tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7943944833228849222024-03-13T16:46:09.658-04:00My Chemical JourneyA blog about life, chemistry, and everything in between.The Chemisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15970398885870679916noreply@blogger.comBlogger120125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-794394483322884922.post-19523161031605247722016-05-31T16:12:00.001-04:002016-05-31T16:42:23.668-04:00Why Frixion Pens Are the SneakiestThis is a fun bit of everyday chemistry I discovered while studying for exams. I used these erasable Pilot brand Frixion pens. Or I should say, "erasable." Most erasers work by abrasion, meaning they wear away at the writing until it's gone. Pencils use graphite which forms in molecular sheets of carbon, so it's relatively easy to wear away a bunch of sheets at a time without having to wear away the paper. Frixion pens, on the other hand, erase using heat. When you rub the special eraser against the paper, it gets very hot, which degrades the ink, making it invisible. You can test this by briefly touching a written sample against a heat source (just don’t burn the paper!) This has interesting implications.
A lot of what we perceive as color is really based on how light reflects back to us. This gets complicated, but there's a specific phenomenon called conjugation that is likely at play here. Long chains or rings of carbon atoms where double bonds alternate with single bonds form an electronic system that reflects back to us in certain ways. Look at lycopene, from tomatoes:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRGSM9wL_H3h6q0UI03GZ-L9kFB63WqORiJSEcrkQqj3eW-36-SVFGB5GMFbzsGz1Takuo_A-ENdvbpcURJ23uUyorFbhFVuQsy3kFtppfyOxapO6NQS6qMir053hbAugsur8jLbF-QU37/s1600/1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRGSM9wL_H3h6q0UI03GZ-L9kFB63WqORiJSEcrkQqj3eW-36-SVFGB5GMFbzsGz1Takuo_A-ENdvbpcURJ23uUyorFbhFVuQsy3kFtppfyOxapO6NQS6qMir053hbAugsur8jLbF-QU37/s400/1.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small; text-align: start;">Each line segment represents one bond between two carbon atoms. Double bonds are two lines.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
This is one substance responsible for making tomatoes red. When light hits it, the photons cause electrons to move back and forth across the double bonds of the molecule, and so some light energy is absorbed and only the red light reflects back to you. It’s a little more complicated, but that’s the basic explanation. This phenomenon is usually observed when you have extensive conjugation, which is just another way of saying: many bonded carbons that alternate between double and single bonds.<br />
<br />
I think the pens use ink with long carbon chains or rings that have this property mixed with another substance that reacts with the ink when heated. I don’t have direct evidence for this, because I haven’t done a chemical analysis of the ink, but as soon as I realized that heat was what “erased” the ink, I came up with a working hypothesis. Now I should clarify that this could be completely inorganic for all I know. I'm not a dye chemist, so I don't even know what's likely, but there are inorganic ways of getting color as well as ways of combining organic and inorganic substances. I'm focused on conjugation here because it's a cool concept that's easy to explain.<br />
<br />
Breaking double bonds with heat and turning them into single bonds is “turning off” the conjugation. The ink is still there, but when you heat it, it becomes clear. These sorts of reactions, where double bonds are reduced to single bonds tend to be reversible, and you reverse them with-wait for it... temperature. So I “erased” a message and stuck the piece of paper in the freezer. When I pulled it out, it was restored.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4o-x1tYfYoqekLJ67Y2iu3vzyjkOhs4Dj3zMkdSCAZ7KQYS57f-0MRhtqZEWZpp-6EGEYL9C7grG7_KvMrIHMqbJ-4guunDtNcSwS2vaX3jzX0b0uzoUfw3eJWBytKReCY9uhECzrZ-iC/s1600/2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="105" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4o-x1tYfYoqekLJ67Y2iu3vzyjkOhs4Dj3zMkdSCAZ7KQYS57f-0MRhtqZEWZpp-6EGEYL9C7grG7_KvMrIHMqbJ-4guunDtNcSwS2vaX3jzX0b0uzoUfw3eJWBytKReCY9uhECzrZ-iC/s400/2.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">(Click to embiggen.)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSWtacVvzd531zjhfMQkZ7FAf4jend-SlLtgAd7pgjLwY7ZIeK3wSjxuO9ZX6L3tpabo_OTzV_0H1HPvFLV1x7c8XIviyhb-OJQocrjdBdFXB_TF9pj0qoi2cY6wIgARRjHSfc3nr-vlVc/s1600/3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="85" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSWtacVvzd531zjhfMQkZ7FAf4jend-SlLtgAd7pgjLwY7ZIeK3wSjxuO9ZX6L3tpabo_OTzV_0H1HPvFLV1x7c8XIviyhb-OJQocrjdBdFXB_TF9pj0qoi2cY6wIgARRjHSfc3nr-vlVc/s320/3.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small; text-align: start;">This is an example of a reversible conversion where the amount of conjugation changes. This would require the presence of another substance to convert, since there is a different number of atoms in each.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I realized then that there’s another, neater way to do this. Normal visible light usually needs a fair amount of conjugation (again, that’s long chains of carbon with alternating double and single bonds) for color to be affected. When you have long chains like this, you usually can’t break down all the double bonds at once, instead you just break some of them, and create smaller regions of the molecule that have conjugation. Visible light is too low energy to be affected by this, but a higher energy light source will react very differently. Ultraviolet light will show conjugation that visible light will not. It’s probably more complicated than this. So I tried my blacklight on it.</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7clKH1Dq8PJOrh5joeA7cOYfXInqWeixw3acYFcrZUlrMFcrkfKuI8HPd8-d9Cz3kThLWgRM5O34cIg6ahMpX4_s82FdXOvzt_HI_RyTwXmMB3qBsyUfyJvrc4EkFLoKkOneX7E6XUtSt/s1600/4.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7clKH1Dq8PJOrh5joeA7cOYfXInqWeixw3acYFcrZUlrMFcrkfKuI8HPd8-d9Cz3kThLWgRM5O34cIg6ahMpX4_s82FdXOvzt_HI_RyTwXmMB3qBsyUfyJvrc4EkFLoKkOneX7E6XUtSt/s320/4.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Boom. You now have a recipe for invisible ink that you can buy at the store. You don’t need a black light, but it helps. Of course, the biggest problem is that the pens still leaves indentations that are visible. There are some simple solutions: Write in between the lines of a real message. People won’t look too closely at it.
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhyphenhyphenZNo5_50VhowL6ZZdUh-pU-A8KLTwj8IDtmHMjNymarVXJYCHBsczNZzjF930_f5oqJgBeTbN6EfD87qRInDOea8hBMsZpKA7N3QYxBikdL1iyqg8V1gEX3asAWu3i_3N4eooy8T_mof/s1600/6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhyphenhyphenZNo5_50VhowL6ZZdUh-pU-A8KLTwj8IDtmHMjNymarVXJYCHBsczNZzjF930_f5oqJgBeTbN6EfD87qRInDOea8hBMsZpKA7N3QYxBikdL1iyqg8V1gEX3asAWu3i_3N4eooy8T_mof/s320/6.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4Djim80mitW7-tfqpBet9vMnAA3_Yw8vt0bqMRGoWOnLm9IQwoBc84oA2nfA5Xo4220C_iEB7PJWEl52UbMnzY5ljjMQZrhWTfD_cxPfJoMdg7EnDDpRecrT_elTgy5iHDuMczBFBke90/s1600/5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4Djim80mitW7-tfqpBet9vMnAA3_Yw8vt0bqMRGoWOnLm9IQwoBc84oA2nfA5Xo4220C_iEB7PJWEl52UbMnzY5ljjMQZrhWTfD_cxPfJoMdg7EnDDpRecrT_elTgy5iHDuMczBFBke90/s320/5.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Another solution is to write on paper that isn’t so white. Just don’t use construction paper, the paper tends to be of such low quality that when you erase the message, you actually end up rubbing it away. The best paper choice is a neon color. They turn up bright under a blacklight and give good contrast.
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNnULeAHdUi5pmzmZwT9FMRyCK69cWdk20hqttt4eFGwvBf9Za4ceMBLFm4uOW_hCDbfLpfAymh7mIDEHCMF4sqrjG2qXI9ghlIipaUsllsQaZ_h86RgNEOKyhMmsSr0mq0m3yRViA2xwF/s1600/7.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNnULeAHdUi5pmzmZwT9FMRyCK69cWdk20hqttt4eFGwvBf9Za4ceMBLFm4uOW_hCDbfLpfAymh7mIDEHCMF4sqrjG2qXI9ghlIipaUsllsQaZ_h86RgNEOKyhMmsSr0mq0m3yRViA2xwF/s320/7.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Have fun with it!The Chemisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15970398885870679916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-794394483322884922.post-71065126546495868902015-07-23T11:41:00.000-04:002015-07-23T11:45:52.217-04:00LackadaisicalI was on Facebook last night when I noticed a trending item.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicMpXbE92Lfxvvr4R7POc2onHgc1GpD00_FS8mgyHIOLcwmZH7d04RFUX5ZRlL1yqZBA1haQJQAOtp4vAVHWkvzXmh3bnw4FTR12ikVhSbBsNsF7-yZ5E0irnF_-CNBK9EOGrH_nD4yXYs/s1600/fukudaisy.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="142" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicMpXbE92Lfxvvr4R7POc2onHgc1GpD00_FS8mgyHIOLcwmZH7d04RFUX5ZRlL1yqZBA1haQJQAOtp4vAVHWkvzXmh3bnw4FTR12ikVhSbBsNsF7-yZ5E0irnF_-CNBK9EOGrH_nD4yXYs/s320/fukudaisy.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(Click to embiggen.)</span></div>
<br />
The picture in question appeared to be a twitter item from <a href="https://twitter.com/san_kaido/media">@san_kaido</a>:
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="ja">
マーガレットの帯化(那須塩原市5/26)②
右は4つの花茎が帯状に繋がったまま成長し,途中で2つに別れて2つの花がつながって咲いた。左は4つの花茎がそのまま成長して繋がって花が咲き輪の様になった。空間線量0.5μSv地点(地上高1m) <a href="http://t.co/MinxdFgXBC">pic.twitter.com/MinxdFgXBC</a></div>
— 三悔堂 (@san_kaido) <a href="https://twitter.com/san_kaido/status/603513371934130176">May 27, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
The apparent translation, found at various websites is,<br />
<blockquote>
"The right one grew up, split into 2 stems to have 2 flowers connected to each other, having 4 stems of flower tied belt-like. The left one has 4 stems grew up to be tied to each other and it had the ring-shaped flower. The atmospheric dose is 0.5 μSv/h at 1m above the ground."</blockquote>
<br />
Alarming? Isn't it?<br />
<br />
No.<br />
<br />
Allow me to explain why. Go to Google and type in (without quotes): "Mutated Daisies -Fukushima" <br />
<br />
For those unfamiliar with different search query techniques, the minus sign (-) in a search will find you all results that do not include the keyword following it. This brings up an uncountable number of pages with pictures of mutant daisies. This kind of mutation is actually fairly common among daisies. Actually, mutations are incredibly common, period. In humans, the background rate of birth defects is five to ten percent. That is astonishingly high if you think about it. Of course, it counts a lot of relatively harmless birth defects. I have a congenital mitral valve regurgitation (heart murmur) that I was born with. It only causes me mild discomfort about once or twice every six months or more. You might have a birth defect you don't even know about.<br />
<br />
What causes these defects? Well, it might be simpler to list the things that don't cause birth defects, like aliens from the planet Xlorrbnacht 2. The fact is that background radiation (radiation from the sun, various naturally occurring minerals, radioactive byproducts from burning coal), chemicals (including naturally occurring chemicals from food we eat), and various other factors combine to create a non-zero chance that a given person will be born with some kind of birth defect or another.<br />
<br />
So how do I <i>know</i> that this daisy wasn't mutated by radiation leaked from Fukushima? I don't. For one thing, I'm not a plant biologist, so I don't know what kind of mutation this is. For another thing, I don't know if the overall rate of that particular mutation has increased appreciably above the background rate. I only see one plant. What I do know is that the person who took the photo mentioned that the radiation in the area was 0.5 μSv/h. That's possibly lower than the radiation dose I'm receiving as I type this here in the Midwestern United States, because I'm sitting in a basement in an area rich in limestone. Could the plant have mutated due solely to normal background radiation? Yes. You or I could too. That's where a lot of cancers and birth defects come from. But I strongly doubt it has anything whatsoever to do with the disaster at Fukushima.<br />
<br />
The major media outlets haven't yet picked up on this photo, and I really hope they don't, at least not without a competent scientist on hand to explain what people are actually looking at. But, you don't really need one. All you really need to evaluate this photo is Google and a minus sign.The Chemisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15970398885870679916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-794394483322884922.post-57301088535880089082015-02-26T02:56:00.002-05:002015-02-26T10:02:11.357-05:00Poisoning the Well With Antifreeze<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiL2zznFPIsFF7iFVNfT-6uOwq03isgAFz3PkpqUta-cNdzS2_eEXmZbf-zRcJjqpAlj_j8KfgRmWJcJxhkBQ26OHeqWESp4NzJez_Y8d_gUWKddSSmnXgjURK1I6LIUOGcODqGnPwx40eN/s1600/Antifreeze_in_the_radiator.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiL2zznFPIsFF7iFVNfT-6uOwq03isgAFz3PkpqUta-cNdzS2_eEXmZbf-zRcJjqpAlj_j8KfgRmWJcJxhkBQ26OHeqWESp4NzJez_Y8d_gUWKddSSmnXgjURK1I6LIUOGcODqGnPwx40eN/s1600/Antifreeze_in_the_radiator.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Photo by Sealle, used under <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">CC BY 2.0</a> license.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
There is a rhetorical practice called poisoning the well. It involves telling people that they shouldn't pay attention to an argument, before it's made, because the person making it is somehow a horrible person. We do this by saying, "Don't listen to that guy! He's a Democrat!" or "Don't listen to her! She's a conservative!" We've all done it at some point, and worse still, we've all fallen victim to it at some point. The reason it's problematic is that who a person is, what they do, even whether they're a terrible human being, doesn't stop them from being right about certain things. A fascist can give you the correct time, a liberal can tell you the sky is blue, and a child can tell you that E=mc^2.<br />
<br />
There is a much subtler form of this that can be done with inanimate objects. "Don't put sulfur mustard in your body! It's a chemical weapon!" Sulfur mustard is indeed a chemical weapon. Of course, sulfur mustard is also an early chemotherapy drug which worked precisely because it is a cellular poison. So the advice to categorically refuse to put it in your body under any circumstance is somewhat misguided (now we have some better drugs- though I'm no oncologist). This brings me to the interesting case of antifreeze. <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lawsuit-claims-purinas-beneful-poisoning-killing-dogs-n312176">I recently read a story about dog owners suing Purina</a>, the pet food manufacturer, alleging in part that the practice of adding propylene glycol to dog food killed their dogs. The article correctly states that propylene glycol is a component in antifreeze. This is where I tell you, in no uncertain terms, that antifreeze has an unfair reputation. Sorta. Kinda. It's a long story, so let's get to it.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>What's In a Name?
