I hope by consulting the Wikipedia I am not just drinking the same coolaid.

That type of skepticism is critical. Never lose it. I don't fully trust any source for information. It's only after many different sources have given me the same information, and it's passed through my bullshit filter intact, that I provisionally accept something. There is SO MUCH garbage out there, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to filter the true and legitimate from the biased and deceptive. There are three key indicators that put my skeptical senses into overdrive.

The first is anything that is potentially motivated by money. This is by far the biggest. Take the product Immunocol for example. It's meant to increase levels of glutathione by giving you all the necessary protein precursors. It's touted as a wonder drug and indeed the evidence supporting glutathione is solid. However, when you search through websites to try and find an unbiased review, it's nearly impossible. Even if you search "Immunocal scam", the first couple pages are all websites owned by the manufacturer of Immunocal. These pages all seem legitimate at first glance, but when you follow the digital trail, you start to realize what's going on. The truth is, all you need to sustain healthy levels of glutathione is to eat a balanced diet of non-processed meats and green vegetables. To find the truth here takes a lot of leg-work, since it's shrouded by the well woven propaganda net the manufacturer has created to make more money. A lot of the applied sciences falls under the sway of the corporate dollar. Pseudo-science and misinformation are ever present.

The second indicator that something is biased by motive is religion. Everything surrounding the grounds between science and religion is a potential target. While it is true for both sides, it is almost unanimously the religious side that is biased. The science side can sometimes be motivated by some ideology such as militant atheism, but this is rare. There is no fundamental motive. With religion, there is a fundamental motive.

The third is politics. All the commercials you see about this candidate doing this or that, or any of the visible mud-slinging for that matter, should be taken with an over-sized grain of salt. Votes equal power, and people are motivated to acquire power. Deception is common, not only in running for office, but also for acquiring votes for some initiative or another. The politics of science sometimes cast science into a bad light. Results can be biased to coincide with popular paradigms or to appeal to peer review. College theses can be biased away from the truth and toward the professor.

I'm not saying any of these three are reasons to immediately reject claims where the above motives could be lurking. The point is, be on "skeptical high alert". To be overly skeptical is to be cynical or pseudo-skeptical, and both of these are bad things. Try to be as unbiased as possible, while recognizing the biases that undergird all the information out there.

My point in mentioning all this is that the conversation over evolution is one of the loudest shouting matches, but for no reason. Evolution is a basic science rather than applied science. Research is influenced only minimally by political and monetary pressures. Religion is shouting as loud as the other side, but there is nothing but hot air. The problem here is that religious belief is based on faith, and when evolution goes against the teachings of religion, sparks fly. Without being based on evidence, religion will not be swayed by it either. The unbelievable amount of evidence for evolution goes unnoticed. Instead apologists search fervently for any "gap" where they can claim evolution fails. I've posted about this before in a rather good analogy. Perhaps I'll search for it.

In any case, the best thing to do if you want to remain unbiased is to buy a few books on Critical Thinking. Books on metacognition and epistemology will help as well. The topic here is how humans acquire knowledge, and is fundamental to everything we learn. You'll upgrade your bullshit filter to a hypothetical HEPA in no time.

Interbane wrote:The truth is, all you need to sustain healthy levels of glutathione is to eat a balanced diet of non-processed meats and green vegetables.

...
In any case, the best thing to do if you want to remain unbiased is to buy a few books on Critical Thinking. Books on metacognition and epistemology will help as well. The topic here is how humans acquire knowledge, and is fundamental to everything we learn. You'll upgrade your bullshit filter to a hypothetical HEPA in no time.

Gheez, next thing you know you'll be buying grass fed beef from me!

Along those lines, sort of, is this website http://thepaleodiet.com/. The question is, does the human species evolve enough over a period of 10,000 years to metabolize grain.

I ordered the book Critical Thinking: An Introduction by Alec Fisher. Maybe it will even help me be a step ahead of the next contractor’s game. And there is nothing more humiliating than to be outsmarted by your lead cow.

I am kidding of course and appreciate the time you take in sharing your thoughts.

This thread has been a shocking, enlightening and above all uproariously funny experience for me. There should be an icon for rolling laughing on the floor.

The book Musicophelia should arrive any day now, all $2.87 worth, new and hardcover no less. There is a chance that I will give Dr. Bleach some more heartburn in that Forum.

As far as the end of the human spaceprogram goes, I would like to come back every 100 years and see what is going on. The problem with the future is that it is so hard to predict.

kalato wrote:The book Musicophelia should arrive any day now, all $2.87 worth, new and hardcover no less. There is a chance that I will give Dr. Bleach some more heartburn in that Forum.

