I bought a meter.........

Reading the Sunday paper should be a relaxing occasion, but sometimes there are articles that just make you shake your head and wonder if the journalist is just regurgitating a press release.

March 10th, The Sunday AGE, page 4 of the Domain section had one of these articles, a piece entitled "Might not mite, the growing field of building biology finds and deals with hazards around the home". What is this growing field of building biology I hear you ask. Which university has this course? Where can I sign??
It is one of a set of courses that is run by The Australian College of Environmental Studies, a school started by Nicole Bijlsma. This school also offers a course in Feng Shui. It's located in a business park in Bayswater, surrounded by such scholarly institutions as "Door Repairs", "Prolux Electrical" and "Computer Call". I'm surprised at this last one, considering the article's main thesis is that magnetic and electric fields are bad for your health. Yet she is willing to have a computer company, which you can presume has wi-fi, as neighbours????

There of course is a photo that accompanies the article which shows Nicole holding an i-phone in one hand and an EM meter in the other. The caption reads, "Nicole Bijlsma shows how wireless devices can cause pollution". Um, no.... this picture shows that an EM meter (a device that can detect signals transmitted by phones, etc), wait for it, has detected that the i-phone has a wireless signal!!!!!! It says nothing about pollution.

Now according to this website, Nicole has the following qualifications, ND, B.H.Sc.Ac.(HONS), Grad Dip.OHS, Ct.IV in Feng Shui, Dip.Building Biology. I'm always skeptical about people who put lots of letters after their name. Usually it's done by people who want to seem more important than they really are. Anyway, the ND stands for naturopath, but trying to google the B.H.Sc.Ac.(HONS) only returns entries with her name in it. Does that mean she is the only one in the world who has this esteemed qualification? And no institution came up either. The Grad Dip OHS is an occupation health and safety course that is done in about a week. And the last two are certificates in courses she runs.

OK, so let's look at at the Building Biology course. Here are the subjects:

Core Subjects (six)	Subject Costs	Pre-requisites	Correspondence Available
Air Pollution	$695	None	Yes
Air Sampling	$895	Yes (AP)	January Intensive (on campus)
Building Materials	$695	None	Yes
Electricity Fundamentals	$695	None	Yes
Electrobiology	$895	Yes (EF)	January Intensive (on campus)
Water Pollution	$695	None	Yes
Elective Subjects (two only)	Subject Costs	Pre-requisites	Correspondence Available
Building Design	$695	Yes (BM)	Yes
Business Skills	$695	None	Yes
Geobiology	$695	None	January Intensive (on campus)
Feng Shui Foundations	$695	None	Yes

 Browsing through the Electricity Fundamentals course description:

"This subject introduces the basic concepts of electricity including the scientific units, terminology and its underlying principles (volts, current, resistance and circuits, Ohms law, Power law and magnetism). Students will learn about the various bands of the electromagnetic spectrum and more specifically which frequencies impact the built environment. A detailed theoretical knowledge of how electricity is produced and conducted through the power distribution network and ultimately through a building will be described."

A DETAILED THEORETICAL KNOWLEDGE OF HOW ELECTRICITY IS PRODUCED???  What are the chances that Maxwell's Equations are studied in detail, as well as the photoelectric effect? These are essential if you truly want to know about the theory of Electromagnetic waves and their affect on human tissue.

Also, another link in the article points to the website ecolibria.com.au. Looking through this I found the following article on Electromagnetic Radiation ( EMR ) And Potential Adverse Health Affects. Here is the intro blurb:

"This very well researched paper takes a look at the public health trends in 2007 and their possible links to EMR exposure. The paper has a strong focus on Australia and is well referenced. The paper makes reference to many studies that have demonstrated strong links between electromagnetic radiation exposure and adverse health effects. Cancer clusters and phone masts are discussed in some detail."

