The Electoral College Map One Week Out: Clinton Victory Likely But Not Assured [Greg Laden's Blog]

A couple of weeks ago, it was impossible to find a pundit or poll maven who saw a Trump victory as a possibility. I made the audacious claim at the time that this was incorrect, and I’ve been taking heat from it since then. Much of this widespread misunderstanding is ironically caused by the good work of the folks at FiveThirtyEight and their imitators such as the New York Times, who have been publishing probability statements about the outcome.

If I know for near certain that Mary is going to beat Joe in an election, then I can say something like this:

Probability of winning

Mary: 97%
Joe: 3%

But, it is quite possible that I can say that with the following as my estimate for the vote distribution in in this race:

Mary: 50%
Joe: 50%

(Rounded off to the nearest percent. Not rounded, the values are Mary: 50.1%, Joe: 49.9%.)

So, statements like “Clinton has a 75.6% chance of winning, Trump has a 24.2% chance” can go along with an estimate of the popular vote of 49:44.5, and electoral vote estimate of 310.2:226.4 (those numbers are taken right off the FiveThirtyEight site at the moment I’m writing this, Monday AM).

This, in combination with a lot of happy arm waving during a period of about five days, when many very strong Clinton numbers were coming out of Poll Land, has resulted in widespread incredulity over any suggestion that Trump may win.

Let’s have a look at some sobering facts. The following are major source projections of the outcome of the race, giving only Clinton and Trump’s certain numbers. These are the states that those making the projections are putting in the strong Blue or the strong Red column.

Source	Clinton	Trump
CNN	200	157
NBC	182	71
NPR	190	98
538	187	154
AP	213	106
ABC	197	157

Here is a map I produced, using my model, providing my estimate of these numbers:

You will notice that my numbers are higher than the major outlets for both candidates. I guess I have more certainty in my model than they do. But, I imagine you do as well, dear reader, because those of you who have kindly commented here or on Facebook have generally been saying that you think certain states will a certain wahy, for sure. States like Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin, even Minnesota are given less certainly in those mainstream models than most of us seem to think.

In all cases, of course, neither candidate has the requisite minimum of 270 electoral votes, so in theory, either candidate can lose. “No, wait, that’s not true,” you say. “Clinton has way more votes to start with than Trump, so that’s just not true.”

And you may be right, but not for any good reason. It is totally possible for one candidate to have a base set of states, states that can not be lost, that totals to more electoral votes than another candidate, but for the remaining states to lean towards the second, smaller-base candidate. This is especially true in a heterogenous environment, like this one.

However, in this case, it does happen to be true that the remaining states tend to fall out in a way that favors Clinton on average, but not in all cases.

I’ve descried my model many times. It is calibrated with polling data that is most recent and from the highest quality sources. The presumed outcome in some states, based on that polling data, is the dependent variable in a multi-variable regression analysis where the independent variables are the ethnic breakdown of each state, and the relative Romney vote for each state in that election, to indicate Republican vs. Democratic trend. For the first time, because of a LOT of recent polling, and in a few cases using FiveThityEight’s estimate to stand in for some mediocre polling, I have used most of the states rather than fewer than half. One would think that this would simply spit back out the same polling numbers others have used, but it does not, because of the ethnic and Republicanosity factors, and some of the results are a bit surprising. For example, my model is not that happy about North Carolina voting for Clinton, and it is not that happy about Iowa voting for Trump.

Nor does my model have to be happy. The whole point of doing this model is to include a perspective that, while linked to polling, glosses over low quality or old polls (by not using them) and is not slave to a state-by-state analysis of polls, but rather, heeds lager scale and more general trends that we know are reasonable. The fact that my model puts the same states near the 50%-50% line as the polls do suggests (unsurprisingly) that we are all on the same page, but the fact that some details are different … well, that’s why they invented popcorn.

Anyway, having said that, I have a projection for the entire country based on my model, which I offer in competition (but subject to change before election day) against all the other models. Here it is:

There are a few things to notice here. First, as discussed elsewhere, there is no Clinton Landslide. This is mainly because Democrats can’t have landslides, because there are so many Yahoo states like Kansas and Oklahoma, and much of the deep south. Another thing to note is that I’ve left off three states. Much to my surprise, New Hampshire is not predictable. I thought it was going to fall out blue this year. Many people will complain about North Carolina not being blue, but face it: nobody had North Carolina as certain. Only one of the above cited (in the table) predictions has North Carolina leaning blue, the others all say nothing. Notice that Ohio is uncertain.

These three states leave a mere 37 electoral votes off the table, and give Clinton a resounding win with 310 Electoral votes.

But what if the Democrats end up putting into effect the greatest ever Get Out The Vote scheme, besting even those done by Obama? “Not likely,” you say? “Because people were more excited about Obama than Clinton,” you say?

You may be wrong. First, people are excited about Clinton. But people have more ways to comfortably be openly opposed to a woman than they have ways to comfortably be openly opposed to a black man. That, and the GOP hate machine has been running longer on Clinton than on Obama. So, yes, this will effect overall feelings but it does not effect the ground game, which is being run, on the ground, by people who don’t really care about those messages. They are busy being excited Democrats.

Another reason you might be wrong for thinking that is that the Clinton GOTV effort will be better than the Obama GOTV effort, all else being equal, because it is not based on excitement, but rather, methodology, data, and professional strategy. And, these things get better every election. So, it is quite possible that the Democrats will outperform the the Republicans in relation to the polls.

After consulting my advisors, I decided that a two point advantage could be given to the Democrats if they do the best they can do on the ground to trounce the Republicans. When we re-calculate on this basis, we get this map:

Sorry, Democrats, you don’t get Texas. But you do get Georgia and all the swing states! And a respectable win. Almost, but not quite, an arguable mandate. What you’ve got here, really, is a map of future wildlife refuge takeovers. And, a respectable Electoral College win.

But what if it goes the other way, the same amount? What if the monster under the bed (more accusations about email?) comes out. And at the same time, what if there is a real turnout among angry white males, energized by a victory in Idaho? What if men who are really worried about someone taking away their guns and locker room talk make their move?

There’s a map for that:

Ruh roh.

In this case, Trump wins. Trump wins by taking the swing states, all of them.

Notice that if all this happens, BUT Clinton takes Pennsylvania, OR, North Carolina OR Ohio, OR Florida, Trump loses. The chance of the map shown here being realized is very small. But possible.

Also, remember, that somewhere between this Trump win map and the smallest possible victory for Clinton (270) is that one odd combination where each candidate gets 269 votes, and the Electoral College ends the day having selected no one as president. In that case, the House of Representatives decides, and the way that is done, in combination with the way the numbers are (even if the Democrats actually take the House) is such that a Republican majority will prevail in that decision.

That would be the Republican Party’s last chance to stop Trump. But, will they allow a woman to be president as the only alternative that will be open to them?

Of course not. They’ll select the nuclear option, elect trump, and anyone who is still guessing at their motivations will know what the Republican Party is really all about. Ending civilization, because civilization can not exist without taxes and regulation.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eMslc1

A couple of weeks ago, it was impossible to find a pundit or poll maven who saw a Trump victory as a possibility. I made the audacious claim at the time that this was incorrect, and I’ve been taking heat from it since then. Much of this widespread misunderstanding is ironically caused by the good work of the folks at FiveThirtyEight and their imitators such as the New York Times, who have been publishing probability statements about the outcome.