Is this supposed to be aimed at me? I didn't know you gave me heartburn. That was you?! Holy crap, how have you been giving me heartburn all these years and I've only just heard of you now? WEIRD, dude.

There is an emoticon for rolling on the floor: :laugh2:

You type : laugh2 : (without the spaces) and bingo! :laugh2:

When you're in the full editor in the reply, there is a link under the little smilies on the left that says "View more smilies" and the rolling on the floor one, among others, can be found there.

So there you go.

And it's just Eden, or Bleached, if you prefer. I'm certainly no Dr. That would be my mom.

Interbane wrote:

Evolution is a fact sounds like a religious dogma to me. Evolution is not a fact, that's why scientists refer to the Theory of Evolution and not the Law of Evolution. Lots of things about evolution are not proven yet.

Evolution is a fact. That statement may sound like dogma, but the difference is that it is a fact by merit of the mountains of supporting evidence from many different fields of study.

"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from."
wikipedia definition.

Seems like evolution fits this definition very nicely

interbane wrote:The distinction between a Theory and a Law is that a Law does not answer the question "why". There is not any more certainty to Laws than there is to Theories. For example, consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened. This is a misunderstanding of the distinction on your part, and doesn't entail a greater veracity from scientific Laws. In both cases, Laws and Theories, neither can be proven. Depending on which law and which theory we want to examine, the verisimillitude depends on the available evidence. The Theory of Evolution has more evidence supporting it than many of the Scientific Laws. Demanding that parts of the Theory of Evolution be 'proven' is an excellent example of how unfamiliar you are with science. It is a fact supported by an indisputable amount of corroborated evidence, and the only reason to deny this stems from prejudice due to religious motive.

It seems to me that evolution is less than a theory or law, it is a postulate under which a number of competing theories compete.

What is interesting about TOE is that it seems to run counter to some established laws of nature, so maybe evolution is a miracle after all and we should move this discussion to that topic.

Interbane wrote:

I hope by consulting the Wikipedia I am not just drinking the same coolaid.

That type of skepticism is critical. Never lose it. I don't fully trust any source for information. It's only after many different sources have given me the same information, and it's passed through my bullshit filter intact, that I provisionally accept something. There is SO MUCH garbage out there, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to filter the true and legitimate from the biased and deceptive. There are three key indicators that put my skeptical senses into overdrive.

The first is anything that is potentially motivated by money.

The second indicator that something is biased by motive is religion. Everything surrounding the grounds between science and religion is a potential target. While it is true for both sides, it is almost unanimously the religious side that is biased. The science side can sometimes be motivated by some ideology such as militant atheism, but this is rare. There is no fundamental motive. With religion, there is a fundamental motive.

Oh, please not again. Your very statement condemns you. “While it is true for both sides, it is almost unanimously the religions side that is biased.” What, huh? If it is true for both sides, aren’t both sides biased by your own statement? And what does, “…almost unanimously the religious side that is biased,” mean? Do you also really believe that for science, “There is no fundamental motive?” I used to think it was the search for answers but as has become increasingly evident that quest ended probably a century and a half ago. See below.

Interbane wrote:The third is politics.

News flash, science is just a subject to politics both external and internal as any other organization. Look at modern science history and you will find that anytime someone challenged the accepted scientific theory the dogs were let loose and if torture had been legal it certainly would have been implemented.

Interbane wrote:I'm not saying any of these three are reasons to immediately reject claims where the above motives could be lurking. The point is, be on "skeptical high alert". To be overly skeptical is to be cynical or pseudo-skeptical, and both of these are bad things. Try to be as unbiased as possible, while recognizing the biases that undergird all the information out there.

I highly agree. If it sounds ridiculous it probably is.

Interbane wrote:My point in mentioning all this is that the conversation over evolution is one of the loudest shouting matches, but for no reason. Evolution is a basic science rather than applied science. Research is influenced only minimally by political and monetary pressures.

There is a coarse term applicable to this statement which I will not employ. How many scientists advise their grant committees that their research is showing that their idea was wrong and therefore they should not receive additional funding? The whole scientific establishment is a money making machine. If you aren’t pulling in money for your university, you’re gone. If you aren’t making money for your company, you’re gone. In fact, I will bet you that if a scientist ever uncovered absolute, incontrovertible proof that the universe was created as recorded in Genesis Chapter 1, that that proof would never see the light of day.