Well researched it says, so let's look at one of the quotes mentioned in this article:

"I have no doubt in my mind that, at the present time, the greatest polluting element in the earth's environment is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields." Dr Robert O. Becker, Nobel Prize nominee

Nobel prize nominee, hey,..... well..... the Nobel prize committee doesn't release nominations till at least 50 years after the awards are given.So I went to the Nobel nomination database to find his name, guess what, there is Angell Becker and a Coudenhove-Kalergi Becker, but no Robert Becker. Well there goes that "well researched paper".

Folks are dumb where I come from......

Another year gone in which again we were shown that the human race is not as smart as it thinks.Here are my top examples for 2012.

Water, water, everywhere, Nor any drop to drink
 What if I told you that someone has an arrest warrant out for him basically because he said that a trickle of water was caused by clogged drainage pipes? Not only is there an arrest warrant out for him, but he received physical threats. Well, welcome to India.

And the reason? A statue of Jesus in a Catholic Church began seeping water, the local clergy declared it a miracle (a weeping Jesus), our protagonist went to investigate it and found that the seeping was caused by clogged drainage and capillary action. And for this, Sanal Edamaruku was charged under India's Blasphemy Laws.Why is he being charged for a natural explanation? Maybe because you can't make as much money from "Look, Capillary Action at Work!" compared to "Look, a Miracle!"? But who knows, I'm only guessing. It's not like there is money to be made from miracles, is there?

You might want to change your doctor
 Ah, politicians. Just more proof that the human race is a bit loco. I'm not blaming them, par se, it's more about the fact that they were voted in. What does that say about those that vote? Anyway, some US Republicans really showed us their (lack of) scientific knowledge. The winner was definitely Todd Akin. I'll let his words speak for themselves:

“It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,” Mr. Akin said of pregnancies from rape. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child."

 This is crazy thinking in itself with statements such as "legitimate rape" and "female body shutting the whole thing down". But there is a scarier thought. This man was (he was voted out during the 2012 elections) on the United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. It is frightening to think that this man's opinion may have contributed to US science policy. Who else on the committee may have such thinking?

Non-prediction of the unpredictable
Not only are politicians not well versed in science, we can also include the law fraternity. An Italian court found scientists guilty of not being able to predict an earthquake, which are well know to be unpredictable.What I'd love to see are courts charging and sentencing economists for not being able to predict economic outcomes. Now there is a class of professionals that make predictions in the media about the economy and they hardly ever get hauled over the coals when (and it happens with regularity) their prognostications don't eventuate. But the funny thing is, even if their predictions fail, they are invited back on TV and treated like the oracle at Delphi.

The Un-expert
Last but not least, there are those that I call the "I know less than you in your field of excellence, but my opinion outweighes your expertise so you are wrong" types. They are everywhere. Mostly they can found giving their opinions on TV or in newspaper columns. Examples are cartoonist talking about climate, particle physicist talking about earthquakes and social commentators talking about anything.

Here's my advice to you all. Next time you have a health problem (presuming you are not a doctor), diagnose yourself, medicate yourself, and if necessary, operate on yourself. Remember, your opinion trumps the medical knowedge of a doctor.

The numbers game

It's been a while.....
First off, the results from last years Deadpool competition.



It was close, myself on 27, Andrew on 25 and Ms Dodo on 21.

Now for some other numbers.
This Kony meme has gone ballistic. I'm always skeptical when things go viral on the net. Sure Kony is one bad guy, but what about the group who created the video? Well they have been asked questions by some about their fund raising and how much of their cash goes to helping kids in Africa. Their response was to release this graphic.



This is a very, very misleading graphic. Compare the sizes of the "Central Africa Programs" section and the "Management & General" section. The areas of the these two aren't in proportion with the numbers. Visually is seems that they spend about 7 times more on the Programs than on Management, whereas in fact the numbers say it's around 2 times as much. Dodgy. This is deceptive. So would I give to these guys? I can't trust them to be honest, so no.