If I know for near certain that Mary is going to beat Joe in an election, then I can say something like this:

Probability of winning

Mary: 97%
Joe: 3%

But, it is quite possible that I can say that with the following as my estimate for the vote distribution in in this race:

Mary: 50%
Joe: 50%

(Rounded off to the nearest percent. Not rounded, the values are Mary: 50.1%, Joe: 49.9%.)

So, statements like “Clinton has a 75.6% chance of winning, Trump has a 24.2% chance” can go along with an estimate of the popular vote of 49:44.5, and electoral vote estimate of 310.2:226.4 (those numbers are taken right off the FiveThirtyEight site at the moment I’m writing this, Monday AM).

This, in combination with a lot of happy arm waving during a period of about five days, when many very strong Clinton numbers were coming out of Poll Land, has resulted in widespread incredulity over any suggestion that Trump may win.

Let’s have a look at some sobering facts. The following are major source projections of the outcome of the race, giving only Clinton and Trump’s certain numbers. These are the states that those making the projections are putting in the strong Blue or the strong Red column.

Source	Clinton	Trump
CNN	200	157
NBC	182	71
NPR	190	98
538	187	154
AP	213	106
ABC	197	157

Here is a map I produced, using my model, providing my estimate of these numbers:

You will notice that my numbers are higher than the major outlets for both candidates. I guess I have more certainty in my model than they do. But, I imagine you do as well, dear reader, because those of you who have kindly commented here or on Facebook have generally been saying that you think certain states will a certain wahy, for sure. States like Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin, even Minnesota are given less certainly in those mainstream models than most of us seem to think.

In all cases, of course, neither candidate has the requisite minimum of 270 electoral votes, so in theory, either candidate can lose. “No, wait, that’s not true,” you say. “Clinton has way more votes to start with than Trump, so that’s just not true.”

And you may be right, but not for any good reason. It is totally possible for one candidate to have a base set of states, states that can not be lost, that totals to more electoral votes than another candidate, but for the remaining states to lean towards the second, smaller-base candidate. This is especially true in a heterogenous environment, like this one.

However, in this case, it does happen to be true that the remaining states tend to fall out in a way that favors Clinton on average, but not in all cases.

I’ve descried my model many times. It is calibrated with polling data that is most recent and from the highest quality sources. The presumed outcome in some states, based on that polling data, is the dependent variable in a multi-variable regression analysis where the independent variables are the ethnic breakdown of each state, and the relative Romney vote for each state in that election, to indicate Republican vs. Democratic trend. For the first time, because of a LOT of recent polling, and in a few cases using FiveThityEight’s estimate to stand in for some mediocre polling, I have used most of the states rather than fewer than half. One would think that this would simply spit back out the same polling numbers others have used, but it does not, because of the ethnic and Republicanosity factors, and some of the results are a bit surprising. For example, my model is not that happy about North Carolina voting for Clinton, and it is not that happy about Iowa voting for Trump.

Nor does my model have to be happy. The whole point of doing this model is to include a perspective that, while linked to polling, glosses over low quality or old polls (by not using them) and is not slave to a state-by-state analysis of polls, but rather, heeds lager scale and more general trends that we know are reasonable. The fact that my model puts the same states near the 50%-50% line as the polls do suggests (unsurprisingly) that we are all on the same page, but the fact that some details are different … well, that’s why they invented popcorn.

Anyway, having said that, I have a projection for the entire country based on my model, which I offer in competition (but subject to change before election day) against all the other models. Here it is:

There are a few things to notice here. First, as discussed elsewhere, there is no Clinton Landslide. This is mainly because Democrats can’t have landslides, because there are so many Yahoo states like Kansas and Oklahoma, and much of the deep south. Another thing to note is that I’ve left off three states. Much to my surprise, New Hampshire is not predictable. I thought it was going to fall out blue this year. Many people will complain about North Carolina not being blue, but face it: nobody had North Carolina as certain. Only one of the above cited (in the table) predictions has North Carolina leaning blue, the others all say nothing. Notice that Ohio is uncertain.

These three states leave a mere 37 electoral votes off the table, and give Clinton a resounding win with 310 Electoral votes.

But what if the Democrats end up putting into effect the greatest ever Get Out The Vote scheme, besting even those done by Obama? “Not likely,” you say? “Because people were more excited about Obama than Clinton,” you say?

You may be wrong. First, people are excited about Clinton. But people have more ways to comfortably be openly opposed to a woman than they have ways to comfortably be openly opposed to a black man. That, and the GOP hate machine has been running longer on Clinton than on Obama. So, yes, this will effect overall feelings but it does not effect the ground game, which is being run, on the ground, by people who don’t really care about those messages. They are busy being excited Democrats.

Another reason you might be wrong for thinking that is that the Clinton GOTV effort will be better than the Obama GOTV effort, all else being equal, because it is not based on excitement, but rather, methodology, data, and professional strategy. And, these things get better every election. So, it is quite possible that the Democrats will outperform the the Republicans in relation to the polls.

After consulting my advisors, I decided that a two point advantage could be given to the Democrats if they do the best they can do on the ground to trounce the Republicans. When we re-calculate on this basis, we get this map:

Sorry, Democrats, you don’t get Texas. But you do get Georgia and all the swing states! And a respectable win. Almost, but not quite, an arguable mandate. What you’ve got here, really, is a map of future wildlife refuge takeovers. And, a respectable Electoral College win.

But what if it goes the other way, the same amount? What if the monster under the bed (more accusations about email?) comes out. And at the same time, what if there is a real turnout among angry white males, energized by a victory in Idaho? What if men who are really worried about someone taking away their guns and locker room talk make their move?

There’s a map for that:

Ruh roh.

In this case, Trump wins. Trump wins by taking the swing states, all of them.

Notice that if all this happens, BUT Clinton takes Pennsylvania, OR, North Carolina OR Ohio, OR Florida, Trump loses. The chance of the map shown here being realized is very small. But possible.

Also, remember, that somewhere between this Trump win map and the smallest possible victory for Clinton (270) is that one odd combination where each candidate gets 269 votes, and the Electoral College ends the day having selected no one as president. In that case, the House of Representatives decides, and the way that is done, in combination with the way the numbers are (even if the Democrats actually take the House) is such that a Republican majority will prevail in that decision.

That would be the Republican Party’s last chance to stop Trump. But, will they allow a woman to be president as the only alternative that will be open to them?

Of course not. They’ll select the nuclear option, elect trump, and anyone who is still guessing at their motivations will know what the Republican Party is really all about. Ending civilization, because civilization can not exist without taxes and regulation.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eMslc1

October Pieces Of My Mind #3 [Aardvarchaeology]

• Leonard Cohen got from the used books store to the cake shop ahead of me. /-:
• Wish somebody would demolish all the modern houses on top of the ruins of Visborg Castle.
• The ruin of St. Olav’s church in Visby is a protected ancient monument. It is being damaged by the ivy that covers it. Sadly the ivy is a protected plant.
• Ny Björn points out something interesting about St. Olav’s ruin in Visby and its super ivy. An important reason that the ruin and the ivy survive today is that both fit well with Romantic ideas about picturesque ruins. Thus they were both preserved, and both for the same reason, when the Botanical Garden was laid out in 1855.
• Many of my colleagues don’t understad the distinction between being methodical and being methodological.
• Kadzic the genius carpenter recently switched out one of our room doors. It wasn’t a trivial job as he had to reuse the 1972 hinges. One thing in particular impressed me. Upon arrival Kadzic went straight to work without pausing to survey the situation. It’s such a simple immediate thing to him.
• Helping Cousin E decode northern working-class English in the movie This Is England.
• Jrette and I cleaned out an enormous quantity of comics, other children’s mags, jigsaw puzzles, fluffy animals and other toys from her room. Most of it had gone onto those shelves of hers when she was five, and it wasn’t useful to her any more now that she’s an unusually mature thirteen. None of these things can be sold other than at low price and with a huge investment of work. Yet I didn’t want to throw them away. So I took out an ad for free on the give-stuff-away site bortskankes.se. I was very pleased when it took only a few hours for a couple to arrive in their car and take them all off our hands.
• In a software context, Pat Murphy writes “subroutines” when she means multitasking.
• It’s 2016 and I’m making the acquaintance of The Smiths.
• Project: reconstruct as much as possible of the Finnish language using only bilingual packaging in Swedish grocery stores.
• March 1495: twelve men swear to Stockholm’s town council that whoever shat in one of the municipal cannon, it wasn’t Eric Finesmith.

