Links

[curgoth]

Linkies (time to clean the tabs edition):

(apologies - I have liften these from all over, and have for gotten who I swiped them from)

NHS Behind the Headlines

The UK's NHS gets into the science behind popular news stories.

Behind the Headlines on BPA

As an example - what the most recent study on BPA plastics actually says. In brief - it establishes that drinking from BPA bottles increases BPA in your body. There isn't much in the way of research explaining exactly what that does to a person. Which isn't to say that it's proven safe, just that isn't hasn't been proven harmful, either.

You Ask, They... Answer?

Natural remedy store Neal's Yard Remedies agrees to do a "You Ask, They Answer" with the Guardian. Skeptics catch on, ask a lot of awkward questions.

Warning! Teenagers hug!

Moral panic about teenagers hugging. Even guys! Danger! 3 second hug limit instituted.

E is not the drug that destroys your brain, Speed is

An old article about the much touted study claiming that MDMA destroys the brain. Apparently the study was done with meth instead of E. OTOH, after some looking I did find more recent studies linking E to long term sleep pattern disruption and depression.

Cola destroys muscles!

I wonder what the Behind the Headlines site has on this? Anyway, according the the Beeb, "Excessive cola consumption can lead to anything from mild weakness to profound muscle paralysis".

Vacuum Buoyancy

The math behind a vacuum-driven airship.

Comments

[toft-froggy.livejournal.com]

That hugging article is hilarious, especially the headmaster's comments. OMG! Needless hugging in corridors! What do they need to hug for? They're just standing there! It's a disgrace. Let's ban love too.

[eldan.livejournal.com]

My understanding is that BPA exposure in utero was found to be harmful even at very low levels, but there's still controversy about low doses in adults. A quick search found this, which wasn't the actual paper I was looking for but seems to cover similar ground:
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030005

That story about hugging being banned in schools makes me deeply sad.

[jackspryte.livejournal.com]

I found the Neal's Yard article with comments very sad. I saw it as the perfect example of what happens when fanaticism and cruelty steam rolls over compassion and empathy. Asking a question to investigate, explore or understand is one thing, asking a question to convict, maliciously tear apart or disgrace is quite another.

I'm glad they didn't bite. Hubris and disregard that vile does not inspire discussion.

[kalivor.livejournal.com]

I disagree. Neal's Yard opened the door by agreeing to a Question & Answer session with this as the lead in:

This is your chance to grill them: from the controversy surrounding the chain's removal of a homeopathic malaria remedy to the benefits and reasons to switch to organic beauty products.

Most of the early questions were in line with the concerns about the malaria remedy that Neal's Yard was forced to remove from its stores, the manner in which it promotes homeopathy, and the ethics of doing so -- Neal's Yard bills itself as an "ethical company". The tone certainly degrades over time, as Neal's Yard did not respond (as promised), but there is no reason to assume it would have if they had responded -- the previous one (linked to in the article) included some tough questions, but the tone remained civil throughout.

None of this seems fanatic or cruel to me. In fact, it seems more responsible than ignoring these questions for the sake of the "feelings" of a corporation.

[jackspryte.livejournal.com]

I sincerly don't believe that many of the people engaging in this specific line of questioning believe or use homeopathic products.

Many of the criticisms are the same kind used to disprove the usefulness of many remedies that a good deal of people use all the time.

The rant about Flower remedies being one good example. These are obviously people who don't wish to relate or understand the homeopathy industry.

The only quote I found that really sied up the escapade was said in an among the more of some random stuff about "love" nonetheless his point was well made
I don't mean by this that we should accept any old claims about medicinal products but rather to point to the attitude and tone of your posts

real science (and wisdom) comes from an attitude of humility and curiosity- an understanding that the world is mysterious we don't know everything- but can try to find out.

Your posts display no humility at all- you've already decided that Neal's Yard are unethical/fraudulent etc. and therefore mock and deride everyone who might have derived any benefit or healing from their products/services.

I doubt you are genuinely curious in whether homeopathy has healing effects - you just want an outlet for your frustrations

If you don't believe in homeopathy that's fine but why the need to mock people who do? It just seems cruel intentioned.

[kalivor.livejournal.com]

In another context, I would agree with you. But these are not people who have hijacked a forum (or discussion) on homeopathy, and started to mock people. Nor have they built something out of the blue to try to do so.

Neal's Yard was forced to take one of their homeopathic remedies -- for malaria -- off the market this month, on the grounds that it was dangerous and misleading to the public.

This Q&A was arranged in that aftermath, presumably to give them an opportunity to answer questions about the situation -- what is a homeopathic remedy? Why was this pulled? Are the others safe for use?

Also -- assuming that they noticed that they were agreeing to do this in a blog titled Ethical Living on the newspaper's site -- the ethics of the product pulled, and similar ones still in their stores, provide some pretty obvious questions that should be asked in such a debate.

So yes, question writers jumped on other claims on their products (which are still being sold) that would seem no more warranted than the malaria remedy that was pulled. And yes, some crossed the line -- it is the Internet, after all.

But in response to the controversy over one of their homeopathic medicines, they agreed to answer questions posed by readers of a blog on ethics. I cannot agree that it was unexpected, unfair, cruel or malicious for the blog readers to ask Neal's Yard their opinions on the ethics of their business practice, the basis for the claims they put on their labels, and their responsibility towards their customers.

[jackspryte.livejournal.com]

Oh yes they did bad but the other side was so nonspecific in their attacks they came of as all around "haters". They f*cked their own arguements and no one else wanted to weigh in.