</b></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>What's in a name? that which we call a rose </i><br />
<i>By any other name would smell as sweet;</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
-William Shakespeare. <i>Romeo and Juliet</i>, Act II, SceneII.</blockquote>
A few days ago I wrote about the Food Babe, and <a href="http://foodbabe.com/2014/06/17/not-so-fast-beer-companies-why-arent-you-disclosing-these-additives/" rel="nofollow">she has made much about the presence of propylene glycol in certain foods</a>. She states that it is a component of antifreeze, and that we should be very afraid. As <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/12/04/364745790/food-babe-or-fear-babe-as-activist-s-profile-grows-so-do-her-critics">others have pointed out</a> however, propylene glycol (which <i>is</i> in antifreeze, I'll get to this in a second) is distinct, and completely different from propylene glycol <i>alginate</i> which is what is actually in the foods she's highlighting. You see, in chemistry, these seemingly small differences in words are absolutely devastatingly critical. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) is in charge of coming up with the international standards for naming chemical compounds, and because chemicals are so diverse, the naming rules can get incredibly complicated. What you need to know is that just because chemicals sound similar, or even rhyme, it doesn't even mean that they are <i>at all</i> related.<br />
<br />
Take bromine, for example. It's a toxic gas. Theobromine is an important component of chocolate. So it should be similar, or at least have some bromine in it, right? No. Theobromine is named after the scientific name for the cocoa plant, <i>Theobroma cacao</i> in which it was first discovered. There is absolutely no relationship to bromine, the element. In fact, it's much more closely related to caffeine.<br />
<br />
This brings us to alginates. Alginates are actually derived from kelp, they're gel-like sugary substances. They're useful for many, many things. Since they're derived from kelp and seaweed, which we've been eating for centuries, we don't mind putting them in food. So propylene gylcol is not the same as propylene glycol alginate. They're just not the same.<br />
<br />
Even when compounds are similar, it doesn't mean that they're not radically different in the effect they will have on the human body. A similar naming story is methanol and alcohol. If you take fruits and certain vegetables, and allow them to ferment, they produce a bitter, combustible substance we know as alcohol. The chemical name for alcohol is ethanol or ethyl alcohol. If you're desperate enough for alcohol that you decide to hack apart your furniture and ferment the wood, what you'll get is a related compound once known as wood alcohol, an better known to chemists as methanol or methyl alcohol. The names, and even the structures, of ethanol and methanol are incredibly similar.<br />
<br />
The effects could not be more different. Alcohol will intoxicate you. It's so good at this we sell it by the bottle in various flavors. It's poisonous, of course, so we tell you that you should be careful not to drink too much, but a lot of people risk it anyway. Methanol is also poisonous, but if you drink a glass of methanol, you won't just be intoxicated, but blinded. Methanol breaks down in the body to form highly toxic compounds. Homeless alcoholics, finding themselves without money to purchase quality alcohol have succumbed to the effects of ingesting methanol, since its effects are initially similar and it smells similar. It's also generally not taxable, which makes it cheap. Whether you drink alcohol is your business, but you should never, under any circumstances, drink methanol as a substitute.<br />
<br />
In chemistry, a rose by any other word might kill you.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Bait and Switch.</span></b><br />
<br />
One of the main components of antifreeze has long been the sickly sweet, and absolutely toxic compound ethylene glycol. Ethylene glycol is toxic to humans but the "glycol" in its name is actually a hint that it's in a class of compounds known as diols. Its sweetness has lead to it being used as a poison of choice by various cruel individuals. So that's it then? Case closed. Antifreeze is bad for you and anyone who puts it in food is a bad person, right?<br />
<br />
Not exactly. Precisely because ethylene glycol is so toxic, and because it's bad for the environment, there has been a move to use a related compound in antifreeze: Propylene glycol. The idea is that it will keep your car running, but if leaks, it won't be as bad for plants and animals. Remember the difference between alcohol and ethanol? There's a similar one here. If you've eaten ice cream in the past ten years, chances are you've ingested some propylene glycol. In fact, the FDA has stated the propylene glycol, in small amounts, is safe. When you ingest it, your body breaks it down into lactic acid, which your body knows how to deal with since it makes lactic acid every time you exercise.<br />
<br />
The problem is that even though the toxicity of a lot of brands of antifreeze has gone down, people are still behaving as if having the same product as a food additive is a monstrosity, even though the <i>only reason it's in antifreeze is <b>precisely</b> because it's less toxic.</i> You can't win for losing, sometimes. Antifreeze was (and still is) highly toxic, so we've make it less toxic by using something that could be considered a food additive, and the response has been to look at food and go, "There's antifreeze in there!" If we somehow figured out how to clear clogged drains with coffee, then people would turn around and go, "Did you know that they sell coffee with <i>drain cleaner</i> in it?!"<br />
<br />
Of course, antifreeze still has a bunch of other toxic compounds in it, including methanol, so it should go without saying that you shouldn't drink it.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Hair of the Dog</b></span><br />
<br />
Here's the thing about the news story: It doesn't smell right. I don't know anything about the toxicity of various substances in dogs, but the plaintiffs' cases sound a lot like attribution error, where people pick seemingly linked events and tie them together. These days, you put up a Facebook post saying dog food killed your pet, and everyone whose dog dies of similar symptoms checks to see if they have the same dog food. If they don't, they don't say anything. If they do, they become another data point that seems to confirm a trend. I don't think that Purina actually does very much different from its competitors, and if propylene glycol kills dogs, then why only Purina dog food? There are cheaper, far more corner-cutting brands out there that no one is accusing of anything. <br />
<br />
I'm not saying that Purina is in the clear, and that I know for certain that their food has always been safe. I'm not even saying that propylene glycol is probably okay for dogs. I am pointing out that claiming it contains "an antifreeze chemical" is a lawyer's gambit, not a scientific evaluation of how harmful it is. If you've ever drank tea, no matter how pure and natural, you've ingested large quantities of a chemical commonly used in sewage treatment: Water. See how ridiculously easy it is?<br />
<br />
Losing a pet is tragic, and I have sympathy for the owners who have lost pets. I have pets of my own. Still, it's important to analyze a news story critically, and look at what is being said by who. Nothing against lawyers, but lawyers are not paid to make scientifically accurate statements, and neither are their very-coached clients. It is also incredibly useful to think generally in these situations. Are other manufacturers probably doing the same thing? Why only Purina brand? What could they be doing different? Why deny it? (This one isn't as obvious as it seems.) Who are the lawyers? Who are the plaintiffs?<br />
<br />
The conclusion you reach may be different from mine, and I don't think that would be entirely unreasonable- just don't base it purely on the fact that propylene glycol happens to be in antifreeze. The Chemisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15970398885870679916noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-794394483322884922.post-78712738335455904812015-02-23T21:44:00.002-05:002015-02-23T21:44:49.212-05:00Holy Mother of ClickbaitI read <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/">Mother Jones</a> sometimes. Oh hell, full disclosure: I subscribe to the print version, but I'm increasingly annoyed by their choice of words to entice people to read articles from Facebook. Sometimes, it's borderline irresponsible, but others... well, it's just downright irresponsible.<br />
<br />
This is what I saw on Facebook earlier:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVtT-lBjXeOYLdL8q2TCboOJn3zMoWIXEbxqUIP1WOhi4k28BQ1Rnp1HrgqE8Ozzm-SGvMC_KSDCyqoW7EE1PfCsfFtWmvCLbPYT0YBh0TBqkVlO4jq-_6CPFdTxUM49oMAJeBlkXO-MzD/s1600/Screenshot+from+2015-02-23+20:47:09.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVtT-lBjXeOYLdL8q2TCboOJn3zMoWIXEbxqUIP1WOhi4k28BQ1Rnp1HrgqE8Ozzm-SGvMC_KSDCyqoW7EE1PfCsfFtWmvCLbPYT0YBh0TBqkVlO4jq-_6CPFdTxUM49oMAJeBlkXO-MzD/s1600/Screenshot+from+2015-02-23+20:47:09.png" height="320" width="296" /></a></div>
<br />
What the actual fuck, MJ? <a href="http://mychemicaljourney.blogspot.com/2015/02/dropping-acid.html">Acidification is not "terrifying.</a>" Well, yes it is... sorta.<br />
<br />
This is precisely why this headline is problematic, it's not inaccurate, but it <i>is</i> sensationalist. The <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/02/where-ocean-acidification-will-stike-first">actual article</a> is reasonable reporting on a real issue, with a much more responsible headline:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfEsTybYYklQvkk6cNvJx6FPEdEut_oc_NBLRiAOFE8qtrd8XFQfalk8F_WUpoEe6t6miaibZe1z0nteNHH9fei9vJ_nVWD2BuVboo0xnv-Y33HtoN9wOL3u3yUeVAeIaHeHAyfxPDY8JO/s1600/Screenshot+from+2015-02-23+20:47:00.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfEsTybYYklQvkk6cNvJx6FPEdEut_oc_NBLRiAOFE8qtrd8XFQfalk8F_WUpoEe6t6miaibZe1z0nteNHH9fei9vJ_nVWD2BuVboo0xnv-Y33HtoN9wOL3u3yUeVAeIaHeHAyfxPDY8JO/s1600/Screenshot+from+2015-02-23+20:47:00.png" height="178" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
What? I thought we were talking about oceans of flesh-melting acids? Obviously too much acidity or basicity in an aquatic environment will kill aquatic life. I don't deny this, and plan to write about it myself. The Facebook clickbait, however, was over the line for a responsible new organization. Again, it's not that what they described should be below our concern, but using the horror-movie properties of acids to spur pageviews is over the line. Mother Jones needs to stop using cheesy social network marketing tactics if it wants to continue being considered a responsible news organization. The Chemisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15970398885870679916noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-794394483322884922.post-85660510272616693522015-02-23T21:19:00.001-05:002015-02-23T22:44:48.239-05:00Babe in the Woods<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib_LgBXa1E25SnH1jNcLlvJA7ocNRB680gMRz1F4FJpub3ddRkCAlri9l67kSHQhFhwd_MkNyeabvhLQidnE9JVhfDiduDWh61mWUWuieVmJw4yyuUsWDYXg_JXoxuT_cw2hy6RVshgQq0/s1600/Good_Food_Display_-_NCI_Visuals_Online+(640x427).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib_LgBXa1E25SnH1jNcLlvJA7ocNRB680gMRz1F4FJpub3ddRkCAlri9l67kSHQhFhwd_MkNyeabvhLQidnE9JVhfDiduDWh61mWUWuieVmJw4yyuUsWDYXg_JXoxuT_cw2hy6RVshgQq0/s1600/Good_Food_Display_-_NCI_Visuals_Online+(640x427).jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">100% Chemicals. I can guarantee it.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"There is just no acceptable level of any chemical to ingest, ever." -Vani Hari, <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/02/the-food-babe-enemy-of-chemicals/385301/">in The Atlantic</a>.</blockquote>
<br />
Statements like this invariably make me cringe. Of course, everything that is a thing, is a chemical. Not ingesting chemicals is essentially advice to starve yourself to death. Vani Hari, the progenitor of this pronouncement, styles herself as the "<a href="http://foodbabe.com/">The Food Babe</a>." Thing is, She using classic sensationalist tactics to gather pageviews, a practice that infurtiates me.<br />
<br />
For the past month, at least, I've been working on a series of posts about artificial sweeteners. This process has me reading several books, multiple published peer-reviewed studies, and generally has me sweating every detail to ensure that I'm delivering accurate information. If you read my Policies, you'll see I'm not a research chemist or someone who works in the industry. None of this is my forte, so I have to work extra hard to generate a short, relate-able post with good information in it.<br />
<br />
None of this is a complaint. I enjoy doing the legwork and research. I love learning new things about sub-fields of chemistry. What concerns me is that the economies are drastically different. Hari can dash off a Googled-together link soup of highly dubious claims, throw a clickbait headline in the there, and pump it through context sensitive advertisers in what? Ten minutes? An hour? Professional Journalists working on a "short" piece about biotechnology have to verify sources, interview people, throw out bad information, and ultimately come to a responsible conclusion. A scientist studying one small aspect of biotechnology has to go even further, study the issue longer, and is subjected to more paperwork than anything Hari ever encounters writing an irresponsible blog post about some harmless chemical or another.<br />
<br />
This economy of effort strongly favors Hari's type of messaging. I don't have her time, her funds, or her following to make a dent in the nonsense she's spewing. Fortunately there are <a href="http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/eating-yoga-mats/">others</a> helping to fight back. <br />
<br />
Look, I'm sympathetic to the idea that not everything that <i>can</i> be put into food <i>should</i> be put into food. However, when you look at how we live today, we're far healthier than at any other period in human history. We can't very well live forever, and I accept that no matter how well I eat or how much I exercise, I'll eventually die. So I don't understand these claims of how we're being gradually and slowly poisoned. They make no sense in the modern context of people being fairly long-lived.<br />
<br />
I could do a series of posts on why Hari gets everything wrong, but it would take up an unbelievable amount of time. Proving negatives is difficult when it's not impossible, and I'd have to put a lot of effort into making sure I'm being accurate. The fact is that a well-informed society needs something more than science bloggers typing away angrily at their computers to combat this kind of fuzzyheaded fearmongering. It needs people to be more skeptical of claims, and to look hard at where they come from. Who do you believe? Someone who has spent decades in a field doing the work saying, "Probably...", or someone with a finance degree saying, "Definitely!"<br />
<br />
"Probably" is a lot less satisfying, I know, but it has a higher chance of being correct. A popular quote attributed to Bertrand Russell goes,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."</blockquote>
With anything involving the human body, we're looking at highly complicated, highly variable systems that are evaluated using a very complicated set of statistical metrics that ultimately spit out percentages. Absolute certainty is elusive, and hard to pin down. So here's my rule for people who are concerned about foods and additives: Unless your doctor says otherwise, and the FDA approved it, it's <i>probably</i> fine.<br />
<br />
It's not <i>certainly </i>fine. Your doctor could be an idiot, or the FDA might have missed something, but between the two of them, there is a lot more knowledge of biology, chemistry, and biotechnology than you probably understand. It's not that you're stupid or incapable, it's just not what you <i>do</i>. I don't spend a lot of time telling accountants that the way they do things has slowly been bleeding their company dry of money for years, because it's not my field. I haven't put in the time to understand it. I can do math, but it's not the same. In fact, just saying, "I can do math," belittles the practice. It would be like saying I could do a better job taking care of your kids because I've babysat before.<br />
<br />
I encourage people to use the scientific knowledge they gained in high school and from books in their daily lives, but it's important to understand the limits of your knowledge. Time and time again, I've learned this lesson the hard way. Vani Hari will tell you that you don't need an advanced degree to understand biotech and chemistry. I both agree and disagree. You may not need an advanced degree to understand it, but you certainly want to be getting your information from people who can check your conclusions for accuracy.<br />
<br />
Science, as a profession, whether it's practiced by academics, engineers, medical specialists, or privately employed scientists has gotten too big for everyone to be in cahoots, and consensus should not be confused with collusion. Does the hand of industry reach out often to pull science in one direction or another? Absolutely, but it's nowhere near being the closed ranks of a cabal of greedy people that Hari makes it out to be. Especially because there is so little money in science. Sure, companies like Monsanto, Dow, DuPont and others can make out like bandits. The simple fact is that employment is a function of supply and demand, and universities are increasingly churning out students with graduate degrees in the sciences because they're seen as a sort of "sure thing." <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/03/the-myth-of-the-science-and-engineering-shortage/284359/">Nothing could be further from the truth</a>.<br />
<br />
However, if you are tempted to follow the Food Babe down the path she's leading you, let me point something out to you. The Food Babe is eventually just going to be replaced by the Food Guru, or the Foodinator, or the Food Fluff-Patrol. These people don't last, they're fast flying, fast-talking fads. They're inevitably replaced by the next irresponsible gimmick. Where does that leave us, the people advocating responsible reporting and understanding of science? We'll still be here, hacking away at our laptops, telling you to think critically. Minus the million-dollar book deals.The Chemisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15970398885870679916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-794394483322884922.post-86693538586396313972015-02-20T13:41:00.004-05:002015-02-20T13:41:56.879-05:00Wrecking CrewAfter wrangling with my settings for about 30 minutes to make sure that comments could be accepted for my latest post, I've realized that parts of this site are still rusty. Over the next week, you can expect a lot of changes to the blog. Please be patient, it isn't easy coming back from the dead.The Chemisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15970398885870679916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-794394483322884922.post-20009646600559294162015-02-20T13:02:00.000-05:002015-02-20T17:16:24.198-05:00Dropping Acid<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/GHS-pictogram-acid.svg/724px-GHS-pictogram-acid.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/GHS-pictogram-acid.svg/724px-GHS-pictogram-acid.svg.png" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Growing up, I believed there was real magic in the world. I'm not talking about believing in ghosts, ghouls, sorcery, or secret words that unlocked doors; I knew magic was real because acids were real. In my imagination, they could eat through anything. When other kids transformed the living room floor into lava as an excuse to jump from one piece of furniture to the next, I always turned it into acid. Sometime I'd turn it into acid-lava, if a friend was over, as a concession.<br />
<br />
Before you pin my love of acid on the chemistry-obsessed geek I would
grow up to become, I have to point out that I wasn't the first or the
last person to be enamored of this mysterious class of chemical.
