argues that in doing so philosophy violates its own rules and trespasses on a domain over which it has no jurisdiction. Koshul, "Ghazzālī, Ibn Rushd and Islam's Sojourn into Modernity" One blogger named Ibrahim Arsalan has responded directly to Tyson , writing: The dispute Al Ghazali would have with the philosophers and that
Averroes would have with him [is] over the nature of Aristotlelian metaphysics,
not the demonic nature of scientific thought. Such an attack on Al
Ghazali by Tyson is laughable considering he furthered the development
of secular methodology and would later be praised by European secular
thinkers who Tyson is so eager to praise. Also, Tyson is in error when
he says of Al Ghazali, “… out of his work, you get the philosophy that
mathematics is the work of the Devil”. Al Ghazali actually called the
sciences and mathematics of his day mamduh (praiseworthy) adding,
“…because of their absence, the community would be reduced to narrow
straits.” You can learn more about Ghazzālī on this podcast: History of Philosophy without any gaps . That podcast also covers the full spectrum of Islamic philosophy in his time and after him. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41073",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/44231/"
]
} |
41,093 | I just read from this title that Microsoft is creating a Linux operating system called "Azure Sphere OS" . Is this true? | Yes, this is Microsoft's entry into the world of internet connected devices It is using a customised linux kernel as this is designed for low powered chips to be included in things like fridges and washing machines rather than full power computers https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/azure-sphere/details/ A custom Linux kernel enables silicon diversity and innovation. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41093",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/3835/"
]
} |
41,106 | This image attributes a quote to Glen Dettman : "It is pathetic and ludicrous to say we ever vanquished smallpox with vaccines, when only 10% of the population was vaccinated." - Glen Dettman A.M.M., BA, Ph.D, F.A.P.M. Whether Dettman actually said this or not, was smallpox eradicated with only 10% of the population vaccinated? | The statement is patently false. A National Institute of Health Paper talks about this in detail . The global eradication effort, led by D.A. Henderson, originally used a strategy of mass vaccination campaigns to achieve 80% vaccine coverage in each country. This goal proved difficult to attain in many underdeveloped countries, but a serendipitous discovery led to a more effective strategy. And in areas where the 80% threshold was not achieved, another method was used: This strategy, known as surveillance-containment or ring vaccination, led to the disappearance of smallpox in eastern Nigeria even though the population coverage was less than 50%. The relative benefits of ring vaccination versus mass vaccination have been debated, but epidemiological evidence from Africa and Asia suggests that both lower population density and higher population vaccine coverage contributed to the elimination of transmission in many regions. While not specifically about the Smallpox vaccine, this paper shows that very few people even realize how effective vaccination programs are at reaching the world . In particular, only 17% of US adults know that we have an 85% coverage for measles throughout the world . The Gapminder Ignorance Project studied how well-informed people are about global development. The visualization below shows what people perceive to be the status in global vaccination efforts. Americans greatly underestimate the successful expansion of vaccination around the world. Only 17% of the American public know that around 80% of the world's children are vaccinated against measles . And the Herd Immunity table shows that an 80-86% immunization rate is required for smallpox. SO to claim we only vaccinated 10% and somehow eradicated the disease is downright silly. This paper even states that many of the west African countries (typically assumed to have lower rates) reached the 80% threshold by 1969 through examinations (PDF, see Figure 4). | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41106",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
41,112 | Telesur posted an article on 8 November 2016 which claims Susan B. Anthony made a number of statements under the headline "White Women Pay Tribute to Susan B. Anthony, Notorious Racist" : The Bad “I will cut off this right arm of mine before I will ever work or demand the ballot for the Negro and not the woman.” The Worse “What words can express her (the white woman’s) humiliation when, at the close of this long conflict, the government which she had served so faithfully held her unworthy of a voice in its councils, while it recognized as the political superiors of all the noble women of the nation the negro men just emerged from slavery, and not only totally illiterate, but also densely ignorant of every public question.” The Ugly “The old anti-slavery school says women must stand back and wait until the negroes shall be recognized. But we say, if you will not give the whole loaf of suffrage to the entire people, give it to the most intelligent first. If intelligence, justice, and morality are to have precedence in the government, let the question of the woman be brought up first and that of the negro last.” Did she say or write these words? | Short version: Susan B. Anthony had a long history of working as an abolitionist, but wasn't willing to settle for gradual victories on the way to women's suffrage. Combine that with a notorious short temper, and a rocky but long friendship with Frederick Douglass, and you end up with some quotes that are less than favorable for Anthony's memory, fall short of evidence that she was an outright racist. First off, The second quote was not said by Anthony, but instead written by Ida Husted Harper in the biography The Life and Work of Susan B. Anthony . The other two quotes are genuine, but lacking an important context: they were both said in direct response to what she felt were attacks or insults from Frederick Douglass. The two had been friends and close allies for both abolition and women's suffrage since the mid 1840s, but after the Civil War the relationship was strained when Douglass adopted a gradualist position and wanted to concentrate on rights for African-Americans first. Douglass feared that trying to universal suffrage all at once would be too difficult. Meanwhile Anthony feared that progressing in steps would inevitably stop short of full universal suffrage, and viewed Douglass's stance as a betrayal of the cause. The first quote was said at an 1866 meeting in response to Douglass pushing for Anthony to support the Fifteenth Amendment without the inclusion of women as a protected class. Some suffragists believed that campaigning against the [Fifteenth] amendment would be a betrayal of their abolitionist friends, because a better law might not be forthcoming. Others, including Susan B. Anthony and her colleague Stanton, feared that if women did not win their rights at this juncture, the opportunity would not present itself again for a long, long time. Stanton and Anthony had already butted heads with their old friend Frederick Douglass at an 1866 meeting of the American Equal Rights Association. Their former ally appeared to back down from his earlier commitment to female suffrage, and was now saying that, while the ballot was "desirable" for women, it was "vital" for Black men. In response, Anthony declared, "I will cut off this right arm of mine before I will ever work or demand the ballot for the Negro and not the woman." Anthony's response should not be read as racist or anti-black, but as anti-gradualism. The third quote comes from an 1869 American Equal Rights Association meeting, where the argument of gradualism vs. universal suffrage was still on going. Interestingly, in the minutes for the meeting you'll find that Douglass himself argues against claims that Stanton & Anthony are racists. Also in those minutes, it notes several instances of laughter and loud applause during these quotes - in context it seems that Anthony's comments of female superiority are meant to be at least partly humorous, and essentially it was an intentionally racist comment to counter what she felt was a sexist viewpoint from a friend. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41112",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/30650/"
]
} |
41,168 | This image is circulating on Facebook. All American flags placed on the moon are now white due to radiation from the sun Great, now it looks like the French went there... Did the US flags on the moon turn white? | They are either bleached white or completely disintegrated. This NASA website repeats some expert speculation on the topic. For forty-odd years, the flags have been exposed to the full fury of the Moon’s environment – alternating 14 days of searing sunlight and 100° C heat with 14 days of numbing-cold -150° C darkness. But even more damaging is the intense ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the pure unfiltered sunlight on the cloth (modal) from which the Apollo flags were made. Even on Earth, the colors of a cloth flag flown in bright sunlight for many years will eventually fade and need to be replaced. So it is likely that these symbols of American achievement have been rendered blank, bleached white by the UV radiation of unfiltered sunlight on the lunar surface. Some of them may even have begun to physically disintegrate under the intense flux. Of the three experts quoted, this one is actually the most optimistic. All three agree that the flags would be bleached white. Two of them believe that the flags then turned to ash. The meme shows a flag that is bleached white, but otherwise intact; this is almost certainly not the case. No one has actually been back to look at the flags, and our best orbital pictures don't show the flags in any detail, so we can't know for sure. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has been orbiting the moon since 2009 taking "high resolution" images. If you look closely at some of these images , it is possible to see the shadows cast by some of the flags. This means that those flags are still standing, but doesn't give a lot of information about their condition. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41168",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/44817/"
]
} |
41,240 | In a public Facebook post, Barack Obama wrote : Fourth, Iran is complying with the JCPOA. That was not simply the view of my Administration. The United States intelligence community has continued to find that Iran is meeting its responsibilities under the deal, and has reported as much to Congress. So have our closest allies, and the international agency responsible for verifying Iranian compliance – the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Is this true, or has Iran violated the nuclear deal? | According to the IAEA: Iran is compliant. The IAEA issued this statement by its Director General Yukiya Amano on 2018-05-09: The IAEA is closely following developments related to the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). As requested by the United
Nations Security Council and authorised by the IAEA Board of Governors
in 2015, the IAEA is verifying and monitoring Iran’s implementation of
its nuclear-related commitments under the JCPOA. Iran is subject to
the world’s most robust nuclear verification regime under the JCPOA,
which is a significant verification gain. As of today, the IAEA can
confirm that the nuclear-related commitments are being implemented by
Iran. Also: If the USA has proof of violations it should submit this proof to the IAEA and the UN security council (the JCPOA was endorsed by the UN Security Council ). | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41240",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/17313/"
]
} |
41,245 | Conservative author Dinesh D'Souza just tweeted this : Is Mueller this dumb? Or does he think the press is too dumb to notice he indicted a Russian company that doesn’t even exist? This is a reference to the company Concord Catering, which special counsel Robert Mueller indicted as part of the Trump-Russia investigation. You see, in a court hearing on Wednesday, Eric Dubelier, the lawyer for the affiliated company Concord Management, claimed that Concord Catering did not even exist at the time of the activity they're being indicted for: I think we're dealing with a situation of the government having indicted the proverbial ham sandwich. That company didn't exist as a legal entity during the time alleged by the government. My question is, are D'Souza and Debalier right that Mueller indicted a company that didn't exist for the time period he's indicting them for? | Concord Catering has existed, in some form, since at least 1996. The website for Concord Catering is http://concord-catering.ru/ . WHOIS lookups, which track when website domains are registered, have data on the domain for Concord Catering. The NIC, on their .ru domain lookup, has concord-catering.ru registered since 1998. domain:CONCORD-CATERING.RU
nserver:ns1.masterhost.ru.
nserver:ns2.masterhost.ru.
nserver:ns.masterhost.ru.
state:REGISTERED, DELEGATED, VERIFIED
org:"Concord Management and Consulting" ltd.
registrar:R01-RU
admin-contact:https://partner.r01.ru/contact_admin.khtml
created:1998-02-05T21:01:16Z
paid-till:2019-02-28T21:00:00Z
free-date:2019-04-01
source:TCI
Last updated on 2018-05-17T15:46:35Z We can see, from the whois, that the domain Was created in 1998 (see 'created' line) and has been maintained since then Is under the organization of "Concord Management and Consulting" ltd. (see 'org' line) Web Solutions concurs with this claim, having a create date on the domain registry of 1998-02-05T21:01:16Z (5 February 1998 21:01:16 GMT). In addition, the Internet Wayback Archive has been snapshotting the page since 1998 , its first entry on 5 December 1998 . From their about us page on the site , the company claims that their establishment year is 1996. Original text: 1996 год основания компании Более 20 лет наши клиенты получают всё самое лучшее и совершенное. ... and translated from Russian (with thanks to @Sashkello): 1996 - the year of company establishment For more than 20 years our clients have been receiving all the very best and impeccable. ... The implicit claim made by the lawyer, and by extension D'Souza, is that they didn't exist when the alleged activity occurred, thus it's a bullshit indictment. However, their own website, and registration data for their domain, proves that the company has been in business since the mid-to-late 90s. The lawyer could be doing all sorts of tricks to make it appear like the company didn't exist, and this "legal entity" argument could be along those lines, but that doesn't change the fact that Concord Catering has been in business for 20+ years. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41245",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/41283/"
]
} |
41,270 | Donald Trump has tweeted allegations of the US's Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) planting spies in his 2016 presidential campaign : Wow, word seems to be coming out that the Obama FBI “SPIED ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH AN EMBEDDED INFORMANT.” Andrew McCarthy says, “There’s probably no doubt that they had at least one confidential informant in the campaign.” If so, this is bigger than Watergate! 5:45 AM - 17 May 2018 – Donald Trump , via Twitter “Apparently the DOJ put a Spy in the Trump Campaign. This has never been done before and by any means necessary, they are out to frame Donald Trump for crimes he didn’t commit.” David Asman @LouDobbs @GreggJarrett Really bad stuff! 3:24 AM - 18 May 2018 – Donald Trump , via Twitter Reports are there was indeed at least one FBI representative implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president. It took place very early on, and long before the phony Russia Hoax became a “hot” Fake News story. If true - all time biggest political scandal! 6:50 AM - 18 May 2018 – Donald Trump , via Twitter These tweets have been reported by the media, e.g. in this sample article . Is there any concrete evidence that such a thing did happen? | tl;dr : The claim is based on a misrepresentation or misinterpretation of testimony by a co-founder of Fusion GPS. There is no evidence that there ever was an embedded FBI informant in the Trump campaign. Trump's source is this Fox News segment in which Andew McCarthy makes the claim. This Fox News article goes into more depth about what exactly is claimed: A new New York Times report stated that the investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia began in the summer of 2016 and was code-named Crossfire Hurricane. Brian Kilmeade noted that the report "buried the lead," stating that "at least one government informant met several times" with Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. They go on quoting an article by McCarthy : Something tells me the co-founder of Fusion GPS was dead-on accurate when he testified that Christopher Steele told him the FBI had a “human source” — i.e., a spy — inside the Trump campaign as the 2016 presidential race headed into its stretch run. [...] Simpson gave his testimony about the FBI’s human source at a closed Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on August 22, 2017. He did not try to retract it until the uproar that followed the publication of his testimony on January 9, 2018. He goes on citing Simpsons testimony: Essentially, what [Christopher Steele] told me was [the FBI] had other intelligence about this matter from an internal Trump campaign source [...] they had other intelligence that indicated the same thing, and one of those pieces of intelligence was a human source from inside the Trump campaign . This quote is the origin of the claim. To me, this doesn't sound like an embedded informant, but like a leak. Further quotes which McCarthy omits point to this as well: ” . . . I think it was a voluntary source, someone who was concerned about the same concerns we had,” Simpson explained. “It was someone like us who decided to pick up the phone and report something.” Simpson also later clarified that this is indeed what he meant. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41270",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/6956/"
]
} |
41,349 | Here in Morocco, when you talk about relations between Morocco and the USA, Moroccans tell you, proudly, that Morocco was the first country to recognize
the United States of America, and that the Sultan made it possible to accredit a consul of USA in Morocco. Examples: Le Saviez Vous (Google translated) A friendship has developed between Morocco and the United States since 1777 when Morocco was the first country to recognize American independence by opening its ports in the United States a year before Holland and six years before Great Britain. Brittany and most European states. Maroc-Diplomatique (Google translated) "This year the Americans celebrate the 241st anniversary of the creation of their country, but also 240 years of Moroccan-American friendship," the US diplomat said in a statement to the press on the occasion of the exercise "African Lion 2017 "conducted jointly by the Royal Armed Forces and the US military, recalling that Morocco was the first country to recognize the independence of the United States. Medi TV (Google translated) In talks with the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rachid El Abdi, head of the US Congress delegation, highlighted the secular and excellent relations between the two countries, recalling that Morocco was the first country to recognize the independence of the United States in 1777, says a statement from the House of Representatives. Le Site Info (Google translated) In this video, the US president [Barack Obama] declares that "Morocco was the first country to have recognized the independence of the United States". He recalled "that a treaty of friendship had been signed as such between the two countries in 1796". Is this true? | Wikipedia states : In December 1777, the Moroccan Sultan Muhammad III included the United States in a list of countries to which Morocco’s ports were open. Morocco thus became the first country whose head of state publicly recognized the newly independent United States. However, the citation being offered to the US State Department website does not support Wikipedia's claim, and Archive.org shows that it never did. The State Department says: What country was the first to recognize the United States? France recognized the United States as an independent state on February 6, 1778. The citation is mistaken, but who is correct, Wikipedia or the State Department? Let's look at an article entitled " Moroccan Sultan Sidi Muhammad Ibn Abdallah's Diplomatic Initiatives toward the United States, 1777-1786 " ( Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 143(2) (1999), 233-265) [In autumn 1777, the Moroccan] ambassador Tahar Abdulhaq Fennish was arriving in the bay of Marseilles on board a French ship ... British Consult Charles Logie [wrote] "I have reason to think that his Chief errand, to that Court, was to Negotiate a Peace with the [American] Rebel Agents." Official American documents are silent on the subject, but according to the diary of Arthur Lee, the commissioner from Virginia, not only were the American representatives in France aware of Ambassador Fennish's presence in Paris, but the subject of meeting with him did come up. "Mr. Lee having often urged an application to the court to assist them in forming a treaty with the emperor of Morocco, while his ambassador was at Paris, it was at last agreed, after much difficulty, that Mr. Lee should go the next day to Versailles, and ask Mr. Girard's advice upon it. Next day he went accordingly. Mr. Girard said the Morocco ambassador was to quit Paris that very evening, and therefore nothing could be done." In truth, Tahar Fennish did not leave Paris until five days later. It was in December 1777 that the turning point came for the United States' quest for French recognition. Upon receiving the news in early December of the Americans' victory at Saratoga in October, France made the momentous decision to go public in its support of the Americans ... The conspiracy-minded might wonder if France deliberately kept the Americans and the Moroccans apart, or -- at best -- avoided bringing them together. It is just possible that France preferred to keep the Americans dependent on them for protecting against Barbary... In a letter of 17 December addressed to General Eliott in Gibraltar, the sultan says that "he is at peace with the Americans and looks upon them and the English to be all the same, that if they have disputes amongst themselves, His Majesty had nothing to do with it." In apparent contradiction, he writes to General Eliott two days later, saying that "he was at peace with all of the English, except the Americans, who are rebels." But the next day, 20 December 1777, the sultan addresses a letter to the consuls and merchants of Tangier, listing countries with free access to Morocco's ports. The Americans are included. The king of Morocco, Monseigneur, has had written by an English business man, who was in Meknes, to all the consults and merchants who are in his dominions, so that they could bring notice in Europe that this prince gives free entry in his ports to the nations of Russia, Malta, Sardinia, Prussia, Naples, Hungary, Leghorn, Germany and the Americans... These three primary sources may sound contradictory and ambiguous (writing "the Americans" instead of "the United States"). Below, the article offers primary sources attesting that this was a purposeful strategy by the sultan who really was attempting to formally recognize the US but worried about political consequences of doing so at such an early stage, and likely facing pressure from France as well as Britain. There is no indication that this was officially communicated to the Americans at the time, although a cryptic message from Charles W. F. Dumas makes us think it might have been. This fervently pro-American European was America's agent in The Hague. In a letter of 6 March 1778 to the American commissioners Dumas included several extracts from official Dutch despatches, including the reference to correspondent from "Webster Blount..." The sultan seems to have wanted a formal relationship, but may have been concerned about the reaction from European powers. The official, but low-key, statement of 20 December 1777 could well have been a trial balloon. Webster Blount wrote the States General in a letter dated 25 February 1778 from Mogador that "the sultan's initial intention was to limit his declaration to the Americans, but he changed his mind and made the declaration more general..." The French consul downplayed the letter; and there appears to have been little or no other European reaction. Two months after the low-key declaration the sultan formally reissued it on 20 February 1778. This received wider distribution. Quick summary: A Moroccan ambassador intended to meet the Americans in France and formally recognize them in autumn 1777 but was mysteriously prevented from meeting them by French intermediaries. In December 1777 Morocco formally recognized America. According to the historian quoted, this was an official, legal recognition by the Sultan but he purposefully kept this recognition quiet and hidden from European powers and sent them mixed messages in his formal letters, probably to prevent them from slapping him with sanctions or other punishments. In February 1778, after France recognized America, the Sultan made his recognition more open. The Moroccan rumor that they were the first sovereign state to recognize the USA is technically accurate , which is the best kind of accurate. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41349",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/44588/"