Interbane wrote:Religion is shouting as loud as the other side, but there is nothing but hot air. The problem here is that religious belief is based on faith, and when evolution goes against the teachings of religion, sparks fly. Without being based on evidence, religion will not be swayed by it either. The unbelievable amount of evidence for evolution goes unnoticed. Instead apologists search fervently for any "gap" where they can claim evolution fails. I've posted about this before in a rather good analogy. Perhaps I'll search for it.

Actually the above statement is not true. Many denominations have sold out and adjusted their beliefs to incorporate evolution. In fact, I suspect that the majority of denominations are in that position.

Interbane wrote:In any case, the best thing to do if you want to remain unbiased is to buy a few books on Critical Thinking. Books on metacognition and epistemology will help as well. The topic here is how humans acquire knowledge, and is fundamental to everything we learn. You'll upgrade your bullshit filter to a hypothetical HEPA in no time.

So the solution to koolaid is to read books by koolaid drinkers written for koolaid drinkers.

Oh, please not again. Your very statement condemns you. “While it is true for both sides, it is almost unanimously the religions side that is biased.” What, huh? If it is true for both sides, aren’t both sides biased by your own statement?

You got it right, that was what I meant. That doesn't condemn my statement. Both sides are biased, as I've said. The religious side has far more bias. I'll tell you what, you stop believing in Christianity for a year. Just do it. No harm will be done. I change my beliefs all the time, depending on reasoning, logic, evidence, etc. I don't mean simply the details of my belief, I mean the entire belief structure I hold is changed at a fundamental level. I understand that my worldview will always contain errors, and therefore hold to the idea that it should always be subject to change. You won't change your worldview in spite of logical contradictions. This is such an immensely powerful bias that you cannot even see it. So I dare you, stop believing in Christianity for a year.

Actually the above statement is not true. Many denominations have sold out and adjusted their beliefs to incorporate evolution. In fact, I suspect that the majority of denominations are in that position.

What do you think their reasons are, and why do you think it's a bad thing?!?

In fact, I will bet you that if a scientist ever uncovered absolute, incontrovertible proof that the universe was created as recorded in Genesis Chapter 1, that that proof would never see the light of day.

You would like to think that. First of all, how many times do you need to be reminded why science doesn't absolutely prove things? For the love of god, amend your worldview and understand this. Second, if someone found evidence of a young Earth, there would be almost no way to stop him short of killing him and destroying all his work. Do you think that's what happens? Are you proposing a massive conspiracy?

How many scientists advise their grant committees that their research is showing that their idea was wrong and therefore they should not receive additional funding? The whole scientific establishment is a money making machine.

The answer is that ideas which are likely to have merit get money. What does this mean? It means any idea which may possibly be true. False ideas get sacked, yes, even including ideas about a young Earth. Why? Because the Earth isn't young. There is so much evidence for the age of the Earth and evolution that there is no longer any dispute. The topic wouldn't get funded because it is pseudo-science.

"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from."
wikipedia definition.

Seems like evolution fits this definition very nicely

My repeating that evolution is a fact is not supported by authority. It is supported by evidence. A lot of evidence. Tons of evidence. More evidence than you could ever dispute. All peer reviewed, from a vast majority of fields. Corroborated by people who did not want to corroborate it, such as devoutly religous people. The reason it may seem like dogma to you is because I keep repeating that "it's a fact". Yes, it is. Not based on authority, but based on evidence. I can't imagine what kind of conspiracy you think has infiltrated our world so deeply that all this evidence means nothing. It's utterly amazing. How do you dismiss it? By some variant of an ad hominem against scientists? What about religious scientists? You can do all the experiments yourself. You can investigate this. Don't trust the scientists, look for yourself!!! I doubt you will look for yourself. It's more comfortable attempting to discredit evolution indirectly by ad hominem attacks against scientists.

The sad thing is, interbane, that vast idiological conspiracies are possible.

Have you ever just thought for a moment...

Christianity has millions and millions of followers. Many of them are YEC's and other literalists. Can you believe that? Its like a sci-fi movie with some wierd alien brain-spore that robs people of critical thinking. It boggles the mind.

Interbane wrote:

Oh, please not again. Your very statement condemns you. “While it is true for both sides, it is almost unanimously the religions side that is biased.” What, huh? If it is true for both sides, aren’t both sides biased by your own statement?

You got it right, that was what I meant. That doesn't condemn my statement. Both sides are biased, as I've said. The religious side has far more bias. I'll tell you what, you stop believing in Christianity for a year. Just do it. No harm will be done. I change my beliefs all the time, depending on reasoning, logic, evidence, etc. I don't mean simply the details of my belief, I mean the entire belief structure I hold is changed at a fundamental level. I understand that my worldview will always contain errors, and therefore hold to the idea that it should always be subject to change. You won't change your worldview in spite of logical contradictions. This is such an immensely powerful bias that you cannot even see it. So I dare you, stop believing in Christianity for a year.