According to Hollywood, at least, acids are still magic. As chemistry
blogger Deborah Blum <a href="http://www.wired.com/2013/04/oh-those-movie-spies-and-their-cyanide-pills/">pointed out</a> in her blog, <i>Skyfall</i> was a relatively recent example of Hollywood casting acid, as it typically does, in a villainous role <br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Hollywood and Hydrogen, Donors and Dollars</b></span><br />
<br />
Another example that sticks in my mind is a scene in the 1999 film <i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120616/">The Mummy</a></i>, where a gaggle of workers opening a tomb are horrendously melted by "pressurized salt acid." This got a laugh out of me in the theater. Salt acid is most likely a reference to hydrochloric acid, HCl in chemical shorthand. HCl isn't that dangerous. There's a caveat here, obviously. I'm not saying that you should run out and jump into a swimming pool full of it. It <i>is</i> dangerous. When I say it's not <i>that</i> dangerous, meaning it's not as dangerous as it is made out to be in <i>The Mummy</i>. Concentrated hydrochloric acid in the eyes will probably blind you if you don't have access to water and healthcare. But just getting some on your skin won't melt it off instantaneously. <br />
<br />
Acids are really just a peculiar class of generous chemicals that under certain conditions, want to give you a hydrogen ion- a proton. That's it. Beyond that, acids are extremely varied. In fact, it's a little unfair to lump them all together. It's a little like taking every person in the United States who is willing to donate a dollar to charity, and saying, "All these people are the same." Especially when you consider that a lot of those people may be willing to donate a dollar only to specific charities, or that people who normally wouldn't donate anything would if the cause was powerful enough.<br />
<br />
Acids are acidic relative to things that less acidic. Whether something wants to give a proton is measured just as much by how badly the other substance it interacts with wants to take a proton. This makes perfect sense if you think about it: How do you measure how reactive something is, unless you know what it's supposed to react <i>with</i>? Going back to the charity analogy, how do you know how willing you are to donate a dollar, unless you know to <i>whom</i> you're donating that dollar?<br />
<br />
In fact, isn't everyone with a dollar a potential dollar-donor? If you're guessing that means that anything that has a hydrogen atom in it can be a potential acid, you're on the right track. If you're really astute, you've already thought about it and realized that water has hydrogen, so could it be an acid? Go back up to the last paragraph, "Acids are acidic relative to things that are <i>less acidic</i>." So the answer is yes, water is acidic, compared to something like sodium hydroxide, which <i>much</i> less acidic than water. In fact, we use water as a baseline for acidity, and say that anything less acidic than water is a base, and anything more acidic is an acid. What are bases? How are they related to acids? I want to cover that in its own post. For now, just know that acidity hints at something much larger in chemistry: Reactivity. <br />
<br />
I realize that by explaining how acids work, and how just about anything with a hydrogen atom on it can be acidic, I've taken away a little of the magic. While knocking it off the list of universally sexy, Brendan Fraser-endangering substances, acids are still quite fascinating and dangerous in their own way. So let's put some real magic back in.<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Working In the Lab, Late One Night</b></span><br />
<br />
Here I steal an anecdote directly from my high school biology teacher. When she was in grad school, she was working in a lab with someone who regularly left behind a mess in the lab and never cleaned up after herself. My biology teacher took it upon herself to clean up after this person. Maybe it's because she was more of a biologist than a chemist, but she had a lapse in judgement. She picked up a large glass bottle with what, from her description, sounded like about 500 mL of concentrated sulfuric acid sloshing around the bottom of it. She decided to get rid of it, and to dilute it first. She put it under the faucet, poured a fair amount of water into it, capped it, and proceeded to shake it around a little. The chemists reading this are now sitting up in their chairs with interest. She said she shook it once, twice, and before she could bring the bottle down for a third shake, it exploded. <br />
<br />
Glass was everywhere, she was bleeding from some cuts, and she was frozen, staring at the remnants of the bottle in her hand and thinking, "Oh, right... exothermic."<br />
<br />
If you want to try your own experiment at home. Here's one you can try. Don't worry, nothing will explode disastrously. At worst, you'll make a slight mess in your kitchen.<br />
<br />
1. Get a Styrofoam cup, with a lid.<br />
2. Get a reasonably accurate lab thermometer (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004LPUTU6/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B004LPUTU6&linkCode=as2&tag=mychejou03-20&linkId=IIK7EWBFX4UWPJVL">they're on the internet</a>, they're cheap, and most don't contain mercury.)<br />
3. Get some room temperature water.<br />
4. Get some room temperature white vinegar from the grocery store (it's an acid). <br />
<br />
Fill the cup about halfway with water and stick the thermometer through the lid of the Styrofoam cup- or calorimeter (because that's what you've just built.) Check the temperature. The water should be close to the temperature of the room, if it's been sitting out for a bit. Check the temperature of the vinegar, then pour some vinegar in the water. I'm not going to say in what amounts. It's science: Experiment. See what you find.<br />
<br />
I think you'll see that the temperature of the water will change. Isn't it odd that two substances of the same temperature will spontaneously heat up?<br />
<br />
Got baking soda? Go ahead. Play around with that, just remember that baking soda and vinegar tend to foam up and make a mess. I'm not in the business of telling you what to do. Just don't be stupid and pour vinegar in your eyes, or step on the thermometer with your bare feet. I also don't recommend trying to extend this experiment beyond vinegar and baking soda if you don't know what you're doing. The advice I have for any experimenter, young or old? Buy a notebook, keep meticulous records, and erase <i>nothing</i>. If you make a mistake, cross it out so it's still legible. You never know when a mistake will prove valuable. Want to do some fun, safe, controlled, lab experiments at home? <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0596514921/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0596514921&linkCode=as2&tag=mychejou03-20&linkId=GMJ7MCSP72KT4EI2">Buy this book</a><img alt="" border="0" src="http://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=mychejou03-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0596514921" height="1" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" />.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Skulls and Crossbones</b></span><br />
<br />
Still, I understand, you're reading this in the hope that I'm going to write something unexpected, something cool and sexy about acids. You yearn for me to tell you there's an acid out there that will do <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC1Gfyp8C6I">this</a> (warning, even if you know it's just latex, it's still pretty gory.) I understand. There's something deep and dark and fascinating about a killer. Acids can be of course, dangerous and corrosive and worth being careful around for many reasons.<br />
<br />
Strong acids will both burn you and not burn you. It's a little confusing, because highly concentrated acids will react with water in your body to release heat. This creates a thermal burn. But, what most people describe as a chemical burn, is really just chemical cellular poisoning. Strong acids will denature, or warp the proteins that are the building blocks of your cells. Either they destroy them or they twist them out of shape so that they no longer function. They will directly destroy cell membranes, essentially popping your cells open. Then, there's hydrofluoric acid.<br />
<br />
If you want to think of acids as Hollywood villains, there are the henchmen, like hydrochloric acid, which is harmful- but you do carry around a bunch of it in your stomach. It gets used a lot in high school chemistry labs. A friend in high school got some in his eye (he wasn't wearing goggles- an unwise choice on his part) and had to wear an eye-patch for a week, but he recovered. Sulfuric acid can be pretty nasty. It's often employed by the scum of the earth to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_throwing">attack women in certain parts of the world</a>. But these acids are just strong. They're burly and macho and shove things around. If you want scary, if you want a serial killer, hydrofluoric acid (HF), is one of those. HF has an acidity about one hundred times that of vinegar, but that actually means it's fairly weak. Stomach acid is about ten billion times more acidic than HF (literally, I don't just throw the word billion in there for hyperbole). Sulfuric acid is even stronger. Yet an experienced chemist, Hylton Jolliffe, had <a href="http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2004/03/03/things_i_wont_touch_1.php">this</a> to to say about it on his blog,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Actually, it's just barely a gas. In a cool room it'll condense out as a liquid (it boils at about 20 degrees C, which is 68 F.) The straight liquid must really be a treat, but I've never seen it in that form, and would only wish to through binoculars." </blockquote>
This is because the fluoride part of HF will wreak havoc on your body's biological processes. It is a protoplasmic poison-- a cell murderer, and it wreaks havoc with your body's electrical impulse system by binding to calcium, and never letting go. The worst part? Initial exposure can be painless. Victims will not realize they've been poisoned until hours after exposure, after damage is well underway. By then, Calcium fluoride crystals have solidified in their bodies, causing intense pain, and fluoride is invading the bones, stealing calcium, all while interfering with muscular function, including your heart function. Like any hazardous chemical, sulfuric acid demands respect. Hydrofluoric acid demands fear.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Avast! Ye Rum-Soaked Scurvy Dogs!</b></span><br />
<br />
Of course, knowing that vinegar is an acid is a good hint that acids are not all so deadly. As I mentioned above, acids are as varied as people. You need ascorbic acid, for instance, to survive. Ascorbic acid is better known as Vitamin C, and unlike other certain other vitamins, we cannot make our own vitamin C, or store it. We lost that ability with our primate brethren. if you go back far enough, our ancestors likely synthesized it in their bodies. However, primates naturally have diets sufficiently high in Vitamin C, and so as they evolved, a mutation occurred somewhere along the line that meant we lost that ability. This is an example of evolution "running backwards" or rather, of the fact that evolution is not some neat, linear process. Early primates that couldn't create Vitamin C in their bodies weren't adversely affected by the mutation, at least not seriously enough to die off before they could reproduce.<br />
<br />
Much later in history, as humans evolved and began undertaking lengthy sea voyages, this mutation came back to hurt us in the form of scurvy. The "vita" in vitamins is the Latin word for life. We require these substances to survive. Scurvy killed sailors in the early modern era (circa 1500 CE) and when citrus was discovered to ward off the effects (at the time, it was not known that ascorbic acid was the reason) it became a closely guarded military secret, since it allowed navies to extend their voyages.<br />
<br />
Other beneficial acids? Well, I don't exactly know about <i>beneficial</i>, but anyone who has ever uncorked a wine bottle or mixed a bloody Mary has encountered the intoxicating effect of a weak base known to most people as alcohol. Relative to the alcohol, you are very slightly acidic.This popular and mildly addictive drug has affects your nervous system in many different ways, and there is no one effect caused by alcohol. The high you experience from alcohol isn't solely due to its interplay with your acidic properties, but these properties do play a role play a role. Actually, the acidity of alcohol and water is nearly the same. And sometimes alcohol will play the role of acid or base, depending on what it's doing in your body. This property, or acting both as acid and as base, is known as being amphoteric, and it's not all that uncommon.<br />
<br />
There is so much more to the world of acids and bases than can be contained in a blog post. Acids are not so much interesting as a class of chemicals, as they are a reminder that the chemical universe is vast and varied. Their properties are not limited to a single number, like pH (yet another post). They kill and they save, and the dangers they sometimes present serve as a reminder that nature is can be quite the savage beast. They can get you high and they can cut you down. The central theme, the big lesson, is that a lesson in acids is a lesson that gets at the root of what chemistry is: What reacts with this? Why? How? Why do things with similar properties in one respect (the acidity of water and alcohol) behave so differently in other respects (one hydrates and the other dehydrates)?<span style="background-color: red;"></span> This story is the entire story of chemistry. Once you start to pull at the threads that will answer these questions, you find that the stories get a lot more complicated, and a lot more interesting. The Chemisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15970398885870679916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-794394483322884922.post-80896338115028159392015-01-03T18:42:00.000-05:002015-01-03T18:43:36.031-05:00Annulus<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkMunCVeYfR8-qsBFVS0SzZFjx3T52dxswZ_7M-seEpfmroGk9Nv7pfowc7DJOET1NScToG5Yi2rvXx0PP5AY7E1tNzOUwbaBQqoC2E4dhJ_J7nCcrRv2RMA91smuIJKmEIxAzKGP_63bq/s1600/IMG.bmp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkMunCVeYfR8-qsBFVS0SzZFjx3T52dxswZ_7M-seEpfmroGk9Nv7pfowc7DJOET1NScToG5Yi2rvXx0PP5AY7E1tNzOUwbaBQqoC2E4dhJ_J7nCcrRv2RMA91smuIJKmEIxAzKGP_63bq/s1600/IMG.bmp" height="400" width="400" /></a> </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8WUQZLBpbztKWKZpjr9ES1symOoSW41C7TQa50XZZYfy6GrrLzbj8j5Zxh33hO9tXErxGrD0XOypdZgs4D7TosNQLWg2Vp1w1ko6Zh2yO-sClV3-p0WPQiUCW6I0j4fUMAFx0jmAvaK3L/s1600/IMG.bmp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In the first days of a new year, I find myself thinking about old beginnings. When I started this blog, years ago, I had more reasons than I can remember. The reasons that ultimately evolved into my primary motivations for blogging turned out to be a desire to share what I had learned with others, to develop my skills at writing, and (not insignificantly) a way of servicing my ego. I never imagined when I started, not for one moment, that I would end up dropping out of school. My Chemical Journey was a casualty of upheavals in my life that ended with me dropping out in the middle of my undergraduate degree. Today I came back to this old blog and found, like an old cabin in the woods, everything exactly where I had left it. It's dusty and obsolete with signs of decay around the edges. Cleaning this up is going to be a lot of fun.<br />
<br />
I look at a lot of what I wrote here and I feel mildly embarrassed by it. Some of it is strange, off-tone, and at times naive or foolish. Worse still are the parts that are wrong. I am not ashamed of any of it, and see it as an important record of a difficult period in my life. In a way, it's hard to read, because I still haven't really sifted through the wreckage of that period of my life to reach any kind of conclusion about it. I can't look, for example, at dropping out and really decide for myself how much of that failure belongs solely to me, and how much of it was due to factors beyond my control. I haven't run my sums or calculated any averages, it's a mystery to me in a lot of ways, and I'm okay with that. I've moved on.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8WUQZLBpbztKWKZpjr9ES1symOoSW41C7TQa50XZZYfy6GrrLzbj8j5Zxh33hO9tXErxGrD0XOypdZgs4D7TosNQLWg2Vp1w1ko6Zh2yO-sClV3-p0WPQiUCW6I0j4fUMAFx0jmAvaK3L/s1600/IMG.bmp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8WUQZLBpbztKWKZpjr9ES1symOoSW41C7TQa50XZZYfy6GrrLzbj8j5Zxh33hO9tXErxGrD0XOypdZgs4D7TosNQLWg2Vp1w1ko6Zh2yO-sClV3-p0WPQiUCW6I0j4fUMAFx0jmAvaK3L/s1600/IMG.bmp" height="197" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
What brings me back here is pain and hunger. <br />
<br />
After I dropped out, I realized that I need to change things in my life. I got rid of the things I couldn't carry and moved across the country. I left Atlanta for a smaller town. I took a deep breath as I merged onto I-75 in downtown Atlanta and started to head north. I knew I was seeing the heart of the city for the last time, and by the time I finished exhaling I felt a new chapter open up in my life.<br />
<br />
Like any good college dropout, my attentions turned to the immediate task of finding a job. Scrolling past the entry-level jobs requesting and requiring degrees was embittering and discouraging, but I eventually secured a decent full-time job with a living wage in America with no degree. It was mostly who I knew that helped me land the job. Truth is, invisible as they are in the narrative, friends are all around me in this story. They pulled strings, propped me up, gave me shelter, and eventually literally saved my life.<br />
<br />