]
} |
41,361 | This picture, being shared on Twitter , alleges that Valerie Jarrett , former Senior Advisor to the President, during the Obama administration, claimed to be of Iranian descent and of Islamic faith in her yearbook. Image reads Take a look at the 1977 Stanford Yearbook I am a Iranian by birth and of my Islamic faith. I am also an American Citizen and I seek to help change America to be a more Islamic country. My faith guides me and I feel like it is going well in the transition of using freedom of religion in America against itself. Did she say this in Stanford's '77 yearbook? | Just addressed by Snopes apparently, The quote to attributed “Valerie Jarrett, Stanford University, 1977” about her “seek[ing] to help change America to be a more Islamic country” is an unfounded one that has no source other than recent repetition (primarily on right-wing web sites and blogs). It’s also an anachronism, as “Valerie Jarrett” didn’t exist in 1977: she was born Valerie Bowman and didn’t take the latter surname until she married William Jarrett in 1983. Also according to Snopes there is no evidence she's Muslim and her parents aren't Iranian -- though she was born in Iran. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41361",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/3835/"
]
} |
41,380 | Section 498a of the Indian penal code makes it an offence for a husband or his family to subject his wife to cruelty or harassment. Hridaya-Nest of Family Harmony is a Men's Rights organisation that claims that Section 498a is frequently abused, with false accusations being made against men. In a 2013 News 18 article , a spokesman is quoted, attributing all the deaths by suicide of married men as being due to false Section 498a claims: Every nine minutes a married man commits suicide in India due to alleged misuse of section 498a of IPC against them, taking the toll to around a whopping 64,000 every year, says a report. "National Crime Records Bureau statistics reveal more incidences of suicide by married men than by married women. In 2012 approximately 64,000 married men committed suicide vis-a-vis 32,000 married women," says DS Rao, president of Hridaya-Nest of Family Harmony, an NGO, quoting a survey by it. Other claims: Supreme court issues new guidelines to prevent misuse of section 498A . The Dangerous, False Myth That Women Routinely Misuse Domestic Cruelty Laws . Were there 64,000 deaths by suicide of married Indian men in 2012 after Section 498a claims? | It seems highly unlikely. The person making the claim claims there are about 64,000 suicides every year, " due to alleged misuse of section 498a of IPC against them. " He then goes on to quote the national statistics, showing that there were a grand total of 64,000 suicides by married men in 2012 (along with 32,000 by married women). This would mean that each and every suicide by married men were because of this, and that there wasn't a single married man who took their own life for any other reason, at all. So, 32,000 married women found reason enough to take their own life not related to false charges, but not a single man did? The person making the claim also offers no validation for the claim that they all had 498a charges against them. Wikipedia has a page about suicide in India. In it, it has a list of reasons for suicides in 2014, taken from government statistics. Even if we assume that all the women and all the non-married people were killing themselves for reason not related to marriage, and attribute all of the general "Other" and "Other Family Problem," and unaccounted-for suicides (no reason given/uncategorized = 27,000 or so) and every other category that might, in our wildest imaginings to fall into that category, there is not enough statistical room to support this claim. Wikipedia: Suicide in India | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41380",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/45137/"
]
} |
41,434 | Genesys currently has a press release on their home page discussing a new US patent: Genesys, LLC has demonstrated a working prototype generating up to 40 Kilowatts from one standard solar panel with certified third-party validation along with being granted a US Patent They go on to claim their future product will be able to produce 20KW of power, 24 hours a day, using only one standard 200-watt solar panel. Is this claim plausible? | Red flags: As Kevin points out, 20kW from a 200W panel is PFM (Pure Frelling Magic). Significant portions of the press release are dedicated to how strong the patent is. No patent number is given. The landing page of the site is the press release. The banner for the site is "Breaking News", making the entire site effectively a giant press release. Unprofessional grammar in the site with massive unbroken paragraphs addressing multiple topics. The site reeks of the work of a single person, giving the impression that the whole thing is a one man operation. For such a critical industry, it is unlikely that a single man working out of his home could beat the huge investors and R&D firms across the energy industry to such a massive advancement. The science claims are specious at best. terminology is confused and mixed up. I'll address this in more detail below. He repeatedly claims that a certified third party has validated the claims made, though the party is never identified. Specious claims: High electrical powers are generated using the eRET’s super convective current generator that relies on a reservoir of high energy charges generated from the conversion of solar photons to electrons . This is not how solar panels work, or really any energy generation technique. The photon passes energy to an already existing electron, elevating its energy state . The generated electrons form a high-speed current whose energy carrying capability far exceeds anything an equivalent copper wire can achieve. I don't know enough about electricity to know if 20kW is too much for a standard cable, but from some poking around, it appears it is. But this seems irrelevant - you can't use the power if you can't get it into your house, so at some point it has to be down-stepped to a usable voltage/amperage. And since copper wire is used for power transmission, not power storage, this statement seems like a useless distinction. As a by-product of the accelerating electrons, electromagnetic radiation in the form of waves are created which can be tailored to selective frequencies in order to perform different functions such as telecommunications or chemistry. I suppose you could characterize raising an electron's energy state (exciting it) as accelerating it as it moves faster. However, even if the electron were not excited, EM waves would still be generated. And yes, you can use different frequencies of this radiation to perform different work. But I'm pretty sure you expend the electrons in applying this energy to work, and this is no different than any existing process that converts electricity to work. I'm honestly not sure what is being claimed here, but it does not seem novel. The electromagnetic wave that is produced can be manipulated to crack water vapor because water vapor possesses certain frequencies that absorb energy to a high degree, leading to the breakdown to hydrogen and oxygen. As you can do with any electricity. Again, not sure what here is novel. Using the eRET, nearly all commercial chemicals from petroleum or other fossil sources can be produced using hydrogen, which is a product of the eRET, and carbon dioxide. To translate: using electricity, carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, you can create large numbers of useful chemicals. This is how they are made now. The eRET employs its high speed, extremely low resistance, high energy electron current Resistance is not a property of the current, but the medium the current is travelling through. Also, speed is not really a useful property of a current, and is again more a property imparted by the medium - that is, electrons flow through a medium at a given speed based on environment, not properties of the current itself. The eRET generates electric currents using a cascade process rather than the induction process commonly used to generate an electric current in copper wires. Cascade process, like nuclear fission? Also, at some point, in order to use the energy, that current has to utilize copper wires, so I'm not sure what value this has here. He's comparing either an energy generator or energy storage device to an energy transmission device - its unclear which. In fact, that is the problem that underlies much of what is on the site. Is this a power generator or a power storage device? Is it both? If it is, what part of it is he talking about in each claim? Does it also integrate some power transmission technology? Because all of the claims comparing it to copper wire seem to indicate as such. So do you have to replace all of your home's wiring to use this? The eRET converts the flow of the low energy electrons supplied from the solar panel into high energy electrons. In the transformation process, where some of the energy is used, enough high energy electrons are left to fulfill the requirements for high power generation. The speed of the electrons has been clocked at 20% of the speed of light. Looking at the accompanying picture, it seems that the eRET takes power from the solar panel, some water (from any source, so it doesn't even have to be pure), and performs magic to create these high energy electrons. It appears to do so by breaking the hydrogen out from the water, which takes power (it doesn't generate it). Yet his system claims to not only produce hydrogen, but actually amplify the power received from the panel, thereby having the cake and eating it too. This, again, is PFM. Also, they clocked the electrons? I think it's easier to just do the math. As you pump energy into an electron, it goes faster. Hydrogen at room temperature has electrons at a low energy level where they travel at around 1% of the speed of light. At 220,00eV they travel at around .9c. .2c means thy have somewhere between 10 and 11 KeV I think, based on this calculator. So, he's excited electrons. I'm not sure if this is a lot compared to typical energy generation, but again it doesn't seem relevant as the numbers are meaningless to practical application (powering your house) without significant math to convert electron speed into eV, then into wattage. This could go on, but I've wasted way more time than I should on this bunk. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41434",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/11775/"
]
} |
41,442 | CLARIFICATION: Just so it’s clear, this question is specifically about the economic claims made by the meme presented below . It is a NOT question concerning the origins and etymology of the word “shot” in any way/shape/form. If there is a desire to discuss/debate the etymology of the word “shot” I have started a thread at the English Language SE site specifically for that purpose. This image is popping up on my social media feeds, and I wonder if there is any truth to the presented claim. The text reads: ‘A SHOT OF WHISKEY’ In the old west a .45 cartridge for a six-gun cost 12 cents, so did a glass of whiskey. If a cowhand was low on cash he would often give the bartender a cartridge in exchange for a drink. This became known as a “shot” of whiskey. That little bit of trivia seems a bit too perfect: Guns, booze and the cost of one thing connected to one thing is the same as another thing. Perhaps this is a “legend” that spawned from people trading physical objects instead of using cash at local stores and then was distilled (figuratively) into this one sentence over time? | The answer seems to be no on all accounts. In general, Snopes says: Although the meme is of recent origin, Internet mentions of this alleged historical fact date to at least 2003. Significantly, however, we were unable to trace it back any further than that, nor could we find any credible support for the general claim that it was common to use ammunition as a substitute for hard currency in frontier drinking establishments. The price of a drink probably wasn't ever comparable to that of .45 cartridges: The 1891 edition of Chicago hardware dealer Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co.’s General Catalog lists Smith & Wesson .45 cartridges at a price of $25 per thousand, or 2-1/2 cents per cartridge. For the price of a shot of whiskey, we consulted Kelly J. Dixon’s 2005 book Boomtown Saloons: Archaeology and History in Virginia City, which notes that the average cost of a measure of any drink was around two bits, or 25 cents (although the cost later dropped as competition increased when more Americans moved west). Using those figures as our base prices, one shot of whiskey would have cost the equivalent of 10 cartridges. Even allowing for price variations according to time and place, it appears highly doubtful a one-to-one correspondence between the price of a cartridge and the cost of a drink ever existed in the Old West. ibid Lastly, "shot" meaning a "supply or amount of drink" (Oxford English Dictionary) predates the Wild West. The earliest attestation according to the OED is this 1676 citation—from England nonetheless: A company of fellows would needs drink 2d a peece..their vain way of drinking shots. The Rev. Oliver Heywood, B. A., 1630-1702: Autobiography... (The OED also lists a 1691 citation for the word.) | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41442",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/22266/"
]
} |
41,448 | In July 2016, Donald Trump, as a US presidential candidate was quoted by ABC News as saying: The people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were. Politifact confirmed the quote and looked into reports at the time about whether this demonstrated ignorance of the "geopolitical developments" in Crimea. "Okay, well, he's there in a certain way, but I'm not there yet," Trump responded. "You have Obama there. And frankly, that whole part of the world is a mess under Obama, with all the strength that you're talking about and all of the power of NATO and all of this, in the meantime, he's going where — he takes, takes Crimea, he's sort of — I mean. …The people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were." Many news outlets interpreted this as Trump’s ignorance. But it’s not entirely clear if the ridicule is completely warranted. ... So we’re not putting Trump’s statements on the Truth-O-Meter, but we did want to examine Russia’s presence in Ukraine more in-depth. Let’s brush up on some modern Eastern European history. This old story was revived today by a quote-tweet by Rick Wilson, retweeted by David Leavitt, who is currently a Twitter verified user, the accuracy of the claim called into doubt by many tweeters (for example ). The impression I have is that the Soviet Union "ethnically cleansed" Crimean Tatars living there, leaving the place with a high proportion of ethnic Russians, many of whom nowadays prefer to be with Russia than Ukraine. In 2016, did the Crimean people want to be aligned with Russia or Ukraine? Note: This isn't about whether the Crimean referendum is legal, or whether Russia's annexation of Crimea is legal. | It's not terribly clear to me what you're asking, but the 2017 survey by the German ZOiS (found via an RT story ) has these highlights (not all of them reproduced by RT): The vast majority of the Crimean population would vote for the status quo
in a future repeat referendum on Crimea’s status and express trust in Russian
state institutions. The Crimean Tartars remain much more sceptical of the current regime. So there's indeed a divergence of opinion between Crimean Tartars and the majority of Crimeans. Also, there's an interesting question about identity in the survey: 84% of non-Tartar Crimeans would preferentially describe themselves as Russians citizens, whereas only about half of the Tartars do that. Also, a couple of questions later (fig 17), 67.8% (of the total) described themselves as "ethnic Russian", followed by "Ethnic Crimean-Tartar" 11.7% and 8% "mixed Russian-Ukrainian" and 7.5% "ethnic Ukrainian". And (fig 20) 83% of all respondents declared they only speak Russian at home. Finally (fig 38) 83.4% of non-Tartars would vote the same same as in the 2014 referendum, whereas only 49.2% of the Tartars would do that. The combined percentage of Crimeans who would vote the same was 78.8%. This probably answers all your potential questions. I was a bit surprised such a detailed survey was conducted. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41448",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/104/"
]
} |
41,483 | Paul Joseph Watson claims that Tommy Robinson has been moved to a prison with a predominantly Muslim population. BREAKING: Tommy Robinson has reportedly been moved to a prison with a 71% Muslim population. Inmates were banging on cell walls last night shouting death threats. Protests were ignored. Tommy now fears for his safety, Full info coming up on live show @ http://infowars.com —Paul Joseph Watson, on Twitter at 10:22 AM - 13 Jun 2018 He later clarified that he meant the prison wing Tommy Robinson was being held. Clarification that Muslim population is estimated to be around 70% on wing in which Tommy is being held, not entire prison. —Paul Joseph Watson, on Twitter at 2:43 PM - 13 Jun 2018 The related InfoWars article heavily implies this was done on purpose. Was Tommy Robinson moved to a different prison? Does the wing of the prison where he was moved have a 70% Muslim population? | If Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson) was moved to HMP Leicester, the claim that he is in a prison with 70% Muslim population is incorrect . The claim that he is being housed in a wing with 70% Muslim population is doubtful . From justice.gov.uk , the reported capacity of the prison is 408 prisoners. I was able to find an inspection report on the prison from 2015 at which time they held 325 adult males, and claimed the operational capacity to be 411. They also state this on page 32 of the report: 2.25 A third of the population were from a black or minority ethnic background and 13% were Muslim On page 81 they have a table that breaks down religion into age groups, and shows that there were 41 prisoners of Muslim faith 21 and over. In contrast, the preceding page shows that 67.7% of the prisoners housed there are White British males. Unless there have been significant incarceration of Muslims at the prison since 2015 as well as parole or release of a significant portion of the prisoners housed there since, there is nowhere near 70% Muslim population at the prison currently. It is probably impossible to find a per-wing demographic layout of the prison, but given the numbers are so far apart I would be highly skeptical of the second claim. It is also possible that a Muslim outreach program at the prison has been quite successful at converting some of the non-Muslim inmates to the doctrine since this report was released, but there's nothing I've found that would support that contention, either. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41483",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/23328/"
]
} |
41,500 | This Tumblr post , which has accumulated over 3,000 notes, claims: During the 1980s, more gay men died in New York City during the AIDS
crisis than all recorded deaths of American soldiers in Vietnam. Wikipedia cites US News to say that the number of US military casualties in the Vietnam war is 58,318. However, I cannot find a number on the number of deaths from AIDS in NYC during the AIDS crisis. Since it is probably impossible to filter the AIDS death count to only gay men, I believe that all AIDS deaths would help address the claim as best as possible. | False (but it's still a lot) Government archives also put the total number of US military fatalities in Vietnam at around 58,000. The New York City Department of Health provides the statistics for AIDS cases and deaths in NYC from 1980 to ~2014 . The second chart in that PDF has the following data in particular: You can see that in the 1980s there were 19,482 cumulative deaths from AIDS in NYC, and the cumulative total did not exceed 58,000 until 1995. Moreover, this is all AIDS deaths, regardless of sexual orientation, gender, age, or source of infection. In the following: Joseph, Dr. Stephen C.; New York City Department of Health (19 October 1987). AIDS: A Tale of Two Cities: A Report to the Mayor (Memorandum). AIDS, subject files series 80049-5. New York, NY: LaGuardia Community College/CUNY: La Guardia and Wagner Archives, Edward I. Koch Collection, Koch Collection Subject Files. Data indicates that about 65% of all AIDS cases in New York City involved transmission via homosexual intercourse (about 27% were from IV drug users). To achieve 58318 deaths at 65% of the population would put the total deaths at ~90,000, and the aforementioned statistics show this total was not achieved until 2004. And by that point the disease was no longer affecting the same demographics in the same ways it had during the 80's, so it was probably longer still until 58,000 gay men died of (or at least with) AIDS in NYC. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41500",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/30261/"
]
} |
41,504 | Recently I started to see many images of shanty towns in Paris, supposedly created by immigrants. One included below is especially popular. Text says: Meanwhile in Paris Is this image true? If yes, where is it? If no, is there a real problem with shanty towns in Paris at all? This image (linked to on Facebook etc, at least from my PoV): https://demotywatory.pl/4858699/Romantycznie- ) Sites with similar vibes and images: https://zmianynaziemi.pl/wiadomosc/imigranci-przejeli-kontrole-nad-niektorymi-stacjami-metra-w-paryzu https://pl.sputniknews.com/swiat/201607223539705-francja-paryz-imigranci-likwidacja-obozu/ https://www.o2.pl/galeria/imigranci-doslownie-zalali-paryz-chaos-w-stolicy-6052878456873601g/2 http://www.telewizjapolska24.pl/PL-H23/3/1505/jatka-w-paryzu-czy-stolica-francji-bedzie-drugim-calais.html I asked about the one that currently appears to be the most popular one, but of course we all live in "information islands". Editors note: The original question asked about "slums", but the picture shows a shanty town or squatters settlement. In English a slum is a district inhabited by very poor people living in buildings that are permanent but substandard (e.g. leaking roof, mould on walls, no indoor plumbing) while a shanty town describes a collection of improvised structures such as the one shown in the picture. " Squatters " are people who take up residence in a property without the permission of the owner. The inhabitants of a slum are not usually squatters (although some may be). | The image is true in the sense that it was not manipulated in its pixels, and it is true that it depicts mainly Roma people who set camp on the railway line in Paris. But the date of "meanwhile" is manipulative as it indicates present day 2018 Paris. Taken together, that is a "No. That picture with its caption is not 'true'." The picture shows a shanty town on the Chemin de fer de Petite Ceinture : Paris' former Chemin de fer de Petite Ceinture ('small(er) belt railway'), also colloquially known as La Petite Ceinture, was a circular railway built as a means to supply the city's fortification walls, and as a connection between Paris' railway termini.[…] Re-use and Present state Access to the unused rail tracks is forbidden, but enthusiasts explore it nonetheless, describing it as a quiet, natural garden space within Paris "Forbidden" does not mean inaccessible though: How To Explore Paris’ Beautiful, Abandoned Railway . The above picture in doubt is confirmed when looking at newspaper reports like: Life in the new shanty town taking root on Paris's abandoned railway : But a few hundred metres away, hidden behind a large metro ticket booth, a camp has taken shape. The 19-mile belt of Petite Ceinture has been derelict for several decades and its possible redevelopment has long sparked debate among environmentalists and entrepreneurs. Then, shortly after the migrant crisis hit Europe, the squatter’s camp took root. “I know there is a Roma camp just a few minutes walk from La Recyclerie, I think it is just straight down the rails,” says one of the cafe’s bartenders, “but I’ve never been there, nor said hello.” With shacks made from wooden boards and sheets of plastic, and with numerous pans covering holes in case of rain, this 500-metre section of track is home to an estimated 350 people. The infrastructure is nonexistent: there is no electricity and no running water. Camp residents must make the walk to the municipal showers at Porte de Saint-Ouen, almost a mile away. Many camp residents are Roma from Romania or Bulgaria, but as Philippe Gossens at the Ligues des Droits de l’Homme (League of Human Rights) explains, refugees from the Middle East also live here, after fleeing their homes and making their journey to Europe over the summer. According to French law, anyone who trespasses on the Petite Ceinture is subject to a €3,750 fine and six months in prison – but the Reseau Ferre de France (the French Railway Network), which owns the abandoned railway, has so far kept silent on the camp and its future. In the first few months of 2015, though, French authorities destroyed 37 squatter camps and displaced more than 4,000 people, according to the Ligues des Droits de l’Homme (the League of Human Rights). The Guardian, Tue 5 Jan 2016 12.42 GMT Last modified on Fri 11 May 2018 13.12 BST See also Gurdian 2014: The Petite Ceinture: the battle over Paris's abandoned railway and Precarious Roma Village Of Northern Paris: A Few Cautious Considerations (December 2015) . This kind of news making the round is of course not very welcomed by the French authorities: Paris police clear Roma from disused railway line camp Police have cleared hundreds of Roma people from a slum-like camp built on a disused rail line in north Paris.
More than 350 Roma people had lived in the camp on La Petite Ceinture since mid-2015. Activists said many left early ahead of the police action.
The site belongs to the national rail authority SNCF.
France has one of Europe's toughest policies towards Roma. Most live in camps that are regularly demolished and every year thousands are deported.
Amnesty International urged city authorities to find a lasting housing solution for those evicted in Paris - saying they would become homeless in mid-winter. BBC World 3 February 2016 The real and bigger problems to the present day in and around Paris have a more permanent structure and the problem zones are typically populated with French citizens. The name for these problem areas is "Quartiers Sensibles" (i.e. the poor Banlieues , often equated with or called "cités"). These are often equated with plain "slums" as well: Macron Unveils Plan to Tackle Problems in France's Suburban Slums (2018): President Macron laid out a series of concrete, actionable measures for the country's troubled banlieues, or suburbs — from more community policing, urban renovation, and educational support, to cutting through layers of bureaucracy, fighting drug dealing, and better communication with local mayors about suspected radicals. Counting what is actually and commonly defined as slums, France as a whole seems to have an ongoing problem, although on a smaller scale than with the suburbs. Le Monde: Ces 570 bidonvilles que la France ne veut pas voir (2017) discussed in English in France races to tear down its 570 squalid shanty towns but root problems persist and Outlining the global fault lines of the ‘slum’ narrative as:
“The 570 slums that France doesn’t want you to see”, drawing attention to the hundreds of informal settlements in France (113 in the Paris region alone) where 16,000 inhabitants live a marginal and precarious life. The key difference to classify that picture circling now as not entirely "true" is that the actual conditions depicted are not "current events" in 2018 and that the more depressing scales of French problems lie elsewhere and that even when actual "slums" keep popping up, they are not as permanent as commonly believed and understood for "slums" or frozen in that picture, but relatively quickly evicted in general. Scandalous as these conditions are, nonetheless, they are also not exclusive to France. Conclusion That "meanwhile" in question was a rather short lived phenomenon captured in that photo. There may be very well relatively small slum-like "settlements" in Paris, and elsewhere, now. But the scenes in the picture are not to be found any more, and on that location depicted they are very unlikely to return there ( A High Line for Paris, Only More So ). As a "look at the scandalous news from Paris" picture this is manipulative in 2018. As long as deprived citizens, migrants and refugees are treated like they are in Europe these shanty towns can pop up everywhere at any time. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41504",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/30846/"
]
} |
41,524 | On June 18th and 19th, 2018, the President of the United States, Donald Trump tweeted that the crime rate in Germany has increased: ( 1 ) Tweet from June 18th, 2018 ( 2 ) Tweet from June 19th, 2018 Has the crime rate in Germany increased by 10% since, say, 2015 which was the beginning of the so-called "European migrant crisis". | These statements are not supported by the official data. According to official statistics of the German Federal Crime office the crimes in Germany 2017 are down by about 10% compared to 2016 and 2015 - 6.4 million to 5.7 million. ( source ) Number of registered crimes in Germany PS. In the statistic the overall number of crimes is given, including illegal entry into the country. For the statistics "cleaned" from illegal entries see the Semo's answer. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41524",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/20791/"
]
} |
41,556 | A number of articles describe how Muhammad is the most popular name in the UK for baby boys, topping William and other names. A few links for reference: 2016 Independent article Muhammad has replaced William in the top ten most popular boys' names in England and Wales. 2009 Telegraph The Islamic name [(Mohammed)] overtook traditional choices like Jack, Thomas and Daniel to become the number one name in the West Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, and the North West, as well as in the capital, in 2008. Both articles also state that various spellings of the name are included. Is this true? | There are two reasonable answers to this already, but it's worth noting that there was an article discussing this exact question in the Guardian in 2014: https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/dec/01/muhammad-not-most-popular-boys-name-in-britain The key finding was: The proportion of the population that is Muslim is 4.8%, while the
most popular boys name in England and Wales (Oliver) was given to just
1% of babies that year. Muhammad’s 15th place is a demonstration of
the lower variance of names within the Muslim community compared to
others. The alternative take on this – that Muhammad tops the chart – was one
given by the Daily Mail in their reporting of the official statistics
earlier this year. Their reasoning was as follows: When all the variations are added together, including Muhammad,
Mohammed and Mohammad, the name comes out top with 7,445 counts. If you do that though, it’s only fair to add together the variations
of other names. For example, Oliver and Ollie (7,749) or Harry and
Henry (9,136). We can only wonder why the Daily Mail didn’t. This is a couple of years out of date now, though. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41556",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/45451/"
]
} |
41,562 | This article from The Telegraph (June 22, 2018) mentions that Emmanuel Macron called the teenager who was not respectful an "idiot"; emphasis is mine: President Emmanuel Macron is facing criticism for giving a public dressing down to a teenager who cheekily called him “Manu”after it emerged the boy is hiding at home to avoid mockery at school. Mr Macron reprimanded the boy on television this week after he shouted 'You all right, Manu?' as the 40-year-old mingled with the crowd at Mont Valérien fort near Paris. A clip of the incident, in which Mr Macron called the boy an “idiot” and said he should call him “Monsieur” (Sir) or “Monsieur le Président” (Mr President), went viral online after the French leader posted it on his Twitter account. I watched the clip, but it doesn't seem like he called the boy an idiot . Is there another clip? Why did they say Macron called the teenager an "idiot"? | To summarise up front, he used the word imbécile which is more or less like "idiot", but he used it as an element of an idiomatic figurative phrase which means "you can play-act someone who doesn't care or doesn't know better" or "in a remarkably (and in this case inappropriately) juvenile way" -- not saying that "you 'are' an idiot", saying "you can 'play' an idiot". In my opinion, this is different for three reasons: It's literally different -- using the verb faire ( Tu peux faire l'imbécile ) instead of être ( Tu peux être imbécile ) It means something different -- e.g. to 'be' an idiot is permanent and not a matter of choice, to 'play-act' was temporary (maybe even comic in the right circumstance) In any language I've been told that it's better if a teacher criticises behaviour than criticises the person -- better to say for example "that was naughty behaviour (which you needn't perpetuate)", rather than "you are a naughty boy". And it's better to make constructive criticism. Faire l'imbécile is a specific phrase: s'amuser de façon espiègle, folâtrer It's literally to "make (like) an idiot" or to act out -- he's not saying that the boy is an idiot -- he is accusing him of fooling around, perhaps of mockery. Given the Chant des Partisans I take it that the occasion was a World War Two memorial, to honour and remember those who resisted and were killed -- and that M. Macron was there to represent the French State's honouring the fallen -- not a political occasion. I understand (having attended similar ceremonies) why he might be prickly about it. I don't think he was especially prickly, more pedagogic. The boy's calling him "Manu" stuck out like sore thumb, and it's so informal that it's, in my opinion, obviously intended to be disrespectful, or at best inviting M. Macron to share the joke. 1 Here is a transcript of the French: "Tu es là dans une cérémonie officielle. Tu te comportes comme il faut", poursuit alors Emmanuel Macron. "Tu peux faire l'imbécile. Mais aujourd'hui c'est la 'Marseillaise', et le 'Chant des Partisans'. Tu m'appelles 'Monsieur le président de la République' ou 'Monsieur'". My translation: You are (there) in an official ceremony. You behave yourself properly (literally, 'as it requires'). You can play the fool. But today, it's the Marseillaise , and the Chant des Partisans . You (must) call me "Mister the President of the Republic", or "Mister (i.e. Sir)". It's also worth mentioning that, in my opinion, the French have an old-fashioned notion of politeness and formality, beyond what I think is normal in the UK or the USA (see e.g. the LA Times' article on when to use Tu as opposed to Vous for example), and which is taught in schools and by adults. I'm not sure I'd call it "a public dressing down" even -- more like a correction. I get the impression from the video that M. Macron went on, went back, kept talking, in order to try to help, to find some good and agreeable advice to offer: "do things in the right order, first get your diploma." Some people (in comments) are wondering why he talked so long. It seemed to me that, having started their conversation on the wrong foot, "Manu" was trying to find something conciliatory, some common ground -- i.e talking about school, knowing this is exam-time, encouraging him to do well -- with body language like patting him on the arm, twice, as if trying for a rapprochement -- and asking him if agreed ( d'accord? ), and saying "I'm counting on you (to be exemplary in future)" -- he even said "je compte sur vous " (not "sur toi ") by the time he got around to saying that, i.e. addressing him respectfully as an adult/citizen (or as representing a plural). The Tweet says, Le respect, c’est le minimum dans la République – surtout un 18 juin, surtout en présence des compagnons de la Libération. Mais cela n’empêche pas d’avoir une conversation détendue – regardez jusqu’au bout. My translation: Respect is the minimum in the Republic - especially on June 18, especially in the presence of the companions of the liberation. But that doesn't prevent having a relaxed (informal, friendly) conversation -- watch (this video) to the end. Note the definition of respect Sentiment de considération envers quelqu'un, et qui porte à le traiter avec des égards particuliers ; manifestations de ces égards : Manquer de respect à quelqu'un. Sentiment de vénération envers ce qui est considéré comme sacré : Le respect des morts. Considération que l'on a pour certaines choses : Le respect de la parole donnée. My translation: Feeling of consideration towards someone, which sustains treating them with particular regards ; or the manifestation of these regards : (example of the word used in a phrase) to lack respect toward someone Feeling of veneration towards that which is considered sacred: (example of the word used in a phrase) respect for the dead Consideration that one has for certain things: (example of the word used in a phrase) respect for the given word (e.g. for keeping a promise) I think that M. Macron is (whether or not you agree) hereby implicitly disclaiming having been disrespectful himself. Also there's a related phrase in French, faire le singe -- literally "make the monkey", figuratively "act like a monkey (or a clown)" or "to clown around" -- because it's a standard figurative phrase, you'd be missing some of the nuance if you only translated each word literally. It might be worth mentioning the place, too, which according to the OP was Mont Valérien : Du lieu de l'Histoire au premier des Hauts lieux de la mémoire nationale : Lieu de culte médiéval devenu forteresse militaire au cours de XIXème siècle, le Mont-Valérien a été le principal lieu d’exécution de résistants et d’otages en France par l’armée allemande pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. La multiplicité des parcours des 1008 fusillés, nous permet aujourd’hui d’en décrire la diversité. Après la guerre, le site est choisi pour honorer la mémoire des morts pour la France de 1939 à 1945, et, le 18 juin 1960, le général de Gaulle y inaugure le Mémorial de la France combattante. Ces hommes, assassinés parce qu’ils étaient résistants, otages, Juifs ou communistes sont autant de rappels à notre histoire qui firent naturellement de ce site le premier des Hauts lieux de la mémoire nationale du ministère de la Défense, aujourd'hui géré par l'Office National des Anciens Combattants et Victimes de Guerre. My translation: From a place in History to the first of the High (important, altar-like) places in the national memory: A medieval place of worship, become military fortress during the 19th century, the Mont Valérien was the principal place of execution of the members of the resistance and hostages in France by the German army during the second world war. The multiplicity of the itineraries of the 1008 people shot, allows us today to describe their diversity. After the war, the site is chosen to honour the memory of those who died for France from 1939 through 1945, and, on June 18 1960, General de Gaulle inaugurated there the Memorial of France at war. These men, assassinated because they were resistance, hostages, Jews, or communists, were as such (or were so many) reminders of our history who consequently made of this site the primary of the High places of the national memory of the ministry of Defence, today managed by the National Office of the Veterans and Victims of War. Going back to the quoted definition, i.e. s'amuser de façon espiègle, folâtrer If I paraphrase these definitions of espiègle and folâtrer , then (together with my own understanding of the phrase), the definition says, more or less, "to amuse oneself" ... comic; transgressive but not mean, almost innocent; doesn't know better; unworried -- the implication is that the boy ought to show more respect than to act that way here -- it may also imply that we are not amused. That's close to how Europe1's reporting after the fact characterizes the boy's greeting: Alors que le président de la République saluait plusieurs jeunes attroupés derrière des barrières, l'un d'entre eux, après avoir entonné les premiers mots de l'Internationale, s'est amusé à apostropher l'hôte de l'Élysée d'un "ça va Manu" ? Mais le jeune homme a été immédiatement repris par Emmanuel Macron. "Non, non", a-t-il rétorqué, alors que le jeune garçon, semblant vite regretter cette familiarité, s'excusait : 'désolé monsieur le président". My translation: As the president of the Republic was greeting several youths who were trooped behind barriers, one of them, after sounding the first words of the Internationale , *amused himself by abbreviating 2 the host of the Élysée by a " ça va Manu? " But the young man was immediately taken up by Emmanuel Macron, "No, no", he replied, while the young boy, seeming to quickly regret this familiarity, was excusing himself: "sorry (or 'abject apologies') Mister President." One more thing, he wasn't just criticising the boy's behaviour -- he was criticising his French, which I think of as normal and as natural as breathing, it's how people (children) learn French. There are varieties or registers of French, and you're taught to use the right register on the right occasion. Where I'm living it's normal to say "Bonjour Monsieur !", "Bonjour Madame !", "Bonjour !" to everyone you pass on the street. I once absent-mindedly said "Bonjour Monsieur" to an approaching child, and the enormity of what I'd said made him catch his breath and correct me: " Je ne suis pas un 'Monsieur' ! Je suis en enfant ! " 1 A comment below tells me that when the boy says, " ça va Manu ?", that "Manu" is an abbreviation of "Emmanuel (Macron)". So it's a bit analogous to greeting the Queen of England or the Prince of Wales as, "Hey Lizzie!", or, "How's it going, Chuckles?" 2 The French verb apostropher dosn't even have an equivalent in English that I can think of. Its definition is, " Adresser brusquement la parole à (qqn), sans politesse ", i.e. "address speech to someone brusquely, without politeness." | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41562",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/37394/"
]
} |
41,580 | Post from Revolution News reads, "By hating Hitler and trying to fight back, Jews are only increasing the severity of his policies against them. "If Jews throughout the world try to instill into the minds of Hitler and his supporters recognition of the ideals for which the race stands, and if Jews appeal to the German sense of justice and the German national conscience, I am sure the problem will be solved more effectively and earlier than otherwise." | As the source of the image says, it’s from the June 15, 1934 issue of The New York Times. Here’s a screenshot of the article, "URGES GOOD WILL BY JEWS FOR NAZIS" by Henry J. Cadbury the Professor of Biblical Literature of Bryn Mawr College. Here is the article in full, with the quote from the question being under "Urges Appeal to Justice": URGES GOOD WILL BY JEWS FOR NAZIS Prof. Cadbury of Society of Friends Says It Will Gain More Than Will Hate DECRIES BOYCOTT AS 'WAR' Dr. Goldenson Tells Session of Rabbis a Minority Must Not Use Tactics of Foes Special to The New York Times Wernersville, PA., June 14 — Good will, not hate or reprisals, will end, or offset, the evils of the Hitler government’s persecution of Jews, Professor Henry J. Cadbury, Professor of Biblical Literature at Bryn Mawr College, told the Central Conference of American Rabbis as it opened its convention here today. The message as president of the conference was delivered tonight by the Rev. Dr. Samuel H. Goldenson, rabbi of Temple Emanu-El, New York. Professor Cadbury is chairman of the service committee, American Society of Friends. “Oppression of Jews in German by Hitler and his Nazi forces can be ended not by hate that their victims may display, or by attempts to fight back,” he said, “but by efforts to cultivate good will.” “You can prove to your oppressors that their objectives and methods are not only wrong, but unavailing in the face of the world’s protests and universal disapproval of the injustices the Hitler program entails. Urges Appeal to Justice “By hating Hitler and trying to fight back, Jews are only increasing the severity of his policies against them.” “If Jews throughout the world try to instill into the minds of Hitler and his supporters recognition of the ideals for which the race stands, and if Jews appeal to the German sense of Justice and German national conscience, I am sure the problem will be solved more effectively and earlier than otherwise.” Professor Cadbury declared “it is the duty of Christians the world over to help right the injustices wrought by the Nazis.” “Every God-believing Christian, in any nation,” he said, “should join in trying to atone for the wrongdoings done Jewish people, if only for the sake of their own Christian beliefs and Christian doctrines of universal goodwill and brotherhood.” The boycott against German, he asserted, is not an effective means of meeting the evil. “Boycotts are simply war without bloodshed,” he said, “and war in any form is not they way to right the wrongs being inflicted on the Jewish people.” Goldenson Prescribes Remedy. Hitler and what he symbolizes are spiritually contemporary with the Inquisition, although he uses modern means to “distill his poison,” Dr. Goldenson said in his message. But he warned that the remedy against Hitlerism and the protection for minority groups lay not in a mere denunciation but “in the improvement of social conditions and relations wherever we live.” As a foundation for this task he urged support for a program among Jews looking to “the revitalization of religious faith and reconsecration to ethical and spiritual ideals.” Dr. Goldenson pointed out that “men like Hitler unfortunately are always present in the world, at any rate potentially,” adding: “It is only when their fellows are greatly disturbed, defeated and frustrated that they become a prey to demagogues and false messiahs.” He described the dangers inherent in the adoption by minorities of “the methods that seem to have made their enemies successful.” “Should illiberalism develop in America,” he added, “it would most certainly show itself the denial of the humane and democratic principles upon which our government is founded an in the substitution of ideas not unlike those that are used to explain and to justify the German persecutions and atrocities.” “Realizing then, as everyone must, that in the spread of intolerance we Jews are always the first victims, it behooves us to be especially watchful of our own conduct and not commit the folly of believing that similar illiberalism may not develop even among ourselves.” “Everywhere there is a cry for Jewish solidarity. It is unquestionably important that especially in these threatening times we should think and act together. But solidarity will not serve us, as it does not serve the world at large, unless it is the result of critical thinking and of clearly conceived and completely justified objectives.” “What is not quite so easy to understand is that Jewish likemindedness has always been derived from an adequate appreciation of the meaning of our history and the content of our literature. Unless we are informed upon our heritage, no Jewish standards can be developed, and when no such standards are developed, Jewish solidarity is certain to become nothing more than brute gregariousness in the hours when clouds gather and storms threaten.” “We have already seen the signs of havoc wrought by uninformed and uncritical solidarity in our midst. In many cities our people have been called together by self-appointed leaders for the assertion of Jewish rights and for the promotion of special programs and objectives. the appeal has almost invariably been made in the name of Jewish solidarity.” “Such an appeal, we should be reminded, is not unlike that of the superpatriots who frequently go so far as to insinuate that, if one does not heed their call, it is a certain sign of disloyalty to one’s people and to one’s country.” Aid Program Should Be United One of the tasks which should not be clouded by differences, Dr. Goldenson added, is helping German Jews to reach a haven wherever one is offered. Jews, Dr. Goldenson said, “should wish to give the world more than successful careers.” “Our bankers, commercial and industrial leaders, movie magnates, doctors, lawyers, scientists, and artists,” he said, “should in their respective fields so conduct their affairs as to body forth some added benefaction to their neighbors.” Stressing the need for the development of spiritual values, he said he “would suggest that all our religious forces unite upon a program looking for the revival of Jewish interest and learning and for the stimulation of Jewish loyalties and idealism.” “The Synagogue Council fo America, representing the three religious groups in our midst, may well make this program its primary business,” he proceeded. “In recent years our people have become specialist in the art of conducting campaigns. We have managed many successful drives for relief, philanthropy and general social welfare. The time has come to use our expert knowledge as campaigners for the most vital need of our people and our day, the revitalization of religious faith and the reconsecration to ethical and spiritual ideals.” “Why may not the week of Chanukah be used for such a campaign?” In line with this program, Dr. Goldenson urged also the establishment of a weekly paper “whose sole purpose should be the dissemination of the knowledge of Judaism.” He stressed the importance of revising the liturgy. Calls for Adult Education Rabbi Abraham J. Feldman of Hartford, Conn., said that adults as well as children need education. As chairman of the educational committee he said religious education alone is not sufficient. “Parents as well as their children must be urged to educate themselves, broaden their vision, and enlarge their objectives in life,” he declared. Speaking of adult Jewish education, Dr. Leon Fram of Detroit urged through study of Jewish history and exhorted Jewish parents to set an example to their children in seeking higher education and in developing Jewish cultural aims and ideals. Such a course, he said, will increase respect for Jewish schools. Twenty-five large schools in various cities are now giving advanced instruction to over 5,000 adults he reported. Rabbi Morton M. Berman, director of Jewish education of the Free Synagogues of America, declared Judaism is something more than a religion. “Acceptance of this view ought to bring about a revolution in studies and in methods in Jewish schools,” he proceeded. “Palestine is the centre of Jewish civilization, not merely the remote ancestral home of the Jew. Jewish children should be taught more about Jews, their history and their religious and social tenets.” (If you prefer to look at images of the full original article, the quote starts at the bottom left of this first image and continues at the top left of the second .) | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41580",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/3835/"