I found the plaster original of Christian Eriksson’s “The Skater” in Karlstad County Museum. The bronze cast is in front of the Grand Hotel in Saltsjöbaden where I grew up.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eTIVEC

• Leonard Cohen got from the used books store to the cake shop ahead of me. /-:
• Wish somebody would demolish all the modern houses on top of the ruins of Visborg Castle.
• The ruin of St. Olav’s church in Visby is a protected ancient monument. It is being damaged by the ivy that covers it. Sadly the ivy is a protected plant.
• Ny Björn points out something interesting about St. Olav’s ruin in Visby and its super ivy. An important reason that the ruin and the ivy survive today is that both fit well with Romantic ideas about picturesque ruins. Thus they were both preserved, and both for the same reason, when the Botanical Garden was laid out in 1855.
• Many of my colleagues don’t understad the distinction between being methodical and being methodological.
• Kadzic the genius carpenter recently switched out one of our room doors. It wasn’t a trivial job as he had to reuse the 1972 hinges. One thing in particular impressed me. Upon arrival Kadzic went straight to work without pausing to survey the situation. It’s such a simple immediate thing to him.
• Helping Cousin E decode northern working-class English in the movie This Is England.
• Jrette and I cleaned out an enormous quantity of comics, other children’s mags, jigsaw puzzles, fluffy animals and other toys from her room. Most of it had gone onto those shelves of hers when she was five, and it wasn’t useful to her any more now that she’s an unusually mature thirteen. None of these things can be sold other than at low price and with a huge investment of work. Yet I didn’t want to throw them away. So I took out an ad for free on the give-stuff-away site bortskankes.se. I was very pleased when it took only a few hours for a couple to arrive in their car and take them all off our hands.
• In a software context, Pat Murphy writes “subroutines” when she means multitasking.
• It’s 2016 and I’m making the acquaintance of The Smiths.
• Project: reconstruct as much as possible of the Finnish language using only bilingual packaging in Swedish grocery stores.
• March 1495: twelve men swear to Stockholm’s town council that whoever shat in one of the municipal cannon, it wasn’t Eric Finesmith.

I found the plaster original of Christian Eriksson’s “The Skater” in Karlstad County Museum. The bronze cast is in front of the Grand Hotel in Saltsjöbaden where I grew up.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eTIVEC

Sellafield, radiation and childhood cancer – shedding light on cancer clusters near nuclear sites

When an ITV documentary in 1983 revealed a high number of childhood leukaemia cases between 1955 and 1983 in the village of Seascale, in north-west England, it caused a public outcry.

That’s because the village is just a few miles south of the Sellafield nuclear site.

The documentary, which found 7 cases of leukaemia (when less than 1 would have been expected), prompted a series of investigations into what was happening. And ever since, the question of what caused the Seascale cancer cluster has been a matter of much debate.

Now, a report by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) – a group of independent experts that provides advice to the government about issues relating to radiation and health – confirms that the cancer cluster is no longer present, and suggests that radiation wasn’t to blame.

So what was?

What’s a cancer cluster?

A cancer cluster is the name given to a situation where more cases occur than would normally be expected for a type or group of cancers. And it could be in a group of people, in a certain area or over a period of time.

While it can be worrying if someone notices several cases of one type of cancer in their community, most suspected cancer clusters actually turn out to be chance coincidences.

Imagine you took a pen, closed your eyes, and randomly made 100 dots on a piece of paper.

Just by chance, there may be some areas on the paper that have more dots than others – the dots are unlikely to be evenly distributed. It’s the same with cases of cancer.

But that doesn’t mean that clusters can always be safely explained as random. In fact, when cancer clusters do appear, it’s important that scientists investigate to find out what caused them.

And that’s exactly what happened with Seascale.

The Seascale cancer cluster

The combination of more cases of childhood leukaemia and a nearby nuclear site formed a perfect storm for speculation.

The main finding of the new report was that there was no significantly increased leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma around Sellafield or Dounreay for the period 1991‐2006

– Dr Chris Gibson, chair of COMARE

Unsurprisingly, some suggested that radioactive discharges from Sellafield may be to blame. And residents, politicians and the public were shocked and understandably worried.

The 1983 documentary led to COMARE being set up, which has since carried out a whole series of investigations confirming that between the 1950s and the year 1990, rates of two types of childhood cancer, leukaemia and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL), were significantly higher in Seascale than expected.

And investigations of childhood cancers near the nuclear site in Dounreay, on the north coast of Scotland, revealed a similar cluster there.

The good news, according to the recent COMARE report, is that since the early 1990s these clusters have disappeared.

“The main finding of the new report was that there was no significantly increased leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) around Sellafield or Dounreay for the period 1991‐2006,” says Dr Chris Gibson, chair of COMARE. “And no new cases of leukaemia or NHL in children were registered close to either site for the same period,” he adds.

So it seems that whatever caused the earlier increased rate of childhood cancers is no longer happening.

While that’s reassuring, the question of what was to blame for the higher rate of these cancers up to 1990 remains.

What’s the evidence so far?

When researchers started to investigate the cancer rates in Cumbria they found that, weirdly, the rise in childhood cancer rates wasn’t mirrored in other nearby areas, including around the Sellafield site.

It was suggested that if radiation from Sellafield was to blame, then there should be higher childhood cancer rates in other areas too.

Researchers also worked out the extra radiation doses children and young people born in Seascale and Thurso (a village near Dounreay) could have been exposed to as a result of living near the sites.

And they found that the amount of extra radiation from the sites was dwarfed by the amount of radiation from natural sources – such as radon gas from the ground and naturally occurring radioactivity in foods, such as brazil nuts and bananas.

This suggests, again, the nuclear sites weren’t to blame.

“The best estimates of the radiation doses to both the Seascale and Thurso populations are much too small to account for the observed numbers of cases of leukaemia and NHL that occurred in the young people in these areas,” explains Gibson. “And current radioactive discharges are substantially lower than historic levels.”

But what if the damage was done far earlier, before the children were even born? The experts also looked at this possibility in detail and found no evidence that the amount of radiation parents were exposed to before getting pregnant was responsible for the cases observed.

So from all this evidence, COMARE’s experts think it seems less and less likely that radiation from nuclear sites was to blame.

So if it wasn’t radiation, what else could it have been?

Nearly 100 years ago, in 1917, Gordon Ward suggested a possible alternative explanation for the cause of childhood leukaemia: infection.