I was an unhappy drudge in my new routine. I didn't actually hate the routine itself, though I grew skeptical of the anti-intellectual crowd who derided graduates as not understanding the stresses and rigors of "real jobs." It was never stressful to put my head down and put in a hard day's work. I didn't hate pulling long shifts consecutively, or busy days at the office. If management was up to something spurious and stupid, I would raise my hand and speak my mind, and when they failed to heed me, I didn't follow in the footsteps of my fellow employees and feel dissatisfied: It wasn't my money that was being wasted. I got paid the same whether my advice was taken or not.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkvDC-3CWmAO1VYAnGVdFPxj-hSGvZaHm6YqCJKpRdv4svPEq-pOZyFEoRQ47E03Ry_xsdCzV-NkoTxip1PBzV8XV62D9KJQKaX6B_eMc2ohEN5J2fEMSX6NHx6Y76lv8EYtRE968qpVkB/s1600/IMG.bmp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkvDC-3CWmAO1VYAnGVdFPxj-hSGvZaHm6YqCJKpRdv4svPEq-pOZyFEoRQ47E03Ry_xsdCzV-NkoTxip1PBzV8XV62D9KJQKaX6B_eMc2ohEN5J2fEMSX6NHx6Y76lv8EYtRE968qpVkB/s1600/IMG.bmp" height="305" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Still I was deeply, darkly, unhappy. Daily and nightly I would tar and feather myself. I began to loathe every ounce of my existence. I developed a habit of destroying any small thing I achieved and magnifying any small thing I screwed up. When hating myself became routine and boring, I invented new ways of doing it. I contrived schematics and issued patents for the destruction of my soul. Of course, a lot of my best tricks were old hat. They were things I had learned to do long before going to college. <br />
<br />
I didn't have a word for it at the time, but I didn't think it was anything unusual. Frying eggs made me nervous. I hated to sit with my back to a door. If people moved too quickly in front of me, I'd flinch embarrassingly. I never considered these signs to mean anything in isolation. I had an exhaustive list of everything in the world that was wrong with the person that I was, but I never picked up that which was really tormenting me. It would eventually prove impossible to ignore.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXLMVdecHv3_YnZTgUtgwHyVQYLVa5UWGnijRzVd7ICsAAZFw_jr5yDEoH7XsuqqDR-BW2We1tKM8r3x80qpgUO11n2CFNkUndVbgpeZazpIE4jeGOalmN-6P3q7F4IuJAcZYi_E21xjFW/s1600/IMG.bmp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXLMVdecHv3_YnZTgUtgwHyVQYLVa5UWGnijRzVd7ICsAAZFw_jr5yDEoH7XsuqqDR-BW2We1tKM8r3x80qpgUO11n2CFNkUndVbgpeZazpIE4jeGOalmN-6P3q7F4IuJAcZYi_E21xjFW/s1600/IMG.bmp" height="366" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
In the meantime I began to feel hungry, but not physically hungry. It was a sort of spiritual ravenousness, an insatiable craving. When I rode my bicycle to and from work, I would feel it. When I cooked purple cabbage, or peel an orange, I would feel it. If I was counting things up in the office I would feel it. I wish I could point to a moment of epiphany or some other dramatic moment when it started, but I started to have these other thoughts intrude on my darker moods. When I wasn't hating myself, or thinking about work or some other aspect of my life, I'd think about something like the wire loops melted into the asphalt under my bicycle. I'd think about vinegar changing the color of the cabbage, and the anthocyanins. I thought about non-euclidean geometry when I picked up an orange, and I thought about infinite sums when I did math at the office. Gradually, I began to fall into strange cycles of reprieve and torment.<br />
<br />
<br />
When I wasn't hating myself, I was trying to learn something. I began tucking a book under my arm whenever I went to lunch at work. It would be something about number theory, or the history of science, or something else that I could rely on to fascinate me. I had acquired a reputation for knowing things at work. I had people ask what my degree was in, and got used to the surprised look when I told them I was a dropout. I was accused of being a genius, a claim that somehow made me feel like I was anything but. Somehow I had become overeducated and undergraduated.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJv7lBolqFG6fqb8JGxqaxdiA2eJ0QgREbBiUk1DF5rXZEe5Q2wbbLxfNb3-Urk5zQ3qb9oDMf__Fy9TEXbW-7h2PleAX6ZToVJJCB0quyUX-6NacjJzhbaXPDFVkVjDxtNPmYyQi9UcGm/s1600/IMG2.bmp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJv7lBolqFG6fqb8JGxqaxdiA2eJ0QgREbBiUk1DF5rXZEe5Q2wbbLxfNb3-Urk5zQ3qb9oDMf__Fy9TEXbW-7h2PleAX6ZToVJJCB0quyUX-6NacjJzhbaXPDFVkVjDxtNPmYyQi9UcGm/s1600/IMG2.bmp" height="300" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
My attitude began to spin out of control, and my grasp on reality had begun to unravel. I was no longer a flawed person trying to make it through life. In my own mind, I had transformed myself into an ogre. I was evil, stupid, and inept. I could do no right, and my existence on this planet was the bane of humanity. I began to contemplate the unthinkable. On one of my birthdays, it was only imagining the pain my of my friend discovering that I had committed to something irreversible that stopped me. I confided in that friend, and she very literally saved my life.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgi4kYc9g8oWEfTgmZKK1WBIsfLlYr6PNbLMgacnt5vcgc7KL1XYGXovQeFuZxpOfQ3bkNDH0gP4jMsRcg7QL6MGQ-7QDV5Cwx2xKtjKtOngNxyCzzlRrA6BzLcAySKTF628-PRzaCXowHj/s1600/IMG.bmp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgi4kYc9g8oWEfTgmZKK1WBIsfLlYr6PNbLMgacnt5vcgc7KL1XYGXovQeFuZxpOfQ3bkNDH0gP4jMsRcg7QL6MGQ-7QDV5Cwx2xKtjKtOngNxyCzzlRrA6BzLcAySKTF628-PRzaCXowHj/s1600/IMG.bmp" height="290" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
I was poked, prodded, cajoled, and coaxed into seeing a therapist. In retrospect, it was an obvious necessity. Over time, my odd sense of anxiety around frying eggs, my fear of not being able to see a door, my self-loathing, and my inability to focus on homework began to coalesce into four letters: PTSD. I couldn't help but smile in astonishment when I first saw those letters. It made so much sense and yet I never saw it coming. I was never a soldier, I had never been in natural disaster, or a major car accident. Still, I knew why I was vigilant, why certain things bred a strange and powerful anxiety in me. My childhood was never idyllic. It had shaped in me a series of survival instincts that I never realized I had. I had developed a perverse idea of normal predicated on the false premise that I was alright. But my cycles of self-loathing proved otherwise.<br />
<br />
When I understood my enemy and myself, I began to get better.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHfAq_CBfKZaSMY0p1DZls74ZO9n7y_8WcFBl57Io4a5TsZtigsgKIn0aNGnOVH-LNKqngelXe_YoQO8A15830GiCkyCFqLec8zNUYpu4NExUY7TCVJ49gkEBkthT5FUISHfXzdz19NI3o/s1600/IMG.bmp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHfAq_CBfKZaSMY0p1DZls74ZO9n7y_8WcFBl57Io4a5TsZtigsgKIn0aNGnOVH-LNKqngelXe_YoQO8A15830GiCkyCFqLec8zNUYpu4NExUY7TCVJ49gkEBkthT5FUISHfXzdz19NI3o/s1600/IMG.bmp" height="277" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Seasons and habits changed. I began, for the first time in my life, to realize who I was, and what I wanted out of life. So I applied to another university, not really expecting that my past failures would be forgiven. It was a better school than the one I flunked out of. I applied the way people rip off band-aids, waiting for the last second, doing it as quickly as possible, and expecting the absolute worst. I proferred an explanation and cast myself in the best possible light.<br />
<br />
It wasn't until I had forgotten about it that I would discover I had been accepted. My first semester was a blur, to the point where getting my picture taken for my school ID seems to have happened right before finals. Of course, a great deal had happened along the way. All at once it seemed, things had changed dramatically. I found my way back into chemistry, I had fallen in love, and I could very confidently say who I was and what I wanted out of life. <br />
<br />
My chemical journey has taken longer than expected. It has taken me further and over as many dark valleys as it has sun-soaked hills. I thought it had ended a while ago, but I've found a way back to it. I don't know where it will take me or where or whether it will end, but I'm finally home.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD3pZm3a5TBDTT1KEw3vKZ7jYOicBgrphCu8xwzc6uW-XLfgwNFtozg_PUpKRGirxB3PCYtvVNeChvNT-vCgTwG9LgBJkqqWSrxF-9bqHCdRj9dz8yqt0S8DaKnLQuta3AO3PMPy1n7EM9/s1600/IMG.bmp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD3pZm3a5TBDTT1KEw3vKZ7jYOicBgrphCu8xwzc6uW-XLfgwNFtozg_PUpKRGirxB3PCYtvVNeChvNT-vCgTwG9LgBJkqqWSrxF-9bqHCdRj9dz8yqt0S8DaKnLQuta3AO3PMPy1n7EM9/s1600/IMG.bmp" height="115" width="400" /></a></div>
</div>
The Chemisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15970398885870679916noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-794394483322884922.post-56460594917670892442010-05-20T15:32:00.007-04:002011-01-29T11:21:58.705-05:00Skepticamp Atlanta!<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMvv0dTQEmfd0gurjPePiWtddAiF3As8OPPhT5bcDNS29aQ2MNWjR7u2qEEQXpSXChQBm3ay__BChpbxKOUJ-5qdDlXl2eenOqGA0EJkpid6X3vepAHhRNyS5tWRX9AAt2Q62Y4Ki21EMU/s1600/skepticamplogo2-300x130.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5473454398923268770" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMvv0dTQEmfd0gurjPePiWtddAiF3As8OPPhT5bcDNS29aQ2MNWjR7u2qEEQXpSXChQBm3ay__BChpbxKOUJ-5qdDlXl2eenOqGA0EJkpid6X3vepAHhRNyS5tWRX9AAt2Q62Y4Ki21EMU/s400/skepticamplogo2-300x130.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 130px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 300px;" /></a><br />
I attended the annual Atlanta Skepticamp this past weekend. I originally wrote this the day after it ended, but didn't get around to proofreading till today. It's really after the event that I knew what to think of it. When the time came to fill out a brief survey and give feedback, I was a little at a loss to think of anything useful to suggest except, "MOAR SWORDS!" (Explanation to come.) So I'm just trying to pull together a useful description for people thinking of attending in the future.<a href="http://skepticamp.org/wiki/Main_Page"> Skepticamp</a> is an event that is set up by any local group of skeptics interested in holding one. It's really just an opportunity for people living in particular locales to gather and present their thoughts and ideas regarding or stemming from skepticism.<br />
<br />
First of all, I should point out that this is my first Skepticamp and really my first skeptical event. I wanted to attend the one being held last year, but I wasn't able to due to illness and other assorted life-stupidity. This year, I almost didn't make it again thanks to travel plans which I was able to postpone.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
By the time I knew I was going at all, it was too late to set up a presentation, and I'm glad I wasn't given the opportunity, because frankly, I'm an idiot- I'd have tried to. I tend to bite off more than I can chew, and I'd have entertained visions of something way too complicated to pull together in the kind of time I would have actually had. Skepticamp registration is completely open, and anyone can participate, which is part of the appeal. This year's Skepticamp had a theme: Critical Thinking for Everyone.<br />
<br />
I participated as best I could, since I signed on to be a volunteer. This mainly involved moving a couple of things around, hanging a <a href="http://skepchick.org/blog/">Skepchick</a> sign, and helping to clean up at the end- and I use the term "helping" loosely since I mainly stood around looking for something to do that would be useful without getting in the way. The organizers had a good handle on the event. Everything moved on schedule, the equipment (largely) functioned without a hitch and everyone clearly knew what they were doing. I had no idea what to expect, and was suprised, never having been to a skeptical event before (save an informal organizing brunch that turned out to be pleasant enough but entirely superfluous.)<br />
<br />
That's my overall impression of the organization. The talks were all good, make no mistake, and I certainly didn't dislike any of them. Certainly there were elements in certain talks I disagreed with, which often had little to do with how interesting they were. Some I simply didn't understand or absorb well enough for my liking. In fact, that's my most serious criticism of the event: That there wasn't always a lot of time to necessarily absorb the presentation, or explain and discuss it. I understand that time is a precious commodity, but often that time was used by speakers more to convey <span style="font-style: italic;">information</span> over <span style="font-style: italic;">implication</span>.<br />
<br />
In terms of content of the talks: I don't nitpick as much in real life as I do online, because I have poor memory for details. So the only things that I'll say bothered me were little things that individual presenters would say over and over again, and were somehow obtrusive. One of the most entertaining and vivid presentations was one given by John Clements who is the Director of the Association of Renaissance Martial Arts (<a href="http://www.thearma.org/">The ARMA</a>), where he discussed supernatural and problematic claims made in martial arts. This presenter instantly aroused everyone's interest, including mine, by bringing in swords. I've always loved martial arts, and I took up fencing briefly. My coach had encouraged me to read a few books on the subject, and so I was really interested in the talk from the get-go. He did overly-generalize when discussing Eastern martial arts to some extent. While he is right that the huge emphasis on unarmed combat over armed combat makes for a more dilute set of skills, he did seem to imply that their purpose was largely for combat, or that there was never any rigor.<br />
<br />
One of the most popular far-eastern styles in the world come to my mind immediately, [modern] Karate is actually a fairly recent invention that was created for different reasons that would <span style="font-style: italic;">never</span> place it on par with arts of war. Karate as originally concieved was in large part about self-development and discipline and not primarily a combat art. For a while in its early history, even sparring was frowned upon. It's essentially a sport with a distinct philosophy of practice. The expectation was that it would be used for self-defense no more than once in your lifetime, if at all. The more mystical aspects popularly attributed to Karate actually have a lot more to do with bad movies made about it, especially <span style="font-style: italic;">The Karate Kid</span>. Eskrima is an example of an Eastern systematized method of armed combat that relies on angle of attack. I'm not intimately acquainted with every martial art on the planet, but I do know that people have been fighting wars for centuries, and I'm sure that it's an oversimplification to categorize all far-eastern methods of fighting as fitting in a particular mold. However, I do think that he does make some excellent points about how many popular far-eastern styles of fighting are presented to Americans.<br />
<br />
The other talk that had a problematic element that stuck in my mind was one where the presenter argued that skeptics should not always be cheerleaders for scientific consensus. I largely agree, and it's certainly a topic worth it's own blog post. What irked me was how he kept mentioning global warming as an instance of scientific consensus we shouldn't necessarily accept. I'm not sure if I rolled my eyes, but I definitely wanted to. He also mentioned that we should paint the global warming "skeptic" with the brush of "holocaust denier" which is a common straw-man. "Denier" means, well- denier. Global warming deniers like George Will are not in any way being compared to people who deny the Holocaust. I'm a little more careful about how I use the term "denier" than some, but I certainly don't hold back because of some purported connection to the phrase, "Holocaust-denier." It simply does not mean that. Never has, never will, and frankly the persecution complex has gotten tiresome. I would also like to point out that cases of scientific consensus being wrong largely involve lack of knowledge about specific phenomena. It's impossible to predict where scientists will be wrong in these cases because it's impossible to know what we don't know we don't know. (You may have to read that a few times for it to make sense.<br />
<br />
The presentations I enjoyed the most were the ones like that given by Dr. Ginger Campbell, who runs the <a href="http://brainsciencpodcast.wordpress.com/">Brain Science Podcast</a>. It intrigued me if only because she talked about consciousness and the way neuroscience is in some respects catching up to and outstripping philosophy. I've been very interested in philosophy lately and it just seemed to intersect with my current interests very well. One presentation involved old-wives tales and was a great deal of fun. Another on Wikipedia given by <a href="http://whatstheharm.net/">Tim Farley</a> (AKA Krelnik) told me a lot about Wikipedia I already knew, but I also picked up a number of very good ideas, and I found out that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology">Church of Scientology</a> is <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/05/wikipedia-bans-church-of-scientology/">banned from editing Wikipedia</a>. The martial arts presentation was also very good, and one of the few that had any significant degree of audience participation. I'd even consider taking the classes his organization offers. I was really hoping he'd use the term "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshido">bullshido</a>" and was disappointed when he didn't, but he did describe in accurate detail some unethical practices seen in martial arts demonstrations and learning environments. He really describes a whole wide world of irrationality and trickery that most people don't even think about.<br />
<br />
