“Liquid Sculpture is the process of creating shapes by dropping and splashing water, or other liquids. These sculptures are then photographed, since they last only a few thousandths of a second”.
|
How Thinking Goes Wrong Twenty-five Fallacies That Lead Us 1. Theory Influences Observations 2. The Observer Changes the Observed 3. Equipment Constructs Results 4. Anecdotes Do Not Make a Science 5. Scientific Language Does Not Make a Science 6. Bold Statements Do Not Make Claims True 7. Heresy Does Not Equal Correctness 9. Rumors Do Not Equal Reality 10. Unexplained Is Not Inexplicable 11. Failures Are Rationalized 12. After-the-Fact Reasoning 13. Coincidence 14. Representativeness 15. Emotive Words and False Analogies 16. Ad Ignorantiam 17. Ad Hominem and Tu 18. Hasty Generalization 19. Overreliance on Authorities 20. Either-Or 21. Circular Reasoning 22. Reductio ad Absurdum 23. Effort Inadequacies and 24. Problem-Solving Inadequacies 25. Ideological Immunity, or the
|
Computers with wireless internet should not be placed on children's laps, says the head of the government's committee on mobile phone safety research. 
Prof Challis says children should not use wi-fi laptops on their laps
Professor Lawrie Challis told the Daily Telegraph children using wi-fi networks should be monitored until research into potential health risks is completed.
He says children should keep a safe distance from the embedded antennas.
The Health Protection Agency has said wi-fi devices are of very low power - much lower than mobile phones.
Prof Challis, retired professor of physics at the University of Nottingham, said: "With a desktop computer, the transmitter will be in the tower.
"This might be perhaps 20cms from your leg and the exposure would then be around one per cent of that from a mobile phone.
"However, if you put a laptop straight on your lap and are using wi-fi, you could be around two centimetres from the transmitter, and receiving comparable exposure to that from a mobile phone."
'Bigger problem'
Prof Challis added that children are much more sensitive than adults to dangers such as pollutants like lead and UV radiation.
"So if there should be a problem with mobiles, then it may be a bigger problem for children.
"Since we advise that children should be discouraged from using mobile phones, we should also discourage children from placing their laptop on their lap when they are using wi-fi.
Meanwhile, teachers have called for an investigation into whether there are any health risks from wireless computer networks in schools.
The Professional Association of Teachers union is writing to the education secretary for a clarification on wi-fi safety.
Many primary and secondary schools use wi-fi networks - but the PAT believes there is insufficient long-term evidence to demonstrate whether such networks are safe.
 Women with fat around organs in the abdomen were at highest risk |
Developed by South Korean researchers, it checks blood-flow via a cuff on the ankle or arm.
Writing in Clinical Endocrinology, the team say those with the poorest blood flow had more fat around their organs, and so were most at risk.
UK experts said the study reinforced the dangers of abdominal fat.
Good heart health seems to depend more on our shape than our weight. 
Professor Peter Weissberg, British Heart Foundation
The test measures the flexibility of someone's artery walls. The more elastic they are, the better a person's circulation will be.
The researchers from the University of South Korea tested 150 women aged 22 to 67, who all had healthy lifestyles.
The women's weight was checked.
The researchers then also checked for visceral fat, which lies around the organs and which differs from the ordinary fat which lies underneath the skin, using both the cuff test and body scans - to double-check the results.
People can have too much visceral fat but still be a normal body weight.
Approximately 40% of people are thought to have too much visceral fat stored round their abdominal organs - the key area of concern.
Early detection
The team found normal weight women who had high visceral fat levels scored 11% higher on the test than women who were overweight with normal visceral fat levels.
This suggests the normal weight women had a higher risk of heart disease.
The researchers say other methods of measuring visceral fat levels and the risk of heart disease have been expensive and time-consuming, and that the cuff test could offer a way of diagnosing those at risk early.
And they say identifying those at risk early means they could be encouraged to change their lifestyles to improve their health.
Professor Duk-Chul Lee, who led the research, said: "While having lots of fat around your organs is bad for your health, people can easily reduce their visceral fat levels by taking regular exercise.
"It is essential that people realise the importance of maintaining a healthy lifestyle as well as a healthy body weight."