]
} |
41,631 | I found this picture from a reply to Kamala Harris' tweet . Warning, graphic and possibly disturbing image of a man handling what appear to be human fetuses: Click to view. It has the following text: This man went behind an abortion clinic dumpster to take these poor aborted babies, wash them and bury them bc they are not trash, they are human beings!! You libs better never lecture me on children's rights bc I will lose my shit! You libs are animals! Is the caption of this picture accurate? | No The caption is mostly accurate but makes assumptions. This picture has been posted multiple times attributing it it multiple different countries. The photo is actually from Vietnam where they have a fetuses cemetery. This is either a picture of some fetuses that have been taken from private abortion clinics or found elsewhere, to be cleaned and buried (Not specified from a dumpster), it is also inaccurate to associate this with America. Here is a Snopes article on the picture, a Vietnam news article talking about it and some pictures of the cemetery. “This same photograph had earlier been distributed as part of a larger set published by the Vietnamese news site Emdep. The text accompanying that set of photographs described a volunteer who ritually washes the remains of aborted fetuses, stillborn births, and/or premature or abandoned infants (the translation is ambiguous) in preparation for burial.” | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41631",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/45588/"
]
} |
41,636 | This may seem like an idiotic question, but Indonesians officials say that condensed milk does not contain milk. With no milk at all, sweetened condensed milk has managed to cheat those people who often serve it to children, as an alternative to the more expensive milk powder. source It's hard to get an English source for this claim. However, this news is going viral in Indonesia. So I would like to check. | Sweetened condensed milk is made by evaporating some of the water from milk and adding sugar. So yes it does contain milk as your wikipedia link in your original question stated. The article that you link to though appears to be a bad translation of what officials are saying. According to The Jakarta Post condensed milk or sweetened condensed milk may no longer be marketed like it is the same as ordinary milk. Sweetened condensed milk contains additional sugar making it a poor substitute for ordinary milk. Unfortunately, the producers of SCM (or SKM in Indonesia) have long sold it as a healthy alternative to ordinary milk. This includes recommending two glasses a day mixed with water, having images of fresh milk on the label, and having images of young children drinking it on the label. Under new advertising guidelines these would be forbidden. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41636",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
41,647 | This seems like a very dubious picture, from a very clearly politically motivated website, but I was wondering if there was any truth to this picture? | No, he did not. Snopes says: In fact, any public presidential activity paying tribute to fallen U.S. and Allied soldiers on the anniversary of D-Day has been an exception rather than the rule in recent years. Available White House presidential schedules for 6 June, going back to the beginning of the George W. Bush administration in 2001, list no public events connected to D-Day in 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2003, or 2002 . Between 1944 and 2016 — a span of 72 years — four U.S. presidents have attended D-Day memorial ceremonies a total of seven times, and Barack Obama attended two of the seven. The reason Snopes talks about "presidential activity [...] on the anniversary of D-Day" instead of going to "the D-Day Monument" is that there is not the D-Day monument. As Snopes points out, there is the National D-Day Memorial, but no president has visited on D-Day since its opening in 2001, when Bush dedicated it on D-Day. There is the National World War II Memorial, but that has never seen a presidential visit on D-Day. And there are D-Day ceremonies in Normandy, but those have not been visited regularly by presidents (see also Politifact ). | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41647",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/34975/"
]
} |
41,675 | Facebook just posted to my timeline this picture claiming that cars in Arizona are melting in the heat. Is it true? | The weather is not melting cars. But there was a big fire in Tucson and the heat from the fire melted plastic parts on a bunch of cars in the parking lot. The pictures in this article fairly clearly match the cars, parking lot, and background building in the picture you attached. So, are cars in Arizona melting in the heat? A few that were unfortunately parked near a building that caught on fire. Did it have anything to do with the weather? No. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41675",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/31129/"
]
} |
41,736 | I’ve been reading up on World War II scrap drive efforts in the United States, and am wondering if these (mostly) community-based efforts actually contributed enough raw materials to the war effort for them to actually be viable? Meaning, I am assuming that these drives brought communities together and provided a sense of “I am doing something!” for the war effort, but if—all things being equal—no recycling happened past the usual efforts a community has, would the war effort have been stymied as a result? If a neighborhood didn’t collectively scrap their iron fences, would a tank truly have not been built as a result? I have come across articles like these—for example—online that seem to be stating similar claims; article title linked with quote below: Scrap Metal and Rubber Drives (University of Wisconsin System School Library Education Consortium) “On the home front, sacrifice was a common theme throughout the years of the war. Scrap metal drives were conducted throughout the US to gather materials to build tanks, ships, planes and weapons.” Scrap for Victory! (Library of Congress Blogs) “During World War II scrap drives were a popular way for everyone to contribute to the war effort. By recycling unused or unwanted metal for example, the government could build ships, airplanes and other equipment needed to fight the war.” Make It Do – Scrap Drives in World War II (Author Sarah Sundin’s Website) “Scrap drives were a vital part of the American war effort.” All of these pieces talk about the scrap drives matter-of-factly as being a “thing” but none really address whether or not these efforts were simply “team building” exercises at best? They all seem to implicitly agree that scrap drive efforts were necessary. That said, I did stumble upon this Mashable piece (“1942: Scrap metal drives”) that is mainly a pile of pictures but also includes this claim—that I tend to agree with—but doesn’t provide citations or context for the claim: “Ultimately, the effect of these scrap metal drives on actual war production was marginal at best. Their true value was in galvanizing citizen morale and a sense of patriotic unity, and making everyone feel a part of the war effort.” So are there any citable (and hopefully fact and statistic backed) sources out there that focus on the idea that these scrap drives were more of a morale boosting effort than a truly necessary act of sacrifice for a war effort? Including a cool pic (below) of a dog and two kids collecting scrap items (presumably) around Boston just for the hell of it. | No. For the "procurement of raw materials" the United States could have continued just like before and still win. Effectively it might have been useful still –– for quite some other reasons. Just like in the First World War the United States had a vast advantage in access to raw materials and industrial capacity over Germany and of course over resources starved Japan as well. Those axis nations were much more in need of recycling efforts than the US. For America these drives proved: Most Americans, including many Ohioans, actively participated in scrap drives to help the United States attain victory in World War II. They viewed it as their patriotic duty to contribute their time and their products. Historians, however, debate how necessary scrap drives were and whether or not they helped the United States defeat Germany, Italy, and Japan. The government did find uses for many of the donated items. Products made from rubber helped the war effort, but recycled rubber proved to be of an inferior quality to naturally occurring rubber. The development of synthetic rubber did more to help the United States win World War II than the scrap drives. Recycled aluminum also proved ineffective, although industry melted down iron and steel products to make various weapons. Perhaps the greatest item collected in scrap drives was kitchen fat, an item necessary to produce glycerin. Glycerin was a vital component of bombs and other types of explosives. While the scrap drives' effectiveness remains under debate, the drives helped unite the American people behind the war effort and allowed the United States to defeat Germany, Italy, and Japan in World War II. Ohio History Central –– Scrap Drives But this is a complex issue. World War II shortages weren’t just home-front propaganda. Japanese conquests in Malaya and the Dutch East Indies cut off access to natural rubber supplies. President Roosevelt urged Americans to turn in “old tires, old rubber raincoats, old garden hose, rubber shoes, bathing caps, gloves,” and so on at their local service stations. Just one problem: there wasn’t (and still isn’t) an efficient way of recycling rubber products. Rubber’s complex chemistry and the variety of formulations in use made recycling slow and expensive and the resultant material inferior to virgin rubber. Although the rubber recycling industry did produce a fair amount of material throughout the war, the rubber scrap drive didn’t significantly boost its output. The real solution to the rubber shortage was development of synthetic rubber and conservation — gas rationing was primarily meant to save tires, not gas. StraightDope –– Were WWII scrap drives just a ploy to boost morale? Perhaps a limited number of items collected, like those made of iron and steel, were successfully recycled and indeed quicker available when the US did participate with weapons firing in the war. For other materials the story is mostly reduced to morale boosting: It turns out that the scrap drives, and the propaganda and patriotism that accompanied them, had a far more limited impact on the economy than might be imagined from the enthusiastic portrayal of them in the historical literature. While the impact of the drives on the economy was limited, the impact of the drives on civilian morale, may well have been substantial. The patriotism that surrounded the drives, moreover, did not erase the impact of conventional economic incentives. The fat drive was unnecessary, the product of special interests seeking a way around price controls and rationing. The lack of adequate price incentives confused the iron and steel scrap drive and made it less effective than it otherwise would have been. The rubber drive was more effective because this lesson was learned, and a high point-of-origin price for scrap was established. Rather than demonstrating the importance of non-pecuniary motives and non-market means of production, the salvage drives demonstrate the limited ability of patriotism and community spirit to overcome technical constraints, or the tendency of people to respond to economic incentives. Hugh Rockoff: "Getting in the Scrap: the Salvage Drives of World War II", Working Paper, No. 2000-02, Rutgers University, Department of Economics, New Brunswick, NJ, 2000 . Revised version Keep on Scrapping: The Salvage Drives Of World War II, 2007 here. But for metals at the start of the real war for the US the government did not just come up with a propaganda or psychological scam. There were real concerns that while the production could be ramped up quickly in terms of monetary and workforce factors, the supply of scrap metal for the steel mills might be exhausted quicker than it would be presumed replaceable: The American Industries Salvage Committee confirmed that the production of steel in 1942 would likely end up 5 million tons below the industry's capacity, effectively eliminating the equivalent of 10,000 tanks and 1,300 cargo ships from the nation's arsenal. "We can never regain the lost time," lamented the committee, encouraging every citizen to gather scrap as quickly as possible in order to prevent more letdowns in war production. James J. Kimble: "Prairie Forge: The Extraordinary Story of the Nebraska Scrap Metal Drive of World War II", University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln, 2014, p2 . Much more important than raw materials were other factors that accompanied these drives, measured and assessed by the government itself quite early on: Alongside bond posters, for example, were banners for rubber conservation, victory gardens, scrap metal drives, rationing, armed forces recruitment, and women-in-the-workforce. The bond sales program, however, was easily the largest and “most pervasive” of these campaigns. One internal Treasury study found that more war bond posters were displayed in storefronts than were posters for all other U.S. government campaigns combined. With its massive workforce, obvious government approval, and ubiquitous publicity, the sheer size of the project inevitably helped it stand out against the many competing distractions of the war. James J. Kimble: "Mobilizing The Home Front. War Bonds and Domestic Propaganda", Texas A&M University Press: College Station, 2006 , p33. And since there are cute children depicted in the question: In all probability, the Allies would have won the war had American children done nothing. Children must occasionally have sensed this fact and at times felt they were being kept busy doing nothing of importance. Their work was unpaid and repetitious and, when they ceased to be convinced that their efforts were necessary, they tired easily of it. They felt particularly discouraged when processing plants or transportation systems were overloaded and scrap sat for months outside their classroom windows in great useless heaps. These piles belied the urgency of the WPB’s call for their services and led them to question whether their efforts were hastening their relatives’ homecomings and victory. Like the general public they tired of patriotic slogans and questioned whether their own loose lips could actually sink Allied ships. As early as 1942, several hundred Boy Scouts told interviewers they did not like collecting paper, which they did not feel was needed. Over half preferred to act in more important capacities –– as air-raid wardens or civil defense messengers. Yet, when asked to continue collecting scrap, they persevered. More important than their material contribution is the social and psychological impact of their activities on their generation. First, when teachers called for volunteers, an element of social coercion was implicit. Robert Wm. Kirk: "Getting in the Scrap: The Mobilization of American Children in World War II", The Journal of Popular Culture, Volume 29, Issue 1, 1995, p 223-233 . For an overall assessment Alexander J. Field: "The impact of the Second World War on US productivity growth", Economic History Review, 61, 3 (2008), pp. 672–694 DOI :
This paper considers the productivity impact on the US economy of the period of war mobilization and demobilization lasting from 1941 to 1948. Optimists have pointed to learning by doing in military production and spin-offs from military R & D as the basis for asserting a substantial positive effect of military conflict on potential output. Productivity data for the private non-farm economy are not consistent with this view, as they show slower total factor productivity (TFP) growth between 1941 and 1948 than before or after. The paper argues for adopting a less rosy perspective on the supply side effects of the war. In other words, organizational and technical advances prior to 1942 probably made a greater contribution to the success of economic mobilization than the latter made to postwar productivity levels. Even on the technical (as opposed to production) side, it is notable that there was not a single combat aircraft seeing major service produced during the Second World War that was not already on the drawing boards before it began. Other factors than the laudable efforts by individuals or "consumers" are often overlooked in this context as well: […] prior to World War II large corporations had developed considerable expertise in recycling. The paper then covers wartime business-led efforts. The first, efforts to reclaim consumer materials for the production process, were highly visible. The second, initiatives to recycle waste generated by industry, were less visible but even more significant. Within a cultural framework defined by patriotism and an economic framework defined by scarcity, this study finds, corporate recycling efforts succeeded to an extent not to be equalled until after the advent of the environmental movement. Kenneth D. Durr: "The ‘New Industrial Philosophy’: US corporate