I got the sense social media was supposed to be involved in this event in some vague way, as it is now expected to in almost every human endeavor. Frankly, I'm still waiting for someone to hook their toilet up to Twitter so we get their- um, dispatches. That said, I like social media and I now tweet more actively than I blog. I did a little tweeting on the first day but my phone was too cumbersome to really use effectively. I borrowed my brother's laptop and live-tweeted the shit out of the next day. I would actually think that having the ability to tweet questions would be an interesting development, albeit one that's a challenge to integrate. There was a live stream of the event, and I wanted to try seeing if there were any intriguing questions in the chatroom that I could ask during the Q&A's but I was unable to bring up the chat on the borrowed computer and I didn't have admin access to fix it. (Okay, so maybe I didn't borrow my brother's computer as much as "borrow" my brother's computer- I know, I'm a horrible, horrible person.) Overall, I didn't tweet as much as I would have because it seemed so few others were doing so as well. Either way, it wasn't a significant part of the whole affair, but something I thought I'd mention.<br />
<br />
But, and my initial survey didn't reflect this, perhaps the best part of the event was getting to hang out with other skeptics. I took it for granted in the moment, but not a lot of my friends are skeptics and they don't always readily grok certain topics that I'd like to discuss. It's nice to have a conversation about certain ideas where you don't have to lay any ideological railroad tracks for the other person. It was a lot of fun, and everyone was friendly and had a good sense of humor. That's not to say we necessarily discussed skepticism all or even most of the time, but it was nice to have a sounding-board for certain ideas an opinions.<br />
<br />
Overall, if you've never been to a Skepticamp, or skeptical event, I highly recommend it. If there isn't an event coming up in your area, the whole point of Skepticamp is that you can start one on your own, wherever you live, with whatever resources you can get your hands on. There are a number of organizations and entities, many of which you'll find in your local area, that are willing to sponsor a group of critical thinkers getting together. To my understanding, the Atlanta Skepticamp started <a href="http://www.skepticality.com/notes/sn_Ep126.php">as almost an idle suggestion</a>. I do know that I've been inspired to get more involved with skepticism than I have been lately, and I'm looking forward to possibly giving my own talk at the next Skepticamp.The Chemisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15970398885870679916noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-794394483322884922.post-56755216529446656592010-02-28T17:17:00.002-05:002010-02-28T17:18:55.332-05:00New Post Over Facts Not Fantasy<a href="http://www.factsnotfantasy.com/2010/02/shimmering-cloak.html">My first, belated post at Facts Not Fantasy</a>.The Chemisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15970398885870679916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-794394483322884922.post-81396000335878218752010-02-26T09:29:00.001-05:002010-02-26T21:28:02.945-05:00What? Wait!Ever have this sort of thing happen to you: Your flipping through the channels and come across some <span style="font-style: italic;">meh</span> movie you have never seen before and decide to just take the path of least resistance and watch it. It's sci-fi, and therefore full of bad science, but this is okay because you love sci-fi and suspend disbelief...right up until someone starts writing equations on the board.<br /><br />I had this problem when watching the Fantastic Four (quickie review: watch only if you really have nothing better to do.) I love the Marvel Comics characters and hence the movies, but I skipped out on F4 because it looked like crap- a judgment that turned out to be sound. I'm not one of those people who has a mental block when it comes to movies being inaccurate, but some things do make me chuckle. Before you ask: No the movie wasn't bad because it had some stray hairs scientifically. It was bad because it was bad.<br /><br />There comes a part where the scientist is working in his immaculate and of course large lab. It is alluded to early on that money is a problem for this man, yet somehow this does nothing to diminish the lab's capacity and capabilities. I'm sure there are underfunded physicists out there who would orgasm at the thought of having that kind of office space. Then again- how much money could he possibly be burning through, looking around it appears that like any good movie scientist, he probably spends most of his time messing around with bright copper sulfate solutions and food coloring in big crystalline flasks.<br /><br />What he is trying to do is somehow ("somehow" is a magical word in sci-fi) reverse the radiation they experienced and therefore reverse their mutations (cure cancer). Fine, sure thing. He walks over to a board and starts writing... an equilibrium equation. This snapped me out of the storyline instantly. As I once read somewhere, "Math is the ultimate bullshit barrier". For those of you who don't know what an equilibrium constant equation is, it defines the relationship in terms of concentration (and amount) between substances in equilibrium in a system. Now I don't know why this might be necessary, obviously I can't follow an imaginary thought process, but what I find hilarious is the stern look of concentration on his face. Not only is the equation not a particularly mind bending one, but it's utterly trivial. This guy is really chipping away at the problem on step at a time. Geez! If you're going to pull a prop equation out of a physics or chemistry book- at least be in the right section. He should be writing an equation pertaining to radiation or a nuclear reaction up there.The Chemisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15970398885870679916noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-794394483322884922.post-19721967180685876392010-02-08T02:02:00.009-05:002010-02-08T03:05:41.817-05:00Wakey, Wakey!<div style="text-align: left;">This is slightly stale news, but I haven't really had time to blog on it: The <i>Lancet</i>, the prestigious British Medical Journal that originally published Andrew Wakefield's shall we say, <i><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18447-noose-closes-on-doctor-who-linked-mmr-and-autism.html">problematic</a></i> study purportedly linking vaccines to autism, has retracted it<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> [</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'Segoe UI', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" white-space: pre;"><a href="http://press.thelancet.com/wakefieldretraction.pdf"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">PDF</span></a></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">].</span> I think this is a long time in coming, though I understand why it took so long. Retraction of a peer-reviewed paper is actually a big deal and very uncommon, even for fairly bad papers. Even prestigious journals don't retract papers just because someone turned out to be wrong, or there was a critical error in an experiment that was undertaken in good faith. In these cases it's more typical for the scientists themselves to retract the paper. Usually there has to be very serious issues.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Big Sin in Wakefield's case wasn't simply being wrong, but in failing to disclose his associations and potential conflicts of interest and not respecting the rights of his research subjects. Reading <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Autisms-False-Prophets-Science-Medicine/dp/0231146361">Autism's False Prophets</a></i> by Paul Offit, it's actually very clear that Wakefield's research was highly questionable if only because he was working for trial lawyers involved in tort cases against vaccine manufacturers aiming for a class-action lawsuit. For people who argue that pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in denying vaccine danger, I would like them to consider (however briefly) that Wakefield has had a vested interest in connecting vaccines to some form of disease. This, in addition to the fact that he himself <i>patented</i> a stand-alone measles vaccine, all the while encouraging people not to use the multi-valent vaccine for Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR). I should also point out that by contrast, Dr. Offit makes no bones about admitting he works on vaccines himself- a level of disclosure significantly greater than that of Wakefield.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEqhsEkRe8UMIVvwSCgYkiPBZBkxdwE9-7lVyrlikV5GkbZJnfN4rQXex9Dssc0R5-fF6HwcxtwnPfF_wrQmIgbSUTyBK4sJ4WeUTsL5V9dKRA0hbv37ofdhnRK7NspoVMAEzXrwh1NZ06/s1600-h/800px-Preparation_of_measles_vaccines.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEqhsEkRe8UMIVvwSCgYkiPBZBkxdwE9-7lVyrlikV5GkbZJnfN4rQXex9Dssc0R5-fF6HwcxtwnPfF_wrQmIgbSUTyBK4sJ4WeUTsL5V9dKRA0hbv37ofdhnRK7NspoVMAEzXrwh1NZ06/s400/800px-Preparation_of_measles_vaccines.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5435778455200602306" style="display: block; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: auto; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 285px; " /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><i>Measles vaccines being grown in chicken eggs. (Photo courtesy of the </i><a href="http://www.who.int/en/"><i>WHO</i></a><i>)</i></span></div><div><br /></div><div>When pharmacuetical companies do research, we <i>know</i> their agenda and scientists can stand back and consider potential biases. The FDA and other government agencies also get involved in monitoring the research and making sure that scientific rigor is being applied. While the FDA has had its debacles, and in all fairness the system is flawed- there is at least some level of openness about the research being done and acknowledgement of who pays the piper, so to speak. With Wakefield, he deliberately withheld his conflicts of interest from the journal, which would have called for increased scrutiny of his research had he done so. That the <i>Lancet</i> published it in the first place was a case of the journal doing it's due diligence with data that seemed plausible from what seemed to be a responsible unconflicted party on the subject. The <i>Lancet</i> would have been manifestly derelict in its duty to inform the medical and scientific communities had it not published such a paper. When it's discovered that the data was bad, the research subjects were mistreated, and that there were significant conflicts of interest- <i>why should the paper stand</i>?</div><div><br /></div><div>Yet the predictable response of the anti-vaccination movement is talk of "censorship". I remember a day when <i>censorship</i> meant that saying certain things got you imprisoned or killed. In fact, I believe they still do this in some countries and that the people who die speaking freely might have an objection to that characterization. That a publication refuses to publish your drivel isn't censorship- it's discretion. Discretion is an important part of the peer-review process: That people qualified in the field and who understand the state of the science decide its value to others in the community of researchers.</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm very comfortable calling the anti-vaccination movement anti-science denialists. I'm less comfortable doing that with say- global warming deniers (though I still call them deniers). In the case of people against the idea of anthropogenic global warming, there are those among them who look at the data and come off with at least superficially plausible differing interpretations. Anti-vaccinationists offer no mechanisms of action, do not consider the importance of harm-reduction (even if vaccines did cause autism, the likelihood is so small that vaccination is <i>still</i> worth the risk relative to the risk of infectious disease), they are unmoved by further studies that cannot detect the connection or replicate Wakefield's results, and this is the kicker: IGNORE OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSES FOR AUTISM.</div><div><br /></div><div>This last one kills me. Dollars that went to confirm Wakefield's results and determine the nature of the purported autism-vaccine link were dollars<b> wasted</b>. That money was money that never went to finding cures or treatments for autism that never worked. People who donated to various anti-vaccine movements have deprived numerous researchers and scientists of funds urgently needed to help those with autism, and if this does turn out to be completely genetic, screening technologies for it. Meanwhile the resulting scare resulted in deaths and disfigurement of numerous children who were not vaccinated because their parents were either misguided or willfully obstinate. People die when you disseminate medical information that happens to be false. When you spread information you <i>know</i> to be wrong- that's simply unconscionable. I sincerely hope Mr. Wakefield finds his mattress small help in falling asleep tonight. </div>The Chemisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15970398885870679916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-794394483322884922.post-15410954642712436052010-02-03T12:53:00.003-05:002010-02-03T14:04:57.185-05:00Dirty WordQuick! What's the housing of your computer screen made out of? What about the dash of your car?<br /><br />If you struggled for a moment, I wouldn't be surprised. The first question is ripped directly from the pages of an interesting book I'm reading by Geoff Nunberg of NPR fame called, <span style="font-style: italic;">Going Nucular</span>[sic]. I'm still at the beginning but it's proving very enlightening. Nunberg, a linguist who specializes (according to Wikipedia) in lexical semantics, writes about the various ways our word-choice has transformed over the years- shaped by our environment and culture. I bought his book on a lark, literally picking up the first paperback with an interesting title because I had to break a hundred.<br /><br />At the very beginning, he hits upon something anyone with an interest in synthetics has considered, however obliquely. He talks about how the word "plastic" shifted from something that indicated status and modernity to a word that has fallen out of vogue, a word that indicates superficiality, the cheap, the disposable, and waste. However, chances are, most everything in your modern life has some quantity of plastic in it. Even something like a spiral bound notebook, a very basic invention, might have a thin layer of plastic on the cardbard cover. Pens, which used to merit the actual business of "pen repair" are now throwaway plastic tubes. Even in more expensive pens that use refill cartridges, those cartridges will have some quantity of plastic.<br /><br />Of course, not all plastic is created equal. In the AMC hit show, <span style="font-style: italic;">Breaking Bad</span>, where the main character is a chemist who is forced by his cancer and financial situation to make and sell crystal meth, this is illustrated when they want to dispose of a body by dissolving it in acid. This scene will be with me for the rest of my life simply because it was so satisfying for me to watch. He specifically requests his partner (a non-chemist) get a large plastic tub with a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resin_identification_code">resin identification code</a> that labeled it as LDPE. These are the little "recyclable" icons with a number inside that you see on plastic products.<br /><br />Plastics are made up of long chains of molecules called polymers. This gives plastic its characteristic flexibility. In the case of LDPE, the plastic is fairly non-reactive with concentrated acids. (Though if you throw an organic solvent on it, it will practically "thaw" before your eyes). His partner, repulsed by the thought of having to cut the body up to fit into the two containers, decides to use the bathtub. The bathtub is made of conventional ceramic (basically clay that has taken on a structure similar to glass) and is attacked by the strong hydroflouric acid solution and we get a (literal) bloody mess when the partially decomposed body pours through the floor into the hallway below. Hydrofluoric acid, I might add, is extremely dangerous. Most simple, strong acids will merely burn you. HF is absorbed through the skin very easily and acts as a poison since the fluorine binds strongly to the calcium ions in the bloodstream. These ions are critical to the function of our nervous system and muscles. It's essentially a rudimentary neurotoxin (though some neuroscientists may prefer to use the term more restrictively).<br /><br /> It's the characteristic nonreactive nature of plastic that makes it so useful, and so harmful to the environment. While recent studies have shown that plastic can in the right conditions, degrade naturally, the vast majority of plastic waste will continue to pose an environmental hazard indefinitely. Plastic breaks down mechanically over time, mixing with soil and entering the food chain. This is how plastic got to be such a dirty word. Plastic was the material of the future for a while. Disney had an exhibition called "House of the Future" where the entire structure was made of plastic. Legend has it that the wrecking ball essentially bounced off of it when the time came to tear it down. With increasing environmental consciousness (and presumably, hippies) the plastic craze died down.<br /><br />Despite the fact that plastic <span style="font-style: italic;">can</span> be recycled (the resin codes I mentioned earlier were designed to facilitate recycling) it's an energy intensive process- one that inevitably leads to more emissions. This is why the mantra of the environmentally conscious is, "Reduce. Reuse. Period." Some attempts are being made at creating plastics that do chemically degrade. The only problem with this is that one of the things that makes plastic so useful is the fact that it <span style="font-style: italic;">doesn't</span> break down easily over time. Still this may prove useful for such things as single-serving beverage bottles, disposable cups, straws, etc.<br /><br />Alas, modern life is simply not possible without plastic. Remember the computer and your car's dash. Laptops are affordable and portable because they are made of plastic. They're also more resilient and tolerant of drops and shocks than they would be otherwise. Similarly, in an accident, if your airbags fail, you don't want to slam your face into a wood, steel, or aluminum surface. Also, imagine the money you save on gas driving a car not entirely made of metal and wood.