'Middle-aged spread'
Professor Paul Stewart, an obesity specialist at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham, said: "The take-home message of this study is that having more fat around your the belly area puts you at increased risk of heart disease.
"it's not so much about general obesity; it's about middle-aged spread and where fat lies that's the problem.
"This is one more test that can indicate risk."
Professor Peter Weissberg, medical director of the British Heart Foundation (BHF), said: "This study confirms what we have known for some time; good heart health seems to depend more on our shape than our weight. "
''Visceral' fat inside our abdominal cavity - surrounding our intestines - increases our heart disease risk more than fatness in other parts of our body. "It's possible in future that measures of waist circumference will be included to refine the heart disease risk assessment.
"But factors such as blood pressure, cholesterol and smoking - which are routinely taken into account - are more important."
A recent reaction to a climate change denial documentary broadcast on primetime TV displays contempt for free speech and political ineptitude.
Bob Ward, a former press officer at the Royal Society, has published an open letter to Martin Durkin, maker of a documentary film broadcast recently on Channel 4 television that denies human influence on climate change. The letter is signed by a number of climate scientists and other academics with an interest in climate change.
I have no time for Durkin or his film, but take issue with Ward's letter, which, as reported by David Adam in the Guardian, demands that the DVD of Durkin's documentary be either withdrawn or corrected of its scientific errors.
The open letter states that " ... it is in the public interest for adequate quality control to be exercised over information that is disseminated to the public to ensure that it does not include major misrepresentations of the scientific evidence and interpretations of it by researchers."
If Durkin's Great Global Warming Swindle DVD should be withdrawn or corrected, what about Al Gore's hyperbolic An Inconvenient Truth, soon to be distributed to all schools in England courtesy of Her Majesty's government?
Ward complains that Wag TV, the production company responsible for Durkin's film, will not be bound by any Ofcom ruling against Channel 4. Channel 4 is restricted by a code of conduct when it comes to what may be broadcast, but Wag TV as an independent, commercial entity is free to distribute the DVD, and I'm not sure how it could be otherwise.
We are all of us surrounded by wild claims, ideological nonsense, misrepresentations and downright lies. But it is no business of the state, or assemblies of the scientific great and good, to pronounce on what may or may not be published.
So challenge Durkin and show him up as the dissembler he undoubtedly is. But win the battle by force of argument. The data are on the side of those arguing that human beings are largely responsible for current climate change, and do not require backing up with bullying tactics.
Durkin is reported by Raphael Satter in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer to have acknowledged two scientific errors, and said that these will be corrected in the DVD. That is an astute move by Durkin, but Ward et al demand that all the errors be removed, and then declare that if this were done, the documentary would fall to pieces.
I'm not so sure about this. Durkin could remove all the blatant scientific errors, and still make a superficial case based on issues that are not clear-cut, and over which there remains some scholarly debate.
Reality is ever thus, yet given the increasing predictive power of climate models backed by hard data, the majority view of climate change is the only credible one to take. But try explaining that to a mass audience. It can and should be done, but not in the combative rhetorical style beloved of the media and a number of scientific protagonists.
Ward is quoted in Satter's article as saying: "Free speech does not extend to misleading the public by making factually inaccurate statements. Somebody has to stand up for the public interest here."
Strong stuff, but very, very wrong. Free speech does indeed extend to coming out with any old rubbish, and people - even highly intelligent ones - frequently do. Others are free to point out factual errors, and in doing so attempt to convince the masses of the truth.
Like Bob Ward, I complained to the broadcasting regulator about Durkin's documentary. I did so not because I object to the line taken by Durkin, but rather because the filmmaker offered no space for opinions contrary to his own. The documentary was pure polemic subsidised by the taxpayer.
But Ward is going much further than a complaint to Ofcom, both in his open letter and discussions surrounding it. Regarding the demand for "quality control", it is not clear who would be the adjudicators, and even if Ward et al are right about the science (I am convinced they are), this is not a proper way for scientists to behave.
My principal objection to Ward's open letter is that it shows contempt for free speech, and an unwarranted lack of confidence in the ability of the public to think critically. A secondary objection is that it displays political ineptitude, and may prove counterproductive.
| By Rebecca Morelle Science reporter, BBC News |
 The study was carried out on nematode worms |
Studies have shown that severe calorie restriction markedly extends lifespan in mice and many other species - but the reasons for this remained elusive.
But now US research on nematode worms, published in Nature, has uncovered a gene linked to this unusual effect.
In the future, the find could lead to drugs that mimic the consequences of calorie restriction but negate the need for severe fasting regimes.
Sweet-spot
The life-lengthening properties of reducing calorie intake were first discovered in the 1930s, when laboratory rodents fed a severely reduced diet were found to outlive their well-fed peers.
Since then, this effect has been observed on organisms as diverse as yeast, flies, worms and dogs.
The consequences for humans of cutting calorie intake by about 60% while maintaining levels of vital nutrients are still unclear, although this extreme diet has a number of followers.
Andrew Dillin, an author of the paper and an associate professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, said: "If you reduce food too much, you go towards starvation and live less long. If you overeat you will succumb to obesity and have a short lifespan. Dietary restriction is really a sweet-spot between the two.
"But for 72 years, we have not known how it works."
A study using nematode worms (Caenorhabditis elegans) revealed that a gene called pha-4 played a key role. 
The scientists say mammals have a similar gene to pha-4
The team found worms that had their pha-4 genes removed showed no enhanced longevity while on the restricted diet.
But they discovered that the opposite experiment - over-expressing levels of pha-4 in the worms - increased longevity when on the restricted diet.
"This is the first gene we have found that is absolutely essential to the longevity response to dietary restriction," explained Dr Dillin.
"We finally have genetic evidence to unravel the underlying molecular programme required for increased longevity in response to calorie restriction."
Feast or famine
Although the study was carried out on worms, the finding could also be important for other species.
Mammals, including humans, possessed genes that were highly similar to the pha-4 gene, explained Dr Dillin.
These genes play a key role in development, and then in later life in the regulation of glucagon, a hormone that has a major role in maintaining glucose levels in blood - especially during fasting.
In fact, scientists believe the life-increasing effect of dietary restriction may be linked to boosting chances of survival through times of food scarcity.
"Pha-4 may be the primordial gene to help an animal overcome stressful conditions to live a long time through dietary restriction conditions," explained Dr Dillin.
Parallels?
Scientists now plan to look at the gene in other species.
Should the longevity link also apply to humans, it could open the door to the development of drugs that mimic the effects of calorie restriction while allowing people to maintain their normal diet, the scientists said.
Professor Richard Miller of the Institute of Gerontology at the University of Michigan, commented: "It is really hard to guess whether the connections that we see between the pha-4 system and calorie restriction in worms will have parallels in mammals, whose repertoire of responses to various forms of long- and short-term food shortages are far more complex than those of worms.
"But the Dillin paper provides both motivation to look and also clues about where to look. I think it's likely to be influential, even if the implications for mammals do eventually turn out to be a cul-de-sac - which they might or might not."
When I wrote my Call for a Blogging Code of Conduct last week, I suggested some ideas of what such a code might contain, but didn't actually put forth a draft that people could subscribe to. We're not quite there yet, but we have a plan.
We've drafted a code of conduct that will eventually be posted on bloggingcode.org, and created a badge that sites can display if they want to link to that code of conduct. 
But because we want a period of review, we don't want to finalize that code yet. I've put a draft below (and you'll see it's based closely on the BlogHer Community Guidelines that I linked to last week.) But we're also working with wikia to put the draft through a wiki-based review process on blogging.wikia.com. (There's an easy to remember shortcut link at http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/BCC) Please feel free to join in and edit the wiki as well as encouraging others to do so. We'll post the final version on bloggingcode.org, along with the html to display the badge and link to the code.
(While wikis are great for developing the code, we don't want it to be a moving target once people have signed up for it.)
Here's the first draft:
We celebrate the blogosphere because it embraces frank and open conversation. But frankness does not have to mean lack of civility. We present this Blogger Code of Conduct in hopes that it helps create a culture that encourages both personal expression and constructive conversation.1. We take responsibility for our own words and for the comments we allow on our blog.
We are committed to the "Civility Enforced" standard: we will not post unacceptable content, and we'll delete comments that contain it.
We define unacceptable content as anything included or linked to that:
- is being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others
- is libelous, knowingly false, ad-hominem, or misrepresents another person,
- infringes upon a copyright or trademark
- violates an obligation of confidentiality
- violates the privacy of othersWe define and determine what is "unacceptable content" on a case-by-case basis, and our definitions are not limited to this list. If we delete a comment or link, we will say so and explain why. [We reserve the right to change these standards at any time with no notice.]
2. We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person.
3. We connect privately before we respond publicly.
When we encounter conflicts and misrepresentation in the blogosphere, we make every effort to talk privately and directly to the person(s) involved--or find an intermediary who can do so--before we publish any posts or comments about the issue.
4. When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take action.
When someone who is publishing comments or blog postings that are offensive, we'll tell them so (privately, if possible--see above) and ask them to publicly make amends.
If those published comments could be construed as a threat, and the perpetrator doesn't withdraw them and apologize, we will cooperate with law enforcement to protect the target of the threat.5. We do not allow anonymous comments.
We require commenters to supply a valid email address before they can post, though we allow commenters to identify themselves with an alias, rather than their real name.
6. We ignore the trolls.
We prefer not to respond to nasty comments about us or our blog, as long as they don't veer into abuse or libel. We believe that feeding the trolls only encourages them--"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it." Ignoring public attacks is often the best way to contain them.
We also decided we needed an "anything goes" badge for sites that want to warn possible commenters that they are entering a free-for-all zone. The text to accompany that badge might go something like this:
This is an open, uncensored forum. We are not responsible for the comments of any poster, and when discussions get heated, crude language, insults and other "off color" comments may be encountered. Participate in this site at your own risk.
Should we introduce a blogging code of conduct to increase the quality of internet debates? Today, I'll be online to discuss this.
Tessa Jowell will be online to discuss blogging between 4pm and 5pm today. Post your questions here.
The internet is a vigorous and now invaluable part of the public realm, or what I prefer to call "ourspace". Ourspace, whether physical or virtual, includes those places and spaces where people meet as equals; where public engagement and debate takes place.
Ourspace is part of the "commons" of the UK and something that goes much wider than just the state to include, for example, public service broadcasting; the arts, culture and sports; parks and other public open spaces; and of course the internet - in short, spaces where all feel welcome to participate, to enjoy themselves and to learn.
User-generated content on the internet - citizen journalism - is just one welcome example of "virtual ourspace" being used in this way. But as power shifts increasingly into the hands of citizens, responsibility must follow. The internet is transforming the way the government interacts with people and the way people interact with one another. But change never comes without challenges.
That's why in a lecture for the organisation Progress on Monday night, I publicly welcomed and supported the initiative by web pioneer Tim O'Reilly and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales for a blogging code of conduct.
The wonderful, anarchic, creative world of the blogosphere shouldn't be a licence for abuse, bullying and threats as it has been in some disturbing cases.
There is a need for serious discussion about maintaining civilised parameters for debate, so that more people - and women and older people in particular - feel comfortable to participate.
I'm not wedded to the specific words and phrases in the draft code that O'Reilly and Wales have proposed (that is up for debate), but I do think their proposal is right in principle and should be adopted here too. Blogging took off earlier in the US and the blogging community has become a powerful political force there - I hope the same happens here. But surely its full potential to benefit civil society cannot be realised unless the quality of online debate itself is civilised? Surely we do not want online discussions simply to mirror the often aggressive, boorish and pointless exchanges that sometimes pass for debate on the floor of the House of Commons, and which are such a turn-off for voters?
Some commentators have suggested that the idea of a code of conduct shows the growing maturity of the blogging community in the US, although some of the more virulent attacks on the suggestion (and on O'Reilly and Wales themselves) have shown nothing except the immaturity of some users. But perhaps, taken as a whole, this proposal is a rare example of a good lesson for us in Britain to learn from American politics?
I look forward to discussing all this with people online at 4pm today.
Road casualties are falling in the G8 countries - but elsewhere they're reaching epidemic levels. We must make road safety a global issue.
Each year, 1.2 million people are killed in road traffic crashes worldwide. Unless action is taken, global road deaths are forecast to double by 2020. Most of these deaths happen in developing countries. Worst affected are vulnerable road users, children, pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. Today, road traffic injuries are already the number one killer of 10-25 year olds. Yet much of this tragic loss of life is preventable.
In the industrialised countries, our road casualties have been falling for three decades. We are becoming ever more sophisticated in designing road safety systems. We now expect cars to have achieved five stars in independent crash tests. We expect crumple zones, air bags, and electronic stability control. We expect roads to have five-star safety design, too. And we expect road users to wear seat belts and helmets, to avoid excessive speed and drink driving.
Yet, on the streets of South East Asia, South America and Africa, we are facing an avoidable epidemic of death and injury on the road. Today, road crashes kill on the scale of malaria or tuberculosis, yet the international community has not woken up to this horrific waste of life. Already, China and India each lose at least 100,000 people a year to road crashes. In Africa, which has the most dangerous roads in the world, the World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that 200,000 die each year, despite a relatively low level of motorisation. The cost of road injury to developing countries alone is estimated at up to $100bn a year - equivalent to all overseas aid from donor governments - but road safety is not recognised as a development priority.
At last, the United Nations has begun to recognise the issue. This week is the first ever United Nations Global Road Safety Week, highlighting the appalling fact that over 1,000 young people are killed on the road every day. The World Bank has established a Global Road Safety Facility and, together with the WHO, is working to promote effective strategies for road traffic injury prevention. But still missing are the high-level political commitment and the financial resources to give global road safety the attention it clearly deserves.
That is why l am delighted to serve as a member of the independent Commission for Global Road Safety, chaired by Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. Our report, "Make Roads Safe", recommends a number of actions that could begin to reverse the rise in road traffic injuries in low and middle-income countries, including a $300m, ten-year action plan to develop road safety skills within countries, a 10% minimum funding allocation for road safety in all road projects funded with international aid, and a UN ministerial conference to examine the potential contribution road safety can make to achieving the Millennium Development Goals.
Action on this scale could make a difference. For example, in Africa, prompted by the Make Poverty History campaign, the G8 leaders of the major industrialised countries have committed to double aid and to improve Africa's road infrastructure. Less than 20% of roads in sub-Saharan Africa are paved, and the Commission for Africa recommended that at least 150,000km of new roads would be needed in the region. But unless road safety is recognised as a priority, the impact of increased G8 investment in roads may make an already bad situation even worse.
Roads constructed only to carry goods from A to B as fast as possible, roads designed to the lowest and cheapest specification, roads which have not been designed with safety in mind, will add to the danger on the world's most dangerous road network. African transport ministers have adopted a target to halve the region's road traffic fatalities by 2015. The challenge now is to meet this ambitious goal and to ensure that in the drive to build new roads to help make poverty history we also remember to make these roads safe.
To build support for this effort, a coalition of road safety organisations has come together to establish the Make Roads Safe campaign. This campaign has launched a petition here calling on the United Nations to organise the first ever global ministerial summit on road safety, to foster governmental cooperation and to give road safety the political profile and priority it deserves. I am particularly pleased that prime minister Tony Blair has already given his strong support to the campaign.
There are reasons to be optimistic. We have the vaccine for this epidemic of road deaths. In the industrialised nations, we have demonstrated over 30 years that we can reduce road deaths, even as traffic levels grow. Will we share this knowledge with countries that are struggling to recognise, let alone confront, their road injury problems? Or will we let India and Kenya, Vietnam and Bolivia repeat the mistakes that we made in the past, and even add fuel to the fire by providing them with billions of dollars in aid for new unsuitable and unsafe roads.
In my racing career, I survived some very high-speed impacts. I am still alive today because the sport's governing body designed a system where safety is the prime consideration, where the car, the track and the rules work together to try to ensure that the inevitable crashes will not be fatal. This "Vision Zero" approach may sound like science fiction, but increasingly it guides the policies of those countries with the most effective road safety performance in the world.
In the end, it comes down to how many road fatalities we are prepared to tolerate. And, at the moment, the answer from the international community seems to be that we should tolerate one death every 30 seconds. There is a better alternative and that is to begin to take action to make roads safe.