Quantum Scalar Resonance Vortex Transmutes: If only they knew what these words meant

Here is an idea to make shite load of money (no ethics please, we're new age followers); take a stack of words that sound impressive, take them out of context, foster them on an scientifically uninformed public, and watch the money roll in. Take this as an example:

EarthCalm Quantum Cell: $99.00



This sticker is supposed to transmute the electromagnetic energy from a phone into a beneficial field that can surround and protect your family. They claim it contains "circuits that utilize Scalar Resonance Technology are comprised of multiple sets of circuits that mirror the structure of the earth's electro-magnetic field". There is so much to dissect in this short paragraph. Beneficial field of what? Mirror circuits? Scalar Resonance Technology? $99? The sticker would cost about 2 cents to make. Smells like powerband all over again.

So what the hell is Scalar Resonance Technology? Let's look at their description.

Scalar Resonance Technology is the process whereby each EarthCalm circuit is matched to its mirror circuit, which exponentially increases resonance to the earth.


OK.......... Mirror circuit?? What do you mean? Define the mirror circuit of a battery connected to a light. You can't, can you? Then you tag on something about exponentially increasing the resonance. What do you mean? Do you know that in a DC circuit there is no resonance? In an AC circuit, do you mean increasing the frequency of the resonance, the width of the resonance, or the peak of the resonance? Where did you learn your electronics? Because you should go and get a refund.

A scalar wave is by definition a wave that is exactly matched by another wave, i.e., it has the same frequency and the same height or amplitude but has the opposite direction, such that one wave exactly cancels out the other.

Ummm, no and yes. A scalar is a quantity that has a magnitude only. But yes, you can take a wave, invert it, and add it to the original wave and they will cancel out. You can do this experiment and it show the exact cancelling out every time.

Imagine in a pond two waves of the same frequency and amplitude, but coming from different directions. When these waves meet in the middle of the pond they cancel each other out. One might see a flat area in the middle of the pond where the two opposing twin waves met. The result however is not zero, but rather that another dimension is accessed.

Everything up to that last sentence is correct. But that last sentence is pure crap. You just told us in the previous section that the two waves exactly cancel each other out. That is, the result is zero. Now you are saying it is not zero? You can't have it both ways. And, you can always tell when stuff is just being made up when out of the blue you just add extra dimensions. Where is this dimension? What properties does it have? Where is the experiment to show this dimension exists?

It’s an interesting and exciting new concept: that when two energy fields exactly balance each other or cancel each other out, a dimension is accessed that is everywhere at once and has the power to heal.

Ahh, the repeat of the contradiction of exactly cancelling out, and, um, not cancelling out. Also, see what they have done here? They have ditched the experimentally verifiable (two waves exactly cancelling out) are now running with this dimension idea that is not verified by experiment and has no evidence for it what so ever. The rest of the text now is based on this flawed idea. No need to read on. Don't think I'll be buying this product.

So the whole idea behind this device has crumbled. This is a classic way to create the illusion that a product is backed by science. Take some science, then twist it every so slightly (or why not twist it so it says the exact opposite) and then make any claim you want. Once the mark customer has gotten past this point, the sell is so much easier.

I was wondering, Can someone buy this product or similar and if this powerful beneficial field does not appear around your family, can you sue them?

Extra: Here is a USB device that can also create this powerful beneficial field. It's only $179.00. Surely a bargain!

But they said it will make money......

Ken Ham is a creationist from good ol' Queensland who didn't have much success trying to introduce creationism into the science curriculum here so he moved to the USA. This is his logic in a nutshell:



He is now trying to build a theme park based around the story of Noah's Ark.

He already has a creation museum in Kentucky. The motto is "Creation Museum - prepare to disbelieve." Mad Magazine voted it no. 14 on its most dumbest things of the year 2007. Let me quote what they said:

"Finally there is compelling evidence that the theory of evolution is wrong! For proof positive that man's intelligence has not evolved in eons, consider the Cro-Magnon brained imbeciles behind the recently opened Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. The museum's exhibits don't merely challenge science, they ignore it completely! It's the only place in the world you can see man riding bareback on a dinosaur — except, of course, in an old episode of The Flintstones."