<br /><br />I'm not saying that it is entirely impossible or futile to eliminate synthetic plastics from our world, but it does no good to be in denial of the challenges that face scientifically-sound environmentalism. There needs to be acknowledgment on some level that plastic isn't going anywhere. We should be reducing and reusing as much as possible until a more permanent solution is found. A metal canister/cans for drinks, paper cups, and less packaging are all steps that can be taken to reduce the amount of plastic that ends up in the ecosystem. Energy-efficient systems and infrastructure for plastic recycling and disposal are going to have to be critical areas of development in the future.The Chemisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15970398885870679916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-794394483322884922.post-36952801614633416072010-01-28T14:57:00.006-05:002010-01-28T16:53:56.571-05:00The Nature in HumanityThere's something to be said about how we humans make a point of endlessly categorizing and labeling things. It's certainly useful, since part of what has made our continued survival possible is our ability to recognize patterns and forecast phenomena. It's also what has allowed us to create such highly sophisticated systems like governments, markets, and technical infrastructure. It also gets us in trouble. The same instinct that tells us that two sticks rubbed together get hot enough to make fire also tells us that we should eat only chicken before a big baseball game. A more common (so common we rarely consider it) failure of our pattern seeking ways manifests itself in our <span style="font-style: italic;">fidelity</span> to the artificial categories we create. All dichotomies lose their significance at some level of consciousness. Whether or not someone is an American is irrelevant when a doctor is suturing a deep cut. On the other hand, it would be extremely relevant to a German soldier in the Second World War. Context determines significance. People arguing over how to categorize things are frequently trying to reconcile semantics. Sometimes though, a dichotomy is so functionally useless that we effectively call it false. The one that separates technology from nature is particularly interesting to me today.<br /><br />I was reading an <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/01/27/rumor-obama-to-axe-ares-and-constellation/">interesting post</a> on the Bad Astronomy blog regarding the potential end to the Ares 5 program. As I was reading down the comments, I came across one in particular that struck me as problematic in a number of ways. The commenter, David, let loose a diatribe about "technological civilization" and essentially argued that we had ruined the planet and are all doomed to irrevocable extinction. (Believe it or not, this actually fits into the context of the discussion going on there.) I pointed out to him that overpopulation and the concept of population collapse aren't simple things to predict and model. I assumed he had watched the conspiracy and paranoia-laden "documentary" called <span style="font-style: italic;">Zeitgeist</span>. I've been running into more and more people who have apparently seen it and swear by its precepts. I haven't seen it, but from what I understand, overpopulation is an important theme. I said that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_growth_model">Malthusian model</a> of population growth, that of exponential growth, was too simple to describe the real world phenomenon of how population fluctuates. I specifically singled out the formula P(t)=C<span style="font-style: italic;">e</span>^(kt) as being insufficient, where C= the initial population (or quantity- depending on what's being measured); <span style="font-style: italic;">e</span>=Euler's number; t= time elapsed; and k=some constant growth or decay rate. (Different people use different variables, but the basic equation is the same.)<br /><br />This formula for exponential growth and decay isn't useless, it does adequately describe true exponential growth, and you can use it to describe the decay of radioactive materials quite nicely. The problem is that the human population doesn't work that way for a number of reasons. As an extreme case, see the Chinese population, where the male-to-female ratio is being artificially increased. The Malthusian mathematical model doesn't work as well when male-female parity can no longer be taken for granted (though across short periods of time, it can be predictive across within one order of magnitude). Other factors, such as contraception, disease, fertility, sexual selection, and mating frequency all complicate matters quite nicely.<br /><br />All of this is sort of tangential to what this post is about, namely why nature and technology are really part of the same edifice for all practical purposes. The response by David to my response was, "<span style="font-style: italic;">As it turns out, I happen to spend my time in Nature and have observed that everything which has a beginning also has an end. </span>" (Notice the capitalized "N" in "Nature".)<br /><br />Later, responding to someone else, he says,<br /><br /><blockquote>"<span style="font-style: italic;">I am not at all impressed by human technology and I pity anyone who is so easily impressed. I wouldn’t destroy a living planet for the sake of technology, to do so makes as little sense as destroying your kidneys so that you might rely upon the technology of dialysis. </span> <p style="font-style: italic;">Technological civilization is a dead end. </p> <p style="font-style: italic;">Technological civlization is already dying right in front of our eyes. </p> <p><span style="font-style: italic;">Shall we continue to destroy the Earth for the sake of machines and drive humankind extinct in the process?</span>"</p><p></p></blockquote><p>Then, "<span style="font-style: italic;">Well, now that you mention it, that is precisely the case. A species which has destroyed its only home doesn’t merit any special favors from God or Nature</span>."</p><p>It's obvious from his tone and the context we get from culture that he views technology and scientific advancement as being somehow at odds with nature. Yet if we look at history, the term "naturalist" was essentially synonymous with "scientist". One of the most prestigious scientific journals, one which publishes peer-reviewed articles in the physical and biological sciences, is actually called, <span style="font-style: italic;">Nature.</span> The name isn't designed to deceive, quite the opposite. Scientists, and by extension, technologists, are all observers and users of nature. How we define the bounty of nature, however, is simply more expansive than I suspect David would define it.</p><p>Living off of nature, is to a scientist, unavoidable. Nature provides us with energy in the form of the fundamental forces of electromagnetism, gravity, the weak nuclear, and the strong nuclear forces. Scientists and technologists don't ask favors from nature- quite the opposite, we are bound to obedience. It is only by understanding the laws and restrictions nature places on us that we can improve our lot.</p><p>The tradition of observing nature is more than simply looking at the ecology, flora, and fauna of this world with our eyes. Richard Feynman, a physicist, wrote in his memoirs about ants he watched as a child, and shuttling them from place to place. He would observe how they formed paths and navigated. Yet the difference between this, and the use of a mathematical formula, such as the one I wrote above, to make determinations about the world around us is also the observation of nature. If mathematical logic is not an immutable feature of nature- imagine the chaos. Suddenly one ant joining another on one day is two ants, but tomorrow they could be negative three!</p><p>Instead what David seems to do is define Nature as the exclusion of humanity. Yet, this makes no sense. humanity must interact with nature. Everything that makes humanity what it is, from its biology to its behavior and consequent machinations; is defined, restricted, and ruled by nature.</p><p>This proposal in certain civilizations at certain periods in history would be deemed heretical. This way of thinking, at least superficially, is nigh paganistic. After all, isn't it God (or some other entity or set of entities) that defines, sets into motion, or rules our existence? While I wouldn't argue that scientists identify as Neo-Pagans it is clear that scientists, at least on some level, acknowledge the autonomy of nature as a phenomenon. </p><p>The dichotomy that David wishes to express is not internally consistent. Technology and mankind are as much a part of nature as anything else. That said, he is right that extinction is inevitable. Yet the reasoning and the way he chooses to derive this knowledge (by deliberately choosing to exclude those principles of nature that fit into his artificially narrow dichotomy) have lead him to believe our extinction is nigh, and not just unavoidable.</p><p>The reason I bring this up at all is because it's such a common and conventional way of viewing "nature". Nature is the world around us, <span style="font-style: italic;">plus us</span>. A world where we do not exist, is <span style="font-style: italic;">by definition</span> impossible and unnatural- the same way a world where light does not exist or interact is only a hypothetical, an imaginary reality and fun game we can play in our heads. It does no practical good and makes no sense to abstract humans out of the category that is nature, even if nature is synonymous with ecology. Instead we must continue to understand our role in nature and how we manage to obey its laws.<br /></p><p></p>The Chemisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15970398885870679916noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-794394483322884922.post-67492936168458621402010-01-27T13:53:00.004-05:002010-01-27T15:04:57.229-05:00Pardon the DustAlrighty, after some procrastination, I've moved all comments and commenting over to a new system powered by <a href="http://disqus.com/">DISQUS</a>. I've also gone back- waaaaay back in the archives and struck out at spam comments with my mighty delete button. So all those offers for drugs and Miley Cyrus sex tapes (I know- WTF?) are now officially cleared from my blog. Most of this spam was, for whatever reason, in Japanese.<br /><br />There are some added features and functionality. My personal favorite is the flagging feature. After enough people flag a post, it will magically disappear. For now, I'm just hoping it'll help with spam. I've disabled avatars because I think they're just an annoying waste of space unless a majority of people are using them. Tags should work. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Posts older than sixty days are closed to commenting</span>. I didn't want to do that, because while digging around and deleting spam that was deliberately placed in older posts I found people were still leaving relevant comments. I may find a way around this, but for now it's something I'll live with.<br /><br />Anonymous commenters should still be able to comment. Let me know if that's not possible.<br /><br />Also, to all the nice people who left comments imploring that I write more: Aww shucks, thanks!<br /><br />Let me know if something goes wonky.<br /><br />My blog commenting policy remains largely the same as ever, and much of it is unnecessary since I don't run a particularly popular or controversial blog, but it's nice to have:<br /><br />1.) Don't be a dick. (Ripped from <a href="http://www.wilwheaton.typepad.com/">Wil Wheaton's blog</a>.)<br /><br />2.) It's my blog, and I can delete any comment I choose. Comments that allude to a non-existent constitutional right to squirt digital diarrhea all over a discussion will be deleted with the almighty fury of a cocaine-addled baboon that just got laid off and has discovered that he will need retraining to work a similar job at lower pay.<br /><br />3.) There are no swear-word restrictions on this blog. I may not swear as artfully as <a href="http://www.thechemblog.com/?p=1616">for example</a>, Kyle Finchsigmate over at The [now defunct] <a href="http://www.thechemblog.com/">Chem-blog</a>, but that doesn't mean I have a problem with it. Just try to be imaginative is all I ask.<br /><br />4.) Speaking of language, I will assume any comments made primarily in languages I do not understand are spam. These will be deleted unless you provide me with some indication in a language I <span style="font-style: italic;">do</span> understand (or at least understand <span style="font-style: italic;">enough</span>) that you are human. These languages are: English, Arabic, French and Spanish.<br /><br />5.) Refrain from posting or linking to defamatory or illegal content. Note to international visitors: I live in the US, so as far as I'm concerned, illegal and libelous content is what's defined here in the US as illegal and libelous. If you want to say, "<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7693988.stm">God, the nation, Barcelona</a>" or "<a href="http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/333/">Homeopathy is bogus</a>." and it's a risk you're willing to take, knock yourself out. However...<br /><br />6.) Try to stay on topic. If you want to talk about the merits of Emile Durkheim's ideas on structural-functionalism and how it relates to episode #3 in the second season of <span style="font-style: italic;">Lost</span>- then I had better have said something about it on the post. (Also, if you actually <span style="font-style: italic;">do</span> try to discuss <span style="font-style: italic;">Lost </span>in particular, I will try to find a way to digitally hurl massive objects at you.)<br /><br />7.) Not technically a commenting policy, but I don't check the email as religiously as <span style="font-style: italic;">you'd</span> probably like. This goes doubly so for people who want me to sell shit for them. I'm not averse to putting a up an ad or two, but seriously- can you at least<span style="font-style: italic;"> try </span>to relate your product to chemistry or science? Failing that, can you at least sell something interesting or remotely useful to my readers?The Chemisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15970398885870679916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-794394483322884922.post-35141775090691090832009-08-19T18:06:00.003-04:002009-08-19T18:07:49.546-04:00In Case You Forgot... just how unabashedly batshit some people used to be in this country:<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_h2EYPvQDqE&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_h2EYPvQDqE&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/b_bYnvR_fRg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/b_bYnvR_fRg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>The Chemisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15970398885870679916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-794394483322884922.post-48209009708845103212009-08-19T04:40:00.002-04:002009-08-19T04:50:13.975-04:00Who Needs Perspective When Fear Sells?<p>I keep telling myself that this is a chemistry blog and I should write about chemistry more. I think it would be kind of fun, for example, to do a nice little primer/tutorial on pH or pushing electrons. Unfortunately every time I sit down and scan the web, I come across some very seriously misinformed views and anti-science paranoia. I find I’m like a moth to a flame, I can’t resist the impulse to rebut all the burning stupid out there. Lately it’s the Daily Mail, a UK Tabloid, that’s getting under my skin. They have another <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206807/Swine-flu-jab-link-killer-nerve-disease-Leaked-letter-reveals-concern-neurologists-25-deaths-America.html" target="_blank">scare story about vaccines</a>, this time focusing on the swine flu vaccine. </p> <p>I thought I’d write a post about it, but at the time I was just too fucking bored with this sort of bullshit. I did however email the story to a bunch of people who make it their business to care about this sort of thing and Phil Plait, the <a href="http://badastronomy.com/" target="_blank">Bad Astronomer</a>, emailed back with <a href="http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=784" target="_blank">Steve Novella’s take</a> on the ridiculousness of the Daily Mail’s insinuations.</p> <p>All of Novella’s points, as he himself highlights, are essentially expressed in the article. What the article does however, and it’s painfully obvious they’re doing it, is play down these points and play up perspective from a vocal minority of people with dubious authority and tenuous relevance to the situation at hand. So much of it is framing, and I can’t help but find it extremely distressing. If framing is a substitute for facts, then we’re in real trouble people.</p>The Chemisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15970398885870679916noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-794394483322884922.post-88106319407620989572009-08-19T02:56:00.002-04:002009-08-19T04:24:57.399-04:00Summer Movie TimeI'm a huge fan of the movies. This year there have been some good and bad ones. This summer's collection included a fairly predictable <span style="font-style: italic;">Transformers</span> sequel. It was loud and mindless and worse than the first one. That said if you're into watching transforming robots battle each other, none of that really matters and you'll probably think it's pretty decent. I know I did. Sometimes, we all need to watch a Michael bay film to melt the wax in our ears. I do understand if that doesn't really carry mass-appeal (though the amount of merchandise out there begs to differ). Lately I did catch two good movies I can recommend to just about anyone, though.<br /><br />The first was one I caught with a few friends, we were planning on seeing <span style="font-style: italic;">GI Joe</span> initially, because one person in the group really wanted to see it. It soon became clear that no one else did however, and we quickly shifted to <span style="font-style: italic;">District-9 </span>[<a href="http://www.hulu.com/watch/71538/movie-trailers-district-9">Trailer</a>]. Judging from the reviews of the former, our decision was wise. I really enjoyed District-9. The movie is set in Johannesburg, South Africa. The movie itself is in English (and alien with English subtitles.) When I was in high school, I met a lot of Afrikaners working as expats in the UAE. I never did learn much Afrikaans from them, though I did pick up on some of the more choice swear words. (I also learned some of the lyrics to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdMSWt8T0nk">a cheesy country song</a>, but that's a story for another day).