recycling in World War II", Progress in Industrial Ecology – An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 4, 2006, p361–378 . From a basic science and basic economics perspective for these drives one basic insight needs to be kept in mind, despite being implicitly characterised already above: The reason for this imbalance is that recycling has been organised for mass metals for more than 100 years and works successfully, but not for most of the critical metals. A second problem area is the type and size of the recycled material. Mass metals of Fe, Cu or Al are easily recognizable by their metallic form and color. Many of the industrial metals, on the other hand, are used in inorganic bound and also in very small dimensions. Identifying such components without technical aids becomes difficult even for the expert. Translated from: Bernhard Adler: "Strategische Metalle – Eigenschaften, Anwendung und Recycling", Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, 2017 , p117. The United States were much better prepared to fight World War 2 than the previous conflict. The industries needed for the war effort already had effective recycling and salvage processes developed and in place before the war started for the US. Given that the average civilian effort delivered only very varying quality on a scale that did not matter that much the original assumption of strict "needs for drives" seems increasingly doubtful. The raw numbers for steel: Barringer (1954, 54) argued that the drives did bring in additional scrap, and estimated that in 1942 and 1943 the salvage drives yielded about 4,000,000 additional tons of scrap. This was about 8.33 percent of consumption of purchased scrap in 1942 and 1943 and 3.67 percent of total consumption of scrap (Table 1, columns 1 and 2). He adds, "During the entire war perhaps about 9,000,000 tons was brought out that would not have been available to dealers under normal conditions." This was about 9.61 percent of purchased scrap and 4.21 percent of total scrap from 1942 through 1945 (Table 1, columns 1 and 2). Salvage-drive scrap was lighter than normal scrap, and according to Barringer, the mills preferred normal scrap when they could get it (Wall Street Journal, November 28, 1942, p. 1). These percentages, therefore, undoubtedly overstate the yield of the scrap drive compared with a statistic in which the numerator and denominator were measured in tons of scrap of constant quality. Barringer was a long-time official with the Institute of Scrap Iron and Steel, a trade group representing the scrap dealers, and they sponsored his book. As a trade group they had an interest in stressing the contribution of professional dealers. To my knowledge, however, Barringer's book is the best-informed account of the industry during this period, and has a strong claim to authority. Altogether the evidence of the peak-to-peak trend, the regressions, and Barringer’s estimates suggest that the drives added at most a few percentage points to the supply of scrap. How significant was a "small" percentage increase in the supply of scrap? Measured in months of consumption at the 1941 rate, Barringer's estimate of 9,000,000 additional tons, the highest estimate that we have discussed, was only about two months worth of consumption of scrap: without the drives it would have taken two additional months for the private sector to produce and consume the same amount of scrap.12 Measured against total steel production, Barringer's estimate would appear smaller. It amounted to about 1.6 percent of total steel production during the war (Historical Statistics 2006, series Dd399, Dd405 -407). To put it in more familiar terms, this was about 24 days of production. Conceivably, the timing of scrap collection could be crucial. A great battle, one could imagine, could turn on the deployment of a small amount of arms, so any slowdown in the flow of scrap that slowed production and prevented these particular arms from reaching the crucial battlefield at the crucial moment could be important (Kimble 2007, 95-96). “But for want of a nail ...” But absent an argument of this sort that magnifies the impact of the availability of scrap at a particular moment, it is clear that even in the absence of the patriotic salvage drives the United States would have produced enough scrap iron and steel to supply its steel industry and to equip its fighting forces. Rockoff, 2007, p22. These are just the navel gazing numbers relevant to the internal statistics of the American effort analysed in isolation. Comparison with the axis economic base might further relate how disproportionate the output and capabilities were distributed: Strategic choice also played a role. The German and Japanese strategy relied on quality of armies and armament to compensate for their deficiencies in the quantity of overall resources. Wartime GDP 1939 1942 1944
USA 869 1235 1499
UK 287 353 346
USSR 366 274 362
Allied total 1721 1862 2325
Germany 384 417 437
Japan 184 197 189
Axis total 747 903 748 Source: Mark Harrison: "The economics of World War II: an overview" , in: The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison, pp. 1-42. Edited by Mark Harrison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. These numbers look largely the same for strictly war materials like weapons and ammunitions. Such a large head start is quite an argument against any real material "need for large drive". The exact effects and numbers for the following might have to be considered as well, when assaying the possible impact some of these drives might have had: The denunciation of the Japanese-US treaty on trade and shipping in July 1939, and its lapse in January of the following year, dealt a severe blow to the Japanese wartime economy which relied heavily on America for machine tools, scrap iron , and many other commodities for military use. Akira Hara: "Japan: Guns before Rice", in Mark Harrison (Ed.): "The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison", Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, New York, 1998, p238. Conclusion: Only at the outset of the war—and only for a limited number of materials—there was even any real use for the scrap drives on the materialistic side of the equation. Some metals were successfully recycled and needed. For fat, rubber and aluminium the drives were a waste of resources except for the morale component. The overall indirect effects, different from "procurement of raw materials?", seem non-negligible. Frugality as an expression of support for a common cause, awareness for material needs in the war effort and so on. Strictly on a materialist basis these "drives" did not accomplish the effects they were expected to achieve and these were also not really needed in hindsight. Global statistics render these efforts not "unhelpful", rather largely "insignificant". Perhaps a clarification: That does not mean that "recycling" was unimportant or unnecessary. This is purely about the "drives" and their impact. The drives, it turns out, had a more limited impact on the economy than might be imagined from some of the enthusiastic portrayals in the popular and historical literatures. At most, the drives increased scrap collections by relatively small margins above what would have been collected during a prosperous peacetime period. The impact of economic incentives on the supply of scrap materials, and the impact of the maneuvering of special interests for advantage, moreover, can be seen at every turn. If the drives were important it was through their impact on civilian morale. Rockoff, 2007, abstract. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41736",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/22266/"
]
} |
41,763 | A Facebook meme (with 146 thousand shares) asks: How old were you when you learned that the game TAG stands for "Touch and Go" I was today years old... Is the etymology of the game tag an acronym of "touch and go"? | No, but the association between "tag" and "touch and go" is more than 100 years old. See the 1912 printing of the song A GAME OF TAG : playing tag, Touch and go And in the 1902 Music for the child world: Rhythms, marches and games there is also the song "GAME OF TAG" (music only, no lyrics), with the note below the title "Touch and go. Good for all kinds of running games. …" Nonetheless, the February 1866 American Agriculturist , volume XXV, at page 67 says: Game of “Tag,” with variations Probably every boy and girl of ten years old knows how to play the old game of “tag.” It is so old that the children of the Roman empire used to play it thousands of years ago; the name “tag” comes from their language, tago, or tango, as it written in later times, meaning “I touch.” Similarly, the 1848 The pentamerone, or, The story of stories, translated by J.E. Taylor says: … English game of 'Tag' (Touch, from the Latin tango or tago ), in which one, who is called Tag, runs after and tries to touch the others ; when he succeeds he cries Tag, and the one touched becomes Tag in his turn Also, the 1828 Webster's Dictionary says: the original orthography of the Latin tango , to touch, which was tago . Other dictionaries such as the Century Dictionary (1891) dispute the Latin origin theory, instead saying the origin is unknown. In Drayton's 1622 Poly-Olbion , song 30, it is stated: Whereas the mountain nymphs, and those that do frequent The fountains, fields and groves, with wondrous merriment, By moonshine many a night, do give each other chase, At Hood-wink, Barley-break, at Tick, or prison-base and in Francis Willughby's Book of Games , written in the 1660s, it is stated: One boy touches another and cries, Tick. Hee that is touched runs after the other that touched him, to tick him againe, and then runs from him as soone as hee has touched him. Hee that is ticked, & cannot tick againe, is beaten. So one theory, as explained in The Lore of the Playground: One hundred years of children's games , is that "tick" was the original term for the game, and the names "tag" and "tig" derived therefrom. The earliest reference to the game as "tag" is in the 4 February 1738 The Craftsman , reprinted the same month in The Gentleman's Magazine (quoted below) as well as in The London Magazine : A manuscript writen by a great Uncle of mine, who dy'd soon after the Revolution came lately into my hands. It is a sort of chronological animadversion upon the Plays and Pastimes of Children […] In Queen Mary's Reign, TAG was all the Play; where the Lad saves himself by touching of cold Iron – By this it was intended to shew the Severity of the Church of Rome; and that if People had once gone off to the Reformers, tho' they were willing to return to their old Idolatry, they must do it upon hard Terms – But in latter Times, this Play hath been alter'd amongst Children of Quality, by touching of Gold instead of Iron. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41763",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/23/"
]
} |
41,843 | Post from Facebook Teabonics Reads In the past year, Republicans have selected a Nazi, a neo-Confederate, a pedophile, and a pimp as general election candidates. [Pictures of presumed GOP candidates and of Ocasio-Cortez] But please keep telling us how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is too radical for America because she doesn't want people to be sick or poor! Did Republicans select a nazi, neo-Confederate, pedophile, and pimp as general election candidates? | Mostly correct. According to Google's reverse image search, the 4 photos are of the following people: Arthur J Jones. His Wikipedia entry starts with "Arthur Joseph Jones (born January 1, 1948) is an American neo-Nazi far-right white nationalist and Holocaust denier. He is the Republican candidate for Illinois's 3rd congressional district." His own website has a section denying the holocaust. Corey Stewart. Vox.com says this about him : "Virginia Republicans just nominated an alt-right hero to run for Senate. Corey Stewart’s Confederate leanings and “Unite the Right” support, explained." It also calls him a birther and a virulent anti-Semite. Here's a NY Post link showing a video of Stewart giving his support for the confederate flag. And Celebrity Snooper details his birther support on Twitter. Roy Moore. He has been accused of sexual misconduct. As his alleged victims were between 14 and 18 years old, he may technically not be a paedophile. Newsweek calls him an "Ephedophile". He has not been convicted. Dennis Hof. Wikipedia's entry about him starts with: "Dennis Hof (born October 14, 1946), self-designated the "Trump from Pahrump," is an American brothel owner, entrepreneur, restaurateur and star of the HBO series Cathouse, currently running for the Nevada State Legislature. He is best known as the owner of seven legal brothels in Nevada." I assume that means he can be called a "pimp" as well - certainly there are lots of web pages that do. Buzzfeed has more information about life in his brothels. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41843",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/3835/"
]
} |
41,908 | President Trump claims that he was early for a meeting with Queen Elizabeth II and she made him wait. Donald Trump has rejected reports that he was late to meet the Queen as "fake disgusting news", explaining that it was actually the Queen who made him wait. This seems like it ought to be very easily verifiable, as their initial meeting was attended by the media. | The linked Daily Telegraph article about Trump's rejection links to the original claim in Teen Vogue , which says the following: Trump did not keep the Queen waiting. He was due at 5pm and the motorcade drove into the Quadrangle at 4.59pm. Teen Vogue in turn linked to marieclaire.com as source, which says: Her Majesty waited (in public and on live TV, no less) for more than 10 minutes. It's unclear whether the Queen was just early for the meet up or the Trumps were actually late Marieclaire.com or Teen Vogue's headlines[*] do indeed seem to be imprecise or incorrect, as they don't actually reflect the facts in the respective articles. Snopes calls the claim "dubious": Depending upon how one reckons, the Trumps were either just about exactly on time or late by a few seconds in arriving for their meeting with the Queen. The BBC concludes: The president arrived and met the Queen on time, according to the official schedule. However, he didn't arrive 15 minutes early at Windsor. tl;dr : The Queen did wait, but Trump was not late. Some minor online publications used imprecise or just false headlines when reporting on this. [*]
"The Queen Did Not Look Amused to Be Left Waiting for Trump" and "President Donald Trump Was Reportedly Late to Meet With Queen Elizabeth II" | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41908",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/6956/"
]
} |
41,917 | This article The German Government Is Paying For Refugees To Return Home For 3-Week Vacation on noted blog Zerohedge.com, lifted in its entirety from another source, claims: I am in Germany on business and did not see the place overrun with refugees as on my last trip. So I made some inquiries. To my complete astonishment, the German government is actually giving refugees three weeks paid vacations INCLUDING airfare BACK to the very countries that claim they are fleeing because it is unsafe. So in other words, despite claiming their lives would be at risk if they were forced to return home, the government is paying them for a vacation to the very place they claim to be fleeing. You just cannot make up such a completely insane government policy. I know someone who works with the refugees and they confirm they are on vacation back home. Therefore, asylum seekers are nonetheless returning to their homeland for a “short time”. This seems thinly sourced. However, there is a German linked sourced article, but I don't speak that language. Can someone confirm or deny that Germany is paying refugee vacation back to the countries from which the refugees are supposedly being persecuted? So, just to be clear, I am just talking about the airfare being paid for, not hotels or other types of vacation expenses or accommodations, although if social welfare benefits are accruing and being paid during this time, that would be good information to have. | The blog post on ZeroHedge is a heavily distorted version of the original German article that is linked in it. What the original article in "Die Welt" claims is that there are refugees that travel to the country they claim to be persecuted. That is the entirety of the actual claim from the article: Asylberechtigte kehren zu Urlaubszwecken vorübergehend in jenes Land
zurück, aus dem sie offiziell geflüchtet sind. asylees are returning temporarily for vacation back to the country they officially fled The article states that the existence of such cases has been confirmed by German authorities. The article is not entirely clear on whether that applies to asylees returning temporarily, or if they actually confirm that the reason is a vacation. The article never claims that they are paid for the vacation, this is probably a distortion of the following paragraph: Generell gilt: Hartz-IV-Empfänger haben Anspruch auf 21 Tage
Ortsabwesenheit pro Jahr, ohne dass die Bezüge gesenkt werden. recipients of Hartz IV (a specific type of social security) are entitled to 21 days of absence per year without reduction of payments. So asylees can still get social security benefits while on vacation, which is nothing specific to them but applies to everyone that receives them. There is another article about the topic in "Der Spiegel" , which is slightly more skeptical about the claim. According to this article the authorities don't know if the purpose of any of them was vacation. They do have specific cases where e.g. asylees traveled back to make preparations for their planned return. It is pretty clear that the claim that Germany is paying for vacations of refugees is a distortion of the fact that asylees receive social security in Germany. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41917",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
41,935 | Today on Facebook the Science Museum (London) posted: #OTD in 1930 American astronaut and aeronautical engineer Neil Armstrong was born. In July 1969, Armstrong and Apollo 11 pilot Buzz Aldrin performed the first manned Moon landing. When he stepped onto the lunar surface he famously said '' That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind .'' I though it was “ one small step for a man ”. That seems to make more sense. Which is correct? Clarification at mod request: please don’t answer with what you think the audio sounds like, because that’s a matter of opinion. There is professional audio analysis to cite (although a good answer would evaluate the strength, or not, of that evidence) as well as Armstrong’s reports of what he intended to say and what he believed he said. | It seems that he fluffed his line. He meant to say "a man", but inadvertently missed out the "a". It is also possible that the "a" was masked by static. What did Neil Armstrong really say when he stepped on to the moon? According to the authors of the 1986 book Chariots for Fire, the astronaut tried to argue it omitted the word "a" but after hearing a recording of the flight he admitted: "Damn I really did it. I blew the first words on the moon, didn't I?" Neil Armstrong’s family reveal origins of 'one small step' line It is the most famous and disputed quote in history. Now, three months after Neil Armstrong’s death, it has emerged that the first man on the Moon wrote the words to mark the moment he stepped onto the lunar surface months in advance and had always intended to include the notorious missing “a” in the speech. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41935",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/22504/"
]
} |
41,945 | A disturbing story appeared on my news feed this week, Elderly Woman Forcibly Euthanized The article says that in the Netherlands an elderly woman with dementia was euthanized against her will. But this article has come from the DailyWire, a partisan news outlet . And with no name given it's difficult to verify from a trustworthy news source. Is any part of this article accurate? | A physician in the Netherlands was recently reprimanded by an "Inspectorate" for the "Disciplinary Offices for Healthcare" ( Tuchtcolleges voor de gezondheidszorg ) over this case. 24-Jul-2018 Press Release (Dutch) Detailed Decision (Dutch) The women suffered dementia, and had earlier written a declaration of her desire to be euthanized. However, the Inspectorate concluded that the written declaration was not clear enough, and the patient did not give unambiguous and consistent statements about wanting to be euthanized - sometimes she wanted to die, sometimes she wanted to wait - so the physician should not have proceeded. The main point that made the Inspectorate conclude ambiguity is given in point 5.9 of the detailed report: Original: "[..] Het probleem met deze euthanasieverklaringen is echter dat deze
verklaringen tegenstrijdigheden bevatten ten aanzien van het moment
waarop patiënte de levensbeëindiging uitgevoerd zou willen zien. [..]" My translation: The problem with these declaration of euthanasia, however, is that they contain contradictions regarding the point when the patient wants the euthanasia to be conducted. "[..] Enerzijds lijkt het moment duidelijk ‘wanneer patiënte in een
verpleegtehuis voor demente bejaarden moet worden opgenomen’, maar
daar staat tegenover dat patiënte het moment waarop zij (in de
terminologie van de eerste dementieverklaring) ‘nog enigszins
wilsbekwaam was’ voorbij heeft laten gaan en toen geen ‘vrijwillig’
verzoek heeft gedaan. [..]" On the one hand, the moment seems clearly defined "when the patient has to be admitted to a nursing home for people with dementia", but this is placed against the fact that she let the moment where (using the terminology of her first declaration) she was still 'somewhat lucid' slide and did not make the voluntary request to die at that point. "[..] Hier komt bij dat de (van toepassing zijnde) tweede dementieverklaring
inhoudt ‘wanneer ik daar zelf de tijd rijp voor acht’ en ‘op mijn
verzoek’. Hierin wordt dus nog een tijdselement en een persoonlijke
keuze ingebouwd. Niet dus het moment van opname in een verpleeghuis is
bepalend, maar het eigen (nog te uiten) verzoek van patiënte. De
schriftelijke euthanasieverklaring, met dementieclausule, is dus niet
eenduidig en bevat onduidelijkheden. [..]" Added on top is the (applicable) second declaration of euthanasia which states 'when I myself consider the time ripe' and 'at my request'. This builds in a time element and personal choice. Thus the moment of admission to nursing home is not the defining moment, but the (yet to be articulated) personal request. The written declaration of euthanasia contains ambiguities. The second main issue the Inspectorate has, is the fact that the physician had not communicated to the patient that the procedure would be initiated. From paragraph 5.13 in the detailed report: "[..] Het College onderkent dat communicatie met patiënte op cognitief
niveau niet meer tot de mogelijkheden behoorde. Dit betekent echter
niet dat verweerster was ontslagen van de verplichting om ten minste
te proberen om met patiënte te praten over het concrete voornemen om
haar leven te beëindigen en daarbij een slaapmiddel in haar koffie te
doen. [..]" The Inspectorate confirms that cognitive communication with the patient was no longer possible. However, this does not mean that the defendant no longer had an obligation to at least attempt to talk to the patient regarding the concrete intention to end her life and thereby putting a sedative into her coffee. The case was anonymised, which explains why the newspaper reports did not include the patient's name. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41945",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/5487/"
]
} |