His Noah's Ark theme park was endorsed by Governor Steve Beshear who has decided to provide $45 million in tax incentives to the project. His reason for this? Because a report said that the park would bring in 1.6 million visitors and $250 million to the state.

Let's look at this report. It was a feasibility study commissioned by Ken Ham and written by his mate Brit Breemer. It's 10,000 pages long. So you would expect the governor or his staff to have read the study, questioned its findings and had independent analysis of the document. Only after such deliberation would you commit $45 million.

An article in the courier-journal.com looked at the claims made and questioned the findings of the study. When pressed about the proposed funding by the government:

"Beshear's aides later acknowledged that the state never obtained a copy of the study.

Spokeswoman Kerri Richardson said that wasn't necessary because the governor's staff had met with Ark Encounter staff and knew the study's conclusions."

So this governor just promised them money because they said it would be good for the state. Well, if they believe creationism, they will believe anything. By the way, I've got a bridge that's up for sale.......................

Just 'cause we haven't found anything yet.... part 2

Following on from the last post, what should we expect to find if bigfoot did exist? If they do exist, then they must leave some sort of a trace.

Let's assume that bigfoot is a primate, more specifically a great ape.

Facts about great apes
- Gestation period is roughly 9 months for all great apes.
- Females and offspring stay together for at least the first 3 years of the child's life.
- Females give birth every 4 - 7 years once they reach the mature age of 10 years. (Humans being the only exception).
- Average life expectancy in the wild is a maximum 40 years. In captivity, about 10 years more.
- Sustainable population is at the very minimum 1000. Less than this and they are classified as critically endangered. Every the bigfoot true believers think there has to be at least 2000.
- Most of the time spent eating and pooing. Humans again the exception because of the amount of meat we eat. The mountain gorilla eats about 34kg of vegetation a day!

Let's start with 1000 creatures, half female. Of these females if we spread them out over a 40 year life span, 3/4 are over 10. Of these, let's say 1/4 or these give birth in one year. That's about 90 births a year. Not all of these children will survive to adulthood. Let's be tough and say there is a 90% chance that the baby doesn't make it to adult hood. So that leaves about 10. Now, if the population is stable, this means that to balance out the births, we need 10 adult creatures to die every year. If they have been around for over 10,000 years, there should be at least 100,000 corpses in varies stages of decay. So we should be able to find some remains, eg, Hair, bones. Status: None found. Isn't it strange that when people say they have found such evidence the material always gets away.

With 1000 specimens out there, surely we should have conclusive pictorial or movie evidence. I mean, the Amur Leopard is smaller, exists in a more inaccessible habitat, consists of only 30 - 35 left in the wild and we can get superb footage of it.

We should have found faeces. These would contain the DNA of the bigfoot. Has such evidence been found? No.

That's a lot of food they eat. Where are the food scraps? And spending most of the day eating means that you probably spend most of the time in one place, especially the female caring for its young. So why has no one come across bigfoot nests, or a bigfoot den? Here you would undoubtedly find hairs and poo.

Unless they are carnivores, although we should still find poo. But then we should have found the bones of the creatures they ate with bigfoot teeth marks. Again, nothing found.

Also, from a historical perspective, there is absolutely nothing in the fossil record to show that a creature of this type could have evolved on the American continent. No evidence that a creature such as this could have migrated either. Nothing.

This is when you need to think well, maybe absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. The less you find the more likely it is that the creature does not exist.

A final note, does anyone remember a couple of years ago when two men claimed to have found bigfoot and had the corpse in a freezer? The Age newspaper ran two articles on it (here and here), I even heard Red Simons on 774 radio interview one of the men. Not much questioning went on. They sent samples away to be DNA tested.

Well, guess what? The DNA samples came back and showed it to be a mixture of human DNA and opossum DNA. Then, others were allowed to look at it, and what do you know, it turned out to be a gorilla suit. Here's a news report.