<br /><br />The movie is framed in part as a documentary, but this gives way periodically to pure plot sequences. The plot of D-9 has some obvious parallels to the days of Apartheid in South Africa. However I also saw some parallels to the large-scale <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_detention_in_Australia">mandatory detention centers</a> in Australia. The aliens' origins are something of a mystery. They arrive in a tremendous floating craft that hovers over Johannesburg. The only clue we're given as to why the aliens (called "Prawns" because of their appearance) can't seem to express any strategic or intellectual sophistication comes from a brief glimpse of an entomologist, theorizing that the creatures are merely workers that have been separated from a hive mind. They live in shanty-towns in horrible conditions where humans maintain some semblance of order by questionable means. Our protagonist is a naive bureaucrat who suddenly finds himself in the middle of his company's program to replicate Prawn weaponry (which humans can't use since the technology is bio-active). Some people think the allegory is too obvious to be compelling, but I disagree. I think people are simply choosing the most convenient allegory- the apartheid one which is certainly there, but there's a little more going on here.<br /><br />I especially like the weapons and the way the aliens and humans interact. The aliens and their weapons and craft aren't invincible beyond the realm of plausibility. They're advanced, sure, but a human missile can still do a number on them. It always bothers me a little when humans use a missile on an alien technology and it sits there impervious. Are the aliens working off a different periodic table? Here humans can melt metal no matter what galaxy it's from. It's a little refreshing. There's also a surprising amount of gore and general disgustingness (blood, amputation, necrotic tissue, dissections, crushings, etc.) I'm not too bothered by that sort of thing, but sensitive people might want to take that into consideration. I highly recommend the movie, especially if the alternative is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GI_JOE">Yet-Another-Hasbro-Toy-Turned-Feature-Film</a>.<br /><br />The other movie I recommend may not be for everyone because it's a children's film. It is another Hayao Miyazaki/Studio Ghibli film. I've been a big fan of these for a while now. They're well made and imaginative stories about (usually) plucky youngsters thrown into fantastic situations. <span style="font-style: italic;">Ponyo</span> [<a href="http://www.hulu.com/watch/80352/movie-trailers-ponyo">Trailer</a>] is no exception. It's the story of a goldfish that befriends a human and with magic goes through a metamorphoses to become human. It's very far-fetched but a lot of fun if you want someplace to take a younger relative. What surprised me, (and I'm really not <span style="font-style: italic;">trying</span> to inject science into this for no good reason) was the amount of scientific commentary slipped into the cartoon. There are references to the Cambrian Explosion, the Devonian, and the names of a few ancient fish are mentioned. There was an element of the movie that irritated me personally, but probably won't affect most people. I've mentioned before that I'm trying to learn Japanese and despite knowing better, I had actually forgotten that this movie is originally Japanese but dubbed into English. I found myself seeing words on the screen that I could pronounce but not understand, or characters that looked vaguely familiar but which I couldn't place. When I got home I tried looking up a few of them, but it's difficult to "look up" a character in Japanese if you don't already know how the word is pronounced. I still don't know any other way of doing it except by stroke count alone- which is guesswork. It's a bit of a wake up call as to exactly how little I know.<br /><br />Those are the two movies I can recommend, but there were two previews that caught my interest. (You can pretty much guess which preview went with which movie.) The first is <span style="font-style: italic;">The Princess and the Frog</span>. Really the appeal for me is all about the unabashed high quality 2D animation that Disney was moving away from until now. I like 3-D movies and all, but 2-D has a unique aesthetic appeal that can't be matched. I still think that Disney's best cartoons with the exception of <span style="font-style: italic;">Toy Story</span> were all traditionally animated masterpieces. Then something happened (I don't know whether it was Eisner or what) and Disney became all about churning out tacky forgettable nonsense that you couldn't pay me to see even if I was a child. I think this will have its own charm:<br /><br /><object width="512" height="296"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/embed/vf7iw5rOp9bmOmtJhAcyeQ"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.hulu.com/embed/vf7iw5rOp9bmOmtJhAcyeQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" width="512" height="296"></embed></object><br /><br />The other is <span style="font-style: italic;">Zombieland</span>, the word "zombie" is in the title, and really that's all I need to know. The trailer however, is also extremely promising:<br /><br /><object width="512" height="296"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/embed/fMc_srIUdCPtnfW32wby1Q"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.hulu.com/embed/fMc_srIUdCPtnfW32wby1Q" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" width="512" height="296"></embed></object>The Chemisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15970398885870679916noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-794394483322884922.post-26696052918595245822009-08-15T19:41:00.001-04:002009-08-15T19:41:58.026-04:00DIY Seismometer<p>I’ve been doing some research on the internet about earthquakes in Japan, as part of my ongoing all-inclusive research on the country before my visit. In doing so I came across some <a href="http://psn.quake.net/lehman.html" target="_blank">instructions for building your own seismometer</a>. You can use it to detect tremors from all over the world, as well as underground nuclear tests. I just thought this was exactly the really cool, sciency type of thing I just have to share.</p> The Chemisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15970398885870679916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-794394483322884922.post-82524837470323714762009-08-13T18:33:00.003-04:002009-08-15T17:53:01.177-04:00When Pigs Fly<p>There is a serious element to a lot of the idle talk about swine flu. The severity of the disease was overestimated, and press reports exaggerated. However, given the available information and our understanding of influenza strains, health authorities responded rationally and within reason all over the world. (With some <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8072953.stm" target="_blank">notable exceptions</a>.) That said, the flu could mutate, and even cases of seasonal flu can prove fatal to vulnerable populations. The initial panic and misinformation about the disease may have lead to a world that is a little more complacent and a little more skeptical of infectious threats, however credible. This has opened the door to an insidious cynical views of swine flu and government health authorities worldwide. This past week a few stories called to my attention some of the more outlandish and dangerous claims about the disease.</p> <p>Our affliction is international, and we begin in Kuala Lampur with a certain “Dr.” V.M. Palaniappan and his claims. He’s a <a href="http://ecohealingsystem.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">doctor of ecology</a>, so I’m calling him Mr. in the context of medical advice, which is what journalists <em>should</em> do when quoting someone outside their field of proven expertise. The link above goes to his blog, which I don’t recommend visiting unless you have an appetite for the crazy. According to <a href="http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=431369" target="_blank">the article</a>, </p> <blockquote> <p><em>“Avoiding masturbation and homosexual activities are among preventive measures one could take against Influenza A (H1N1), according to an eminent practitioner of complimentary therapy. </em></p> <p><em>Dr. V. M. Palaniappan said that such activities caused the body to develop friction heat which in turn, produced acid and made the body hyperacidised. <br />"Thus, the body becomes an easy target for H1N1 infection," he told Bernama, emphasising however, that normal sexual union between members of the opposite sex was absolutely safe.”</em></p> </blockquote> <p>I make no claims to an expert understanding of human immunity, however the claims here are preposterous when subjected to any logic. “Friction heat” produces acid? That alone is a highly suspect claim. If he had argued that physical exertion lead to lactic acid buildup in the muscles, it would at least make sense. However he is arguing that heat leads to increased acidity of the body (which I can only read as bloodstream). I can tell you right now that unless you’re <em>boiling</em> water <em>off</em> of a system, raising the temperature is unlikely to affect the pH significantly. Argonne National Laboratories has some <a href="http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem00/chem00920.htm" target="_blank">good information</a> on pH and heat in general terms. This is not to say that temperature can’t effect pH and systems in equilibrium, but such changes tend to be very small, and humans have regulatory systems in place to stabilize both blood pH and body temperature. </p> <p>When Mr. Palaniappan claims that “normal sexual union between members of the opposite sex” is not harmful, I’m lead to assume that he’s arguing that there is no “friction heat” produced in straight sex. Reading this, you have to speculate a little on whether Palaniappan can speak from any experience in this field. But wait! There’s more crazy!</p> <blockquote> <p><em>“Dr Palaniappan recommends coconut water, which is alkaline, and therefore could be used as a herbal medicine for the prevention of H1N1. <br />For example, he said, those who felt feverish and developed a burning sensation while attending to a call of nature because of extreme acidity, could neutralise it by drinking coconut water, twice a day, for three days.”</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Really? What if I drink it three times a day, for two days? Will I OD? Also, <a href="http://ift.confex.com/ift/2005/techprogram/paper_29362.htm" target="_blank">coconut juice is acidic</a>, you ignorant jackass, most fruit juices are. It’s not alkaline* unless it happens to be opposite day over there in Southeast Asia. I don’t know about Palaniappan, but I have a digestive system, so eating or drinking usually means food and drink don’t get dumped directly into my bloodstream. They spend a little time in this organ (maybe you’ve heard of it) called the “stomach”. I’m not a “doctor”, but I’m pretty sure that that’s pretty much how it works. The stomach is full of this glorious reagent common to industrial settings and labs all over the world: Hydrochloric acid. At a pH of about 2, I wouldn’t say that’s terribly dilute either. Maybe he would know this if he paid attention in medical school. Oh wait, that’s right, he never attended medical school.</p> <p>A short hop and a skip away, from the Indian subcontinent we have <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videoshow/4885141.cms" target="_blank">this video</a>, which I would have embedded if it didn't obnoxiously start up as soon as you load the blog into your browser (you’re welcome). I’m already suffering from crackpot overdose after analyzing Mr. Palaniappan’s claims, so I’m going to have to be briefer with this clown. According to our yogi (who apparently has some really cool merch!) people with strong immune systems cannot get swine flu. Isn’t it cute when ignorant morons use modern scientific terminology without actually being cognizant of what they’re talking about. The immune system can’t protect you from viral threats your body hasn’t already been exposed to, and no amount good health will help you if manage to get enough viral particles into your system. Actually, people with strong immune system are <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-05-08-swineflu-H1N1-virus-behavior_N.htm" target="_blank"><em>more</em> susceptible to the effects of swine flu</a>. The reporter also added that the Yogi advised people to wear face masks in crowded spaces. Putting aside for the moment <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/eid/content/15/2/233.htm">problems with face masks</a> (though I wouldn’t discount their utility completely) the Yogi obviously doesn’t understand germ theory, so what does he think face masks are going to do? I’m just trying to understand his thinking here.</p> <p>Finally we arrive home (well, home for me anyway) here in the good ole US of A. What is it this time? Crystal healing? Alternative therapies “<em>they”</em> don’t want you to know about? Nope, it’s our old friends, the nitwits over at the National Vaccine [mis]Information Center. The anti-vaxers are at it again. I’ll bet these are the same people who take their dogs to the beach and don’t clean up after them, ruining it for the rest of us. Really their philosophy thus far has been, “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity" target="_blank">Herd immunity</a> doesn’t exist, and we’re going to do whatever the fuck we want.” But, I’m griping, let’s get to the video of Barbara Loe Fisher:</p> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mEii1eMBHtE&hl=en&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mEii1eMBHtE&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> <p>There’s a lot here to discuss, and this is made harder by the fact that she doesn’t really <em>say</em> anything. Mostly it’s a lot of scary noise about a swine flu vaccine. Note she emphasizes that the vaccines are <em>experimental</em>. She’s very fond of the word, but if you go to the NVIC website, it’s clear that they’re also against vaccines that<em> aren’t</em> experimental. I don’t like giving these people link love when unnecessary, so you’ll have to find it yourself. WebMD (a site with real doctors!) has <a href="http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/news/20090717/swine-flu-vaccine-fast-track" target="_blank">some accurate information</a> about why testing is being fast tracked and given to children first. It’s not being “tested” on children as Fisher so blatantly mischaracterized it. It’s the lifeboat principle, in this case, pregnant women and children first. Also, <em>and this is important</em>, this flu vaccine is not significantly different in design from seasonal flu vaccines. The technology has been tested numerous times in general principle, though I don’t expect anyone from the NVIC to understand anything about that. </p> <p>She also quotes a number of disorders and statistics about children with various conditions, and leaves it hanging in the air. These figures are meaningless if she can’t say anything about a causal relationship between them and vaccines, or between them and alleged “vaccine damage.” The whole video is about scaring people, not informing them. She talks about “well informed choices” and while I’m all in favor of giving people the full rundown of information, the simple fact of the matter is that at the end of the day, medical professionals know better. Otherwise we wouldn’t have doctors at all.</p> <p>Well, it’s been quite the roundup of the ignorant, the clueless, and the dangerously stupid. Of all of the bullshit peddlers, I think the people from the NVIC spout the most dangerous line of nonsense. At least the other two maniacs didn’t exactly discount modern medicine completely. NVIC is actively promoting that we put children at risk, with their line of crap and I’m not particularly tickled about it. If there is in fact a cure for swine flu, the vaccine will be our best bet, and if these ignorance damaged half-wits have there way, it’s a cure that will be rendered useless by their unjustified paranoia. This is where ignorance hurts us all.</p> <p>*<em>Updated to add: I forgot to mention that “alkaline” is not usually a term applied to this sort of thing to mean “basic”. Alkalis are technically only soluble bases with OH- groups. It’s interchangeable in common English, but there is in fact a distinction. I really need to do a post on acid-base chemistry.</em></p> The Chemisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15970398885870679916noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-794394483322884922.post-67109697294411653542009-08-11T21:29:00.001-04:002009-08-11T21:29:28.541-04:00Movie Marketing Goes Horribly Awry<p><a href="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_WdksZVPrV14/SoIa8mcVHII/AAAAAAAAARg/uISEUanoNMo/s1600-h/Two_thousand_twelve_ver2%5B4%5D.jpg"><img style="border-right-width: 0px; display: inline; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; margin-right: 0px" title="Two_thousand_twelve_ver2" border="0" alt="Two_thousand_twelve_ver2" align="right" src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_WdksZVPrV14/SoIa94ijo2I/AAAAAAAAARk/NXD-vXjCtXI/Two_thousand_twelve_ver2_thumb%5B2%5D.jpg?imgmax=800" width="166" height="244" /></a>So by now I’m sure you’ve seen the trailers and ads for Roland Emmerich’s latest disaster [of a] movie. <em>2012</em> is supposedly about the end of the Long Count in the Mayan calendar and, because of some hocus pocus bullshit you can look up on Wikipedia yourself, means the world will end that year. Under normal circumstances I’m okay with this. Not only do I have no problem with bad movies being released into theaters, I even watch them (I don’t give a shit about the critics, I <strong>liked </strong><em>Transformers. </em>Part two natsamuch.) Where does the marketing team go too far?