It might be possible for you to change your beliefs but I could not more stop believing than I could breathing. It is part of the essense of who I am.

Interbane wrote:

Actually the above statement is not true. Many denominations have sold out and adjusted their beliefs to incorporate evolution. In fact, I suspect that the majority of denominations are in that position.

What do you think their reasons are, and why do you think it's a bad thing?!?

That's a very good question. I think many people are intimidated. There is an impression in our society that empiricism and objectivity trump belief. I am not sure why that idea has taken hold so strongly but it has. Also, it is also intimidating to take a stand when you have limited knowledge of the contrary point of view. When someone with three letters after his or her name tells you something is a fact, how does someone with no letters after their name oppose them? In other words, many people either feel stupid or are afraid they will appear stupid by taking a stand. Then there is the old story of the Emperor's New Clothes. It's much easier to go along with the crowd. There are also denominations that have a tradition of treating the Bible casually and of being synchronistic. There has been a concerted effort for decades now to marginalize the Bible, and that effort has been largely successful. As to why it is a bad thing, It starts by surrendering ground that has not been earned. It also establishes a pattern of compromise which inevitably leads to a level playing field when one does not exist.

Interbane wrote:

In fact, I will bet you that if a scientist ever uncovered absolute, incontrovertible proof that the universe was created as recorded in Genesis Chapter 1, that that proof would never see the light of day.

You would like to think that. First of all, how many times do you need to be reminded why science doesn't absolutely prove things? For the love of god, amend your worldview and understand this.

I’m not the one who says that Evolution is a fact, not a theory, or that Global Warming or Climate change as it is being called now is beyond question or that people who question Climate Change should have their faces rubbed in asbestos (is that an exact quote?)

April 30, 2005, Richard Dawkins in a Salon.com interview says, “Evolution is a fact.”
http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2005/ ... index.html

interbane wrote:Second, if someone found evidence of a young Earth, there would be almost no way to stop him short of killing him and destroying all his work. Do you think that's what happens? Are you proposing a massive conspiracy?

You and I have both seen politicians stand up and deny the obvious. I don’t think there is one Darth Vader type controlling all, but, if YEC suddenly seemed on the verge of discrediting other ideas, and therefore ending the grant money, I guarantee there would be vicious attacks, attempts to discredit the Bible, to disparage and denigrate YEC’s, to attack religion and try to make it look foolish. You think I’m wrong, look at what happened with the people who attempted to question the East Anglia research. Money, Money, Money, it’s all about the Money and if you think scientists aren’t every bit as interested in money as anyone else you are sadly mistaken. I’m going to tread on sacred ground here so forgive me, why are there so many books by Dawkins? Perhaps there is some new material in them but for the most part it is the same material, tweaked a bit. The answer is because they make money. Lots of money

interbane wrote:

How many scientists advise their grant committees that their research is showing that their idea was wrong and therefore they should not receive additional funding? The whole scientific establishment is a money making machine.

The answer is that ideas which are likely to have merit get money. What does this mean? It means any idea which may possibly be true. False ideas get sacked, yes, even including ideas about a young Earth. Why? Because the Earth isn't young. There is so much evidence for the age of the Earth and evolution that there is no longer any dispute. The topic wouldn't get funded because it is pseudo-science.

Are you sure about merit. Google ridiculous studies. I did and below are just a few examples. I admit I am biased, but wouldn’t it be interesting to fund an expedition to explore Mount Ararat to see if we can find Noah’s Ark? Maybe that is a waste of money but Mt. Ararat has only been slightly explored and even if no Ark is found I’m sure it would be interesting and a better use of money than some of the following. Oh, also, if some Christian expedition were to find Noah’s Ark I suspect there would be a lot of issues raised by the Scientific Community about procedures, etc.

“Don’t get me wrong, I am a total research hound.

I’ve got Google Alerts on Google Alerts for studies that keep me in the know on everything from yoga to entrepreneurship to music.

But, not too infrequently, I come across an abstract of a study that leaves me scratching my head, wondering, “dude, did you seriously have to spend a bazillion friggin dollars to prove what is already patently obvious to a 3-year old?”