42,050 | A number of sources claimed that phone scammers would trick people into saying "Yes" on the phone, record it, and use that to fraudulently authorise payments. Here is a January 2017 Fortune magazine article : Scammers are increasingly using this phrase to record the word “yes” from unsuspecting consumers. Later, the recording can be used as a voice signature to authorize charges on the victim’s utility or credit card account. The article references an FCC Consumer Advisory : The Federal Communications Commission is alerting consumers to
be on the lookout for scam callers seeking to get victims to say the word “yes” during a call and later use
a recording of the response to authorize unwanted charges on the victim's utility or credit card account. The Better Business Bureau warned a couple of months earlier: The Better Business Bureau is warning consumers about an old scam with a new twist. The “Can You Hear Me?” scam has long been used to coerce businesses into purchasing office supplies and directory ads they never actually ordered, but now it’s targeting individual consumers, as well. For the last few days of January, more than half of the reports to BBB Scam Tracker have been about this one scam. Consumers say the calls are about vacation packages, cruises, warranties, and other big ticket items. So far, none have reported money loss, but it’s unclear how the scams will play out over time, or if the targets will be victimized at a later date. This smells like an urban legend to me. Even if there were cases of phone campaigns started with "Can you hear me?", I can't see any evidence that the responses were recorded, or even that any utility or credit card charges can be authorised with a simple recording of someone saying "Yes". Have there been any cases of phone scammers recording a customer saying "Yes" and then using that as part of a fraudulent charge against their credit card or utility bills? [Note: Some articles refer to the practice as "cramming", but that is a broader term .] | While there are oodles of online references regarding this scam, they all appear to stem from an October 2016 alert by the Better Business Bureau of Western Pennsylvania . I've searched for people who claim to have been billed as a result of this scam; the results are dubious at best. I've also search for people who have been arrested for using this scam and found nothing . This could of course be my google-fu not being up to par. There's one big problem with this supposed scam: It depends on companies using voice identification (not just voice recognition) as an authentication and approval technique. For this reason, Snopes calls this "unproven": Primarily, we haven’t yet been able to identify any scenario under which a scammer could authorize charges in another person’s name simply by possessing a voice recording of that person saying “yes,” without also already possessing a good deal of personal and account information for that person, and without being able to reproduce any other form of verbal response from that person. Moreover, even if such a scenario existed, it’s hard to imagine why scammers would need to utilize an actual audio recording of the victim’s repeating the word “yes” rather than simply providing that response themselves. As far as we know, phone companies, utilities, and credit card issuers don’t maintain databases of voice recordings of their customers and use them to perform real-time audio matching to verify identities during customer service calls. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42050",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/23/"
]
} |
42,063 | Reading the New York Times today, I came across this very amusing "tourism video" touting the benefit of visiting/moving to Australia, namely, "You Won't Get Shot". Don’t Get Shot in America. Live in Australia! At ~1:25, the actor states, In your United states, on average, there's a mass shooting 9 out of every 10 days. But here in Australia, we just go to the beach... without getting shot. Googling this, I found that there's no "official" or universally accepted definition of "mass shooting". Clearly, gun control advocates favor a loose definition: a shooting in which at least four people are injured or killed in one location, not including the suspect. This is the definition proposed, per Nancy Pelosi's spokespersons, by Gun Violence Archive , though I could not find that definition on skimming. A tighter definition, used in the July 2015 Congressional Research Service Report (CRSR) is "a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms, within one event, and in one or more locations in close proximity." This definition does not seem to exclude the shooter (I might be wrong.) In any case, the CRSR numbers are nowhere near the number claimed in the "Australian" don't get shot video, but only includes data to 2013. Is there any truth to the NYT video's claim? | I've written about the issues with defining a "mass shooting" in another answer previously . I'm going to copy and paste the pertinent parts here. The main problem with statistics like these is that there is no one definition of "mass shooting" and thus, by adjusting your parameters, can make the number be whatever you want to fit a narrative. Depending on the definition you wish to choose for a "mass shooting", the percentage for the quoted statistic can range from 2.6 every 100 days to 97.4 per every 100 days. What is a mass shooting? There are some events, like the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting , the 2017 Las Vegas shooting , and the Columbine High School massacre , where everyone can agree that it should be considered a mass shooting. But what about this incident in Saginaw, Michigan, where 5 people were shot at a house party and no one was killed? Or this event in Madison, Alabama, where 4 people were shot and no one was killed? The Wikipedia article on Mass Shooting points out the huge issue in the definition of Mass Shootings. The term was originally defined as the murder of four or more people with no cooling-off period but redefined by Congress in 2013 as being murder of three or more people. According to CNN, a mass shooting is defined as having four or more fatalities, not including gang killings or slayings that involve the death of multiple family members. In "Behind the Bloodshed", a report by USAToday, a mass killing is defined as any incident in which four or more were killed and also includes family killings. A crowdsourced data site cited by CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Economist, the BBC, etc., Mass Shooting Tracker, defines a mass shooting as any incident in which four or more people are shot, whether injured or killed. As of November 2017, the FBI defines a mass shooting as an incident involving "four or more people shot at once." A noteworthy connection has been reported in the U.S. between mass shootings and domestic or family violence, with a current or former intimate partner or family member killed in 76 of 133 cases (57%), and a perpetrator having previously been charged with domestic violence in 21. The lack of a single definition can lead to alarmism in the news media, with some reports conflating categories of crimes. PolitiFact agrees that there's a huge issue with that definition. In a 4 October 2017 article titled "How is a ‘mass shooting’ defined?" , PolitiFact refuses to rate a claim by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi where she claimed "273 mass shootings in 2017 -- one for each day of the year." PolitiFact, before getting into the meat of the article, includes this sentence. We are not rating her claim on our Truth-O-Meter, however, because our current research indicates the debate over the definition of mass shootings is more unsettled than ever. They continue along in the article as if it was another fact check, although without an actual rating. Pelosi’s spokesman told us the congresswoman’s number comes from the Gun Violence Archive , a crowdsourcing website that tracks gun deaths using media reports. It defines a mass shooting as one in which at least four people are injured or killed in one location, not including the suspect. The Gun Violence Archive listed 273 mass shootings as of Oct. 1, 2017, the day of the Las Vegas massacre. (...) Pelosi’s claim and the mass shooting definition it rests on ignores strict criteria developed in a July 2015 Congressional Research Service report . It defines a mass shooting as "a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms, within one event, and in one or more locations in close proximity." The report has been frequently cited by some criminologists and gun rights advocates. Criminologists who spoke with PolitiFact in the past say this definition was more in line with events such as the shootings at Columbine, Virginia Tech or in San Bernardino. They also told PolitiFact that the Gun Violence Archive’s tally includes far more than what would be considered mass shootings because it lumps in gang shootings and home invasion robberies. As PolitiFact Florida reported in 2015 , "Politicians or others who want to make a point about guns choose a set of data and a definition that reinforces the point they want to make. People who want more gun control tend to choose more expansive definitions." (emphasis mine) PolitiFact continues by explaining that many criminal experts have their concerns even with these definitions. Gun control groups say it’s arbitrary to distinguish between a death and an injury. They point out a significant problem: Some shootings that injure a dozen or more people but don’t kill four people would not be considered a mass shooting under the more restrictive definition. "I would submit that sometimes the only difference between a shooting and a murder could be a centimeter, an inch, an unlikely ricochet, whatever," Bueermann, who now is president of the Police Foundation , which researches law enforcement practices, told the Post. "If we're trying to capture true gun violence in our country, a broader definition [of mass shooting] is probably more useful than a narrow one." (Frederic) Lemieux went on to say the broad definitions of mass shooting remain problematic, citing the inclusion of crimes such as familicide, where "victims are exclusively family members and not random bystanders." "Gang murders are usually crime for profit or a punishment for rival gangs or a member of the gang who is an informer. Such homicides don’t belong in the analysis of mass shootings," he added. Gun Violence Archives brings this into greater clarity with their statistics for 2018. They use the "4 or more injuries" criteria to define a mass shooting. By this count, they have 103 mass shootings as of 24 May 2018. However, by using the more strict definition of "four or more victims murdered with firearms, within one event, and in one or more locations in close proximity", the count is at most 10. However, of the 10 you have 2 school shootings ( Parkland - (17 Dead, 17 injured) and Santa Fe - (10 Dead 13 Injured)) An event where three people were shot in a gas station, a fourth some time later, before the killer committed suicide - Five Dead including shooter An event where two women were killed before the shooter returned home, killed two of his own family members, and committed suicide - Five Dead including shooter An event where a man kills his three children, his ex wife's boyfriend, and wounds his ex-wife, before committing suicide - Five Dead including shooter, one wounded A deliberate mass shooting at a car wash (body armor, multiple weapons including an AR-15, indiscriminate) that left 5 dead, including the shooter - Five Dead including shooter The Waffle House Shooting - 4 Dead, 3 Injured An event involving two shooters barricading themselves after killing 3 - Four dead including one shooter, three wounded An event where three were found dead and a fourth died in the hospital after being found in a house, shooter unknown - 4 Dead An event where a man shot a woman and her children, before killing himself, possibly domestic violence - 4 Dead including shooter, 3 injured With the exception of the two school shootings, the Waffle House shooting, and the Car Wash shooting, many of these wouldn't even be considered mass shootings under this more restrictive definition. Some only hit the 4 deaths mark due to including the shooter, some take place in multiple locations, some involve family members, and some are possibly gang-related. In terms of this claim by the actor, if we were to use the loosest definition of "mass shooting" (4 or more victims, not necessarily killed, and can be of any relation to the shooter), the statistics are actually worse for 2018. Gun Violence Archive has 227 mass shootings for 2018 as of 21 August 2018. As 21 August 2018 is the 233rd day of the year, the odds of there being a "mass shooting", using the most liberal definition of "mass shooting", is actually 227 / 233 = 97.4%. However, we can also use the much more restrictive definition of "mass shooting" (4+ deceased victims excluding the subject/suspect/perpetrator, one location). Gun violence archive uses the tag "Mass Murder" for these types of events. Using this more restrictive definition, we get a total of 12 events, and the odds now become 12 / 233 = 5.2% If you also require it to be one location, we can exclude 2 of the 12 events due to them being in multiple locations. 10 / 233 = 4.3% And by requiring the even more restrictive definition of it not being gang/drug/family related, you can exclude 3 ( and possibly 4 ) additional events. 7 / 233 = 3.0% 6 / 233 = 2.6% Because the definition is so unsettled and no one can seem to agree on what the definition should be (or even if there should be a set definition in the first place, as seen in this event which is not included in the restrictive statistics in spite of the fact that 16 people were shot), you can settle on whichever definition fits your worldview and claim any statistic that you want. Now, it is impossible to know exactly what methodology they are using to calculate the "9 out of every 10 days" number, but by changing your definitions, you can certainly create that number. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42063",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/24840/"
]
} |
42,084 | I found via politics.SE that MRC -owned site Newsbusters claims that : In a discussion of modern electoral fraud, MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Monday offered a journalistic admission: She conceded that the 1960 presidential election was “obviously” “stolen” from Richard Nixon. [...] She continued, providing this example: “Richard Nixon not challenging... that Kennedy had stolen the election in 1960, which obviously had been stolen in 1960.” It’s rare for liberal journalists to admit the electoral fraud of the dead voting for Kennedy in Illinois. (Voter fraud also occurred in Lyndon Johnson’s Texas.) JFK’s popular vote margin was just over 100,000 votes out of 70 million cast. [...] Now that 56 years have passed, more journalists have openly talked about the fraud in the 1960 campaign. In the 2016 CNN documentary Race for the White House, ex-Newsweek editor Evan Thomas noted, "As time goes on, it leaks out that, in one black district, there were more votes cast than there were people living in the district. It was corrupt." Narrator Kevin Spacey explained, "As the dead of Illinois cast their votes for Kennedy, there are more allegations of fraud in Texas." And a bit more googling found an opinion piece in Newsweek : Pulitzer-winning journalist Seymour Hersh reported hearing tapes of FBI wiretaps about potential election fraud. Hersh—whose books indicate he is a fan of neither Kennedy nor Nixon—believed Nixon was the rightful winner. So is there some kind of historical consensus now that JFK's election win was due to fraud? | No, there is not consensus that the 1960 election outcome was affected by fraud You ask (emphasis mine): So is there some kind of historical consensus now that JFK's election win was due to fraud? If there is a controversy, there is by definition not consensus. Wikipedia has an extensive section about the controversies regarding the 1960 US Presidential election . There are plenty of references there to show that there are several controversies regarding the election, and with that we have enough to settle the question: no, there is not consensus . Regarding more votes than registered voters: This analysis, though, ignores the fact that the registered voter figures measured only individuals who paid the poll tax and that certain groups were exempt from having to pay that tax. Reference: https://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Vote-ID-law-is-a-waste-of-money-3481335.php In 1960, the Nixon presidential campaign charged that Fannin County, Texas, allowed more people to vote in that year's election than had paid poll taxes, the unconstitutional $1 to $2 ballot box admission fee once mandated by the state. Indeed, 6,138 ballots were cast in Fannin County when only 4,895 people had paid the poll tax. No charges were ever brought because it appears that much of the "fraudulent" voting may have been committed by people exempt from paying the poll tax: veterans and senior citizens and some other isolated groups. So there was no fraud? We cannot say for sure, herein lies the controversies. But since every modern US election have over a hundred million eligible voters, it would be extremely unlikely that there were not at least some instances of it. The extent of supposed fraud though is not known with certainty. But was the election outcome affected by fraud? We cannot say that either. Note though that Nixon would have had to win over both Texas and Illinois to secure the presidency. So whoever wants to claim that the election was "stolen" by fraud has to prove there was sufficient fraud in both those states to win them over to Kennedy from Nixon. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42084",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/29579/"
]
} |
42,129 | From RT, "Trump is right (but only on this): McCain is no war hero" John McCain flew ground-attack aircraft from carriers in the US Navy. He was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967 and spent the next six years as a prisoner of the Vietnamese, whom he alleged tortured him. His mission when he was shot down was the bombing of a light bulb factory , a civilian target prohibited under international law. This means that rather than a “war hero” John McCain is in fact a “war criminal.” This claim is repeated by Max Blumenthal in his article "The Other Side of John McCain" , During the Vietnam war, McCain had been captured by the North Vietnamese Army after being shot down on his way to bomb a civilian lightbulb factory. Is that true? Was John McCain's mission to bomb a light bulb factory when he was shot down? | According to John McCain: A Biography (2009): His target that day was a solid one—the power plant in Hanoi, the heavily defended capital of North Vietnam John McCain (2001) has an aerial photograph of the target with the caption: The view from the air the day John McCain was shot down. His target, a power plant, lies on the right side of the lake, just above the bridge According to Faith of My Fathers: A Family Memoir (2000) by John McCain: Today's attack on Hanoi...would be my first attack on the enemy capital. ... Our target was the thermal power plant, located near a small lake almost in the center of the city ... The target was a thermal power plant—the target I had attempted to bomb in my last moment of freedom. According to The Nightingale's Song (1996): McCain's A-4E Skyhawk was part of a twenty-plane mission getting ready to hit the power plant in Hanoi, another target previously off- limits Also, while difficult to decipher the OCR text, the 9 April 1973 Kansas City Times seems to say : On McCain’s last mission, a strike against the Hanoi thermal power plant Mark McDonald for Knight-Ridder is responsible for writing this about Mai Van On (who claims to have rescued McCain): With U.S. planes still bombing and strafing their target of the day - a nearby light bulb factory where [Mai Van] On worked as a security guard in newspapers in Febuary 2000, for example the 6 February 2000 Indianapolis Star , the 6 February 2000 Santa Ana Orange County Register and 5 February 2000 Philidelphia Inquirer. The Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) 94-Target List of North Vietnam bombing targets is published in Aerospace Power Journal (Spring 2001). The Hanoi thermal power plant is target 82. No light bulb factory was a target. Also, the following are notes of the October 23, 1967, 1:05–3:40 p.m. meeting where the President authorized the strike (McCain being shot down October 26th): The President: Are we now ready to take the wraps off the bombing? Secretary McNamara: It depends on what you want to do for the rest of the year. If you open up the ten mile circle the JCS have recommended the power plant and the two bridges. General Wheeler: I would strongly urge the President not to have a pause. I urge you to open up the ten mile circle and also hit the Phuc Yen airfield. Secretary Rusk: One serious disadvantage is that every time a new target is added it becomes an act of escalation. I would not rush in with a whole new series of targets. I have no strong feelings about Phuc Yen but it will have to be hit over and over. It may cost more planes than it will destroy. I do not object to the re-entry into the ten mile circle. But I do believe we should spread these targets out. Secretary McNamara: There has not been a bunch of these targets. The President reminded those present that the air field had been authorized previously subject only to winding up the Kissinger talks. Now we have gotten rid of all the excuses. Let's go with it. Secretary McNamara: If we are going to strike we should hit the two bridges and the power plant . They will be announced as a restrike. General Wheeler: There is a list of thirteen targets. Some of these are restrikes. Secretary McNamara: Then we are agreed that Phuc Yen is authorized; the two bridges are authorized, and the power plant is authorized. No more than one of these is to be hit in a single day. ... [footnote 5] On October 23 the President lifted the suspension of bombing in the Hanoi prohibited area and ordered attacks on various targets including the Hanoi Thermal Power Plant and the Long Bien and Doumer bridges. And according to The Joint Chiefs of Staff and The War in Vietnam 1960–1968, part 3 : Admiral Sharp moved immediately to execute the new attacks. ... It took only
three days for ROLLING THUNDER pilots to hit the bridges and the power plant .