Personally, it would be fantastic if such a creature existed. It would revolutionise our understanding of evolution and we could extend our knowledge of primates. But reality has to kick in. People have searched for so long and nothing is found. What does all the evidence point to? That such a creature does not exist.

Deadpool '11: First entries in

Here are the first entries:



Come on peoples, you know you want to be in it.
Edit: Welcome aboard Andrew.

Just 'cause we haven't found anything yet....

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

I've head that a lot from believers when it comes to discussing whether bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, or any other cryptozoological creature exists. "Just 'cause we haven't found anything yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist". True. However, this doesn't mean that it does exist.

What we need to do is ask the individual who is making the claim to lay out their evidence. And we should start with the idea that their claim is false. Why? Because it is the default position. Before I made the claim, the claim didn't exist. For example, if I make a claim that there is a polar bear living in my house, you should start off with the assumption that I don't and not believe my claim. (In general conversations this form of questioning would piss people off if you did it for every claim they made. For instance, if I said that there is a cat in my house, you would probably accept it. But if an extraordinary claim was made, I reckon that's when it's OK.)

OK. Once the claim is made, let them bring forward their evidence. Now the more extraordinary the claim, the better the evidence should be. And, this is crucial, we should look at all possible explanations. Then after looking at the evidence we should say which explanation is the most likely based on what we already know.

We should have an evidence meter.

And it should start in the grey section down the bottom, meaning no evidence.

For bigfoot, the Patterson-Gimlin film is put forward as evidence.



Now we ask ourselves, is that really bigfoot, or is the most likely explanation "a guy in a suit". Well, Greg Long researched this by interviewing the people in the town where Patterson lived and found that Bob Heironimus claimed he was the guy in the suit. Other townsfolk said that they had seen the suit and that everyone in the town at the time knew it was a hoax.

OK. Let's see which claim (it is truly bigfoot, it is a guy in a suit) is the most likely. We should start with the null claim. That it's a guy in a suit. Then look for signs that rules this out emphatically. And I mean complete rules this out. First let us look at the video but this time remove the shakiness by using modern stabilisation techniques.



Looks like a man walking in a suit to me. But what about Bob's claim that it was him.



Is it possible that it was Bob in a suit? Yes. What is the most likely explanation? Guy in suit. Why? Because we know of previous occasions when people have dressed up in animal suits. Fancy dress parties, gorilla grams, etc. There is no extraordinary evidence in this footage to make us change our minds. In fact when the townsfolk first saw the film, they said that it was Bob. That's how Bob walked, they said.

But that doesn't mean that Bigfoot doesn't exist. Remember "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." But this is not always true. I'll look into this next post.

Deadpool '10: The final result

Well, the results are in. It was not a good year for predictions. Unlike last year, where you needed 6 hits to win, it only took two.



So this years winner is, me.
Thanks for the entries. If anyone is interested in Deadpool '11, just make your wishes known in the comments section.

More crap reporting

The standard of science reporting in Australia is generally crap. Although it shouldn't surprise me since the average Ozcah and Mersaydees has very little science knowledge. Not only that, critical thinking is alien to most; Exhibit A: Powerband bracelets. Just look at the number of footballers who wear this piece of crap. Thomas, Pendlebury, Cloke, and O'Brien just to name a few. Note to Harry O'Brien - it's dangerous when those that think they are intelligent are, in fact, not. These guys would fall for Jedi mind tricks. (I know, I know, but if you believe in it, it must be true. Plus I don't think it would be hard to convince footballers.)

Look at this headline for instance:
NASA discovers brand new force of nature
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

This is not what NASA has said. Basically what they are saying is that they can't think of why the Pioneer anomaly exists. The Pioneer anomaly was first observed back in the 80's. John Anderson found that there was an extremely small acceleration on the Pioneer 10 and 11 space probes that wasn't accounted for. Now this effect is really, really tiny. Some of this acceleration was explained by considering the uneven heat distribution around the probe. But basically we don't know what is causing this acceleration.