Now, of course, I could just keep all these ridiculously self-evident studies to myself, but where’s the fun in that? So, without further ado, here is my list of…
Top 10 total waste of money studies (warning – if you have even the slightest concern about losing vital minutes of your life, do not read on, I said stop, hey do NOT read this list!)
• Talking on your cell-phone AFTER you go to bed makes you tired the next day You mean, if your teenage daughter stays up all night talking on her cell-phone under the covers, she might be, oh, just a bit edgy the next day? Nahhhhh!
• Resistance to the siren taunt of chocolate is futile – Okay, so, this revolutionary study showed the more I think about chocolate, the more I have to have it. Mindblowing!
• Laughing makes you feel yummier – Dang, I never would’ve guessed! Better yet…
• Even thinking about funny stuff makes you feel better and, you’ll really never believe that…
• Laughter is a tool that can be used for good or evil – Holy cow, I never knew you could actually laugh with OR at people. Man, that explains so much about my childhood!
• Laughing triggers asthma - Yes, this is real news, BUT it falls into the “so, what the heck am I supposed to do with that information” category? Hmmm, maybe stay away from funny people and try to be unhappy as much as possible?. Okay, enough with the laughter research.
• Night-shift nurses have poor sleep habits – Don’t really know where to begin with this one.
• People had more nightmares after 9-11 -Being a NYer, this really shocked me.
• Playing with puppies makes you feel good, ’specially when you’re old or ill. Finally, evidence to back up the claim that they’re man’s best friend, I never would’ve believed it.
• Athletes perform better after a good night’s sleep – This one totally blew me away, so, if I read it right, they are actually saying that partying until 3am the night before the big game might not be such a good idea. I can’t wait to be armed with this one when my daughter is old enough.

Okay, I feel better now that I got that off my chest, wheeew! Especially after the hardcore (and rather fabulous) discussion around science, God, sprituality and religion from my last post.

http://www.jonathanfields.com/blog/10-u ... en-funded/

Ridiculous Studies and Wasted Time
Posted on May 9th, 2006 by Christine.

So today I was working, and I found myself needing to scour the internet to find out what a doctor can do to kill a patient who is already in a coma (Don’t ask… ). So as I’m weeding through google pages trying to find something published by some remotely credible medical organization (as opposed to… well… all the crap sites that somehow seem to fanagle their way to the front pages of search engines), I came across a research study published by a professor and his research team from the University of Pennsylvania. Sounds like it should be a worthwhile read, doesn’t it?

It was the title that made me pause. Ready for this? “Epidemiology and Prognosis of Coma in Daytime Television Dramas.” Huh?

Considering I make my living writing television thrillers that are really nothing more than soap operas with a scary stalker thrown in, I figured I’d see what the doctors at UPenn had to say about it.

The team of five, including two medical doctors, studied nine American soap operas that ran over a five year period, and counted how many times a character is portrayed to be in a coma during that time. They found that 64 characters did indeed, and very tragically I might add, fall into a coma. Then they counted how many woke up and actually compared it to the number of real coma patients that regain consciousness to determine whether daytime dramas accurately represent the reality of coma patient survival. Stop. Wait. Did you hear what I said? ...to determine whether daytime dramas accurately represent the reality of coma patient survival… (because soap operas are really only a step away from documentary filmmaking, right?)

Guess what these overqualified, overpaid idiots found out from their study? Soaps don’t portray coma survival accurately. Get the fuck out… are you serious???!!! It turns out that the survival rate for made up characters played by actors who have fallen into a writer-induced comatosed state, is 89%. A whopping 89% recover. In real life, only a little more than 40% of coma patients survive. (Maybe because the production companies have more money to hire better doctors and they don’t waste their funds on asanine research projects???)

Wait. There’s more. To come to just that conclusion would never have been enough to satisfy whoever the hell signed off on the grant to perform this ground-breaking study. They also noted that of those that do survive comas, the ones on television are not accurately represented as having limited function, cognitive deficit, and physical disabilities nearly as often as the real-life patients who survive comas do.

Hrmmm… interesting. I guess people who enjoy television don’t find it entertaining to sit there and watch sexy soap characters named “Ryder Montgomery” spend a half hour trying to feed himself apple sauce from a motorized wheelchair (I just made up the name Ryder Montgomery by the way… first rule of writing a soap opera– name your male characters Ryder, Colt, or Tryg… and if you have one named “Colt” whose been living a double life under the name “Tryg,” it’s even better!)

My point is… no shit. People watch t.v.– particularly soap operas– to escape from real life. They like getting caught up in the drama and romance between people who never go to a job and have lots of time to wear evening gowns and talk about other peoples’ relationships. They like knowing about the nefarious underhanded dealings of conniving one-note bad guys before the unsuspecting good guys do. They like hearing phrases like… “Oh my God, Ryder… you’re alive. But, but… I saw your plane crash with my own eyes” and shit like that. It’s entertainment. It isn’t supposed to be real. If they wanted reality, they could go spend an hour over their lunch breaks seated in a hospital waiting room watching people pace anxiously as they wait for their parents to come out of surgery.

The final conclusion of this hardworking team was this: “The portrayal of coma in soap operas is overly optimistic. Although these programs are presented as fiction, they may contribute to unrealistic expectations of recovery.”

Hold on a sec. Did I miss something? At what point did these brilliant medical minds study anything that might suggest soap opera fans have unrealistic expectations of recovery? Did they find a group of people who watch soaps and ask them how many coma patients out of 100 they would guess would recover? Did they talk to people who have a history of watching daytime soaps and who have also had loved who were lost to comas? Did they interview people who are taking care of their relatives that were left in disabled states because of comas? No. Oh… I’m sorry. I thought that’s how real research studies were done. You take a premise, and then do some tests, studies, surveys, whatever… and come up with a conclusion that actually had something to do with your hypothesis. Am I wrong? Did my seventh grade biology teacher lie to me? That fucking bastard! I knew I couldn’t trust that guy.

Anyway… I’m attributing the rise in my blood temperature to the fact that lame, bullshit studies like these are waste of time and money. And that’s time and money that could be spent on real research that might actually improve peoples’ lives instead of simply giving some lazy ass professor something to publish so he and his university can keep their “academically qualified” status with AACSB.

And the truth is… even if they are right…. even if soap operas give the families of coma victims too much “optimism,” so fucking what? Optimism is what keeps hope alive, and there’s nothing more important than hope when you’re faced with the tragedy and potential loss of a loved one. So maybe if the doctors who decided it was valuable to waste money on this study set their minds (and funds) to increasing the survival rates of coma victims until they reach that “optimistic” 89%, they could be congratulated on a job well done and take a little time off to enjoy a “fictitious” t.v. show now and then. Just a thought.

http://www.chrisvschris.com/ridiculous- ... sted-time/

Carcinogens Form from Third-Hand Smoke
ScienceDaily (Feb. 9, 2010) — Nicotine in third-hand smoke, the residue from tobacco smoke that clings to virtually all surfaces long after a cigarette has been extinguished, reacts with the common indoor air pollutant nitrous acid to produce dangerous carcinogens. This new potential health hazard was revealed in a multi-institutional study led by researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab).

"The burning of tobacco releases nicotine in the form of a vapor that adsorbs strongly onto indoor surfaces, such as walls, floors, carpeting, drapes and furniture. Nicotine can persist on those materials for days, weeks and even months. Our study shows that when this residual nicotine reacts with ambient nitrous acid it forms carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines or TSNAs," says Hugo Destaillats, a chemist with the Indoor Environment Department of Berkeley Lab's Environmental Energy Technologies Division. "TSNAs are among the most broadly acting and potent carcinogens present in unburned tobacco and tobacco smoke."

Destaillats is the corresponding author of a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Co-authoring the PNAS paper with Destaillats were Mohamad Sleiman, Lara Gundel and Brett Singer, all with Berkeley Lab's Indoor Environment Department, plus James Pankow with Portland State University, and Peyton Jacob with the University of California, San Francisco.

The authors report that in laboratory tests using cellulose as a model indoor material exposed to smoke, levels of newly formed TSNAs detected on cellulose surfaces were 10 times higher than those originally present in the sample following exposure for three hours to a "high but reasonable" concentration of nitrous acid (60 parts per billion by volume). Unvented gas appliances are the main source of nitrous acid indoors. Since most vehicle engines emit some nitrous acid that can infiltrate the passenger compartments, tests were also conducted on surfaces inside the truck of a heavy smoker, including the surface of a stainless steel glove compartment. These measurements also showed substantial levels of TSNAs. In both cases, one of the major products found was a TSNA that is absent in freshly emitted tobacco smoke -- the nitrosamine known as NNA. The potent carcinogens NNN and NNK were also formed in this reaction.

"Time-course measurements revealed fast TSNA formation, up to 0.4 percent conversion of nicotine within the first hour," says lead author Sleiman. "Given the rapid sorption and persistence of high levels of nicotine on indoor surfaces, including clothing and human skin, our findings indicate that third-hand smoke represents an unappreciated health hazard through dermal exposure, dust inhalation and ingestion."

Since the most likely human exposure to these TSNAs is through either inhalation of dust or the contact of skin with carpet or clothes, third-hand smoke would seem to pose the greatest hazard to infants and toddlers. The study's findings indicate that opening a window or deploying a fan to ventilate the room while a cigarette burns does not eliminate the hazard of third-hand smoke. Smoking outdoors is not much of an improvement, as co-author Gundel explains.