Childhood leukaemia and many other types of childhood cancers do not occur evenly within the population of Great Britain

– Dr Chris Gibson

There is evidence to support the suggestion that, while leukaemia is not an infectious disease, infections may play a part in its development. Firstly, cases of infectious diseases often cluster in different locations and over periods of time. Evidence from the UK found several clusters of childhood leukaemia throughout history that follow this sort of pattern. And not just near nuclear sites.

“Childhood leukaemia and many other types of childhood cancers do not occur evenly within the population of Great Britain,” says Gibson. “There are a variety of incidence rates in different geographical and social circumstances and these differ more than would be expected from simple random or chance variations.”

Secondly, stimulation of the immune system early in life, for example by attending day-care, seems to help protect against childhood leukaemia – possibly hinting at the fact that this type of cancer may be linked to an infection.

Thirdly, evidence has been accumulating that a process called population-mixing could be playing a role.

This process occurs when relatively large numbers of people from urban areas move into previously isolated rural communities, exposing the people already living there to new infections. “The population-mixing hypothesis proposes that childhood leukaemia can be a rare response to a common but, as yet, unidentified infection,” says Gibson.

But does this tally with what happened at Seascale?

Population-mixing – a possible explanation?

In the cases of Seascale and Thurso, an influx of workers who moved to the villages to work at the nuclear sites could have led to population-mixing. Potentially exposing long-term residents and their families to new infections, which could have played a role in the rise in childhood cancer rates.

This kind of effect had been observed before. During the Second World War, three ordnance factories were built in west Cumbria, leading to an influx of workers which coincided with a rise in childhood leukaemia deaths in the area.

And on the remote Scottish islands of Orkney and Shetland, there was a sudden rise in deaths from childhood leukaemia when hundreds of soldiers were stationed there.

Gibson also points to British and German studies that looked at the risk of leukaemia around proposed nuclear sites where construction never actually took place. These studies found similar risk levels in some of those sites to risks seen around active nuclear sites. “This is suggestive of a risk associated with factors other than the operation of the plant, such as the nature of the location itself,” says Gibson.

According to COMARE, population-mixing could have been a key factor leading to the rise in childhood cancer rates in Seascale and Thurso. “Given the highly unusual conditions experienced in Seascale and around Dounreay, it is likely that infectious agents are responsible, at least in part, for the excesses of leukaemia and NHL among young people there,” explains Gibson.

What’s next?

While the COMARE report strongly suggests that radiation from the nuclear sites doesn’t explain the cancer clusters in Seascale and around Dounreay, we don’t have all the answers yet.

And Gibson cautions that further research is still needed.

While there may be some evidence of a possible infectious element, there still isn’t a clear explanation of the role that infection and population-mixing might have played. Or whether it alone can explain why these cancer clusters occurred.

That’s why research into these possible explanations must continue. Because the people directly, or indirectly, affected by these cancers, and those still living in the area, deserve answers.

Jana Witt is a health information officer at Cancer Research UK

from Cancer Research UK – Science blog http://ift.tt/2eehAil

When an ITV documentary in 1983 revealed a high number of childhood leukaemia cases between 1955 and 1983 in the village of Seascale, in north-west England, it caused a public outcry.

That’s because the village is just a few miles south of the Sellafield nuclear site.

The documentary, which found 7 cases of leukaemia (when less than 1 would have been expected), prompted a series of investigations into what was happening. And ever since, the question of what caused the Seascale cancer cluster has been a matter of much debate.

Now, a report by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) – a group of independent experts that provides advice to the government about issues relating to radiation and health – confirms that the cancer cluster is no longer present, and suggests that radiation wasn’t to blame.

So what was?

What’s a cancer cluster?

A cancer cluster is the name given to a situation where more cases occur than would normally be expected for a type or group of cancers. And it could be in a group of people, in a certain area or over a period of time.

While it can be worrying if someone notices several cases of one type of cancer in their community, most suspected cancer clusters actually turn out to be chance coincidences.

Imagine you took a pen, closed your eyes, and randomly made 100 dots on a piece of paper.

Just by chance, there may be some areas on the paper that have more dots than others – the dots are unlikely to be evenly distributed. It’s the same with cases of cancer.

But that doesn’t mean that clusters can always be safely explained as random. In fact, when cancer clusters do appear, it’s important that scientists investigate to find out what caused them.

And that’s exactly what happened with Seascale.

The Seascale cancer cluster

The combination of more cases of childhood leukaemia and a nearby nuclear site formed a perfect storm for speculation.

The main finding of the new report was that there was no significantly increased leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma around Sellafield or Dounreay for the period 1991‐2006

– Dr Chris Gibson, chair of COMARE

Unsurprisingly, some suggested that radioactive discharges from Sellafield may be to blame. And residents, politicians and the public were shocked and understandably worried.

The 1983 documentary led to COMARE being set up, which has since carried out a whole series of investigations confirming that between the 1950s and the year 1990, rates of two types of childhood cancer, leukaemia and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL), were significantly higher in Seascale than expected.

And investigations of childhood cancers near the nuclear site in Dounreay, on the north coast of Scotland, revealed a similar cluster there.

The good news, according to the recent COMARE report, is that since the early 1990s these clusters have disappeared.

“The main finding of the new report was that there was no significantly increased leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) around Sellafield or Dounreay for the period 1991‐2006,” says Dr Chris Gibson, chair of COMARE. “And no new cases of leukaemia or NHL in children were registered close to either site for the same period,” he adds.

So it seems that whatever caused the earlier increased rate of childhood cancers is no longer happening.

While that’s reassuring, the question of what was to blame for the higher rate of these cancers up to 1990 remains.

What’s the evidence so far?

When researchers started to investigate the cancer rates in Cumbria they found that, weirdly, the rise in childhood cancer rates wasn’t mirrored in other nearby areas, including around the Sellafield site.

It was suggested that if radiation from Sellafield was to blame, then there should be higher childhood cancer rates in other areas too.

Researchers also worked out the extra radiation doses children and young people born in Seascale and Thurso (a village near Dounreay) could have been exposed to as a result of living near the sites.

And they found that the amount of extra radiation from the sites was dwarfed by the amount of radiation from natural sources – such as radon gas from the ground and naturally occurring radioactivity in foods, such as brazil nuts and bananas.

This suggests, again, the nuclear sites weren’t to blame.

“The best estimates of the radiation doses to both the Seascale and Thurso populations are much too small to account for the observed numbers of cases of leukaemia and NHL that occurred in the young people in these areas,” explains Gibson. “And current radioactive discharges are substantially lower than historic levels.”

But what if the damage was done far earlier, before the children were even born? The experts also looked at this possibility in detail and found no evidence that the amount of radiation parents were exposed to before getting pregnant was responsible for the cases observed.

So from all this evidence, COMARE’s experts think it seems less and less likely that radiation from nuclear sites was to blame.

So if it wasn’t radiation, what else could it have been?

Nearly 100 years ago, in 1917, Gordon Ward suggested a possible alternative explanation for the cause of childhood leukaemia: infection.

Childhood leukaemia and many other types of childhood cancers do not occur evenly within the population of Great Britain

– Dr Chris Gibson

There is evidence to support the suggestion that, while leukaemia is not an infectious disease, infections may play a part in its development. Firstly, cases of infectious diseases often cluster in different locations and over periods of time. Evidence from the UK found several clusters of childhood leukaemia throughout history that follow this sort of pattern. And not just near nuclear sites.