What NASA is saying is that MAYBE there is a new force that MAY be causing this anomaly. Notice the use of the word MAY. For those writing headlines, look that word up in the dictionary and don't make shit up.

Another thing ninemsn.com.au, this is filed under your technology section. Rename it. This is not technology. It's, if properly reported, science. Again check your dictionary for the meaning of those two words.

How Harry Potter flew: Wind is the answer says scientist

Newsflash
A computer engineer has created a computer model showing how it was possible for Harry Potter to fly using natural means. Sudden gusts of a powerful wind like a vortex could, in theory, have made it feasible that Harry Potter didn't need a supernatural cause in order for him to fly.

This should be online front page news! Why not? This was.

Wind could have split Red Sea, scientist says

The parting of the Red Sea is one of the many miracles described in the Bible and a spectacular feat of early special effects in the 1956 Hollywood epic The Ten Commandments.

But now a Christian engineer claims to have proved the phenomenon has a basis in science.

First of all, notice how a computer programmer in the story becomes a scientist in the headline. Wow. The sub editor probably thought that since a programmer and a scientist may use a computer for more than just email and facebook, they must have the same amount of training in, well, nerdiness. So they are the same thing, right?

Also, a computer program itself becomes science. No! A computer program is written to help develop a hypothesis. The hypothesis itself may be completely wrong and thus the program. Science is what we do to determine if the hypothesis has credence or not.

Before we even try to explain a phenomena, surely the first task is to determine if the event even took place. Now in the case of the Exodus, there has been no archaeological evidence what so ever that such an event took place. Here are some references:

Did the Red Sea part? No evidence, archaeologists say
The exodus
The Bible Unearthed

Anyway, here we have a Christian apologist, Carl Drews, (who in this case should really be called a Jewish apologist since this really is a Jewish story and not a Christian one) writing some code and fiddling with some parameters. It turns out that by tweaking the parameters just right, the program can cause the waters to separate. And of course, if it can happen on a computer it must be able to happen in real life.

Now have a look at something he wrote in one of his essays discussing another event in the bible:

2. The sun moved backwards for Joshua and for Hezekiah.

Here we encounter our first hoax, involving Harold Hill and the NASA computers. It was a sin to make up this hoax. It is a smaller sin to propagate it without verifying the facts, but certain evangelists do just that. The idea behind the story is to make up some scientific-sounding story to explain a Biblical event. This pattern appears later in creationism literature, in supplying details of the catastrophes claimed to be part of the Flood events.

My objection to the Biblical story is that I don't see how this could have happened without leaving some geological trace, and without the Book of Jashar mentioned in Joshua 10:13 I don't have enough details for a good analysis.

Your honour, I rest my case.

A few simple questions

Ages ago I asked my grandfather the following questions mainly because I wanted him to understand the way my philosophies have been shaped.

• Do you only follow your faith because that is what your were born into?
• If you were born into a different religion, would you have been just as ardent in your faith?
• When and why did you stop believing in ideas such as Father Christmas or the Easter Bunny?
• Do you apply this reasoning (ie. why you stopped believing in the Easter Bunny) to all aspects of your belief systems?

These should be questions that everyone must ask themselves in order to justify whatever belief system or philosophy they follow. And the answers must be consistent.
I find it amusing that my grandmother is so proud of me that as a 12 year old I read the bible. And when she asks me why I don't go to church or believe in a god, she seems amazed that the answer is "because I've read the bible".

On reflection, here are a few more questions that I could have put to him.

• If there was no god, would you still act the way you do?
• Would you completely change you morals?
• How would you determine if something was right or wrong?
• If there was no afterlife, would you change the things you do to improve this world rather than hoping the next one is better?

I don't know if any if these question would have made him seen the world through my eyes. Most likely not.

Deadpool '10 update

Vale former Tour de France winner Laurent Fignon.

His passing means there is an update to the leader board.



I've hit the front.

Anglican Church: Asset Rich, Income Poor

Just saw a report on St Paul's Cathedral in Bendigo. The 140 year old building has been closed for over a year because of structural problems. They need to spend about $1 million to fix it up.