However, most of the other targets authorized on 23 October were not struck until November. Some were not bombed at all during 1967. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42129",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/3835/"
]
} |
42,132 | This statement comes from a Joe Rogan show episode where he chats to Neil de Grasse Tyson. His statement is about the Gregorian calendar, and goes as follows: "Point is, this was hard-earned, and the whole world uses this
calendar, it is the most accurate calendar ever devised." I have linked both to his explanation of the Gregorian calendar, and also to where the actual quote is found. If you start listening from the explanation, the quote I've transcribed will be made about 2 minutes in. After the quote is made, he further elaborates on leap years. Link to explanation Link to actual quote Also, if this question is too hard to answer definitively, is it at least a fair statement to make? | Is Neil Tyson's claim that the Gregorian calendar is the “most accurate calendar ever devised” true? TL; DR: The Gregorian calendar qualifies as "most accurate" if one defines "most accurate" as a calendar that has a leap year every four years except for years that are divisible by 100 but not by 400. Tyson didn't mean that. He made it somewhat clear what it meant by "most accurate": We're trying to track how long it takes the Earth to repeat its seasons. Tracking how long it takes the Earth to repeat its seasons is a bit vague, but no matter how one construes that phrase, the Gregorian calendar is not "the most accurate calendar ever devised." There are other extant calendars that do a better job. The reason tracking how long it takes the Earth to repeat its seasons is a bit vague is that the concept has multiple possible meanings. One concept of tracking the seasons as a whole is that of the tropical year. This is the time it takes for the mean fictitious Sun to advance in mean tropical longitude by 360°. Meeus, Jean, and Denis Savoie. "The history of the tropical year." Journal of the British Astronomical Association 102.1 (1992): 40-42 . (This reference is used as the source of all of the statements in this paragraph.) The tropical year was 365.242190 days of 86400 TAI seconds at the J2000 epoch (2000 January 1 12:00 TT). The tropical year differs slightly from the mean vernal equinox year, 365.242374 days at the same epoch. The reason for the discrepancy between the tropical and vernal equinox years is that Earth perihelion currently occurs a dozen days or so after the December solstice. This makes Northern Hemisphere spring and summer currently be longer than Northern Hemisphere autumn and winter, but it also means that spring is getting shorter while autumn is getting longer. The website dateandtime.com on its How Accurate Are Calendars? page chooses the deviation from the current tropical year (365.242190 days) as its accuracy metric. The following table shows their ratings of various calendars with regard to this metric. Calendar Introduced Average Year Length Approximate Error Persian calendar 2nd millennium BCE 365.2421986 days Less than 1 sec/year (1 day in 110,000 years) Revised Julian calendar 1923 CE 365.242222 days 2 sec/year (1 day in 31,250 years) Mayan calendar ~2000 BCE 365.242036 days 13 sec/year (1 day in 6500 years) Gregorian calendar 1582 CE 365.2425 days 27 sec/year (1 day in 3236 years) Jewish calendar 9th century CE 365.246822 days 7 min/year (1 day in 216 years) Julian calendar 45 BCE 365.25 days 11 min/year (1 day in 128 years) Coptic calendar 25 BCE 365.25 days 11 min/year (1 day in 128 years) 365-day calendar (no leap years) - 365 days 6 hours/year (1 day in 4 years) There are a number of things wrong with the above table: The choice of replicating the current tropical year is a bit arbitrary. The Revised Julian calendar was designed to replicate the tropical year , so it's not surprising that it does a better job at replicating the tropical year than does the Gregorian calendar, which was instead designed to target the vernal equinox year so as to better calculate the date of Easter. With regard to the vernal equinox year, the Gregorian calendar currently is more accurate than is the Revised Julian calendar. (This will not be the case 10000 years from now, when Northern Hemisphere spring and summer will be the shortest seasons rather than the longest seasons as they are now.) There is no indication regarding how, or even if, the Mayans adjusted their calendar to reflect the fact that a seasonal year is a bit less than 1/4 of a day longer than 365 days. The problem is that the 16th century Spanish intentionally destroyed every bit of Mayan literature they could find . The entry on the Persian calendar, more precisely the Iranian or Solar Hijri calendar ( Wikipedia article ) is quite incorrect. The table references an unofficial formulaic version of the Solar Hijri calendar. The Solar Hijri calendar tracks the apparent vernal equinox year rather than the tropical year, and within the constraint of using leap days, it does so with near perfection. The reason the Solar Hijri calendar is "perfect" (well, almost perfect) is that it is an observation-based calendar rather than a calendar based on a fixed formula. The first day of the year in that calendar is the day whose start time, local apparent midnight near Tehran, is closest to the apparent vernal equinox. This is equivalent to having the new year occur on the day of / the day after the vernal equinox depending on whether the vernal equinox occurs before / after local solar noon. This is accomplished by adding a leap day to the last month of the year when needed. Most of the time this happens with three ordinary years between leap years, but occasionally with four ordinary years between leap years. Multiple comments that have since been moved to chat asked me to explain the difference between a formulaic calendar and an observation-based calendar. The Julian calendar in which years divisible by 4 are leap years, the Gregorian calendar in which years divisible by 4 except those that are divisible by 100 but not by 400, and the Revised Julian calendar in which years divisible by 4 are leap years except for years that are divisible by 100 but do not leave a remainder of 200 or 600 when divided by 900 are all examples of formulaic calendars, as is the algorithmic version of the Solar Hijri . An observation-based calendar instead ties the calendar to some highly observable, and hopefully predictable event. Note well: Just because such a calendar is based on observation does not mean that leap years are not predictable. The vernal equinox is a highly observable event, and except for those very rare occasions where vernal equinox falls very close to local solar noon, whether vernal equinox will occur before or after local solar noon is also highly predictable. Valid predictions can be made centuries in advance with the aid of accurate ephemerides and Earth orientation models in the vast majority of cases where the time difference between the vernal equinox and local solar noon is a few tens of seconds or more. Note well: All highly accurate ephemerides are themselves inherently observation-based. Things will get dicey when the time difference between the vernal equinox and local solar noon is in the milliseconds. Here there is a chance of erroneously declaring the day on which the vernal equinox will occur to be a leap day, only to find that the apparent vernal equinox occurred a fraction of a millisecond before rather than after local solar noon. Oops. That leap day should have been new year. But this is a one in a million event, and it will naturally be corrected on the very next new year. An observational calendar will inevitably beat any formulaic calendar, particularly if one considers the problem of keeping a calendar accurate for hundreds of thousands of years. The problem is that a calendar that attempts to track the seasons and do so over long spans of time has to address three key interacting rates, the Earth's daily rotation and its axial and apsidal precession rates. A formulaic calendar that ignores changes in these rates is doomed to failure, while a calendar that tries to incorporate such changes is also doomed to failure because the future of these rates is uncertain, particularly the Earth's rotation rate. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42132",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/44231/"
]
} |
42,163 | The author John Green on a YouTube post Why are American Health Care costs so high? makes the (referenced) claim that US public health expenditure per capita, is higher than most other developed countries - even where those countries then provide free healthcare. Wittily put as: First I have to blow your mind. [...] That's right Hank: you pay more in taxes for healthcare than you would if you were British, and in exchange for those taxes, you get no healthcare. A second source is here referenced in the video: Issues in International Health Policy The situation may have changed of course since the video was published in 2013. [As an addendum, the above reference, states that healthcare outcomes are not significantly better or worse in the US.] | Based on data published by the OECD , the claim that the United States spend more public money on health resources than other developed countries is true. The figures given there for the 35 OECD member states and a selection of additional countries report expenditures on health care goods and services (i.e. current health expenditure) including personal health care (curative care, rehabilitative care, long-term care, ancillary services and medical goods) and collective services (prevention and public health services as well as health administration), but excluding spending on investments. In 2013, the year that the video was apparently published, the USA spent 4207 USD per capita on health. This was the sixth highest spending in a list of 44 countries. Luxembourg and Norway had much highest spendings (with 5594 USD and 5084 USD, respectively), while spending in Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Sweden are reported only somewhat higher governmental spendings than the USA (4360 USD, 4300 USD, and 4228 USD, respectively). The United Kingdom, the country apparently referred to by Green, runs at position 15, with 3057 USD per capita. The same pattern is visible for the years leading up to 2013: Each year, Luxembourg and Norway are two countries with exceptionally high public spendings per capita. The United States is among handful of countries that vying for the ranks immediately below these two exceptions. This pattern supports the claim made in the video that public spending in the USA on health resources was higher than in most developed countries at the time the video was produced. The pattern changes after 2013: Now, public spending on health expenditures in the USA clearly surpasses that of any other country, including Luxembourg and Norway. This increase in public spending in the USA that sets in in 2014 offsets a notable drop in voluntary spending . I suspect that this is the effect of the Affordable Care Act which came into force that year. The latest available figure for the USA is from 2016. In that year, the USA is listed as the country with highest spendings per capita with 8047 USD. The amount for Luxembourg, the country with the second highest spendings, was 5643 USD, with Norway, Switzerland, and Germany following (5257 USD, 4912 USD, and 4612 USD, respectively). To summarize, since 2007, the USA were always among the countries with the highest public spending on health resources, according to the figures released by the OECD. In the years leading up to 2014, the USA were clearly surpassed only by Luxembourg and Norway, and competed with a few other countries for rank three behind these two countries. Starting with 2014, public spending on health has sharply increased in the USA, making it the country with highest spending among all OECD countries. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42163",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/46279/"
]
} |
42,192 | Stuart Agnew is a Member of the European Parliament for the Eastern Counties (in the UK) and stood on the UKIP ticket. His web site describes attending a global warming conference in the "mid-Eighties" at the University of East Anglia. He writes: The highlight of the conference was a series of maps of our Norfolk coastline. The first map displayed the status quo, the second what it would look like if sea levels rose by one metre, the third five metres and the fourth ten metres. We were assured that, within 30 years, sea levels would have risen by at least one metre, probably five metres and possibly ten. Were any climate scientists (meaning people who might reasonably have been invited to give a talk at a scientific conference) in the 1980s predicting a 1 meter sea level rise within 30 years? If so, were these predictions part of the mainstream consensus within climate science at the time? | The 24 October 1983 report Projecting Future Sea Level Rise: Methodology, Estimates to the Year 2100 , 2nd edition, predicted (mid-range scenario, see table 4.1 on page 39): by 2000: 8.8-13.2 cm by 2025: 26.2-39.3 cm The mid-range scenario assumed a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration. The mid-range scenario was further split into two scenarios, one where rise due to net melting equaled rise due to thermal expansion, and a second where rise due to melting was twice that due to thermal expansion. In addition to the mid-range scenarios, extreme low and high scenarios, were considered. In the low scenario assumed was: climate sensitivity of 1.5 degrees per doubling of CO2 concentration, partial mitigation of CO2 increase due to halving the price of nuclear energy, low heat diffusivity of the ocean, low rates of increase of methane, N2O, and CFCs, low economic productivity growth, rise due to net melting equaled rise due to thermal expansion, and a constant 53% of CO2 emissions being retained in the atmosphere. The low scenario yielded an estimated rise of 4.8cm by 2000 and 13.0cm by 2025. In the high scenario assumed was: climate sensitivity of 4.5 degrees per doubling of CO2 concentration, high heat diffusivity of the ocean, high rates of increase of methane, N2O, and CFCs, high economic productivity growth, rise due to net melting being double rise due to thermal expansion, and an initial 60% of CO2 emissions rising to 80% being retained in the atmosphere. The high scenario yielded an estimated rise of 17.1cm by 2000 and 54.9cm by 2025. Actual change to 2000 was about 3cm and to present about 9cm. So in summary, all the scenarios resulted in predictions of sea level rise of well below 1 meter by the present (2018) time. Actual rise has been slightly below the lowest of the scenarios. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42192",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/30819/"
]
} |
42,226 | Were children separated from their parents when they were caught on the Mexican border by US officials as illegal immigrants before Trump's introduction of zero tolerance immigration policy? I wasn't able to find other source of that information than the reactions to the removed tweet of one of the former members of the administration. | Yes. Probably less of them than under Trump but there were kids in cages and kids separated from their families under Obama. Those photos of immigrant children “caged” by the US? They’re from 2014 ( bias check ) "Immigrant girls sleep in a cell, Jun. 18, 2014." Also, here's a pbs article from 2016 with the same image: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/crimes-make-immigrants-eligible-deportation ... Update, June 18: Since this story was published, new photos have been released by the US Customs and Border Protection, revealing current detainment conditions for immigrants apprehended at the border. The current conditions closely resemble the Obama-era “cages” depicted in photos from 2014. In both cases, children are shown separated from their families, sleeping on the floor within steel-wire enclosures. https://theintercept.com/2018/04/11/immigration-detention-sexual-abuse-ice-dhs/ ( bias check ) 33,000 complaints between 2010 and 2016 alleging a wide range of abuses in immigration detention. ... sexual assault and harassment in immigration detention are not only widespread but systemic ... In 2014, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a complaint reporting widespread allegations of sexual harassment at the Karnes County Residential Center, also in Texas, where more than 500 women were detained with their children. https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/jun/19/matt-schlapp/no-donald-trumps-separation-immigrant-families-was/ In 2014, amid an influx of asylum seekers from Central America, the administration established large family detention centers to hold parents and children — potentially indefinitely — as a means of deterring other asylees. ... Immigration experts we spoke to said Obama-era policies did lead to some family separations ... some children were separated from their parents under Obama, this was relatively rare, and occurred at a far lower rate than under Trump Trump correctly tweets that Democrats mistakenly tweeted photo of child migrants being held in 2014 To address a point that came up in the comments. Were illegal immigrants without criminal records for anything else arrested under obama: Over the first full 14 months of the Trump administration, 69% of undocumented immigrants arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents had a criminal record. Over the final two years of the Obama administration, that number was 86%. ICE agents have arrested an average of 4,143 undocumented immigrants without a criminal record each month under the Trump administration. In the final two years under Obama, the agents averaged 1,703 a month. Those numbers show the radical change in immigration enforcement implemented by President Trump, who issued new directives to ICE shortly after taking office in January 2017. ICE arresting more non-criminal undocumented immigrants So 14% of immigrants arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement under Obama didn't have a criminal record other than that related to immigrating illegally. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42226",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/26864/"
]
} |
42,268 | CNN reports : Earlier this month, [Puerto Rico]'s governor formally raised the death toll from Hurricane Maria to an estimated 2,975 from 64 following a study conducted by researchers at The George Washington University. It also reports that President Trump just tweeted this : 3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico. When I left the Island, AFTER the storm had hit, they had anywhere from 6 to 18 deaths. As time went by it did not go up by much. Then, a long time later, they started to report really large numbers, like 3000. This was done by the Democrats in order to make me look as bad as possible when I was successfully raising Billions of Dollars to help rebuild Puerto Rico. If a person died for any reason, like old age, just add them onto the list. Bad politics. I love Puerto Rico! Is President Trump correct that the official death toll figure is grossly exaggerated? | No, President Trump is not correct that the official death toll has been exaggerated. While he's right that 3,000 people did not die in Hurricane Maria, there is evidence that nearly 3,000 people likely did die as a result of the storm and this is the statistic that is currently being reported/discussed. The death toll of 2,975 is from this report by the School of Public Health at George Washington University . They are not claiming that nearly 3,000 people died during the hurricane, but that there were nearly 3,000 more deaths than expected in the months following the hurricane. In other words, if past mortality rates predicted that 100 people would die from age-related issues in January and 125 people actually died, then the 25 people that were added to the list of deaths were likely caused by the hurricane. As summarized in the report's methodology section: We implemented the project as three studies, each
with specific yet complementary methodologies. Our excess mortality study analyzed past mortality
patterns (mortality registration and population
census data from 2010 to 2017) in order to predict
the expected mortality if Hurricane María had not
occurred (predicted mortality) and compare this
figure to the actual deaths that occurred (observed
mortality).The difference between those two
numbers is the estimate of excess mortality
due to the hurricane. ... Total excess mortality post-hurricane using the
migration displacement scenario is estimated to
be 2,975 (95% CI: 2,658-3,290) for the total study
period of September 2017 through February 2018. This number was estimated with a high amount of confidence by comparing expected population changes had Maria not occurred with actual population changes: To perform this analysis, we obtained vital registration mortality data
including deaths by age, sex and municipality of residence from the Puerto
Rico Puerto Rico Vital Statistics Registry (PRVSR) for the period July 1, 2010
to February 28, 2018. We derived baseline estimates of population size in
each month from annual census estimates of population size by age, sex
and municipality of residence. Cumulative monthly population displacement
after the storm in each month was estimated using Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (BTS) data on monthly net domestic migration provided by the
Puerto Rico Institute of Statistics and a survey of airline travelers provided
by the Puerto Rico Planning Board (Planning Board 2018). Using the ~8 years of past population statistics, the researchers were able to estimate the expected number of deaths in the few months after the hurricane with the actual number of deaths: As a side note, the purpose of the report wasn't necessarily to provide a fully accurate death count. Rather, the purpose was to show why this exact situation, where death estimates are so varied and potentially inaccurate, is dangerous and why it shouldn't even happen in the first place. It was meant to act as a policy guide for improvements to Puerto Rican mortality assessments and communication during natural disasters, so that a disaster of this magnitude doesn't happen again: RECOMMENDATIONS ON MORTALITY
SURVEILLANCE FOR NATURAL DISASTERS I. Strategic Objectives To have a reliable and resilient institutional mortality surveillance process that provides
trustworthy and accurate evidence during natural disasters to: Establish the magnitude
of the impact of the disaster, identify areas and groups of highest risk, monitor the
performance of public health protection and prevention, and inform policy-making
and program implementation. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42268",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/41283/"
]
} |
42,315 | I found this image shared on Facebook [Warning: image contains a bleeding turtle.] with the following text: Your Straws Did NOT Do This [image of turtle with foreign body in nostril] Americans are being told we must risk our health with expensive, awkward reusable or paper straws. All because of this suffering turtle. But in real life, this turtle was found near Costa Rica, not the US. And Costa Rica dumps its trash directly into rivers and the ocean. The US never does that. It's been banned by Federal law for 45 years. Discard your straw in a normal trash receptical (sic), and turtles are safe. In Fact: 10 Asian and African Rivers Generate 90% of Plastic Trash in the Ocean Americans create almost none of the ocean's plastic. The World Economic Forum makes a similar claim: By analyzing the waste found in the rivers and surrounding landscape, researchers were able to estimate that just 10 river systems carry 90% of the plastic that ends up in the ocean. While I can imagine that third-world countries might not have well-established waste disposal processes, 90% sounds exaggerated. | No, rivers and other land-based sources account for 10-12% From Wikipedia : Sources of ocean-based plastic pollution Almost 90% of plastic debris that pollutes ocean water, which translates to 5.6 million tons, comes from ocean-based sources. Merchant ships expel cargo, sewage, used medical equipment, and other types of waste that contain plastic into the ocean. Naval and research vessels eject waste and military equipment that are deemed unnecessary. Pleasure crafts release fishing gear and other types of waste, either accidentally or through negligent handling. The largest ocean-based source of plastic pollution is discarded fishing gear (including traps and nets), estimated to be up to 90% of plastic debris in some areas.[3] Source: Plastics in the Marine Environment: The Dark Side of a Modern Gift This 2012 review explains a much smaller percentage comes from land-based sources: Approximately 0.8 million tons annually of marine debris, which is 12% of the total debris input into the oceans, originates from land-based sources, and primarily consists of discarded plastic items (user plastic). In highly populated areas, marine debris comes primarily from the land. So what about that study? The study — Export of Plastic Debris by Rivers into the Sea — says in its abstract (emphasis mine): We analyzed a global compilation of data on plastic debris in the water column across a wide range of river sizes . Plastic debris loads, both microplastic (particles <5 mm) and macroplastic (particles >5 mm) are positively related to the mismanaged plastic waste (MMPW) generated in the river catchments. This relationship is nonlinear where large rivers with population-rich catchments delivering a disproportionately higher fraction of MMPW into the sea. The 10 top-ranked rivers transport 88–95% of the global load into the sea. In other words: they did not examine the ocean , they examined rivers . And their number does not say that 88-95% of the plastic that has ended up in the ocean comes from these 10 rivers, but that of the Mismanaged Plastic Waste that rivers in particular contribute to the oceanic plastic pollution, these 10 rivers account for 88-95% of that contribution. But(!) as the study above says, rivers and other land-based sources of oceanic plastic waste account for 10-12% of the total plastic waste in the ocean. Update @MadScientist concludes that the Wikipedia quote may be erroneous, and the 90% figure may be off by a bit. This however does not change the fact that Export of Plastic Debris by Rivers into the Sea does not deal with all plastic waste that end up on the oceans but only that which arrives by river . This — by all means — strengthens the original claim that it is in all likelihood not "your" straw that ended up in the nose of this unlucky turtle unless you were carelessly discarding it directly into the ocean or nearby that. Never the less the facts stated are misinterpreted and rivers are not the only and probably not even the majority sources of plastic pollution in oceans as a whole other than in the immediate vicinity of where rivers discharge into the sea. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42315",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/46511/"
]
} |
42,360 | A statement made by a user under a news article claims that 50 % of all taxes are paid by 'rich people' being defined as making more than 70.000 €/a. (...) 2% der "Reichen" zahlen 50% der Steuern in Deutschland. (...) This freely translates into: 2% of "the rich" pay 50% of the taxes in Germany. Can this be backed up? I could not find any reliable sources but I'm also not very good with statistics and stuff :) | Not true for "taxes", not even true for "income tax" alone. According to the official government statistics for the year 2014 –– and include those a bit more who are not really considered "rich earners" with "just" making over 125.000 EUR –– we arrive at: the top 3% of earners were paying 20.3% of overall revenues from income tax in 2014. From 250.000 upwards we have only 0.6% of all taxpayers left in that bracket paying 9.9%. What is in the claim? As written (2 % of 'the rich' pay 50 % of taxes in Germany) this is not true no matter how you spin it. The top 10% of income earners do pay a substantial amount in taxes, true. But that is by far not the whole story to it. Their share in carrying the state finances as a whole is much smaller than this number implies and the actual burden put on their shoulders is even quite low. There are quite a number of ways to legitimately try to look at this problem, circumnavigating the inherent weaknesses of several statistics available, unavailable, studies inferring those missing variables and combining them into several sets. It's still in the eye of the beholder, most of the time. Only this oversimplification will seldom appear as a correct solution to most questions. Keep in mind that the very rich are very few and that most taxes in Germany are either flat taxes like value added tax or capped at a maximum to be considered for taxation somewhere along the line. (Compare "Einkommensteuer und Sozialabgaben in Abhängigkeit vom Bruttolohn" in: Martin Beznoska & Tobias Hentze: "Die Verteilung der Steuerlast in Deutschland", iw-trends, Vierteljahresschrift zur empirischen Wirtschaftsforschung, Vol. 44, No 1, 2017 p105. (PDF)) How the tax revenues were structured over the last years: Source DIW, 2016 (full ref see below, p 43.) The big chunk at the bottom is VAT, a flat tax for everyone. And what is the claim actually referring to? If 2% of people cashed in 50% of all the wealth, money and income generated, then the result of 2% paying 50% of the taxes sounds almost like a perfect system? Only that the claim makes it sound nearly scandalous and has no frame of reference. Even generously taking into consideration all those possible frames not mentioned in the claim into the analysis in trying to approach a favourable outcome for the claim, that will just not materialise. Simply put: The rich pay less overall taxes than to be expected, and the highest percentiles in yearly earnings do not contribute that much to the overall income tax revenue that the claim asserts. The statistics just don't give that result from the claim. This is right-wing spin, often repeated. But usually this is claimed with a bit more precision. Like "10 % of 'the rich' pay 50 % of the overall income taxes in Germany" or the like. But even that is only marginally better and almost never backed up by anything. To put a comment from under the question on its feet: But the claim is indeed about tax policy, it is about "hey, we rich pay all the taxes, so shut up about inequality", "and lower the taxes already"… –– Who carries the weight, who can carry how much? And the details of these statics can be interpreted in more than one way. Drawing from the right leaning Stefan Bach, Martin Beznoska, Viktor Steiner: "Wer trägt die Steuerlast in Deutschland?