“Childhood leukaemia and many other types of childhood cancers do not occur evenly within the population of Great Britain,” says Gibson. “There are a variety of incidence rates in different geographical and social circumstances and these differ more than would be expected from simple random or chance variations.”

Secondly, stimulation of the immune system early in life, for example by attending day-care, seems to help protect against childhood leukaemia – possibly hinting at the fact that this type of cancer may be linked to an infection.

Thirdly, evidence has been accumulating that a process called population-mixing could be playing a role.

This process occurs when relatively large numbers of people from urban areas move into previously isolated rural communities, exposing the people already living there to new infections. “The population-mixing hypothesis proposes that childhood leukaemia can be a rare response to a common but, as yet, unidentified infection,” says Gibson.

But does this tally with what happened at Seascale?

Population-mixing – a possible explanation?

In the cases of Seascale and Thurso, an influx of workers who moved to the villages to work at the nuclear sites could have led to population-mixing. Potentially exposing long-term residents and their families to new infections, which could have played a role in the rise in childhood cancer rates.

This kind of effect had been observed before. During the Second World War, three ordnance factories were built in west Cumbria, leading to an influx of workers which coincided with a rise in childhood leukaemia deaths in the area.

And on the remote Scottish islands of Orkney and Shetland, there was a sudden rise in deaths from childhood leukaemia when hundreds of soldiers were stationed there.

Gibson also points to British and German studies that looked at the risk of leukaemia around proposed nuclear sites where construction never actually took place. These studies found similar risk levels in some of those sites to risks seen around active nuclear sites. “This is suggestive of a risk associated with factors other than the operation of the plant, such as the nature of the location itself,” says Gibson.

According to COMARE, population-mixing could have been a key factor leading to the rise in childhood cancer rates in Seascale and Thurso. “Given the highly unusual conditions experienced in Seascale and around Dounreay, it is likely that infectious agents are responsible, at least in part, for the excesses of leukaemia and NHL among young people there,” explains Gibson.

What’s next?

While the COMARE report strongly suggests that radiation from the nuclear sites doesn’t explain the cancer clusters in Seascale and around Dounreay, we don’t have all the answers yet.

And Gibson cautions that further research is still needed.

While there may be some evidence of a possible infectious element, there still isn’t a clear explanation of the role that infection and population-mixing might have played. Or whether it alone can explain why these cancer clusters occurred.

That’s why research into these possible explanations must continue. Because the people directly, or indirectly, affected by these cancers, and those still living in the area, deserve answers.

Jana Witt is a health information officer at Cancer Research UK

from Cancer Research UK – Science blog http://ift.tt/2eehAil

Bleaching away what ails you: Miracle Mineral Solution and Jim Humble’s Genesis II Church [Respectful Insolence]

It’s time to get this video clip out again:

Yes, just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. But who are “they”? I’m referring to the cult that thinks that bleach enemas (and also ingested bleach) will cure children of autism. I was reminded of that cult when ABC News 20/20 aired a special on Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS), the aforementioned bleach miracle cure. It’s the sort of story that we need to see more of, the result of what was reported to be a year-long investigation of Rev. Jim Humble and his church, the inventor and primary promoter of MMS as a cure for autism and just about everything else.

Before I get to the story, let’s recap. MMS is bleach. Specifically, it is a 28% sodium chlorite in distilled water that generates chlorine dioxide when diluted with citric acid-containing or other acid-containing foods, as instructed. This is a chemical used for water purification that a quack named Jim Humble has touted as a miracle cure for just about everything from cancer to AIDS to a wide variety of conditions, serious and not-so-serious. There is no currently known valid medical reason to administer this chemical to anyone to treat anything, much less cancer, autism, AIDS, or other medical conditions. None of this is (or should be) in serious dispute from a strictly scientific, medical, or ethical standpoint.

The next fact that is not in serious dispute is that a woman named Kerri Rivera, operating out of a quack clinic in Mexico, has been touting MMS as a “biomedical” treatment for autism. Although she appears to have gotten out of the MMS business ever since having had to agree to sign an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance with the state of Illinois, which means that she agreed to stop promoting and selling chlorine dioxide bleach as a treatment for autism, she was the main person who popularized the treatment in the “autism biomed” community. As part of the treatment, she advocated feeding MMS to autistic children every two hours over the course of 72 hours (her “72-2 protocol”) and giving children MMS enemas three times a week, basically to “bleach the autism away.” She admitted that the side effects included at minimum diarrhea and fever. In fact, she has said that the diarrhea is a good thing if it’s “detox diarrhea” and that the fever means the immune system is being stimulated, thus making it a good thing as well. What is also not in dispute is that Rivera brought this message of bleaching autism away to the yearly autism biomed quackfest known as Autism One multiple times, making even some die-hard supporters of autism quackery cringe. Again, there is currently no known valid medical reason to give this chemical to any autistic child to treat autism. Again, none of this is (or should be) in serious dispute from a scientific standpoint.

So it was that I learned of a joint investigation between ABC’s 20-20 and the Bay Area ABC affiliate ABC7 looking at MMS, Jim Humble, and Kerri Rivera. Here’s part 1 of the 20/20 report:

ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos

It’s a shocking report. The level of lies coming from Jim Humble is truly amazing, as is his shamelessness in claiming to be able to cure breast cancer, prostate cancer, brain cancer, and autism, describing MMS as a “sacrament.” Steve Novella makes an appearance, and Jim Humble’s reaction to being challenged is quite telling. I must admit that I particularly liked the part where they poured MMS on a pair of blue jeans to demonstrate what a strong bleach it is. One particularly horrific part comes near the end of the first segment, where Humble is shown in his studio saying that if you get breast cancer, you brought it on, and that women should rely on MMS, not mammograms, surgery, and chemotherapy.

One woman, Sylvia Nash, died after taking MMS as a preventative measure for malaria. Her widower Doug gives a harrowing account of how his wife died in his arms after taking MMS. It’s not clear from the autopsy that MMS actually caused her death, but one really has to wonder, given the temporal proximity of her death to her having taken MMS. Correlation doesn’t always equal causation, but it’s very suspicious, it’s initially plausible that MMS caused Nash’s death, as you can see if you examine more details in the ABC7 report:

On the other hand, his wife only took two drops, which shouldn’t have been a highly toxic dose for an adult. So it’s still unclear whether MMS is what killed Sylvia Nash.

The next segment shows ABC News tracking down Jim Humble in his Mexican redoubt:

ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos

One thing I never realized before is just how whacky Humble is. He claims to have come from another galaxy, for one thing. When cornered by a reporter, Humble remained cool, calm, and collected, denying that MMS could be harmful and standing by claims that it is good for children and women with breast cancer. Tellingly, when asked for evidence, he was unable to produce any.

One good thing that happened last year on the MMS front is that a major distributor of MMS and believer in Jim Humble’s Genesis II Church, Louis Daniel Smith, was convicted of selling MMS as a drug and sentenced to four years in prison. Unfortunately, Smith was part of a huge network of at least 1,700 selling MMR around the world; so stopping him hardly puts a dent in MMS distribution. After all, there are many others like this:

And the occasional celebrity testimonial, like this one by Lindsay Wagner, who starred as The Bionic Woman:

Her claim:

But none of that 70s TV magic prepared Wagner for an ailment she would suffer in real life – a case of chronic Urticaria, which is severe, disabling hives.