"Smoking outside is better than smoking indoors but nicotine residues will stick to a smoker's skin and clothing," she says. "Those residues follow a smoker back inside and get spread everywhere. The biggest risk is to young children. Dermal uptake of the nicotine through a child's skin is likely to occur when the smoker returns and if nitrous acid is in the air, which it usually is, then TSNAs will be formed."

The dangers of mainstream and secondhand tobacco smoke have been well documented as a cause of cancer, cardiovascular disease and stroke, pulmonary disease and birth defects. Only recently, however, has the general public been made aware of the threats posed by third-hand smoke. The term was coined in a study that appeared in the January 2009 edition of the journal "Pediatrics," in which it was reported that only 65 percent of non-smokers and 43 percent of smokers surveyed agreed with the statement that "Breathing air in a room today where people smoked yesterday can harm the health of infants and children."

Anyone who has entered a confined space -- a room, an elevator, a vehicle, etc. -- where someone recently smoked, knows that the scent lingers for an extended period of time. Scientists have been aware for several years that tobacco smoke is adsorbed on surfaces where semi-volatile and non-volatile chemical constituents can undergo reactions, but reactions of residual smoke constituents with atmospheric molecules such as nitrous acid have been overlooked as a source of harmful pollutants. This is the first study to quantify the reactions of third-hand smoke with nitrous acid, according to the authors.

"Whereas the sidestream smoke of one cigarette contains at least 100 nanograms equivalent total TSNAs, our results indicate that several hundred nanograms per square meter of nitrosamines may be formed on indoor surfaces in the presence of nitrous acid," says lead-author Sleiman.

Co-author James Pankow points out that the results of this study should raise concerns about the purported safety of electronic cigarettes. Also known as "e-cigarettes," electronic cigarettes claim to provide the "smoking experience," but without the risks of cancer. A battery-powered vaporizer inside the tube of a plastic cigarette turns a solution of nicotine into a smoky mist that can be inhaled and exhaled like tobacco smoke. Since no flame is required to ignite the e-cigarette and there is no tobacco or combustion, e-cigarettes are not restricted by anti-smoking laws.

"Nicotine, the addictive substance in tobacco smoke, has until now been considered to be non-toxic in the strictest sense of the term," says Kamlesh Asotra of the University of California's Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, which funded this study. "What we see in this study is that the reactions of residual nicotine with nitrous acid at surface interfaces are a potential cancer hazard, and these results may be just the tip of the iceberg."

The Berkeley Lab researchers are now investigating the long-term stability in an indoor environment of the TSNAs produced as a result of third-hand smoke interactions with nitrous acid. The authors are also looking into the development of biomarkers to track exposures to these TSNAs. In addition, they are conducting studies to gain a better understanding of the chemistry behind the formation of these TSNAs and to find out more about other chemicals that are being produced when third-hand smoke reacts with nitrous acid.

"We know that these residual levels of nicotine may build up over time after several smoking cycles, and we know that through the process of aging, third-hand smoke can become more toxic over time," says Destaillats. "Our work highlights the importance of third-hand smoke reactions at indoor interfaces, particularly the production of nitrosamines with potential health impacts."

In the PNAS paper, Destaillats and his co-authors suggest various ways to limit the impact of the third hand smoke health hazard, starting with the implementation of 100 percent smoke-free environments in public places and self-restrictions in residences and automobiles. In buildings where substantial smoking has occurred, replacing nicotine-laden furnishings, carpets and wallboard can significantly reduce exposures.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 154651.htm


Seems like merit left the building.

interbane wrote:

"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from."
wikipedia definition.

Seems like evolution fits this definition very nicely

My repeating that evolution is a fact is not supported by authority. It is supported by evidence. A lot of evidence. Tons of evidence. More evidence than you could ever dispute. All peer reviewed, from a vast majority of fields. Corroborated by people who did not want to corroborate it, such as devoutly religous people. The reason it may seem like dogma to you is because I keep repeating that "it's a fact". Yes, it is. Not based on authority, but based on evidence. I can't imagine what kind of conspiracy you think has infiltrated our world so deeply that all this evidence means nothing. It's utterly amazing. How do you dismiss it? By some variant of an ad hominem against scientists? What about religious scientists? You can do all the experiments yourself. You can investigate this. Don't trust the scientists, look for yourself!!! I doubt you will look for yourself. It's more comfortable attempting to discredit evolution indirectly by ad hominem attacks against scientists.