You would think that repairs to such an important building for the Anglican faithful in regional Victoria would be funded by the Anglican church. No such luck. As I heard on the report, they are asset rich, but income poor. They have been asking for donations and now they are asking for government assistance: “Come on, Mr Brumby, help us out.” Shouldn't it be "Come on, archbishop Dr Philip Freier, help us out."?

How would the masses react if some extremely rich individual, who had assets in the $10's of millions of dollars, asked for a government handout because he had no income but didn't want to sell his TV's or cars? Two words I think, *** ******! They would say sell some of your assets and live off that.

So if the Anglican church was so intent on fixing the cathedral, they would sell something to pay for the repairs. Since they won't, it means they don't. And doesn't this reflect on their attitude towards the parishoners? Thanks for your patronage and money over the years, but we wash our hands of this and if you want it fixed, do it yourselves.

Religious organisations asking for public money, crying poor. What a crock.

The face of an image created by a 14th century artist

Well, this should be the heading for this article published in The Age. Instead we get "Technology and shroud give Christ a new face", with the byline "Scientists recreate image of Jesus - and he's nothing like the Renaissance depictions." Ummmm, it's extremely like a Middle Ages depiction of Jesus, because that's when it was created. All the evidence points to this. Check out this powerpoint presentation (12MB) outlining the evidence. Some one even created their own shroud using techniques that were available in the middle ages.

The shroud was carbon dated back in the 1980's and that showed that it was made around 1300. Now the believers come up with all sorts of arguments to say that the dating is all wrong. The usual claims are:

1. The guys doing the dating got it wrong. But three separate labs all got the same answer. There were also other fabrics sent as controls. The labs had no idea which fabric was part of the shroud. Each piece of fabric was correctly dated.

2. The pieces of shroud given to the labs were from a damaged section and so the dates are misleading. Let's think about this for a moment. The Vatican themselves were the guys in charge of removing the pieces. Why would they want to take a piece from a damaged section? Well, if they knew it wasn't genuine, then they could keep the controversy going. So that would mean it's a fake. If they believed it to be genuine, then surely they would want the science to back up their claim. They would be extremely careful to pick a pristine part of the shroud for analysis. Then the dating is correct and it's still a fake.

And as per usual, before the test the believes said that they would recognise the results of the carbon dating. And then was the tests were done, they didn't recognise the results. That's a classic example of being dogmatic and closed minded and not accepting the evidence.

If they were so concerned that the dating was wrong, let's retest. You would think that would be a pretty simple thing to do. But guess who doesn't want to do it. Wny? For the same reason that it was created in the first place. There's no business like the relics business.

Mackillop's choice

So for the 25% of Australians who look up to a former member of the Hitler youth, today is a big day. They may get a saint. What is a saint? According to www.catholiceducation.org, a saint is:

- "the standard operating model for human beings."
Operating model sounds like operating thetan. Smells of L. Ron here.

- "Christ’s bride, totally attached, faithful, dependent."
And we thought they were against same sex marriage.

According to www.catholic-pages.com, saints are

- "persons in heaven (officially canonized or not), who lived lives of great charity and heroic virtues." So why bother with the whole canonizing circus? This page then goes on about how JP II proclaimed at least 278 saints.

It also states that "In official Church procedures there are three steps to sainthood: one becomes Venerable, Blessed and then a Saint. Venerable is the title given to a deceased person recognized as having lived heroic virtues. To be recognized as a blessed, and therefore beatified, in addition to personal attributes of charity and heroic virtue, one miracle, acquired through the individual's intercession, is required. Canonization requires two, though a Pope may waive these requirements. Martyrdom does not usually require a miracle." No need for miracles, just get yourself killed in action.

For those 25%, the miracles are probably going to be believed as such without rigorous questioning. For the other 75%, surely we should be getting good journalism asking the question, are these events really miracles? i.e. can't be explained unless evoking a god. I've only seen two articles ask this question, here and here. All other media has been unquestioning and pandering.