“All over my body, like welts, like big welts. I looked like a boxer, my eyes were all swollen,” she said.

Steroids and antihistamines helped, but they had side effects and weren’t a permanent solution. So after eight months of suffering, Wagner was desperate for a cure.

“It would burn. It would itch like crazy. It’s something that could just make you go insane,” she said.

Through a friend, Wagner was put in touch with a woman whose child seemed to be nearly cured of severe autism by something called Miracle Mineral Solution, or MMS, that was purported to work for a variety of ailments, including chronic hives.

And:

“I was dumbfounded. Within a week, I was off the Prednisone. Within one week, I was just shocked,” she said.

She said within weeks the hives disappeared and never came back.

“I’m not a doctor. I’m not a scientist. I’m not a chemist. But it just seemed like this had actually cured whatever I was reacting to,” she said.

Chronic urticaria is a skin condition with a wide variety of presentations tied to a large number of causes. It’s often very hard to treat, but its natural course is to wax and wane, to become quiescent for a while and to recur. In other words, it’s a perfect condition to give the illusion of effectiveness to a quack remedy., and it’s incredibly unlikely that MMS cured Wagner’s urticaria. That’s why I wish ABC7 had resisted the temptation to include this segment. It adds nothing to the story, but it’s a credulous treatment of MMS that taints an otherwise very good report.

Unfortunately, as long as Humble stays in Mexico, there isn’t much that US authorities can do to investigate or extradite him. His archbishop, Mark Grenon, continues to sell MMS in the US, claiming immunity due to his being an archbishop and Genesis II being a church. Grenon isn’t quite as smooth as Humble. Basically, when confronted by the 20/20 team, he started ranting, swearing, and asking if ABC is owned by the Rothschilds. It’s simultaneously hilarious and disturbing at the same time to watch.

One thing that disappointed me about the 20/20 segment was that there was very little about autism and virtually nothing about Kerri Rivera. Fortunately, ABC7 takes up that slack:

Particularly balmy is this claim:

“Will it cure autism?” Wedeen asked.

“Well, we’ve seen 234 people lose their autism diagnosis with the protocol,” Rivera told Wedeen.

“I guess I’m just scared of the side effects? But if there aren’t any?” Wedeen said.

“There are no side effects. It doesn’t have any. Within an hour it’s out of the body,” Rivera responded.

Rivera insisted the potion was safe because it’s chemically different from bleach. She also claimed it’s most effective when doses are timed to cycles of the moon.

“Yeah, full moon because the parasites go into the gut during the full moon and the new moon and they mate,” Rivera told Wedeen.

“Really?” Wedeen asked.

“And so you can get a lot of kills. You can kill a lot of parasites during the moon cycles,” Rivera stated.

I’ve examined photos of the “parasites” parents using MMS have claimed to have removed from their children’s intestines through the use of MMS enemas before. They’re generally disgusting ropy-looking strands with mucus attached. Basically, anyone with a modicum of knowledge about parasites and gastroenterology will recognized that these are not actually parasites, but rather mucus mixed with fragments of colon mucosa (the innermost lining of the colon). It’s definitely not worms or parasites, and the claim that the parasites go into the child on the full moon to mate is about as daft a claim as I’ve ever heard. Four years after having learned of MMS and Kerri Rivera, I still have time accepting that anyone could believe such nonsense, but believe it they do.

One of the best disinfectants for quackery like MMS is to shine the light of publicity and skepticism on it. Kudos to ABC and ABC7 for doing just that.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eLDpGv

It’s time to get this video clip out again:

Yes, just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. But who are “they”? I’m referring to the cult that thinks that bleach enemas (and also ingested bleach) will cure children of autism. I was reminded of that cult when ABC News 20/20 aired a special on Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS), the aforementioned bleach miracle cure. It’s the sort of story that we need to see more of, the result of what was reported to be a year-long investigation of Rev. Jim Humble and his church, the inventor and primary promoter of MMS as a cure for autism and just about everything else.

Before I get to the story, let’s recap. MMS is bleach. Specifically, it is a 28% sodium chlorite in distilled water that generates chlorine dioxide when diluted with citric acid-containing or other acid-containing foods, as instructed. This is a chemical used for water purification that a quack named Jim Humble has touted as a miracle cure for just about everything from cancer to AIDS to a wide variety of conditions, serious and not-so-serious. There is no currently known valid medical reason to administer this chemical to anyone to treat anything, much less cancer, autism, AIDS, or other medical conditions. None of this is (or should be) in serious dispute from a strictly scientific, medical, or ethical standpoint.

The next fact that is not in serious dispute is that a woman named Kerri Rivera, operating out of a quack clinic in Mexico, has been touting MMS as a “biomedical” treatment for autism. Although she appears to have gotten out of the MMS business ever since having had to agree to sign an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance with the state of Illinois, which means that she agreed to stop promoting and selling chlorine dioxide bleach as a treatment for autism, she was the main person who popularized the treatment in the “autism biomed” community. As part of the treatment, she advocated feeding MMS to autistic children every two hours over the course of 72 hours (her “72-2 protocol”) and giving children MMS enemas three times a week, basically to “bleach the autism away.” She admitted that the side effects included at minimum diarrhea and fever. In fact, she has said that the diarrhea is a good thing if it’s “detox diarrhea” and that the fever means the immune system is being stimulated, thus making it a good thing as well. What is also not in dispute is that Rivera brought this message of bleaching autism away to the yearly autism biomed quackfest known as Autism One multiple times, making even some die-hard supporters of autism quackery cringe. Again, there is currently no known valid medical reason to give this chemical to any autistic child to treat autism. Again, none of this is (or should be) in serious dispute from a scientific standpoint.

So it was that I learned of a joint investigation between ABC’s 20-20 and the Bay Area ABC affiliate ABC7 looking at MMS, Jim Humble, and Kerri Rivera. Here’s part 1 of the 20/20 report:

ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos

It’s a shocking report. The level of lies coming from Jim Humble is truly amazing, as is his shamelessness in claiming to be able to cure breast cancer, prostate cancer, brain cancer, and autism, describing MMS as a “sacrament.” Steve Novella makes an appearance, and Jim Humble’s reaction to being challenged is quite telling. I must admit that I particularly liked the part where they poured MMS on a pair of blue jeans to demonstrate what a strong bleach it is. One particularly horrific part comes near the end of the first segment, where Humble is shown in his studio saying that if you get breast cancer, you brought it on, and that women should rely on MMS, not mammograms, surgery, and chemotherapy.

One woman, Sylvia Nash, died after taking MMS as a preventative measure for malaria. Her widower Doug gives a harrowing account of how his wife died in his arms after taking MMS. It’s not clear from the autopsy that MMS actually caused her death, but one really has to wonder, given the temporal proximity of her death to her having taken MMS. Correlation doesn’t always equal causation, but it’s very suspicious, it’s initially plausible that MMS caused Nash’s death, as you can see if you examine more details in the ABC7 report:

On the other hand, his wife only took two drops, which shouldn’t have been a highly toxic dose for an adult. So it’s still unclear whether MMS is what killed Sylvia Nash.

The next segment shows ABC News tracking down Jim Humble in his Mexican redoubt:

ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos

One thing I never realized before is just how whacky Humble is. He claims to have come from another galaxy, for one thing. When cornered by a reporter, Humble remained cool, calm, and collected, denying that MMS could be harmful and standing by claims that it is good for children and women with breast cancer. Tellingly, when asked for evidence, he was unable to produce any.