I’ve looked at the articles, I especially like one by V. I. Baranov. As for ad hominem attacks, I need to work that into CRUDE somehow. What is wrong with calling attention to significant errors? Am I supposed to ignore them because he has MD after Williamson? I don't care how many letters someone has before or after their name. They don't get a any more of a pass than I do, and once again, you or was it Johnson1010 insisted that I go line by line through Williamson's essay. BTW, anyone know what kind of a doctor he is?

Suppose I were to reject all of your dating methods. Would that be fair? I suspect you would object. Yet you reject all of the Bible. Is that fair?

One more thing, I appreciate you a lot.
thank you.

It might be possible for you to change your beliefs but I could not more stop believing than I could breathing. It is part of the essense of who I am.

Right, you are your beliefs. In that situation, it's impossible to be any less than extremely biased.

There is an impression in our society that empiricism and objectivity trump [faith].

There are infinite false things you can have faith in. The only way to separate the wheat from the chaff is by applying reason and sorting through the evidence. Otherwise, anything goes. Yes, evidence and reason do indeed trump faith.

I’m not the one who says that Evolution is a fact, not a theory, or that Global Warming or Climate change as it is being called now is beyond question or that people who question Climate Change should have their faces rubbed in asbestos (is that an exact quote?)

Evolution is a fact. That doesn't mean it's absolutely proven. You're very prone to dichotomous thinking, where reality is far better described in terms of spectrums. The reason so many people have to be adamant about evolution is because there are so many retards who discard it because they want to believe in something else. Stahrwe, you are the one who is biased. There are no cookies and cream for believing in evolution. What gains grant money is what is likely to show results. Things which are false will not show results. You simply don't get it. How many times have we been back and forth over this, but you're incorrigible and unmoving. You are phenomenally biased, so much so that no amount of evidence or reason could ever sway you. Do you doubt this? Can you show me how you think you are unbiased? Even logical contradictions have no impact on you.

This is like a child standing in front of an elephant saying "there's no elephant". After a while, the adult will likely get frustrated and shout at him. The strong language and militant atheism is a result of your inability to see the truth because you are so brainwashed into believing in a fiction story written by bronze age savages.

You and I have both seen politicians stand up and deny the obvious. I don’t think there is one Darth Vader type controlling all, but, if YEC suddenly seemed on the verge of discrediting other ideas, and therefore ending the grant money, I guarantee there would be vicious attacks, attempts to discredit the Bible, to disparage and denigrate YEC’s, to attack religion and try to make it look foolish.

Yes, politics and money cause bias. Money causes the most bias of all. Even in science, money causes bias. I said this before you did, many posts back. These are biases we must be aware of. Especially scientists, who are caught up in the middle of it. This bias isn't some hidden, behind the scenes "dark force" that blindsides scientists. It is critical for scientists to be aware of bias. It's actually the majority of their job. This is why studies must be double blind, have the correct samplings, compensate for placebo, etc. Science is all about eliminating bias. This includes political and monetary bias, which is exceptionally difficult to eliminate. But part of the beauty of science is that it is constantly improving in an attempt to remove all bias. That's why there is peer review, where even the review of peer review is reviewed. This is why grant applications go through a panel rather than a single person. There are no scientists on these panels who support investigations into UFOlogy, big foot detection programs, Loch Ness monster breeding, or Young Earth Creationism, because these ideas have been indisputably shown to be false. So if you mock such panels for not including a wide enough variance that YEC is represented, that is your fault for advocating a false position, not the panel's fault for not representing it.

Are you sure about merit. Google ridiculous studies. I did and below are just a few examples.

This is representative of the variance within science. Yes, there are also studies such as SETI and even funding for some promising areas that might lead to cold fusion. Even though these are borderline, they should be represented as at least possible. However, there are extreme ideas which are so preposterous that they will never be funded. No one will fund research into showing the Earth to be flat or young, because it isn't. You could spend your whole life reading through evidence for why it isn't, one article after the next, and not get through them all. You're continuously incapable of considering how much evidence there is supporting the ideas you oppose.

Suppose I were to reject all of your dating methods. Would that be fair? I suspect you would object. Yet you reject all of the Bible. Is that fair?

Reject them, they aren't my methods. I will defend them if they appear to be reasonable and truthful methods, honest and without bias, and their veracity is supported by enough corroborated evidence. For what reason do you propose you should reject them? If you want to, go ahead and reject them, and I will learn more about them and defend them if it appears you aren't correct.

There is an impression in our society that empiricism and objectivity trump belief.

Empirical, objective observations that says the result of some event will be "A", are far and away superior to an unfounded belief that the result will be "B".

You reject this?