–– Verteilungswirkungen des deutschen Steuer- und Transfersystems", Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, 2016. Data in this study is based on several different years between 2008 and 2016. The use of household equivalent income already distorts the findings as "rich" is an accumulated measurement not accessible by German statistics and the measure chosen only tackles gains, officially registered gains. Nevertheless: In that study some interesting relations are revealed: We see that the top 10% earners receive 38.5% of all earnings without transfers (p40). We see that the lowest 10% of earners contribute 0% to income tax. We see that the highest 10% of earners contribute 21.5% to overall income tax revenue. (p48) We see for 2015 that the top 10% of earners cash in 26% of all generated and registered income, and the same bracket contributed 34.1% of all direct taxes but only 29.3% when it comes to "taxes and social security". The top 1% of earners cashed in 5.2% of all registered income and payed 8.5% of all taxes and 5.1% of all taxes and social transfers collected (p51). Another interesting tidbit is found in income from capital like dividends.
The top 10% get 90% of all capital income, from that group the top 1% alone cash in 81.2% of all dividends and the top 0.1% of the richest earners alone siphon up 60.8% of all dividends (p57). Naturally any tax from this kind of wealth simply does not apply at all to the lower classes. Some of these measurements are based not on actual hard data but inferred calculations and assumptions. The most important distinction to observe here is that the spectrum was analysed using deciles of household equivalence income. That means that the income bracket "the top 10%" in the last few paragraphs do not represent 10% of all people paying taxes –– but a much smaller number of taxpayers whose actual number is not inferable from the report alone. Looking from another angle, we see that the lowest 5% had to give up 19.5% of all the money they had to the state in the form of indirect taxes. While the top 1% only burdened their registered money with 5.7% (p53). Another spin on the claim would be the "top 50 percent pay 95 percent of the tax" like Bild newspaper did some time ago. Or like the FAZ did with "10 Prozent zahlen 50 Prozent" . Even if that claim is really just about the income tax, without making it explicit, is that actually true, too? Then the answer is quite clearly: no. But what percentage do the rich pay? Unfortunately, this cannot be calculated in a simple manner and there are no official statistics to be read with a clear answer. Fortunately we have the Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung e.V. (RWI). The researchers have looked at an extensive study from the year 2011. The top 50 percent actually pay in income tax 95 percent of the total.
But that's not the only tax. For the main indirect taxes – VAT, car tax and energy tax – the proportion of the top 50% of households drops to 69 percent.
Now it goes on. The total tax revenue from wage and income tax amounted to 186 billion euros. The Revenue from VAT (excluding import VAT) as well as value added tax and car tax amounts to 189 billion euros. Makes a total of 375 billion euros. That means then: The top 50 percent pay a total of 81 percent of the tax revenue. The calculation: 95 percent of 186 billion is 176 billion and 69 percent of 189 billion results in 130 billion. That makes up 306 billion euros. And that's 81 percent of 375 billion euros. (Strictly speaking, an aggregation is problematic for reasons of data material but it is an approximation here). Social security contributions are not even included in this calculation, but the picture is not likely to change significantly. One important thing to consider: Is that really much or little? It sounds like much or a very great amount. But: it depends on what relation the tax burden is to income. If – an extreme case – the poor do not make money, they cannot contribute to the financing of the State either. The top 50 percent united now around 80 percent of the total income. So one could say that 80 percent of the income also bear 80 percent of the tax burden. Somehow it doesn't sound like the rich fleeced. On the contary. The lowest economic part cannot contribute much from the start. The highest earners profit from flat taxes like VAT and have many possibilities for legal tax avoidance. Plus illegal tax evasion. If the topic is taxes, social security financing has to be included, even if it is not legally defined as a tax, it is one in effect. Then the picture changes drastically. In terms of load and in terms of absolute value the middle part contributes much more than the claims about rich people paying almost all implies. For indirect taxes, this is quite impressively illustrated: "The rich" can or could pay much more, as they are much less effected from such a burden. The changes in laws in the last 25 years were almost exclusively to lower the burden on the rich. Source: Boris Beimann, Rainer Kambeck, Tanja Kasten and Lars-H. Siemers: "Wer trägt den Staat?
Eine Analyse von Steuer- und Abgabenlasten", RWI Position #43 vom 1. April 2011. Take a close look at the first table (Tabelle A1) from that report. According to that calculation the top earners above 200.000 EUR a year account for a 14.92% share in total income tax revenue. The next table groups earners into deciles and concludes that the top ten percent share 54% of total income tax revenue. This measurement comes closest to the claim for income tax alone without being anywhere near the exaggerated simplification from that claim. While that might sound favourable for the claim after all, the third table demonstrates that those earning more than 200000 only contribute 0.87% collected indirect taxes; for total indirect and social security transfers Changes over the years of different kinds of taxes as they contribute to the overall budget in comparison: Source: Patrick Schreiner: "Hohe Einkommen und Vermögen tragen immer weniger zum Steueraufkommen bei" 2011 (High incomes contrinbuting less and less to overall tax revenues) Keep in mind that wage tax is not the same as income tax. The rich pay income tax, the not-rich wage tax. First bar is income tax, second bar is wage tax (pleae excuse this gross oversimplification). Even as the claim talks about just "taxes" and probably means the popular income tax alone, in 2014, these were the actual numbers: | Gesamtbetrag der Einkünfte
von ... bis unter ... Euro
Festzusetzende Einkommensteuer
Steuerpflichtige1 % 1 000 Euro % 1 000 Euro %
0 bis 5 000 6 374 157 16,0 8 631 019 0,6 259 465 0,1
5 000 bis 10 000 2 955 585 7,4 22 368 802 1,5 400 466 0,2
10 000 bis 15 000 3 487 809 8,7 43 539 063 2,9 1 238 878 0,5
15 000 bis 20 000 3 311 670 8,3 57 849 449 3,9 3 295 750 1,3
20 000 bis 25 000 3 215 109 8,0 72 281 639 4,9 5 747 972 2,2
25 000 bis 30 000 3 058 430 7,7 84 048 742 5,7 8 263 692 3,2
30 000 bis 35 000 2 846 944 7,1 92 383 922 6,2 10 631 447 4,1
35 000 bis 40 000 2 400 220 6,0 89 786 044 6,1 11 477 449 4,4
40 000 bis 45 000 1 971 904 4,9 83 617 111 5,7 11 569 119 4,5
45 000 bis 50 000 1 615 041 4,0 76 586 609 5,2 11 315 230 4,4
50 000 bis 60 000 2 408 535 6,0 131 693 741 8,9 20 942 523 8,1
60 000 bis 70 000 1 648 521 4,1 106 666 593 7,2 18 452 475 7,1
70 000 bis 125 000 3 444 235 8,6 308 844 865 20,9 63 556 292 24,5
125 000 bis 250 000 939 545 2,4 153 978 461 10,4 42 351 177 16,3
250 000 bis 500 000 195 852 0,5 65 052 086 4,4 21 515 213 8,3
500 000 bis 1 000 000 47 000 0,1 31 325 922 2,1 11 202 738 4,3
1 000 000 oder mehr 18 999 0,0 50 722 016 3,4 17 218 553 6,6
Insgesamt
39 939 556 100,0 1 479 376 081 100,0 259 438 438 100,0 If that table is hard to read, blame it on SE and look at the original at Lohn- und Einkommensteuer (DESTATIS) Important are the last three lines: From 250000 upwards we have 0.6% of all taxpayers in that bracket paying 9.9%. If we add that up to the fourth line to include those a bit more who are not really considered "rich earners" we arrive at: the highest 3% of earners were paying 20.3% of overall revenues from income tax in 2014. One important addition to all of the above is that "rich" usually means "being rich", not "earning much". Income and wage taxes simply do not tackle richness at all, but earnings. There is no wealth tax in Germany. There are no official statistics in Germany that measure wealth accurately. The government just isn't interested in knowing that. But there are some estimates. Again using household decile grouping: decile estimated wealth share in %
1.–5. 10% group 2.6
6. 3.4
7. 5.8
8. 9.8
9. 15.2
10. 63.2
---------------------
100.00 100.00 According to that estimate the top 10% is structured as follows top 7.5% 57.3%
top 5 % 51.0%
top 2.5% 41.4%
top 1 % 31.6%
top 0.5% 25.9%
top 0.1% 16.2% Source for last two tables: Stefan Bach, Martin Beznoska, Andreas Thiemann: "Aufkommens- und Verteilungswirkungen einer Wiedererhebung der Vermögensteuer in Deutschland", Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, WiSo-Diskurs 02/2016. (PDF) The government has its own estimates, published for example Institut für Angewandte Wirtschaftsforschung: "Endbericht an das Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales „Aktualisierung der Berichterstattung über die Verteilung von Einkommen und Vermögen in Deutschland“", Tübingen, 31. August 2011. (Lebenslagen in Deutschland – Armuts- und Reichtumsberichterstattung der Bundesregierung
Forschungsprojekt – Aktualisierung der Berichterstattung über die Verteilung von Einkommen und Vermögen in Deutschland) (PDF) : To compare how deciles of equivalent income and wealth are related: In the second graphic the solid line is income, the dotted line is wealth. Notice the different scales and how impractically skewed to even display that graphic would look like if there was just one y-axis! | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42360",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/35263/"
]
} |
42,382 | I saw the following screenshot on Twitter : The picture shows an MSNBC screen with the header "GOP SENATORS ON KAVANAUGH ALLEGATIONS" with pictures and the following quotes: "I'll listen to the lady, but we're going to bring this to a close." Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) "I mean I can't imagine the horror of being accused of something like this." Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) "I think this woman, whoever she is, is mixed up." Sen Orrin Hatch (R-UT) "We got a little hiccup here with the Kavanaugh nomination, we'll get through this and we'll get off to the races." Sen. Dean Heller (R-NSV) Are these quotes accurate? | Yes , these appear to be accurate quotes. Lindsay Graham , from the Washington Post: Woman who accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault wants FBI to investigate incident before she testifies to Senate : “All I can say is that we’re bringing this to a close,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.). “They’ve had tons of time to do this. This has been a drive-by shooting when it comes to Kavanaugh. . . . I’ll listen to the lady, but we’re going to bring this to a close.” Bob Corker , from ABC's John Parkinson on twitter : .@SenBobCorker tells me he does not have any outstanding questions for Judge Brett Kavanaugh: "I’ve been impressed with all that I’ve heard about him and again it’s unfortunate. I mean I can’t imagine the horror of being accused of something like this." Orrin Hatch , in the Atlantic: The GOP Response to the Kavanaugh Allegations Sends an Unmistakable Message to Women : After Christine Blasey Ford, a clinical-psychology professor, put her name to the accusation, announcing publicly that she’d passed a polygraph and had shared her story in a 2012 therapy session, Senator Orrin Hatch, a longtime member of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s all-male Republican contingent, told the cameras: “This woman, whoever she is, is mixed up.” He also said that even if the assault accusation were true, the past wouldn’t matter so much: “It would be hard for senators not to consider who he is today.” Dean Heller , in the Washington Post: Two GOP lawmakers criticized for tone-deaf comments about Kavanaugh accuser “I’m really grateful for the White House, for the effort of President Trump and what he has done, and the excitement that we have,” Heller reportedly said. “We got a little hiccup here with the Kavanaugh nomination. We’ll get through this and we’ll get off to the races.” | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42382",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/6769/"
]
} |
42,384 | According to an OpEd in the NY Post by John Lott and Michael Weisser that cites a report by the Crime Prevention Research Center, America doesn't lead the world in mass shootings. "Of the 86 countries where we have identified mass public shootings,
the US ranks 56th per capita in its rate of attacks and 61st in mass
public shooting murder rate. Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Russia
all have at least 45 percent higher rates of murder from mass public
shootings than the United States. " (bolding mine) I don't think it would be a particularly controversial claim to say that the US has lower gun violence rates (including lower mass shooting rates) than impoverished countries. However, the claim that Norway, Finland and Switzerland have higher mass shooting rates than the US leaves me skeptical due to the large disparity in overall gun violence. Does the US not have a higher mass shooting rate than Norway, Finland or Switzerland? Do the above numbers, as presented, accurately depict the reality of mass shootings? | As discussed in this answer and this answer when you use a term like "mass shooting", your results become particularly sensitive to your definition. Additionally, results will be sensitive to search strategy, since cases are assembled from searches for news reports. Because the results are sensitive to definition and search strategy, they are susceptible to bias. The authors of the OpEd are Michael Weisser , aka, "Mike the Gun Guy", and John Lott, the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center the organization that publishes "The War On Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies". The study the OpEd references was conducted by the same Crime Prevention Research Center, was not peer reviewed, and does not have a coherent methods section with a well defined search strategy or case definition. To me, it reads like an undergraduate student's report or a blog post, not an academic study. Most of the section on definitions and search strategy is a discussion of perceived problems with a peer reviewed study by Adam Lankford that is beyond the scope of this claim. They start with events listed in the University of Maryland Global Terrorism Database, and then add events found using a defined nexis search and an undefined "web search", which included wikipedia. While it is possible the claim is true, the evidence used to support it is not peer reviewed or thoroughly described, and it is conducted by a biased source. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42384",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/27142/"
]
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.