</p> <p>Well I was listening to <em>Are We Alone</em> on my mp3 player while grabbing a nice greasy hamburger and they were <a href="http://radio.seti.org/episodes/Skeptic_Check_Doomsday_at_the_Movies" target="_blank">discussing disaster movies</a> [Direct mp3 <a href="http://dlc.sun.com/seti/podcast/AWA_09-08-10.mp3" target="_blank">here</a>]. Apparently some people have taken the marketing for <em>2012</em> seriously. When Seth Shostak interviews astrobiologist <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/morrison.html" target="_blank">David Morrison from NASA</a>, Morrison reveals that he has received numerous panic-stricken emails from people, especially teens about this 2012 end of the world scenario. It gets serious when one teen writes him suggesting that suicide is a better alternative to sticking around for the end of the world.  Apparently there is a website, where if you don’t read the fine print (and what naive teen does?) it looks like a legitimate program to try and save humanity. In fact, it seems to combine the design elements of Obama and NASA’s websites. This is what Morrison had to say on it,</p> <blockquote> <p><em>“…I don’t mind disaster films and I don’t mind science fiction films. What I object to here is they are marketing it as if it’s real. And they’ve even created a completely fake website for the Institute for Human Continuity that is telling people that this is a real danger and that they can join a lottery to be saved in an underground shelter and so forth. They treat it… They scare people, by making it seem like a real event.”</em></p> </blockquote> <p>I say if the marketing is going to convince people this is real, then they shouldn’t worry so much about the profits and proceeds from the film, since hey, the world’s coming to an end soon anyway, right?</p> <p>I’m tempted to lay this at the feet of the people who have fallen for the premise of the movie, but there is whole credulous world of websites all over the internet unconnected to the movie ready to reinforce newfound belief in this nonsense. I prefer to pity the dupes and punish the dupers.  There’s nothing really to be done about this except tell people that it’s nonsense as you find them. Nonetheless it’s frustrating to see people fall victim to such an absurd myth.</p> <p>Ah well, why don’t you have fun with this 70s style trailer of the movie:</p> <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZW2qxFkcLM0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZW2qxFkcLM0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object> The Chemisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15970398885870679916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-794394483322884922.post-21633478283141922502009-08-11T01:46:00.002-04:002009-08-11T01:48:25.979-04:00Captcha is now turned off.Comment moderation for posts older than ten days will remain turned on for a while. But as long as the bots stay away from the blog for a while, I'll leave word verification off.The Chemisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15970398885870679916noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-794394483322884922.post-50214036835436100962009-08-11T01:34:00.001-04:002009-08-11T01:34:45.669-04:00Someone is an Idiot<p>…and that someone is (drum-roll please!) Adrian Michaels of the <em>Telegraph.co.uk</em>! The <em>Telegraph</em>, at least the online edition since I can’t read the print edition from across the pond, I think reflects poorly on British newspapers, and this sort of article is precisely why. Adrian Michaels seems to think <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/5994047/Muslim-Europe-the-demographic-time-bomb-transforming-our-continent.html" target="_blank">Muslims* are zerging** the EU</a>. Putting aside for the moment the various cryptic and xenophobic statements and lets look at some of the “facts”, shall we?</p> <p>According to Adrian Michaels (these are direct quotations):</p> <ol> <li>“Only 3.2 per cent of Spain's population was foreign-born in 1998. In 2007 it was 13.4 per cent.” </li> <li>“Europe's Muslim population has more than doubled in the past 30 years and will have doubled again by 2015.” </li> <li>“In Brussels, the top seven baby boys' names recently were Mohamed, Adam, Rayan, Ayoub, Mehdi, Amine and Hamza.”</li> <li>“Another forecast holds that Muslims could outnumber non-Muslims in France and perhaps in all of western Europe by mid-century.”</li> <li>“Austria was 90 per cent Catholic in the 20th century but Islam could be the majority religion among Austrians aged under 15 by 2050…”</li> </ol> <p>Oh so shocking! Except it isn’t really true. I know, journalists are too busy to fact check these days, so I had to get off my lazy ass and do some snooping (You know, the kind I don’t have to go much further than Wikipedia for). The numbers below correspond to the claims above:</p> <ol> <li>The vast <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Spain#Major_immigration" target="_blank">majority of Spain’s immigrants</a> are from other EU countries. (The top source of immigrants being Romania increasing at a whopping 1,187% over seven years.) Morocco is second (at 141% increase over seven years), but you have to go pretty far down the list to get to another Muslim-majority country. While the statistic regarding Spain’s foreign born population may or may not be right, I fail to see how it supports the argument for a dramatic invasion of Muslims considering the proportions of immigrants.</li> <li>I’m having a great deal of difficulty verifying the claim that the Muslim population of Europe (find me the population of Muslims in Europe in 1979- harder than you’d think, huh?) has doubled in the past thirty years, but the claim that this can be dependably extrapolated into a doubling of Muslims in the next fifteen years is moronic. Moreover, those claims I can source seem to come from conservative think-tanks. (More on that in a second)</li> <li>While these Muslim names do in fact top the list of popular baby names in Brussels- here is <a href="http://news.smh.com.au/world/mohamed-tops-baby-name-list-in-brussels-20080917-4ikl.html" target="_blank">an article</a> that makes the point that native Belgians are choosing less traditional and more unique names for their children, making it hard to attain the critical mass necessary to make the top of the list for any given “Belgian” name. I find it interesting that baby names are cited while actual population statistics are not.</li> <li>France doesn’t collect statistics by religion, making the same kind of extrapolation in (2) suspect since any census of a Muslim population or birthrate there is done by people interested in such information for various reasons. What little information there is does not inquire as to religious beliefs or practices and the term “Muslim” in France remains imprecise and reflects a certain attribution to ethnicity.</li> <li>Sure it <em>could</em> be. Pigs could fly as well, given wings and adequate propulsion systems.</li> </ol> <p>This article brought to mind <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8189231.stm" target="_blank">something I was reading from the BBC</a> the other day (evidence that the BBC is a much better source of information) which discussed the imprecise nature of demographic predictions and basically featured European statisticians imploring people to calm the fuck down. This is why claims that the Muslim population in Europe will double in fifteen years is so ludicrous. Populations are fluid, and tend to cap for various reasons. My father is one of eight kids, I’m one of four. Chances are I won’t have more than two (not because I’m extrapolating, but because I’m <em>sane</em>.) Unhindered exponential growth is for bacteria, and I’m sure Michaels would like that comparison with Muslims. As would the readers who swallow this offal whole.</p> <p>It’s scare tactics for a European population that has become increasingly less tolerant of diversity. I get harassed at US airports enough, but the frequency has been decreasing considerably over the years. I don’t find myself in the melanin room at immigration as often as I used to. Meanwhile I’ve found that airports in Europe are truly hostile to someone with a name and birthplace such as mine, even with American citizenship. So much so that I have no desire to visit Europe for any reason. When stopping in Europe I prefer flights where I do not have to leave the plane. There is absolutely nothing I want to do in Europe.</p> <p>I am convinced that conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims in Europe will rise and part of it will be due to the short-sighted stupidity of Europeans who decided that speech laws were ever a good idea, both the sense of entitlement and oppression immigrants will feel because of such laws, the ghettoization and subsequent concentration of Muslim communities stemming from distrust, and finally the wage disparity and class disparity that have immigrants at the bottom rung. By contrast, most Muslims in the US are not nearly as insulated, speech and religious practices of all kinds have been liberally tolerated, and upward mobility remains relatively more attainable for legal immigrants to this country. I only hope that this xenophobic nonsense doesn’t get spread out here, not that some people aren’t trying.</p> <p><font size="1">*Ones who aren’t even seekrit, like Obama!</font></p> <p><font size="1">**YES. I am using the word way too much for one week. I haven’t used that word in a while and I’m suddenly quite taken with it.</font></p> The Chemisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15970398885870679916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-794394483322884922.post-49396184521912308212009-08-10T21:35:00.006-04:002009-08-11T02:23:43.394-04:00The Great Zerging of August<p>PZ Myers has written <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/the_creation_museum_1.php" target="_blank">a take down of the Creation “Museum”</a> on his blog. For those unfamiliar with the so-called Creo-Zerg, Myers with the Secular Student Alliance and a number of other interested folk got together and did a tour of the museum. For those unfamiliar with the term “zerging”: It’s from a strategy employed in the old strategy video-game <em>Starcraft</em>. Zerg was one of the alien races you could play as and they could generate multiple units faster than the other two races in the game and overwhelm them long before they could even develop defenses. The idea here was less to overwhelm, and more to ridicule. It was supposed to be a bunch if people asking tough questions, and by all accounts it was a smashing success.</p> <p> I was very religious and devoted in my teens, being raised that way. I have relatives who buy into creationism, though I myself believed completely in evolution while managing to be very religious at the same time after a very brief struggle to adjust. Part of what helped was the knee-jerk reactions of people who I tried to discuss the matter with. Their knowledge of evolutionary theory seemed so short on facts I quickly became convinced that they merely accepted it to be false without any real consideration. So, to separate myself from the pack I looked deeper into the matter and emerged with a clear grasp of the idea. This spirit of contrarianism has served me well.</p> <p>So it goes with the myths and misconceptions evangelized in the “museum”. It is simple denial and omission of the evidence. In that respect it is exceedingly mundane, and not worthy of comment from someone who was never there. I did have a look at one of the pictures that incensed me (click to embiggen):</p> <div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_WdksZVPrV14/SoDK6nVr9VI/AAAAAAAAARY/1oTYLOyXO0Q/s1600-h/hamite%5B1%5D.jpg"><img style="border: 0px none ; display: inline;" title="hamite" alt="hamite" src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_WdksZVPrV14/SoDK8U7YckI/AAAAAAAAARc/S0AYKDYCXhk/hamite_thumb%5B1%5D.jpg?imgmax=800" border="0" width="450" height="274" /></a></div><p> </p> <p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Picture is from the Pharyngula post linked above.</span></span><br /></p><p>The “Tower of Babel” nonsense really gets to me because of its description of the origin of what we identify as “racial differences” (which are no more than superficial differences given cultural significance). <span style="font-style: italic;">Also, see Update #2 at the bottom of this post for more fail. </span>The idea that our individual phenotypes emerged from random dispersal is ridiculous. If I take any population of blonds and disperse them in various countries, their hair color will not change significantly over a only a few generations so long as they continue to couple within the gene pool. the same goes for any population of dark-skinned people, or people with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicanthal_folds" target="_blank">epicanthal folds</a> of the eyelid. The only way these things change are as a result of adaptation to the environment over a long period of time. Not merely “a couple of generations,” as the poster suggests (these people believe in a 6,000 year old earth). It changes because of natural selection for people with these traits in a population. In fact, in genetics, polydactyly (having extra digits, in particular, a sixth finger) may be an autosomal dominant trait*. What this means is that like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earlobes" target="_blank">unattached earlobes</a>, having a parent with the trait dramatically increases your chances of having unattached earlobes. Yet there aren’t that many people running around with a sixth finger, simply because it likely proved to be maladaptive and decreased survival odds for people with the trait. </p> <p>It’s offensive to reduce phenotypic diversity to some vague unproven differentiation process that has inclined some people to believe that “smarter” folk from Babel chose certain areas, while “dumber” races from other inhabited still other areas. </p> <p>This brings me to the other offensive aspect of the poster/”exhibit” which argues for a universal pattern for all modern languages. BULL. SHIT. Ancient Sumerian was not the first language for one thing. Unless you believe hunter gatherers communicated by grunts and cave art was drawn by the Devil to mislead you. Sumerian is unlike a great many languages, and belongs to its own linguistic family. In preparation for <a href="http://mychemicaljourney.blogspot.com/2009/07/nihon.html">my Japan visit</a> I’ve been learning Japanese and can tell you that similarities between Japanese and English, the Romance languages, Slavic languages, and Arabic are few and seemingly coincidental. Japanese is so utterly different from all of these that to argue that it is based on a similar format is nonsense. (Unless by format and grammar, you mean the language has words, and is spoken.) There is something called universal grammar, but to argue that this is based on Sumerian more than it is a function of neurological limitations and function is ludicrous. There’s a lot we don’t know about language and this attitude that Sumerian holds all the cards and all the answers is arrogant and retards impulse to explore further and objectively.</p> <p>In fact it seems so much of the “museum” is about the exact opposite of exploration, as PZ Myers makes clear. These are people who are content with the answers they have and are made very uncomfortable to go beyond them and explore their basic assumptions. It is anathema to science, and yet they demand equal representation of their views in the scientific community. Science frequently features challenges to old ideas, yet challenge theirs and it’s considered persecution. You can only answer such nonsense with rational analysis for a brief period, and then much like the “birthers” the next step is simply ridicule. This is why we cannot and should not tolerate people who try to inject intelligent design (which is watered down creationism of the same absurd sort) into school curricula. Forget about the separation of church and state for a moment, this garbage is utterly <em>without merit</em>. If for that reason and no other, it deserves to be buried as an unfortunate chapter in human intellectual history.</p><p><span style="font-style: italic;">Update: PZ Myers is linking to other accounts of the visit through his blog, </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/tales_of_the_300_more_accounts.php">here</a><span style="font-style: italic;">. </span></p><p><span style="font-style: italic;">Update #2: The Babel exhibit also has a Hebrew fail</span>:<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5VZw79B_oRA&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5VZw79B_oRA&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></p><p><span style="font-style: italic;">Update #3: Greg Laden is um- laden, with more <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/08/the_creozerg_visit_to_the_crea.php#more">links</a>.</span><br /></p>The Chemisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15970398885870679916noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-794394483322884922.post-87726944598063821702009-08-10T17:39:00.000-04:002009-08-10T19:33:37.559-04:00We Want These People To Stay in Business?I never have and never will understand the compulsion some people have to keep the health insurance companies in business. The dynamics of private insurance (see "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance#Adverse_selection">Adverse Selection</a>") are such that insurance benefit-holders are already paying for the ill-health of others. A public single-payer model will do little to change this. Meanwhile, private insurers continue to engage in exceedingly immoral methods of evading their responsibility to their clients, as is <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/7/751100/-How-I-lost-my-health-insurance-at-the-hairstylists">dramatically illustrated in this case.</a><br /><br />I'm unimpressed with the arguments made in favor of the status quo. Perhaps it's because I never really bought into the libertarian tripe about how we are all rational actors working with the best information available to us. I also never bought into the right-wing conservative myth of benevolent industry.The Chemisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15970398885870679916noreply@blogger.com0