One good thing that happened last year on the MMS front is that a major distributor of MMS and believer in Jim Humble’s Genesis II Church, Louis Daniel Smith, was convicted of selling MMS as a drug and sentenced to four years in prison. Unfortunately, Smith was part of a huge network of at least 1,700 selling MMR around the world; so stopping him hardly puts a dent in MMS distribution. After all, there are many others like this:

And the occasional celebrity testimonial, like this one by Lindsay Wagner, who starred as The Bionic Woman:

Her claim:

But none of that 70s TV magic prepared Wagner for an ailment she would suffer in real life – a case of chronic Urticaria, which is severe, disabling hives.

“All over my body, like welts, like big welts. I looked like a boxer, my eyes were all swollen,” she said.

Steroids and antihistamines helped, but they had side effects and weren’t a permanent solution. So after eight months of suffering, Wagner was desperate for a cure.

“It would burn. It would itch like crazy. It’s something that could just make you go insane,” she said.

Through a friend, Wagner was put in touch with a woman whose child seemed to be nearly cured of severe autism by something called Miracle Mineral Solution, or MMS, that was purported to work for a variety of ailments, including chronic hives.

And:

“I was dumbfounded. Within a week, I was off the Prednisone. Within one week, I was just shocked,” she said.

She said within weeks the hives disappeared and never came back.

“I’m not a doctor. I’m not a scientist. I’m not a chemist. But it just seemed like this had actually cured whatever I was reacting to,” she said.

Chronic urticaria is a skin condition with a wide variety of presentations tied to a large number of causes. It’s often very hard to treat, but its natural course is to wax and wane, to become quiescent for a while and to recur. In other words, it’s a perfect condition to give the illusion of effectiveness to a quack remedy., and it’s incredibly unlikely that MMS cured Wagner’s urticaria. That’s why I wish ABC7 had resisted the temptation to include this segment. It adds nothing to the story, but it’s a credulous treatment of MMS that taints an otherwise very good report.

Unfortunately, as long as Humble stays in Mexico, there isn’t much that US authorities can do to investigate or extradite him. His archbishop, Mark Grenon, continues to sell MMS in the US, claiming immunity due to his being an archbishop and Genesis II being a church. Grenon isn’t quite as smooth as Humble. Basically, when confronted by the 20/20 team, he started ranting, swearing, and asking if ABC is owned by the Rothschilds. It’s simultaneously hilarious and disturbing at the same time to watch.

One thing that disappointed me about the 20/20 segment was that there was very little about autism and virtually nothing about Kerri Rivera. Fortunately, ABC7 takes up that slack:

Particularly balmy is this claim:

“Will it cure autism?” Wedeen asked.

“Well, we’ve seen 234 people lose their autism diagnosis with the protocol,” Rivera told Wedeen.

“I guess I’m just scared of the side effects? But if there aren’t any?” Wedeen said.

“There are no side effects. It doesn’t have any. Within an hour it’s out of the body,” Rivera responded.

Rivera insisted the potion was safe because it’s chemically different from bleach. She also claimed it’s most effective when doses are timed to cycles of the moon.

“Yeah, full moon because the parasites go into the gut during the full moon and the new moon and they mate,” Rivera told Wedeen.

“Really?” Wedeen asked.

“And so you can get a lot of kills. You can kill a lot of parasites during the moon cycles,” Rivera stated.

I’ve examined photos of the “parasites” parents using MMS have claimed to have removed from their children’s intestines through the use of MMS enemas before. They’re generally disgusting ropy-looking strands with mucus attached. Basically, anyone with a modicum of knowledge about parasites and gastroenterology will recognized that these are not actually parasites, but rather mucus mixed with fragments of colon mucosa (the innermost lining of the colon). It’s definitely not worms or parasites, and the claim that the parasites go into the child on the full moon to mate is about as daft a claim as I’ve ever heard. Four years after having learned of MMS and Kerri Rivera, I still have time accepting that anyone could believe such nonsense, but believe it they do.

One of the best disinfectants for quackery like MMS is to shine the light of publicity and skepticism on it. Kudos to ABC and ABC7 for doing just that.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eLDpGv

Farthest moon of 2016

Full moons at apogee (left) and perigee (right) in 2011. Composite image by EarthSky community member C.B. Devgun in India. Thanks, C.B.!

On October 31, 2016, the moon swings out to its farthest point from Earth for the year. One fortnight (approximately two weeks) from now, on November 14, the moon will be closer to Earth than it’s been since January 26, 1948. It’ll be some 50,000 km (30,000 miles) closer to Earth than tonight. It’ll also be a full moon – will present the moon and the closest supermoon since 1948!

The moon’s distance from Earth varies throughout its monthly orbit because the moon’s orbit isn’t perfectly circular. Every month, the moon’s eccentric orbit carries it to apogee – its most distant point from Earth – and then to perigee – the moon’s closest point to Earth – roughly two weeks later.

In this post, beneath the illustration below, we list the year’s 14 apogees and 13 perigees. Yes, the moon’s apparent size in our sky does change across this cycle of the moon. The variation in the moon’s apparent size – across its monthly orbit – is akin to that of a U.S. quarter versus a U.S. nickel.

Also in this post, we share with you a little-known fact about intriguing cycle of far and close moons.

This year’s farthest apogee happens on October 31, 2016 (252,688 miles or 406,662 km), and the closest perigee comes on November 14, 2016 (221,524 miles or 356,509 km). That’s a difference of about 30,000 miles (50,000 km). Meanwhile, the moon’s mean distance (semi-major axis) from Earth is 238,855 miles (384,400 km).

The moon’s orbit around Earth isn’t a circle, but it’s very nearly circular, as the above diagram shows. Diagram by Brian Koberlein. Used with permission.

Lunar apogees and perigees in 2016

Apogee	Perigee
January 2	January 15
January 30	February 11
February 27	March 10
March 25	April 7
April 21	May 6
May 18	June 3
June 15	July 1
July 13	July 27
August 10	August 22
September 6	September 18
October 4	October 16
October 31	November 14
November 27	December 12
December 25	January 10, 2017

Enjoying EarthSky so far? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

Amazingly, in periods of four years, lunar apogees and perigees fall on the same, or nearly the same calendar dates. Let’s look four years ahead, to the year 2020:

Lunar apogees and perigees in 2020

Apogee	Perigee
January 2	January 15
January 29	February 11
February 26	March 10
March 24	April 7
April 20	May 6
May 18	June 3
June 15	July 1
July 12	July 27
August 9	August 22
September 6	September 18
October 3	October 16
October 30	November 14
November 27	December 12
December 24	January 9, 2021

Also, in cycles of two years, the calendar dates remain the same, or nearly so, except that the lunar apogees and perigees trade places. For instance, let’s look two years beyond 2016, to the year 2018:

Lunar apogees and perigees in 2018

Apogee	Perigee
January 15	January 1
February 11	January 30
March 11	February 27
March 26	March 26
May 6	April 20
June 2	May 17
June 30	June 14
July 27	July 13
August 23	August 10
September 20	September 8
October 17	October 5
November 14	October 31
December 12	November 26
January 9, 2019	December 24

Want to know more? Here’s for a complete listing of all lunar perigees and apogees for the 21st century (2001 to 2100).