I also question the claim that they have been using science to prove these are miracles. They obviously have no idea what science is. Science doesn't prove anything. It can only measure how probable an explanation is. It's a way to find out the most probable explanation using the evidence available. It tries not to bring in unjustified assumptions such as unfalsifiable supernatural beings. So if they were really using science, they would come to the conclusion that the most probable reason for the so called cancer miracles are chance remissions. These do occur.

So to paraphrase a cook who some thought wore a brown shirt, "No miracle for you!!!".

Nearly five years

I've just read an article in the Sunday Age Life magazine that resonated with me. Sarah Wilson wrote about how she doesn't drink anymore and how at parties and functions she has to explain her reason (it used to be a health one). I know exactly what she means. I've also explained it as a health reason, which it was. But why in our society do you need to have some problem to stop drinking? It's a sad indication of how endemic alcohol is in our culture.

It's nearly five years since my last drop and at the moment I have no inclination to imbibe again. Just like Sarah, I've found this an interesting experiment, both as an onlooker of society and as a study of myself. I've changed during this time, having to be discover who I am and to be myself without the use of a crutch. Now in conversations I want to delve deeper in topics and question and argue points. The problem being, sometimes others in the conversation, if they have had too much to drink, stop making rational points and the conversations begin to stagnate and bore. At other times, the conversationalists have little to talk about because they only have a narrow range of topics they can discuss, mainly work and, ah, work. Their solution, grab a beer.

I've been asked if I'll ever drink alcohol again, and the answer is I don't know. But one thing is for sure, it won't be because of the reasons I over indulged in the past.

Who are you?

When Herman Rockefeller went missing, I suspected that he had a double life that included a secret girlfriend. I imagined him finally being caught, and having to confess to his distraught wife and family. I was right but also so wrong.

But what makes someone like Herman lead a double life? Was it because Herman couldn't express his innermost feelings to his wife? How shocked must she be feeling right now? Was he afraid to be himself? And if he did attempt to communicate who he was, was he rejected?

Here is an extract from the book 'Anatomy of a Secret Life,’ Dr. Gail Saltz, which looks at this issue. Here are a couple of short snippets:

We all have secrets; we live and breathe them every day. We may not know what one another’s secrets are, but we know they’re there. They’re always there, invisible presences in everyone’s lives, the subtext beneath the text, the almost uttered but then swallowed sentence, the cryptic, fleeting expression on someone’s face. Humankind’s basic needs are food, water, and shelter, but secrets aren’t too far down the list of essentials. They provide a safe haven that allows us the freedom to explore who we are, to establish an identity that is uniquely our own. But even the deepest secrets can also be shared; they are the currency of close relationships, the coin of exclusivity, sometimes the key to love itself.
...
Under some circumstances, however, secrets can also be profound sources of shame, guilt, anxiety, despair.
...
But when our secrets start to control us — and far too often they do — then a normal life clicks over into something else: a secret life. When that happens, everything changes. Suddenly we find ourselves forced to give up any remaining vestiges of openness and casualness and instead submit full-time to the exacting rules that the secret life inevitably demands.

Does everyone live a secret life to some degree? I think so. Do I lead a double life? Sort of. This blog is anonymous in that my identity is nowhere linked to it. Why? For one reason, because of the profession I'm in. I'm an actor who plays a certain character and my audience should only see that character. Also, it would not be good for my career, considering stuff I've written.

Is this hidden from my family? Yes and no. Most of my family don't have the internets, so it's no big deal. I've mentioned to parents about stuff I've written on my blog and they roll their eyes, so they don't ask what the address is. They probably get enough of my rantings.

This has got me thinking of those that I know personally who lead some what of a secret life from their partner. Should I do anything about it? What are the consequences if I did? Is it really my business? It's a lot to think about.

First one is down in 2010

Chemical Ali has finally met his doom, and Ms Dodo has the first hit. And we also welcome Jade.

First entries in

The first entries for the deadpool are in: