source_id
int64 1
4.64M
| question
stringlengths 0
28.4k
| response
stringlengths 0
28.8k
| metadata
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
42,413 | On September 27, 2018 at the confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh , during his opening remarks, Senator Grassley claimed that FBI investigations can add nothing to Senate confirmation hearings and that this was asserted some time ago by Senator Joe Biden : As you can see, the Judiciary Committee was able to conduct thorough investigations into allegation — thorough investigations into allegations. Some of my colleagues, consistent with their stated desires to obstruct Kavanaugh’s nomination by any means precisely — by any means necessary, pushed for FBI investigations into the allegations. But I have no authority to force the executive branch agency to conduct an investigation into a matter it considers to be closed. Moreover, once the allegations become — became public, it was easy to identify all the alleged witnesses and conduct our own investigations. Contrary to what the public has been led to believe, the FBI doesn’t perform any credibility assessments or verify the truth of any events in these background investigations. I’ll quote then-Chairman Joe Biden during Justice Thomas’ confirmation hearing. This is what Senator Biden said, quote, “The next person who refers to an FBI report as being worth anything obviously doesn’t understand anything. The FBI explicitly does not, in this or any other case, reach a conclusion, period. They say he — he said, she said, they said, period. So when people wave an FBI report before you, understand, they do not — they do not — they do not reach conclusions. They do not make recommendations,” end of Senator Biden’s quote. The FBI provided us with the allegations. Now it’s up to the Senate to assess their credibility. Which brings us to this very time. – "Kavanaugh hearing: Transcript" , The Washington Post (2018-09-27) Is this really a direct quote by Democratic Senator and former Vice President Joe Biden? When did he say this? | He essentially did, but it doesn't mean what his critics think it means. Immediately before Biden's remarks, Justice Thomas is arguing with Senator Simon that he's had five FBI background checks as proof that if he had done anything wrong, wouldn't they have caught it? And that the Senate Judiciary committee is not a judicial body , and thus can't make judgments like this. Biden is stating that the FBI is not a decision-making body . It is a tool, like a hammer. When told what to do, it can build a case, it can tear down barriers, it can knock aside impediments. But it only goes where it's told, and at the end of the day, it offers up evidence for a lawyer to prosecute, and a judge to decide on. Even in hearings like the Anita Hill hearing, they would only have done a background check where they were asked to do one, and report back the facts and evidence for the Judiciary Committee to make a ruling. So bottom line, Biden seems to be stressing that Thomas is not exonerated because the FBI didn't find anything, because they hadn't been asked to look into this specific case, and because they do not make conclusions based on those facts. That is not to say that their evidence doesn't make others' job much easier, and sheds light where it needs to be shed. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42413",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/46077/"
]
} |
42,515 | Early in David Edgerton's history of technology, The Shock of the Old he discusses cost benefit analysis applied to some military weapons. He argues, for example, that the US would have caused a lot more damage to Japan and might have ended the war earlier if they had used the budget for the Manhattan Project on more conventional bombers or other weapons (though he also admits that deterrence was later a significant benefit). But one particular example of an apparently bad choice was particularly stark. The German V2 rocket cost far more than other, more useful, weapons. Worse, and very surprisingly he makes this claim: The V2 'was a unique weapon', says its historian, Michael Neufeld, in that 'more people died producing it than died from being hit by it'. This struck me as a fairly extreme claim. Is it true that its production killed more than its use and is the V2 unique in this statistic? Note: since many weapons are developed but never used, the claim should apply only to weapons that have actually been used in war. | Q.1: This struck me as a fairly extreme claim. Is it true that the V2 production killed more than its use? In all likelihood, yes. The director of the Mittelbau-Dora commemoration site is quoted with According to Jens-Christian Wagner, director of the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp memorial site, it "killed more prisoners in the production of the weapon than [other victims] in their deployment. This is unique; I don't think there was any other weapon that claimed so many lives during the production." WP: Aggregat 4 In that article some numbers are given as: Between September 1943 and April 1945, 16,000 and 20,000 concentration camp prisoners and forced laborers, most of them twenty to forty years old, died in the Mittelbau-Dora camp complex, on liquidation or so-called evacuation transports, according to conservative estimates. Approximately 8,000 people lost their lives using the weapon, most of them in the London and Antwerp area. And that is the standard view: Because of the conditions, deaths in the tunnels between November 1943 and March 1944 numbered almost three thousand. Beyond this toll, there were also another three thousand “muslims” ( Muselmänner ), prisoners unable to work because of grave illness, injury, or psychological shock. ese men were sent on to Bergen-Belsen or Maidanek with little chance of survival. […] The completion of the barracks with washrooms in the spring and early summer of 1944 and other accommodations, including a sick bay staffed by medical personnel, while not adequate, was a large improvement over the murderous conditions of the tunnels. The number of deaths fluctuated drastically, lowering when the conditions improved and rising when new transports of prisoners arrived from the East. Of the more than 5,000 V-2 rockets assembled in Kohnstein by the prisoners of Mittelbau-Dora, 1,500 of them landed in London and Southeast England, killing more than 2,000 people. Another 1,500 V-1 and V-2 weapons were aimed at Antwerp, Belgium, killing almost 7,000. It would appear that more prisoners died in the concentration camp serving Mittelwerk and further development of the “wonder weapons” than did helpless civilians in Germany’s enemy countries. Gretchen Schafft & Gerhard Zeidler: "Commemorating Hell. The Public Memory of Mittelbau-Dora", University of Illinois Press:
Urbana, Chicago, and Springfield, 2011 . So it depends on your point of view of what you'd call "producing it". Most forced labourers did not die tightening a screw and slipping. Many died of sickness, hunger, malnutrition, maltreatment, overwork and total exhaustion etc. From a rational strategists point of view that seems like an idiotic approach. Within Nazi ideology that views those lives not only as expandable but to be exterminated eventually anyway, if not through labour than by other means, this would make perfect sense. A Nazi would conclude that a V2 was an extremely effective weapon, killing only enemies and that already when still manufacturing it. Given that not only the one concentration camp was involved in manufacturing the rocket, the death-toll for the rocket on German soil is likely even higher than most estimates: In total, around 60,000 prisoners passed through the Mittelbau camps between August 1943 and March 1945. The precise number of people killed is impossible to determine. The SS files counted around 12,000 dead. In addition, an unknown number of unregistered prisoners died or were murdered in the camps. Around 5,000 sick and dying were sent in early 1944 and in March 1945 to Lublin and Bergen-Belsen. WP: Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp Q.2: Is the V2 unique in this statistic? Difficult to answer unequivocally without further definition. The V2 is fairly unique in a number of categories. Depending on point of view: yes and no. Given that the V2 killed more prisoners – or people working for Germany – than enemy civilians one might rephrase the question to whether any other weapon killed more of its own people in some kind of broad interpretation of friendly fire? The answer to that might be found in Amerithrax attacks . American made weapons grade anthrax was never used against official enemies, but against Victims: Stevens, Bob - photo editor at American Media Inc, dies of inhalation anthrax, October 5, 2001 Curseen, Joseph Jr. - DC area postal worker, dies of inhalation anthrax, October 22, 2001 Morris, Thomas Jr. - DC postal worker, dies of inhalation anthrax, October 21, 2001 Nguyen, Kathy - employee at Manhattan hospital, dies of inhalation anthrax, October 31, 2001 Lundgren, Ottilie - Connecticut woman, dies of inhalation anthrax, November 22, 2001 Also compare that to Anthrax: full list of cases . Similarly, it is believed that the United Kingdom never used nerve gas in a war. But manufacturing it seems to have caused up to 41 deaths and many more injuries: The Ministry of Defence is reopening a 30-year-old inquiry into a series of deaths and serious illnesses at a chemical weapons factory in Cornwall amid accusations that the original report was the subject of a high-level cover-up. The new analysis could show that, for decades, civil servants fed false figures to ministers who then rehashed old answers to a succession of local MPs, she said. "The 41 deaths have always seemed a much higher than average death rate to me. I found it extraordinary the MoD has always alleged it isn't." Robert Mendick: "Deaths Inquiry at Nerve Gas Plant", Independent, 7 May 2000. Do we all remember the use of smallpox in war by the Soviet Union? […] The smallpox formulation—400 gr. of which was exploded on the island—"got her" and she became infected. After returning home to Aralsk, she infected several people including children. All of them died. I suspected the reason for this and called the Chief of General Staff of Ministry of Defense and requested to forbid the stop of the Alma-Ata-Moscow train in Aralsk. As a result, the epidemic around the country was prevented. I called [future Soviet General Secretary Yuri] Andropov, who at that time was Chief of KGB, and informed him of the exclusive recipe of smallpox obtained on Vozrazhdenie Island. WP: Aral smallpox incident Making use of smallpox in war by the Soviet Union death count zero against a really undisclosed number of casualties, three officially. The use of anthrax again, this time by the Soviet Union, is also zero, but the numbers killed by it on friendly soil are around 100. ( WP: Sverdlovsk anthrax leak, 1979. ) If we go for an individual weapon alone then the atomic bomb also makes the list. A death toll of zero from the first explosion stands against the death of Harry Daghlian and Louis Slotin . The V2 may stand out as among the weapon with the highest death toll, according to the criteria, and having been even envisioned and almost designed to kill workers in the process of manufacturing it. But producing weapons is inherently dangerous. Producing them without using them as originally intended should automatically make them contenders for the list. The V2 is in one way certainly not unique. Its older brother, the fastest Volkswagen at the time, the V1 was also built by forced labour, but had after a while quite low death toll around the intended targets, as those bombs had abysmal accuracy and the countermeasures improved greatly. A total of 6876 long-range weapons struck English soil. 8938 people were killed and 24 504 injured.
Belgium was hit by 8661 long-range weapons. Here 6448 people were killed and 22 524 injured. Dieter Hölsken: "Die V-Waffen. Entwicklung und Einsatzgrundsätze", Militärgeschichtliche Mitteilungen; Freiburg Bd. 0, Ausg. 2, (Jan 1, 1985): 95. p 116. Bringing the effective death toll to 15386 and 47028 people injured by those weapons. Hölsken calculates that in total 22384 V1 and 3170 V2 were fired at the enemy. Curiously 11 V2 were targeted on German soil. None of the V2 used managed to hit that target. Since the German war machine depended heavily on slave labour that should also exterminate the workers, a look on further candidates that were produced and brought to the frontline without killing much people might yield a few more, like: Krummlauf , Schwerer Gustav (as Dora), V3 , but hard numbers for comparison seem unavailable. Globally, there might be another twist to definitions. Some items and implements are classified as "defensive weapons", like shields and walls, and while those are surely not covered by the definition sought after in the question, it looks like they pretty much all would qualify. Whether Chinese Wall, Limes or Maginot… Summary The death toll in manufacturing V1 and V2 weapons is for one concentration camp alone between 12000, officially registered by the SS in the camp, with a number more probably around 20000. That number does not include other deaths in the other camps and over 50 supplying factories, companies or "transport losses", whether by train or on death marches from the East. Compared to 15386 losses of enemy civilians the claim holds up. As the claim over-focusses on the V2 it is unproblematic to deny its uniqueness. The V1 can be seen as equally responsible for more deaths in production and perhaps even less effective if loss of human life is seen as the goal. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42515",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/3943/"
]
} |
42,569 | Just saw this on Facebook: Is the freehand-circled claim true? Does the United States Social Security have a surplus of $2.5 trillion? Also, if the above is true, how did SS accrue this much extra? | For accurate information see The 2018 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds : "Asset reserves" were $2,891.8 billion at the end of 2017. The "net increase in asset reserves in 2017" was $44.1 billion. The asset reserves of the combined trust funds
were $2.9 trillion at the end of 2017. The trust fund reserves decline on a
present value basis after 2017, but remain positive through 2033. However,
after 2033 this cumulative amount becomes negative, which means that the
combined OASI and DI Trust Funds have a net unfunded obligation through
each year after 2033. Through the end of 2092, the combined funds have a
present-value unfunded obligation of $13.2 trillion . | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42569",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/30690/"
]
} |
42,588 | President Trump just tweeted this : Sadly, it looks like Mexico’s Police and Military are unable to stop the Caravan heading to the Southern Border of the United States. Criminals and unknown Middle Easterners are mixed in . I have alerted Border Patrol and Military that this is a National Emergy. Must change laws! My question is, is it true that there are Middle Easterners in the migrant caravan headed to the U.S.? | There is no evidence to support this claim so far.
The timeline has been: 11-Oct-2018: Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales claims he has detained " around 100 " Middle Eastern terrorists, including ISIS, but not specifying a time frame. No evidence has been shown of any of this. 16-Oct-2018: The caravan starts in Honduras, gathering people as it goes. 18-Oct-2018: Conservative action group, Judicial Watch, combines the two stories, posting a headline of: " 100 ISIS Terrorists Caught in Guatemala as Central American Caravan Heads to US ". While the article itself is just a big what-if, several far-right sites apparently only read the headline. 19-Oct-2018: The Gateway Pundit, a far-right blog , pushes the danger even further . 20-Oct-2018: A blogger game of telephone over the weekend turns the question into a statement. There ARE Middle-Easterners actually IN this caravan. It enters Fox's orbit with Lou Dobbs' comments . 22-Oct-2018: The 6am edition of Fox and Friends are full-on confirming that these things definitely overlap. By 8am, Trump is tweeting it as if it's fact. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42588",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/41283/"
]
} |
42,627 | I found this pdf referencing a study done on video gamers. Among other claims it states that "80% of those surveyed will vote in the 2016 election". It also has a pie chart claiming the following distribution of gamers by political party: 48% conservative
38% liberal
14% other I could not find the original study. I am somewhat skeptical of the claims, the skewing for conservative is higher then I would have guessed, especially considering gamers tend, on average, to be (somewhat) younger which would usually skew towards liberal. I also find the claim of 80% participation to be surprisingly high for any American demographic that doesn't have an obvious political affiliation. Can anyone confirm the original study? Is the study a proper peer reviewed and controlled study who's results can be trusted? | The small print on the pdf declares that it was from an online survey targeting american adults who play video games. Online surveys have pretty bad self-selection issues . ESA looks like it's not particularly entangled with any one political side, but it is still (among other things) a lobbying group. Their own website (both hosting and linked to by the PDF) has a section Public Policy/Government Affairs with the following quote: ESA engages policymakers at the national, state and local level on a
range of legislative and public policy issues impacting the video game
industry, including copyright and intellectual property laws, First
Amendment protections for industry artists, privacy and trade. In its status as a lobbying group, any evidence that suggests that gamers are a significant voting block is inherently beneficial to it. ESA seems to be pretty serious/establishment, as such things go. (They run E3.) As such, it is probable that they are not blatantly lying, as they actually do have some credibility that they would probably prefer to retain. On the other hand, the actual claims made on the survey pdf are limited in scope. All it says is that the survey occurred, that it was a web survey, that it got certain results, and that it "provides insights". It is likely, then, that the survey was at least somewhat biased by self-selection (and possibly through other means) While ESA appears to be at least somewhat credible, they don't claim that the survey is particularly accurate or unbiased. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42627",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/8366/"
]
} |
42,638 | Reuters : Gay McDougall, a member of the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination, cited estimates that 2 million Uighurs and
Muslim minorities were forced into “political camps for
indoctrination” in the western Xinjiang autonomous region. The current Chinese position seems to be: A Chinese official told the committee tough security measures in
Xinjiang were necessary to combat "extremism and terrorism", but they
did not target any specific ethnic group or restrict religious
freedoms. "Xinjiang citizens, including the Uighurs, enjoy equal freedom and
rights," Ma Youqing, director of China's United Front Work Department,
told the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination." Is there evidence for Gay McDougall claim that China interns that many Uighurs and Muslim minorities? | Source 1: Official Chinese figures The Chinese government has admitted the existence of these camps, claiming that they are for " anti-extremist ideological education, psychological correction, and behavior correction ". If they ever put out official figures for how many people have been admitted to the camps, I will edit this answer and make note of it here. (Edit: In September 2020 the Chinese government admitted it had "relocated" 2.6 million Uyghurs between June 2019 and June 2020. It also claimed it was providing "vocational training" to 1.29 million Uyghurs every year from 2014 to 2019. The phrase "vocational training" was not defined and outside analysts believe it may refer to forced labor as well as internment.) The population of Xinjiang is 1.5% of China's total population, but in 2017, 21% of all arrests in China were made in Xinjiang , a total of 227,882 people, according to official Chinese figures. These figures show a 700% year-on-year increase in arrests. The type of sentencing for these arrests was not specified. From January to March 2018, 461,000 residents in Xinjiang villages were "relocated" according to a report in Global Times . The specific destination of these residents was not specified other than "other parts of the region." Source 2: Mizutani Naoko Adrian Zenz published a peer-reviewed article in 2018 giving two major sources for the figure of 1 million: Zenz, A. (2018). “Thoroughly reforming them towards a healthy heart attitude”: China’s political re-education campaign in Xinjiang. Central Asian Survey, 1–27. doi:10.1080/02634937.2018.1507997 The first of Adrian Zenz's sources is Mizutani Naoko 水谷尚子, currently an associate professor at Meiji University. Mizutani comes from an anti-imperialist angle, beginning her research with a vindication of the Japanese war crime testimonials given by the Association of Returnees from China , which was positively reviewed in Japanese academic journals . Her research specialized in using Chinese sources to elucidate the relationship between the Nationalists and Communists in the 20th century. Starting in 2007 she became a critic of modern colonialist techniques in Xinjiang and published a book based on interviews with dissidents. The figures used by Mizutani in her Newsweek article were obtained by the Istanbul-based Uyghur dissident source Istiqlal TV. However, Mizutani herself did not naively accept the numbers but cross-referenced them against publicly available data on total Uyghur populations and her own knowledge of Xinjiang administration: この表は県単位で収容者数が記されており、ウルムチ市、ホタン市、イーニン（グルジャ）市など、市単位での数値が欠けている。中国の行政単位としては県が市より下となる。おそらく、大きな行政単位の中心市レベルと末端の県レベルでは管轄部署が異なり、このデータをリークした公安警察は、県レベルのデータ管理者だったのだろう。 This table records camp inmates by prefecture, and is missing values for cities such as Ürümqi, Hotan, and Yining (Ghulja). Chinese administrative divisions rank prefectures below cities. The administrative units at the level of large central cities may vary in method of control, so we may assume that the public official who leaked this data is charged with managing data at the prefectural level [only]. She adds that the data was likely current as of late 2017. Zenz uses these prefectural figures of 892,000, 12.3% of the prefectural population, and combines them with public data on the Uyghur population in cities to extrapolate a total figure of 1,060,000. Mizutani continues to speak out about this issue, most recently discussing oppression of Uyghurs in an interview with the Communist Party of Japan . Source 3: Radio Free Asia Zenz's second source is a Radio Free Asia article , but it is not based on an anonymous leak like the Istiqlal TV data. The source is not named but is explicitly identified: The security chief of Kashgar city’s Chasa township recently told RFA on condition of anonymity that “approximately 120,000” Uyghurs are being held throughout the prefecture, based on information he has received from other area officials. “I have great relationships with the heads of all the government departments and we are in regular contact, informing each other on the current situation,” he said, adding that he is also close with the prefecture’s chief of security. Tens of thousands of people are detained within Kashgar city alone, the Chasa township security officer said, citing statistics from the city’s subdistricts. “Around 2,000 [are detained] from the four neighborhoods of Kashgar city, as well as an additional 30,000 in total from the city’s 16 villages,” he said. Zenz notes that this figure of 120,000 is 10.4% of the city's Uyghur population, claiming it is a pattern. It would be very easy for the Chinese government to refute this statistic: simply provide the name of the security chief of Kashgar city’s Chasa township in January 2018 and have him deny the comments. I do not see evidence that this has happened. Zenz also cites another RFA article with the bare statistic that A staff member who answered the phone at Bayanday’s No. 3 Village committee told RFA on condition of anonymity that his office had been instructed to send “10 percent” of the 4,131 residents living in 1,073 households under its supervision to re-education camps. This claim, too, would be easy to debunk by producing a specific number for Bayanday’s No. 3 Village. No one has done so. Source 4: Resident interviews Zenz's group also conducted anonymous interviews with Xinjiang residents which he used to confirm his figure of roughly 10% of the Uyghur population being imprisoned. Additional circumstantial evidence Additional evidence such as satellite photos of camps is available in this ChinaFile article and this Quartz article . edit, March 2021 : Additional evidence uncovered since this answer was written in mid-2020 have been compiled into an independent investigation by the Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy . | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42638",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/196/"
]
} |
42,653 | According to The Guardian (reporting an analysis by WWF) humanity stands on the verge of an ecological catastrophe as: Humanity has wiped out 60% of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles since 1970, leading the world’s foremost experts to warn that the annihilation of wildlife is now an emergency that threatens civilisation. While catastrophic declines in some species are well known (from overfishing, for example) this seems like a big claim. And even overfishing has been contained and even reversed by tighter regulation. So is the claim true? | To get a littler closer to the horse's mouth -- the news article is about the Living Planet Report 2018 as published by the WWF (the wildlife people, not the wrestling people.) On page 7 of that report we have: The Living Planet Index also tracks the state of global biodiversity by measuring the population abundance of thousands of vertebrate species around the world. The latest index shows an overall decline of 60% in population sizes between 1970 and 2014. WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 7 The Living Planet Index is described in further detail in the same report: Living Planet Indices – whether the Global Index or those for a specific realm or species
group – show the average rate of change over time across a set of species populations. These
populations are taken from the Living Planet Database, which now contains information on
more than 22,000 populations of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians. The global
LPI is based on just over 16,700 of these populations. This is because some populations
overlap in both space and time, so to avoid double-counting, certain populations are not
included when calculating a global trend. WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 90 And the index values themselves represent the average change in population
abundance – based on the relative change and not the
absolute change – in population sizes. The shaded areas
show 95% confidence limits. These illustrate how certain
we are about the trend in any given year relative to 1970.
The confidence limits always widen throughout the timeseries
as the uncertainty from each of the previous years
is added to the current year WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 90 Note that the report itself doesn't causally ascribe this to humans. But it does claim that overexploitation (a human action) is a main driver: While climate change is a growing threat, the main drivers of
biodiversity decline continue to be the overexploitation of species,
agriculture and land conversion. Indeed, a recent assessment found
that only a quarter of land on Earth is substantively free of the
impacts of human activities. This is projected to decline to just one tenth by 2050. Land degradation includes forest loss; while globally
this loss has slowed due to reforestation and plantations it has
accelerated in tropical forests that contain some of the highest levels
of biodiversity on Earth. Ongoing degradation has many impacts on
species, the quality of habitats and the functioning of ecosystems. WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 6 | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42653",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/3943/"
]
} |
42,662 | In the 2006 film America: Freedom to Fascism , several interviews are shown which claim that American workers do not need to pay income tax. Specifically, this clip claims that There is no law which requires the average American worker (in the
private sector) to pay a direct unapportioned tax on their labor and
compensation, or services. Is the average US worker legally required to pay income taxes, perhaps in a manner which is indirect or apportioned? | The IRS has a section of their website, The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments dedicated to explaining the flaws of popular incorrect arguments of why taxes don't have to be paid. Specifically, it says : The requirement to pay taxes is not voluntary. Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code clearly imposes a tax on the taxable income of individuals, estates, and trusts, as determined by the tables set forth in that section. [...] Furthermore, the obligation to pay tax is described in section 6151, which requires taxpayers to submit payment with their tax returns. Failure to pay taxes could subject the non-complying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties. They go on citing a number of case laws supporting this point. Snopes agrees with this: [I]n a legal sense, neither the obligation to file of tax returns nor to pay taxes owed is voluntary — those requirements are specifically spelled out in Title 26 of the U.S. Code, particularly Section 6151 The NY Times also agrees in their review of the film: Arguments made in court that the income tax is invalid are so baseless that Congress has authorized fines of $25,000 for anyone who makes them. The article goes into some more detail on the law, as well as the consequences of violating it. For more details see also As a US citizen, what law requires me to pay income tax? at law.SE. Regarding the movie itself, it might not be the best source. To quote Wikipedia : The film has been criticized for its promotion of conspiracy theories, its copious factual errors, and its repeated misrepresentations of the individuals and views it purports to criticize. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42662",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/16576/"
]
} |
42,692 | According to Oracle CEO Larry Ellison : Let me tell you an interesting fact, Amazon does not use AWS to run their business. Amazon runs their entire business on-top of Oracle, on-top of the Oracle database. They have been unable to migrate to AWS because it is not good enough. Is the charge that Ellison makes - that Amazon relies more on Oracle than on AWS for their business - true? | Misleading at best Oracle is completely different from AWS. This quote is wrong such that it's comparing apples to oranges. Ellison is claiming that Amazon is using Oracle's database to run their apps and services, and implying that it's possible to instead use Amazon Web Services. Amazon did (and does as of 2018 ) use Oracle database systems, as Ellison claims. (As a sidenote, Amazon is moving away from Oracle DB to their own database system, however that's irrelevant to this argument. I've explained that near the bottom.) From Ellison's quote : Amazon does not use AWS to run their business. False. As Michael Hampton pointed out in the comments, Amazon has been running its services and website from AWS since 2010 . Amazon runs their entire business on-top of Oracle: on-top of the Oracle database. Meh. That's CEO hyperbole. You could argue that since Amazon uses Oracle's database, and you couldn't run the business without a database, then the entire business is on top of Oracle, but really that's just misleading. Amazon could use another database system instead (and they're reportedly in the process of going that route). They have been unable to migrate to AWS because it is not good enough. Mostly False. It's true that they haven't yet switched completely away from Oracle. However claiming that the reason is that AWS is not good enough is plain nonsense. Oracle database is not a competitor with AWS. According to Amazon , Amazon Web Services (AWS) is a secure cloud services platform, offering compute power, database storage, content delivery and other functionality Whereas (according to Oracle), A database server is the key to solving the problems of information management. Oracle Database is a database server, and AWS is a cloud services platform. You can run an Oracle Database instance on AWS . In other words, it's not possible to switch from Oracle Database to AWS, just like it's not possible to switch from pouring gas into your car to having a car -- they're different, and they can coexist. Later in the interview , Ellison notes that Maybe our database is better than Amazon's database is. And, well, why else would Amazon keep buying our database? Amazon was founded in 1994 . It's not easy to switch database systems (couldn't find a direct source, but you can read here if you're interested). From the CNBC article linked to in another answer, Amazon began moving off Oracle [database] about four or five years ago [...] and the full migration should wrap up in about 14 to 20 months. Amazon isn't still paying for Oracle because their database is better, but rather because any huge change (especially for a company the size of Amazon) isn't instant. To further complicate matters, Oracle does have a competing service to AWS, and they call it Oracle Cloud . Amazon does not use Oracle Cloud. Additionally as I hinted above, Amazon does have a competing database system called Amazon Aurora . They're reportedly switching to this system, and should be done by some time in 2020. Amazon does use Oracle's database, and will for a few years yet, but that is a completely different thing from AWS. I'd rate the quote mostly false for comparing apples to oranges, and for claiming that Amazon doesn't use AWS to run its business (it does!). Update April 2019 It appears that the above statements that Amazon would be moving away from Oracle database systems are correct. Per this CRN article , Amazon's Fulfillment teams completed the transition already, and the rest are expected to by 2020. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42692",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/196/"
]
} |
42,710 | About a week ago at The Hague, many birds died spontaneously, falling
dead in a park. You likely haven’t heard a lot about this because it
seems keeping it quiet was the plan all along. However, when about 150
more suddenly died- bringing the death toll to 297- some started to
take notice. And if you are looking around that park you might have seen what is on
the corner of the roof across the street from where they died: a new
5G mast, where they had done a test, in connection with the Dutch
railway station, to see how large the range was and whether no harmful
equipment [sic] would occur on and around the station. And harm happened, indeed. Immediately afterward, birds fell dead from
the trees. And the nearby ducks that were swimming seemed to react
very oddly as well; they were simultaneously putting their heads
underwater to escape the radiation while others flew away, landing on
the street or in the canal. Again, almost at the exact same time that those animals died, near the
station, Holland Spoor was tested with a 5G transmitter mast. The birds that fell massively dead would be the victims of an
experiment, performed on those days in The Hague, where RF radiation
was tested with a peak frequency of 7.40 GHz, which corresponds to a
wavelength of 4.05 cm. This wavelength is of the same order of
magnitude as the size of the starlings. This may be important because
of possible resonance effects. The mast in question is about 400
meters from where the starlings have fallen dead. This information
comes from one source and should still be confirmed, if possible. https://www.healthnutnews.com/hundreds-of-birds-dead-during-5g-experiment-in-the-hague-the-netherlands/ Is it true that hundreds of birds have died in this park? If it is true, has a cause been positively determined? | Seems to be true about a large number of suddenly dead birds. There are some articles in Dutch media reporting this. However the cause has not been determined and there is no mention of 5G antennas in reports. Mysterie rond dode vogels ("Mystery around dead birds") Tientallen spreeuwen in Huijgenspark Den Haag sterven mysterieuze dood ("Dozens of starlings in Huijgenspark Den Haag die mysterious death") Meer dan honderd vogels vallen dood uit bomen in Den Haag ("More than a hundred birds fall dead from trees in The Hague") Mysterieuze vogelsterfte in Den Haag: dode spreeuwen vallen massaal uit de lucht ("Mysterious bird deaths in The Hague: dead starlings fall massively from the sky") Here is the Google translation of the article under the last link: For several days in a row, dead starlings fall from the sky in the
Huijgenspark in The Hague. It is estimated that around 150 birds have
already lost their lives. What is the cause of this is being
investigated. The Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority, the Dutch
Wildlife Health Center and a Wageningen University laboratory are
investigating the cause of death of the starlings. A veterinarian of
bird care De Wulp performed a number of birds last week. She only
found internal bleeding and no trace of poison. Contaminated water "Last year we had the same situation at the Haagse Hogeschool, where
it was renovated at the time", says an employee of the Animal
Ambulance. "Then dozens of dead jackdaws were found, which probably
had been poisoned because they had been drinking contaminated
water. What's the matter now is really speculation, hopefully we'll
know more next week, because this is not normal."
Last Friday, the first reports of dead starlings arrived at the Haagse
Dierenambulance. On arrival at the scene of the disaster exactly
thirty starlings were found. They had fallen dead from a tree.
Yesterday there were even more than ninety starlings in the park. Sick dogs According to hikers who put their dog on the spot, their animals also
became ill afterwards. Dogs had to vomit and had problems with the
stool. That is why the police temporarily blocked the site | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42710",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/16626/"
]
} |
42,731 | The ACLU has been a critic of the 13th amendment to the US constitution for some time, claiming that the clause that reads that slavery shall not exist "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" is a loophole and has been exploited as such. After the Civil War, many states, mostly former slave states, immediately exploited the 13th Amendment loophole allowing slavery and involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime. Many former slaves were arrested and then put back into slave labor conditions through convict leasing , a lucrative practice that generated more than 70 percent of total state revenues for the state of Alabama in 1898. From the 1920s through 1941, convict leasing was gradually eliminated through state laws and by presidential executive order. The constitutional loophole, however, was never removed. - Colorado Votes To Abolish Slavery, 2 Years After Similar Amendment Failed - NPR.org In the bold portion above, the ACLU claims that "convict leasing" was done immediately after the civil war, was used to target and enslave black Americans, and was prevalent. Is this a fair assessment of the historical records? | According to The Iniquity of Leasing Convict Labor Engineering Magazine September 1891, pages 749-757: The convict lease system exists in all the Southern States, with the exception of Maryland and Delaware. ... composed almost wholly of the freedmen fresh from slavery and the tremendous and, to them, wonderful results of the greatest civil war in history. The reference says for example Tennessee has 1500 convicts, and that only Texas has more. This compares to a 1860 Tennessee enslaved population of 275,719. See also Convict lease and Coal Creek War . | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42731",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
42,760 | This image has been shared on social media Transcription: Gerrymandering in North Carolina 1,747,742 votes for Democrats = 3 Congressional seats 1,638,684 votes for Republicans = 10 Congressional seats Example sources: [1] , [2] Are these numbers correct? | Yes, the numbers are correct (within an error margin – probably due to different sources and time of capture). According to the 2018 House election results (I used this handy Washington Post page), adding up numbers for NC, will give you the total of 1,748,173 votes for Democrats and 1,643,790 for Republicans – very close to the claim. Ten of the seats went to Republicans and three to Democrats (Districts 1, 4, and 12), with most Republican wins being quite narrow and Democrats wins overwhelming. +-------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------+--------+
| dist. | D | D % | R | R % | Winner |
+=======+===========+=======+===========+=======+========+
| 1 | 188,074 | 69.8% | 81,486 | 30.2% | D |
| 2 | 148,959 | 47.1% | 167,382 | 52.9% | |
| 4 | 242,002 | 75.0% | 80,546 | 25.0% | D |
| 5 | 118,558 | 42.8% | 158,444 | 57.2% | |
| 6 | 122,323 | 43.4% | 159,651 | 56.6% | |
| 7 | 119,606 | 43.4% | 155,705 | 56.6% | |
| 8 | 112,971 | 44.6% | 140,347 | 55.4% | |
| 9 | 136,478 | 49.7% | 138,338 | 50.3% | |
| 10 | 112,386 | 40.7% | 164,060 | 59.3% | |
| 11 | 115,824 | 39.5% | 177,230 | 60.5% | |
| 12 | 202,228 | 73.0% | 74,639 | 27.0% | D |
| 13 | 128,764 | 46.9% | 145,962 | 53.1% | |
+=======+===========+=======+===========+=======+========+
| Total | 1,748,173 | 51.5% | 1,643,790 | 48.5% | |
+-------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------+--------+ Note: One caveat is that the Republican representative for District 3 ran uncontested. That is, it would be more appropriate to say that the result is 9 vs 3, as the total numbers don't include the voters in 3rd district. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42760",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/165/"
]
} |
42,791 | This 2018 Collective Evolution article claims: Once recent study, however, did bother to look at the question of whether the vaccine prevents transmission. Published on January 18, 2018, in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, PNAS, the study’s authors screened volunteers with confirmed cases of influenza and took breath samples. And among their findings was “an association between repeated vaccination and increased viral aerosol generation” [...] In fact, subjects who had received the influenza vaccine in both the current and the previous season were found to shed over six times more aerosolized virus than those who did not get a flu shot during either season. Do people who receive flu shots shed the virus more than people who don't? | A grain of truth, but not fully confirmed The claim... In fact, subjects who had received the influenza vaccine in both the current and the previous season were found to shed over six times more aerosolized virus than those who did not get a flu shot during either season. ...is clear enough to examine and the author has sourced it well. The source is this article: Infectious virus in exhaled breath of symptomatic seasonal influenza cases from a college community The title (boldface mine)... "Infectious virus in exhaled breath of symptomatic seasonal influenza cases from a college community" ...and the following must be noted (boldface mine): We screened 355 volunteers with acute respiratory illness ; the 178 volunteers who met enrollment criteria provided 278 visits for sample collection. We confirmed influenza infection in 156 (88%) of the enrolled participants using qRT-PCR In other words: this study concerns people that at the time were sick with influenza. The article then states... Self-reported vaccination for the current season was associated with a trend (P < 0.10) toward higher viral shedding in fine-aerosol samples; vaccination with both the current and previous year’s seasonal vaccines, however, was significantly associated with greater fine-aerosol shedding in unadjusted and adjusted models (P < 0.01). In adjusted models, we observed 6.3 (95% CI 1.9–21.5) times more aerosol shedding among cases with vaccination in the current and previous season compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons. Vaccination was not associated with coarse-aerosol or NP shedding (P > 0.10). The association of vaccination and shedding was significant for influenza A (P = 0.03) but not for influenza B (P = 0.83) infections (Table S4). So the authors of the study state that... in this particular study for people that were currently sick with influenza for only one type of influenza regarding only fine aerosols where the subjects said they had been vaccinated ...they measured increased shedding. But for another type of influenza, for other types of shedding, they did not detect that, even in people that were vaccinated before. Also note that the Confidence Interval is — at least in my opinion — quite large. The increase is not actually exactly 6.3 times more for 100% certain, but instead the authors are 95% certain it is somewhere between 1.9 times and 21.5 times more shedding. So the claim in Collective Evolution has a small grain of truth: in one study they found that for one particular type of influenza , where people had become ill in influenza , and where they had gotten ill despite vaccination , they detected a two-to-twentytwo(ish)-fold increased of shedding in fine aerosols , but not for other types of pathways for shedding. And for the other type of influenza they did not find an increase in fine aerosol shedding. In the "discussion" section, the authors of the study therefore say the following ( boldface added by me): The association of current and prior year vaccination with increased shedding of influenza A might lead one to speculate that certain types of prior immunity promote lung inflammation, airway closure, and aerosol generation. This first observation of the phenomenon needs confirmation . If confirmed , this observation, together with recent literature suggesting reduced protection with annual vaccination, would have implications for influenza vaccination recommendations and policies. So the claim in Collective Evolution that it has been proven that for all influensas, all types of aerosol shedding increase if the subject is vaccinated, no matter if they got ill or not , is not supported by this study. The author has ripped out a small section of the original study and extrapolated in ways that are not supported by the study. Summary The claim has a grain of truth, in that one study has observed this effect, for people that were vaccinated and still got ill, and only once. But the general claim — that for all influenzas, all vaccinated people increase their virus shedding six-fold — has not been proven . And it is not shown that such shedding warrants a change in policy regarding vaccination. How did the claim become so wrong? The claim is posted in an article on Collective Evolution . Collective Evolution is described by RationalWiki as: ...a woo-mongering clickbait website. The author is a guest editor that links back to World Mercury Project / Children's Health Defence. Clicking your way in there makes you find even more of that sort. So what we have is (yet another) case of a scientific study where the participants made a measurement and reported their findings accurately, all in good faith and with rigour. And then the woo-community got wind of the study, ripped one statement out of its context, stripped away all qualifiers and caveats, generalised that statement in a way that is not supported by the scientific study, and started publishing on the Internet. PhD Comics: Science News Cycle | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42791",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/7033/"
]
} |
42,817 | I have seen on Facebook, a post (in French) claiming that many words for the night are based on a n+respective number for the number 8. For example on this website , Language Number 8 night
français huit nuit
anglais eight night
allemand acht nacht
espagnol ocho noche
portugais oito noite
italien otto notte
néerlandais acht nacht
suédois aetta natta
roumain opt noapte
wallon ût nut
occitan uèch nuèch
catalan vuit nit
gascon ueit nueit
picard uit nuit
piedmontais eut neuit
espéranto ok nokto The post goes even further, claiming that N is a symbol for infinity, and that 8 is the typical infinity symbol rotated. My first reaction was to dismiss it. But then, I've been thinking about it, and would really like to have reasons to dismiss it. The infinity symbol dates from 1655 (according to Wikipedia )whereas the word nuit was already in use by 1170 ( website in French ). Furthermore, the word nuit was used as noit in older French, and derives from noctum (latin) and thus nox ( littré in French ). But unfortunately, my knowledge of Latin is by far too limited to investigate further on the Latin. Actually, the last link mentions that for the author M. Ad. Regnier, studying the Sanskrit, it could be related to the word naked (German: nackt, Latin: nuda). In English, (the ight deriving from eight sounds worse than some other examples), what I gather is that Old English niht (West Saxon neaht, Anglian næht, neht) "night, darkness [...] from Proto-Germanic *nahts which relate as well to nox (Latin), nuks (Old Greek) or naktam (Sanskrit). The same website also indicates that according to Watkins, probably from a verbal root *neg- "to be dark, be night." But, if the relation night -> infinity -> infinity symbol -> 8 -> night, sounds improbable, I cannot find definitive information on a possible relation between the number 8 and the night. Can you help me get down to the bottom of that question? | No, they are unrelated. Some Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) reconstructions from Wiktionary: "eight": " oḱtṓw " (claimed to be a dual of "four fingers") "night": " nókʷts " (possibly from "bare, naked"). As @Schmuddi mentioned in a comment above, it looks just like a coincidence (slightly similar proto-language words). The rest looks like an urban legend. Sources: McPherson, Fiona. Indo-European Cognate Dictionary . Wayz Press, 2018. ( Google Books link ) Watkins, Calvert. The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots . Houghton Mifflin, 2000. ( Google Books link ) | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42817",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/26659/"
]
} |
42,886 | Food Inc documentary claims that the number of FDA food safety inspections had fallen from 50,000 in 1972 to 9164 in 2006 and this information is also cited here . However, I cannot find any official source to support this claim. Question: Did the number of FDA food safety inspections fall from '70s to 2006? | The documentary film Food, Inc. was released in June 2009. Nicholas Kristof wrote an op-ed in the New York Times about this movie on June 20, 2009 . One tidbit he omitted from his draft of the article was the statistic raised in the question, that the number of FDA food safety inspections had fallen from 50,000 in 1972 to 9164 in 2006. He wrote about why he omitted this factoid in his blog . Before making that draft final, he asked his assistant to double-check with the FDA: The FDA said the figures were wrong — both of them. The FDA acknowledged that the number of inspections had dropped, but said the 1972 figure was 10,610, while the fiscal year 2006 figure was 7,498 domestically and 125 abroad. The FDA said it had no idea where the other numbers could have come from. Kristof then contacted people associated with the movie to determine the source of this information. A producer said the source of the numbers was a fact sheet from Rep. Henry Waxman, which Kristof and crew verified (i.e., they found Waxman's fact sheet online and it stated those exact numbers). Waxman's fact sheet said the 2006 number was an estimate and that the 1972 number was based on a Washington Post article by a long-time FDA staffer and commissioner. So Kristof and crew chased this down. The article existed and contained the value on Waxman's fact sheet. That same person had also testified in Congress that there were 35,000 (not 50,000) inspections in 1972. With conflicting values from different sources, Kristof decided not to include that factoid in his op-ed. Instead he simply wrote that the number of FDA inspections had plunged. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42886",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/30782/"
]
} |
42,946 | Liberty Nation and the Sunday Express cite MEP Marcel de Graaff from the Dutch Party for Freedom as saying: “One basic element of this new agreement is the extension of the
definition of hate speech. The agreement wants to
criminalize migration speech. Criticism of migration will become a
criminal offense. Media outlets that give room to criticism of
migration can be shut down.” Does the global compact for migration contain elements that seek to extend the definition of hate speech in the way Graaff, co-president of the Europe of Nations and Freedom, charges? | The document that Marcel de Graaff is talking about is the United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration . Specifically, he is referring to section 17. Objective 17: Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration We commit to eliminate all forms of discrimination, condemn and counter expressions, acts and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, violence, xenophobia and related intolerance against all migrants in conformity with international human rights law. We further commit to promote an open and evidence-based public discourse on migration and migrants in partnership with all parts of society, that generates a more realistic, humane and constructive perception in this regard. We also commit to protect freedom of expression in accordance with international law, recognizing that an open and free debate contributes to a comprehensive understanding of all
aspects of migration. To realize this commitment, we will draw from the following actions: (a) Enact, implement or maintain legislation that penalizes hate crimes and aggravated hate crimes targeting migrants, and train law enforcement and other public officials to identify, prevent and respond to such crimes and other acts of violence that target migrants, as well as to provide medical, legal and psychosocial assistance for victims; (b) Empower migrants and communities to denounce any acts of incitement to violence directed towards migrants by informing them of available mechanisms for redress, and ensure that those who actively participate in the commission of a hate crime targeting migrants are held accountable, in accordance with national legislation, while upholding international human rights law, in particular the right to freedom of expression; (c) Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including Internet-based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media ; Nowhere in the proposal does it call for criminalizing speaking out against migration. Even if it did support de Graaff's statement (again it does not) there is this section, the basics of which is repeated throughout the document: This Global Compact presents a non-legally binding, cooperative framework that builds on the commitments agreed upon by Member States in the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants . It fosters international cooperation among all relevant actors on migration, acknowledging that no State can address migration alone, and upholds the sovereignty of States and their obligations under international law . In other words, the United Nations does not have the right or authority to legislate what is or is not hate speech — only sovereign nations do. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42946",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/196/"
]
} |
43,018 | In this clip with Jordan Peterson conversing with Russel Brand, Peterson says, (3m:57s) The government, for the first time in the history of Canada and really in a move that was unprecedented in English Common Law, under English Common Law, actually mandated the content of voluntary speech. Did Canada mandate the content of "voluntary speech" in the way Peterson is claiming? Has any other nation under Common Law ever mandated the contents of speech in this way? | No, Peterson is wrong on all points Quick background: Jordan Peterson is employed at the University of Toronto , in Ontario . This is important because that determines which laws he operates under in his employment at the university. On to the claim... The claim by Peterson is two-fold. First it mentions Canada, and then "English Common Law", a kind of a confusing expression because English Law is one thing and Common Law is another. But let us look at the part about Canada first. The law that Peterson is talking about is... Bill C-16 2016, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code . Bill C-16 made the following changes ... Bill C-16 added the words “gender identity or expression” to three places. First: It was added to the Canadian Human Rights Act, joining a list of identifiable groups that are protected from discrimination. These groups include age, race, sex, religion and disability, among others. Second: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code that targets hate speech — defined as advocating genocide and the public incitement of hatred — where it joins other identifiable groups. Third: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. If there’s evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, it can be taken into account by the courts during sentencing. The bill, which enshrines the rights of transgender or gender-diverse Canadians by including them under human rights and hate-crime laws, has sparked some debate. Critics voiced concerns that the law will penalize citizens who do not use specific pronouns when referring to gender diverse people. This last bit is what Jordan Peterson is expressing, but no provisions were made by Bill C-16 to criminalise the use of pronouns in manners that were not already criminalised, nor did it mandate that people use any specific pronouns. So when Peterson says... The government, for the first time in the history of Canada... ...he is blatantly wrong because no matter if it is discriminatory to not refer to people by their gender — such as for instance calling Jordan "miss Peterson" out of spite and malice — or not, this kind of law existed already before Bill C-16 and was now only extended to include transgender people. So what about Common and English Law? Since Bill C-16 did not change the definitions of discrimination and/or hate-speech in Canadian law it follows trivially that it did not set any precedent of the sort in Common Law and English Law as well. The only thing Bill C-16 did was to include a new demographic to become protected under already existing definitions of discrimination and hate-speech. So in both instances Peterson is wrong: this was nothing new. But can he get convicted as a criminal for using the "wrong" pronouns? No, he cannot be charged as a criminal for it. He may have to answer for his behaviour, and it may result in having to take responsibility for it. But this is nothing new and not unique, and nothing that Bill C-16 changed. This is because Bill C-16 affects Canadian federal law... https://medium.com/@florence.ashley/no-pronouns-wont-send-you-to-jail-43c268cffd55 Because it is a federal law, changes to the Human Rights Act only have consequences for areas falling under federal competency such as banks and airlines. ...while Canadian universities operate under provincial charter . So Bill C-16 does not affect Jordan Peterson at all unless he switches jobs. But ignoring that he is wrong about Bill C-16, could he still get charged with discrimination, especially since gender identity and ditto expression have been protected by provincial law since several years back? Most interactions in day-to-day life occur in businesses and areas covered by provincial competency. In most provinces, gender identity and expression were added as protected grounds a number of years ago. As I mentioned before, Jordan Peterson is employed at the University of Toronto , in Ontario , and the Ontario Human Right Commission has expressed the following (boldface added by me): Ontario added explicit protection for gender identity and gender expression to the Code in 2012. The Code prohibits discrimination and harassment against trans people in employment, services ( including education , policing, health care, restaurants, shopping malls, etc.), housing, contracts and membership in vocational associations. The Code does not specify the use of any particular pronoun or other terminology. So a first glance it appears the answer is "No". However, the OHRC then references the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario , which tries these kinds of cases... Is it a violation of the Code to not address people by their choice of pronoun? The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their gender and that "misgendering" is a form of discrimination. As one human rights tribunal said: "Gender ... may be the most significant factor in a person’s identity. It is intensely personal. In many respects how we look at ourselves and define who we are starts with our gender." The Tribunal found misgendering to be discriminatory in a case involving police, in part because the police used male pronouns despite the complainant’s self-identification as a trans woman. Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code , including employment, housing and services like education. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular. Jordan Peterson does work in an educational service, so if he calls a person — any person — by a name they do not agree to, or purposely misgenders a person — any person — then it may very well be discrimination... ...just as it would be discrimination if anyone deliberately insisted on called Jordan Peterson "Miss Jordy" in the workplace over his protestations. A thing to note here: Peterson claims that the discrimination laws "mandate" what he must say. This too is wrong, because the code states what he must not say; he must not call someone by the wrong name or the wrong gender. Now granted this does not leave many options. However, this is incidental because the code does not mandate a certain behaviour, it only prohibits the complementary behaviour. This is crucial because you can only ever be incriminated for things that you do, not for things that you do not do (unless it is specifically stated it is your duty to behave in a certain way but such is not the case here). What happens if someone brings a complaint of discrimination against Jordan Peterson? The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario is not a court, and its proceedings are not criminal cases. So straight off the bat we can say that when Jordan Peterson claims that (boldface added by me)... These laws are the first laws that I’ve seen that require people under the threat of legal punishment to employ certain words, to speak a certain way, instead of merely limiting what they’re allowed to say, ...then he is wrong again. The anti-discrimination code of Ontario is not a criminal code. In brief, what will happen is that aggrieved party and the party responsible for discrimination will be called to mediation . I write "the party responsible" because it is not certain that this party will be Peterson, it may very well be the University since they are employing him and are ultimately responsible for providing the educational service. If the mediation succeeds there will be a settlement. In this settlement the responsible party may agree to things such as... Pay compensatory damages to the aggrieved party (note: this is compensation , not punishment ) Implement/change policies to prevent future discrimination A written apology If a settlement is reached, the mediator will shred the all documents they received during the case and only keep the settlement. If a settlement is not reached there will be a public hearing and an adjudicator will make a decision. Again this may result in the responsible party paying compensation, issuing policy changes and/or apologising. The adjudicator cannot make the responsible party pay fines, nor send someone to jail. In conclusion Yes, Jordan Peterson may cause a discrimination case in the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, if he deliberately and repeatedly calls a person by the wrong name or the wrong pronoun. But... Bill C-16 — which was the object of Peterson's claim — did not affect him The discrimination laws do not mandate anything, they prohibit discriminatory behaviour Canadian provincial law had already protected gender identity and gender expressions since several years back This misnaming/misgendering would have to be deliberate and flagrant to the point of harassment He will not be convicted in a criminal court of law for it, i.e. he cannot be fined or jailed for it It is not at all certain it will be Peterson himself that will have to take responsibility for discriminating behaviour, this may fall on the University Laws protecting people from discrimination and hate-speech are commonplace in Common Law and English Law So on all points of the claim, Jordan Peterson is wrong . | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43018",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/3835/"
]
} |
43,039 | In The Ancestor's Tale , evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins makes the following statement about sexual dimorphism: Our sexual dimporhism is moderate but undeniable. Lots of women are taller than lots of men, but the tallest men are taller than the tallest women. Lots of women can run faster, lift heavier weights, throw javelins further, play better tennis, than lots of men. But for humans, unlike for racehorses, the underlying sexual dimorphism precludes sex-blind open competition at the top level in almost any sport you care to name. In most physical sports, every single one of the world’s top hundred men would beat every single one of the world’s top hundred women. I wonder if this has been backed up with proper data. | The Wikipedia List of Olympic records in Athletics page has links to each individual sport, listing the top 25 results by gender. I've compiled the information showing the 25th-best men's result vs. the best women's result. This does not prove the claim (top 100 men vs. top 100 women) but it does give a better feel for the discrepancy between genders in the results. 18 out of the 22 events listed below are directly comparable (events using equipment have lighter or smaller equipment for the women), and in all of those 18 events, the 25th-ranked man's result is better than the top-ranked woman's result by at least 5%: Sport: 25th-ranked men's result: top-ranked women's result:
100m 9.87s 10.49s
200m 19.80s 21.34s
400m 44.10s 47.60s
800m 1:42.81 1:53.28
1500m 3:29.59 3:50.07
5000m 12:51.00 14:11.15
10000m 26:49.94 29:17.45
Marathon 2:04:32 2:15:25
400m Hurdle 47.67s 52.34s
3000m Steeplechase 8:04.95 8:44.32
4x100 Relay 37.58s (*) 40.82s
4x400 Relay 2:57.87 3:15.17
20k Walk 1:18:06 1:23:39
50k Walk 3:36:20 (**) 4:05:56
High Jump 2.38m 2.09m
Long Jump 8.51m 7.52m
Pole Vault 5.98m 5.06m
Triple Jump 17.75m 15.50m
-- these events use different equipment:
Shot Put (+) 22.08m 22.63m (would get 10th place on men's list)
Discus Throw (+) 69.95m 76.80m (would get 1st place on men's list)
Hammer Throw (+) 82.54m 82.98m (would get 19th place on men's list)
Javelin Throw (+) 89.02m 72.28m
Decathlon (+) 8663 points 8358 points notes: (*): 20th-place result; lower results not available (**): 10th-place result; lower results not available (+): the equipment used is different between men and women. For example, the men's discus weighs 2kg and is 22cm in diameter, while the women's discus weighs 1kg and is 18cm in diameter. The shots, hammers and javelins are also lighter for the women's events. Therefore, these events are not really directly comparable. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43039",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/47433/"
]
} |
43,105 | There has been a lot in the global news media recently about the new President of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro , and the highly controversial things he is alleged to have said in the past. Some quotes are attributed to him in a 2018 New York Times article . For example: In June 2011, he said he would “rather his son die in a car accident than be gay,” However, in discussions about this on social media, I've seen several Brazilians claim that it's "fake news", that he isn't really homophobic or racist, and that these news articles are just a "globalist scam" to discredit him. Portuguese isn't a language I speak, so I'm having trouble verifying the original sources and context of this quote. Can anyone point to the original source of this quote? | Yes. In an interview with the Brazilian version of the Playboy magazine (in Portuguese, published June 2011, available on Archive.org), when asked what he would do if his son "turned homosexual", he said: Tem certas coisas que digo que é como a morte. Me daria desgosto, me deixaria triste, e acho até que ele mesmo me abandonaria num caso desses. Para mim é a morte. Digo mais: prefiro que morra num acidente do que apareça com um bigodudo por aí. Para mim ele vai ter morrido mesmo. This roughly translates to: There are certain things that I say are as death. It would bring me disgust, would make me sad, and I even think that he, himself, would abandon me in that case. To me, it is death. And more: I'd rather he died in an accident than show up with some guy. To me, he really would have died. In the same interview, when asked about whether he could love a homosexual son, he replied negatively - "Seria incapaz", Portuguese for "I would be unable [to do so]". | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43105",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/42209/"
]
} |
43,121 | From Quartz - The ROI on border walls is terrible , the following claim was made:: Low-skill workers earn one cent in extra income for every 19 cents the government spends on walling off Mexico It further claims that every other demographic ends up financially worse off with the wall being built. Unfortunately the actual study is pay-walled so I can't analyze it in detail. Are these claims accurate, and does the study have sufficient evidence of the claim to be considered a trustworthy source for policy decisions? | Yes. In an interview with the Brazilian version of the Playboy magazine (in Portuguese, published June 2011, available on Archive.org), when asked what he would do if his son "turned homosexual", he said: Tem certas coisas que digo que é como a morte. Me daria desgosto, me deixaria triste, e acho até que ele mesmo me abandonaria num caso desses. Para mim é a morte. Digo mais: prefiro que morra num acidente do que apareça com um bigodudo por aí. Para mim ele vai ter morrido mesmo. This roughly translates to: There are certain things that I say are as death. It would bring me disgust, would make me sad, and I even think that he, himself, would abandon me in that case. To me, it is death. And more: I'd rather he died in an accident than show up with some guy. To me, he really would have died. In the same interview, when asked about whether he could love a homosexual son, he replied negatively - "Seria incapaz", Portuguese for "I would be unable [to do so]". | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43121",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/8366/"
]
} |
43,124 | The 2013 book My Genes Made Me Do It! Homosexuality and the Scientific Evidence ( text ) argues that homosexuality is, at most, only weakly and indirectly genetically based, and that conversion therapies are effective. As part of this argument, it claims that homosexuality decreases in men as they age, using old Kinsey data to support it: (from page 49-50) Although the Kinsey surveys of 1948 and 1953 greatly exaggerated homosexual and bisexual numbers, they showed one interesting
trend, also borne out by subsequent studies— a steady decline in
homosexual fantasy and activity with increasing age compared with
heterosexuals Is there good evidence that, as men get older, there is a decline in their homosexuality (both fantasy and activity) at a faster rate than their heterosexuality. Related question which did not receive a useful answer; the only answer explained how survey answers were of limited reliability. | Properly conducted longitudinal studies have found that, if anything, the trend is in the opposite direction. Only two longitudinal and prospective studies have examined changes in sexual identity over time, both of which were conducted among young women (Diamond, 2000; 2003; Sophie, 1986). Although no comparable studies exist on the sexual identity development of males, three longitudinal studies of young men have examined changes in sexual attractions (Dickson, Paul, & Herbison, 2003; Stokes, Damon, & McKirnan, 1997; Stokes, McKirnan, & Burzette, 1993). Taken together, the studies have found considerable consistency, as well as change, in sexual self-identification and attractions over time. For example, among 80 female youths (65% college students, and over sampled for youths who did not self-identify as lesbian, bisexual, or straight), Diamond (2000; 2003) found that 70% were consistent in their self-identification as lesbian, bisexual or unlabeled after two years and 50% were consistent after five years. An additional 15% transited to a lesbian or bisexual identity after two years, as did 14% after five years. Few youths transited from a lesbian, bisexual, or unlabeled identity to a straight identity. Among 216 behaviorally bisexual men (ages 18 – 30 years), Stokes and colleagues (1997) found that over the course of one year, 49% reported no changes in sexual orientation, 34% became more homosexually oriented, and 17% more heterosexually oriented. Clearly, the consistency and change documented by these various research studies must now be understood. Regarding the quoted graph, Kinsey's report was based on self-selected interviewees and no attempt was made to obtain a representative sample. At the time this was ground-breaking research because merely talking about the subject was considered taboo, but you cannot trust any statistics derived from these interviews because of the number of potential confounding factors. In particular, the graph shows a huge hump in category #6 at ages 13-15 and the smaller one for category #3, but nothing at that age in categories #4 and #5. This lack of correlation between the different categories strongly suggests some kind of sampling artefact. Two possible explanations that occur to me are: This data may have come from Kinsey's interviews with paedophiles , who cannot be considered to have valid opinions on their victim's sexuality. At the time there was widespread ignorance about all aspects of sex, and sex education beyond a "birds and bees" talk from a parent was very rare. Some of Kinsey's interview subjects may have had homosexual attraction or experiences during adolescence and only later found out that what they were doing was considered taboo. They would then repress any homosexual tendency and report that they had since become straight. I can't prove either of these theories, but they explain the graph shown at least as well as the theory that homosexuals turn straight as they get older. Lastly, even if sexual orientation does tend to turn straight with age, this is not evidence against a genetic component because ageing in general has a genetic component . | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43124",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/40778/"
]
} |
43,150 | Although the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs is dated at ~66 million years ago there are a number of purported cave drawings that I've found online that (if verified and interpreted in a certain way!) could suggest that hominids and non-avian dinosaurs were present on the Earth at the same time. One debunked case of human-dinosaur interaction can been found in this question on 'human footprints' found alongside dinosaur footprints. This website (and another site ) shows a number of examples of cave paintings of what is purported to be dinosaurs. It's easy to see how early cave painters could have exaggerated anatomical features to represent an extant animal in some rudimentary form and make the animal look like what would appear to us as a dinosaur. The depiction of dragons in mythology and folklore ( see here and here ) is well documented, but the earliest references to these don't span much further back than 5000 years ago. Although zoomorphic depictions of man-animals appear as far back as 35,000 years, see here , I'm unsure whether other figurative representations of animals were around at the time i.e. to explain why dinosaur paintings may appear in caves. Furthermore, in the New World, there were many large mammals that rapidly became extinct as a result of fast human colonization (see Jared Diamond's book Gun's, Germs and Steel ), some of which were painted in caves. Did non-avian dinosaurs and hominids overlap in time? | No. Non-avian dinosaurs were extinct about 65 million years ago, as the most recent dinosaur bone was directly dated as being 64.8 ± 0.9 Ma old. The second dinosaur bone sample from Paleocene strata just above the Cretaceous-Paleogene interface yielded a Paleocene U-Pb date of 64.8 ± 0.9 Ma, consistent with palynologic, paleomagnetic, and fossil-mammal biochronologic data. Direct U-Pb dating of Cretaceous and Paleocene dinosaur bones, San Juan Basin, New Mexico The fossils we have found so far are incompatible with non-avian dinosaurs still being in existence after that time frame. Hominids used to refer to the homo genus after separation from all other species of non-human apes, thus from after the separation from Pan Troglodytes (chimpanzees), but now the word hominins is used for that and hominids includes many other species of apes such as gorillas. So, assuming from the rest of your question that we should look at hominins, there is a direct measurement of the age of the split between chimpanzees and homo through genes and it is 10-13 Ma ago: The estimated date of the divergence between Pan (chimpanzee) and Homo is 10–13 MYBP Molecular Timing of Primate Divergences as Estimated by Two Nonprimate Calibration Points Thus hominins would not begin their existence until 50 million years after dinosaurs became extinct. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43150",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/46985/"
]
} |
43,182 | The 2009 video The Story of Stuff makes several rather incredible claims. For example: Where I live, in the United States, we have less than 4% of our original forests left. My gut feeling tells me to be skeptical of this number. Is it correct? | Yes, this figure is consistent with estimates from 20 years ago. The 1995 paper Endangered Ecosystems of the United States:
A Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation collates some relevant estimates from the literature in Appendix A. 50 United States 85% of original primary (virgin) forest destroyed by late 1980's (Postel and Ryan 1991). 90% loss of ancient (old-growth) forests (World Resources Institute 1992). [...] 48 Conterminous States ca. 95-98% of virgin forests destroyed by 1990 (estimated from map in Findley 1990 and
commonly estimated by other authors, e.g., Postel and Ryan 1991). 99% loss of primary (virgin) eastern deciduous forest (Allen and Jackson 1992). It goes on to break the USA down into smaller regions, and cites consistent statistics for those - e.g.: >99% loss of virgin or old-growth forests in New Hampshire (D. D. Sperduto, New
Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development, Natural Heritage
Inventory, Concord, N.H., personal communication). This shows it is more than one or two papers making these nationwide estimates - they are shored up by several ecologists who have reached similar conclusions in different regions. This article is concerned not only about ecosystems being paved over, but also loss in quality: Ecosystems can be lost or impoverished in basically two ways. The most obvious kind of
loss is quantitative--the conversion of a native prairie to a corn field or to a parking lot.
Quantitative losses, in principle, can be measured easily by a decline in areal extent of a
discrete ecosystem type (i.e., one that can be mapped). The second kind of loss is
qualitative and involves a change or degradation in the structure, function, or composition
of an ecosystem (Franklin et al. 1981; Noss 1990). At some level of degradation, an
ecosystem ceases to be natural. So, these figures do NOT represent clear-felling of these forests - the impacts may be more subtle. However, as a literature review, it is dependent on the individual papers for their definitions of "original", "virgin", "old-growth" etc., and hence the translations in the quotes above. I tried to follow up on some of the references to see how they used the terms. I had limited success. Ironically, the papers from the 1980s and 1990s are difficult to access, but a 1923 paper they cite is freely available online! Reynolds, R. V., and A. H. Pierson. 1923. Lumber cut of the United States, 1870-1920.
USDA Bulletin 1119, Washington, D.C. is cited to support that 96% of virgin forests of northeastern and central states eliminated by 1920 (Reynolds and
Pierson 1923). The cited bulletin, on page 8, explains: The Northeast and Central States had each cut 96 per cent of their original areas of virgin timber. The Lakes States had cut 90 per cent, and the South was not far behind. That bulletin is mainly concerned with the effect on the declining yields of ongoing timber production and its ability to serve markets after World War I, rather than the ecological issues. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43182",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/47693/"
]
} |
43,193 | According to the article Media Throw Everything at the Wall to See What Sticks : Witless college students demanded cyanide pills be stocked in campus health care clinics, on the grounds that Reagan was going to get us all nuked. Is the statement factual? | According to the 1991 book Horrendous Death and Health: Toward Action : Brown University students took significant action in 1984, before the Cold War thawing. The students voted to have the campus health center stock cyanide pills so they could easily commit suicide in the event of a nuclear war and according to a Brown University webpage : On October 12, 1984, a queue of students waited for over an hour in a line snaking from the winding staircase of Sayles Hall, out to the foyer with pictures of former presidents, and onto the main green, despite a broken voting machine and snappy cold weather. Over 1900 students showed up to vote on a referendum asking Health Services to offer cyanide pills in the event of nuclear war, which was a larger turnout than any other vote in recent history at Brown. With weeks of priming in the news, in posters and demonstrations on campus, and a story on CBS, Brown students were ready to vote on the controversial decision. Arguments flared between cold, testy students waiting on line, and posters put up late Tuesday night likening the referendum to the Jim Jones' mass cult suicide were hastily ripped down by supporters of the SST. 57% of the student body who voted said that they were willing to see Health Services offer cyanide pills, and the world gasped in response. The vote seemed to be split along gender and political lines with 81% of females and only 53% males supporting the referendum. 80% of Mondale supporters voted for the referendum and nearly all Reagan supporters voted against. It was a shocking outcome, and the campus did not seem ready for what was meant by the result. See also this 1984 UPI article . Also, according to the 29 November 1984 article Cyanide Pill
Push May Harm Freeze Movement in Fiat Lux: Attempts by students at Brown University and more recently at the University of Colorado to stock cyanide pills for use after a nuclear war may be doing the fading campus freeze movement more harm than good, some activists warn. Last week—in the largest student vote turnout in six years— Brown students voted 1,044 to 687 in favor of a measure asking college officials to stockpile suicide pills for optional student use exclusively in the event of a nuclear war. At the same time, Colorado student leaders voted to hold a similar referendum on that campus in late October. However, the referendum was rejected at Univ. Colorado: Students at the University of Colorado voted Thursday against having the university look into the possibility of stockpiling cyanide capsules for use in the event of a nuclear war. About 20 percent of the 20,000 students took part, said John Guldaman, chief assistant election commissioner for the university's student government, with 2,332 opposing the idea and 1,689 favoring it . There was also a weaker effort by students as University of Michigan . | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43193",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/6507/"
]
} |
43,234 | On some YouTube videos, particularly highly downvoted ones, I often see comments asserting that their dislikes on the video are being deleted, either by YouTube or the channel itself. From the Gillette "We Believe" ad : Fake dislike count: 761k of dislikes.. Real (but censored) dislikes count: 2.6M of dislikes.. Fake likes, and removing dislikes. I will Never buy Gillette again, i hope they go out of business. I disliked the video. But, it is automatically getting undisliked. YouTube is being dishonest. Without YouTube's cloak of censorship, this video would have about 3 million dislikes. Anyone else noticing that the downvotes are diminishing? As I write, the downvotes are 138,153—yet when I first saw this video a few minutes ago, they were at +140,000 downvotes. Is Susan Wojcicki massaging the numbers at Gillette's urging? Inquiring minds want to know. A post from the Google Product Forums : What can be done to stop YouTube's moderators from deleting another 3 MILLION dislikes and another 3 MILLION comments they don't agree with for political reasons from this video? Reddit: YouTube removing dislikes from rewind : Don’t be dumb... youtube caches dislikes so that there main servers don’t get pounded with millions of people doing this. Dislike once and wait maybe a hour and check later, it will be there. I just disliked, and it was at the same number they’re definitely deleting shit Reddit: Blizzard somehow just deleted 100k dislikes from their Diablo announcement video Bottom line: when there's a lot of automated activity, Google comes in every now and then and scrubs the data of anything that looks suspect. Not shockingly (given that 4chan has been heavily involved in the uproar) there are a lot of bots involved in this process. People are saying maybe they cleared bots but why didn't the likes go down either, at least by SOME amount. So my questions are: Is it true that the number of dislikes on a video can and does decrease en masse over time? (It seems to be true.) What might be the cause of this? Can a channel delete dislikes? Does YouTube have an automated algorithm that deletes dislikes that seem to be from bots? Does YouTube remove dislikes if you haven't watched 80% of the video? (Obviously, it's possible that users might decide to all undo their downvotes later, but that seems implausible.) | Yes, they do. They will also delete likes. However, the comments quoted and the general complaints on that video about dislikes going away are based on the claim that Gillette is either paying YouTube to delete dislikes, or that Gillette is doing it, itself. One reason why YouTube deletes some likes and dislikes is because people often use likes, dislikes, followers, etc on social media to boost their own agendas or careers, so faking or manipulating popularity or unpopularity is pretty common. To this end, there are business set up with individuals manning banks of devices so a person can deliver hundreds of "clicks" for a paying customer, low tech, or can set up automated programs/bots to simulate activity from different users, for the same result. To give you a general definition of clicks farms, they can be defined as: An undercover operation in which individuals fraudulently interact with a website to artificially boost the status of a client’s website, product or service. This basically means that somewhere in the world there are people that work behind closed doors fraudulently promoting other peoples products and services for a fee. Since the definition is fairly broad, this means that the fraudulent activity can take place on almost any platform although the most popular ones are Facebook and Instagram. It doesn’t matter if the group is selling Facebook likes of Twitter followers, they’re all classed as click farms. PPC Protect: What is a click farm It is in the interest of social media platforms to identify this kind of fraudulent manipulation to maintain their own integrity. So in this case, where people who don't like Gillette's ads are seeing nefarious manipulation by either Gillette, or YouTube as a paid proxy for Gillette, really it's the opposite - they are rooting out and screening nefarious and fraudulent activity that they identify. As noted in another answer - You may see like/dislike counts change as some may be marked invalid and periodically removed from the counts. Learn more about our Likes Policy. YouTube: Likes and Dislikes report Clicking on the "likes policies" hyperlink takes you to - Artificial Traffic Spam Anything that artificially increases the number of views, likes, comments, or other metric either through the use of automatic systems or by serving up videos to unsuspecting viewers, is against our terms. Additionally, content that solely exists to incentivize viewers for engagement (views, likes, comments, etc) is prohibited. YouTube:Spam, deceptive practices and scams policies | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43234",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/21460/"
]
} |
43,250 | In the movies The Big Short (2015) and Capitalism, a love story (2009), it is claimed that only a single banker, Kareem Serageldin , went to prison for the Financial crisis of 2007–2008 , for which many blame the practices of bankers. Big Short quote : Banks took the money the American people gave them, and used it to pay themselves huge bonuses, and lobby the Congress to kill big reform. And then they blamed immigrants and poor people, and this time even teachers! And when all was said and done, only one single banker went to jail this poor schmuck! Was this true at the time of the films? | Only one Wall Street banker (a trader) went to jail. Other people, who could be considered bankers, were also jailed. No Wall Street CEOs were jailed. Financial Times, August 9, 2017 : In the US prosecutors have won convictions of 324 mortgage lenders, loan officers, real estate brokers, developers and others who were at the front end of a chain of events that contributed to the crisis, according to Sigtarp, the federal agency overseeing government bailout funds. The most senior executive convicted was Lee Farkas, the chairman of Taylor Bean & Whitaker, a Florida mortgage lender that was at the front end of the chain. Taylor Bean’s collapse caused the failure of Colonial Bank, at the time one of the biggest in US history. On Wall Street, and not included in Sigtarp’s count of credit crisis-related cases, one trader, Kareem Serageldin of Credit Suisse, went to prison after pleading guilty to inflating his portfolio of asset-backed securities. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43250",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/14975/"
]
} |
43,339 | Jennifer Rubin writes in the Washington Post that: [the US President's] declaration of an emergency can be overridden by a simple majority of both houses Is it true that a presidential declaration of emergency in the US can be overridden by simple majorities of both houses, i.e. the US House of Representatives and the US Senate? | Yes and/or no
From US Code Chapter 34: National Emergencies §1622. National emergencies (a) Termination methods Any national emergency declared by the President in accordance with this subchapter shall terminate if— (1) there is enacted into law a joint resolution terminating the emergency; or (2) the President issues a proclamation terminating the emergency. However, since it calls for a joint resolution that means it would be subject to a presidential veto. This could be overridden only through a two-thirds majority vote in both houses. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43339",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/47930/"
]
} |
43,364 | From Richard Dawkins on Feb 1, 2019 How could I have failed to predict it? My tweet of the beautiful newt embryology film is already triggering the abortion nuts. Did you know, at least 30% of human embryos are spontaneously aborted? Does that make God the world’s leading baby killer? | Trivially true, yes. It's more commonly called Miscarriage : Among women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is roughly 10% to 20%, while rates among all fertilisation is around 30% to 50%. If one includes failure of a blastocyst to implant in the uterine lining, the total number of "abortions" can be as high as 60% : A recent re-analysis of hCG study data concluded that approximately 40-60% of embryos may be lost between fertilisation and birth, although this will vary substantially between individual women. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43364",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/3835/"
]
} |
43,410 | The President of the USA, Donald Trump, told during his "State of the Union address" speech on 5th February 2019, that [...] wages in America are rising at the fastest pace in decades Source: at about 46 minutes on this video from YouTube . Note that this other Q&A (from 2016) might be relevant: Are wages stagnant over the past 40 years in the USA? Can this statement be considered true, and with what context (as affirmations derived from statistics are often oversimplified)? | No. As vague as the claim is, there does not appear to be any angle to take in which it is true. Looking at the decades: Wages in the United States increased 4.20 percent in November of 2018 over the same month in the previous year. Wage Growth in the United States averaged 6.21 percent from 1960 until 2018, reaching an all time high of 13.78 percent in January of 1979 and a record low of -5.88 percent in March of 2009. United States Wages and Salaries Growth Copyright ©2019 TRADING ECONOMICS In the United States, wage growth refers to the yearly change in wages and salaries disbursements from government, manufacturing and service industries. This page provides the latest reported value for - United States Wages and Salaries Growth - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news. United States Wages and Salaries Growth - actual data, historical chart and calendar of releases - was last updated on February of 2019. Note that the above is addressing the "rising fastest pace" "in decades". If you really want to give some credit to a somewhat rosy looking statistic, perhaps Trump had some absolute numbers like these in mind: United States Average Hourly Wages in Manufacturing –– Wages in Manufacturing in the United States decreased to 21.86 USD/Hour in January from 21.91 USD/Hour in December of 2018. Wages in Manufacturing in the United States averaged 9.33 USD/Hour from 1950 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 21.91 USD/Hour in December of 2018 and a record low of 1.27 USD/Hour in February of 1950. But that is, of course, quite different. Looking at the exact claim, we see it is not right either way. U. S. workers see fastest wage growth in a decade, but inflation takes a toll Washington Post, Heather Long, October 31, 2018. U.S. workers are seeing the largest nominal wage increase in a decade, the Labor Department reported Wednesday, as companies compete harder for employees than they did in recent years. Wages rose 2.9 percent from September 2017 to September 2018, according to the Labor Department’s Employment Cost Index for civilian workers, a widely watched measure of pay that does not take inflation into account. That is the biggest increase — not adjusted for inflation — since the year that ended in September 2008. Prices have risen significantly in the past year, especially for gas and rent. Adjusted for inflation, workers’ wages grew 0.6 percent over the year, making the increase the largest since 2016, according to the Labor Department. Sluggish pay growth has been one of the biggest problems in this recovery, but employers are finally having to hike wages at a more normal level typically seen during good economic times. Unemployment is at a 49-year low and there are more job openings than unemployed Americans, which forces companies to fight for available workers. “Wages are grinding higher as the labor market continues to tighten,” said Justin Weidner, an economist at Deutsche Bank. “Wage growth is likely to be over 3 percent again soon.” On Friday, the Labor Department will release the other most-watched wage metric: average hourly earnings. Many economists expect that will be above 3 percent for the first time since April 2009.
[…] Wage growth has been steadily rising in the past year, according to the Employment Cost Index. From September 2016 to September 2017, wages and salaries rose 2.5 percent, the Labor Department said. Some have argued that companies were holding off on increasing wages because they were having to put more money toward benefits, but the Employment Cost Index also tracks benefits costs, and those have not risen as much as wages. Benefits grew 2.6 percent in the year ending September 2018 vs. 2.4 percent in the prior year. President Trump has taken credit for the strong economy and frequently likes to tout low unemployment and solid job growth when he is on the campaign trail ahead of the midterm elections. Economists say his policies deserve some credit for triggering faster growth, but unemployment has been falling steadily for eight years and wages have been inching higher. “It’s not about the tax cuts. This is about the gradual tightening in the labor market finally forcing employers to pay more,” said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. “There’s no question the trend is rising, but we are not exploding. We are still in a phase of gradual, incremental creep.” Trump campaigned heavily on bringing back blue-collar jobs. While manufacturing and other blue-collar professions are seeing some of the fastest job growth since the mid-1980s, pay is not rising. Most of the wage growth in the Employment Cost Index is coming from service-sector jobs. Pay in the “goods-producing sector” has actually slowed in the past year, notes Michael Pearce, senior U.S. economist at Capital Economics. […] “Putting food on the table is a constant struggle. I was going to school to be a dental assistant, but I was in a car crash, resulting in nerve damage to my hand,” said Morales, who is 28. “I do the best I can with what I have. Costs keep going up, but my wages haven’t kept pace.” Business Insider: Here's why wages in America have been going nowhere, 2018 Pew research Center: For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades, 2018. Forbes: Real Wage Growth Is Actually Falling, 2018 Nominal Wage Tracker –– Slow wage growth is a key sign of how far the U.S. economy remains from a full recovery. Economic Policy Institute, Feb 1, 2019 On some fronts, the economy is steadily healing from the Great Recession. The unemployment rate is down, and the pace of monthly job growth is reversing some of the damage inflicted by the downturn. But the economy remains far from fully recovered. A crucial measure of how far from full recovery the economy remains is the growth of nominal wages (wages unadjusted for inflation). Nominal wage growth since the recovery officially began in mid-2009 has been low and flat. This isn’t surprising–the weak labor market of the last seven years has put enormous downward pressure on wages. Employers don’t have to offer big wage increases to get and keep the workers they need. And this remains true even as a jobs recovery has consistently forged ahead in recent years. Nominal wage growth has been far below target in the recovery
Year-over-year change in private-sector nominal average hourly earnings, 2007–2019 Summary There was a single small bump in wages, well below policy targets, over almost one decade, for a subset of "wages". As the starting point for this statistic was chosen to coincide with the start of the ongoing banking and financial crisis, this is misleading, on top of being blatantly false for the plural of 'decades'. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43410",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/41445/"
]
} |
43,456 | The back cover of historian and scholar Theodore W. Allen's The Invention of the White Race, Volume 1: Racial Oppression and Social Control quotes the late Mr. Allen When the first Africans arrived in Virginia in 1619, there were no
'white' people there; nor, according to the colonial records, would
there be for another sixty years. The primary source in an interview "The Invention of the White Race" by Theodore W. Allen Part 1.mov (see also "The Invention of the White Race" by Theodore W. Allen Part 2.mov for part 2 of the interview) clarifies precisely what they mean by the non-existence of "white" people in 1619 continuing for the following 60 years up to Bacon's Rebellion in 1676-1677 I wanted to stress that … regarding the white race is not a
anthropological phenomenon but it is a social phenomenon, a
historical phenomenon. And I wanted to indicate further that it did not just happen, but it
was deliberately formed. And that's why I use the term invention… In Volume I is Invention of the White Race: Racial oppression and
Social Control in which I give a definition of racial oppression
independent of phenotype and took the case of the Irish under the
English occupation in the 13th century and then later in the 17th and
18th century, particularly the 18th century, under the penal laws to
illustrate a case of racial oppression which was not connected with
phenotype because between the Irish and the English there was no
phenotypic differences or appearances… Bacon's Rebellion started out as an anti-Indian war … became a
revolt by of bond-laborers European-American and and African-American
and poor farmers who had no land, had been formerly bond-laborers,
they have but still didn't have any good land, and they joined
together in this rebellion against the colony elites demanding land
distribution and so on… and the thing that makes it historically
significant is that African Americans and European American
bond-laborers joined together in this rebellion en masse, large
number, together, and fighting against oppression and for freedom, and
for distributing of land. And that is historically significant
because not only has it not been done again in 400 years, nearly 400
years, but it is significant because it shows that there was no white
race at that time the white race has to be monolithic or it is
nothing. If the white race, if the European Americans, who are the the
ones who became white split on this issue of equal rights or joining
together with African Americans, then that's the end of the white
race. And so I say this indicates, that's one indication, the most
dramatic indication that the white race did not then exist. Is the notable quote by Theodore W. Allen correct? | Notice: This answer addresses revision 3 of the question. It seems quite nonsensical, as there were 'white' people in Virginia at the time. The European settlers from England would count as 'white' today? That is ' white ' in the racist sense of people of light skin tone (which arguably is not white (rgb(255, 255, 255)) but rosy/pinky/pale, whatever you'd like to name the actual colours ((255,224,189), (255,205,148), (234,192,134), (255,173,96)). So the account Allen gives is not about people's skin colour, but about the construction of " whiteness " as a racial and political category, and ultimately self-identification and attribution. The basis for the claim in the quote on the back cover of the book by Allen is: The parallels to be noted here are the more forceful, perhaps, because they originate in contemporary aspects of British colonialism. 76 At the threshold of the eighteenth century, it was Virginia that led the way among Anglo-American continental colonies in codifying the concept that, “race, not class … [is] the great distinction in society.” 77 Footnote: 76: The first use in a Virginia statute of the term “white” to designate European-Americans as a social category occurred in 1691 (see 3 Hening 87 ). The Irish Penal Laws were inaugurated with two acts passed by the Irish Parliament in 1695 (7 Will III c. 4 and c. 5). Footnote 77: Lyon G. Tyler, reviewing Philip Alexander Bruce, Social Life of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century, in William and Mary Quarterly, series 1, 16(1907–8): 145–7. Other book reviews, earlier and later, made the same point almost verbatim (William and Mary Quarterly, series 1, 6[1897–98:202–3]; 25[1916–17]:145–6). The whole claim is explained later as: Readers of the first edition of The Invention of the White Race were startled by Allen’s bold assertion on the back cover: “When the first Africans arrived in Virginia in 1619, there were no ‘white’ people there; nor, according to the colonial records, would there be for another sixty years.” That statement, based on twenty-plus years of research in Virginia’s colonial records, reflected the fact that Allen found “no instance of the official use of the word ‘white’ as a token of social status” prior to its appearance in a Virginia law passed in 1691. As he later explained, “Others living in the colony at that time were English; they had been English when they left England, and naturally they and their Virginia-born children were English, they were not ‘white.’ White identity had to be carefully taught, and it would be only after the passage of some six crucial decades” that the word “would appear as a synonym for European-American.”
Allen was not merely speaking of word usage, however. His probing research led him to conclude – based on the commonality of experience and demonstrated solidarity between African-American and European-American laboring people; the lack of a substantial intermediate buffer social-control stratum; and the indeterminate status of African-Americans – that the “white race” was not, and could not have been, functioning in early Virginia. It is in the context of such findings that he offers his major thesis – the “white race” was invented as a ruling-class social-control formation in response to labor solidarity as manifested in the later, civil-war stages of Bacon’s Rebellion (1676–77). To this he adds two important corollaries: 1) the ruling elite, in its own class interest, deliberately instituted a system of racial privileges to define and maintain the “white race”; and 2) the consequences were not only ruinous to the interests of African-Americans, they were also “disastrous” for European-American workers, whose class interests differed fundamentally from those of the ruling elite. In developing these theses Allen challenges the two main ideological props of white supremacy – the notion that “racism” is innate, and it is therefore useless to struggle against it, and the argument that European-American workers benefit from “white race” privileges and that it is in their interest not to oppose them and not to oppose white supremacy. His challenge to these convictions is both historical and theoretical. Allen offers the meticulous use of sources, a probing analysis of “ ’Racial Oppression and Social Control” (the subtitle of this volume), and an important comparative study that includes analogies, parallels, and contrasts between the Anglo-American plantation colonies, Ireland, and the Anglo-Caribbean colonies. He chooses these examples, all subjected to domination by ruling Anglo elites, in order to show that racial oppression is “not dependent upon differences of ‘phenotype’ ” (skin color, etc.) and that social-control factors impact how racial oppression begins, is maintained, and can be transformed.
The Invention of the White Race is Allen’s magnum opus – he worked on it for over twenty years. Its second volume, subtitled The Origin of Racial Oppression in Anglo-America, rigorously details the invention of the “white race” and the development of racial slavery, a particular form of racial oppression, in late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century Virginia. He claimed, with justification, that the second volume “contains the best of me.” Jeffrey B. Perry (2012) : "Introduction to the Second Edition" of Theodore W. Allen : "The Invention of the White Race, Volume 1: Racial Oppression and Social Control", Verso: London, New York, 2 2012. A review of the first edition of this book has not the slightest issue with the provocative construction of "no whites in Virginia": Allen states his thesis plainly: "racial oppression" is "sociogenic" rather than "phylogenie" (p. 1). It is not rooted in physical dissimilarity but is a concocted method of social control. Most students of racism will certainly agree that "race" is as much social as morphological. But for Allen this conclusion "contains the root of a general theory of United States history, more consistent than others that have been advanced" (p. I). In short, this is an exercise in metahistory, with race relations only an example. One's assessment of Allen's work, accordingly, depends on one's view of metahistory. My own experience with metahistories is that they are prone to defensiveness, false dichotomies, and the tendency to overlook contradictions in evidence. Perhaps they do so because, as "grand theory," so much rides on them. Allen certainly oversimplifies the historiographical debate on the origins of racial slavery in English North America, turning it into a dialectic. On the one hand, there is the "Jordan-Degler psycho- cultural analysis" (p. 15)-never mind that Winthrop Jordan and Carl Degler are not exactly peas in a pod-and on the other hand the "opposition" (among whom Allen numbers himself). Allegedly, historical scholarship offers a clear-cut debate with historians seated on opposing "sides of the aisle" (p. 20). Because everyone apparently must be on one side or the other, Allen forces Edmund Morgan (who offers a decidedly different interpretation of the origin of Anglo-American racial slavery from either Jordan or Degler) into the "Jordan-Degler" camp, evidently because Morgan had the temerity to propose that nonslaveholding, proletarian white colonists could have derived ego satisfactions from the oppression of the black race.
Allen's decision to jump back and forth across the Atlantic seems based on the assumption that if there is evidence of "race" being employed in a "system of oppression" (p. 28) that victimized both white Irish and black Africans, then it proves that racism was not connected with phenotype but was an artificial social control mechanism. I am not sure that this needs to be proved and am even less sure that the case of Ireland proves it. Doubtless the English used Ireland to hone their skills for subjugating and administering foreign peoples and they used "race" very loosely in their description of the "wild Irish." But I do not think that Allen will satisfy many by claiming that it makes no difference that the Irish were phenotypically like the English and that Africans or African Americans were not or that the English system of social control took advantage of the religious and cultural attributes of the Irish whereas it took advantage of race in North America. The evidence just will not stand up to close scrutiny. Allen himself reports on the liberating consequences of "becoming" Protestant in subjugated Ireland and even on the incentives created for Catholics to do so. Few African Americans could "become" white, and they certainly were not encouraged to "pass." Likewise, Allen treats the English rapprochement with the Irish Catholic bourgeoisie in the early nineteenth century as a refinement of social control. Can one imagine a similar white alignment with a black "middle class" many places in the antebellum South? In the end, Allen waffles, resorting to calling English domination in Ireland "religio-racial oppression" (p. 97). Allen proposes that there was an "Irish mirror" (p. 159) that offers a clearer view of American race relations. But when Allen turns from Ireland to the antebellum United States, his treatment is so superficial that it is difficult to make out an image at all. To attribute the attraction of the immigrant Irish to the Democratic Party wholly to Jacksonian readiness to coopt them by awarding the privileges of the white race is to overlook both the travails of Whiggery and the role of nativism. Returning, in the end, to the same dichotomous treatment of historians with which he began, Allen requires all scholars to agree either that the northern white working class had no rational economic reason to feel anxious about slavery's end (hence their racism was manipulated) or that white workers legitimately feared "negro strikebreakers" (p. 192), an interpretation that no one has seriously advanced in forty years (see Allen's own footnotes). Metahistory is always problematic. Perhaps the jury can remain out on this exercise in metahistory until the second volume is in. Review of Theodore W. Allen: 'The Invention of the White Race. Volume 1, Racial Oppression and Social Control.' –
by Dale T. Knobel in The American Historical Review, Volume 101, Issue 1, 1 February 1996, Pages 150–151 , DOI This view of invented racial categories, including the surprisingly late introduction of the term "white", seems to be a view of history that gained a wide acceptance: – Slavery and the Law in Virginia – Vanessa Williamson: "When white supremacy came to Virginia", August 15, 2017 By the 1700s, the laws and customs of Virginia had begun to distinguish black people from white people, making it impossible for most Virginians of African descent to do what Johnson and Key had done. FacingHistory: Inventing Black and White Prof. French: "Race, Gender, and Citizenship:
The Making of a
'White Man’s Country'", Virginia.edu ( PPT ) On Law Library of Congress: "Slavery and Indentured Servants" Miscegenation laws, forbidding marriage between races, were prevalent in the South and the West. Because English masters had had little regard for indentured servants of non-Anglo ethnic groups, they allowed and sometimes encouraged commingling of their servants. Being seen in public or bringing legitimacy to these relations, however, was not lawful. This is evinced by a court decision from 1630, the first court decision in which a Negro woman and a white man figured prominently. Re Davis (1630) concerned sexual relations between them, the decision stating, “Hugh Davis to be soundly whipt … for abusing himself to the dishonor of God and shame of Christianity by defiling his body in lying with a Negro, which fault he is to actk. next sabbath day.” footnote40 Virginia passed its first miscegenation law in 1691 as part of “ An act for suppressing outlying Slaves. ” And for prevention of that abominable mixture and spurious issue which hereafter may encrease in this dominion, as well by negroes, mulattoes, and Indians intermarrying with English, or other white women, as by their unlawfull accompanying with one another, Be it enacted by the authoritie aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, that for the time to come, whatsoever English or other white man or woman being free shall intermarry with a negroe, mulatto, or Indian man or woman bond or free shall within three months after such marriage be banished and removed from this dominion forever. . . . (* Act XVI, Laws of Virginia, April 1691 (Hening's Statutes at Large, 3: 87). This section of the law with its amendments remained in force until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)) If the goal is just looking at the laws, then " The statutes at large; being a collection of all the laws of Virginia, from the first session of the legislature, in the year 1619. Published pursuant to an act of the General assembly of Virginia, passed on the fifth day of February one thousand eight hundred and eight " mentions the term white as early as "The Articles of Confederation" (1778, p43: "white inhabitants"). 1640 to 1699 1640 The Virginia government at Jamestown passes statutes and codes that differentiate between white indentured servants and blacks in permanent servitude. By the 1680s, permanent servitude has become even more identified with race. The first Virginia colonists did not even think of themselves as "white" or use that word to describe themselves. They saw themselves as Christians or Englishmen, or in terms of their social class. They were nobility, gentry, artisans, or servants. ( PBS: From Indentured Servitude to Racial Slavery ) Compare this with the index to Hening Vol 1 "The Statutes at Large: Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619" The index lists "Lifting a hand against a white man " to be on page 481. But on that page we actually read: "An Act for preventing Negro Insurrections" And it is further enacted by the authority aforesaid that if any negroe or other slave shall presume to lift up his hand in opposition against any christian, shall for every such offence, upon due proofe made thereof by the oath of the party before a magistrate, have and receive thirty lashes on his bare back well laid on. (Also here, but without the 'translation-service offered by the index: Act X, June 1680, 2 Hening 481 .) This anachronistic re-translation is illustrated nicely in this compilation: Virtual Jamestown – The Practise of Slavery – Selected Virginia Records relating to Slavery . From 1640 onwards we see a host of legislative acts inventing a distinction between 'blacks' and 'whites', yet in that collection the term is first used in actual documents from 1705. Response to comments: I am uncomfortable to give a precise date for "first usage of the term 'white' for group identification in official Virginia documents" plus with 'white' being used in the present sense of meaning that differs from Allen. Seems to me that for 1619 Allen is completely right within his definitions, and if Hening is indeed 'complete' than also for the later date. Take note that this quote appears on the jacket of the book. To increase sales this is a pointy polemic, likely coined by an editor and not by Allen himself (although the later editor Berry attributes the polemic to Allen himself!). The provocative exact quote from the jacket does not appear in the book itself. From two deleted comments of mine, a little historical context as to whether 'white people' were in Virginia in 1619: The content of meaning for 'white people' had shifted quite strongly. But it is a term derived not only from skin tones (or wholly different attributes like religion) since at least antiquity. James H. Dee: "Black Odysseus, White Caesar: When Did 'White People' Become 'White'?" (2003) which sums it up nicely: eg Pliny describing Germans as candida atque glaciali cute (N.H. 2.189). Of course such a colour attribution is completely different from now or when and how it came into use in Virginia. Compare eg the Middle English epic 'The King of Tars' (ed. Judith Perryman (Heidelberg: Winter 1980), 98) : A 'black' Muslim Sultan becomes 'white' (skinned!) upon conversion to Christianity. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43456",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/46230/"
]
} |
43,466 | On February 13 2019, NASA announced that Opportunity - a Mars rover launched in 2003 with an intended longevity of three months - was likely to be dead . In the wake of this event, and the outpouring of emotion it triggered, I've seen the following claim widely disseminated on social media: Source: Facebook page of author Morgan S Hazelwood Source of similar claims: ABC7News India Today This blog article : Last June as the dust storm descended upon Opportunity, the rover’s last message essentially said “my battery is low, and it’s getting very dark.” This echoes the tweet from Jacob Margolis quoted in the 7ABC News and India today articles: The last message they received was basically, “My battery is low and it’s getting dark.” Is Opportunity actually capable of such advanced communication skills? Is this someone simply trying to anthropomorphise Opportunity's last contact with the Earth? | From a NASA blog post made the day after contact was lost: The dust storm that is affecting Opportunity has greatly intensified. The atmospheric opacity (tau) over the rover has increased to a record 10.8 on Sol 5111 (June 10, 2018). Power levels on the rover have dropped to a record low of ~22 watt hours. As expected, Opportunity has tripped a low-power fault and gone silent. A 72-hour spacecraft emergency was declared on the afternoon of Sol 5111 (June 10, 2018), anticipating the low-power fault. High atmospheric opacity means that the atmosphere is blocking a lot of sunlight, making it dark. Future estimates of atmospheric opacity are far less precise, so we can conclude that the measurement of tau was transmitted from the rover rather than another source. From an interview given later: "We are looking at an incredibly small amount of sunlight – .002 percent of the normal sunlight that we would expect to see," Bill Nelson from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), chief of the Opportunity mission’s engineering team, told Mashable. "If you were there, it would be late twilight. Your human eye would still be able to make out some features, but it would be very dark." The darkness and record low battery are consistent with the claim. The last image sent by opportunity was static and blackness. The filename indicates it was taken at 4:24 PM UTC. Opportunity definitely transmitted the information in the claim on its last day. I do not know if it transmitted anything else in a separate transmission afterwards. It most certainly did not transmit a plain English message ready to be memed, but rather a technical status update that NASA's bloggers interpreted for us, and then was reinterpreted into the meme. As a personal note, if I am on my deathbed and I say something meaningful and wise, and then I follow it up with a mundane comment right before I die, please remember the wise thing as my last words. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43466",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/36560/"
]
} |
43,473 | This recent Tumblr post claims that multiple activists and scientists were murdered or died under extremely suspicious circumstances, including one person being found dead and mutilated in a dumpster, after they studied or criticized the response to the Deepwater Horizon disaster . Prominent detractors, including scientists and journalists went missing or were found dead, in horrific circumstances. One’s body was found in a terrible condition, inside a dumpster, if I recall. [...] They MURDERED scientists and journalists; and left innocent workers on the front lines of their degradation to wither, suffer and/or die. Did any prominent detractors go missing or get discovered dead shortly after the spill? | Overall, this is a mixture of true, false, and unverifiable claims. First things first: I'm going into this highly skeptical, because part of the claim being made is extreme to me. The OP writes, Prominent detractors, including scientists and journalists went missing or were found dead, in horrific circumstances. One’s body was found in a terrible condition, inside a dumpster, if I recall. If not, these scientist and journalists suddenly became BPs biggest supporters, looking like stepford wives on Fox News. I wanted to take pictures of the spill in Louisiana before the disperment. I was a minor at the time, and even still my father made it clear, “they’ll still arrest you and I’ll never see you again.” Arrest me? How? WHY? What’s illegal about photographing a beach? NEVER FORGET it was Obama that declared anyone - journalist or any other civilian who attempted to document the spill, the plight of the cleaners or the environmental degradation - would be detained by the Department of Homeland Security. However, there is surprisingly some truth in here. No verifiable murders; half-hearted corporate coverup The Guardian reports that, far from a conspiracy of silence, there was open dissent inside the EPA, and even gave us some names. The EPA issued a report on Monday, based on a study of how much of the mixture was needed to kill a species of shrimp and small fish, just two of the 15,000 types of marine life in the Gulf. The EPA test did not address medium- or long-term effects, or reports last week that dispersants were discovered in the larvae of blue crab, entering the food chain. Hugh Kaufman, a senior EPA policy analyst, dismissed the tests as little more than a PR stunt. "They are trying to spin this limited piece of information to make it look like dispersants are safe and that the Corexit dispersant is safe." The controversy surrounding EPA's role in the oil spill marks a turning point for the Obama administration, which came to power vowing to repair the frayed relationship between scientists and government under George Bush and promising a new era of transparency. Nine leading scientists have written a public letter calling on BP and the Obama administration to release all scientific data related to the spill, including wildlife death. "Just as the unprecedented use of dispersants has served to sweep millions of gallons of oil under the rug, we're concerned the public may not get to see critical scientific data until BP has long since declared its responsibility over," said Bruce Stein of the National Wildlife Federation. The National Wildlife Federation is one of the largest environmentalist groups in the US. Hugh Kaufman, Bruce Stein, and another prominent critic named Ron Kendall are all still with us on this mortal plane, and as far as I can tell were consistent in their criticism of Corexit after the disaster. It is true that the makers of Corexit did their best to prevent scientific testing of the substance . Furthermore, it is true that the dispersant has proven dangerous -- at least according to a widely cited study: " Toxicity of dispersant Corexit 9500A and crude oil to marine microzooplankton ." Ecotoxicology and environmental safety 106 (2014): 76-85. Our results indicate that Corexit 9500A is highly toxic to microzooplankton, particularly to small ciliates, and that
the combination of dispersant with crude oil significantly increases the toxicity of crude oil to
microzooplankton. The negative impact of crude oil and dispersant on microzooplankton may disrupt
the transfer of energy from lower to higher trophic levels and change the structure and dynamics of
marine planktonic communities. Nobody involved in this 2014 study has been murdered, as far as I can tell. It has suffered the comparably sad fate of being generally overlooked by the news media. In the comments to the OP, it's claimed that you can find evidence for the OP's claims in old episodes of Democracy Now . Antonia Juhasz, author of the 2011 book Black Tide: The Devastating Impact of the Gulf Oil Spill , did indeed go on Democracy Now in 2015 and talked about the long lasting harm done by the dispersant , yet she is still with us to this day. Her book does not seem to record any mysterious deaths associated with the spill, nor does it mention critics of Corexit who became defenders. It does mention, citing an NOAA study, that the dispersant polluted the air and water just as much as crude oil itself. "Suspicious" deaths OP refers to a "body in a dumpster". This is John P. Wheeler III , whose death is certainly mysterious, but it is not clear what his connection is to the spill. He was last seen "wandering" near the DuPont offices... which were also the offices of his employer, Mitre Corporation. This reference seems to come from a list of deaths of people supposedly linked to the spill , but lists of "suspicious" deaths are easy to make up for an event of this magnitude. To me, the weirdest entry on this list is not Wheeler but Ted Stevens, the "internet is a series of tubes" guy. Stevens doesn't seem like a whistleblower type to me. He died in a plane crash in rural Alaska, but not everyone on that plane died. I am in agreement with Kamil's answer that no reporter deaths have been linked to the spill, and there is no good evidence that whistleblowers were killed either. Photography prevented; sick employees silenced; DHS involvement The less extreme claims, that photography was prevented and sick employees were unable to speak to media, are true, according to the New York Times , which for instance found the following: In a separate incident last week, a reporter and photographer from The Daily News of New York were told by a BP contractor they could not access a public beach on Grand Isle, La., one of the areas most heavily affected by the oil spill. The contractor summoned a local sheriff, who then told the reporter, Matthew Lysiak, that news media had to fill out paperwork and then be escorted by a BP official to get access to the beach. BP did not respond to requests for comment about the incident. "For the police to tell me I needed to sign paperwork with BP to go to a public beach?" Mr. Lysiak said. "It's just irrational." In another incident, mentioned in the 2011 book A Sea in Flames: The Deepwater Horizon Oil Blowout , a BP employee answered the phones at an FAA office to deny reporters access to airspace over the cleanup areas. The FAA claimed that the BP employee had wandered into their office. One reporter who was on the scene goes into greater detail . Shortly before I arrived in Louisiana, in early July, Admiral Allen responded to the uproar of protests over the media blockade by going on national television and officially assuring the media that they would have “uninhibited access” to all clean-up areas. In actuality, as I and other members of the media soon discovered, the blockade in the Gulf only tightened. Flyover permits were revoked, and aerial access was tightly restricted. Even accredited media flights were denied permits to fly below 900 feet over clean-up areas. All photography or filming on public beaches was prevented. National Guardsman blocked Anderson Cooper’s CNN team from filming oil-damaged birds at Fort Jackson, Louisiana. Even the New York Times and filmmakers from PBS were refused permission to fly over “Ground Zero.” The blockade was so tight that workers for BP’s so-called “Vessels of Opportunity” program were contractually threatened with immediate job loss if they so much as spoke with anyone in the media. I found that the main bird-cleaning facilities at Fort Jackson were closed to the media except for a couple of days a week. Sick workers were contractually forbidden to speak to journalists. I cannot find any much else about the sick workers, besides anecdotal evidence like that reported in the books above, or this interview offered to RT . A film crew was prevented from filming a medical mobile unit at Venice, Louisiana. Local animal welfare activists began reporting that dead birds and other marine life washing up on beaches were being secretly removed at night by anonymous officials, evidently to hide visible evidence of the impact on wildlife. In the early days of the catastrophe, deeply disturbing stories were told by fishermen who reported finding vast, floating graveyards of dead birds, dolphins, and whales near the Macondo site; these were secretly burned at night. Some argued that this was the reason for the media aerial blackout over the “Ground Zero” site in June. Huge smoke plumes suggested that these vast, graveyard-gyres of dead marine life were being burned in secret out at sea. Later, images of half-burned whales and turtles began appearing on the Internet, exposed by Greenpeace and other organizations. There were eventually media flyovers of the "Ground Zero" site... in planes piloted by the Coast Guard , presumably in areas the Coast Guard wanted to go to. The article discusses this: By the time we got to the Deep Delta, BP and the Coast Guard had arranged carefully choreographed boat and aerial tours for certain accredited media. How carefully choreographed these tours were, became instantly clear when we were taken by boat, accompanied by a local scientist, to an island to look for oil-damaged pelicans. I instantly knew the island was not a pelican rookery, for there were no mangroves, and the feral pig scat I saw on the beach told me that no pelicans would be nesting there. The journalist also claims: The Louisiana ACLU wrote an open letter assuring the media that the Coast Guard ruling was unconstitutional. This is true, and the letter can be found in the Wayback Machine , although there is very little mention of it in the press! Local newspapers carried reports, as did bayou bloggers and alternative Internet media outlets. Then the Coast Guard did another abrupt about-turn, assuring members of the media they could get unfettered access to oil-damaged areas, but only if they contacted the Houma Joint Information Command with certified press credentials. This, too, however, proved extremely difficult. Karin and I managed to get on a Coast Guard media-flight to the Macondo site with six international journalists only by calling the Houma JIC in the middle of the night, eventually managing to talk the bored JIC official into giving us press passes. So on July 18, we flew in the Coast Guard plane out to the Macondo site. Only after the flight, however, when I traced our route on a map later that evening, did I realize how closely choreographed the flight had been. As we flew fifty miles out to sea, the Coast Guard carefully took us over the areas of marsh and ocean that were not excessively oil-soaked. This media coverup has been analyzed in an academic journal . An initial report of censorship on 20 May occurred when a crew from CBS
News attempting to document the spill was threatened with arrest if they did not
turn their boat around. The Coast Guard official reportedly explained, “... this is
BP’s rules, not ours” (Edwards 2010a). Mac McClelland, a journalist for Mother Jones, also was confronted by police
when trying to document the spill. On 22 May 2010, McClelland was refused
access to Elmer’s Island by a Jefferson Parish Sheriff deputy who claims he is
just “doing what they told me to do”. While trying to gain access to the island,
McClelland (2010a) recounts her exchange with BP representative Barbara Martin,
who makes clear that BP and the Sheriff’s office have a “very strong relationship”.
When McClelland (2010a) inquires why she cannot see Elmer’s island, Martin
responds that “... BP’s in charge because ‘it’s BP’s oil’”. One citizen, Drew Wheelan, the conservation coordinator for the American
Birding Association, had been stopped by BP private security while filming the BP
building/Deepwater Horizon command centre in Houma Louisiana from across
the street in a field, on property not owned by BP. He was then approached by a Louisiana Sheriff’s deputy who asked for his identification, stating that “BP didn’t
want people filming.” After being allowed to leave, Wheelan was then pulled
over and questioned by BP Chief of Security as the officer stood by. Once they
did finally let him go, he was followed in two unmarked security vehicles for an
additional 20 miles (McClelland 2010b). The NYT article affirms that the Department of Homeland Security was involved in the coverup. “They said it was the Department of Homeland Security’s response-wide policy not to allow elected officials and media on the same ‘federal asset,’ ” said Bryan Gulley, a spokesman for the senator. “No further elaboration” was given, Mr. Gulley added. I find no evidence that Obama gave a specific, public order about this, or that DHS organized the whole thing. However, this is not to discount the OP's paranoia, as there was DHS participation, and according to the academic article, there does not seem to have been any investigation about who organized the coverup: Within the Coast Guard, however, pressure from above had prohibited the
agency’s release of public information that had not first been reviewed and
approved by the White House and DHS. The restrictions on media access to the
Gulf of Mexico and response operations thus appear to have come directly from
the Obama administration itself. Overall, this is a mixture of true, false, and unverifiable claims. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43473",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/48117/"
]
} |
43,525 | According to their website , Skippy brand peanut butter does not contain trans fat. However, the current label for their chunky peanut butter contains the following ingredient in the listing: Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil (Cottonseed, Soybean and Rapeseed Oil) To Prevent Separation. Soybean oil is a known source of trans fat , which can be a source of atherosclerosis – the clogging of arteries with plaque – which can be a cause of heart attacks. Is their website just blatantly lying about the lack of trans fat? | According to their website, Skippy brand peanut butter does not contain trans fat. Strictly speaking, according to their website, Skippy brand peanut butter contains a negligible amount of trans fat. Per the US FDA , The Nutrition Facts Label can state 0 g of trans fat if the food product contains less than 0.5 g of trans fat per serving. Thus, if a product contains partially hydrogenated oils, then it might contain small amounts of trans fat even if the label says 0 g of trans fat. So they're being sneaky, right? Not really. The amount of trans fat in a serving of peanut butter is far less than the limit of 0.5 grams that needs to be reported as above zero. Only a tiny amount of hydrogenated vegetable oil is added to peanut butter to make it smooth, prevent separation, and drastically increase shelf life, and only a small amount of that small amount is in the form of trans fat. While non-zero, the amount is essentially undetectable. From Sanders, T.H., 2001. Non-detectable levels of trans-fatty acids in peanut butter. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry, 49(5), pp.2349-2351 , The fatty acid composition of 11 brands of peanut butter and paste freshly prepared from roasted peanuts was analyzed with emphasis on isomeric trans-fatty acids. No trans -fatty acids were detected in any of the samples in an analytical system with a detection threshold of 0.01% of the sample weight. Hydrogenated vegetable oils are added to peanut butters at levels of 1--2% to prevent oil separation. Some hydrogenated vegetable oils are known to be sources of trans -fatty acids in the human diet. The addition of these products was not found to result in measurable amounts of trans -fatty acids in the peanut butters analyzed. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43525",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/37360/"
]
} |
43,588 | Lately, Ethan Lindenberger has been getting a lot of attention for defying his mother and getting vaccinated against her wishes. NPR released an article today about how Ethan testified before the senate committee on Health, Education, Labour and Pensions. In said article, Lindenberger uses the following line to back up his belief that misinformation is being spread on social media regarding vaccinations: Organized anti-vax groups that spread misinformation, instill fear into the public for their own gain, selfishly Let me say, that I am a firm believer in vaccinations, and that is not what I am asking about. My question however, is: Is Ethan Lindenberger's claim that organised anti-vaccination groups stand to gain anything factual? The reason I ask, is because I see no commercial industry that would stand to gain, if people stopped purchasing vaccinations. Maybe Primary Care Physicians would though. Paragraph containing the sentence in question: I speak here today to first express this concept, that anti-vaccine
parents and individuals are in no way evil. With that said, I will
state that certain individuals and organizations which spread
misinformation and instill fear into the public for their own gain
selfishly put countless people at risk. If one agrees that vaccines
are safe and substantially benefit the health and safety of the
public, you’d see the anti-vaccine leaders and proponents of
misinformation which knowingly lie to the American people are the real
issue. Using the love, affection, and care of a parent for their
children to push an agenda and create false distress is shameful. The
sources which spread misinformation should be the primary concern of
the American people. YouTube link to the sentence in question . | Obviously the specifics of "what they have to gain" varies from group to group and individual to individual but it mostly boils down to the time honored motive - money . For some examples: Andrew Wakefield Wakefield was driven by a financial motive in undertaking his original fraudulent case series - he was being paid to attack MMR by Richard Barr. He had also filed a patent for a single vaccine against measles - had MMR been removed his vaccine would have been a candidate for replacing the Measles component, so he stood to gain a significant amount of cash were that to happen. Fake "Autism advocacy" groups - e.g. Age of Autism They publish books, shill for donations (AoA have a Amazon Smile page for example) - all income that is predicated on drumming up the anti-vaccination sentiment and blaming vaccines for autism. Alt-med quacks & cranks - e.g. the Geiers, Natural News David and Mark Geier developed their "Lupron Protocol" (where they basically combined Chelation with chemical castration to "cure" autism) - and out of the goodness of their hearts charged a mere $2,000 per shot for it. Then you have organisations such as Mike Adams' "Natural News" - "natural" supplements and the like are pushed alongside anti-vaxx views, and he just so happens to have some to sell... The VaXXed crew - Del Bigtree et al They make their anti-vaxx "documentaries" with donations from the faithful, charge for tickets etc. Anti-Vaccination Doctors - Dr Paul Thomas, "Dr Bob" Sears etc There's not only the fact they are drumming up business for themselves - both in terms of getting the vaccine-hesitant patients on board but also in terms of things like selling "medical exemptions" to work around laws like SB 277. Compensation from pharmaceutical companies / governments - e.g. the US National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program The NVICP pays out substantial sums of money to those who are deemed to have what is called a table injury . It's quicker and easier than a conventional lawsuit and pays big amounts of money - if the AV groups were able to get Autism classed as a table injury then members of those groups claiming vaccines gave their child autism (either through mistaken genuine belief or deception) would be in line for substantial payouts. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43588",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/48300/"
]
} |
43,635 | This month the laser at Magurele, Romania became the most powerful laser in the world , according to various sources. Related: Is the laser built in Măgurele, România, the most powerful in the world? Digi24, a Romanian news and television company mentioned : Laserul Institutului de fizică nucleară de la Măgurele a atins cea mai mare putere din lume, echivalentă cu 10 procente din cea a Soarelui şi încă nu este la capacitatea maximă. Translated: The laser of the Nuclear Physics Institution at Magurele reaches the highest power in the world, equivalent with 10 percent of that of the Sun, and it’s not yet at its highest capacity. Is that true? How did the scientists calculate that the laser is 10% of the power of the Sun? | It's possible they are actually talking about the rate of energy given off by the Sun that reaches the Earth. However, they are not talking about the amount of energy released, but rather the rate of energy released. The "laser at Magurele, Romania" is actually part of the Extreme Light Infrastructure , a pan-European research project, described by Wikipedia as ...a laser facility that aims to host the most intense beamline system worldwide, develop new interdisciplinary research opportunities with light from these lasers and secondary radiation derived from them, and make them available to an international scientific user community. According to the Wikipedia article, on 13 March 2019, the ELI NP Research Centre, which is the facility located in Magurele, released a communication regarding the results of a demonstration test. On March 13, 2019, Magurele held the public communication of the ELI-NP high-power laser system test results, which was also a demonstration test, confirming the achievement of the power of 10 [Petawatts] . A Petawatt is the equivalent of 1,000,000,000,000,000 (15 zeroes), or 10^15 Watts, as the prefix Peta describes. Therefore, a 10 Petawatt laser would be a 10x10^15, or 10^16 Watts. Per this report from Sandia National Laboratories , they calculate the amount of solar power that reaches the earth's surface as 89,300 Terawatts. A Terawatt is the equivalent of 1,000,000,000,000 (12 zeroes) or 10^12 watts. A Petawatt is equal to 1,000 Terawatts, so you can easily convert between the two by dividing the number of Terawatts by 1,000 to get the number of Petawatts. Therefore, the amount of solar power hitting the Earth in Petawatts is 89.3 Petawatts . Dividing the output of the ELI-NP laser test by the energy output of the Sun that reaches the surface of the Earth results in 10 Petawatts / 89.3 Petawatts = 11.198% which is approximately 10%. Note however, that this does not mean that the laser is continuously generating 10% of the sun's energy. Per the Wikipedia article on Watt [The Watt] is defined as a derived unit of 1 joule per second, 1 and is used to quantify the rate of energy transfer. Further down, the page has a section on the distinction between "Watts" and "Watt-hours". The terms power and energy are frequently confused. Power is the rate at which energy is generated or consumed and hence is measured in units (e.g. watts) that represent energy per unit time. For example, when a light bulb with a power rating of 100W is turned on for one hour, the energy used is 100 watt hours (W·h), 0.1 kilowatt hour, or 360 kJ. This same amount of energy would light a 40-watt bulb for 2.5 hours, or a 50-watt bulb for 2 hours. Power stations are rated using units of power, typically megawatts or gigawatts (for example, the Three Gorges Dam is rated at approximately 22 gigawatts). This reflects the maximum power output it can achieve at any point in time. A power station's annual energy output, however, would be recorded using units of energy (not power), typically gigawatt hours. Major energy production or consumption is often expressed as terawatt hours for a given period; often a calendar year or financial year. One terawatt hour of energy is equal to a sustained power delivery of one terawatt for one hour, or approximately 114 megawatts for a period of one year. Typically, these kinds of experimental lasers are not constantly on, and fire for an extremely short period of time. Per the article on the National Ignition Facility , a facility with a similar, albeit less powerful laser NIF aims to create a single 500 terawatt (TW) peak flash of light that reaches the target from numerous directions at the same time, within a few picoseconds . A 10 Petawatt laser fired for a single picosecond would consume 10^16 Watts * (1 / 10^12) seconds = 10,000 Watt-seconds 10,000 Watt-seconds / 3,600 (seconds/hour) = 2.78 Watt-hours Compare this number to the energy consumption of the world which was approximately 22 Terawatt-hours in 2017, and the amount of energy consumed by this laser is completely insignificant, accounting for less than a trillionth of the world's energy consumption. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43635",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/37394/"
]
} |
43,663 | One of the governing parties of Germany - the CDU/CSU - claimed on Twitter that American corporations "bought" demonstrators at the recent demonstrations against article 13 : Wenn amerikanische Konzerne mit massivem Einsatz von Desinformationen und gekauften Demonstranten versuchen, Gesetze zu verhindern, ist unsere Demokratie bedroht source My translation: When American corporations try to prevent laws with massive misinformation and bought demonstrators, our democracy is in danger. The German tabloid "Bild" is more specific: Sourced to the head of the CDU/CSU in the European parliament, Daniel Caspary, they claim that demonstrators got up to 450 Euro for participating in demonstrations from a "so called NGO" and that some of the money came from "American internet companies". This seems like a nonsense conspiracy theory, but given the source, I think it's worth exploring. Is there any evidence that protestors were payed 450 Euro to demonstrate against article 13? | N-TV has a fact check on the issue. Regarding the "so called NGO" and the offer of 450 for demonstrating: Caspary scheint sich mit seinem Vorwurf auf eine Aktion der Digital-NGO Edri zu beziehen, über die die "Bild am Sonntag" heute folgendes schreibt: "Die internationale Bürgerrechtsorganisation Edri spendierte 'Reisestipendien' nach Brüssel und Straßburg, um den Druck auf die Parlamentarier bei der Abstimmung in direkten Gesprächen zu erhöhen. Für die ausgewählten 20 Aktivisten aus ganz Europa, darunter auch aus Deutschland, gab es bis zu 350 Euro Reisekostenerstattung, zwei Gratis-Übernachtungen sowie Workshops, in denen sie für die Gespräche instruiert wurden." Edri werde unter anderem "von Konzernen wie Twitter und Microsoft" finanziert. Diese Reisestipendien gab es wirklich, die Kosten für die zwei Übernachtungen gibt Edri mit jeweils 50 Euro an - macht 450 Euro, wie bei Caspary. Das Geld gab es allerdings nicht "für die Demoteilnahme" und schon gar nicht für "gekaufte Demonstranten", sondern für die "Reisekosten von bis zu 350 Euro", um nach Brüssel zu kommen, wie es auf der Seite der Organisation heißt. Dort sprachen "ungefähr 20 Personen" mit Europaabgeordneten, wie das dänische Edri-Mitglied Jesper Lund auf Twitter auf Anfrage des ARD-Journalisten Dennis Horn erklärte. Summarized, this says that the NGO "Edri" - financed among other by Twitter and Microsoft - reimbursed 20 activists for travel (350 Euro) and lodging (2x 50 Euros) to Brussels (450 Euro total, which matches the 450 Euro in the original claim) to talk with representatives. The money was not for participating in demonstrations in Germany or elsewhere. Now, it could of course be that there were also 450 offered to people to demonstrate in Germany, but I have found no evidence for that; it's fair to assume that Caspary misrepresented the issue. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43663",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/25597/"
]
} |
43,688 | Helix Steel's site claims that the small wires ( twisted steel micro rebar ) they created are a good replacement to a typical rebar concrete reinforcement if not even better. a reinforcement technology that could product provide quantifiably
better resiliency, ductility and elasticity to concrete structures. It's hard to believe that the small wires could replace long continuous rebars. Their product have been around since 2003 and if that's true what they claim how come I still mostly see the typical long reinforcement bars used on the construction sites? Shouldn't this be mostly used everywhere by now? It doesn't seem to be more expensive and also it is less labor demanding. | The question headline seems to be slightly misinterpreting the company's claims Carefully rereading their claims, I realized they do not specify what Twisted Steel Micro Reinforcement (TSMR) reinforced concrete is better than. On a quick read, I just assumed they meant it is better than rebar reinforced concrete, because that is what the pictures imply, but it is never explicitly stated. Helix Steel’s TSMR increases concrete’s strength and resilience and eliminates or reduces traditional reinforcement (rebar and mesh) required by building codes. This sentence implies that traditional rebar reinforcement is still required in some cases; TSMR is not better than just rebar in all cases. Helix's Science Their publications page presents 3 conference papers, two technical reports, and an industry magazine article. I have skimmed through these and found experimental comparisons between plain concrete (not reinforced) and the twisted helix reinforced concrete. I could only find one comparison between rebar reinforced concrete and the helix reinforced concrete, and that related to the explosive test that their pictures show. No quantitative results were presented from that test, just the pictures. It is worth noting that their best evidence is published as conference papers, which typically face a lower standard of peer review than journal articles. This is definitely a better standard of evidence than I see from many marketing teams, but it isn't the highest standard of evidence. It is worth noting that helix's product can be used in things like road pavement, where rebar reinforcement is not an option. It can also be used in combination with traditional rebar reinforcement. Conclusion From their evidence and a careful read of their claims, TSMR reinforced concrete is definitely stronger than plain concrete. If it is combined with traditional rebar, it can be stronger than rebar alone. Helix does not claim that it will ever replace traditional rebar completely. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43688",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/24889/"
]
} |
43,698 | A recent NBC News article, Judge blocks California's ban on high-capacity magazines over 2nd Amendment concerns claims the judge wrote an 86 page decision that included a story that a woman fended-off three armed home intruders using a firearm and a high-capacity magazine. In the third case, the pajama-clad woman with a high-capacity magazine took on three armed intruders, firing at them while simultaneously calling for help on her phone. "She had no place to carry an extra magazine and no way to reload because her left hand held the phone with which she was still trying to call 911," the judge wrote, saying she killed one attacker while two escaped. Did this happen? As far as I'm aware, the judge's decision did not list the woman by name (but I'm struggling to find a full copy of the decision either), which is why I find the story difficult to fact-check. Reasons why I'm skeptical are: Home invasions involving three armed assailants seem pretty rare in America, unless it's gang or mob violence. It seems more common for one financially-desperate person to go on a solo robbery, target unlocked homes, and give-up if the homes prove to be occupied. It seems like ordinary burglars would give-up on a robbery after 6+ shots are fired. I don't see why they would keep persisting at that point unless this were a vendetta. You're better off just looking for a different unoccupied house, and I wonder why they suspected that this house offered some sort of bounty that was valuable enough to brave being shot at by dozens of bullets. The whole layout of the situation feels like it was architected to justify a legitimate use for high-capacity magazines. Supposedly she wouldn't have been able to reload ordinary-capacity magazines because she couldn't put the phone down, but like... she could put the phone down. When you call 911, you're actually allowed to put the phone down for a bit if you need to. It's also kind of hard to accept the justification that an ordinary-capacity magazine would not have been capable of achieving the result "she killed one attacker while two escaped." | This sounds like Chen Fengzhu . In 2016, she awoke to three armed men invading her home, and scared them off after shooting at them, one dying from a gunshot wound in the driveway. The other two escaped, but 18 months later one of them would be arrested and face charges for this. The gun she used was "a pistol" , though I can't identify what type. Other than that, the other details match exactly: Pajamas Phone in left hand, trying to call police. From what she describes in the interview, at the point when she was dual wielding the phone and the gun, she had not yet gotten through to 911. Though Chen owns a restaurant (apparently a seafood market), the incident happened in her residence. She lived there with her employee (and kept a lot of supplies for her restaurant there, as can be seen in multiple shots). According to Shanghiist : "Chen herself told overseas Chinese media that often female Chinese businesswomen are targeted in her area because of their reputation for storing a lot of money at home, rather than at the bank." There is high quality footage of the attack: Video shows woman shooting at burglars during Gwinnett home invasion | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43698",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/48468/"
]
} |
43,704 | A person is suing TGI Friday's for false advertising regarding their bagged "Potato Skins" snacks . Part of the claim is that potato skins are associated with healthy eating, which makes the snack stand out among other bagged, crisp snacks. The interesting claim is that: The Idaho Potato Commission and others inside and outside the industry have associated potato skins with healthy eating since they started appearing on restaurant menus a half-century ago. Does the Idaho Potato Commission associate potato skins with healthy eating? What I'm assuming here is that "potato skins" is referring to the scooped potato halves filled with cheese, bacon, and other things, much like TGI Friday's in-restaurant appetizer. | Doctor Potato says you should be eating the skin of the potato because that’s where most of the nutrients come from. Should I Be Eating The Skin Of The Potato? ... Yes. Eat the skin to capture all the natural nutrition of a russet potato. The potato skin has more nutrients than the interior of the potato. It has lots of fiber, about half of a medium potato’s fiber is from the skin. Baked Idaho® Potato with salsa makes for a low calorie healthy lunch, try it! Doctor Potato is a character featured prominently on the Idaho Potato Commission website. Dr. Potato isn't a real doctor but a team of potato experts ready to answer all your potato questions. Have a question? Dr. Potato will be sure to get your question answered within a week. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43704",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
43,742 | This image has being going around (e.g. Facebook with a message attributed to The Friends of Bushy and Home Parks : Transcript: Please don't kill us with bread! Bread is actually a danger to us ducks and other water birds It causes Angel Wing, which can make our feathers grow too quickly. This strains our muscles and can stop us flying. Our friends, the swans, develop fatal gut and heart disease Bread is bad for our water environment. It rots and pollutes the water. Allows bacteria to grow and encourages rats. It causes algal bloom, which gets into our lungs and kill us birds. If you want to feed us, we like lettuce, peas, and sweetcorn The image claims that bread is bad for ducks and swans, and you should feed them lettuce, peas, and sweetcorn instead. Is there any truth to this, and are there any reliable sources? | I can't comment specifically on ducks, but I will quote the Official Statement on Bread from the Queen's Swan Marker (who has responsibility for swans in the UK): There has been a great deal of press coverage in recent months regarding the ‘Ban the Bread’ campaign which is confusing many members of the public who like to feed swans. Supporters of the campaign claim that bread should not be fed to swans on the grounds that it is bad for them. This is not correct. Swans have been fed bread for many hundreds of years without causing any ill effects. While bread may not be the best dietary option for swans compared to their natural food such as river weed, it has become a very important source of energy for them, supplementing their natural diet and helping them to survive the cold winter months when vegetation is very scarce. There is no good reason not to feed bread to swans, provided it is not mouldy. Most households have surplus bread and children have always enjoyed feeding swans with their parents. The ‘Ban the Bread’ campaign is already having a deleterious impact upon the swan population; I am receiving reports of underweight cygnets and adult birds, and a number of swans from large flocks have begun to wander into roads in search of food. This poses the further risk of swans being hit by vehicles. Malnutrition also increases their vulnerability to fatal diseases like avian-flu which has caused the deaths of many mute swans and other waterfowl in the past. Furthermore, there have been statements made in the media claiming that feeding bread causes angel-wing in swans. Angel-wing is a condition where a cygnet develops a deformed wing. Professor Christopher Perrins, LVO, FRS of the Department of Zoology at Oxford University stated, ‘There is no evidence of a connection between feeding bread and angel-wing; at least some cygnets develop this condition without ever having seen any bread’. I therefore encourage members of the public to continue feeding swans to help improve their chances of survival, especially through the winter. See: http://www.theswansanctuary.org.uk/cause/official-statement-bread-queens-swan-marker/ Which I would consider fairly conclusive in the advice to absolutely avoid bread being incorrect. It seems likely that there are better things to feed the birds than bread (it is easy to buy special bird food, which my wife does), but that is not the same as saying that bread is bad. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43742",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/48565/"
]
} |
43,768 | In an episode of Peppa Pig, one of the characters says that spiders are very very small, and that they can’t hurt you. Broadcasters in Australia have avoided broadcasting the episode involved, because they’re worried that viewers will regard the claim as factually true. Are spiders unable to hurt people? Also, does size have anything to do with whether they can harm you? I’m primarily interested in whether spiders are harmful to humans, not whether they can affect pigs, and I’m interested in whether it’s true in all countries, though if it’s untrue worldwide, I’d like to know if it is at least true in the country Peppa Pig was created in (the UK), as opposed to the deathworld which is Australia. | The answer is that spiders definitely can hurt you. While you may not be likely to be killed, spiders can absolutely hurt you, whether from a large one's bite (whether venomous or not) or from any venomous spider. Australia is probably the best case here, and while they have only had one death from spider bite in 40 years (from a redback bite) this is considered to be mostly because: an effective antivenom for redback spiders was developed in 1956, and one for funnel-web spiders in 1980. from australianmuseum.net.au Also on that page: ...on current evidence the most dangerous spiders in the world are funnel-web spiders (Atrax and Hadronyche species), Redback Spiders and their relations (Latrodectus species), Banana Spiders (Phoneutria species) and Recluse Spiders (Loxosceles species). In Australia, only male Sydney Funnel Web Spiders and Redback Spiders have caused human deaths, but none have occurred since antivenoms were made available in 1981. In the UK (from sciencefocus.com) : three common spiders that are capable of biting you: the cellar spider, the woodlouse spider and the false widow spider. Their bites are painful and have been known to cause swelling for a few hours. In 2014 a 60-year-old woman died after being bitten by a false widow spider. The false widow, cellar, woodlouse and redback spiders are all pretty small, at around 1cm. A funnel-web can be up to about 5cm, so that probably doesn't count as small Anecdotally, my son was bitten by a false widow in the summer of 2018 in Scotland, and after falling very ill and having his entire forearm swell up, with the central bite area becoming necrotic, he required emergency treatment, was in hospital for surgery, and a few days stay in the plastic surgery ward at St. Johns Hospital in Livingston. He still has a rather nasty scar on his arm, but thus far has not developed any strange powers...although he certainly sees a lot more spiders now, so maybe that's heightened alertness, maybe he attracts them... | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43768",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/104/"
]
} |
43,779 | In a Fox News broadcast (timestamp 2:59) , Greg Palkot (London-based senior foreign affairs correspondent for Fox News) said of Julian Assange: "He has cost the UK government and security forces, police here, millions and millions of dollars. They've been guarding that place, waiting for him to come out, to snag him for the past several years..." Did the UK government really spend millions of dollars to keep the Ecuadorian Embassy guarded for several years to prevent Julian Assange from leaving it and escaping? How much did it cost and what was the money spent on? | Yes, back in 2015 a figure of around £11 million was estimated by the Metropolitan Police. This figure represents the total amount of resources allocated to monitoring the embassy for the three years between Assange entering the embassy (June 2012) to April 2015. From The Telegraph in June 2015 : The embassy, behind Harrods in Knightsbridge, is watched by police stationed on the corners of the building, and an officer inside the foyer of the multipurpose red brick residence at all times. The Metropolitan Police refused to discuss how many policemen were deployed to the embassy, but they did confirm the cost. "As with all long term operations, issues around resourcing are subject to regular review in an attempt to minimise costs," a spokesman told The Telegraph. "The estimated full cost to April would be £11.1m. The costs provided are an estimate based on averages, as actual salary and overtime costs will vary daily." The Met said the figure included £6.5m of what they termed "opportunity costs" – police officer pay costs that would be incurred in normal duties – and £2.7m of additional costs such as police overtime. A further £1.1m was put down to "indirect costs" such as administration. Around October 2015 the constant monitoring and police presence was removed due to being "no longer proportionate", so presumably the figure today is not much higher than it was in 2015. A bit of context for these numbers and timelines can be found at this related Politics SE question . | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43779",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
43,789 | The Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) was used to create an image of Messier 87* , a supermassive black hole in the Messier 87 galaxy. This result has been heavily reported in the media leading up to its announcement 2019-04-10. Recent postings on social media have argued over who should receive credit for this work. Some have credited Katie Bouman for the image, which others have contested as overstating her contributions to the overall project. For example: According to data provided publicly by GitHub, Bouman made 2,410 contributions to the over 900,000 lines of code required to create the first-of-its-kind black hole image, or 0.26 per cent. Bouman’s contributions also occurred toward the end of the work on the code.In contrast, contributor Andrew Chael wrote over 850,000 lines of code. While CNN attempted to give Bouman full credit, explaining “That’s where Bouman’s algorithm — along with several others — came in,” they slyly admitted that fellow researchers told CNN “‘(Bouman) was a major part of one of the imaging subteams,'” even after CNN incorrectly wrote on the previous line that she was on one of the “imaging teams,” not subteams. Source: https://bigleaguepolitics.com/woman-who-media-claims-created-black-hole-image-contributed-0-26-of-code/ This analysis seems to disregard the way collaborative scientific research actually works; are the metrics being discussed sufficient to measure this kind of contribution, or the impact someone has on a project of this nature? | The metric does not measure what it is claimed it does, and even if it did it would be meaningless for assessing the role of Dr. Kate Bouman in creating the image. I'll go on to why, but I first want to draw particularly attention to the fact that Dr. Bouman has explicitly rejected the idea that she deserves sole credit: But Dr Bouman, now an assistant professor of computing and mathematical sciences at the California Institute of Technology, insisted the team that helped her deserves equal credit. The effort to capture the image, using telescopes in locations ranging from Antarctica to Chile, involved a team of more than 200 scientists. "No one of us could've done it alone," she told CNN. "It came together because of lots of different people from many different backgrounds." ( source ) The primary reason the metric is meaningless is that Dr. Bouman is credited with developing an algorithm not with typing lines of code, so any metric measuring code production is simply not measuring the thing she is credited with doing. She could have typed not a single character and still designed the algorithm that played a key role. It's like trying to measure the input of an architect by how many bricks they laid in a building. Additionally, the project is broader in scope than simply implementing the algorithm credited to Dr. Bouman. Large amounts of code are involved in simply loading and co-ordinating files, displaying and saving images, and the like. All of which is necessary to the project at large but not specific to the algorithm used. Finally and least importantly, the statistics in GitHub are not even measuring Lines of Code written - as claimed in the source - they are measuring lines changed in submission. Those lines can be code, or a change to a line, or a line copied between branches, even blank lines. In fact, (and, hat tip @Polygnome) the count includes lines which aren't even in the code at all, as there is also data and documentation included. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43789",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/45262/"
]
} |
43,820 | In this video (at 5:09 mark) Zoe Harcombe says the following: The body needs those basal metabolic calories in the form of fat, protein, vitamins, and minerals. And that's all it needs for those. Carbohydrates are of no use to the body whatsoever for the basal metabolic need. Carbohydrates provide energy. Can anyone verify this claim? | No. She talks about basal metabolic rate. And the body uses every source of fuel to fulfil this necessity. This includes carbohydrates. They are used for this and they are even the preferred source of energy for that. Ketosis states are only achieved if supply of carbohydrates are too low to meet these requirements. This looks quite like a simple reversal of language that just needs interpretation: For a large part this seems almost adequate, albeit in oversimplified form of imprecise terms. If you watch the video, it becomes clear that she talks about: Basal metabolic rate Metabolism comprises the processes that the body needs to function. 2 Basal metabolic rate is the amount of energy per unit time that a person needs to keep the body functioning at rest. Some of those processes are breathing, blood circulation, controlling body temperature, cell growth, brain and nerve function, and contraction of muscles. Basal metabolic rate (BMR) affects the rate that a person burns calories and ultimately whether that individual maintains, gains, or loses weight. The basal metabolic rate accounts for about 60 to 75% of the daily calorie expenditure by individuals. Nothing in the body needs sugar — from the diet and strictly speaking — or any other carbohydrate; Although one current recommended dietary carbohydrate intake for adults is 150 g/d, it is interesting to examine how this recommendation was determined at a recent international conference (5) : “The theoretical minimal level of carbohydrate (CHO) intake is zero, but CHO is a universal fuel for all cells, the cheapest source of dietary energy, and also the source of plant fiber. In addition, the complete absence of dietary CHO entails the breakdown of fat to supply energy [glycerol as a gluconeogenic substrate, and ketone bodies as an alternative fuel for the central nervous system (CNS)], resulting in symptomatic ketosis. Data in childhood are unavailable, but ketosis in adults can be prevented by a daily CHO intake of about 50 g. Eric C Westman: "Is dietary carbohydrate essential for human nutrition?" The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 75, Issue 5, May 2002, Pages 951–953, DOI except the brain: The mammalian brain depends upon glucose as its main source of energy, and tight regulation of glucose metabolism is critical for brain physiology. Consistent with its critical role for physiological brain function, disruption of normal glucose metabolism as well as its interdependence with cell death pathways forms the pathophysiological basis for many brain disorders. Sugar for the brain: the role of glucose in physiological and pathological brain function All other organs, liver, muscles etc., might get their energy needs from fat or even protein. How good of an idea that is would be another question. But as the brain needs carbs and accounts for quite a bit of metabolic rate , this specific organ should not be discounted… We find that the brain’s metabolic requirements peak in childhood, when it uses glucose at a rate equivalent to 66% of the body’s resting metabolism and 43% of the body’s daily energy requirement, and that brain glucose demand relates inversely to body growth from infancy to puberty. Our findings support the hypothesis that the unusually high costs of human brain development require a compensatory slowing of childhood body growth. Christopher W. Kuzawa et al.: "Metabolic costs and evolutionary implications of human brain development", Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Sep 9; 111(36): 13010–13015, 2014 Aug 25 . DOI If there is no carbohydrate coming from food, the liver will and has to produce ketones which can sustain brain function or engage in gluconeogenesis . But immediately before the questioned claim we see: The body needs those basal metabolic calories in the form of fat, protein, vitamins, and minerals. And that's all it needs for those. Vitamins and Minerals provide zero calories. What the author seems to mean is that "food contains calories" and that from that food she regards only the fat, protein, vitamins and minerals as essential nutrients; or 'needed for basic metabolism'? Within the framework of a special weight reduction diet, that would then make some sense, albeit the terminology and its usage remain confusing. With this level of linguistic imprecision in scientific terminology, it seems hard to answer "is this correct" with anything else but: "No". Thus, cells that use glucose as their primary energy source are less susceptible to stress and harmful conditions than cells that use other energy sources or that exhibit higher rates of glycolysis. Although our knowledge about the critical role of glucose metabolism in the maintenance of high level brain function has grown considerably in recent years, the various factors that regulate glucose uptake and utilization in the CNS are not well understood. Moreover, the brain must regulate the relative use of glucose, glutamine, and ketone bodies for energy under normal circumstances and especially during development and aging. The brain is the metabolically most active organ and is therefore highly dependent on a continuous supply of its fuel. To meet its very high energy demands, the brain (around 1/40 of the body weight) possesses a relatively high blood flow and glucose consumption equal in amount to about one-fifth of the entire resting requirements of the body. In mammals, the regulation of fuel metabolism is regulated principally to serve the needs of brain and muscle, the major consumers of fuel. The adult mammalian brain relies almost completely on glucose as energy source while ketone bodies (KB) are preferentially directed toward lipid synthesis (Roeder et al., 1982; Yeh, 1984). The KB consist of acetoacetate, 3-hydroxybutyrate, and acetone. In nonruminant mammals, the liver is the only significant site of KB formation through fatty acid β-oxidation. Cultured astrocytes, however, may produce KB at rates similar to those of hepatocytes and like hepatocytes appear to be ketogenic cells (Blazquez et al., 1998; Guzman and Blazquez, 2001). After entering the blood, KB are oxidized in extrahepatic tissues, under particular circumstances also the brain, by mitochondrial enzymes to form acetyl-CoA, the substrate of the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle. Glycolysis not only meets the brain’s constant need for fuel but also provides the substrate for anabolic processes, namely pyruvate which via the TCA cycle and anaplerotic pathways is the source for a variety of amino acids and neurotransmitters such as GABA and glutamate, and for acetyl-CoA which is used for lipid and acetylcholine (ACh) synthesis. Donard Dwyer (Ed): "Glucose Metabolism in the Brain", International Review Of Neurobiology Volume 51, Academic Press: Amsterdam, Boston, 2002 . Simple glucose is often described as the preferred fuel for all cells. That most of them can also use an alternative energy source doesn't make the carbohydrates "useless for basal metabolic rate". The claim seems more like a simplified demonisation of a nutrient a human body usually puts to good use to stay alive; and sometimes even to use a brain for thinking. The video with the claim seems to advertise a low-carb diet and sells it by using a description for a weight-reduction and -control diet that seems to be confusing metabolic pathways of 'calories' from minimal amounts of dual-use essential macronutrients (proteins) with calories from 'pure fuel' macronutrients (carbs). What the claimant apparently wants to express with 'basal metabolic rate' is that the first fraction of ingested proteins are usually used for tissue maintenance and build-up, like muscles; and can be used as energy as well. Whereas carbohydrates are mainly used for immediate energy or storage in glycogen and fat. As the author of the claim is now a somewhat controversial figure, some circumstantial evidence might help to evaluate her statements: Correction to Harcombe Z, Baker JS, Cooper SM, et al. Evidence from randomised controlled trials did not support the introduction of dietary fat guidelines in 1977 and 1983: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Open Heart 2015;2:e000196. doi:10.1136/openhrt-2014-000196 DOI (Included here, as the authors undeclared conflict of interest seems to play no role in two Wikipedia pages: Saturated fat , Fat ) ASA Adjudication on Zoë Harcombe Upheld in part Internet (on own site) 03 December 2014 And a nice collection of other popular claims by the very same author: Healthy eating according to Zoe Harcombe , | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43820",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/48737/"
]
} |
43,833 | After the recent Notre-Dame de Paris fire , there has been a heavily re-posted tweet going around in response to an earlier claim that a golden cross did not melt or deform - due to an act of God. Kaylee Crain: "After all the aftermath and destruction of the Notre Dame fire, the alter and cross remained untouched. Please explain to me how you don’t believe in God after seeing this." Dan Broadbent: "Because the melting point of gold is 1064°C and a wood fire burns at around 600°C" The melting point of gold varies based on purity, and can thus be lower than 1064°C. However; do wooden buildings, such as the Notre Dame Cathedral, burn at temperatures above 600°C? I'm obviously not interested in any debate over whether this was an "Act of God" or other unprovable matters. In terms of personal research, what I have found is that while wood itself will not burn much hotter than 600°C, once it turns to charcoal - it can then reach over 1100°C. However I don't know enough about physics/chemistry or fires, to make a reasonable judgement on how that applies in a real-life fire. | Without acknowledging any of the conditions actually present in the church, wood fires can get much hotter than 600 °C. The maximum temperatures measured within the pile were of the order of 800, 1000, and 1200 °C for piles composed of 1.27, 2.54, and 9.15 cm sticks respectively, although the maximum temperatures for a given size stick appeared, from all data obtained, to be somewhat dependent upon the structure of the pile. The prescribed temperature-time curve of a standard fire exposure test 1 is also shown in figure 4 from which a general agreement may be noted. D Gross: "Experiments on the Burning of Cross Piles of Wood", Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards- C. Engineering and Instrumentation Vol. 66C, No.2, April-June 1962. ( PDF ) A nice pile of wood with good ventilation can get apparently really hot: Fire plume temperature data suggest a maximum turbulent flame temperature in fully developed compartment fires of about 1500 C for stoichiometric and adiabatic conditions. Experimental results for crib and pool fires are presented to support the trends indicated by the approximate analyses. In general, from equations 12 and 13 for stoichiometric conditions, the temperature is given as where T f,ad is the stoichiometric adiabatic flame temperature. Recorded gas temperatures near the ceiling are reported as high as 1350 C [21], and mean temperatures over the peak burning period are 1000 to 1200 C for polyethylene fires [21] and approximately 900 to 1200 C for wood cribs [20]. For turbulent fire plumes, having a radiative loss fraction X r , a similar formula applies to the combustion region. This turbulent flame (centerline) temperature is given as [18] From the best available data [22–24], the turbulent mixing parameter, k T , is found to be approximately 0.5 for c p 1 kJ/kg K. As the fire diameter increases, the radiative fraction falls due to soot blockage [25]. Fig. 4 shows flame temperature data for turbulent plumes as a function of X r . The extrapolated adiabatic temperature is approximately 1500 C. For a realistic adiabatic flame temperature of 2000 C, the actual turbulent mixing factor is approximately 0.75 or a turbulent dilution factor of 1.5. For a large fire in a compartment with large vents, the core maximum flame temperature should approach the turbulent adiabatic flame temperature. James G. Quintiere: "Fire Behavior in Building Compartments", Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, Volume 29, 2002/pp. 181–193. DOI But to be very sticklish, the claim is actually somewhat correct. Why? M. J. Spearpoint And J. G. Quintiere: "Predicting the Burning of Wood Using an Integral Model", Combustion And Flame, 123:308–324 (2000). DOI Or to put it simply: A bonfire can reach temperatures as hot as 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,012 degrees Fahrenheit), which is hot enough to melt some metals. Most types of wood will start combusting at about 300 degrees Celsius. The gases burn and increase the temperature of the wood to about 600 degrees Celsius (1,112 degrees Fahrenheit). When the wood has released all its gases, it leaves charcoal and ashes. Charcoal burns at temperatures exceeding 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,012 degrees Fahrenheit). Gabriella Munoz: "How Hot Is a Bonfire?", Sciencing, April 26, 2018. Wikipedia says This is a rough guide to flame temperatures for various common substances (in 20 °C air at 1 atm. pressure): Wood 1,027 °C (1880.6 °F)
Methanol 1,200 °C (2192 °F)
Charcoal (forced draft) 1,390 °C (2534 °F) and gives for adiabatic flame temperature maximum even: Wood Air 1980°C 3596°F The French authorities and experts seem to have suggested that inside the church, around the altar, theoretically 800 °C might have been reached, with 'improper' firefighting methods, meaning that it stayed cooler in that area. Or that even temperatures of 2000—2500 °C occurred actually in the roof where the main part of fire burned: Contrairement aux pompiers américains, les sapeurs-pompiers français s’attaquent aux incendies par l’intérieur et non de l’extérieur. Cette tactique est plus dangereuse pour les hommes mais plus efficace pour sauver le patrimoine, observe l’expert Serge Delhaye. Si l’on se concentre sur l’extérieur, on prend le risque de repousser les flammes et les gaz chauds, qui peuvent atteindre 800 degrés, vers l’intérieur et accroître les dégâts. » "Six questions sur l’incendie de Notre-Dame de Paris", Le Parisien, Jean-Michel Décugis, Vincent Gautronneau et Jérémie Pham-Lê| 15 avril 2019, 23h40 Selon les premiers éléments de l’enquête, l’incendie aurait démarré dans les combles de la cathédrale. Le feu se serait propagé très vite sous l’effet du vent, dévorant l’une des plus anciennes charpentes de Paris constituée de centaines de poutres de chênes. La toiture de plomb de plusieurs centaines de tonnes qui reposait sur cette « forêt » est partie en fumée. La flèche haute de 93m qui surplombait la croisée du transept s’est effondrée en moins d’une heure. Sous la charpente, « les températures ont pu atteindre 2000 voire 2500°C, une température bien supérieure à la celle de la fusion du plomb », explique Guillaume Legros, enseignant-chercheur à l’Institut ∂’Alembert et ancien doctorant de José Torero, spécialiste mondial des grands incendies. "L’incendie de Notre-Dame de Paris", Sorbonne Université, 19 April 2019. Most sources seem to quote a temperature of 1000 °C for this incidence, but other sources even go up to 1400 °C: Fires peak at 1,400°C, explains professor Guillermo Rein, the head of Imperial College London's fire-studying Hazelab. Nicole Kobie: "The hot, dangerous physics of fighting the Notre Dame fire", Wire, Tuesday 16 April 2019 Interestingly, the place where the cross is located is far away from where most of the flames ravaged, beneath a stone vault that remained largely intact. But nevertheless the wood that did burn on and in the roof was well seasoned, old, and dry. But even fresh wood that would otherwise make for quite a suboptimal fuel burns often hotter than 600 °C: Q. At what temperatures do forest fires burn? An average surface fire on the forest floor might have flames reaching 1 meter in height and can reach temperatures of 800°C (1,472° F) or more. Under extreme conditions a fire can give off 10,000 kilowatts or more per meter of fire front. This would mean flame heights of 50 meters or more and flame temperatures exceeding 1200°C (2,192° F). (Natural History Museum of Utah: "Wildfires: Interesting Facts and F.A.Q." . PDF ) | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43833",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/43739/"
]
} |
43,838 | An opinion article in Time has this subheading: CEO is the profession with the most psychopaths. This may have been added by a headline editor though, because the article body doesn't flesh out the fact that well, besides this (ordered?) list It's not impossible that the book cited may have made that claim too though (I didn't check.) Is there high quality empirical evidence to back up this claim that CEOs have the most (or at least a large number) of psychopaths compared to other occupations? (I do note that Time marked the article as opinion, perhaps to distance itself from the claims therein. Nevertheless, the claim in question is stated as a bare fact therein.) | The table provided is directly copied from page 173 of The Wisdom of Psychopaths . It explains the source is The Great British Psychopath Study , where self-selected people submit their own Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale , and categorise themselves according to a list of a hundred or so occupations. The occupations listed notably do not include "manager" or "CEO", but do include "Chairman/President of company" and "Managing Director". Given the self-selection and the lack of validation of the data (e.g. people might deliberately skew the results with fake data), the results should be treated with some skepticism. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43838",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/29579/"
]
} |
43,871 | From CNN : In some recent years, there have been fewer than 100 cases nationwide. But the [measles] virus has made a comeback in other years, including 2019 -- largely due to anti-vaxers, experts say. The article doesn't include any statements by any "experts" mentioning anti-vaxers. Is the comeback of the measles virus "largely due to anti-vaxers?" Have other sources made a similar attribution? Why don't I believe CNN? Its claim makes sense, right? Well, the Oxford Vaccine Group at the University of Oxford wrote (emphasis added): People who oppose vaccination – the so-called “anti-vaxxers” – are often thought to be the reason for low vaccination rates. The truth is, anti-vaxxers don’t wholly explain low vaccination rates. The influence of the movement is often exaggerated and does not properly explain a complex situation. So, is CNN's claim an exaggeration? Or is it the reality? To clarify (as @redleo95 suggested): The accepted answer has to include data on anti-vaxxers. To clarify (as @Fizz suggested): It is preferred if the accepted answer focuses on the US (and specifically, the 2019 measles outbreak). Who are anti-vaxxers? (suggested by @redleo95 and only partially addressed in comments): Consider 1) "people/groups who possess an anti-vaccine sentiment" and/or 2) "people/groups who possess and actively advocate an anti-vaccine sentiment." | The answer depends a lot on what mechanism you imply and who you consider to be "anti-vaxxers". If you consider anti-vaxxers to be all groups of people who as a group oppose vaccination (e.g. for political, religious or other reasons), then CNN is largely right. If you are looking for a causal link between the anti-vaccination movement and the increasing number of measles cases, it will be hard to prove. Mainly, because no data is collected on why people who get infected did not get vaccinated beforehand. It's also hard to know the number of people who don't get vaccinated because of this movement (people may not get vaccinated for a variety of reasons). However, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) publishes yearly figures on measles cases in the United States. These are the figures from 2010-2019. The CDC also published information to some of the outbreaks. There are three years with exceptionally high numbers of cases: 2014, 2018 and 2019. In 2014 and 2018 the majority of measles cases occurred in a small number of outbreaks in pockets of largely unvaccinated communities. 2014: 383 cases in the unvaccinated Amish Community, 2018: most of cases in the Jewish-orthodox community in NY State, NYC and New Jersey. For 2019, no specific reason has yet been given. One of the newest studies dealing with vaccine hesitancy and measles Papachrisanthou et al. conclude: VPDs are on the rise in the US and worldwide secondary to parental misconceptions, vaccine hesitancy, waning immunity, and negative effects on herd immunity. Olive et al. find that NMEs (non-medical exemptions) for children are on the rise in 12 of 18 states, who permit these exemptions. . Marti et al. look for global reasons for vaccine hesitancy and find that: The most frequently cited reasons for vaccine hesitancy globally related to (1) the risk-benefit of vaccines, (2) knowledge and awareness issues, (3) religious, cultural, gender or socio-economic factors. An overview of the reasons can be seen in this graphic So the one of the main criticisms of the anti-vaxxer movement (risk of vaccines) is the biggest driver of vaccine hesitancy globally. This influences the US, because international travelers carrying the virus come to the US and infect people in regions where the vaccination rate is low ( Papachrisanthou et al. ). The majority of the 2018 measles outbreaks have been in unvaccinated individuals exposed to international travelers. Europe is also experiencing the highest measles outbreak in over 2 decades secondary to suboptimal vaccination rates. As for expert opinion on a link between anti-vaccination and measles outbreaks: The WHO clearly states in this report , Because of low coverage nationally, or pockets of low coverage, multiple WHO regions have been hit with large measles and diphtheria outbreaks causing many deaths. Furthermore, the WHO has included vaccine hesitancy as one of the 10 threats to global health in 2019 . So CNN's claim is not an exaggeration. It depends, though, on who you consider to be "anti-vaxxers". If you include people who do not vaccinate for religious reasons in the anti-vaxxers, CNN is right. If you only include people who do not vaccinate because they believe conspiracy theories that vaccines are harmful to be anti-vaxxers, their influence is plausible, but it is difficult to prove causation. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43871",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/48266/"
]
} |
43,914 | The Guardian reports that the UK fracking tsar, Natascha Engel, has resigned and blamed anti-fracking activism for "fear-mongering" , saying: “There is much to be optimistic about how developing technologies – including fracking – can help us accelerate the reduction in CO2 and grow our economy. Sadly today only those who shout get heard.” To me this seems completely illogical. I would think that fracking can only increase the supply of fossil fuel, that any increase in supply causes some increase in consumption, and that any increase in consumption of fossil fuel causes an increase in CO2. Is there any validity to her claim? | If it replaces coal mining for power production, fracking reduces CO2 emissions, but that's not the whole story. Burning anything results in increased CO2 emissions, and methane leaks in fracked gas infrastructure result in CO2 equivalent emissions that erase the gains in reduced CO2 emissions compared to coal. Engel's argument rests on two key assumptions which have turned out true in the case of the U.S., which leads the world in shale gas production: Natural gas replaces coal as a source of electric power. This is basically true. With an aging coal fleet , increasing natural gas-burning generation capacity , and falling power prices , several economists have looked at the direct effects on coal consumption. Numbers vary, but anywhere from 28% to 49% of the reduction in U.S. coal consumption is a direct result of the influx of cheap natural gas caused by the shale gas boom (see also here and here for more nuanced analyses). This means that a world with shale gas burns less coal than one without it. Per kWh produced, coal-burning plants emit more CO2 than natural gas-burning plants. This is also true. Per unit of energy, coal produces more than twice as much CO2 as natural gas ( source ) when burned in a power plant. But Engel ignores something that recent data is confirming more and more: leaks in natural gas production systems are chronically under-estimated and probably eliminate the GHG-reducing gains made by the shift from coal to natural gas. This was documented in an article in Science published in 2018. The article, "Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain" , can be viewed in manuscript form here . Phys.org has a good summary . Here's the most significant finding (emphasis added): [R]esearchers found most of the emissions came from leaks, equipment malfunctions and other "abnormal" operating conditions. The climate impact of these leaks in 2015 was roughly the same as the climate impact of carbon dioxide emissions from all U.S. coal-fired power plants operating in 2015, they found. Net generation from coal and natural gas were roughly equal in 2015, with natural gas increasing and coal decreasing since then. The reason for this massive impact, and why leakage is such a concern, is that methane as a greenhouse gas is 34 times more potent than CO2 on a 100-year timescale . And that's just the leaks -- the natural gas still has to be burned, which will produced additional CO2 emissions. Strictly speaking, if you're intent on digging things up and burning them and all you care about is CO2, then shale gas is better than coal. But it's still putting CO2 into the atmosphere , and if you factor in the global warming potential of leaked methane, it stops looking any better than coal. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43914",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/49864/"
]
} |
43,947 | Some people are protesting a proposed expansion of London Heathrow. I saw some protestors of the Heathrow expansion with signs that read "Stop 700 more planes a day". Greenpeace tells me "A third runway would mean 700 extra planes
a day using Heathrow." Are 700 more planes a day expected to fly because of the Heathrow expansion, as the signs imply? | Heathrow Airport has a " dedicated website " for the planned creation of an additional runway. From the dedicated website (emphasis added): Heathrow Today 98% capacity – Flight movements at Heathrow are capped at 480,000/year 473,000 flight movements a year (2016) – an average of 1,300 a day Heathrow Expansion: 740,000 flight movements capacity Assuming the capacity in the expanded airport is still per year (as is explicitly stated on another Heathrow Airport website), there would be the capacity for an additional 260,000 flights per year. That is equivalent to ~712 flights per day offered by the additional capacity. OAG , "an air travel intelligence company," predicts a total of 140,556 air traffic movements (ATMs). Their report is pretty comprehensive and includes long-haul, short-haul, etc. A single departure (and arrival) counts as one ATM. Thus, the increase of 140,556 ATMs is equivalent to 385 additional flights per day. Equivalently, 54.1% of the additional capacity is expected to be used, and not 100%. To summarize: Are 700 more planes a day expected to fly because of the Heathrow expansion, as the signs imply? Maybe. In the short term , probably not . In the long term , probably yes . The expansion will increase the airport capacity by 712 flights per day. This is not a guarantee that 712 extra flights will occur a day. In fact, an airline analysis company predicts just 385 additional flights per day two years after the expansion. This figure is nowhere near 700. To put the numbers into context, 2016 saw an average of ~1296 flights a day. Assuming that (1) the 2016 number is accurate 2 years after the expansion and (2) the prediction (385 flights/day) mentioned above is accurate, two years after the expansion 22.9% of all flights will be from this new runway. The percent increase in flights will be 29.7%. Assuming that in an unspecified number of years, (1) the 2016 number is still accurate for the first two runways and (2) there will be an additional 700 flights a day from the third runway, 35.1% of all flights will be from the new runway. The percent increase in flights will be 54.0%. Additional comments for the interested reader: The OAG report cited earlier specifically states (emphasis added): In our cautious assessment of the opportunities, we project that over half of the new capacity could be used within two years from opening, if not faster allowing for existing carrier expansion. What this means is that the projections are for two years after the expansion opens. Of course, the long-term environmental impacts of any airport expansion (which is probably what the protesters pictured in the question are interested in) last much longer than two years. Over the long term, it is indeed possible that the airport will be back at a full (or close to full) capacity. When the airport is at 98.3% capacity, there will be an increase of 700 flights, relative to now. In 2014, the London Mayor's office wrote , in response to a study by York Aviation and Oxford Economics (emphasis added): The analysis highlights how a third runway at Heathrow would fail to reverse the decline in regional connectivity and predicts that even with a third runway the number of domestic routes would be reduced by the loss of the existing Leeds/Bradford route. A third runway would fill up very quickly due to suppressed demand at Heathrow , which already runs at 99 per cent of its capacity. Pressure on airlines to use slots for the most profitable routes would then mean domestic services would be crowded out again, which would prohibit new routes being set up and mean that established services to cities like Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Newcastle would not be immune to a further loss of frequency. More recently, a Wired article article published 9 June 2018 wrote: But Warnock-Smith 1 warns that Heathrow will eventually fill up again unless air travel is redistributed to make use of spare capacity at other UK airports. “Otherwise in 25 years, we will be having the same debates about a fourth runway at Heathrow,” he adds. And from a Gov.UK blog about the filling of other London airports by 2030: However, our airports are filling up. Heathrow has been running at full capacity for years. Evidence shows that the other London airports will be full by 2030. The need for increased capacity is ever-growing, and a policy was needed, especially in light of the UK’s decision to leave the European Union. The Gov.UK post supports the previously cited two articles, as without excess capacity in London's other airports, they will have to turn to the now expanded and partly empty London Heathrow. The fact that London's airports are filling up and are predicted to be full by 2030 is also corroborated here (UK Department of Transport), here (London Assembly Transport Committee), and here (Greater London Authority). Thus, there isn't doubt that, in the long term, the third runway can and will fill up. In this sense (that the runway expansion will "create" 700 more flights a day), the protesters are right to worry and their sign is accurate. 1 Associate head of the School for Aviation and Security at Buckinghamshire New University | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43947",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
43,973 | I sometimes encounter people claiming that there are ingredients in vaccines that can be kept secret by the manufacturer. I would be surprised to hear this, because the manufacturers have to conduct studies which show that the vaccine is safe. How to credibly present a study without showing what was tested seems difficult to me. However, I am not a clinician and I don't know the process in detail, so I would not detect possible loopholes. A Google search for "impfstoff betriebsgeheimnis" (in German) yielded several results from known anti-vaccination websites (impfen-nein-danke.de, impffrei.at, impfkritik.de etc.). However, most of these sites just reiterate the claim without any justification or source. The only further information I could find is the following anecdote from the site gesundheit-natuerlich.at, first published there on Sep 28th, 2013 Das Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (PEI) ist für die Zulassung von Impfstoffen
zuständig. Frau Anita Petek-Dimmer hat beim PEI telefonisch über die
Inhaltsstoffe des Hepatitis-B-Impfstoffes nachgefragt. […] The Paul-Ehrlich-Institute (PEI) is in charge of approving vaccines. Ms.
Anita-Petek-Dimmer called them to ask about the ingredients of the vaccine against
Hepatitis B. Auf den Vorhalt, dass das PEI diesen Impfstoff zugelassen habe und er
somit wissen müsse, was für Substanzen in diesem Impfstoff seien, […]
antwortete [er], […] darüber stehe nichts in diesen Akten. She told him that the PEI approved this vaccine and hence the PEI should
know the ingredients. He replied that the documents don't contain this
information. Auf die Frage, wie denn dieser Impfstoff zugelassen werden könne, wenn
das PEI nicht wisse, was drin sei, sagte dieser Herr, das verberge
sich alles hinter dem Betriebsgeheimnis. Der Impfstoffhersteller sei
nicht verpflichtet, der Zulassungsbehörde mitzuteilen, welche
Substanzen im Impfstoff enthalten seien. She asked how the vaccine can be approved without knowing the ingredients.
The man from PEI replied, that the ingredients are a trade secret. The
vaccine manufacturers are not obliged to disclose the ingredients of the
vaccine to the authorities. Anita Petek-Dimmer has had connections to other people who are known to spread nonscientific information. Other than that, I can not verify or debunk whether the story took place as described. I have also found this website that says (emphasis added): The FDA does not require vaccine manufacturers to make public every ingredient in a vaccine - some [vaccine ingredients] may be kept secret . This is documented on page 71 and page 77 of the 6th edition of the textbook Vaccines by Plotkin, Orenstein and Offit : Questions: Are there vaccine ingredients which may not be disclosed ("hidden", "trade secret", or similar)? "The requirements and procedures for marketing authorisation, as well as the rules for monitoring authorised products, are primarily laid down in Directive 2001/83/EC and in Regulation (EC) No 726/2004" Searching these two directives for the term "ingredient" did not yield any result like "the manufacturer must provide a list of ingredients". Which law defines the things that a manufacturer of a medicinal product must disclose to the authorities? Sometimes real problems get retold and exaggerated to become a myth. Was there a change in legislation or a scandal which could explain why this story emerged? Was there a gap which is maybe now closed? | TL;DR: In the US and the EU, vaccine manufacturers are required to disclose all ingredients within the vaccine on vaccine packaging inserts available online alphabetically and European public assessment reports searchable through a database , respectively. In both regions, quantities of some ingredients (active ingredients, adjuvants, and absorbents) must also be disclosed. However, the US requires disclosure of all quantities of all vaccine ingredients while the EU doesn't . For the US , Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations mandates that for all biological products (which include vaccines), the packaging insert must contain information on all preservatives, antibiotics, inactive ingredients, adjuvants, and microorganisms. Packaging inserts are available directly from the FDA for all FDA approved vaccines. Thus, ingredients in vaccines cannot be kept secret. All ingredients are either of an active ingredient (microorganisms), inactive ingredient, or additive (preservatives, antibiotics, adjuvants) and must be labelled. As an example, consider Dengvaxia , a vaccine intended to prevent dengue fever and also the most recent FDA approved vaccine 1 . The packaging insert is available here . All ingredients are listed under Section 11 - Description (page 13 of the linked pdf). After reconstitution with 0.6 mL 0.4% sodium chloride, 0.5 mL of the dose contains 4.5 - 6.0 log 10 CCID 50 (cell culture infectious dose 50%) "of each of the chimeric yellow fever dengue (CYD) virus serotypes 1, 2, 3, and 4. Each 0.5 mL dose is formulated to contain 2 mg sodium chloride and the following ingredients as stabilizers: 0.56 mg essential amino acids (including L-phenylalanine), 0.2 mg non-essential amino acids, 2.5 mg L-arginine hydrochloride, 18.75 mg sucrose, 13.75 mg D-trehalose dihydrate, 9.38 mg D-sorbitol, 0.18 mg trometamol, and 0.63 mg urea." In addition to just the ingredients, information on culturing of the virus is also available. Each of the four CYD viruses ( CYD-1, CYD-2, CYD-3, and CYD-4) in DENGVAXIA was constructed using recombinant DNA technology by replacing the sequences encoding the pre-membrane (prM) and envelope (E) proteins in the yellow fever (YF) 17D204 vaccine virus genome with those encoding for the homologous sequences of dengue virus serotypes 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Each CYD virus is cultured separately in Vero cells ( African Green Monkey kidney) under serum-free conditions, harvested from the supernatant of the Vero cells and purified by membrane chromatography and ultrafiltration. The purified and concentrated harvest of each CYD virus is then diluted in a stabilizer solution to produce the four monovalent drug substances. The final bulk product is a mixture of the four monovalent drug substances diluted in the stabilizer solution. The final bulk product is sterilized by filtration at 0.22 μm, filled into vials and freeze-dried. And finally, per Title 21, we are also informed "DENGVAXIA does not contain preservative." A separate CDC regulation stipulates specification of rubber type. In this case, it is synthetic rubber. Are there vaccine ingredients which may not be disclosed (“hidden”, “trade secret” or similar) No , all vaccine ingredients must be disclosed in the packaging insert of the vaccine. Quantities of all ingredients must also be disclosed. This differs from the EU law (demonstrated later). Which law defines the things that a manufacturer of a medicinal product must disclose to the authorities? In the US, Title 21, Volume 7, Chapter I, Subchapter F, Part 610, Subpart G, Sec. 610.61 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Was there a change in legislation or a scandal which could explain why this story emerged? Was there a gap which is maybe now closed? The earliest version of the law I could find was in 1998. The relevant section is here on pages 23 and 24. The wording of the law appears to be extremely similar as the current version. Before 1998, the last amendment to the law was in 1990 (see the bottom of this page). Thus, the reporting requirements were in place as early as 1990 and possibly even earlier. Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations The following items shall appear on the label affixed to each package containing a product: The preservative used and its concentration, or if no preservative is used and the absence of a preservative is a safety factor, the words "no preservative"; The type and calculated amount of antibiotics added during manufacture; The inactive ingredients when a safety factor, or reference to an enclosed circular containing appropriate information; The adjuvant, if present; The source of the product when a factor in safe administration; The identity of each microorganism used in manufacture, and, where applicable, the production medium and the method of inactivation, or reference to an enclosed circular containing appropriate information; According to Law.SE , all inactive ingredients are listed. Additionally, I have contacted the FDA who provided similar information as I have already outlined in the answer. For the EU , Article 59 of Title V of Directive 2001/83/EC states (page 42 of the linked pdf): The package leaflet shall be drawn up in accordance with the summary of the product characteristics; it shall include, in the following order: (f) a reference to the expiry date indicated on the label, with: (iv) the full qualitative composition (in active substances and excipients) and the quantitative composition in active substances, using common names, for each presentation of the medicinal product; Thus, all the name and quantity of all components of the vaccine must be published in the EU as well. The European Medicines Agency has a separate document titled "Guideline on quality aspects included in the product information for vaccines for human use". Page 4 reads The principal entries under Section 2 in the SmPC [summary of product characteristics] should appear in the following order: Qualitative and quantitative declaration of each active substance, Qualitative and quantitative declaration of any adjuvant or adsorbant present, Origin of the active substance, if applicable, Residues of clinical relevance, if applicable, Excipients with known effects, if applicable, a reference to the full list of excipients in 6.1, Excipients are all components of a vaccine that are not active ingredients (e.g. preservatives, adjuvants, and stabilizers). As the quantity, type, and origin of active ingredients must be disclosed, we can conclude that the EU requires labelling of all ingredients within the vaccine. The linked pdfs also contain other more specific labeling guidelines. The earliest version of the law that I could find was in 2001 . The requirement to disclose all ingredients was still there (see page 36 and 37 of the linked pdf). However, I noticed fewer guidelines on reporting the risks of excipients (e.g. In 2001, manufacturers had to report all excipients, but manufacturers didn't have to report the known risks; now manufacturers have to do both). In the EU, the European Medicines Agency is responsible for approving vaccines. A database of all approved medicines is here . A search specifically for human vaccines is here . As an example, consider the most recently approved non-flu vaccine in the EU, which is also Dengvaxia (authorized 12/12/2018). The authorization website contains various documents, including a 64 page European public assessment report . The report contains a list of excipients in Section 6.1 (page 15). Powder: Essential amino acids including Phenylalanine Non-essential amino acids Arginine hydrochloride Sucrose Trehalose dihydrate Sorbitol (E420) Trometamol Urea Solvent: Sodium chloride Water for injections At first glance the sections of the report appears to be largely duplicated (e.g. pages 2 through 16 are largely duplicated again in pages 17 through 32). Confusingly, this is because half of it apply to Dengvaxia in pre-filled syringe while the other half apply to Dengvaxia in multidose containers .The packaging leaflet for the user (pages 49 through 56) contains the vaccine ingredients as well (page 53). After reconstitution, one dose (0.5 mL) contains 4.5 - 6.0 log10 CCID 50 * of each serotype of the chimeric yellow fever dengue virus** (1, 2, 3 and 4) (live, attenuated). CCID 50 : 50% Cell Culture Infectious Dose. Produced in Vero cells by recombinant DNA technology. This product contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The other ingredients are: essential amino acids including Phenylalanine, non-essential amino acids, Arginine hydrochloride, Sucrose, Trehalose dihydrate, Sorbitol (E420), trometamol, urea, sodium chloride, water for injections. The reason I am listing this out is to show a major difference between EU and US laws. This is reflected in the European public assessment report (from the EU) and the packaging insert (from the US FDA). Excipients are listed for both situations but the concentration and volume (e.g. quantitative descriptions) are only listed for the packaging insert. The EU law requires disclosure of quantities of active ingredients, adjuvants, and absorbents. If an excipient is neither an adjuvant or absorbent (such as sodium chloride) the concentration and volume are not disclosed. This is reflected in the European public assessment report. Are there vaccine ingredients which may not be disclosed (“hidden”, “trade secret” or similar) No , all vaccine ingredients must be disclosed in the summary of product characteristics of the vaccine. Quantities of active ingredients, adjuvants, and absorbents must also be disclosed. Quantities of other ingredients need not be disclosed (and usually aren't). This is the biggest difference between the EU and the US laws. Which law defines the things that a manufacturer of a medicinal product must disclose to the authorities? In the EU, Article 59 of Title V of Directive 2001/83/EC. Was there a change in legislation or a scandal which could explain why this story emerged? Was there a gap which is maybe now closed? The earliest version of the law I could find was in 6 November 2001. I suspect this was the very first version of the law as the directive is "2001/83." The reporting requirements were in place as early as 2001 . Note regarding the textbook image: The textbook mentioned in the claim in the question does indeed exist. Additionally, the underlined sentence is real. We can check this on Google Books . Page 77 of the book clarifies this. The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (Section 502[e][1][A][iii]) states that all inactive ingredients should be noted in labeling; it also states that this requirement is not necessary if trade secret information would be disclosed. The CFR additionally notes that an inactive ingredient should be listed in the labeling if the ingredient's presence is considered a safety factor (21 CFR 610.61[n]). In some cases, even in the absence of any evidence that a particular material might pose a safety factor, manufacturers have elected to disclose the presence of residual materials such as detergents, solvents, and chelating agents (see Table 6-2 for examples of manufacturing residuals). The CFR law has been quoted earlier. Following is the relevant excerpt from the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) . (iii) the established name of each inactive ingredient listed in alphabetical order on the outside container of the retail package and, if determined to be appropriate by the Secretary, on the immediate container, as prescribed in regulation promulgated by the Secretary, except that nothing in this subclause shall be deemed to require that any trade secret be divulged, and except that the requirements of this subclause with respect to alphabetical order shall apply only to nonprescription drugs that are not also cosmetics and that this subclause shall not apply to nonprescription drugs not intended for human use. As I just dug up the textbook ~20 minutes ago, I do not have enough time to resolve this apparent contradiction in law. Potentially, the CFR and the FD&C Act can conflict when a trade secret prevents disclosure of an ingredient. I have asked this on Law.SE and will update this answer later. My interpretation is: If the trade secret impacts safety, it must be disclosed. If the trade secret does not impact safety, it does not have to be disclosed. As such, the quote from the textbook " Some information regarding additives and residuals is considered to be a trade secret and thus confidential, and cannot be discussed in this chapter." is taken out of context. Such trade secrets can only be kept when there is no impact on safety. Again, I will update this answer later. 1 Headline under FDA Official Releases : "FDA approves Dengvaxia, the first vaccine approved for the prevention of dengue disease in people ages 9 through 16 who have laboratory-confirmed previous dengue infection and who live in endemic areas." For those curious and interested, there is another news release here titled "First FDA-approved vaccine for the prevention of dengue disease in endemic regions." | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43973",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/39251/"
]
} |
43,978 | German right-wing party AfD has recently posted this claim on its Facebook page : ++ Neugeborene: Mohammed auf Platz 1 der Vornamen in Berlin ++ Man höre und staune: Der häufigste Erstname für neugeborene Jungen in
Berlin ist Mohammed. In Bremen liegt er auf Platz 3. Bundesweit ist
ein klarer Trend für die Top-10 der Namensregister absehbar.
[...] Google Translation: ++ Newborns: Mohammed ranked first in Berlin ++ Just listen and wonder: The most common first name for newborn boys in
Berlin is Mohammed. He ranks third in Bremen. Nationwide, a clear
trend is foreseeable for the top 10 names.
[...] This was also claimed by Daily Mail ("Mohammed was the most popular first name for boys born in Berlin in 2018, study reveals") and Breitbart ("Mohammed Number One Name for Baby Boys in Berlin"). German public radio then published a report on this claim ( Google Translation ) on their "Fact Finder" page, but I found that article rather confusing. I also tried to find one of the Fact Finder claims in the data published by the city of Berlin , but couldn't find it. Can someone clarify whether the claim "Mohammed was the most popular first name for boys born in Berlin in 2018" is true? | No. Mohammed was not the most popular first name in Berlin 2018. The official Berlin statistics conclude something different. And at the very least: It seems not likely to be possibly true, regardless of you twist the statistics. But it depends a bit on how you count names, and whether you do that in a consistent manner. The official Ordnungsamt Berlin says the most popular first names were Emil and Alexander .
The next places were then occupied by Maximilian and Paul. This is reported in accessible form on the TV news site rbb24: Emil und Emilia waren 2018 berlinweit die beliebtesten ersten Vornamen für Neugeborene. In der Rangliste aller vergebener Vornamen konnten die Vorjahressieger ihre Spitzenplätze halten. Ranking der ersten Vornamen
Das sind die beliebtesten Vornamen in den Berliner Bezirken
13.02.19 | 06:11 Uhr To check for yourself official raw data from the Bureau of Statistics: Berlin.de: Liste der häufigen Vornamen 2018 , also on https://github.com/berlinonline/haeufige-vornamen-berlin The most popular names as encoded for city quarters and as reported directly from the statistics bureau: Treptow-Köpenick – Anton, Finn, Oskar Tempelhof-Schöneberg – Noah, Paul, Jakob Steglitz-Zehlendorf – Paul, Leonard, Leon Spandau – Anton, Elias, Oskar Reinickendorf – Amir, Elias, Liam Pankow – Paul, Leon, Oskar Neukölln – Ali, Adam, Noah Mitte – Adam, Noah, David Marzahn-Hellersdorf – Emil, Henry, Arthur Lichtenberg – Emil, Leon, Anton Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg – Emil, Alexander, Felix Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf – Anton, Emil, Maximilian But there are slight problems with the statistic as read from the more easily found PDFs, which cut off the data after 'top 30 most popular names per district', which have quite a variance in population density and differing birth rates (but the full set of data is on github): In Reinickendorf, where Amir was most popular, Mohamed/Mohamad comes in at 18/19 place (4 absolute for both, against Amir 6), making the name in question essentially top spot, if from the 30 presented names you normalise for spelling. In Neukölln all name variants would place Mohammed at 2nd place, judged by the same limited PDF data. Fact checking as done by TV news As the ARD counted according to their understanding of the possible variants of for example Anton, Tony, Tonio etc we get a more impressive result for first names: The name Mohammed appears 52 times as first name in the statistics, most frequently in the district Mitte: twelve times. If you now add different spellings of the name - for example Mohamad, Mohammad, Muhamnmed [sic!, LLC], Mohammed and others - you get about 280 first names - depending on which spellings you add. But this also applies to other names: For example, the RBB counted variants such as Lukas, Lucas, Luka and Luca together - and comes up with far more than 400 hits, i.e. considerably more than for Mohammed. Fact checking, and also source for some of the claims, from academic institution GfdS The Gesellschaft für deutsche Sprache e.V. arrived at the following conclusion , nation-wide, out of 518.498 boys, spelling variants aggregated for all names (not just Mohammed , but even applying stricter rules for other names): Paul Alexander Maximilian Elias Ben Louis/Luis Leon Noah Henry/Henri Felix
… …
24 Mohammed This nitpicking over spelling variants of essentially the same name seems irritating but the name Mohammed is a popular choice, originating from countries were the Arabic writing system usually leaves out the vowels. Add to that the dialects and the resulting variations in original Arabic spelling, the variety in transliteration to Latin script with vowels becomes apparent. Further, for a complete picture we have to add historic spellings from European languages, and Turkish. The GfdS counts 25 variations of Mohammend and aggregates only 10 of those for their methodology. They say this is because in their eyes these would constitute "the same name, phonetically". Short interlude: What is the reason, for example for the Daily Mail, to assert that Mohammed would be the top spot? The exact press release they claim to quote from the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprache says: Auch Mohammed mit seinen zahlreichen Varianten steht in diesem Jahr in gleich drei Bundesländern in der Gesamtliste unter den Top 10: in Bremen, Berlin und im Saarland. Als Erstname ist er noch beliebter: In Berlin, Bremen, Hamburg, Hessen, Nordrhein-Westfalen und im Saarland ist er in der Erstnamenliste unter den Top 10 vertreten. Mohammed with its numerous variants is also among the top 10 this year in three federal states: Bremen, Berlin and Saarland. As a first name it is even more popular: In Berlin, Bremen, Hamburg, Hesse, North Rhine-Westphalia and Saarland it is represented in the top 10 of the first name list. (Src: Ausführliche Auswertung ) Again: As a 1st 'first name', compared to 2nd 'first name' Mohammed is among the top ten in Berlin. It was not 'the first'. It only rises to the top in one of the sublists if you include variations of Mohammed quite generously but refuse to do so for other names. Misreading, miscomprehending twisting facts How anyone could jump from an already context-lacking and misleading "in the top ten in three cities" to even more distorting "most popular name in Berlin" seems a mystery. Unless you look at a table on the same page: In that table you see: Well. That table says that Mohammed was indeed the most popular name, over all. But only among Turkish/Arabic names isolated! Using that table, the results published on that page is just not the correct way to interpret the data. A weakness of that table is further that they compare popular names in Turkey with 'Turkish/Arabic names in Germany'. By using the Arabic variant, not 'Mehmet', and not disclosing so far whether they do group both variants together in their counting method. The problem: Not only spelling but also language and quite a bit of culture are quite different between 'Turks' and 'Arabs'. But the one thing in common: they are all perceived as 'Islam'. That looks like even in this institution the biases aren't balanced and controlled for. The Breitbart headline is therefore just one word away from being true: Mohammed Number One Name for Arabic Baby Boys in Berlin. Although the corrected headline is not exactly 'man bites dog' quality. The headline that German tabloid Bild makes of all this reads with a little more specificity: Mohammed beliebtester Erstname in Berlin That is: "Mohammed being the first first name is the most popular variation found in Berlin." We already covered this above, but to be fair, at least that newspaper can claim to just quote the institution publishing their first name study: (Src gfds: ausfuehrliche-auswertung-vornamen-2018 ) Take note that this refers to 10 of 25 Mohammed variations grouped together while being less generous to other names. Also, the number in brackets indicates the real position in Berlin, again according to that way of counting. Naturally, the explanation and analysis is insufficient in the newspaper bit. Analysis of raw data However, my count arrives at 366 Mohammeds (normalised spellings & variants) as first first names and for Lukas its 432 first first names. So that's not true either My own count through the source files gives for all first names (1st, 2nd etc) and all possible spelling variants (including Turkish and only part of a name) a count of 424 Mohammeds for male newborns in all of Berlin 2018. This includes all variants I could find, including some appearing as 'more exotic', which would then include: Ahmed, Hemed, M'hamed, Mafumet, Magomed, Mahamed, Mahoma, Mahoma, Mahomet, Mahometus, Makhambet, Mamad, Mamadou, Mao, Maomé, Maomé, Maometto, Maxamed, Md, Mehmed, Mehmet, Mehmet, Mem, Memet, Mend, Mihemed, Mo, Moe, Mohamad, Mohamed, Mohamed, Mohammad, Mohammad, Mohammed, Mohammed, Mohd, Momo, Momo, Momodou, Muhamad, Muhamed, Muhameti, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammadu, Muhammed, Muhammed, Muhammed, Muhammet, Muhd, Moameth, Mahmet, Magomet, Mokhammed, Mukhammad, Mukhammed, Mukhammed, Mukhammad, Mat, Mokamat, Mù hǎn mò dé. ( = 62 variations. src1 , src2 )
But excluding derived names or merely related ones, like Ahmad, Hamid or Mahmud. For comparison, the popular Alexander is almost as colourful: Aale, Aca, Acika, Aco, Aki, Alakṣendra, Alasandar, Alasdair, Alastair, Alastar, Ale, Alec, Alecsandro, Aleixandre, Alejandro, Alejo, Aleka, Ālēkajānḍāra, Alekanekelo, Alekchendra, Alekos, Aleks, Aleksa, Sander, Aleksandr, Aleksandras, Aleksandre, Aleksandro, Aleksandrs, Aleksandŭr, Aleksanteri, Aleksas, Aleksi, Ales, Aleš, Alesander, Alesch, Alessandro, Alessio, Alex, Alexander, Alexandr, Alexandre, Alexandris, Alexandro, Alexandros, Alexandru, Alexei, Alexi, Alexis, Ali, Aliaksandr, Aliesch, Alisdair, Alistair, Alister, Aljaksandr, Alleksandeo, Alyeksandr, Alyel'ka, Arekisandā, Chandy, Eskandar, Eskender, Eskendir, Isikinidiri, Iskandar, İskender, Jandro, Léandre, Leandro, Lex, Lixandru, Oleg, Olek, Oleksandr, Oles', Olexander, Sale, Sander, Sandi, Sándor, Sandra, Sandre, Sandri, Sandro, Sandy, Sanja, Sanjetschka, Sanjka, Sanjok, Sanjuscha, Sanne, Santeri, Saša, Sascha, Sascha, Saschenka, Saschka, Saschok, Saschulja, Sashko, Sasho, Sašo, Schura, Schurik, Sekandar, Sender, Senderl, Sikandar, Skandar, Skander, Sonder, Tschander, Wander, Xande, Xander, Xandre, Xano, Xanocas, Xlĕksānde, Yàlìshāndà, Zander. ( src1 , src2 , 123 variations, all meaning 'Alexander'.) As you can see from the huge list, these are not mere 'phonetic' equivalences or differences. Not all of these possible variations actually appear in Berlin. And in some cases it's far away from easy to decide whether Moe is named after a prophet or a barkeeper. But for the actual name Mohammed it's noteworthy that it is a name that in studies that include ethnic status of parents is one that in stands contrast to eg Leila . One name has a high symbolic value, the other is often not even recognised as 'foreign origin'. Both names have a migrant background but almost only non-German parents might choose Mohammed , while Leyla gained some popularity in all groups. (Jürgen Gerhards: " Die Moderne und ihre Vornamen: Eine Einladung in die Kultursoziologie ", VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, 2 2010, p134.) As some of the more exotic variations for any name (eg Mo, Momo on the one side, Oleg, Lex for Alex) are ambiguous, we have to observe: There cannot be one exact and exactly correct solution for grouping the names by algorithm. The methodolgy of counting at the GfdS The Deutsche Welle reports and analyses: The normally innocuous report, however, quickly became fodder for political mudslinging and false news reports — all because 280 of 22,000 newborn boys in Berlin were given one of at least 25 iterations of the first given name "Mohammed." […] Lacking context
The GfdS report failed to provide much-needed context to its results, Gabriele Rodriguez, who researches family nomenclature at the University of Leipzig, told DW. This lack of clarity combined with a society sensitive to its changing demographics and mired in political debate over migration and refugee issues led to the groundswell of misinformation.
It's partly true that "Mohammed" has ascended the ranks of baby names due to growing immigrant communities in Germany. But it's also because it's tradition that families from the Arab world name at least one of their children after the Prophet Mohammed. "There is not a large pool of names to choose from, as is the case with German families," she said, pointing out that over half of all baby names registered in any given year in Germany are unique, and that the most popular baby names are at most between 2% and 3% of all newborns.
And while most baby names have only a few different variations, there are at least 25 of the name "Mohammed." Moreover, it is often a first given name, causing it to occur with more frequency than other names in that category. The most popular name for boys in Berlin when all given names were taken into consideration was Alexander.
The GfdS study ranked Mohammed the 24th most popular name in Germany when second and third names were also taken into account. Confusing methods The report's methods were also not entirely fleshed out, said Rodriguez, making it difficult for the public to draw informed conclusions.
Until 2017's report, all first given names, regardless of order, were grouped together to determine the most popular. Over the past two years, however, the GfdS has begun to publish two separate lists together: The most popular overall baby names, including second and third given names, and the most common first given name on a birth certificate.
Without explaining the new methods for determining popularity, or giving absolute numbers for any given name, it's to be expected that the public would get confused, Rodriguez said. "We also realized that the results are perhaps a bit confusing," Frauke Rüdebusch, a researcher with the GfdS, told DW. "But through the list of first given names, there is now another aspect of comparability that we didn't have before. Both lists are important for us … but [we] will be careful to ensure greater transparency and distinctness between the two." Fearmongering That the once innocent report got taken so out of context also speaks to Germans' fears of a changing society, said Rodriguez.
"Most new baby names in Germany are from abroad and are considered to be exotic — German ears need a bit of time to adjust," she said. "That's no problem in urban enclaves, but elsewhere people see that as a problem and feel threatened, even though in villages, where the problem is most pronounced, there are very few foreigners."
"This isn't just the case for first names — it has everything at the moment to do with foreigners," she added. "This is just feeding into the AfD, which has the express goal of creating fear about such things so that they can sustain themselves." A poster for the AfD shows a famous painting of middle-eastern looking men checking the teeth of a woman (Getty Images/S. Gallup)
Researcher Rodriguez said the strong misinformed reaction to the name study had to do with German worries about migration, which the AfD is trying to capitalize on DW: Berlin's 'Mohammed' baby-name trend distorted by far-right and media, Date 06.05.2019 As even the above analyses lacks some details about the methodology, let's look at that in as much detail as the GfdS allows: Our method: Homophonic names, i.e. names that are pronounced in the same way but written differently, are added together - in contrast to the lists sent to us by the individual registry offices. There is no difference here, the spelling is a matter of taste. So spellings like Sophie/Sophi/Sofie/Sofi or Louis/Luis etc. are treated like a name by us. A summary of names according to their etymology, i.e. their origin (e.g. Anna, Hanna, Jana, Johanna etc.) does not take place. Also names with different endings and/or different syllable numbers are not added together: Sophie and Sophia, Anna and Anne, Luca and Lucas are treated by us as two names each. Variants of Mohammed: With the name Mohammed we have summarized ten different writing variants, which are homophonic (identical sounding) or almost homophonic: Since this is an Arabic name and in Arabic the vowels are only inserted when speaking (depending on the speaker or dialect the name can assume a different pronunciation and thus a different transcription), we have not made any difference between variants with the similar vowels e and a (front/middle vowels) and o and u (rear vowels). The following spellings were summarized in our evaluation: Mohammed, Muhammed, Mohamed, Muhamed, Mohammad, Muhammad, Mohamet, Muhamet, Mohammet, Muhammet. Other possible spellings according to this scheme were very rare or did not occur at all. As independent names, we have treated etymological variants (i.e. names which originate from Mohammed, but which differ more in sound from the original name), such as Mehmet, Mahmoud, Mamadou, Ahmet, etc. Variants of other names: We have added together the most common phonological variants for the names mentioned. It cannot be excluded that other spellings also exist, but in a very small number. Emil/Émile,
Anton,
Alexander/Aleksander/Alexandar/Aleksandar,
Karl/Carl,
Lukas/Lucas, Src: direct communication, emphasis mine These decisions for counting are not the only ones possible. Some will say they may be 'reasonable', some will find them debatable, or wrong. They are not ideal, and no collection of decisions can be ideal. Compare the following. For ideal German pronunciation: Mohammed [ˈmoːhamɛt] , Muhammed [muˈhamð̩] , or for ideal English pronunciation: Mohammed BrE /məˈhæmɪd/ ; NAmE /moʊˈhɑːmɪd/ , Muhammad BrE /məˈhæmɪd/ ; NAmE /moʊˈhɑːmɪd/ . The following calculation is my own, and maybe faulty, but it groups names together based an linguistic heritage and shared meaning, so that for example most boys named after the prophet Mohammed, Mehmet, Magomet are in one group and Karl, Carl, Carlos, Charles are as well. Excluded are names that are derived and ambiguous. This is more inclusive than the GfdS method and naturally increases the numbers for all names across the board. For Mohammed and all its variants I arrive under the same criteria at 431. (54 when counting like a civil servant: only exact latinised spelling, only first first names, 2 compound names) For Paul and all its variants I arrive under the same criteria at 416. For Emil and all its variants I arrive under the same criteria at 497. For Friedrich and all its variants I arrive under the same criteria at 503. For Lukas and all its variants I arrive under the same criteria at 562. For Max and all its variants I arrive under the same criteria at 621. For Alexander and all its variants I arrive under the same criteria at 659! (174 when counting like a civil servant: only exact latinised spelling, only first first names, 7 compounded names) There are still more Fritzen born in Berlin every year than Mohammeds! That is for the etymological count of all first names, as seen above, including Friedrich and Fiete , and the same relational order again if you use exact spelling for first first name: Mohammed 52 versus Fritz 61. For perspective, under again the same criteria including all first names this was out of 35148 names given for males ( with ~40952 babies total ).
Out of 22.157 newborn males in Berlin the GfdS counting used for all the headlines would give 257 Mohammeds as first first names in the variations included. That makes for a share of 1.16% of all male newborns getting that name in some form. The current estimate of "somehow counted as Muslim" inhabitants of Berlin seems to be around 9%. (Src for percentages: Mimikama: Der beliebteste Vorname 2018 ist… nicht Mohammed! ) Sociological implications, or lack thereof Since the headline making the claim in question is used for political purposes, matt_black in a comment below the question is right to note: It is worth noting two observations from the UK data: 1) the Latin transliteration of the Arabic name is variable meaning that any single version of the Latin alphabet spelling will understate the popularity of the name; 2) the names of Muslim males lack diversity compared to other groups and this vastly overstates the relative popularity compared to the more diverse names typical of other groups. It also doesn't mean that a name bearer has Muslim parents in every case. Berlin is an international city, but some 'very German' parents like colourful names and might name their children just after famous persons. Be them prophets or boxers seems of little importance in those cases. The same argument is brought to German readers in Martin Zips: "Warum der Name Mohammed so beliebt ist", Sueddeutsche Zeitung, 3. Mai 2019 And with another angle on "how-to-count first names" in: "Mohammed in Berlin unter Top 10. Marie und Paul sind beliebteste Babynamen", Tagesspiegel, 02.05.2019 Since this is tagged 'sociology' Bernd Matthie: "Populärste Vornamen 2018 – Kein Karl-Heinz", Tagesspiegel, 03.05.2019 and interestingly the same old tabloid Bild again: Knapp eins von 100 Babys heißt Mohammed Was sagt das wirklich über
Berlin aus? : A closer look at the figures reveals that although Mohammed is the most common first name in Berlin, he is not necessarily a very common one. Of the 22,177 boys born in Berlin in 2018, 280 are called exactly like the Prophet of Islam. That is 1.26 percent of the male and 0.65 percent of all babies. Please note that in their headline they equate "roughly 1 in 100 babies" with "0.65 of all males have some form of Mohammed in their given names list". As one observable trend is that first names get ever more diverse and varied, especially in big cities like Berlin, a short look back for comparison: In Regensburg in the 15th century, 22.6% of all male persons were already named Hans. In the 17th/18th century, when the custom of assigning several first names spread, Johann was almost regularly entered in the baptismal registers as the first first first name, followed by the actual call name in second place; just think of Johann Sebastian Bach, Johann Wolfgang Goethe and other famous namesakes. Rosa Kohlheim & Volker Kohlheim: "Duden. Lexikon der Vornamen. Herkunft, Bedeutung und Gebrauch von über 8000 Vornamen", Bibliographisches Institut: Mannheim, 2007, p20. Take note that a previous edition listed 'only' 3000 first names for Germany . The biggest German TV station and its fact checkers, an academic institution, and yours truly, we all counted with a slightly different methodology. But the end result never changed. The only angle to read the statistics that approaches "yep, claim checks out" is to count 'German names' nitpickingly strict like they appear in official statistics or just very slightly looser like the GfdS lists, but 'Arabic names' very loosely concerning the latinised spelling and aggregate. In that case 'Mohammed' is in the top ten if you apply the aggregate counting method. The claim in question is only 'true' if using different methods of counting names on the same dataset for constructing this difference, and only for the popularity of that name in its assumed phonetic equivalence variants and as the first position of registering a name in a bureaucratic form – in absolutely no case for all first names – and thus false. Looking at this from the other side: while not true in any meaningful way, even if we would accept the claim "most popular first first name in Berlin", then the conclusions drawn from this factoid by interested sides
would be less than impressive in absolute numbers. –– Unless of course, those opposing these private choices for naming babies, as they see it as a sign of 'islamisation', really desperately want to believe. Conclusion Expert opinions and my own analysis go all three in the same direction. No matter how you count first names, no matter how you spell and aggregate the variants, as long as you do that consistently for all possible first names in the same manner, then the result is always the same: Mohammed was a somewhat popular name, but Mohammed was not the most popular first name in Berlin in 2018 in any case. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43978",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/49920/"
]
} |
43,986 | I was reading an article from the BBC about the Highlands Ranch School shooting and they made the following claim This is believed to be the 115th mass shooting in the US in 2019. This was on the 8th May 2019. Is the Highlands Ranch School shooting the 115th mass shooting in the US in 2019 as of 8th May 2019? What is the BBC considering to be a mass shooting? | If you use the definition of "mass shooting" used by Gun Violence Archives, this is the 115th mass shooting in the United States in 2019. I have twice previously answered questions regarding statistics in mass shootings in On average in the US, is there a mass shooting 9 out of every 10 days? and Are handguns used in 80% of mass shootings? . For the sake of brevity, the conclusion I've reached in each question is that, due to disagreement as to how to actually define a mass shooting, people can change their definition to make the mass shooting statistics say whatever they want to. In the case of this article, they are most likely using statistics from Gun Violence Archives. I've previously established that GVA uses one of the loosest definitions of mass shootings, which requires a combination of 4 people to be wounded or killed during a single incident. This definition leaves out several of the requirements used by other agencies to define a mass shooting: no regards to fatalities, so a shooting that wounds 4 people and kills no one is considered a mass shooting whether the shooter counts among the 4 people, so a person who shoots 3 people and then is killed by police would count whether it takes place in one location or multiple locations what the motivation of the shooting is, so domestic violence and gang violence are counted as mass shootings Note that, while this is the loosest definition of a mass shooting, it is not necessarily wrong, as stated by experts quoted in this Politifact Article from 2017. 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 is now the 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." As to the exact claim made by the BBC, a cursory count of the number of rows on Gun Violence Archive as of 8 May 2019 shows that the Highlands Ranch shooting was indeed the 115th mass shooting in the United States in 2019. This is most likely their source for the count of mass shootings. NOTE FOR COMMENTERS : There seems to be an argument in the comments about whether or not this definition is valid or about the tone of this answer. I am making no claims as to whether or not this definition is accurate or valid, just that the BBC is using this definition, and this definition is not agreed upon by everyone when counting the number of mass shootings. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43986",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/49939/"
]
} |
44,078 | The following claims were made around 04:50 of this TED talk by Johann Hari : 20 percent of all American troops were using loads of heroin, and if you look at the news reports from the time, they were really worried, because they thought, my God, we're going to have hundreds of thousands of junkies on the streets of the United States when the war ends; it made total sense. Now, those soldiers who were using loads of heroin were followed home. The Archives of General Psychiatry did a really detailed study, and what happened to them? It turns out they didn't go to rehab. They didn't go into withdrawal. Ninety-five percent of them just stopped. Are the claims true? In other words: Did 20% of US soldiers in Vietnam use "loads of" heroin? Did 95% of the US soldiers who were using "loads of" heroin stop using heroin afterwards? | Yes, the claims are approximately true. From a 1976 study : Two stages of Vietnam drug use are identified-a period of increasing marijuana use followed by the 1970 influx of highly potent heroin to which 1/5 of the enlisted troops were addicted at some time during their tour. ... Since 95% of those who were addicted to narcotics in Vietnam have not become readdicted, the situation does not appear to be as severe as originally supposed. Thus, 20% of US soldiers were addicted to heroin at some point during their tour and 95% of those addicted did not become re-addicted after the war and stopped using heroin. This 2010 paper more specifically mentions only ~5 percent of Vietnam War veterans who were addicted to heroin took heroin 1 year after the war. 1 The authors also write (emphasis added): Eighty-five percent of the men told us that they had been offered heroin when they were there—often quite soon after their arrival...Thirty-five percent of Army enlisted men actually tried heroin while in Vietnam, and 19% became addicted to it . On 15 May 1971 (when the Vietnam War was ongoing, the New York Times published an article using the term "heroin addiction epidemic" chronicling the high use of heroin (emphasis added). So serious is the problem considered that Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker and Gen. Creighton W. Abrams , the military commander, recently met with President Nguyen Van Thieu on measures to be taken by the Saigon Government, including agreement on a special task force that will now report directly to Mr. Thieu. ... John Ingersoll, the Director of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, also conferred with Mr. Thieu and other officials and returned to Washington , reportedly alarmed at the ease with which heroin circulates and fearful of the danger to American society when the addicted return craving a drug that costs many times more in the United States than it does here. ... The epidemic is seen by many here as the Army's last great tragedy in Vietnam. ... Some officers working in the drug‐suppression field, however, say that their
estimates [for addiction to heroin] go as high as 25 per cent , or more than 60,000 enlisted men, most of whom are draftees. They say that some field surveys have reported units with more than 50 per cent of the men on heroin . In the present day, both CNN and NPR write that 15% of US soldiers in Vietnam were addicted to heroin in 1971. From the second source: In May of 1971 two congressmen, Robert Steele from Connecticut and Morgan Murphy of Illinois, went to Vietnam for an official visit and returned with some extremely disturbing news: 15 percent of U.S. servicemen in Vietnam, they said, were actively addicted to heroin. ... Soon a comprehensive system was set up so that every enlisted man was tested for heroin addiction before he was allowed to return home. And in this population, Robins did find high rates of addiction: Around 20 percent of the soldiers self-identified as addicts. ... "I believe the number of people who actually relapsed to heroin use in the first year was about 5 percent," Jaffe said recently from his suburban Maryland home. In other words, 95 percent of the people who were addicted in Vietnam did not become re-addicted when they returned to the United States. The Huffington Post also quotes both the 15% and 20%. It would appear the 15% statistic is the estimate of 2 congressman whereas the 20% statistic is based on more accurate research after the war. While visiting the troops in Vietnam, the two congressmen discovered that over 15 percent of U.S. soldiers had developed an addiction to heroin. (Later research, which tested every American soldier in Vietnam for heroin addiction, would reveal that 40 percent of servicemen had tried heroin and nearly 20 percent were addicted.) The discovery shocked the American public and led to a flurry of activity in Washington, which included President Richard Nixon announcing the creation of a new office called The Special Action Office of Drug Abuse Prevention. To conclude: Did 20% of US soldiers in Vietnam use "loads of" heroin? 19% of enlisted US soldiers were addicted to heroin "at some time during their tour." 20% is approximately accurate. Did 95% of the US soldiers who were using "loads of" heroin stop using heroin afterwards? By 1 year after the war, 95% of the US soldiers addicted to heroin stopped using heroin. Why was this the case? The environment was different. From NPR : It's important not to overstate this, because a variety of factors are probably at play. But one big theory about why the rates of heroin relapse were so low on return to the U.S. has to do with the fact that the soldiers, after being treated for their physical addiction in Vietnam, returned to a place radically different from the environment where their addiction took hold of them. "I think that most people accept that the change in the environment, and the fact that the addiction occurred in this exotic environment, you know, makes it plausible that the addiction rate would be that much lower," Nixon appointee Jerome Jaffe says. From the Huffington Post (emphasis added): Here is what happened in Vietnam: Soldiers spent all day surrounded by a certain environment. They were inundated with the stress of war. They built friendships with fellow soldiers who were heroin users. The end result was that soldiers were surrounded by an environment that had multiple stimuli driving them toward heroin use. It's not hard to imagine how living in a war zone with other heroin users could drive you to try it yourself. Once each soldier returned to the United States, however, they found themselves in a completely different environment. Not only that, they found themselves in an environment devoid of the stimuli that triggered their heroin use in the first place. Without the stress, the fellow heroin users, and the environmental factors to trigger their addiction, many soldiers found it easier to quit. You can read more about the effect of the environment in this excellent article written by Robins (who led the original research time authorized by Nixon). 1 More specifically, the authors wrote that 1% of interviewees were addicted to heroin a year after the war. If the 1% were all already addicted to heroin (which was true for 19% of interviewees) then 1/19 or 5.26% of interviewees were still addicted to heroin a year after the war. If, instead, not all of the 1% were addicted to heroin in Vietnam then < 1/19 (and > 94.74%) of interviewees who were addicted remained addicted. Thus, the percentage of US soldiers who stopped is at least 94.74%. In the paper cited above, Robins wrote: In the first year after return, only 5% of [US soldiers] who had been addicted [to heroin] in Vietnam were addicted in the US. The percent of interviewees addicted to heroin did increase over time. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44078",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/25402/"
]
} |
44,081 | During a June 28, 2012, "Talk at Google", Stanford professor Mark Jacobson made the following claim: One and a half percent of all nuclear reactors ever built, and there have been about 440, have melted down to some degree. Details of the talk Video, cued to relevant portion The slide with this claim appears at the timestamp where the link starts: A few moments later, in talking through this point, he adds the caveat ("to some degree"), which is not on the slide. Have 1.5% of all nuclear reactors built as of June 2012 melted down? This talk takes place over a year after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster , which basically put a freeze on new reactor construction, so the 440 figure is likely still the same despite the fact that this talk is now seven years old. | The number claim is correct in the context of nuclear power stations. The "440" reactors from the claim indicate, that we are talking about nuclear reactors for power generation in power plants. Therefore I won't include reactors used on submarines or vessels. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) there are currently (May 2019) 452 nuclear reactors in operation. 173 reactors have been decommissioned. This means a total of 625 nuclear reactors have been built and operated to date. These do not include research reactors. According to Shrader-Frechette (not a peer reviewed paper, but an open-peer commentary) there have been a number of apparent melt downs (emphasis added, list has been cleared of vessels and submarines). To provide a best-estimate answer, the list below excludes: (a)serious non-melt accidents; (b) intentional or deliberate melts; and (c) supposed melts, not documented in reliable scientific literature. Regarding (a), the lists below exclude fuel-loss or criticality accidents, however serious, if they do not partially melt the core . Thus, many damaging US-reactor accidents — such as the criticality catastrophe in Charlestown, Rhode Island; the fire near Chicago; the loss of cooling in New York; or the Nebraska and Connecticut reactor explosions — are not included in the lists below (see Pollack, 2011). Regarding (b), the lists also exclude melts that have been intentional or experimental , not the result of apparent accidents or negligence — such as those at Borax-1, SPERT, and TREAT reactors in Idaho. Regarding (c), the lists below exclude meltdowns for which detailed accounts are not available in refereed scientific literature, such as at the WTR reactor in Pennsylvania. Given the previous three caveats, (a)–(c), at least five unintentional, nuclear-core melts — all resulting in radiation releases, death, and injury — appear to have occurred in the US: EBR-1 in Idaho, 1955. Santa Susana in Los Angeles, 1959. SL-1 in Idaho, 1960–1961. Fermi 1 in Michigan, 1966. Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, 1979. Given the same three caveats, at least 21 unintentional nuclear-core melts appear tohave occurred outside the US—all resulting in radiation releases, death, and injury: Mulvihill Windscale in the UK, 1957. Chalk River in Canada, 1958. Chapelcross in Scotland, 1967. Saint-Laurent in France, 1969. Lucens in Switzerland, 1969. Greifswald in Germany, 1975. [...] Saint-Laurent in France, 1980. Chernobyl in Ukraine, 1986. Fukushima #1 (dai-ichi) Reactors 1,2 & 3 , Japan 2011. Of these EBR-1, Santa Susana, SL-1, Fermi-1, Chalk River were research reactors, Mulvhill was a fast breeder for plutonium and not intended to generate power. If we take the as actual meltdowns in scope, 10 meltdowns have happened in nuclear power stations world wide since the 1950s. This would results in 1.6% of all reactors ever built for power generation melting down. If we only regard the three worst incidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima we have 5 major meltdowns (0.8% of reactors). So a lower bound on the estimate would be 0.8%. Given this source the number seems to be in the right range. Shrader-Frechette notes, though, that public information about nuclear accidents is rare and it is difficult to get accurate information. Furthermore, the IAEA does not classify nuclear accidents in terms of whether a meltdown happened or not, but in terms of consequences in the INES scale . Limitations: The claim is correct in the context in which it was provided (nuclear power stations). In the context of all nuclear reactors (power stations, research reactors, submarines and vessels, space craft, etc.) the claim is most likely not correct, but it is hard to verify, because independent information on reactor accidents in the military (e.g. US and Russian submarines) is limited. The claim uses the 1.5% number as a means to question the safety of nuclear reactors. It is highly questionable if this is the right way to assess the safety or if other metrics are better. If one reactor is built and has a meltdown after 100 years, 100% of reactors had a meltdown. If 100 reactors are built and after 1 year one melts down, 1% of reactors had a meltdown. The percentages are totally different, although the cumulative reactor time and power output of operation is the same (given all reactors having equal output). Additionally, just because there was a certain risk in the past does not necessarily mean that this risk will be the same in the future. Most of the accident in this study were in the 1950s - 1980s. Since then the incident rate has declined. With a new generation of plants being built, there may also potentially be more accidents. It is difficult to infer future risks from past risks. A meltdown does not necessarily mean a catastrophic accident, because what matters more is, whether (and how much) radioactive material escaped into the environment. In risk assessment the commonly used metric is the number of severe accidents (e.g. after the INE Scale) per reactor year of operation. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44081",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/38403/"
]
} |
44,100 | Someone posted the following trivia on a social media website: Do you know that pen caps have holes so that if someone swallows a cap, then air could still pass through? This started a small debate, with some saying that the needed volume of air for respiration is too demanding and that the hole is too small, and others just approving of the assertion. I made a quick search and found an article on iflscience , which is rather ironic about the issue, than it clears the things out. They cite a statement from the BIC's FAQ list that proves at least this didn't randomly start: The reason that some BIC® pens have a hole in their cap is to prevent
the cap from completely obstructing the airway if accidently inhaled.
This is requested by the international safety standards ISO11540,
except for in cases where the cap is considered too large to be a
choking hazard. I imagine choking on a pen cap has more consequences, but I am wondering whether this assertion is true and whether there is any science behind it. | The BIC FAQ says the hole in the cap is to prevent children from choking to death. It was quoted in the question: The reason that some BIC® pens have a hole in their cap is to prevent the cap from completely obstructing the airway if accidently inhaled. This is requested by the international safety standards ISO11540, except for in cases where the cap is considered too large to be a choking hazard. That leads to an ISO standard which is specifically about preventing choking hazards in writing instruments used by children: Scope This International Standard specifies requirements to reduce the risk of asphyxiation from caps for writing and marking instruments. It relates to such instruments which in normal or foreseeable circumstances are likely to be used by children up to the age of 14 years. So, I'd say it is pretty clear that the hole in pen caps is to prevent choking deaths, and that the social media trivia you read is correct. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44100",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/17054/"
]
} |
44,117 | Dr. Leana Wen, president of Planned Parenthood, has repeatedly said that thousands of women died every year as a result of abortions prior to Roe v. Wade : We face a real situation where Roe could be overturned. And we know what will happen, which is that women will die. Thousands of women died every year pre-Roe. Interview with WFAA , March 6, 2019 Before Roe v. Wade, thousands of women died every year — and because of extreme attacks on safe, legal abortion care, this could happen again right here in America. Tweet from personal account , April 24, 2019 We’re not going to go back in time to a time before Roe when thousands of women died every year because they didn’t have access to essential health care. Interview Morning Joe , May 22, 2019 I presume that she is speaking specifically about: American women, since Roe v. Wade was decided by the US Supreme Court, which only has jurisdiction in that country Illegal (and likely unsafe) abortions, since the effect of Roe v. Wade was to overturn laws making abortions illegal Is her claim true? Did thousands of women die every year due to illegal abortions before Roe v. Wade? | When? If you go back far enough, it's likely ... The data collected by Tietze showed 2,677 deaths from abortion in 1933... ...and then maybe ... ...compared with 888 in 1945, with much of the decline in septic cases associated with illegal abortions. (The numbers also include deaths from "therapeutic abortions," permitted by law, and "spontaneous abortions.") ...and then no, not even close : The CDC began collecting data on abortion mortality in 1972, the year before Roe was decided. In 1972, the number of deaths in the United States from legal abortions was 24 and from illegal abortions 39, according to the CDC. This quote is from the article How many women died in abortions before Roe v. Wade? by the Washington Post, originally published as a longer article here . Tietze's data is from the Bureau of
the Census and can be found in his paper Abortion as a Cause of Death (1948). Unfortunately this data is not separated, so the numbers in the quote for 1933 and 1945 include miscarriages and legal abortions. However, I'm sure the numbers are underreported, but to what degree is hard to tell as estimates vary wildly. Tietze attributes the drop in mortality to three main reasons: better contraception, abortionists with greater skill, and medicine like penicillin (which despite being discovered in 1928 was not widely in use until later). The 1972 CDC stats are explained on their website . At this time, abortion was legal in some states but not others . | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44117",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/21420/"
]
} |
44,192 | In a town hall meeting on June 2, 2019 with Representative Tim Ryan (D-OH), the candidate stated the following (emphasis mine) Now, a lot of people don't know, but Youngstown, Ohio is 50 percent African American. I've been working on these issues a long time. We need to address when it comes to African American women what's happening with their health 300 to 400 times - 300 to 400 times higher percentage of death and pregnancy or child birth. Even along education and wealth, income levels, that's an issue we need to address. An African American baby born in Youngstown, Ohio has a higher infant mortality rate than a baby born in Iran. I am deeply committed to these issues around justice when it comes to the African American community, and you can bet that I will surround myself with men and women in my administration that will help us put and excellent plan together to make that happen. Thank you. So is his claim correct? Does an African-American baby born in Youngstown, Ohio have a higher infant mortality rate than a baby (not of a specific ethnicity) born in Iran? | Highly likely. The infant mortality rate in Iran is 13 (per 1000 births); the infant mortality rate for African Americans in Ohio (but not specialized to Youngstown) is 15.6. There may be difference in definition (in the USA, some neonatal deaths that are included in the IMR are classified as stillbirths in other countries and excluded), but Ohio would not be the only state where black mothers have Third World levels of infant and maternal mortality. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44192",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/21420/"
]
} |
44,240 | This year is the 20th anniversary of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia/Serbia . At the moment, Serbian media outlets are focused on claims that depleted uranium in NATO bombs used during the bombardment might be causing an increase in the number of cancer cases in the country. For example, The Serbian Monitor : We already have solid evidence that in Serbia, and especially the south part of the country, due has seen an increased number of cancer patients and cancer-related deaths due to the use of depleted uranium ammunition, and that the environment is heavily polluted. From a cursory search online, it seems that good, reliable evidence either supporting or rebuking these claims is hard to come by. Is there quality, reliable evidence that Serbians are suffering from cancer due to depleted uranium in ammunition used during the bombing? | There are several points to consider here. 1) Depleted Uranium is not that much "depleted". "Depleted uranium," the byproduct of the enrichment process, has about 0.002 percent 234U, 0.2 percent 235U and 99.8 percent 238U, and about 60 percent of natural uranium's radioactivity . -- U.S. Office of the Secretary of Defense , emphasis mine. 2) Uranium is pyrophoric -- munitions that hit a hard target will ignite . Upon impact on a hard surface, a uranium penetrator will undergo planar fracturing , i.e. it will "self-sharpen". (This is one of the characteristics that make uranium a viable choice for armor-piercing munitions.) It also means that what comes out the other side of the armor plate is no longer a solid penetrator, but a cloud of uranium, which will then ignite as uranium is pyrophoric . This also means that what is being left on a battlefield is not the same thing as is lying around in a US arsenal (a metallic DU penetrator), but mostly triuranium octaoxide (U3O8), plus uranium dioxide (UO2) and uranium trioxide (UO3). -- Report of the World Health Organization Depleted Uranium Mission to Kosovo , page 6. Which will then get into the dust you breathe, the water you drink, and the food you eat, much more readily than a couple pounds of solid DU... 3) Uranium is toxic. Uranium is a heavy metal, in itself already quite toxic . Many of its compounds are even more so. Think "mercury" and you are not far off the mark. 4) Uranium is mostly an alpha emitter. That's fine if you are handling uranium (that lump of metallic DU), because alpha particles don't even penetrate your outer skin, let alone gloves. But if you get an alpha emitter inside your body (like inhaling dust, or eating contaminated food), that's actually worse than e.g. a gamma emitter, because alpha particles do much more damage to what they do hit. What might be negligible on your outer skin does become a problem in your lung tissue, or your kidneys, where radiation does not have to penetrate deep to cause damage. And since it's next to impossible to decontaminate the insides of your lungs, or your blood stream, those alpha emissions won't stop anytime soon. I'm looking for hard evidence from well thought out scientific studies - not hearsay, not anecdotal, not sensationalism. British Army doctors do think so, for one... The big problem with all of the above, as with any chemical / radiological contamination, is to prove causality. People do get cancer. Children are born with birth defects. Sometimes numbers go up, sometimes they do get down. How can you prove that they went up for one specific reason, to the exclusion of anything else? You don't do "in vitro" studies where you feed people uranium compounds, or let them breathe dust with uranium compounds in them, to compare their health compared to a control group... Plus, especially following a large-scale conflict, getting reliable data on e.g. cancer rates before a conflict vs. after a conflict can be hard. The WHO report I linked above, for example, came up "inconclusive" in no small part due to the difficulties in getting reliable statistical data. We know that uranium compounds are unhealthy, both chemically and radiologically. Not just resulting in cancer, but other unfavorable conditions as well. In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU. -- Hindin, R.; et al. (2005). "Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective" So, dodging the question as-asked because I know there are people out there just waiting to pounce on this because I cannot come up with a conclusive study for cancer in Serbia specifically... if in doubt, stay away from places where DU munitions hit hard objects. It's definitely not beneficial for your health. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44240",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/50298/"
]
} |
44,245 | Bernie Sanders, who is running for president in 2020 gave a speech a few days ago. He makes a claim which goes like the following: Today the world's richest 26 billionaires, 26, now own as much wealth as the poorest 3.8 billion people on the planet, half of the world's population. Link to video This is a surprising figure, at least to me (though maybe it shouldn't be.) I'm just wondering if it's true. Edit: My question has been marked as a potential duplicate. I can't really click "Yes, that solved my problem" because they are two different claims. One claim is about the wealth comparison of 5 billionaires to the poorest half of the world's population, and the other claim is with regard to 26 billionaires. However if anyone thinks it's a duplicate, I'm happy to have the question closed. | Short Answer: True. Every year, in time for Davos (i.e. the Annual Meeting for the World Economic Forum), Oxfam releases a report about the state of inequality. Here's a link to their latest. Additional link to calculations down at the bottom of the page. https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2019-01-18/billionaire-fortunes-grew-25-billion-day-last-year-poorest-saw I'm pretty sure the US senator was referring to that. Now, a couple of things to note: If Oxfam's research were bad (it's pretty darn good), it would be discredited by many many business folk and of course top-rated economists - especially since they habitually present this at the most august fora they can get into. The WEF is up there, obviously. While Oxfam reports are "grey literature", serious academics like Sen, Stiglitz and Piketty have made the same point over the past 10 years, albeit differently nuanced - academic writing generally does not aim at the same shock factor that INGOs aspire to. There is a distinction between income inequality, wealth inequality... and other important inequalities (e.g. gender). Oxfam's 26 vs 3.8 Billion refers to wealth inequality. Update: See footnote 1 for the link to the 26 richest (and their worth) and footnote 2 for the link to the poor (World Bank data-tables). Both notes on page 76 of the Oxfam report. https://oxfam.app.box.com/s/f9meuz1jrd9e1xrkrq59e37tpoppqup0/file/385579400762 | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44245",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/44231/"
]
} |
44,255 | I took this self-survey of CO 2 emissions run by the German Environment Agency . It computes for example that an economy class seat from London to San Francisco and back – about 22 hours flight – accounts for 5.28 tonnes of CO 2 equivalents (CO 2 eq or CO 2 e). For comparison, the average CO 2 -emission in 2017 per capita has been 9.7 tonnes in Germany according to this Wikipedia article – but that excludes other greenhouse gases. The International Civil Aviation Organization gives only 0.762 tonnes CO 2 emission for the same flight. The methodology describes only CO 2 emitted when the fuel is burnt. Is the German Environment Agency's estimate for CO 2 eq from such a return flight reasonable? | Water vapor is indeed the most important greenhouse effect contributor. (Ref. 1) It is usually not showing up in climate change discussions because mankind basically has no way of directly affecting the amount of water vapor in the air, either positively or negatively, as anything we could or could not do is utterly dwarfed by natural processes. (As opposed to CO 2 .) (Ref. 2) There is one major difference, though. Airplanes. They put significant amounts of CO 2 , and more importantly, water vapor, directly where it has the most significant impact: High up in the atmosphere. And they are the only source doing that. When US air traffic was grounded for three days following 9/11, the effects were immediately measurable. (Ref. 3) CarbonIndependent.org Aviation sources elaborates in some detail on how its CO 2 calculator does its calculation, arriving at 250 kg CO 2 e per flight hour (about the same value that the GEA calculator gives you -- 250kg/h * 22h = 5500kg ), then going on to quote Professor David Lee, Director, Centre for Air Transport and the Environment (CATE), Manchester Metropolitan University: Whilst it is incorrect to multiply CO2 emissions by the RFI, it is clear from the foregoing that aviation's effects are more than that of CO2. Currently, there is not a suitable climate metric to express the relationship between emissions and radiative effects from aviation in the same way that the global warming potential does but this is an active area of research. Nonetheless, it is clear that aviation imposes other effects on climate which are greater than that implied from simply considering its CO2 emissions alone. The site then goes on to state (emphasis theirs, but especially note the last line): According to this statement, it is incorrect to multiply CO2 emissions by the RFI, but it is also incorrect to ignore them. For the purposes of a calculator, some decision must be taken until further evidence is available, and the Carbon Independent calculator will for the time being multiply aviation CO2 emissions by a factor of 2.0 . The practical consequences are in fact minor as regards informing people on the easiest way to reduce their carbon footprint; whatever the size of the factor used, the easiest way for most people who fly to reduce their carbon footprint will be to cut back on flying. So, without going into actual number crunching and arguing about the "correct" CO 2 e calculation (which does not exist), the Environment Agency's calculation seem legit , and does correspond to the broad opinion in climate research. (1): http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387H/PAPERS/kiehl.pdf (2): https://www.bpb.de/apuz/30101/klimawandel-einige-fakten (3): http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/artificial-weather-revealed-post-9-11-flight-groundings Further references: IPCC, 1999: " Aviation and the Global Atmosphere " | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44255",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/46223/"
]
} |
44,351 | I was talking about the all important Tea Making Process to a fellow Brit the other day, and he told me that the real reason we add milk to tea is: “It cools the tea down, so you can drink it faster. It was a trick used by factory owners back in the day, to make the staff have shorter tea breaks and get back to work”. Apparently he was told this “fact” by his grandmother, so he claims it goes back a long way. Example source (a blog post titled The History of Adding Milk to Tea ): TIDBIT: It is said that milk was used by less than respectable employers to shorten the length of tea breaks by British workers. Before the introduction of the milk the workers would have longer breaks to allow the black tea to cool to a consumable temperature – adding milk cooled the drink, shrinking the time it took to drink it – increasing work time. I have heard quite a few people agree with this view/comment. Some written reasons I've found for the adding of milk to tea is: Stop the staining of fine china Stop the staining of teeth Cover the bitter taste of cheap teas which the poor had during Victorian times To cool the tea to protect the cup from the thermal shock of the hot tea Because it tastes nicer To add dairy to your diet I find it hard to believe that factory owners bothered about their staff enough to cool the tea. Milk costs money, but a member of staff scalding their own mouth doesn't, neither does a member of staff leaving half a cup of tea behind. So, what evidence, if any, is there of the factory owners spreading adding milk to tea to reduce tea breaks? | The factory owners certainly did not start the habits of English workers to drink their tea with milk to speed up the breaks. That is a bogus claim incompatible with recorded history. Perhaps there were a few factory owners that made the observation that tea cooling faster might reduce time spent on breaks and thus wanted their workers to add milk in any case, even if they'd prefer it without. But milk or cream was already en vogue before. Unless a source appears in which any one factory owner reasons along these lines in a letter or diary, this lesser claim of 'owners did not start but promoted adding milk for speed reasons' should be also not taken overly seriously. Milk in tea is a habit that is older than the industrial revolution, started in Britain with the upper classes and slowly filtered down. William Hogarth "The Strode Family", c.1738 (Notice the little cream jug in the centre of the table) via Tate It came to be popular mainly probably because of simple taste. English tea was and often still is of so low a quality – or plainly bitter – that milk takes off a large part of this 'edge'. Reasons for the bitterness now are preference for strongness, cheap bulk varieties, and for green and the still more popular black varieties a generally 'too hot' brewing process and sometimes even too long extraction process. Not in the least this was also caused by the slow speed of delivery to Europe before the adoption of clipper type sailing vessels and the 'invention' of selling even fannings swept up from factory floors. That British factory owners invented such a habit is also quite a curious claim if we look at other societies and their preferences for tea with milk, be it in China, India, Tibet, Mongolia, Russia (in this case: not), Taiwan, Burma, Turkey. Apart from quite old and significant Frisian habits to always include some dairy, tea arrived in Western Europe mainly through the Dutch at first. In 1610 the first shipment of Chinese tea reached The Hague, and wealthy patrons were dazzled by it. The Dutch embraced tea with a fervent passion, and they laced it heavily with milk based on reports from Dutch traders that this was how the Chinese emperor took his tea. Because the emperor at the time was the Manchu emperor, these reports were based on information that was only true for him; Han Chinese emperors never did nor never would add milk to their tea. After the Dutch adopted the tea habit, members of the French upper class began to drink tea as well. In Paris the Marquise de Sevigné, a cultured woman of letters, extolled the way that her friend Mme. de la Sablière drank “tea à la Chinoise” (or tea with milk). Tea reached Germany about 1650, and was first mentioned to have appeared in Scandinavia in 1723. But it was not until 1658 that the first public sale of Dutch-traded Chinese tea commenced in London at Garraway’s Coffee House. When in 1662 Charles II wed Princess Catherine of Braganza, a Portuguese princess and tea drinker, tea became the fashionable beverage for English ladies. This opened the way for the rapid rise of the social traditions of “teatime.” Like the Dutch, the English added milk to their tea. They also added lumps of sugar, which England imported in vast quantities from the West Indies. Sugar added another boost to the energizing effects of tea, and a cup of black tea with cream and sugar defined the English style of twice-daily tea drinking. –– Mary Lou Heiss & Robert J. Heiss: "The story of tea: a cultural history and drinking guide" , Ten Speed Press: New York, 2007. (For national preferences, see –– Helen Saberi: "Tea A Global History" , Edible Series, Reaktion Books: London, 2010. From that book the following quote:) In 1657 Thomas Garraway opened his coffee house in London and extolled the virtues of tea as being ‘quite refined, which could be presented to princes and other great people’. Garraway also claimed that tea ‘being prepared and drunk with milk and water it strengtheneth the inward parts’ which suggests that in England milk was some- times added to tea right from the beginning. Another early reference to milk in tea came from France via the pen of Madame de Sévigné. In a letter written in 1680 to a friend who was in poor health she advised her to drink milk and recommended that to avoid the cold milk clashing with the heat of the blood she should to add it to hot tea. She added that Mme de la Sablière recently took ‘tea with her milk’ because she liked it. There is much debate about adding milk in tea and why this tradition started in the West. It has been suggested that milk was added to tea to prevent cracking delicate porcelain cups. Another question which is still hotly debated is whether milk should be added first to the cup or last. However, milk was not a common addition to tea in England before the 1720s. It was about this time that black tea overtook green tea in popularity and this could have played a part. Milk may have been added to offset the bitterness of the tea. Sugar was also added for the same reason. The following excerpts should cover most of the bases for the claim: ‘Lacte et carne vivant’ (they live on milk and meat) wrote Julius Caesar of the British. The promotion of milk began in 1922 with the formation of the National Milk Publicity Council, adopting the slogan ‘Drink More Milk’ two years later in a campaign to persuade the public that milk was a healthy and nutritious drink, equally good for adults and children, and targeting outdoor and sporting activities. The precise date of tea’s appearance in England is disputed between 1591 and 1612, the latter probably the more likely; at the phenomenal price of £6 10s a pound, the supply came from Holland, where the Dutch East India Company had opened commercial relations with China ahead of its English rival. It was still little known in the first half of the seventeenth century, when coffee and chocolate were already making progress, but its acceptance in aristocratic circles was encouraged by the Restoration of Charles II in 1660 when his Portuguese Queen, Catherine of Braganza, brought her previously acquired taste to the English Court. From the first, tea had strong gender associations. Although it was served in some of the exclusively male coffee-houses that opened in London after 1652 (see Chapter 4) it was not usual in these before the 1690s, and was never the principal drink there. While coffee-drinking began among men in public, the consumption of tea was primarily domestic, beginning in wealthy households where its service was associated with other novel objects of conspicuous display – fine china porcelain teapots, cups and saucers, gilded mahogany tea-tables and matching chairs (as at Ham House in 1683 ) and silver tea equipages consisting of teapot, tea-kettle, milk or cream jug, sugar bowl and spoon-tray. In 1700 tea was still an occasional drink of the wealthy, fashionable few: before the end of the century it was regularly consumed by all social classes, and formed an integral part of the new dietary patterns of the poor. This promotion of tea from restricted to mass consumption was a process rather than an event, and cannot be dated precisely, but when in 1784 William Pitt slashed the customs duty on tea from 119 per cent to 121⁄2 per cent it was a recognition that it was now a normal beverage of the British people, worthy of encouragement, for Tea has become an economical substitute in the middle and lower classes of society for malt liquor, the price of which renders it impossible for them to procure the quantity sufficient for them as their only drink. Two other reasons are more important in accounting for the central place that tea came to occupy in working-class diets. Sugar early became associated with the use of tea, adding sweetness, palatability and energy in the form of calories to a drink that otherwise lacked nutritional value. When added sugar became usual is uncertain, but probably within the first two or three decades of the eighteenth century, at the time when black Bohea and Congou teas, stronger and more bitter than green, were becoming popular, especially with working-class consumers. By this time tea or, less commonly, coffee, had generally replaced beer for breakfast; if resources allowed, men drank beer with their supper, but otherwise tea was the family beverage, drunk with and between meals through the day. Arthur Young in 1767 complained of ‘men making tea an article of their food almost as much as women, labourers losing their time to go and come to the tea table’, while in 1797 Eden observed that labourers’ families in Middlesex and Surrey drank tea three times a day with their meals. The poorest labourers are habituated to the unvarying meal of dry bread and cheese, and from week to week’s end in these families whose finances do not allow them the indulgence of malt liquor, the deleterious product of China constitutes their most usual and general beverage. How tea was made in such households at this time is uncertain, but in some it seems that the tea-kettle was kept simmering on the hob throughout the day, more leaves being added as required: in poor homes ‘spent’ leaves were dried and reused and ‘donkey tea’ made of burnt crusts was sometimes substituted. Eden noted that at this level tea was often drunk without either milk or sugar, and David Davies, one of the few sympathetic social observers to defend the poor’s use of tea, commented Spring water, just coloured with the leaves of the lowest-priced tea and sweetened with the brownest sugar is the luxury for which you reprove them. To this they have recourse from mere necessity, and were they now to be deprived of this they would immediately be reduced to bread and water. Tea-drinking is not the cause, but the consequence of the distresses of the poor. Although the adoption of tea by all classes now seemed irreversible, its place in the nation’s diet continued to be controversial. While Samuel Johnson, who described himself as ‘a hardened and shameless tea-drinker’, might be indulged, and the middle and upper classes who refreshed themselves with tea after substantial meals or took an evening’s recreation in a Tea Garden44 could even be admired for their sobriety, many still thought, like Hanway, that tea-drinking by the poor was ‘pernicious to Health, obstructing industry and impoverishing the Nation’. In one respect the critics were right: the new diet was less nutritious than the old, but it was the result of forces of economic change and ‘modernization’ rather than of choice or extravagance. In 1863 Dr Edward Smith believed that tea was now a necessity, ‘not from the requirements of the body, but from the acquired habits and tastes of the people’; such families were now consuming half a pound a week, estimated to cost £5 4s a year, almost as much as they spent on meat (£6 18s 8d) and half the cost of rent. As well as consumption in the home, workers took tea to be brewed at factory breaks, agricultural labourers boiled a kettle in the fields, and miners took cans of cold tea into the pits. In middle-class homes tea was now more usual than coffee, and only in the wealthiest households did both appear as alternatives at breakfast and after dinner. The later hour of dining in Victorian England – often at 7.30 p.m. or 8 p.m. in the highest circles – created a gap for an additional light meal, ‘afternoon tea’, at around 4 p.m., a social occasion mainly for ladies and eligible bachelors. Although the English tea ceremony never developed the elaboration of the Japanese, the arts of managing the tea equipment and serving guests were marks of social accomplishment, as was the manner of drinking. Victorian etiquette required the milk or cream (tea-sets always included a ‘cream’ jug) to be added after the tea, allowing the drinker to decline or limit the amount: to drink from the saucer was no longer acceptable, while a teaspoon laid across the cup indicated that the drinker declined a refill. The polite ‘afternoon tea’, at which little more than bread and butter or sandwiches were served, was quite different from ‘high tea’, a substantial meal of cold meats or fish, salads, fruit and cakes that developed in the later nineteenth century, particularly in the north of England and Scotland. From July 1940 tea was rationed at 2 oz a week for all over the age of 5, increased in 1943 to 3 oz for people over 70, and there were additional allowances for merchant seamen, harvesters, blast furnace workers and others. Lord Woolton, the Minister of Food, resisted the idea of a single blend of ‘pool’ tea, arguing that ‘Taste, individual taste, is worth preserving’: instead, tea was allocated to the companies in three grades, common, medium and fine, leaving it to the blenders to make the best use and enabling the principal firms to maintain some of their popular brands. Large quantities of tea were also drunk outside the home in canteens and British restaurants and at tea-breaks in factories, strongly encouraged by Ernest Bevin, the Minister of Labour, as an aid to productivity. Consumption per head remained throughout the war at around 9 lb a year, only marginally below that of the late 1930s, while the average price rose only from 2s 101⁄2d a pound in 1942 to 3s 1d in 1945. –– John Burnett: "Liquid Pleasures. A Social History of Drinks in Modern Britain" , Routledge: London, New York, 1999. An easier to check, because it's freely available online, version of a BA thesis surrounding the topic would be: Kendra H. Wilhelm: "A Different Cup of Tea: The Culture of Tea in Britain and Sri Lanka" , Vassar College, 1994. Chapter "Tea comes to England" generously quoted in Ni Wang: "A Comparison of Chinese and British Tea Culture", Asian Culture and History Vol. 3, No. 2; July 2011. (DOI: 10.5539/ach.v3n2p13 PDF ) | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44351",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/50460/"
]
} |
44,352 | In this BBC news article labour historian and lecturer Steve Babson says: The reason the Ford Model-T was black, was because it was the only
paint that would dry fast enough to keep pace with the production
process. Is this accurate or just an urban legend? | This is something of an urban myth - the drying time gains were made by using oven-dried enamel coatings on the parts that could withstand the required curing temperatures. The so-called "baked enamel" coating used by Ford was called "Japan Black" (produced for Ford by APV Engineered Coatings ) - this is an asphalt-based enamel coating which is applied to the desired object and then baked at around 400F for an hour or so. The color was provided partly by the asphalt base used in this particular enamel and partly by the addition of carbon black pigment. You could technically add other pigments to it in place of the carbon black that Ford used but ultimately it's always going to come out pretty dark. Of course other baked enamels were available and could be dried in comparable times - but at the time other pigments were far more expensive, and what's more were massively prone to fading (sometimes lasting only a few years). Add these factors together and black just makes the most sense (interestingly there's some anecdotal evidence that suggests Japan Black provided better damp-proofing than other contempory enemals but I have no idea if Ford were aware of this when choosing it). Trent Boggess (Professor of Economics at Plymouth State University and antique Ford enthusiast who has also spent time working at the Henry Ford Museum) wrote an excellent article detailing much about the paints, materials and processes used during the so called "black years" of the Model T. I won't reprint the entire thing here but the pertinent paragraphs are: There appear to be several good reasons for the choice of black as the color of the paint. First, black color varnish paints tended to be more durable than lighter colored paints. Authorities on paint in the 1920's noted that black paint tended to last longer than paints with lighter colored pigments. Second, as mentioned above, the addition of Gilsonite improved the damp resisting properties and the final gloss of the paint, but also resulted in a very dark colored paint. The range of colors that asphaltum paints can have is quite limited. The dark color of the Gilsonite limits the color of the final paint to dark shades of maroon, blue, green or black. Cost may also have been a factor. The carbon black pigment used in these paints is probably the least expensive pigment available; almost any other pigment is more expensive than carbon black. One often cited reason for the use of Japan black on the Model T was that it allegedly dried faster than any other paint. However, there is no evidence in either the Ford engineering records or the contemporary literature on paint, to indicate that that was the case. The drying time of oven baking Japan black is no different from the drying time of other colored oven baking paints of the period. In short, Model T's were not painted black because black dried faster. Black was chosen because it was cheap and it was very durable. And: The claim that black was chosen because it dried faster than any other color is not supported by the Ford engineering documents, the contemporary literature, nor by the first hand accounts of Ford Motor Company employees. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44352",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/17160/"
]
} |
44,389 | On How Hitler Stopped Homeschooling they say Hitler said this: “The youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing.” – HITLER, 1937 What I am asking is: Did Hitler actually say the above quote? In context, did it have any relationship to homeschooling? | It is entirely possible that Hitler said something of the sort, although it is rather a stretch to say it is about homeschooling. The law making school attendance compulsory was actually passed in 1919 as part of the Weimar constitution. Wikipedia: The Weimar Constitution Section 4: Education and School Articles 142 to 150 guided the operation of educational institutions within the Reich. Public education was provided by state institutions and regulated by the government, with cooperation between the Reich, the province, and the local community. Primary school was compulsory, with advanced schooling available to age 18 free of charge. The constitution also provided for private schooling, which was likewise regulated by the government. In private schools operated by religious communities, religious instruction could be taught in accordance with the religious community's principles. This of course isn't about outlawing homeschooling at all. It is about requiring children to receive an education rather than being put to work. It has the side effect of outlawing homeschooling because being at home wasn't the same as being at a state-recognised school with qualified teachers. But the idea of homeschooling, certainly in the sense of the modern US use of the term, wasn't on anyone's radar in Germany in 1919. Although the Weimar constitution obviously isn't in force any more, the requirement of children to attend a state recognised school has remained continuously since 1919. What did happen in 1937, and involved Hitler, was the creation of the Adolf Hitler Schools . Only a few of these were ever set up, and their goals fairly clearly involved indoctrinating students in Nazi ideology, although the students who went to these schools were selected from among Hitler Youth members who had to match up to various physical requirements (Hitler's Aryan master race kind of thing). The quote from Hitler in the question is certainly plausible, and consistent with his attempts to use schools to indoctrinate support for Nazi ideology, but it is nothing to do with homeschooling. Also note that many countries (in Europe and worldwide) have a mandatory requirement for children to attend official schools, which can be interpreted as "banning homeschooling" if you want to look at it through that lens. To pick out the example of Germany, and incorrectly tie it to Hitler (rather than the 1919 constitution) looks an awful lot like trying to create guilt by association. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44389",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
44,413 | I have seen variations on the following meme posted by many of my friends on Facebook: https://me.me/i/ubuntu-in-certain-regions-of-south-africa-when-someone-does-4931579 In certain regions of South Africa, when someone does something wrong, he is taken to the center of the village and surrounded by his tribe for two days while they speak of all the good he has done. They believe each person is good, yet sometimes we make mistakes, which is really a cry for help. They unite in this ritual to encourage the person to reconnect with his true nature. The belief is that unity and affirmation have more power to change behavior than shame and punishment. This is known as Ubuntu — humanity towards others. All of the memes share the same story: Some tribes in South Africa have the tradition of dealing with wrong-doing by putting the wrong-doer in the center of town for two days, while the people of the town remind that person of how they have been good in the past, reminding them of their true nature. Then they are reintegrated into the tribe. According to https://jmcsmith.co.uk/2012/12/06/maasai-bemba-african-the-same/ this is claimed to be a first hand observation by the author in following book in the book Contact: The First Four Minutes , by psychiatrist Leonard Zunin. Aside from this one account, I have been unable to find documentation of this practice anywhere online. Is this a real cultural practice of some tribes in South Africa? | The story in question was originally attributed not to an anthropologist, but to a childhood memory ! Consider the Babemba tribes of southern Africa, where the social structure includes only an elementary criminal code. Apparently, the lack of
fixed rules to enforce justice stems from close community living, which
never made such laws necessary. Brian Sharpe, our red-bearded friend, and director of the William Roper Hull Progressive Education Center, Calgary, Canada, was reared by the Babemba for the first nine years of his life. He passed the following information on to us, along with the tribal method of handling antisocial, delinquent, or criminal behavior, which were exceedingly infrequent. When a person acts irresponsibly or unjustly [...] The person in the center, we can only suppose, experiences a variety of feelings about his misdeed, having been flooded with the charitable warmth of his acquaintances, friends and loved ones. Perhaps this overwhelming positive bombardment not only strengthens his positive self-image, but also helps him choose to live up to the "expectations" of his tribe. Leonard and Natalie Zunin, Contact: The First Four Minutes . Ballantine Books, 1979. Emphasis added. One interesting aspect of this story is that the tribe in question is called the Bemba tribe , not the "Babemba tribe." Babemba means "the people of the Bemba tribe." I searched throughout ethnographic accounts of the Bemba tribe available in my university library but could find no discussion of such a practice other than references to the book Contact: The First Four Minutes . Who was Brian Sharpe and where did he grow up? A marriage announcement in the Calgary Herald of September 14, 1968 states that Francis Noel Brian Sharpe's father "Noe [ sic ] Sharpe" immigrated from Salisbury, Rhodesia. This is likely the Noel Sharpe who is said in the Geological Society of Zimbabwe newsletter to have worked for a firm named "Mineral Search of Africa"; a 2004 article " Emerald mineralization in the Kafubu area, Zambia " shows that firm was mining there "in the 1940s and 50s," which matches the dates when Brian Sharpe was in college writing a 1963 thesis on social work . This evidence suggests a childhood spent near a copper mine in rural Zambia , home to a people called the Lamba, who speak the Bemba language. An article about the 21st century Lamba people states that disobedient children are sent to live with an elder: Naughty children or children not conforming to the norms at an
expected stage are taught alone in a particular context by a person in
the community perceived to have the skills of coping with such
behaviour. This teacher could be an uncle, aunt or another relative.
After all, the Lambas argue they are all related. The child is then
sent for a period of time to live with him/her so as to learn from
them. Kalenga, Rosemary C., Vitallis Chikoko, and Fumane Khanare. " Leadership practices among the Lamba people of Zambia: some implications for school leadership ." Indilinga African Journal of Indigenous Knowledge Systems 12.2 (2013): 231-241. Could Sharpe have misremembered some other practice, or was he raised by another Bemba-speaking tribe? (Why did he refer to the tribe as "Babemba" instead of Bemba or Lamba?) To answer this, I emailed a Bemba tribe member: Dr. Richard Mukuka, a professor at the University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa. Here is his reply: There are two references to "Bemba". First, the Bemba ethnic group which (according to the 2010 population census of Zambia) constitutes 21% of the Zambian population. Second, the Bemba-speaking people who (according to the same census) constitute 33.5% of the Zambian population. There are 73 ethnic groups in Zambia. I'm a native of the Bemba ethnic group. A person who acts irresponsibly or unjustly (for the Bemba ethnic group) is only rebuked and corrected by his/her seniors who have the moral duty to "parent" and morally align the wrongdoer. Depending on the the social position of the wrongdoer, the seniors can be varied. The juniors and minors cannot correct their senior. If juniors notice a wrongdoing of their senior, they will recruit the help of someone senior to the wrongdoer: senior community members, village head persons, or the king in council. The practice you've described is not practiced by the Bemba people or any Bemba-speaking people I know. With kind regards, Richard Mukuka I hope this resolves the question to your satisfaction. You can read more about actual ubuntu practices of the baBemba in this article by Dr. Mukuka, available for free on JSTOR: Mukuka, Richard. “ Ubuntu in S. M. Kapwepwe's ‘Shalapo Canicandala’: Insights for Afrocentric Psychology .” Journal of Black Studies, vol. 44, no. 2, 2013, pp. 137–157. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44413",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/30824/"
]
} |
44,479 | There's a photo going around Twitter and the right-wing blogosphere of a woman standing in the nude at an art exhibition attended by a bunch of teenagers. I do not want to embed this photo, as it includes nudity.. Here is where I saw it: Kane: "Insane Photo — What are they teaching our kids!"
posted on CitizenFreePress on July 28, 2019 12:31 am (archived here: http://archive.is/Yd8pS ) Where is this photo from, and is it real or photoshopped? | The photo is real: unstaged and not 'doctored'. But all the surrounding text from the originating claim is misleading. The photo depicts the artist Mare Tralla . And some visitors to an art exhibition called Naine & Naine at the Pärnu Summer festival. It is important to note that she was scheduled to open the exhibition . An exhibition that also showed works by artist Marko Mäetamm whose works are seen in the pictures. These are his works on the wall and Tralla believes these to be sexist. That's why she undressed unexpectedly and began to hang sheets over Mäetamm's paintings with slogan's meant to criticise and expose these sexism depicted on them. As Tralla was only expected to deliver a speech, and not that much more, it was indeed 'a scandal' in Estonia as well. ( Scandal in the Art Hall: Mare Tralla considers the work of a male colleague sexist ) Opening the exhibition "Woman and Woman" in Pärnu on Saturday, Mare Tralla caused a scandal with her naked performance: the artist covered the work of Marko Mäetamm, who performed at the exhibition with anti-sex slogans. However, this is not the only exhibition that explores the boundaries of Pärnu. It could even be said that the summer capital will become the act capital of Estonia. After the 26th nude exhibition "Man, Woman, Freedom" opened in Pärnu City Gallery last Saturday, a man and a man depicting the human body was unveiled, and a bold "Woman and Woman" was set up in the artist house of the city. Tralla's "performance of protest" is now part of the exhibition. Exhibition “Man, Woman, Freedom” at the Museum of New Art in Pärnu offers a good selection of works by different authors. There are paintings, photos, sculptures, silk paintings, woodcuts and video art outside. In addition, the works of two authors, Kaupo Kikkas' biblically-influenced landscape of human figures and rare photographs of Ernest Hemingway by US painter Waldo Peirce, have been set up in separate halls. –– Indrek Tark, Eesti Päevaleht, 1 Juuli 2019 The so accused artist says to this: "I have white skin, I'm a hetero, a team artist too. But in my opinion, my work speaks to women's supremacy," published artist Marko Mäetamm, whose works were criticized by a female artist participating in the grand exhibition Pärnu Art Summer. –– Anu Jürisson: "Marko Mäetamm: I stand for my work until I die" – The work of the male artist came under criticism from the female artist, Pärnu Postimees, June 30, 2019. That means that the headline from CitizenFreePress ("Insane Photo — What the hell are they teaching our kids!") is a incorrect. These are not "our kids" but Estonian visitors to an art exhibition. And this is not about officially "teaching" anything off of the curriculum in school, but an unexpected presence of protest at an art gallery. The claim-accompanying Twitter post is even worse: School kids recently went on a trip to a feminist "art exhibit" and this is what they saw. This is child abuse. This is insanity. This is the lunacy of left wing social engineering in action. The kids and adults in the picture went to an art exhibition where a male artist displayed his sexually explicit works said to be sexist and abusive of women. A woman protested against this by disrobing. It is difficult to see how this can be accurately described as "the lunacy of left wing social engineering in action". A better write-up can – at least partially – be found in other English-speaking media, in this case even another right-wing extremists: NewsWars: "WTF? Feminist Strips Naked In Front of Children for Art Display European SJW artist claims to be fighting sexist patriarchy" Caldron Pool: "Feminist, LGBTQ activist strips naked in front of shocked school children to protest sexism" As one circular reports on this picture: CHILD ABUSE: School Takes Children to Feminist “Art” Exhibit – Kids Get Flashed by Radical Female LGBT Activist (VIDEO) The video in the above link is indeed useful to grasp the atmosphere of the 'performance'. Regarding 'teaching' and school, it is also relevant that the event took place at the opening of the exhibition. That was a Saturday. 29 June 2019 is also interesting as 12. June 2019 to 31. August 2019 are school summer holidays in Estonia. It may be a bit hasty to infer from that that 'teaching', 'school' and 'this picture' do not have that many connections to a 'school forcing kids', but I'll just go ahead and do that: No school forced any of their teenager students to participate on a Saturday evening during the holidays to go there. Most people in the picture are adults. For example, the female cap-wearer in front of six female breasts and three vaginas isn't a teenager but art historian Marian Kivila . While she is the curator of this exhibition , she seems to react in her personal way to individual exhibits. The Pärnu Summer Art festival site describes the intent of the 'exhibition' as: On June 29, two exhibitions - “Man and Man” and “Woman and Woman” will be opened in Pärnu City Gallery's two exhibition halls. Although the names of the exhibitions may refer to another traditional Pärnu big man and woman's summer exhibition in Pärnu, the exhibitions are not an extension, criticism or parody of the UKM project. Rather, the exhibitions could be seen as an attempt to engage in dialogue with the Pärnu traditions, as well as to dissolve the tradition as a very multi-layered cultural phenomenon and its nature in the sense of body and gender art. "Man and Man" and "Woman and Woman" bring to the audience the works of Estonian (and one of Russia) artists who, directly or indirectly, dissect the subject of gender roles. And not in the narrow context of erotic art, but in an attempt to open up body and gender reflections in the narrower sense – through everyday humor (Marko Mäetamm), through socio-political-historical prism (Leonhard Lapin, Sandra Jõgeva, Mare Tralla), through contemporary mythology (Andrus Joonas), through the autobiographical spectrum (Rene Kari, Evelin Zolotko), through feminist approaches and the irony of stereotypical gender roles (Lilia Li-Mi-Yan), but also in many other ways. Participating artists: Mare Tralla, Sandra Jõgeva, Evelin Zolotko (HUUPI), Lilia Li-Mi-Yan, Kiwa, Marko Mäetamm, Rene Kari, Jaanus Samma, Leonhard Lapin, Peeter Allik, Andrus Joonas, Alar Raudoja, Alan Prosa, Anonymous Boh. Curators of the exhibition are Marian Kivila and Jan Leo Grau (Avangard Gallery, NGO) For anyone non-Estonian reading along and wondering about cultural differences in attitude towards really "teaching about sexuality": in Estonia's schools sexuality-related education starts in grade 5 and the UNESCO judges Estonia's approach to STDs, pregnancies, etc. as very effective . Kai Haldre & Kai Part & Evert Ketting: "Youth sexual health improvement in Estonia, 1990–2009: The role of sexuality education and youth-friendly services" , The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care, October 2012; 17: 351–362 Translations from Estonian via Google Translate. Please improve! | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44479",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/42644/"
]
} |
44,499 | This quote—or some variant of it—has been floating around the news and social media world; this comes from Boston.com on July 26, 2019 : According to a 2015 report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, the median net worth of white households in the city was $247,500. The median net worth for black families was $8. I have no doubt there is a wealth gap between white families and black families in Boston, but is that number of $8 correct? And yes, I realize that article points to a 2015 study by Duke University and the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston that can be found here, but is the methodology used to determine that $8 number correct? Graph from the 2015 study below: | The full report (downloaded from link in question) talks about methodology on page 8. They compare various assets and debts of different ethnic groups and use these values to calculate net worth for the groups. These values were determined by surveying different communities. For the NASCC project in general, about 70,000 personalized advanced letters were sent, 87,000 telephone numbers dialed 448,000 times, and 12,113 interviewer hours were spent across three shops to conduct 2,746 completed surveys. Of the 2,746 completed surveys, 403 were in the Boston MSA (metropolitan statistical area) and used in the report's analysis (see Table 1 on page 13). The rest were not. 78 of the surveyed were whites and 71 were U.S. blacks. Thus, there were 149 samples when comparing whites to blacks. The methodology appears accurate. However, the sample size (403 residents) does seem small. The white and black sample size (149 residents) is even smaller. This is a fault that the study authors admit. We evaluated whether the data for whites and nonwhites differ in a statistically significant way. Note that what we report here as statistically significance results are considered to be conservative. 16 16 We report significance at the 90%, 95% and 99% levels. However, given our small sample sizes it may be difficult to detect significance at those levels even if differences exist. ... Small sample sizes limit the statistical power to detect meaningful differences even when there is good reason to suspect that group-based differences in assets levels and debts exist. ... Unfortunately, it was not possible to provide data broken down by age for all the groups analyzed in Boston, because the sample size was too small. Standard deviation data was not included in the final report. My limited understanding of statistics is that to estimate a necessary sample size, it is necessary to know the observed mean and standard deviation in the group (see the last equation on page 1183 here ). A moderator and another user on Cross Validated was kind enough to consider the issue of sample size. The moderator concluded "We lack the information to get a sample size." The other user wrote "I would say that the sample sizes are too small." Another possible flaw of the study is the age and educational differences between the white and non-white groups. The white and U.S. black groups had a median age of 55, so age differences would not apply here. However, 55% of whites had a Bachelor's degree or higher vs. 43% for U.S. blacks. The lack of a more detailed study with these variables is another drawback of a small sample size. The study authors note (emphasis added): Some of the differences observed may be driven by differences in age or educational attainment. In general, nonwhites in the survey were younger and had much lower educational attainment rates. Unfortunately, it was not possible to provide data broken down by age for all the groups analyzed in Boston, because the sample size was too small. Some of the reasons that whites have a higher median net worth (included in the report): Whites are more likely to have liquid assets (e.g. checking accounts and savings accounts). "For every dollar, the typical white household has in liquid assets (excluding cash), U.S. blacks have 2 cents..." (median $25,000 vs $700 for blacks) Whites are more likely to own homes (79% vs. 33% blacks), retirement accounts (56% vs. 20%), and vehicles (85% vs. 50%). Whites are less likely to have mortgage debt (60% homeowners vs. 90% black homeowners), student loans (19% vs. 28%), and medical debt (11% vs. 17%). Whites are less likely to send money to relatives (both abroad and in the US), which increases personal savings. A point the report makes is while differences in annual income may not be as significant, the difference is magnified over time. This reflects in the net worth. (empasis added below) In part, racial differences in net worth are derived from racially based differences in income because nonwhites generally earn less. But racial differences in income and racial differences in wealth are only weakly correlated. Rather, the racially based gulf in wealth accumulation widens as income increases and because wealth differences reflect an accumulated lifetime of income disparities , compounded by asset returns (or lack thereof), the racial wealth gap is much greater than the income differences. To summarize: Is there a wealth gap in Boston where the median net worth of white households is $247,500 while the median net worth for black families was $8? The data provided in the full report is limited. I can see that two limitations of the study are a small sample size and educational differences between the white and non-white groups. 1 Without the raw data, we would have to trust that the interviews and subsequent data analysis were performed correctly by the researchers. 1 The researchers did find statistical significance for the median net worth values. "Difference in findings of nonwhite household median or mean net worth values were statistically significant at the 99 percent level." | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44499",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/22266/"
]
} |
44,525 | Donald Trump claims he was at ground zero on 9-11 helping out. Was he? I was down there also, but I'm not considering myself a first responder," Trump said. "But I was down there. I spent a lot of time down there with you." And also : Everyone who helped clear the rubble ― and I was there, and I watched, and I helped a little bit ― but I want to tell you: Those people were amazing, | "I was down there also, but I'm not considering myself a first responder. But I was down there. I spent a lot of time down there with you." Likely false. (As elaborated in the linked video, watch it in whole for a strong rebuttal of the claim, and others.) On 9/11, Donald Trump was sitting in his office in Trump Tower, and actually phoned in an interview . "Everyone who helped clear the rubble ― and I was there, and I watched, and I helped a little bit..." If you look at the quotes closely, he does not actually claim much, though he makes it sound like much more. He admits to having been there for "a lot of time", that he "watched", and that he "helped a little bit". You could arguably say this for anyone who stood there, gawked a lot, and perhaps passed a water bottle or moved one shovel of dirt while posing for the cameras. Only that not even a picture exists. There is a total absence of evidence that Mr. Trump did any amount of helping worth mentioning , and statements from people like Richard Alles (at the time Battalion Chief of the FDNY), who was supervising search and rescue teams for two weeks after the attacks and said that he "spent many months there myself, and I never witnessed him". User CL. posted a video link of an interview given by Mr. Trump. About this video, The Daily Mail had this to say (emphasis mine): In that interview, he said he had 'hundreds of men inside working' and offered a colorful description, speaking about how five men had been found alive that day . The claim was widely circulated on September 13, and was featured on a chyron under Trump as six men being rescued, but in fact was untrue . The last survivor was pulled from the rubble 27 hours after the planes hit. So Mr. Trump was not, indeed, close enough to the actual rescue efforts to know the rumor for a rumor. The Daily Mail continues: Trump therefore certainly came close to Ground Zero, although his interviews showed that if he did actually go to the site itself, he must have cleaned up before appearing on television; conditions there meant anyone who went near it was covered in dusty and debris. The claim about "hundreds of men" is in turn challenged. Quoting the New York Times article, Mr. O’Brien, the author, said the size of the Trump Organization at the time was “a little bit over a dozen people,” which would have made it impossible to send hundreds of people to participate in the relief effort. At the time, Mr. Trump had a large number of casino workers based in Atlantic City, but there is no documented evidence of him marshaling his resources to aid in the relief effort. Snopes quotes Richard Alles (see above): “This is the first I’m hearing of it,” Alles told us by phone. “There would have been no need for that. Between police, fire and the construction crews, we had it all covered.” John Feal, who was at Ground Zero as a construction demolition expert, is quoted that he... ...didn’t see evidence of hundreds of workers hired by Trump at the site, and added that by 15 September 2001 the area was on lock down. “There was no way anyone could get in and out of there without a [government-issued] badge,” he told us. As for helping via donating money, Mr. Trump claimed that he donated $10,000 USD to the 9/11 fund, a claim which the office of New York City's Comptroller Scott Singer refuted . Bottom line, we have zero evidence of Mr. Trump having "helped" other than his own words. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44525",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/38619/"
]
} |
44,609 | A tweet from Lionel Page (@page_eco) showing an optical illusion recently went viral, with the image appearing in many aggregation web-sites: This is a black and white photograph. Only the lines have colour. What you “see” is what your predicts the reality to be, given the imperfect information it gets. Putting aside the blurring of the distinction between black-and-white and grey-scale, is it true that the areas not marked with a coloured line are truly grey? | As Øyvind Kolås, the original creator of the ilusion noted : The visual experiment that went along with my previous post went
viral, the one that went viral was an already lossily compressed JPEG
that has also gone through further cycles of viral degradation by
scalings and further JPEG recompressions. He gives a higher quality version: It should be easy enough to verify from a colour picker or counting the pixel colours that there is no bleeding of colour in the original. It certainly looks plausible, unlike the JPEG version. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44609",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/23/"
]
} |
44,684 | This viral image claims that an example beef farm with 130 cattle removes many tons of Carbon from the atmosphere every year. However it does not provide any sources. This image has been shared many times - e.g. [ 1 ], [ 2 ], [ 3 ], [ 4 ] - some of these date back to July 2016. Is anything in this info-graphic factual? Do the pastures required for cattle farming reduce the amount of carbon emitted to the point where it is a net reduction of carbon? | No. This is not really an infographic that is truthful. It is 'anecdotal evidence' evidence for one farm, very probably not true for that very farm, and in any case a misleading oversimplification. Pasture land can sequester some carbon , yes, but how meaningful is that? Carbon is just the element, and the element is not a greenhouse gas (GHG). Carbon dioxide is a GHG, and yes, green pastures do capture some CO 2 . But even if true that 112 tons of carbon gas is emitted and 500 tons sequestered annually, what does that translate to in practice if 500 tons of CO 2 are captured but 112 tons of methane released? For global warming climate change that would be a huge problem as methane is much more warming than CO 2 . Up to 34 times worse over a 100 year period. It also leaves out other gasses like N 2 O that are also a bigger problem than CO 2 . With that line of reasoning one could also argue that killing and eating a cow stops it from producing methane and thus the animal meat eaten by humans is saving the planet! However, emissions from livestock respiration are part of a rapidly cycling biological system, where the plant matter consumed was itself created through the conversion of atmospheric CO2 into organic compounds. Since the emitted and absorbed quantities are considered to be equivalent, livestock respiration is not considered to be a net source under the Kyoto Protocol. Indeed, since part of the carbon consumed is stored in the live tissue of the growing animal, a growing global herd could even be considered a carbon sink. The standing stock livestock biomass increased significantly over the last decades (from about 428 million tonnes in 1961 to around 699 million tonnes in 2002). This continuing growth (see Chapter 1) could be considered as a carbon sequestration process (roughly estimated at 1 or 2 million tonnes carbon per year). However, this is more than offset by methane emissions which have increased correspondingly. The equilibrium of the biological cycle is, however, disrupted in the case of overgrazing or bad management of feedcrops. The resulting land degradation is a sign of decreasing re-absorption of atmospheric CO2 by vegetation re-growth. In certain regions the related net CO2 loss may be significant. Methane released from enteric fermentation may total 86 million tonnes per year. Globally, livestock are the most important source of anthropogenic methane emissions. In the United States methane from enteric fermentation totalled 5.5 million tonnes in 2002, again overwhelmingly originating from beef and dairy cattle. This was 71 percent of all agricultural emissions and 19 percent of the country’s total emissions (US-EPA, 2004). –– Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations: "Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues And Options" , Rome, 2006. Of course, the picture alludes to how coal and oil got into the ground in the first place. Plants and animals are carbon based, when they died and were buried deep enough without immediate decomposition/recycling by other lifeforms the were effectively sequestering carbon out of the atmosphere. The reality looks a bit different for current farming practices. Only careful management in a less than now common in industrialised intensive farming has the potential to be less damaging for the atmosphere. The style and sheer amount of Western capitalist agroculture for cattle raising has to be reduced or changed significantly otherwise, as no farming practice that conforms to current market demands complies with reducing GHG emmissions. The US Natural Resources Conservation Service currently advises a rule of thumb that 1 cow needs 2 acres to be fed with grass for a year. The daily utilization rate for livestock. This is always the same number, .04, or 4%. This figure is used because livestock need to have 4% of their weight in forage each day (2.5- 3% intake, .5 trampling loss and .5-1% buffer). ( PDF ) With 130 animals on the example from the claim, that farm is already quite crowded and it will damage the pasture if it is not extremely productive and resilient or other fodder than grass is provided into the mix. Since that's left out from the picture, the numbers are already skewed. This effect isn't really news: Overgrazing of pasturelands is one of the major problems facing the Oklahoma farmer today. Aside from soil erosion on cultivated land, excessive pasturing of prairie and woodland is perhaps our greatest agricultural menace. Greater runoff from grazing land as the vegetation is destroyed added to water lost from tilled soil has increased the flood problem not only in Oklahoma but throughout the country. –– Charles Clinton Smith: "The Effect of Overgrazing and Erosion Upon the Biota of the Mixed-Grass Prairie of Oklahoma" , Ecology, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Jul., 1940), pp. 381-397. The USDA has calculated the effect of reconversion from crop fields to grasslands in the most optimal conditions on highly productive land in the North-Eastern US. These calculations should indicate that the numbers used in the claim are most probable what on Skeptics constitutes original research' that unfortunately erred along the way: Decades of plowing have depleted organic C stocks in many agricultural soils. Conversion of plowed fields to pasture has the potential to reverse this process, recapturing organic matter that was lost under more intensive cropping systems. Temperate pastures in the northeast USA are highly productive and could act as significant C sinks. However, such pastures have relatively high biomass removal as hay or through consumption by grazing animals. In addition, the ability to sequester C decreases over time as previously depleted stocks are replenished and the soil returns to equilibrium conditions. The objective of this research was to use eddy covariance systems to quantify CO2 fluxes over two fields in central Pennsylvania that had been managed as pastures for at least 35 yr. Net ecosystem exchange measurements averaged over 8 site-years suggested that the pastures were acting as small net C sinks of 19 g C m −2 yr −1 (positive values indicate uptake). However, when biomass removal and manure deposition were included to calculate net biome productivity, the pastures were a net source of −81 g C m−2 yr−1 (negative values indicate loss to the atmosphere). Manure generated from the hay that was consumed off site averaged 18 g C m −2 yr −1 . Returning that manure to the pastures would have only partially replenished the lost C, and the pastures would have remained net C sources. Heavy use of the biomass produced on these mature pastures prevented them from acting as C sinks. –– R. Howard Skinner (USDA-ARS): "High Biomass Removal Limits Carbon Sequestration Potential of Mature Temperate Pastures" , Journal of Environmental Quality, July 2008. And even in scientific studies arguing for re-calculating the CO2-sink effect of grasslands has to admit: Grazing pressure is a factor that affects C sequestration although it was not included in this study. …
This question does not have a simple answer if we consider that our study was focused on a regional scale. It is clear that C losses may be high in grazing areas of high cattle density. Intensive and frequent grazing imposes an increased C removal from roots to allow subsequent vegetation regrowth. For example, a meta-analysis investigation (Zhou et al., 2017) that comprised 115 cases suggests an additional carbon loss due to intensive grazing of about 21%. Very high stocking rates (N4–5 heads/ha) explain such losses. … Although animal densities were heterogeneously distributed […] in this study we assumed that those densities were low enough to prevent any significant loss of belowground C. So, we desisted from applying any uncertain coefficient to account for carbon losses due to grazing intensity. … Change of C stock due to land conversion was not specifically consid- ered in this research methods, but some aspects deserve a comment. There is meaningful question that has not still been completely an- swered. Do forests always sequester more C than grasslands as IPCC guidelines assumed? In a global meta-analysis that involved 385 studies on land-use change in the tropics Don et al. (2010) tend to confirm this assumption. They showed that the highest SOC losses were caused by conversion of primary forest into cropland (−25%) and perennial crops (−30%), and forest conversion into grassland also reduced SOC stocks by 12%. … Although management practices were not analyzed in this study, in line with scientific evidence (Conant et al., 2017) we also believe that management is a factor that can significantly improve carbon sequestra- tion. But provided that our knowledge about how grazing lands are managed in different sites of world is limited, we have to accept that figures on C sequestration due to management interventions remain uncertain (Smith et al., 2007). –– E.F. Viglizzo et al.: "Reassessing the role of grazing lands in carbon-balance estimations: Meta-analysis and review" , Science of the Total Environment, 661 (2019) 531–542. Cattle raising currently and globally emits much more than it captures in the long run. Only grass fed beef can be sustainable in the sense of 'less damaging'; and only on suitable land that is not forested now. As soon as you feed grains to cattle in mass the calculation fails. And the optimistic calculation from the claim only could work if the pasture would be growing topsoil with carbon incorporated into it in more stable forms. When organic matter recycling, or erosion and other forms of topsoil loss enter the picture, again, the calculation fails. Cattle dominate livestock related emissions, contributing around 65% of the total, buffaloes and small ruminants add a further 9% and 7% respectively, so in all ruminants account for over 80% of total livestock related climate impacts, most significantly via enteric methane (Figure 3) – which are highest, per unit of milk or meat, in grazing systems. Other studies give broadly comparable estimates. This 80% share of GHG emissions is worth setting against the 50% that ruminants contribute to overall terrestrial animal product protein supply (Figure 3). Grazing systems specifically emit an estimated 1.32 Gt CO2-eq (a figure that includes land use change-related impacts), which is about 20% of all emissions from livestock. Soils are very significant carbon stores. All soils contain carbon although different soil types differ in how much they contain. Above ground biomass also stores carbon – especially trees. As plants grow they draw down carbon from the atmosphere, apportioning some into their roots. Much of this is released back to the atmosphere when plants die and decompose. But, if left undisturbed, some of the carbon in their roots and in plant litter – depending on climate, rainfall, the soil microbial community, management and many other variables – may eventually be incorporated into more stable compounds in the soil, constituting a net removal of carbon from the atmosphere. This is soil carbon sequestration. If favourable conditions continue, soils sequester carbon until equilibrium is reached, after which emissions and removals are balanced and no more is sequestered. Further increases in sequestration may be possible if there is a change in how the land is used or managed. Sufficient nitrogen needs to be available for plants to grow and therefore for soils to sequester carbon. This can be provided in the form of bacterial nitrogen fixation, such as that associated with the roots of legumes, application of mineral fertilisers or organic amendments containing nitrogen, but higher nitrous oxide emissions may outweigh sequestration gains. Since sequestration is time-limited, so too is its role in mitigation efforts. There are additional problems of reversibility (what can be done can be undone) and leakage (organic amendments applied on one area of land may be at the cost of its previous application elsewhere). Legacy effects of past management practices also need recognising to avoid drawing false conclusions about the effects of the current management regime. Grazing animals potentially aid the process of sequestration as their consumption of herbage stimulates plant growth and leads to the partitioning of and increase in organic matter below ground. Factors including soil type and quality, climate and seasonal variability, precipition levels, nutrient availability, composition of soil fauna and microbial communities, and vegetation type will influence whether organic matter is converted into stable below ground carbon which determines if sequestration actually occurs. In many parts of the world the potential for grazing management to achieve sequestration is limited or absent. Heavy grazing is a problem on many grazing lands: by reducing plant growth, it causes carbon losses from the system. Evidence as to the sequestration benefits of holistic, adaptive and other variants of rotational grazing is patchy and highly contradictory. Where there are benefits, these are small. The highly ambitious claims made about the potential for holistic grazing to mitigate climate change are wrong. The sequestration potential from grazing management is between 295–800 Mt CO2-eq/year: this offsets only 20-60% of annual average emissions from the grazing ruminant sector, and makes a negligible dent on overall livestock emissions. Expansion or intensification in the grazing sector as an approach to sequestering more carbon would lead to substantial increases in methane, nitrous oxide and land use change-induced CO2 emissions… Practices that are optimal for achieving soil carbon sequestration may not be so for other environmental goals, such as biodiversity conservation. Leaving aside any scope for sequestration it is imperative that we ‘keep carbon in the ground’: by acting to halt degradation or conversion to croplands to avoid losing the huge carbon stocks already stored in grasslands. –– Tara Garnett, Cécile Godde et al.: "Grazed and confused? – Ruminating on cattle, grazing systems, methane, nitrous oxide, the soil carbon sequestration question – and what it all means for greenhouse gas emissions", Food Climate Research Network, Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, 2017. ( PDF ) As the above might read 'a bit too anti-beef':
It might be noteworthy to emphasise the last point from the last quote: cattle production as such is not the devil, and that for ensuring human nutrition converting grassland to intensive agriculture annual crops with tilled bare soil and ample fertiliser and pesticide usage is actually worse, carbon-wise, as it contributes a massive carbon loss in the soil organic matter under ideal conditions and facilitates erosion and thus total top-soil loss and huge carbon emissions. Just planting maize monocultures instead of raising cattle doesn't solve anything. The conversion of grasslands to arable use has led to a 25–43% decline in soil carbon stocks in the uppermost 120 cm in the USA, as compared to native grassland (Potter et al. 2000). A well documented chronosequence in France has yielded similar results (Boiffin & Fleury 1974). The mean carbon change induced each year by converting a permanent grassland to an annual crop can reach -0.95 T ± 0.3 t C ha -1 yr -1 over a 20-year period. –– J.-F. Soussana et al: "Carbon cycling and sequestration opportunities in temperate grasslands", Soil Use and Management (2004) 20, 219–230. DOI: 10.1079/SUM2003234 ( PDF ) | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44684",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/15094/"
]
} |
44,687 | This recent claim appeared on Twitter : If you are 29, you’ve been alive when half of all the fossil fuels ever burned throughout all of human history have been burned The source appears to be an article in PeakProsperity.com . The source makes the claim this way (my emphasis): Fossil fuel energy is responsible for providing every creature comfort and material abundance in your life and it’s has been growing exponentially for your entire life . Here’s the brain buster. Squint at that chart carefully and you’ll see that fully half of all the fossil fuels ever burned throughout all of history have been burned since 1990. The basis appears to be this chart: The specific numbers seem to come from that chart but it only plots 3 data points and seems to fit them to an exponential. The annual chart doesn't look like this and certainly doesn't look exponential (as some other charts the source includes make clear whiteout any explanation as to why this chart looks different). So is current growth in fossil fuel use growing exponentially? And have we burned half of all the fossil fuels used over history since 1990? | True More detailed data confirm the claim. This chart is taken from https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels ; most data there comes from the published paper: Vaclav Smil (2017). Energy Transitions: Global and National Perspectives. & BP Statistical Review of World Energy. . It is coherent with figures from the World Bank: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.COMM.FO.ZS ; https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.PCAP.KG.OE The growth is indeed exponential or, arguably, linear since 1950 with a strong slope.
The consumption reached 83,000 TWh in 1990, then 134,000 TWh in 2017. Using data from the same source, the aggregated numbers confirm that 50% of total (1800-2017) consumption of fossil fuel has happened after 1990. I basically summed the data in the online-available spreadsheet; I don't think that should be dismissed as "personal research" ? edit: some comments debate whether fossil fuel consumption is the same as fossil fuel use (as per the OP). I cannot find easily whether the data here refers to the total primary energy of the fuel or to the energy produced after transformation - I strongly suspect it is the former, since it is much easier to compute (at any given time, there are several machines using coal, with different efficiency, so it is much easier to mesure the quantity of coal burned that the output). Moreover, the subtitle of the chart explicitely mentions primary energy . In case I am wrong, this chart should only be considered as a proxy for the question asked. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44687",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/3943/"
]
} |
44,706 | According to this picture (shared over 100k times) Text reads, Obama donated none of his salary, Michelle had a staff of 23 Trump donates all of his salary, Melania has a staff of 4 I'm more interested in the claims about comparative staff size. | As for the challenged claim, that is a qualified yes (Michelle's staff was larger than Melania's, but not by that much, and there were reasons for it). The Hill writes in an article dated October 2017: Melania Trump has a smaller group of aides compared to her predecessor, Michelle Obama, according to the news outlet's analysis of White House personnel reports. The article goes on to state that Melania Trump has a staff of four listed on the record, with her communications director Stephanie Grisham stating that there are five more people serving her since the report stating "four" came out in June that year. This is in contrast to Michelle Obama's staff, which (in Barack Obama's first year in office) had 16 people listed, with "some Obama administration officials" putting the actual number "closer to 24". So, listed staff would be 4 to 16 . The original claim apparently compares "listed" to "unofficial", but I'll let this slide. (And see the Snopes article linked below for a different take on the numbers.) The Hill adds this (emphasis mine): Obama took on a busy agenda at the start of her husband's term, pushing initiatives like "Let's Move," her campaign against child obesity. In comparison, Melania Trump remained in New York during the first few months of the Trump presidency while her son Barron Trump finished the school year. Snopes also mentions this (emphasis mine): Things get more complicated when it comes to Melania Trump. For one thing, she didn’t move into the White House until 11 June 2017, five months into her husband’s presidency. For another, she was far less active during her inaugural year as first lady than her immediate predecessors. With regards to the White House personnel reports that The Hill is also referring to, Snopes continues (emphasis mine): That report does list exactly four staff members whose titles link them directly to the first lady, but it is neither a full nor a current count, for the following reasons: First, the report was published on 1 July 2017, only slightly more than two weeks after Melania Trump moved into the East Wing. Her staff was skeletal then, at best. [...] Her three new hires in January 2018 would have brought that total to 12 staffers — a total still lower than Michelle Obama’s, but triple the mere four claimed of her . And as it's prominently featuring in the claim, and I don't like to let lies go unchallenged: Snopes also states that Barack Obama donated all of the USD 1.4 million he received as winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, putting his donations at ~78% that of what Trump will have donated at the end of his term -- while not being a billionaire to begin with. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44706",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/3835/"
]
} |
44,720 | The picture above is taken from a Telegram channel and the text in Russian goes as follows. Prey has got a horizontally shaped pupil to better scan the horizon and a
predator's pupil has a vertical shape to better focus on a prey. Is this true? | Generally true. Some nuance applies, plus exceptions. It is generally true that eyes of predators are different than eyes of prey. Not only are the pupils sometimes different in the way suggested in the claim, but eye placement and some other factors are different as well. The general theory accepted by biologists is that predators tend to fixate on their prey targets, so they evolve eyes that suit looking forward and intently fixating on single points. Prey, on the other hand, is suited well by having a broader periphery that helps them spot approaching predators, even if at the expense of the ability to converge the eyes and look straight forward. Scientists have now done the first comprehensive study of these three kinds of pupils [horizontal slits, vertical slits, and round]. The shape of the animal's pupil, it turns out, is closely related to the animal's size and whether it's a predator or prey. Eye Shapes Of The Animal World Hint At Differences In Our Lifestyles - NPR The nuance and exceptions is that slits are by no means the only pupil shape. Round, as in humans, is common. There's also some crazy shapes like 'W', crescent, heart, and pinholes. The generally true part is that horizontal slits are typically only on prey while vertical slits are typically only on predators. I don't know of any exceptions to this specific point. The researchers gathered information on 214 species. They noted the pupil shape and the location of the eyes on the head, plus the animal's lifestyle. ... When they pulled everything together, a clear pattern emerged. In the journal Science Advances, the scientists report that there's a strong link between the shape of an animal's pupil and its way of life. "If you have a vertical slit, you're very likely to be an ambush predator," says Banks. That's the kind of animal who lies in wait and then leaps out to kill. He says these predators need to accurately judge the distance to their prey, and the vertical slit has optical features that make it ideal for that. But that rule only holds if the animal is short, so its eyes aren't too high off the ground, Sprague says. "So for example foxes, in the dog lineage, have vertical pupils, but wolves have round pupils," he says. And while a small pet cat has vertical slits, Sprague says, "the larger predators, like lions and tigers, have round pupils." In general, round pupils seem to be common in taller hunters that actively chase down their prey, says Banks. Meanwhile, he says, if you're the kind of animal that gets hunted, "you're very likely to have a horizontal pupil" and to have your eyes on the side of your head. That makes sense, he says, because it gives prey animals a panoramic view, so they can best scan all directions for danger. ibid There's a lot more going on with evolved eye structure, some of which you can learn about in the linked NPR article. The NPR article is based off " Why do animal eyes have pupils of different shapes? ", Banks, Sprague, Schmoll, Parnell, and Love, Science Advances 07 Aug 2015:
Vol. 1, no. 7, e1500391
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1500391 | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44720",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/50782/"
]
} |
44,732 | German media has reported that a village in Poland has had only girls born for the last decade: The head of the parish promises a reward, the Catholic village priest asks for God's help: In the Polish village of 300 souls, Mistitz, no boys have been born for almost ten years. Source: "Mistitz in Polen – Dorf ohne Jungen", tagesschau Stand: 17.08.2019 11:43 How is that possible that there are no boys born? Statistically, it seems to me to be nearly impossible. Is this real, or is it a publicity gag or something else? English media has also reported on the village: "Girls only: Tiny Polish village of 300 people waits for first birth of a boy for nearly a DECADE", Daily Mail | Support for the claim appears to rest on explicit birth records, although interviews with families in the village were also conducted. The New York Post writes (emphasis mine) According to birth records , there hasn’t been a boy born there since 2009, though 12 girls have come into the world in that time frame. I did some digging and was unable to access said records (not wholly surprising, I suppose), or more details on them. It appears that media conducted interviews with families in the area to back this up; the Post 's phrasing is ambiguous, but it indicates that boys in general are less common in the town: Most family interviewed by the press reported having daughters, often more than one. The Associated Press cites Krystyna Zydziak, the "community head", as saying that ten girls have been born since 2010; the media also talked with various village and local officials, including the county mayor. Now, the crux of my answer - aside from indicating the likely veracity of the claim - is that none of this should be overly surprising. The village is small ( current population 272, according to the New York Times ), and therefore there have only been a small number of births in the last decade (12, according to the Post and other media, e.g. Today and Fox News ). If the chance of a baby being a boy and the chance of a baby being a girl are equal, then the odds of 12 consecutive births all yielding girls is (1/2) 12 = 0.0244%. That's small, but when you consider that there are many towns and villages in the world, it shouldn't be surprising that at some point, just from randomness, 12 girls are born in a row in a given town. The odds of the same thing happening with 12 boys (which would also be widely reported) are identical, so the odds of 12 consecutive babies having the same sex is 0.0488%. ( The Daily Mail notes that in 2017, 207,000 boys were born in Poland, as were 196,000 girls, making the odds slightly lower.) Of course, more than randomness could be at play; environmental or cultural factors could be responsible. It's possible that maternal diet pre-conception ( not post-conception , of course) can play a role. Several studies have claimed that the sex of a child can slightly be influenced by dietary factors: Breakfast cereals, salt and potassium may increase the chances of having a boy ( Mathews 2008) ) A maternal high-fat diet may lead to more male offspring in mice ( Mao et al. 2010 ) That said, these results are contentious and not well-supported . I mention them only because the Daily Mail article you mentioned wrote that scientists "have offered to conduct research to investigate the unique situation", and perhaps any environmental factors will be turned up if that research happens. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44732",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/40841/"
]
} |
44,759 | In Natural History magazine article , Neil DeGrasse Tyson claims the following: The military normally knows all about the Coriolis force and thus introduces the appropriate correction to all missile trajectories. But in 1914, from the annals of embarrassing military moments, there was a World War I naval battle between the English and the Germans near the Falklands Islands off Argentina (52° south latitude). The English battle cruisers Invincible and Inflexible engaged the German war ships Gneisenau and Scharnhorst at a range of nearly ten miles. Among other gunnery problems encountered, the English forgot to reverse the direction of their Coriolis correction. Their tables had been calculated for northern hemisphere projectiles, so they missed their targets by even more than if no correction had been applied. They ultimately won the battle against the Germans with about sixty direct hits, but it was not before over a thousand missile shells had fallen in the ocean. The physics explanation is correct - the correction due to Coriolis force is opposite on Southern hemisphere. This incident is described also in physics textbook Analytical mechanics by Hand and Finch. By direct calculation, Coriolis effect is approximately 100 meters, so this seems significant. However I'm not sure if other factors (such as wind, rocking of the boat and evasive manoeuvres of the target) would be as large. Did this actually happen during the Battle of Falkland Islands? Was the inaccuracy due to miscalibration of artillery due to wrong Coriolis effect corrections? EDIT: Some calculational details, as requested by @Querky. Gravitational acceleration: g = 9.81 m/s 2 Angular velocity of Earth: omega = 2*pi/(24*60*60 s) = 1.5*10 -4 1/s Velocity of the artillery shell: v(0) = 500 m/s Max height: v(t) = v(0)-gt = 0
-> t max = v(0)/g = 50.97 s
-> h = v(0)/2*t max = 25.49 km Coriolis correction (solution of 2. order differential equation): y = 2 3/2 omega cos(theta)*h 3/2 /(2*sqrt(g))
= 0.4515*1.5e -4 *cos(52°)*25490 3/2 = 170 m | No. It is a complete invention of an urban myth. Unless anybody produces a Royal Navy document that even does any mention of this influence of Coriolis effect, this seems to be just untrue. A complete fabrication for a good story – good for teaching physics but very bad history. It seems to be an annoying urban myth. The Coriolis effect is present and significant for shots at long ranges and flight duration. But it is not the only factor involved and naval gunners did not rely on tables alone. The Coriolis effect for any gun on any ship at any latitude in any direction is a constant influence on accuracy if shooting continues into the same direction. Further, the observations made during peacetime were not made for this range and speed at all . The only time approaching this range was made on the Southern hemisphere en route to the Falklands and the ships involved did a run of gunnery practice the day before the battle. Any systematic error that big as claimed would have surfaced by then and dealt with accordingly. Such systematic errors should be quickly spotted and corrected for as long as the targets are still visible, that is: above the horizon if spotting is to be done from the same ship that is firing. This myth is entirely absent from all history books I checked on for this battle. It is also missing from German accounts of the events, as evidenced by how German Wikipedia narrates the analysis: During the battle, the two British battle cruisers fired the considerable quantity of almost 1200 305 mm grenades at the German armoured cruisers, which allows conclusions to be drawn about the training of the operators and the quality of the grenades. However, the Royal Navy did not draw any conclusions from this circumstance until after the Battle of Skagerrak one and a half years later. A more specialised Wiki has its own entry on Coriolis effect and on the page related to the battle puts it this way: Coriolis Effect An annoying urban legend persists that the Royal Navy's shooting at the Battle of the Falklands was poor due to their equipment applying corrections for Coriolis effect in the wrong direction, as the action was in the southern hemisphere rather than the northern. The truth is, however, that no contemporary aspect of Royal Navy equipment or procedure took Coriolis effect into consideration, an extremely minor deficiency. For, even if the fable were true, if the action took place on a nearly constant bearing, and at a range that changed only slowly, even a blatant mistreatment of Coriolis effect such as its negative consideration would therefore have been a constant error, and one unlikely to be large compared to other factors affecting the proper deflection to use (such as the zig-zagging of a fleeing enemy). This fact implies that the remedy for such a miscue would have been a single spotting correction for deflection which, once made, would counteract the error for the remainder of the action. While I think it likely that later systems of firing incorporated Coriolis corrections, a system lacking such treatment which is designed primarily to bring fire upon a maneuvering enemy is not a sad system by any means. Taken in context, Coriolis errors are a constant source of deflection error and very small in degree. The need to fire repeated salvoes which for many reasons will require spotting to put them onto the target implies that a failure to handle Coriolis effect, or even handle it entirely backwards, would not prevent a shooter from hitting his target in a prolonged engagement. And the British Royal Navy summarises, without ever mentioning "Coriolis": System 1914 In the year 1914 a high standard of efficiency in the control of fire was attained; the system used was thoroughly understood and there was no lack of confidence in the ability of the fire control system to compete successfully with the accepted standards of range and general battle conditions. Briefly, the rangefinder equipment was used to feed the fire control gear, and the latter was relied upon to furnish the requisite information for successful attack on a moving target. In conjunction with this, the bracket system of spotting was universally used to correct the best mean range into the actual gun range after opening fire. The correction of the remaining factors, such as rate and deflection, was primarily dependent upon observation of fire, although great importance was attached to the use of the fire control gear as a guide. Battle Experience The earliest engagements of the war gave no cause to suspect that the firing rules were inadequate to deal with battle conditions. The Battle of Heligoland Bight in 1914, fought in very low visibility was not of a character to produce any reliable evidence one way or another. It showed, however -
The impossibility of taking ranges in low visibility conditions. The action off the Falkland Islands in the same year demonstrated the following: The rangefinder equipment failed to provide much information. (This was chiefly due to the range at which the action was fought, which outclassed the 9-ft rangefinders.) The use of defensive tactics (zigzagging) rendered the control of fire extremely difficult, and placed a high premium on rapidity of fire as soon as the gun range was found. USE OF 100-YARD CORRECTIONS Reports were called for at the end of 1932 regarding the desirability of limiting the occasions on which corrections of 100 yards for range are permissible, in view of the frequent occasions on which range spotting corrections are insufficiently bold. As a result of these reports it was not considered that a case had been made out for altering the existing rules, but it was stressed that control officers must constantly bear in mind the necessity for the use of bold spotting corrections, especially when aircraft are not available for spotting. –– ADM 186/339 C.B. 3001/1914-36: Summary
Of Progress In Naval Gunnery, 1914-1936, Training And Staff Duties Division, Naval Staff, Admiralty, S.W., December, 1936. It is curious for the claim to only focus on the battle at the Falklands. As for the previous battle at Coronel , also on the Southern hemisphere, the outcome was similar. And again at Jutland , this time on the supposedly 'correct' hemisphere for correctly calibrated Coriolis compensation: the British range finding and gun aiming was just inferior. (As the German ships had similar conditions, from perfect manoeuvre-like going over to smoke-induced blindness at high-speed, but remaining at a better hit-rate) As books focusing just on that specific battle alone never mention Coriolis effect, a work that analysis just the history of naval gunnery and aiming techniques concludes: The rangefinder measured the geometric range between shooter and target, which was sometimes called the true range. Given rangefinder errors, this measurement could not be entirely accurate, but it is convenient to identify the rangefinder figure with the actual distance between ship and target. This range was not the same as the gun range, the range to which sights should be set. Gun range took into account the movement of the target while the shell was in the air and even that of the shooter while the shell was in the gun (where it shared the ship’s motion). It thus involved knowledge of how the range was changing: the range rate. The longer the range (ie, the more time the shell spent in the air), the more significant the range rate. At very long range, factors such as the rotation of the earth had to be taken into account. It began to matter that a ship was able to measure her own speed. That was difficult: only in about 1912 did the Royal Navy obtain an electric log (measuring speed). Other navies were probably in about the same position: the Germans license-produced the British log. The British were fairly sure, moreover, that their understanding of gunnery was far in advance of any other navy: in 1906 DNO’s assistant Captain Harding remarked that foreign navies did not yet understand the difference between geometric and gun range. Only recently had British officers realised how important it was to know the geometric range precisely, rather than depend on spotting beginning with an approximate range. Presumably this referred partly to Captain W C Pakenham’s comments during the Russo-Japanese War (Pakenham was Royal Naval attaché to Japan at the time): ‘Outside the Service the impossibility of continuous use of the rangefinder and therefore the importance of a knowledge of the rate of change [range rate] is not recognised, consequently the means of its determination are unsought for.’ No one had tried to make a rangefinder record its output automatically, and no one (apart from Pollen, see chapter 2) had realised the importance of using a gyro to eliminate yaw from rangefinder bearing readings. The Germans were probably the most advanced foreign navy at this time. Little was known of their thinking, but the evidence of what they were using (sextants with a few unmodified Barr & Stroud rangefinders) and of articles in their main annual publication, Nauticus, suggested that they were not working along British lines. The range rate Successful gunnery required that the position of the target be projected ahead, ultimately to the moment at which a shell might be expected to hit. To do that, the shooter had to calculate the rates at which the range and bearing of the target changed; they were usually called the range and bearing rates. Calculation was difficult because neither was constant, and because each depended on the other. Alternatively, one might think in terms of the vector (magnitude and direction) pointing from shooter to target. The change in this vector was another vector which might be called the rate vector. It could be expressed as two components, one along the line of fire and one across it. The rate along was usually called the range rate. The rate across was usually called deflection. Its magnitude was the bearing rate multiplied by the range. The Falklands In December 1914 two British battlecruisers fought Admiral Graf von Spee’s Pacific Squadron, which had recently sunk the HMS Good Hope at Coronel. This time visibility was excellent (only in the last hour of the battle did it fall to 15,000 yards), and both squadrons steamed at high speed. Neither British ship had a functioning director or a Dreyer Table. Both ships found their fire control hampered by funnel smoke, so that although her fore conning tower and A turret never lost sight of the enemy, in Invincible the fore top occasionally lost sight, and P, Q, and X turrets were much affected. Rangefinding was very difficult due to the long range, funnel smoke, splashes and spray from the enemy. Rate-keeping was difficult at best, due to the enemy’s zigzagging as well as to the very long range (variations in range were almost undetectable). Gunners found it difficult to stay on a point of aim, sometimes mistaking the target’s bow for her stern. On the other hand, according to prisoners, British shells performed well, penetrating and exploding deep in the ships. Even so, Gneisenau took fifty 12in hits before sinking. It was no great surprise that the British ships used up most of their ammunition: one 12in gun in Inflexible fired 109 rounds (the ship was designed to carry eighty for that gun). To the surprise of the British, von Spee’s ships zigzagged to avoid being hit, even thought that made hits by their own guns unlikely. As crack gunnery ships, the Germans were expected to fire at maximum range, but the actual figure for their 8.2in guns, 16,000 yards, seems to have surprised the British. The Germans straddled (without hitting) at 15,000 yards. The Germans persistently fired salvoes (the British thought, wrongly, that they were using directors), and their direction and fire discipline were excellent. The British were impressed by the effect of plunging shells at such ranges, and by the blast effect of the German fire. The German survivors stressed, and the British noted, that slow British fire made it easier for their own gunlayers. It also made spotting easier, because the British ships were much less completely enveloped in the smoke of their own guns. This may have been the first of many British observations that their firing techniques were far too deliberate. -- Norman Friedman: "Naval Firepower. Battleship Guns And Gunnery In The Dreadnought Era", Seaforth Publishing: Barnsley, 2008. Further reports include Excessive smoke was not the only cause of the slow, inaccurate gunfire of the battle cruisers. A British officer in the spotting top of Invincible, Lieutenant Commander Hubert Dannreuther, who happened to be a godson of the composer Richard Wagner, found that his excellent, German-made stereoscopic rangefinder was rendered useless not only by smoke, but also by the vibration caused by the ship’s high speed, and by the violent shaking of the mast whenever A turret fired. In Invincible’s P turret, conditions were impossible. The gun layers could see nothing except enemy gun flashes through enveloping clouds of smoke, and every time Q turret, across the deck, fired over them, everyone in P turret was deafened and dazed by the blast. On Inflexible, Lieutenant Commander Rudolf Verner in the battle cruiser’s foretop was almost the only man aboard his ship who could judge the location of the enemy, and he, handicapped by the smoke from the flagship ahead, had great difficulty observing what damage his gunners were causing. […] From Invincible’s spotting top, Dannreuther reported, “She was being torn apart and was blazing and it seemed impossible that anyone could still be alive.” On Inflexible, Verner, astounded by the continuing salvos from the German armored cruisers, ordered his crews to fire “rapid independent,” with the result that at one point, P turret had three shells in the air at the same time, all of which were seen to land on or near the target. Yet the German fire continued. “We were most obviously hitting [Scharnhorst,] but I could not stop her firing. […] I remember asking my rate operator, ‘What the devil can we do?’ ”[…] There were many reasons for what at first sight seemed inefficient ship handling and inept gunnery in the British squadron. Before the war, few British naval officers had appreciated the inherent inaccuracy of naval guns at long range. The only time that Lieutenant Commander Dannreuther, the gunnery officer of Invincible, had been allowed to fire at ranges in excess of 6,000 yards was during the practice authorized by Sturdee on the way south to the Falklands —and he had been gunnery officer of the battle cruiser since 1912. Nor had peacetime practice disclosed the difficulties of shooting accurately from a rapidly moving platform at a rapidly moving target. Further, no one had considered that when ships were traveling at high speed, the intense vibration created by engines and propellers might rattle and blur the gun layers’ and trainers’ telescopes. Nor had prewar maneuvers revealed the obscuring effects of billowing funnel smoke at high speed. As the war went on, the expected rate of shells fired to hits achieved became 5 percent. That was approximately the ratio in the Falklands, but at this early time in the war, everyone expected better and therefore it seemed a failure. –– Robert K Massie: "Castles Of Steel. Britain, Germany, and the Winning of the Great War at Sea", Ballantine Books: New York, 2003. To correct a few of the invented history details of the physics teacher, the report of a gunnery officer gives: Primary Control from Fore Top was used throughout. At times the control was very difficult as we were firing down wind the whole time and the view from aloft was much interfered with by gun smoke and funnel smoke. Range Finders were of little use and any form of range finder plotting was impossible owing to the difficulty of observation and high range. In fact as far as this particular action was concerned it would have made no difference if the ship had not had a single Range Finder or Dumaresq or any plotting outfit on board. During the latter part of the action with the Gneisenau (she) continually zig-zagged to try to avoid being hit, altering course every few minutes about two points either side of her normal course. This alteration of course could not be detected by Range Finder or by eye and continual spotting corrections were necessary. The rate being fairly high and changing every few minutes from opening to closing I found the only effective means was to keep the rate at zero and continually spot on the target. By this means we managed to hit her now and again. -- Quoted from Richard Hough: "Falklands 1914: The Pursuit of Admiral Von Spee" , Periscope Publishing, 2003. And finally, the first shots being fired by the British did not land sideways to the target. They were just a bit too short at their maximum range of 16,500 yards: At 1247hrs, Sturdee hoisted the signal ‘Engage the enemy’ and eight minutes later Inflexible opened fire with her forward turret, sending two 12in. shells arcing towards Leipzig at a range of 16,500 yards. The shells fell considerably short , but a few minutes later Invincible began her participation in the battle with a salvo that landed a mere thousand yards short of their target and soon the battle cruisers’ gunnery officers, Hubert Dannreuther and Rudolf Verner were calling out near misses as the German light cruiser was straddled by towering waterspouts. –– Michael McNally: "Coronel and Falklands 1914, Duel in the South Atlantic", Campaign 248, Osprey: Oxford, New York, 2012. A similar assessment of the claim is found at The continued badhistory of Neil deGrasse Tyson: This time, it's the slightly esoteric field of WW1 naval fire control. The source The origin of this myth can be traced back to admitted hearsay by John Littlewood in 1953 (who is – in non-history science-related papers even said to have served as a gunner in the war): I heard an account of the battle of the Falkland Islands (early in the 1914 war) from an officer who was there. The German ships were destroyed at extreme range, but it took a long time and salvos were continually falling 100 yards to the left. The effect of the rotation of the earth is similar to 'drift' and was similarly incorporated in the gun-sights.
But this involved the tacit assumption that Naval battles take place round about latitude 50 N. The double difference for 50 S. and extreme range is of the order of 100 yards. Various attempts of mine to set this in examinations failed. ' I had hoped to draw the criticism of unreality', to which there is the following reply. In 1917-18, a range table was called for, for* the first time, and quickly, for a gun in an aeroplane flying at a fixed height, to fire in all directions. A method existed, based on numerical calculation of the vertically upward and vertically downward trajectories. It happened that within the permissible limits of accuracy the values of A and p could be faked to make A--JU, (and downward trajectory could accordingly be read off from a table of sines, and the range table was in fact made in this way (in about two-thirds 1 the time it would otherwise have taken). I do not deny that the example just given is slightly disreputable… –– John E Littlewood: "A Mathematicians Miscellany", Methuen: London, 1953 (p51). ( archive.org ) During the war In World War I Littlewood served in the Royal Garrison Artillery. His contributions were highly significant and special allowances were made to keep him happy, such as letting him live with friends in London, and to carry an umbrella when in uniform! Littlewood himself described this war work in 'J E Littlewood, Adventures in ballistics, 1915-1918' . The result was that he improved the accuracy of anti-aircraft range tables and improved the formulae for finding the range, the time of flight and the angle of descent at the end of a trajectory with small elevation. E A Milne has described how Littlewood was able to discover techniques which greatly reduced the amount of work needed for making these accurate calculation of missile trajectories. Trials were conducted to see if the results of Littlewood's predictions held in practice and, Milne writes:- ... to the astonishment and joy of all concerned the observed positions of the shellbursts fell exactly on Littlewood's trajectories, at the correct time-markings, within very small errors of observation. –– St Andrews Biographies: John Edensor Littlewood This unreliable anecdote seems from 1953 onwards to gain little traction, but slowly found its way from lectures into mathematics and physics textbooks in the following years. Modern handbooks of artillery simply state to ignore Coriolis for distances of less than 10–20 km When firing at distances beyond 10 km the Coriolis’ force must be included as its contribution may exceed more than one per cent of the range of the rocket. However, there are no principal difficulties with the inclusion of this force in the equations. The trajectory calculation will consequently depend on the latitude of the firing post and the azimuthal direction of fire. In order to include this force a three-dimensional model must be applied. –– Ove Dullum: "The Rocket Artillery Reference Book" Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI), 2010.) Or simply Projectiles, which travel great distances, are subject to the Coriolis force. This is actually not a force at all, but an apparent acceleration caused the Earth’s rotation. The local frame of reference (north, east, south and west) must rotate as the Earth does. The amount of rotation, also known as the earth rate is dependent on the latitude: earth rate = (2π radians)/(24 hours) × sin(latitude). For example, at 30 N, the earth rate is 0.13 radians/hr (3.6 x 10 rad/sec). As the frame of reference moves under the projectile that is traveling in a straight line, it appears to be deflected in a direction opposite to the rotation of the frame of reference. In the Northern Hemisphere, the trajectory will be deflected to the right. A projectile traveling 1000 m/s due north at latitude 30 N would be accelerated to the right at 0.07 m/s . For a 30 second time-of-flight, corresponding to about 30-km total distance traveled, the projectile would be deflected by about 60 m. So for long range artillery, the Coriolis correction is quite important. On the other hand, for bullets and water going down the drain, it is insignificant! –– Craig M. Payne: "Principles of Naval Weapons Systems", US Naval Academy, 2000 If you want to re-calculate the exact amount of deflection that would have been attributable to Coriolis effct at the Falklands: The problem as presented in courses at Harvard ( PDF ): The Coriolis Force Deflection due to Coriolis force is given by ∆y = (∆x) 2 Ω sin(λ) / v, where v is the speed, λ is the latitude, ∆x is the distance traveled, and Ω is the angular velocity of the Earth (7.3x10 -5 s -1 ). (a) Find the displacement of a snowball thrown 10m at 30 km/h in Cambridge (latitude 42°N). (2 points) ∆y = ((10m) 2 * 7.3x10 -5 s -1 * sin(42°))/(3.0x10 4 /(60*60) m s -1 ) ∆y = 5.9x10 -4 m = 0.59mm | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44759",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/35928/"
]
} |
44,827 | According to this article dated July 30 2019 , the island nation of Madagascar has faster internet than the United Kingdom. If you only know Madagascar because of that animated penguins film, you've not been using the Internet properly. But that is understandable, because the African island nation has faster Internet speeds than you in the UK, France, or Canada. Question: Is it true that Madagascar has faster internet speeds than the United Kingdom? | That might be true in 2017, or at the beginning of the 2018 when UK analytics firm Cable published its speed table. Right now you can check the stats live . And although Madagascar is still "faster" than UK only 7% of its population have access to the internet (compared to 94.6% in UK) according to this page . | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44827",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/45262/"
]
} |
44,835 | The 72 million Google results for " Amazon world lungs " (unquoted) is evidence enough that there's a common perception that the Amazon rainforest is the "world's lungs". God knows I grew up believing that. At one point I read that this was incorrect, since the forest consumes just as much oxygen as it produces. But then I was told that was just anti-environmental propaganda. Now with the Amazon fires all over the news, I've started hearing this once again (for example, this Forbes article ). So, is the Amazon a (significant) net source of oxygen? If not, how adequate are the substitutes mentioned in that article (i.e. soy farms and cow pastures)? (And, if this doesn't extend the scope of the question too much: if (rain)forests aren't net sources of oxygen, what is?) | I'm not sure where have I first stumbled upon this information, but I think it was during my childhood when media was not centered on the rain forests so much. The primary oxygen production on Earth is actually happening in oceans. Here are few articles I found: Oceans produce ~80% of world's oxygen Phytoplankton produces 50-85% of atmosphere's oxygen This article says that scientists prefer term oxygen turnover . The term production is very misleading. Rain forests actually produce about as much as they consume because of decomposing plants and animals. Although media nowadays may say the Amazon is the lungs of our planet, I wouldn't justify burning it just because the forest is not an oxygen producer. It is still a part of nature and burning it can narrow the diversity of both plants and animals, which can have consequences on the whole planet. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44835",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/50888/"
]
} |
44,876 | Tension Myositis Syndrome (TMS) is a diagnosis for back pain given by Dr. John Sarno . According to Sarno, TMS is a condition in which unconscious emotional issues (primarily rage) initiate a process that causes physical pain and other symptoms. His theory suggests that the unconscious mind uses the autonomic nervous system to decrease blood flow to muscles, nerves or tendons, resulting in oxygen deprivation (temporary micro-ischemia) and metabolite accumulation, experienced as pain in the affected tissues This theory is popular but not widely accepted by the scientific community. Is there evidence that this diagnosis (and related treatment) works? | I'm not sure where have I first stumbled upon this information, but I think it was during my childhood when media was not centered on the rain forests so much. The primary oxygen production on Earth is actually happening in oceans. Here are few articles I found: Oceans produce ~80% of world's oxygen Phytoplankton produces 50-85% of atmosphere's oxygen This article says that scientists prefer term oxygen turnover . The term production is very misleading. Rain forests actually produce about as much as they consume because of decomposing plants and animals. Although media nowadays may say the Amazon is the lungs of our planet, I wouldn't justify burning it just because the forest is not an oxygen producer. It is still a part of nature and burning it can narrow the diversity of both plants and animals, which can have consequences on the whole planet. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44876",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/47022/"
]
} |
44,892 | There are some claims regarding a weird tax which existed just over a century ago in a part of India. Several articles say that this tax existed. For example, the Economic Times : State of Travancore imposed a breast tax on women belonging to disadvantaged sections of society. Women from lower castes were not allowed to cover their breasts, and were taxed heavily if they did so. Tax collectors measured the breasts and levied tax accordingly. Several other articles say that this is just fiction and propaganda. For example, this Quora answer : No, it was not a tax to cover one's breasts. And no, it was not calculated by the size of your breasts. The Travancore rulers had got the help of British to ward off their threats and in the disguise of protection the British were successful in gaining the trust of the rulers. They had influence in the higher echelons of Madambis, or local chieftains, and they began exerting their power on the kingdom by appointing their own Regent Col. Munroe. The kingdom had to pay a protectorate fee towards the British for their services. For this the kingdom implement both Mulakkaram and Thalakkaram - basically 'Woman tax' and 'Man tax'. The landlords were supposed to pay these taxes according to the number of laborers they had in their service. If there were 10 women laborers they paid 10 Mulakkaram and for 10 men they paid 10 Thalakkaram. So, did tax collectors measure women's breasts and levy tax accordingly? Edit 1:
This is in response to Schmuddi's answer. There are articles in support and opposition. One Quora answer cite photographic evidence on social or legal restrictions for men and women of all castes to cover breast. Another answer mentions the absence of such a tax in contemporary sources such as the report of the Travancore Mission. In seeming contradiction to these, some other articles, including some peer reviewed articles, mention that breast tax was oppressive towards certain castes. My question remains:
Did there exist a so-called breast tax where women were taxed with the amount determined by the attractiveness, or size, or some other property of the breasts of women? Explanation:
Is there any historical document or royal decree which support the claim? Can the historicity be established, or is this just a fiction? | This appears to be a myth manufactured by S. N. Sadasivan from oral history. He wrote: The breast tax was levied as soon as a woman of the Ezhavas and castes below, attained puberty and more attractive the breasts were, the more the tax she had to pay. No citation is given. The Quora user reports he cannot find a tax where the "more attractive the breasts were, the more the tax she had to pay" mentioned anywhere before Sadasivan's book, and I cannot either. The claim of some versions that women paid for the right to cover their breasts is also incorrect -- they were not permitted to cover whatsoever. However, the head tax on women really was called mulakkaram or "breast tax", and in this answer I will prove that the name of this tax was derived from real beliefs about uncovering breasts. The story of Nangeli, a woman who supposedly cut off her breasts in 1803 (or "about 1840," according to Sadasivan) to protest the tax, has also been claimed to be a complete myth by some of these Quora users. Local people dispute this and there are multiple oral attestations of the story. I will not attempt to dig up the origins of the story here, but the fact of the matter is that there was a rule that lower-caste people had to expose their breasts, which was enforced by Hindu riots and church burnings. The actual dispute I do not reproduce the many petty things the Shanar caste were required to do to respect the high-caste Nair, as these are listed in another answer, but uncovering women's breasts were one of these. In 1814, the Government of Travancore responded to Christian missionaries requesting permission to allow Shanar women to cover their breasts by ordering that such coverings had to be a partial bodice, in the style of local Muslims; no Shanar women "were ever to be allowed to wear clothes on their bosoms as the Nair women" (Hardgrave 1968:177). Some Shanars attempted to wear a full dress regardless, which caused rioting. The military was called in after several churches were burned, and in 1829, the Government retracted their permission to cover, as follows: First, as it is not reasonable on the part of the Shanar
women to wear cloth over their breasts, such custom being
prohibited, they are required to abstain in future from
covering the upper part of their body. (Hardgrave 1968:179) Breast covering remained the central source of anger for upper-caste Nair well into the 19th century. In the eyes of the Nairs, the missionaries were surely responsible for the spread of the upper-cloth, which had become the symbol of change in southern Travancore. The Nairs’ antagonism against the Nadars’ social innovations and prosperity was only heightened with the anxiety following the abolition of slavery in Travancore in 1855. [...] With its economic and political base, the frustrations of the
Nair landowners were directed against the pretensions of the Nadar
and their assumption of the breastcloth. “The agitation has been
recently revived,” General Cullen wrote to the Chief Secretary to the
Government, Madras, in January, 1859, “the Soodras asserting that
the Shanar women are constantly assuming the privilege of covering
the upper part of the person, and thereby preventing a recognition
of the caste. . .” Rioting broke out in October 1858, as Sudras
attacked Nadar women in the bazaars, stripping them of their upper
garments. (Hardgrave 1968:180-181) In conclusion, breast covering was a not a political sideshow but a very central problem in the kingdom of Travancore for roughly a century. The article by Hardgrave (1968) discusses the serious consequences it had which strained relations between the British and the princely state. Misuse of debunking There seems to be a use of this real-life history as a political football by both the left and the right in 21st century India. The left has created a seemingly baseless story about breast inspectors, but the right also creates a false debunking narrative. The Quora posts are one example of this, but another that gets more to the point of this argument can be found in a center-right op-ed in The Hindu published in 2017. This op-ed accepts the Nangeli story but incorrectly disputes its meaning, using debunking to score nationalist and anti-colonialist points. The author first claims that India knew nothing of patriarchy before the arrival of the British: This was also the land where women enjoyed physical and sexual autonomy, where widowhood was no calamity and one husband could always be replaced with another. The coast was rich with the tales of great women — from Unniarcha of the Northern Ballad of Malabar, an accomplished warrior from Nangeli’s caste, to Umayamma of Attingal, a princess who reigned over kings. These were brave women of towering personality. But in the 19th century, Kerala’s moral conscience grappled not with their achievements as much as the conundrum that their unabashed bare-breastedness presented. Virtue, as we recognise it today in its patriarchal definition, was not a concept that existed in Kerala. And till our colonial masters — and fellow Indians from patriarchal backgrounds — sat in judgement over the matrilineal streak heavily infused among the dominant groups here, women, their bare torsos, and their sexual freedoms did not in the least attract attention or opprobrium. In short, the author contends that women were empowered by their bare breasts. He then scolds those who use Nangeli's story to make a point about breasts: Nangeli too was recast. When Nangeli offered her breasts on a plantain leaf to the Rajah’s men, she demanded not the right to cover her breasts, for she would not have cared about this ‘right’ that meant nothing in her day. Indeed, the mulakkaram had little to do with breasts other than the tenuous connection of nomenclature. It was a poll tax charged from low-caste communities, as well as other minorities. Capitation due from men was the talakkaram — head tax — and to distinguish female payees in a household, their tax was the mulakkaram — breast tax. The tax was not based on the size of the breast or its attractiveness, as Nangeli’s storytellers will claim, but was one standard rate charged from women as a certainly oppressive but very general tax. When Nangeli stood up, squeezed to the extremes of poverty by a regressive tax system, it was a statement made in great anguish about the injustice of the social order itself. Her call was not to celebrate modesty and honour; it was a siren call against caste and the rotting feudalism that victimised those in its underbelly who could not challenge it. She was a heroine of all who were poor and weak, not the archetype of middle-class womanly honour she has today become. But they could not admit that Nangeli’s sacrifice was an ultimatum to the order, so they remodelled her as a virtuous goddess, one who sought to cover her breasts rather than one who issued a challenge to power. The spirit of her rebellion was buried in favour of its letter, and Nangeli reduced to the sum of her breasts. (Pillai 2017) We can see from the actual story that even if the mulakkaram was a head-tax, the claim that it "had little to do with breasts" is false. Ensuring that lower caste women uncovered their breasts was a matter of deep concern and anger among higher caste Hindus in Travancore, and this was most assuredly not because they found bare breasts empowering. The term mulakkaram cannot possibly be unrelated to the fact that breasts were visible when the tax-man came to collect, and were unexposed among high-caste women who did not pay the tax. Furthermore, the lower caste women were not idiots. They understood that uncovering the breasts marked them as powerless and fought incessantly throughout the 19th century for the right to cover. Now, why did they not take more pride in their breasts? Was this the colonial weight of moralizing Victorian missionaries, or was there some kind of male gaze involved in the violently enforced rule that allowed high-caste women to cover their breasts, and refused low-caste women that right while calling the head tax on them a "breast tax"? I think common sense leads us to the latter conclusion. (Academics agree: outcaste "women had
to endure humiliating dress restrictions, which were also ways to mark their bodies as
inferior and sexually promiscuous." Gupta 2014:669) This op-ed claiming that Nangeli would have been unaware of the concept of modesty is wrong, and although the idea that breasts were taxed by size seems to be a misremembering based on oral history, it is a fact that breasts were forcibly exposed and that the term mulakkaram was connected with this exposure. References Gupta, Charu. 2014. " Intimate Desires: Dalit Women and Religious Conversions in Colonial India ." The Journal of Asian Studies 73, pp. 661-687 Hardgrave, R. L. 1968. "The Breast-Cloth Controversy: Caste Consciousness and Social Change in Southern Travancore." Indian Economic & Social History Review , 5(2), 171–187. Mateer, Samuel. 1871. The land of charity . London : J. Snow and Co. Pillai, Manu. 2017. " The woman who cut off her breasts ." The Hindu , February 17, 2017. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44892",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/50982/"
]
} |
44,903 | I've been seeing a specific graphic circulating all over Instagram for the past few days. Here's Kim Kardashian posting it on her story. Two things seem odd about this graphic. The first is the 643,000 figure. I know that the American Health Care System is dysfunctional, but that's pretty striking. But more striking is the fact that all of these other countries supposedly have no one going bankrupt from medical bills. Are these claims true? | Snopes has already tackled this. Using some very specific analyses, one could make the case that (at least within the last several years) about 643,000 Americans declared bankruptcy annually due to medical bills. But the accuracy of those analyses is open to question, the playing field has changed significantly since they were undertaken (due to the implementation of the ACA), and it’s far from an absolute that the other countries listed in the meme experience zero medical-related bankruptcies. Also it is not necessarily true that there are zero bankruptcies due to medical costs in the other countries (though the US is definitely the leader). None of the countries cover 100% of all possible medical costs, and some people choose to do medical procedures that are not covered at their own expense. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44903",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/50994/"
]
} |
44,905 | I believe most are aware of the difficulties on surface based temperatures. Gaps in thermometer placement and reliance on extrapolation, placement near HVAC unit, cities and other heat sources or sinks, data manipulation and the like. In a very recent article, Real Clear Energy tells us about a new development: In January 2005, NOAA began recording temperatures at its newly built U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). USCRN includes 114 pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced relatively uniformly across the lower 48 states. NOAA selected locations that were far away from urban and land-development impacts that might artificially taint temperature readings. Prior to the USCRN going online, alarmists and skeptics sparred over the accuracy of reported temperature data. With most preexisting temperature stations located in or near urban settings that are subject to false temperature signals and create their own microclimates that change over time, government officials performed many often-controversial adjustments to the raw temperature data. Skeptics of an asserted climate crisis pointed out that most of the reported warming in the United States was non-existent in the raw temperature data, but was added to the record by government officials. So 12 years out some preliminary results are coming in. Strikingly, as shown in the graph below, USCRN temperature stations show no warming since 2005 when the network went online . If anything, U.S. temperatures are now slightly cooler than they were 14 years ago. Is it true that this more accurate measuring system concludes there has been no warming in the US over the last decade? Some of the raw data should be here:USCRN | No, the USCRN is not sufficient to provide evidence of any discernible trend The linked article says "as shown in the graph below," and provides this image: This chart plots monthly data points, which is hard to parse just by looking at it. The article does not include any numerical analysis of the data set, or description of what the chart is showing. Temperature anomaly A temperature anomaly is the difference from a baseline value. In this case, the background details of the data set explain that the anomalies are relative to the 30-year average from 1981 to 2010. Even looking at the monthly data we can see that more points are above 0 than below, and the magnitude of the anomaly is generally greater in the positive direction than the negative. So even if the chart didn't show warming during this 12 year period, it is showing warming compared to the baseline period from 1981 to 2010. Annual data This is made even clearer by looking at the annual plot. The data is available for plotting from the National Temperature Index Time Series plotter . For all but four years, the anomaly is positive, and the magnitude for positive years is far greater than the negative years. Trend line With the annual data the trend is more obvious, but by adding a trend line to the monthly data , we can see that there is a warming trend: Regardless of whether this can be said to provide evidence of global warming, it does counter the source's assertion that U.S. temperatures are now slightly cooler than they were 14 years ago. However, the last data point is slightly less than the first (temperature anomoly of +1.75 degrees F in January 2005 vs +0.81 in July 2019). Comparison to previous data set Additionally, the USCRN data set, which the author cites in support of their argument, is basically the same as the supposedly unreliable USHCN data which it replaces (this is explained a bit more in the Watts Up With That article that seems to be the original source). Here's the annual data going back 20 years, including both USCRN and USHCN data sets: Additional context As several have noted in the comments, whether this narrow data set indicates a warming trend or not, does not directly provide evidence about whether the global temperature is rising (which the linked article is attempting to argue against). The geographical (one country) and historical (one decade) context is far too limited, both as evidence for a global trend, and to be able to separate noise in the data from an overall trend. However, it is clear that the original analysis is incorrect. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44905",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
44,935 | The Milankovitch Cycles is the effect on the climate caused by variations in astronomical movements by the Earth relative to the Sun. A recent Natural News article attributes of the recent effects of climate change to Milankovitch Cycles: For more than 60 years, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has known that the changes occurring to planetary weather patterns are completely natural and normal. But the space agency, for whatever reason, has chosen to let the man-made global warming hoax persist and spread, to the detriment of human freedom. I read through the linked NASA articles but I didn't find anything corresponding to warming of the Earth whatsoever. Another example of the claim: Hal Turner Radio Show article Do Milankovitch Cycles fully explain the current global warming tendencies? | The articles try to do some sleight-of-hand poorly. It goes on at great length about the accepted Milankovitch cycles (mostly taken straight from the NASA article, the same agency which is supposed to be untrustworthy) to pad its scientific credibility. Then leaps to its conclusion while providing no evidence, instead banging on about conspiracies. The article itself contains the central problem with their thesis. “… orbital variations remain the most thoroughly examined mechanism of climatic change on time scales of tens of thousands of years and are by far the clearest case of a direct effect of changing insolation on the lower atmosphere of Earth.” (Note that Milankovitch cycles' effect on long-term climate is not clear . This quote is pulled, out of context, from 1982, 37 years ago. We've gotten better at climate science since.) Milankovitch cycles happen on a scale of tens of thousands of years. And we are indeed in an interglacial warm period . However those long-term cycles do not explain the observed temperature variations in mere decades. Source: NASA Furthermore, the observed changes in solar radiation, 0.05 Watts/m^2, do not match with the change necessary to produce the observed climate change of about 2.8 Watts/m^2. Source: IPCC These sort of "gotcha" articles come from a gross misunderstanding of how climate models work. They disingenuously expect naivety on the part of thousands of climate scientists to not have included something as obvious as Milankovitch cycles in their models while offering no models of their own. Good climate models contain known natural and human factors. They include radiative forcing , changes in how much energy we receive and retain from the Sun. These include the very well known Milankovitch cycles. The models which exclude human factors do not match our observations. The ones which do include human factors match. Source: Union of Concerned Scientists As you can see, solar variability is a component of their model and does not explain the recent warming trends of the last couple decades. The Union Of Concerned Scientists has this to say about the effect of solar radiation on climate change. We do know with a good degree of certainty that between 1750-2011, or since the beginning of the industrial period until today, the average increase in energy hitting a given area of the atmosphere (radiative forcing, measured in a unit called watts per square meter) due to heat-trapping gases is 56 times greater (~ 2.83 watts per square meter) than the increase in radiative forcing from the small shift in the sun’s energy (~0.05 watts per square meter). In its Fifth Assessment Report, IPCC scientists evaluated simulations of historical climate variables using a number of numerical models. They first assumed no increase in heat-trapping gases since 1750, so that the temperatures calculated were those that would have been achieved if only solar variability, volcanic eruptions, and other natural climate drivers were included. The temperature results were similar to observed temperatures only for the first half of the century, but the models did not accurately show the general warming trend that has been recorded during the second half of the twentieth century. When computer models include human-induced heat-trapping gases, they accurately reproduce the observed warming during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The evidence shows that although fluctuations in the amount of solar energy reaching our atmosphere do influence our climate, the global warming trend of the past six decades cannot be attributed to changes in the sun. Source: Union of Concerned Scientists See Also Union Of Concerned Scientists: How Does the Sun Affect Our Climate? IPCC AR5 Synthesis Report | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44935",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/50767/"
]
} |
44,941 | In an answer on politics.SE , a Northwestern University study was highlighted, whose main findings included: more Democrats than Republicans think astrology is scientific Using Fisher’s Exact Test, conservative Republicans are significantly more likely than other groups combined to reject astrology as not scientific (p<.0005). The same is true of conservatives compared to non-conservatives (p<.0005) and Republicans compared to non-Republicans (p<.0005). Likewise, Democrats are less likely to reject astrology as unscientific than others (p<.0005). fewer Democrats than Republicans think the earth revolves around the sun. ...in 2012 a majority of Democrats (51.4%) could not
correctly answer both that the earth revolves around the Sun and that this takes a year. Republicans fare a bit better, with only 37.9% failing to get both correct. One thing that does look a little dubious is that that this study was penned by a law professor. I'm also unsure if it has been published in a peer-review venue. Are the results of this study consistent with other similar studies on such matters? | Independently, Pew has discovered that a greater percentage of Democrats believe in astrology than Republicans: They include details on their survey methods. They did provide a definition of astrology in the survey: "that the position of the stars and planets can affect people’s lives". This may rule out people confusing astronomy and astrology. To summarize, this chart depicts that their findings were that 31% of Democrats and 14% of Republicans believe in astrology. There may be good reason to question the significance of these findings, though. In Europe, as in the US, there is considerable belief in astrology. In a multivariate analysis, it was found that people do vary considerably in their answers based on what definition they are given, and that people are likely to confuse astrology and astronomy and likely to rank astrology as more scientific than horoscopes. ( What Makes Some People Think Astrology Is Scientific? - Nick Allum ) However, the bit about heliocentrism seems at odds with what I have seen before. This is just one study, but it concludes that political conservatism is a predictor of disbelief in Earth Science: Do Americans Believe Modern Earth Science? - Allan Mazur . In the table on predicting factors, it notes a small predictive effect (may not be statistically significant) from political conservatism for disbelief in heliocentrism. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44941",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/29579/"
]
} |
44,947 | This 2016 Express article gives a rather disturbing warning that two common pain killers might cause the risk of hearing loss. PARACETAMOL or ibuprofen could cause long-term deafness, experts have revealed. Scientists have revealed the effects could caused by (sic) taking the painkillers for as frequently as (sic) two days a week for six years. Compared to women who have taken them for less than a year, women who regularly the two (sic) to treat chronic pain increased the risk of hearing loss by more than a sixth, the study revealed. ( Paracetamol is also commonly called acetaminophen or APAP, and under the brand names of Panadol or Tylenol.) If true, this sounds like a serious concern, but the article is poorly written and doesn't make it clear if it is from combining the two drugs or also applies to them when taken separately, whether it applies to both men and women, or women alone. It doesn't link to the report. It has also been a few years, so there should have been time for post-production peer review, and perhaps other studies. What is the real story? What demographics have been tested? What dosages of which drugs were involved? Is it more than merely correlation? | Yes. That is: They can cause hearing loss. They are properly classified as ototoxic agents . Paracetamol/Acetaminophen is certainly not entirely harmless. In fact it is properly classified as an ototoxic drug. An effect observed for quite some time . According to the individual studies: This is more pronounced when using it in each of these cases: higher doses, over longer time, abuse, drug combinations. But also being a women, being a man, being a kid, being elderly. If that sounds paradoxical, be aware that most studies do not even look at the general population but only subgroups, restricting their outcomes to the subgroup studied. Of these, analgesic drug combinations seem to be the most risky, followed directly by combination with any other ototoxic drug. However, this is also not peculiar for paracetamol alone, as aspirin for example can have this effect as well. The models to explain this effect are convincing, but real life outcome measures and population risk quantification remain a bit lacking for now. Focusing on paracetamol: it is an ototoxic chemical, the possible mechanisms quite clearly demonstrated. Then dosage makes the poison, and neither observational long term studies in sufficient quantity and quality are available, nor are human experiments or prospective studies on that level available. Over-the-counter painkillers linked to hearing loss. The three most commonly used medications in the U.S. have a significant, and little known, side effect. Ototoxicity is a trait shared by several classes of drugs,
most notably by aminoglycoside antibiotics, cisplatin chemotherapy and by acetaminophen combined with narcotic medication. Animal models help to elucidate the mechanisms of hearing loss from these medications. Acetaminophen combined with narcotic medications, when taken chronically at acceptable doses or when abused at high doses, causes profound irreversible sensorineural hearing loss. Hearing loss had previously only been reported after the use of the narcotic propoxyphene. For this reason it was initially believed that the narcotic in Lortab! (Whitby Pharmaceuticals, Richmond, VA) or Vicodin! (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, Illinois, USA) was responsible for the ototoxicity. However, research in mouse auditory cell line and cochlea cultures show that of the two active ingredients in these drugs, acetaminophen, and not hydrocodone, is responsible for hair cell toxicity. Curhan et al. recently published a study examining the incidence and hazard ratio of self-reported hearing loss due to regular use of aspirin, other NSAIDs and acetaminophen. They reviewed reports in 26,917 men aged 40–74 years, with baseline hearing at 1986, and found 3,488 incident cases of hearing loss. For NSAIDs and acetaminophen, the risk increased with longer duration of use. The hazard ratio for acetaminophen was 1.22, and in men < 50 years old the risk increased to 1.99, more than the other drugs. Figure 2. Fluorescent microscopy of the basal turn of the cochlea in a control culture (A) with Math1-GFP fluorescence demonstrating the intact single row of inner hair cells (closed arrow) and three rows of outer hair cells (open arrow). A basal turn of a culture exposed to high-dose acetaminophen (B) with decreased Math1-GFP expression demonstrating damage of inner (closed arrow) and outer hair cells (open arrow) compared to the control culture. Figure 3. Light microscopy of HEI-OC1 cells in culture after 48 h when exposed to hydromorphone alone (A) compared to hydromorphone and acetaminophen (B). –– Joshua G Yorgason†, William Luxford & Federico Kalinec: "In vitro and in vivo models of drug ototoxicity: studying the mechanisms of a clinical problem" , Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism & Toxicology, Volume 7, Issue 12, 2011. Kalinec GM et al.: "Acetaminophen and NAPQI are toxic to auditory cells via oxidative and endoplasmic reticulum stress-dependent pathways" , Hear Res. 2014 Jul;313:26-37. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2014.04.007. Epub 2014 Apr 30. Yorgason JG, Kalinec GM, Luxford WM, et al.: "Acetaminophen ototoxicity after acetaminophen/hydrocodone abuse: evidence from two parallel in vitro mouse models" , Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;142(12):814-19; 9 e1-2. Blakley BW, Schilling H.: "Deafness associated with acetaminophen and codeine abuse" , J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;37(4):507-9. Friedman RA, House JW, Luxford WM, et al.: "Profound hearing loss associated with hydrocodone/acetaminophen abuse" , Am J Otol 2000;21(2):188-91. Ho T, Vrabec JT, Burton AW.: "Hydrocodone use and sensorineural hearing loss" , Pain Physician 2007;10(3):467-72. Oh AK, Ishiyama A, Baloh RW: "Deafness associated with abuse of hydrocodone/acetaminophen" , Neurology 2000;54(12):2345. Lin BM, et al.: "Long-Term NSAIDs and Acetaminophen Linked to Hearing Loss in Women" , Am J Epidemiol 2017;185(1): 40-7. Zolot J: "Long-Term NSAIDs and Acetaminophen Linked to Hearing Loss in Women" , Am J Nurs. 2017 Apr;117(4):16. doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000515218.30710.2c. Lin BM, Curhan SG, Wang M, Eavey R, Stankovic KM, Curhan GC.: "Duration of Analgesic Use and Risk of Hearing Loss in Women" , Am J Epidemiol. 2017 Jan 1;185(1):40-47. doi: 10.1093/aje/kww154. Epub 2016 Dec 14. McGill MR, Kennon-McGill S, Durham D, Jaeschke H.: "Hearing, reactive metabolite formation, and oxidative stress in cochleae after a single acute overdose of acetaminophen: an in vivo study", Toxicol Mech Methods. 2016 Feb;26(2):104-11. doi: 10.3109/15376516.2015.1122136. Epub 2016 Mar 16. Novac A, Iosif AM, Groysman R, Bota RG.: "Implications of Sensorineural Hearing Loss With Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen Abuse" , Prim Care Companion CNS Disord. 2015 Sep 10;17(5). doi: 10.4088/PCC.15br01809. eCollection 2015. Joo Y, Cruickshanks KJ, Klein BEK, Klein R, Hong O, Wallhagen M.: "The Contribution of Ototoxic Medications to Hearing Loss among Older Adults", J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2019 Jul 8. pii: glz166. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glz166. [Epub ahead of print] The overall data varied, demonstrating a measurable effect on self-reported symptoms from NSAIDs as a class, ibuprofen, and acetaminophen, but there are no audiometric data to confirm or refute this suggested effect. Sulindac was the only specific agents to have been studied with formal audiometry as a primary outcome in a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial, and the significant effect seen in the unadjusted analysis dissipated in the adjusted multivariate regression. –– Kyle ME, Wang JC, Shin JJ.: "Impact of nonaspirin nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents and acetaminophen on sensorineural hearing loss: a systematic review" , Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015 Mar;152(3):393-409. doi: 10.1177/0194599814564533. Epub 2015 Jan 5. Regular use of aspirin, NSAIDs, or acetaminophen increases the risk of hearing loss in men, and the impact is larger on younger individuals. –– Curhan SG, Eavey R, Shargorodsky J, Curhan GC.: "Analgesic use and the risk of hearing loss in men" , Am J Med. 2010 Mar;123(3):231-7. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2009.08.006. Conclusion There are several pathways and a multitude of observational data points that in vitro explain and in vivo record paracetamol as being damaging to hearing in principle. Neither really large and conclusive prospective studies are there to present seemingly exact numbers. The fact that paracetamol is swallowed by millions of people daily indicates that in doses small enough to not exceed recommended values these really long term effects are probably statistically significant, but not exceedingly strong. The risks for individuals or on the population level are to be considered separately. The current studies looking at humans in large numbers have several weaknesses that need addressing. Self-reported hearing-loss, self-reported dose regimen over a long time span, etc. Hearing gets worse as we age, and some amount of hearing loss is 'natural' and thus unavoidable. Not all confounding factors like noise exposure, inflammation, other toxins can be properly and rigorously controlled for over such a long term. Nevertheless, hearing loss is a very widespread problem and it looks like longterm painkiller use in moderate amounts seems to be a factor not to be overlooked in future studies. According to the observational studies in humans the current perspective is: “Although the magnitude of higher risk of hearing loss with analgesic use was modest, given how commonly these medications are used, even a small increase in risk could have important health implications. Assuming causality, this would mean that approximately 16.2 percent of hearing loss occurring in these women could be due to ibuprofen or acetaminophen use,” said Curhan. –– Haley Bridger: "Longer use of pain relievers tied to hearing loss in women" , The Harvard Gazette, December 14, 2016. And For acetaminophen, regular users aged less than 50 were 99% more likely, regular users aged 50–59 were 38% more likely, and those aged 60 and older were 16% more likely to have hearing loss than non-regular users of acetaminophen. ( Curhan 2010 ) To turn this perspective around: The risk for any individual taking paracetamol to actually develop hearing problems from that is not expressed in the above numbers and it cannot be calculated from the numbers given so far. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44947",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/23/"
]
} |
44,952 | Accordiing to Diply , Researchers in Belgium have linked a lack of emotional intelligence with right-wing political views, reports PsyPost. The study, published in Emotion, found that those who lack the ability to understand and manage emotions are more likely to have right-wing and prejudiced attitudes. The referenced PsyPost article says: The researchers found that individuals with weaker emotional abilities — particularly emotional understanding and management — tended to score higher on a measure of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. I can only see the abstract of the study itself: Van Hiel, A., De keersmaecker, J., Onraet, E., Haesevoets, T., Roets, A., & Fontaine, J. R. J. (2019). The relationship between emotional abilities and right-wing and prejudiced attitudes. Emotion , 19(5), 917-922. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000497 Previous research revealed that cognitive abilities are negatively
related to right-wing and prejudiced attitudes. No study has, however,
investigated if emotional abilities also show such a relationship,
although this can be expected based on both classic and recent
literature. The aim of the present study was 2-fold: (a) to
investigate the relationship between emotional abilities and
right-wing and prejudiced attitudes, and (b) to pit the effects of
emotional and cognitive abilities on these attitudes against each
other. Results from 2 adult samples (n = 409 and 574) in which
abilities scores were collected in individual testing sessions,
revealed that emotional abilities are significantly and negatively
related to social-cultural and economic-hierarchical right-wing
attitudes, as well as to blatant ethnic prejudice. These relationships
were as strong as those found for cognitive abilities. For
economic-hierarchical right-wing attitudes, emotional abilities were
even the only significant correlate. It is therefore concluded that
the study of emotional abilities has the potential to significantly
advance our understanding of right-wing and prejudiced attitudes. The first line of the abstract seems to take it for granted that cognitive abilities are negatively related to right-wing and prejudiced attitudes, and then they go on from there. I see the accepted answer to Are liberal/left-wing people more intelligent than conservative/right-wing people? indicates otherwise. I'm struggling to understand if the link to emotional intelligence still applies, considering that the negative link to cognitive abilities may not. | The short answer The study in question (Van Hiel et al. 2019) has been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. It presents empirical support for the hypothesis that emotional abilities negatively correlate with right-wing attitudes. This answers the question in the title. The question body also asks about the link between cognitive abilities and right-wing attitudes. This link is assumed by Van Hiel et al. (2019) on the basis of a meta-analysis by Onraet et al (2015), also published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. The meta-analysis finds significant small-to-medium evidence for a negative relation between cognitive abilities and right-wing attitudes. The long answer The "Belgian study" that the question mentions is "The Relationship Between Emotional Abilities and Right-Wing and Prejudiced Attitudes" by Van Hiel et al. (2019) . It was published by the academic journal Emotion , one of the journals of the American Psychological Association. According to its Wikipedia article , the journal ranks 15th out of 85 journals in the category "Psychology, Experimental". The primary reference in the study for the claim that cognitive ability is negatively related to right-wing attitudes and prejudice is the meta-analysis "The association of cognitive ability with right-wing ideological attitudes and prejudice: A meta-analytic review" by Onraet et al. (2015), https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2027 , published in the European Journal of Personality . According to the Wikipedia article , this journal "ranked second of all empirical journals in the social-personality field, and first when looking at journals exclusively devoted to research on personality". The study by Onraet et al. (2015) found a medium-sized, but significant relation between cognitive ability and ideological attitudes. From their conclusion: The present meta-analysis reveals relationships of small-to-moderate strength between (lower) cognitive ability and right-wing ideology and prejudice. These findings further enforce the call of Hodson and Busseri (2012) that "...cognitive
abilities, particular in relationship to ideology, need to become increasingly focal to and integrated into existing literatures" (p. 193). Note that the study by Hodson and Busseri (2012) is the one that the accepted answer to the other question is referencing. Effectively, the meta-analysis supports their findings that there is a link between right-wing attitudes and cognitive attitudes. Yet, note that the authors make sure to put this result into perspective: the effect size is described as "small-to moderate". In lay terms, this may be translated as "of course there are many other things affecting right-wing ideology and prejudice, but our analysis provides solid evidence that lower cognitive ability is a measurable factor". This is the background on which Van Hiel et al. (2019) claim that people with fewer cognitive resources are more likely to adhere to social-cultural right-wing attitudes and tend to be more prejudiced toward ethnic minority groups, whereas those higher in cognitive abilities are more likely to endorse left-wing beliefs and to be less prejudiced (Van Hiel et al. 2019: 917). Their article investigates the question whether emotional abilities are also aligned with ideological attitudes. Their first study (N=409) relates the results from standardized tests of emotional abilities and the results from different tests that elicit right-wing and prejudiced attitudes. They find that individuals scoring low on emotional abilities were significantly higher in on the scores indicating increasing right-wing attitudes, even if controlling for age, sex, and education. Their second study (N=574) additionally incorporates tests of cognitive abilities. The results appear to agree with the results from their first study. Their analyses reveal that both emotional and cognitive abilities were significant predictors of RWA [=right-wing authoritarianism] and blatant prejudice. For SDO [=social dominance orientation], emotional abilities were the only significant, unique predictor, whereas for subtle prejudice only cognitive abilities were a significant, unique predictor (Van Hiel et al. 2019: 920). Van Hiel et al. (2019: 920) conclude that their results corroborate the hypothesis that people with lower emotional abilities are more likely to be found at the right-wing side of the ideological spectrum, whereas those having higher emotional abilities are more likely to endorse left-wing beliefs. Second, compared to cognitive abilities, emotional abilities are an at least equally potent correlate of such attitudes. […] Finally, emotional abilities, but not cognitive abilities, were related to economic-hierarchical right-wing attitudes. As good scientific publications should, the authors point out some limitations of their study. For instance, they emphasize that their study is a cross-sectional study that yields correlational data, which forbids making inferences of causality. They propose that future longitudinal studies or experimental studies should address this. Also, they found the effect of emotion recognition to be weaker in their second study, thus calling for replication studies. So, to summarize: There is little reason to doubt that the studies (Van Hiel et al. 2019, Onraet et al. 2015) meet the current standards of personality research as they are published in reputable academic journals relevant to the field. The newer study finds a negative link between emotional abilities and right-wing attitudes, and it confirms the negative link between cognitive abilities and right-wing attitudes that is reviewed in the older meta-analysis. It should be noted that the authors of neither study present their findings in a sensational form. Effect strengths and limitations of the studies are dutifully noted in the text. Nowhere do they argue that their findings should be considered in any regard as a categorical distinction between adherents of left-wing and right-wing attitudes. Clearly, the take-away message is that emotional and cognitive abilities are linked to traits that are associated with the right-wing political spectrum. But the studies do not allow any argument along the lines that a member of the right-wing spectrum has to be emotionally or cognitively deficient, whereas a member of the left-wing spectrum is bound to excel in emotional and cognitive tasks. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44952",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/46344/"
]
} |
44,984 | Many bars rinse a beer glass immediately before serving. I've consulted with bartenders and Google, and there's some confusion about it. Some sites claim it reduces foaming. Another perk is that beer pours better onto a wet surface than a dry one as the friction of a dry glass can cause CO2 to come out of solution and create foam. source Some seem to say it increases foaming. When you rinse a beer glass, it becomes more slippery, and there’s less friction when beer fills it. This allows a more even, clean pour and a substantial, fragrant head . source I'm skeptical of both claims. If water on a glass affects foaming, one might reasonably expect that the first drops of beer on the glass would have the same effect. This smells like an urban legend to me. Is there any science that a wet beer glass has any effect on foaming? | In 1953, a paper looking at some of the factors involved in beer foam answered this question almost as an incidental aside. Jackson, S. (1953). FACTORS AFFECTING BEER FOAM I. CARBON DIOXIDE EVOLUTION. Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 59(4), 317–322. doi:10.1002/j.2050-0416.1953.tb02723.x The main experiments described monitoring the CO 2 emissions of beers and carbonated water over time, and the effect of bubbling CO 2 through the liquid. However, in the discussion section, the author slips in a description of another experiment. Practical considerations in the serving of
beer—effect of drying the glass. —The presence
of bubble nuclei in glass of beer depends,
as has been described, on the glass being
imperfectly wetted. The wettability can be
reduced by coating the glass surface with
hydrophobic substances, such as silica or
paraffin wax, but this is obviously not
practical possibility in serving beer. An
important practical consideration is, however, that the glass should be dried, because
it is then less completely wetted than glass
still damp from rinsing, and the evolution of
carbon dioxide after pouring is correspondingly more brisk. In an experiment carried
out to demonstrate this, two half-pint glasses,
one wet, the other dry, were filled from the
same bottle of pale ale. The concentration of
carbon dioxide in both glasses immediately
after pouring was 0.30%. After 30 min.
there was no detectable loss of carbon dioxide
from the wet glass, but the concentration in
the dried glass had fallen to 0.24%. This
was sufficient to maintain slight head,
whereas there was no head on the beer in the
wet glass. Summary [...]
3. The rate at which carbon dioxide is
lost depends on the extent of bubble
formation; this depends on imperfect wetting
of the glass surface and it is therefore
important that glasses in which beer is to be
served should be dried. Whether you agree with the tastes of the author in how much head is desirable on a beer, their experiment confirms that wetting a beer glass does change the foam characteristics. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44984",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/4020/"
]
} |
45,013 | In this video , Jordan Peterson claims the following. You can't induct someone into the Armed Forces in the US if they have an IQ of less than 83. He claims that the armed forces needs an accurate predictor of intelligence in order to be able to efficiently organize the hierarchy such that war can be conducted efficiently—literally a matter of life and death—and they chose IQ testing. And after 100 years of careful analysis, they concluded that a person with an IQ below 83 was essentially helpless. There wasn't anything [such a person] could possibly be trained to do in the military, at any level of the organization, that wasn't positively counterproductive. He then claims that such people represent "1 in 10" of the population. (According to this chart , that's not perfectly accurate—it's actually closer to 1 in 9—but close enough.) How accurate are his specific claims? The US military uses IQ testing to determine potential recruits' cognitive abilities. the military forbids anyone with an IQ under 83 from joining. because their experience has shown that anyone with an IQ under 83 will be more of a liability than an asset to the military. | Our sister site, Law StackExchange, has this same question: Is it truly illegal for the US army to hire someone with IQ less than 83? , with a high-quality accepted answer . The answer is not a simple yes or no, but the claim is not too misleading: the assertion that the law prohibits people with an IQ score of 83 or less from serving in the U.S. military is close to the truth, although the reality is somewhat more complicated. The answer goes on to explain that there is an aptitude test that applicants are required to take: Applicants are also required to take the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) from which the applicant receives an AFQT score is equal to the applicant's percentile ranking of the applicant's raw score on the test. An applicant's AFQT score is strongly correlated with a applicant's IQ score on a traditional IQ test. However, they are easily compared: It isn't unreasonable to estimate that an AFQT score of 10 corresponds to an IQ score of 83, although I haven't seen any source making that exact conversion. My best guess is that the minimum AFQT score of 10 corresponds to an IQ score of more than 83 but less than 92 on a Stanford-Binet scale. It explains the cut-off may be adjusted by Congress from time-to-time. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/45013",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/1429/"
]
} |
45,017 | In recently released transcripts of a phone conversation between President Trump of the United States and President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, President Trump makes the following statement: There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me. Is this an accurate summary of what happened? | Yes, Biden used economic pressure to oust Prosecutor Viktor Shokin. No, Biden did not do so to protect Burisma. If anything, the opposite is true . A Timeline 2002: Mykola Zlochevsky co-founds Burisma Group, an energy holding company. 2009-Jun : Hunter Biden, Christopher Heinz (John Kerry's stepson) and Devon Archer form Rosemont Seneca Partners, a consulting firm. 2010-2012: Zlochevsky is Minister of Ecology & Natural Resources under Viktor Yanukovich. 2013-2014 : Yanukovich removed from office. New government investigates whether former officials used their positions for profit, including Zlochevsky. 2014-Apr : Russia attacks Ukraine. Biden pushes for direct military aid, but Obama demurs. 2014-May : Burisma seeks foreign members for board of advisors, including Aleksander Kwasniewski (former President of Poland) who recruits Devon Archer & Hunter Biden. 2014-mid : Obama & Biden recognize Hunter's position as a potential conflict of interest. 2014-Dec : USA pushes Ukraine to assist UK investigation of Zlochevsky. 2015-Sep : US Ambassador criticizes Ukraine for not doing enough to investigate Zlochevsky. 2015-Dec : Biden demands removal of Prosecutor General Shokin before IMF aid is released. 2016-Feb : Bipartisan Congressional group (including Republican Senators Ron Johnson, Mark Kirk, and Rob Portman) publishes letter urging Ukraine to reform Prosecutor General's office. 2016-Mar : Ukraine removes Shokin. "The whole G-7, the IMF, the EBRD, everybody was united that Shokin must go, and the spokesman for this was Joe Biden". 2017-2019 : Giuliani & Trump pressure Ukraine to investigate Biden & Burisma. Note: The Burisma investigations (or lack thereof) all focus on 2013 and earlier , before Hunter Biden joined the firm. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/45017",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/32064/"
]
} |
45,027 | Yesterday Paula Sherriff said (quote from Hansard , emphasis mine): We stand here, Mr Speaker, under the shield of our departed friend. Many of us in this place are subject to death threats and abuse every single day. Let me tell the Prime Minister that they often quote his words—surrender Act, betrayal, traitor—and I, for one, am sick of it. We must moderate our language, and that has to come from the Prime Minister first, so I should be interested in hearing his opinion. He should be absolutely ashamed of himself. [Applause.] Boris Johnson has indeed referred to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 as the "surrender Act", and for all I know he has referred to some policy or position as being a "betrayal" (as is commonly done in politics, and unremarkable). But Sherriff's claim - made in the context of Boris's rhetoric supposedly inciting abuse against MPs - notably includes only one example of an epithet directed at an individual - the word "traitor". Yesterday's Hansard transcript certainly contains no instance of any politician referring to another as a "traitor"; the only uses of the word are by MPs talking about how bad it is for people to be called traitors. Boris perhaps meant to deny the claim that he had used such language (though his precise meaning was unclear) by responding that it was "humbug". And, according to the Guardian , conservative MP James Cleverly explicitly denies the claim: But the Conservative party chair, James Cleverly, defended Johnson’s comments to MPs in the Commons. He denied that the PM called opposition MPs “traitors”. “The accusations thrown at him yesterday were deeply unfair,” Cleverly said. “He was accused of calling people traitors – he has never done that.” Has Boris Johnson ever referred to any of his opponents, whether individually or collectively, as a "traitor" or "traitors"? Or is this part of Paula Sherriff's accusation untrue? | "Guilty of betrayal", which at least implies the person so accused being a traitor. YouTube : I know that my Right Honourable friend will appreciate that in deciding to remain in the customs union, the leader of the opposition is guilty of a shameless U-turn and a betrayal of millions of people who voted 'leave'. Wanting to "betray the people" (also "selfish", and being "cowards"). YouTube : Out of sheer selfishness and political cowardice, members opposite are unwilling to move aside and give the people a say. We will not betray the people who sent us here. That is what they want to do. I was not able to find a direct quote using the word traitor explicitly, but then, all I had was a couple of sessions I watched live and what search engines served up. Looking at how the threats on opposition do "quote his words -- 'Surrender Act', 'betrayal', 'traitor'", I'd say the statement is two-point-x out of three correct, because he has used the first two (repeatedly), and at least implied the third. Let's have a look at that "denial" by James Cleverly in turn: The accusations thrown at him yesterday were deeply unfair. He was accused of calling people traitors – he has never done that. Johnson has used the term "Surrender Act" (a position that was affirmed again today), he has called the actions of the opposition a betrayal, and at least implied the term traitor. Many of his followers have used that word (and worse) publicly, and at the very least Johnson is utterly unapologetic about any of it ("never heard such humbug"). Calling accusations of him escalating the language used in and about parliament "deeply unfair" because he might not have used one of those three words explicitly is a bit rich. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/45027",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/15961/"
]
} |
45,054 | The Creighton Method of natural family planning claims to have a 3.2% failure rate for typical use, and a failure rate of 0.5% for perfect use. However, my primary care doctor said that Natural Family Planning in general has a low success rate. This has immediately raised a red flag for me about the veracity of the Creighton Method's claim. Thus my question is: Question If used perfectly (or "typically"), does the Creighton Method of Natural Family Planning fail only 0.5% - 3.2% of the time? | In 2018, my colleagues and I published a comprehensive systematic review examining the extent and quality of evidence on all fertility awareness based methods (FABMs) for pregnancy prevention for which effectiveness studies have been published. That systematic review is available here: https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/2018/09000/Effectiveness_of_Fertility_Awareness_Based_Methods.8.aspx . We identified 53 relevant studies. Of them, 0 were ranked high quality, 21 were ranked moderate quality, and 32 were ranked low quality for our question of interest. The systematic review focuses on estimates from moderate quality studies, since no high quality studies on this topic were identified at the time of the review. A few months ago, I also co-authored a summary piece in BMJ, which provides an infographic summarizing results of the systematic review. The BMJ piece/infographic can be found here: https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l4245 . Regarding your question on the Creighton method, I'd refer you to this paragraph in our systematic review: We identified three mucus-based Creighton Model studies and one meta-analysis, all conducted in the United States and Canada. Two studies and the meta-analysis did not provide standard typical use pregnancy estimates. Instead, in these three analyses, pregnancies occurring as a result of intercourse on a day identified by the woman or the couple as fertile were classified by investigators as caused by “achieving [pregnancy]-related behavior.” Achieving-related pregnancies thus included both intended or planned and unintended or unplanned pregnancies, and all these pregnancies were excluded from the effectiveness estimates. By excluding most unintended or unplanned pregnancies from effectiveness calculations, these studies underestimate pregnancy probabilities relative to standard typical use calculations, potentially quite substantially. We considered this type of calculation low quality evidence related to the question of typical use effectiveness. One additional Creighton study provided a standard typical use pregnancy estimate in addition to the described approach but was ranked low for other reasons. In addition, perfect use pregnancy probabilities were incorrectly calculated in these studies (eg, using all cycles in the denominator rather than only perfect use cycles). I hope that helps to answer your question. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/45054",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/45086/"
]
} |
45,084 | Wikipedia quotes Bob Woodward's Fear : Trump in the White House , writing: Former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull successfully lobbied President Trump to get an exemption at the 2017 G20 Hamburg summit, arguing "[w]e do this steel that's specialty steel. We’re the only one that produces it in the world. You've got to let us out. You’ve got a $40 billion trade surplus with us. We’re military allies with you. We’re in every battle with you. I'm interested in the specialty steel part of the quote. Especially the part "We’re the only one that produces it in the world." Is there a specialty steel that's only produced by Australia or is this made up? | The Australia-headquartered corporation BlueScope produces specialty coated steel. For example see ZINCALUME® steel : Next generation ZINCALUME® steel’s patented Activate® technology introduces magnesium into the aluminium-zinc alloy coating, improving galvanic protection by activating the aluminium. The result is a tougher protective coating that's more resistant to scratches and scuffs encountered during construction. Since BlueScope is the assignee of some steel production patents, for example US 8840968 , others are prohibited from infringing. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/45084",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/44381/"
]
} |
45,111 | Researchers compared and contrasted the 17th Century strain to those from a modern databank of samples dating from 1940 up to its eradication in 1977. Strikingly, the work shows that the evolution of smallpox virus occurred far more recently than previously thought, with all the available strains of the virus having an ancestor no older than 1580 Smallpox, once thought an ancient disease, may have emerged in more recent times / MCMASTER UNIVERSITY I am skeptical. Is there evidence to support this? | The claim -- based on this paper[1] -- is not wrong , it is talking about the most recent common ancestor . That is not to mean that the disease spontaneously "sprang into existence" at that point, just that older variants of the disease have died out -- or that the smallpox as we know it today is a result of a predecessor's mutation. Smallpox itself (as a contagious disease symptomized by fever, skin lesions, and high mortality) is much older than 1580. Quoted from Stefan Riedel: Edward Jenner and the history of smallpox and vaccination. In: Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center). Volume 18, Issue 1, January 2005, p. 21-25, PMV 1200696 , emphasis mine: The origin of smallpox as a natural disease is lost in prehistory. It is believed to have appeared around 10,000 BC , at the time of the first agricultural settlements in northeastern Africa (3, 4). It seems plausible that it spread from there to India by means of ancient Egyptian merchants. The earliest evidence of skin lesions resembling those of smallpox is found on faces of mummies from the time of the 18th and 20th Egyptian Dynasties (1570–1085 BC). The mummified head of the Egyptian pharaoh Ramses V (died 1156 BC) bears evidence of the disease (5). At the same time, smallpox has been reported in ancient Asian cultures: smallpox was described as early as 1122 BC in China and is mentioned in ancient Sanskrit texts of India. I would also recommend this paper[2] for reading. It goes into great detail on the evolution of the various variants of variola virus (VARV). It also contains this passage (emphasis mine): The earliest unmistakable description of smallpox first appears in the 4th century A.D. in China, the 7th century A.D. in India and the Mediterranean, and the 10th century A.D. in southwestern Asia.[6] Whether you would still call that "smallpox" in the future remains to be seen. That paper by Duggan et al. adds some interesting findings, will probably spawn some more research into the subject, and might result in a different understanding of the disease emerging. But what it does not allow for is the authoritative statement that "smallpox emerged in 1580" (with the implied, "and did not exist before that time"). Referenced Sources: 1) Duggan et al., Current Biology 26, 3407–3412; 2016. 17th Century Variola Virus Reveals the Recent History of Smallpox. 2) Li Y, Carroll DS, Gardner SN, Walsh MC, Vitalis EA, Damon IK (2007). On the origin of smallpox: correlating variola phylogenics with historical smallpox records 3) Hopkins, Donald R. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1983. Princes and Peasants: Smallpox in History. [Google Scholar] 4) Barquet N, Domingo P. Smallpox: the triumph over the most terrible of the ministers of death. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(8 Pt 1):635–642. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 5) Lyons AS, Petrucelli RJ., II . New York: Abradale Press, Harry N Abrams Inc; 1987. Medicine—An Illustrated History. [Google Scholar] 6) 2. Fenner F, Henderson DA, Arita I, Jezek Z, Ladnyi ID. In: Smallpox and Its Eradication. Frank Fenner., editor. Geneva: WHO; 1988. [Google Scholar] | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/45111",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
45,151 | An October 7th segment of Fox News and Friends is available on YouTube McCarthy: More people want to investigate Biden than impeach Trump House Minority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy says at 3m19s : More people in America want to investigate what Biden has done (and his son) than want to impeach this president. He elaborates at 5m20s : There's going to be a new poll that comes out that those who current agree that [they] want the President impeached, 73% of them already wanted to impeach before anything they saw [in the recent news]. The majority of Americans (63%) believe he shouldn't be impeached for anything on that phone call. So, is this claim true? Are there any polls on how many Americans want the Bidens investigated? (I assume there are some regarding Trump's impeachment.) | Are we talking representative polls by reputable pollsters, or "online polls"? Is being in favor of an impeachment inquiry the same as "wanting Trump impeached"? Lots of wriggle room there. How many Americans want the Bidens investigated? CBS News sees 43% "in favor of further investigation", 29% saying "too soon to say". As per the same article, 55% approve of the impeachment inquiry. USA Today / Ipsos has 42% "seeing valid reasons to look at the behavior of Joe and Hunter Biden in Ukraine" (52% agreeing that "President Trump asking Ukraine to investigate Biden is an abuse of power"), while 45% say "the U.S. House should vote to impeach" (up from 32% in June). | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/45151",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/29579/"
]
} |
45,162 | https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/politics/gordon-sondland-house-impeachment/index.html I am seeing quite a few articles about subpoenas and the Trump Organization/White House deciding to not cooperate. I read online that "As far as the subpoenas go they’re not actually subpoenas. They’re just requests. If you refuse a subpoena it goes to a court. If you refuse a request they get to shout that Trump's not cooperating. It’s a tactic for optics not a legitimate inquiry to find the truth." This was from Ben Shapiro's podcast Episode 871 - "Impeach for what?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roW5fQ3iNkg Is this true? Are they not actually "subpoenas" and just regular requests that the White House can deny to corporate with? | EDIT: after listening to the podcast linked by OP, Mr. Shapiro never says the words claimed by OP, and never says that the subpoenas are illegitimate. It is possible that he linked to the wrong podcast, or it was a comment on the video itself. I've made edits to my answer to reflect this information. Congress has the power to issue subpoenas and has issued multiple subpoenas to members of the Trump Executive Branch, as well as his personal lawyer. Failure to comply with a subpoena is considered Contempt of Congress . Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees. Historically, the bribery of a U.S. Senator or U.S. Representative was considered contempt of Congress. In modern times, contempt of Congress has generally applied to the refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by a Congressional committee or subcommittee—usually seeking to compel either testimony or the production of requested documents. Both houses of Congress have the ability to issue subpoenas, and all standing committees are allowed to also issue subpoenas. Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Committee rules may provide for the full committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas. A list of standing committees can be found here . Of note, the following committees are considered standing committees. United States House Committee on the Judiciary United States House Committee on Oversight and Reform By contrast, the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is not considered a standing committee, but is instead a "permanent select" committee. However, it appears that the Intelligence Committee is allowed to issue subpoenas, as former chairman Rep. Devin Nunes issued multiple subpoenas in 2017 and 2018 while he was chairman. From CNN, in 2017 The anger behind the scenes was reignited when Nunes signed off on four subpoenas sent by House Russia investigators to former national security adviser Michael Flynn and Trump lawyer Michael Cohen -- and also issued three subpoenas on his own, seeking information from former Obama administration officials. From lawfareblog.com, regarding 2018 In April of 2018, Nunes threatened to hold FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in contempt and start impeachment proceedings because for more than seven months, Wray and Rosenstein had failed to fulfill Nunes’s request for an unredacted copy of a two-page memo the FBI used to initiate its investigation of the Trump campaign’s Russia contacts. From USA Today on 9 October 2019, here is a list of all subpoenas issued with regards to the Ukraine investigation. European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland (Oct. 8) Defense Secretary Mark Esper/The Pentagon (Oct. 7) Acting Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought (Oct. 7) Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney/The White House (Oct. 4) Vice President Mike Pence (Oct. 4) Rudy Giuliani (Sept. 30) Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (Sept. 27) | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/45162",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/44076/"
]
} |
45,232 | Here is an anecdote that I recall reading as a child: During World War II, the English found a way to smuggle microfilm past the German authorities. They sewed a hollow button to their jackets that could be unscrewed to reveal a tiny, secret compartment. Eventually, the Germans found out about this hiding spot, so the English came up with a new trick. They reversed the thread, so the Germans couldn't work out how to open the buttons. Now, even as a child, I found this startling. Imagine risking your freedom based on whether a German guard slavishly followed "Lefty Loosy, Righty Tighty". As an adult, colour me skeptical. So, my question is: Did this really happen? But wait, where's the notability reference? Well, I am moderately sure I read this in " Great Imposters " ( sic ) by George Sullivan, but I no longer have access to the book. (Anyone?) A more modern example of the claim comes from a 2013 Car Talk episode : RAY: There were a lot of things they could have done. They could have applied some adhesive making them difficult to turn or they could have put some kind of a locking pin. But what they thought of was even better. They made the threads. TOM: Left hand thread. RAY: Exactly. So when the Germans twisted the buttons, they in fact didn't come off, they got tighter. And after they failed in a few attempts, they gave up on it because they just figured out, they're not using that trick anymore. Their version says "Allies", rather than English, and I am nervous about relying on my memory on this point. | This claim appears to have been distorted from an original about hidden compasses , not microfilm . The compass version has been confirmed by the British Military intelligence officer responsible, Christopher "Clutty" Hutton . According to Secret Britain: The Hidden Bits of Our History (2009): When the Germans cottoned onto this, Clutty simply reversed the screw thread so that guards trying to unscrew buttons actually tightened them instead. See also Official Secret: The Remarkable Story Of Escape Aids (1960) which is written in first person by Hutton himself: In case I have inadvertently left the reader with the impression that our enemies were either stupid or blind, I should like to state quite categorically that those Germans who were responsible for running the prisoner-of-war camps were intelligent, shrewd and painstaking men, and that in time they intercepted nearly all of my various gadgets. The point was that each new device served its turn for a while and was of considerable benefit to escapers, but once it was 'blown', we either modified it or abandoned it altogether. When the camp searchers hit on the secret of our button compass , for example, we fooled them for an additional period by manufacturing it with a left-hand thread . | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/45232",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/23/"
]
} |
45,264 | I was reading "Szlachetne Zdrowie" (No 7/2019) which is a Polish health magazine released by "Nasz Dziennik" , which is a Catholic, very conservative newspaper of questionable quality. I read the chapter about microwaving written by Barbara Zielonka. She is a food technologist and claims that: Microwaves frequency cause changes in organic compounds structure (isomers of those compounds might be created) and disintegration of many of them, with new, unknown chemical compounds unknown to nature being created. Food heated in microwave contains particles that are not created during conventional heating of the food (conduction, convection, radiation), where heat is transmitted from outside to the inside of the product. (my own loose translation from Polish to English) Also she claims that in The Lancet, there was some research showing that when the milk was microwaved, the amino acid proline in the milk changed its form from L-proline to D-proline and created so called "cis isomers". D-proline might be toxic, she claims. She also claims that the article in The Lancet is stating that "conversion of trans forms to cis forms might be dangerous, because cis amino acids are embedding themselves into peptides and proteins instead of trans isomers" . I was unable to locate that article in The Lancet. So the bottom line is: is it true that microwaving food can create some kind of chemical compounds that are not created when heating the food in traditional ways? If yes, then should we be worried? Could any be dangerous, such as the mentioned D-proline? I thought that microwaving is safe because it is just making water molecules vibrate and thus warming up the food. On the other hand I am very sceptical of the mentioned source where I found this article, but it mentioned The Lancet and it got me interested. | The English abstract of Zur Frage der Aminosäureisomerisierung im Mikrowellenfeld Ergebnisse eines Modellversuches mit Standardlösungen [The question of amino acid isomerization in a microwave field Results of experiments with standard solutions] Zeitschrift für Ernährungswissenschaft September 1992, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 219–224 is: Aqueous standard-solutions of L-alanine, L-glutamic acid, and L-proline do not reveal
any increase of D-enantiomer s after 30 min heating - neither by the conventional method on
a hotplate, nor ina standard microwave oven. A specific "microwave effect" and, hence, a special
consumer risk is, in contrast to recent assumptions, not detectable. Effects on the amino acids
which were observed in conventionally heated samples are explained by higher heat-exposure
during the treatment of these samples. In the body of the article, it explained that the research is particularly to test the claims made by the Lancet article: Können durch Erhitzen von Nahrungsmitteln im Mikrowellenherd D-Aminosäuren
entstehen? Diese Frage wurde anlässlich einer im Dezember 1989 erschienenen
Kurzmitteilung im Lancet (5), in welcher über Isomerisierungen der Aminosäuren Prolin und trans-Hydroxyprolin in erhitzter Milch berichtet wird, zur Diskussion gestellt. Where reference "5" is Lubec G, Wolf Chr, Bartosch S (1989) Amino acid isomerisation and microwave exposure. Lancet Nr. 9:1392-1393 The conclusion of the German article is: Halbstündiges Sieden der Aminosäuren L-Alanin, L-Glutaminsäure und L-Prolin
in Wasser hat unter den beschriebenen experimentellen Bedingungen keine
nachweisliche Zunahme der D-Enantiomere zur Folge. Ein spezifischer ,Mikrowelleneffekt'
ist nicht erkennbar. Maximaltemperaturen von 102-104 °C reichen
unter normalen Kochbedingungen unter Atmosphärendruck bei neutralem bis
schwach basischem pH-Wert (7-7,5) demnach nicht aus, um signifikante Isomerisierungsreaktionen
an den verwendeten Aminosäuren, auch nicht an Prolin, auszulösen. which roughly translates (someone help with German please): Half-hourlong boiling of the amino acids L-alanine, L-glutamic acid and L-proline
in water results in no demonstrable increase of the D enantiomers under the experimental conditions described.
A specific 'microwave effect' is not recognizable. Maximum temperatures of 102-104 °C
under normal cooking conditions under atmospheric pressure at neutral or
weakly basic pH levels (7-7.5) is therefore not sufficient to trigger significant isomerization reactions
on the amino acids used, not even on proline. So, there is no such effect from proline under neutral pH conditions. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/45264",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/46433/"
]
} |
45,298 | I came across this QI tweet: Meet the quagga, an extinct subspecies of zebra with only half the stripes!#QI . There's a video clip and at around ~0:31 seconds the following is said: I went to school in Kenya and we read early colonial books and they theorized - because they'd never seen any mixed race children. So they imagined that a child would be born with stripes, if a black person and a white person... Were mixed race kids really theorized to look like zebras? | Senator John W. Daniel of Virginia said 03 February 1899 of colonial Philippines: this brew - mixed races, Chinese, Malay, Negritos — anybody who has come along in three hundred years, in all their concatenations and colors; and the travelers who have been there tell us and have written in the books that they are not only of all hues and colors, but there are spotted people there and, what I have never heard of in any other country, there are striped people there with zebra signs on them . Senator Daniel was correct that books did describe striped people in the Philippines, although if Daniel is trying to imply that it was due to racial mixing, the books were not saying this. The 1859 A Visit to the Philippine Islands says: There are many Albinos in the Philippines. They are called by the natives Sons of the Sun ; some are white, some are spotted, and others have stripes on their skins. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/45298",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/19453/"
]
} |
45,329 | In "Beyond the Ideological Lie: The Revolution of 1989 Thirty Years Later" , Daniel J. Mahoney goes to great lengths to put this event in question in context to not down play the significance of world wide events taking place: Poland was the first to go, with the “round-table” agreements that peacefully turned over the governance of the country to a political opposition inspired by the Polish pope and the struggles of the underground Solidarnosc movement. Next, the Hungarians reburied Premier Imre Nagy in June of 1989, one of the heroes of the great anti-totalitarian revolution of 1956, with hundreds of thousands of people demanding political freedom and authentic nationhood. Even the relatively soft goulash Communism of Jânos Kádár was finished. East Germans began fleeing their prison-state in the summer and fall of 1989, making their way to Hungary and then Austria and West Germany. Massive demonstrations followed in Leipzig and other major cities. Soon the repulsive Honecker, the last of the East German hardliners, was summarily dismissed by the East German Politburo. But next describes an event I have never heard of, emphasis mine: The regime of the Stasi was paralyzed when confronted by a civil society demanding liberation from enforced lies. The Berlin Wall was breached on November 9, 1989 after a mid-level East German official inadvertently declared it open. By June of 1990, Germany was whole and free. Was the immediate reason the Wall was effectively breached because of a mistake of a mid-level official? | Practically, this is exactly what happened. Günter Schabowski gets a little folded text note that he knew nothing about informing him about new planned travel regulations. Schabowski went on to announce those in the then daily evening press briefings. He was not even supposed to read it out in that way and if he did in knowledge of what the Politbüro discussed at least to explain that from the next day onwards, people were allowed to make visits to the West crossing over all "established border crossings". Note that he mainly talked about "travel" beforehand and 'permanent travel' (in GDR talk, Ausreise = emigration) in the crucial passage. In essence the new regulation was meant only to stop emigration via West German embassies in Prague, Warsaw etc, to bring that whole messy procedure back into the hands of East Germany. That exact regulation wasn't meant to allow short travel visites with East Germans returning voluntarily home, but only speeding up emigration. Now emigration should be possible without all previous arbitrary reasons needed to obtain a permit. That was all thought of being an orderly administrative process, with people still applying for permits, at their local people's police station, although in intent being granted those swiftly. Nice detail: they would get a permit swiftly but still had to use a passport. And that would take on average six weeks to process. And also crucially this new regulation coming into effect only at morning next day, after the border guards were briefed how to handle that in detail. Nothing of the sort happened. Because Schabowski didn't know the unwritten details and omitted the coming into effect date. After being asked about the date for it to become effective he simply inferred (mumbling and shuffling through his papers): "immediately". That meant that via worldwide television the citizens heard that anyone could now "Go West", no strings attached whatsoever. Clearly a misunderstanding, but neither Schabowski nor the other press people bothered to look into any details. One factor being that GDR talk used Ausreise (literally 'travel out' ie permanent emigration, although in ordinary German still used and just meaning the point in time that a traveling man crosses a border) as well as Reise (ordinary 'travel' in all German talk, meaning leaving a land and at some time returning to it) in a conundrum of speech regulations. As the citizens of East Berlin then set in move en masse towards the border quoting the party official from the "party that was always right" the border guards were stooped and asked around what to do. At first they didn't believe it at all and just held them up. Then they let a few through but the guards stamped the passports of those they did let through as "permanently gave up GDR citizenship" ('a never to return troublemaker anyways'). Only those that were let through for what they intended mostly: 'a short walk in the west' (most came without any baggage and out of curiosity), motivated still others to also come (knowing nothing about technically loosing citizenship in the process). After a few hours the guards gave up everything, let through a human wave unhindered and the next day the party accepted a fait accompli. Günter Schabowski: Press conference: the opening of the Berlin Wall October 1989, Schabowski, along with several other members of the Politbüro, turned on longtime SED leader Erich Honecker and forced him to step down in favor of Egon Krenz. As part of the effort to change the regime's image, Schabowski was named the regime's unofficial spokesman, and he held several daily press conferences to announce changes. He had already been in charge of media affairs for the Politbüro before then. He was also reportedly named the number-two man in the SED, Krenz's old role. Schabowski had spent most of his career in Communist-style journalism, in which reporters were told what to write after events had already happened. He thus found it somewhat difficult to get used to Western-style media practice. On 9 November 1989, shortly before that day's press conference, Krenz handed Schabowski a text containing new, temporary travel regulations. The text stipulated that East German citizens could apply for permission to travel abroad without having to meet the previous requirements for those trips, and also allowed for permanent emigration between all border crossings—including those between East and West Berlin. The text was supposed to be embargoed until the next morning. Schabowski had not been on hand when Krenz read the text earlier in the day to several Politbüro members during a cigarette break at that day's Central Committee plenum, nor had he been there when it was discussed before the full committee. However, he felt comfortable discussing it at the press conference; he later said that all one needed to do in order to conduct a press conference was be able to speak German and read a text without mistakes. Accordingly, he read the note aloud at the end of the press conference. One of the reporters asked when the regulations would come into effect. Schabowski assumed it would be the same day based on the wording of the note, and replied after a few seconds' pause: "As far as I know — effective immediately, without delay." (German: Das tritt nach meiner Kenntnis … ist das sofort … unverzüglich.) Accounts differ on who asked that question. Both Riccardo Ehrman, the Berlin correspondent of the ANSA news agency, and German Bild Zeitung (a tabloid) reporter Peter Brinkmann were sitting on the front row at the press conference, and claimed to have asked when the regulations would come into force. Later, when asked whether the new regulations also applied to travel between East and West Berlin, Schabowski looked at the text again and discovered that they did. When Daniel Johnson of The Daily Telegraph asked what that meant for the Berlin Wall, Schabowski sat frozen before giving a rambling statement about the Wall being tied to the larger disarmament question. After the press conference, Schabowski sat down for a live interview with NBC's Tom Brokaw. When Brokaw asked him if it was indeed true that East Germans could now travel without having to go through a third country, Schabowski replied in broken English that East Germans were "not further forced to leave GDR by transit through another country," and could now "go through the border." When Brokaw asked if this meant "freedom of travel," Schabowski replied, "Yes of course," and added that it was not "a question of tourism," but "a permission of leaving GDR." The West German public national television channels showed parts of Schabowski's press conference in their main evening news reports at 7:17 PM on ZDF's heute and at 8 PM on ARD's Tagesschau; this meant that the news was broadcast to nearly all of East Germany, where West German television was widely watched, as well. The news then spread like wildfire with news reports continuing to repeat the news throughout the night. As the night progressed, thousands of East Berliners began proceeding to the six border crossings along the Berlin Wall. They demanded to be let through. Live TV reported on the gathering people which only increased the numbers of East Berliners coming to the gates. The crowds vastly outnumbered the border guards who initially tried to stall for time. However, no one was willing to order deadly force. Finally, at 11:30 pm, Stasi officer Harald Jäger decided to open the gates at the Bornholmer Straße border crossing and allow people into West Berlin. The fall of the Berlin Wall was the key event leading to the end of the East German regime, a state that had been crumbling for many weeks as citizens had been fleeing through intermediate countries surrounding East Germany. Indeed, Victor Sebestyen later wrote that when the gates were opened, for all intents and purposes, East Germany "ceased to exist." He also wrote that many of Schabowski's colleagues suspected he was either an American or West German agent, and could not believe that he had made "a simple cock-up." In 2014, his wife claimed that Schabowski had been well aware of the possible consequences of what he said in the press conference. There is still a bit of interpretation left. That it all was 'just a mistake' … hm. Well it's tempting to ascribe it to the power of 'one word', uninterrupted propaganda (West-German TV really seized the opportunity) or then just the mass human wave overcoming the armed and ready to shoot border guards? But it is quite clear that the 'East Germans brought down the wall', not Helmut Kohl or Ronald Reagan or Michail Gorbachev. And one East German communist man in particular had a most significant role in it. This is the crucial video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZiAxgYY75Y and his former superior evaluating that event years later: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VujRixEso5U West German TV on that day, still emphasising that Schabowski mainly talked about permanent migration, although ordinary short term private travel is now even more confusingly mixed in: 20:00: Tagesschau vom 09. November 1989 Take note of the context: By then it was reported that 50000 GDR citizens were leaving daily and permanently via CSSR and Hungary, 'naturally' without any permits from the GDR government, across the iron curtain from other Warsaw Pact states. And that the West German minister of the interior issued a declaration informing GDR citizens about to leave or already arriving in the West that they would face for a long time personal living conditions in the West quite markedly below the living standards in the East that they were accustomed to. The first East German TV news was broadcast 30 minutes after the end of the press briefing and just recounts the main points read out by Schabowski 19:30: Aktuelle Kamera vom 09. November 1989 The emphasis is still on "private travel, from now on, can be applied for " And how the tone and content of West German news changed just within 2 hours later: 21:45: "ZDF heute-journal" vom 09. November 1989 22:30: Tagesthemen vom 09. November 1989 ( 3 main newscasts in one video ) That 22:30 news opened by declaring the wall as 'history', "gates wide open" telling only about the temporary travel regulations, for anyone willing to, and already showing West German officials expecting all those Easterners about to arrive in the West at borders in West Berlin. While their own reporters at two different border still cannot provide any pictures of that, as the border guards then still tried to stall and hold the line. Only occasionally were people let through with all of the first 'early adopters' of temporary travel receiving a stamp of 'permanently emigrated', although that quickly lost all meaning and was eventually abandoned. This was strictly speaking "fake news". At that point in time things were still unclear and only very few managed to get through. As can be seen in the video, the news-people spoke of "masses" and were not able to show more than 5 people from West Berlin who re-told some hearsay. 19:00 Press briefing ends 19:30 West Berlin mayor expected such a move for mid-December but announces that West Berliners should prepare for what is to come "for tomorrow" 19:30 GDR public is informed of the text via own news broadcast (less than 100 people start testing the border) 20:00 Main West German news repeats the text as well 20:30 Without much pressure, border-guard and Stais Oberstleutnant Heinz Schäfer instructs his troops at the little known border crossing Waltersdorfer Chaussee/Rudower Chausee out of own initiative to disarm and open the gate to let everyone who might come through even without any passport controls (only few realised this option) [But Stasi documents speak of the first people arriving at that gate only at 23:00, being let out with permanent passport markings at 23:15] 20:47 East German Politbüro members leave their internal conference and get briefed about what happened "meanwhile", they knew nothing of all that and are confused "meanwhile" more East Berliners started to move and make demands; faced with between 500–1000 citizens the Stasi decides to try a valve solution: stamp one after the other as excommunicated and let those through 21:00 Border guards raise "silent alarm" (somethings brewing at the control points) 22:00 late edition of East German TV tries to de-escalate and re-emphasises the "private travel after application for it" 22:45 West German TV declares wall as history 23:00 situation at border crossing gets tumultuos, thousands gather, and are still largely withheld 23:30 situation gets dangerous, a few people were allowed to go, inciting thousands more to come and increase pressure, valve solution abandoned 00:00 Soviet vice-ambassador Maximytschew decides to not inform Moscow in order to prevent any "knee-jerk reactions" after the wall has effectively been breached now 00:20 all 12.000 East German security institutions in Berlin get the order "increased combat readiness" and prepare covertly for action; further orders are not issued and in the course of events local commanders start take back that order 02:00 the state leadership announces that until 08:00 things are going to be as they are, but that it all shall end then again – meanwhile West German media does nothing else than to report on the events unfolding 08:00 as announced GDR officials try to restart orderly border-regime and crossings. They fail. At the same time the party envisioned applications for travel permits also start to roll in en masse, binding security forces across the whole country As an English transcript of the relevant part of that press conference seems not easy to locate on the net: GS: So, we want through a series of circumstances, including the travel law, the chance of the sovereign decision of the citizen to travel wherever he wants. (Uh) We are of course (uh) concerned that the possibility of this travel law, - it is still not in force, it is a draft. However, today, as far as I know (looks at these words consenting towards Labs and Banaschak), a decision has been made. A recommendation by the Politbüro has been taken up, that the former passus which used to be included should be removed from the draft and the modified travel law allowed to enter into force for perm… – as they say so beautifully or so unpleasantly - regulates the permanent departure, i.e. the leaving of the republic. Because we (uh) consider it to be an impossible situation that this movement takes place (uh) via a friendly state (uh), which is not easy for this state either. And that is why (uh) we have decided to make today (uh) a regulation which makes it possible (uh) for every citizen of the GDR to leave the country via border crossing points of the GDR (uh). Question: When does that come into effect? GS: (Scratches his head) So, comrades, I've been told about this here (sits his glasses on as he continues, leafs through his papers, pulls a paper), that such a message has already been (uh) spread today. It should actually be in your possession. So (reads very quickly from the sheet): "Private trips abroad can be applied for without the existence of prerequisites – reasons for travel and family relationships. The permits are issued on short notice. The responsible departments of passport and registration of the VPKÄ - the Volkspolizeikreisämter (people's police district offices) – in the GDR are instructed to issue visas for permanent departure without delay, without having to meet any conditions for permanent departure. (Äh) Permanent departures can take place via all border crossing points of the GDR to the FRG. This means that the temporary granting of corresponding permits in GDR missions abroad or the permanent departure with the GDR identity card via third countries is no longer necessary." (Looks up.) (Äh) I can't answer the passport question now (looks questioningly towards Labs and Banaschak). That is also a technical question. I don't know, the passports must be, … so that everyone is in possession of a passport, one would have to be issued first. But we wanted Banaschak: interrupts Schabowski undecipherably, incomprehensibly Question: When will that come into effect? GS: (Scrolls through his papers.) To the best of my knowledge … that is immediately, immediately (scrolls further in his documents). Question: (voices buzzing) You only said FRG, does that also apply to West Berlin? GS: (Reads quickly, swallowing a few words:) 'Like the press department of the Ministry …, the Council of Ministers has decided that this transitional regulation will be put into effect by the People's Chamber until a corresponding legal regulation comes into force'. Question: Does that also apply to Berlin-West? GS: (He shrugs his shoulders, pulls the corners of his mouth downwards, looks into his papers.) So (pause), yes, but (read aloud): "The constant departure can take place over all border crossing points of the GDR to the FRG or to Berlin West." Question: (Confusion of voices) Does this mean that from now on the citizens of the GDR… (Journalist introduces himself, phonetically:) Christoph Janowski. (newspaper and/or agency not understandable) … does that mean that from now on GDR citizens are not allowed to leave Czechoslovakia or Poland? GS: Yeah, it doesn't say anything about that at all. Rather we hope that in this way (uh) this movement regulates itself in the sense we strive for it. Question: (Confusion of voices, incomprehensible question). GS: I have heard nothing to the contrary. Question: (Confusion of voices, incomprehensible question). GS: I have heard nothing to the contrary. Question: (Confusion of voices, incomprehensible question). GS: Yes, I did not hear anything to the contrary. I only express myself so cautiously, because now I am not, therefore, constantly up to date in this question, but shortly before I came over, I got this information pressed into my hand. (Some journalists hurriedly left the room.) Question: Mr. Schabowski, what will happen to the Berlin Wall now? GS: I am reminded that it is 19.00 hrs. It is the last question, yes! Please understand that. GS: What about the Berlin Wall? Information has already been given on this in connection with travel. (Uh) The question of travelling, (uh) the permeability of the Berlin Wall from our side, does not yet answer and exclusively the question of the meaning, that is, this, I'll say it this way, fortified state border of the GDR. (Uh) We have always said that there are some other factors (uh) that need to be taken into account. And these relate to the complex of questions which Comrade Krenz raised in his presentation in the - with regard to relations between the GDR and the FRG, with regard to (er) the need to continue the peacekeeping process with new initiatives. And (uh) certainly the debate on this question (uh) can be positively influenced, if also the FRG and if the NATO decides on disarmament steps and asserts them, like or similar to the GDR this and other socialist states have already done with certain preliminary performances. Many thanks! It may be the case that the text quoted by OP is alluding to a still more nuanced detail. Schabowski was not a mid level bureaucrat! As already noted, the intent of the short note was to announce merely that new emigration laws were to be applied to channel the emigrants over GDR borders again. That the compelled speech regulations in the GDR called this also 'travel out' gave the opportunity to insert other travel related regulations into the new text. And at that point a quite sub-altern functionary inserted three lines: " Private travel to foreign countries can be applied for without any prerequisites (reasons for travel and family relationships). Permits are granted at short notice. Reasons for refusal will only be applied in exceptional cases." Which were not anywhere on the agenda of what the leading Politbüro discussed beforehand, the state security council pre-formulated, but the sub-committee eventually agreed to being added to it. The final proposal is then read out in the Central Committee, under the preliminary yet also final title "Proposal for a decision on changing the situation of permanent departure of GDR citizens to Germany via the CSSR". No one objects. After a long series of discussions when they apparently themselves forgot what they really mean with 'travel' at any given time. (Among other evidence: The members of the Central Committee are on record from sitting the day to have been baffled by what happened, looking for scapegoats all around, only much later claiming that 'it was our intention all along'.) So this small addendum gets into the text, which as a whole is still barred from announcement until November 10th, 0400. This news tidbit is what's on the little paper Schabowski receives via Krenz, all now informally referring to that paper as "new travel regulations" including the retention order to not release it until 0400 . The name of this mid-level functionary was Gerhard Lauter . From 1 July 1989 until reunification, he was head of the passport and registration department at the Ministry of the Interior of the GDR. After coming back from a theatre visit at 2200 on the night of November 9, he was informed of the early release and spent the rest of the night in crisis management at his post. Schabowksi's paper showing what he planned to talk about at the press briefing Src: Dokument Original "Schabowski-Zettel" And the text to be released the next day, given by Krenz to Schabowski with allegedly the words "why not read this out tonight?" (according to Schabowski): (online version [here], complete set of decision plus press release for November 10th as PDF 24 ) –– Source: Hans-Hermann Hertle: "Chronik des Mauerfalls. Die dramatischen Ereignisse um den 9. November 1989", Ch. Links: Nerlin, 11 2009. In translation: until today, Thursday 9 November 1989, 18.00 hours
to confirm the accuracy of this information by circular letter. Confidential classified information
b2-937/89 Title of the template:
Temporary transitional regime for travel and permanent departure from the GDR Submitter of the template:
Chairman of the Council of Ministers signed Willi Stoph Berlin, 9 November 1989 proposed resolution The attached Decision on the temporary and transitional arrangements for travel and permanent departure from the GDR is hereby confirmed. Proposal for a decision To change the situation of permanent departure of GDR citizens to the FRG via the CSSR is established: The decree of 30 November 1988 on travel abroad by citizens of the GDR (GBl. I No. 25 p. 271) is no longer applicable until the new travel law comes into force. With immediate effect, the following temporary transitional arrangements for travel and permanent departures from the GDR to other countries will come into force: -2. a) Private travel to foreign countries can be applied for without the existence of prerequisites (reasons for travel and family relationships). Permits are granted at short notice. Reasons for refusal are only applied in exceptional cases. -2. b) The competent passport and registration departments of the VPKÄ in the GDR are instructed to issue visas for permanent departure without delay, without the need for any conditions for permanent departure. As before, applications for permanent departure can also be submitted to the Internal Affairs departments. -2. c) Permanent departures can be made via all border crossing points of the GDR to the FRG or to Berlin (West). -2. d)This means that the temporary granting of corresponding permits in GDR missions abroad or the permanent departure with the GDR identity card via third countries is no longer necessary. The attached press release on the temporary transitional arrangements will be published on 10 November 1989. Responsible:
Government spokesman at the GDR Council of Ministers The items 2 & 2a is the trojan horse here, smuggled in by primarily 4 sub-committee members, 2 from minister of the interior, 2 from the minister of state security, under Lauter. The heading and the entire rest of the paper only talk about permanent emigration. But 2 ("travel & out travel") and 2a ("Private travel") made this sandwich so juicy. Main events in a timeline in English: Chronik der Mauer Summary Going back to the exact quoted claim in question: Who exactly "declared the wall to be open" may remain a matter of perspective: The basic words leading to the events were formulated as a proposal around midday by four midl-level officers in a subcommittee, intent to come into effect after approval from high-up, orderly the next day Chairman Krenz reads the text out to the Politbüro and after no objections gives the proposal text to Schabowksi, apparently without clear instructions, shortly before press briefing Inner Circle member Schabowksi reads out the proposal text at press briefing, while Politbüro still in session, answers questions about the confusing text with ever more confusing details, says the famous "immediately, without delay" and hints at 'wall not really making sense anymore' uniformed but uninformed local border guards make localised decisions regarding permeability ad hoc and under pressure, from "shall not pass", to "shall pass with pass stamped", to "shall pass, who cares" but the last decision taken only after West German TV moderator "declares gates wide open", with the precise words, before the fact border guards give in into pressure from the masses, security forces and military ordered to prepare then to stand down, even as masses pour in all directions and some even start squatting on the wall ! Stages that night: ! ! Next day: ! symbolic picture of Krenz from Nov 9 | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/45329",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
45,380 | The Humans are Free article The Coffee Deception: 13 Little Known Facts About Coffee makes the claim that caffeine from a cup of coffee reduces blood flow to the brain. 2. MRI images taken before and after 1 cup of coffee showed a decrease in blood flow to the brain by 45%. When the blood flow reduction was measured exactly, it was actually 52% less blood flow to the brain, after just one small cup of coffee. (Source given: Caffeine's Effects on the Human Brain, abcnews, http://abcn.ws/2ipmLj7 ) Is there any truth to this claim? | Yes, caffeine intake can reduce blood flow to the brain, but not likely by 45-52% after a small cup of coffee. Summary In studies, they observed a dose-response relationship between caffeine and a drop in cerebral blood flow (usually by 20-30% after 250 mg caffeine, which is ~2 cups of coffee) with greater sensitivity among caffeine-naïve subjects compared to habitual consumers ( Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 2017 ). A drop of cerebral blood flow by 30% percent does not mean there will be 30% percent less blood in your brain, but just that the velocity of the blood flow will be reduced by 30%. This means slower delivery of oxygen to the brain, but the brain is able to compensate that by extracting oxygen from the blood more efficiently. Caffeine use up to 400 mg/day is usually not associated with adverse effects in non-pregnant healthy adults ( Food and Chemical Toxicology, 2017 ), but could be in those recovering from ischemic stroke ( Age and Ageing, 2004 ). The studies have some flaws: Most participants were regular caffeine users and the abstention period to make them naive users was only 12-30 hours. This is the time in which withdrawal can be associated with an increase of cerebral blood flow ( Psychopharmacology, 2000 ), so a significant portion of a drop of blood flow after caffeine consumption could be just a reversal of increased blood flow. "One day" studies may not realistically reflect long-term changes in the cerebral blood flow in everyday life. Evidence The Effect of Daily Caffeine Use on Cerebral Blood Flow: How Much Caffeine Can We Tolerate? (Human Brain Mapping, 2009) We investigated the effects of caffeine on cerebral blood flow (CBF)
in increasing levels of chronic caffeine use. Low (mean = 45 mg/day),
moderate (mean = 405 mg/day), and high (mean = 950 mg/day) caffeine
users underwent quantitative perfusion magnetic resonance imaging on
four separate occasions: twice in a caffeine abstinent state
(abstained state) and twice in a caffeinated state following their
normal caffeine use (native state). In each state there were two drug
conditions: participants received either caffeine (250 mg) or placebo.
Gray matter CBF was tested with repeated-measures analysis of variance
using caffeine use as a between-subjects factor, and correlational
analyses were conducted between CBF and caffeine use. Caffeine
reduced CBF by an average of 27% across both caffeine states. The amount of caffeine used in the study was 250 mg, which can be found in 2 cups (~500 mL in total) of regular coffee or 2.1 liters of cola. Image source: Nutrientsreview.com In other studies, 250 mg of caffeine reduced blood flow to the brain by up to 39% ( this table - participant No 9 in AJRN, 2003 ), 30% ( Life Sciences, 1990 ; full article ), 23% ( Radiology, 2003 ) and 22% ( Physiological measurement, 2004 ; full article ). Rationale "Reduced blood flow to the brain" strongly suggests "impaired brain function," but this does not happen as long as the brain oxygenation remains adequate: It was shown that after caffeine intake, the cerebral metabolic rate
of oxygen consumption remained stable in some, but not all
studies, because the decrease in CBF was compensated for by an increase in oxygen extraction. ( Nutrients, 2018 ) and Oral administration of 250 mg caffeine to healthy young volunteers
after at least 2 h abstinence reduced CBF by 18% (Mathew and Wilson
1985) and intravenous infusion of 250 mg of caffeine after 12 h
abstinence reduced whole brain CBF by an average of 31% (Cameron et al
1990). There is no evidence that this reduction in CBF causes any
problems in the normal population in whom there is an adequate
cerebral perfusion reserve, but there may be implications in ischaemic
stroke patients. ( Physiological measurement, 2004 ) Caffeine does not affect the brain function by changing the blood flow through it but by acting on adenosine receptors: Adenosine has mostly inhibitory effects in the central nervous system,
so the effects of adenosine antagonism by caffeine are generally
stimulatory. ( Linus Pauling Institute ) Caffeine is a commonly used neurostimulant that also produces cerebral
vasoconstriction by antagonizing adenosine receptors. ( Human Brain Mapping, 2009 ) | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/45380",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/30847/"
]
} |
45,403 | The Patheos blog and WKRC local12 report: The Ohio House on Wednesday passed the "Student Religious Liberties Act." Under the law, students can't be penalized if their work is scientifically wrong as long as the reasoning is because of their religious beliefs. Or as summarised by the blog: Bottom line: The Ohio House has passed legislation that would allow students to give wrong answers and not be penalized if those wrong answers are based on the student’s “sincerely held religious belief.” That seems a bit too strange to be true. Is the reporting by the cited sources a fair representation of the true situation? | No House Bill 164 or the "Ohio Student Religious Liberties Act of 2019" has been passed by the House and awaits on a vote by the Senate. It covers several areas guaranteeing the freedom of religious expression. The part closest to the claim is Section 3320.03: No school district board of education...shall prohibit a student from engaging in religious expression in the completion of homework, artwork, or other written or oral assignments. Assignment grades and scores shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance, including any legitimate pedagogical concerns, and shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student's work. "Religious expression" is explained: As used in sections 3320.01 to 3320.03 of the Revised
Code, "religious expression" includes any of the following: (1) Prayer; (2) Religious gatherings, including but not limited to prayer groups, religious clubs, "see you at the pole" gatherings, or other religious gatherings; (3) Distribution of written materials or literature of a religious nature; (4) Any other activity of a religious nature, including wearing symbolic clothing or expression of a religious viewpoint, provided that the activity is not obscene, vulgar, offensively lewd, or indecent. This is probably what you already imagine to be the case. A student's book report on the Bible or the Koran or the Book of Mormon would be graded purely on it meeting the applicable academic standards and not on the choice of religious literature. When asked "when is the Cenozoic Era", the answer "5,000 years ago" is marked wrong, as that is not correct by "normal academic standards". The sponsor of the bill Rep. Ginter agrees . Under House Bill 164, a Christian or Jewish student would not be able to say my religious texts teach me that the world is 6,000 years old, so I don't have to answer this question. They're still going to be tested in the class and they cannot ignore the class material. In fact, this bill is so much a "status quo" legislation, that even its opponents label it "redundant and unnecessary" (opponent Rep. Ingram ). It's not uncommon for politicians pass such laws duplicating existing ones, for the emphasis and political credit. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/45403",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/5337/"
]
} |
45,431 | Chika Ofili, a 12-year-old Nigerian boy based in the United Kingdom, has received the ‘TruLittle Hero Awards’ for discovering a new mathematical formula. Source According to the above website (and several others), he envisioned a simple method to determine if a number is divisible by 7 (which was not included in his textbook), which is amazing on its own! However, I am bothered by the claim of this being a new mathematical formula . Is this really new? | The Math.SE question about the method ( Why does Chika Ofili's method for checking divisibility for 7 work? ) is closed as a duplicate of an earlier, more generic, question ( Divisibility criteria for 7,11,13,17,19 ) about divisibility tests for various prime numbers. The answer by @VitthalJadhav , posted back in 2013 includes Chica Ofili's formula verbatim: (VJ's universal divisibility test) 7|10T+U if and only if 7|(1T−2U), or 7|10T+U if and only if 7|(2T+3U), or 7|10T+U if and only if 7|(T+5U) etc. The last line means that the number 10T+U is divisible by 7 if and only if the number T+5U is divisible by 7. The same technique is mentioned in the article " Puzzles, Pastimes, Problems " (Mathematics in School, Vol. 16, No. 5, November 1987), by D. B. Eperson (kudos to @DavePHD for finding this link): My alternative test for multiples of 7 is, multiply the units digit by 5, and add this to the number formed by the other digits, and if the sum is a multiple of 7, then the tested number is also the multiple of 7. So, evidently, this is not a new mathematical formula. Is this method memorable and easy to use? Yes Is it cool that 12 year old derived it on his own? Yes, kind of. Is this a new mathematical formula, discovered in 2019? No, it was posted verbatim on Stack Exchange in 2013. Is this a new mathematical formula, discovered in 2013? No, another answer by @labbhattacharjee shows the method to derive a formula like this for any number using the basics of number theory, established in XVIII century (works of Bézout, Gauss and many others). Another, but very similar, method to test for divisibility by 7, is posted all over the internet ( 1 , 2 , 3 ) and was published at least as early as 1889 (Nature volume 40, Some Properties of the Number 7 , R. TUCKER): My attention was recently drawn by a pupil to the following property, which will be best illustrated by working out a particular example: Let N = 3425443
u2 = 342538 i.e. u2 = 342544 - 2x3
u3 = 34237 i.e. u3 = 34253 - 2x8
u4 = 3409 i.e. u4 = 3423 - 2x7
u5 = 322 and so on:
28 if any of the quantities u2, u3, u4, &c., is divisible by 7, then N is so divisible. Unlike Ofili's teacher, R. Tucker of University College School provides proof for this test and uses it as a part of a broader theorem. Also unlike Ofili's teacher, R. Tucker doesn't give any credit to his pupil. This is, essentially, a formula that reduces 10T+U to T-2U. With one trivial step, we can go from T-2U to T-2U+7U = T+5U. As a matter of fact, Ofili's teacher acknowledges that "minus 2" method is well known and she found references to it while researching the problem ( Chika's Test ): ... And furthermore, it works if you double the last digit and then subtract it from the remaining part of the number, of if you multiply the last digit by 9, 16, 23, 30 … and subtract. And actually the doubling and subtracting test can be easily found on the internet. But we both agreed multiplying the last digit by 5 and adding it to the remaining part of the number is much more appealing! ... L. E. Dickson's History of the Theory of Numbers attributes this particular divisibility test to A. Zbikowski ( Note sur la divisibilite des nombres (Bull. Acad. Imp. Sci. Saint-Petersbourg 3 (1861)). Zbikowski mentions T-2U manoeuvre as a special case of a broader approach to create divisibility tests for an arbitrary divisor. P.S. This reminds me a famous anecdote about Gauss deriving a formula for arithmetic series when he was 7. It wasn't a new formula even in 1780s, but still it was kinda cool that a primary schooler derived it on his own. | {
"source": [
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/45431",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com",
"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/35504/"
]
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.