Here’s a little-known fact of the moon’s apogee/perigee cycle, among both professional astronomers and lay people. That is, the cycle causes lunar apogees and perigees to align on the same, or nearly the same, calendar dates every four years. That’s because 53 returns to perigee (or apogee) are nearly commensurate with four calendar years.

The mean length of the anomalistic month (perigee to perigee, or apogee to apogee) is 27.55455 days, whereas the average Gregorian year equals 365.2425 days. Hence:

27.55455 x 53 = 1460.3912 days

365.2425 x 4 = 1460.97 days

View larger. | Image via Wikipedia.

Bottom line: In periods of four years, lunar apogees and perigees fall on the same, or nearly the same calendar dates.

Close and far moons in 2015

2017 EarthSky Lunar Calendar pre-sale…is happening NOW!

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2e7kMdl

Full moons at apogee (left) and perigee (right) in 2011. Composite image by EarthSky community member C.B. Devgun in India. Thanks, C.B.!

On October 31, 2016, the moon swings out to its farthest point from Earth for the year. One fortnight (approximately two weeks) from now, on November 14, the moon will be closer to Earth than it’s been since January 26, 1948. It’ll be some 50,000 km (30,000 miles) closer to Earth than tonight. It’ll also be a full moon – will present the moon and the closest supermoon since 1948!

The moon’s distance from Earth varies throughout its monthly orbit because the moon’s orbit isn’t perfectly circular. Every month, the moon’s eccentric orbit carries it to apogee – its most distant point from Earth – and then to perigee – the moon’s closest point to Earth – roughly two weeks later.

In this post, beneath the illustration below, we list the year’s 14 apogees and 13 perigees. Yes, the moon’s apparent size in our sky does change across this cycle of the moon. The variation in the moon’s apparent size – across its monthly orbit – is akin to that of a U.S. quarter versus a U.S. nickel.

Also in this post, we share with you a little-known fact about intriguing cycle of far and close moons.

This year’s farthest apogee happens on October 31, 2016 (252,688 miles or 406,662 km), and the closest perigee comes on November 14, 2016 (221,524 miles or 356,509 km). That’s a difference of about 30,000 miles (50,000 km). Meanwhile, the moon’s mean distance (semi-major axis) from Earth is 238,855 miles (384,400 km).

The moon’s orbit around Earth isn’t a circle, but it’s very nearly circular, as the above diagram shows. Diagram by Brian Koberlein. Used with permission.

Lunar apogees and perigees in 2016

Apogee	Perigee
January 2	January 15
January 30	February 11
February 27	March 10
March 25	April 7
April 21	May 6
May 18	June 3
June 15	July 1
July 13	July 27
August 10	August 22
September 6	September 18
October 4	October 16
October 31	November 14
November 27	December 12
December 25	January 10, 2017

Enjoying EarthSky so far? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

Amazingly, in periods of four years, lunar apogees and perigees fall on the same, or nearly the same calendar dates. Let’s look four years ahead, to the year 2020:

Lunar apogees and perigees in 2020

Apogee	Perigee
January 2	January 15
January 29	February 11
February 26	March 10
March 24	April 7
April 20	May 6
May 18	June 3
June 15	July 1
July 12	July 27
August 9	August 22
September 6	September 18
October 3	October 16
October 30	November 14
November 27	December 12
December 24	January 9, 2021

Also, in cycles of two years, the calendar dates remain the same, or nearly so, except that the lunar apogees and perigees trade places. For instance, let’s look two years beyond 2016, to the year 2018:

Lunar apogees and perigees in 2018

Apogee	Perigee
January 15	January 1
February 11	January 30
March 11	February 27
March 26	March 26
May 6	April 20
June 2	May 17
June 30	June 14
July 27	July 13
August 23	August 10
September 20	September 8
October 17	October 5
November 14	October 31
December 12	November 26
January 9, 2019	December 24

Want to know more? Here’s for a complete listing of all lunar perigees and apogees for the 21st century (2001 to 2100).

Here’s a little-known fact of the moon’s apogee/perigee cycle, among both professional astronomers and lay people. That is, the cycle causes lunar apogees and perigees to align on the same, or nearly the same, calendar dates every four years. That’s because 53 returns to perigee (or apogee) are nearly commensurate with four calendar years.

The mean length of the anomalistic month (perigee to perigee, or apogee to apogee) is 27.55455 days, whereas the average Gregorian year equals 365.2425 days. Hence:

27.55455 x 53 = 1460.3912 days

365.2425 x 4 = 1460.97 days

View larger. | Image via Wikipedia.

Bottom line: In periods of four years, lunar apogees and perigees fall on the same, or nearly the same calendar dates.

Close and far moons in 2015

2017 EarthSky Lunar Calendar pre-sale…is happening NOW!

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2e7kMdl

Airglow over Sweden

View larger and higher quality. | Photo by Stefan Nilsson (known on Facebook as Digitaliz.se).

Stefan Nilsson in Åhus, Sweden wrote:

Airglow glowing in the darkness.

To enjoy the image in its full glory, please follow the 500px-link.

Thank you, Stefan!

Read what Atmospheric Optics has to say about airglow

Or read the airglow entry on Wikipedia.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2eqnlag

View larger and higher quality. | Photo by Stefan Nilsson (known on Facebook as Digitaliz.se).

Stefan Nilsson in Åhus, Sweden wrote:

Airglow glowing in the darkness.

To enjoy the image in its full glory, please follow the 500px-link.

Thank you, Stefan!

Read what Atmospheric Optics has to say about airglow

Or read the airglow entry on Wikipedia.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2eqnlag

Halloween ghost of the summer sun

Every Halloween – and a few days before and after – the brilliant star Arcturus sets at the same time and on the same spot on the west-northwest horizon as the summer sun.

What’s more, this star rises at the same time and at the same place on the east-northeast horizon that the sun does during the dog days of summer.

That’s why – every year at this time – you can consider Arcturus as a “ghost” of the sun.

Halloween – also known as All Hallows’ Eve or All Saints’ Eve – is observed in various countries on October 31, especially in the United States. It’s a big deal for America children, who roam from house to house trick or treating, hoping for candy and other treats. This modern holiday is based on a much older tradition, that of cross-quarter days.

2017 EarthSky Lunar Calendar pre-sale…is happening NOW!

At northerly latitudes, Arcturus sets in the west after sunset and rises in the east before sunrise

It’s fun to associate the star Arcturus with this time of year.

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere, however, you can’t see Arcturus right now. South of the equator, Arcturus sets at the same time and on the same place on the horizon as the winter sun. In other words, Arcturus sets before the sun and rises after the sun at southerly latitudes at this time of year.

2017 EarthSky Lunar Calendar pre-sale…is happening NOW!

Cover of ‘Star Arcturus, ghost of summer sun’ coloring book

At mid-northern latitudes, Arcturus now sets about 2 hours after sunset and rises about 2 hours before sunrise.

By watching this star in the October evening chill, you can envision the absent summer sun radiating its extra hours of sunlight. Not till after dark does this star set, an echo of long summer afternoons. Similarly, Arcturus rises in the east before dawn, a phantom reminder of early morning daybreaks.

You can verify that you’re looking at Arcturus once the Big Dipper comes out. Its handle always points to Arcturus.

By the way, if you live as far north as Barrow, Alaska, the star Arcturus shines all night long, mimicking the midnight sun of summer.

Donate: Your support means the world to us

Halloween derived from ancient Celtic cross-quarter day

Enjoying EarthSky so far? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1W6SzGH

Every Halloween – and a few days before and after – the brilliant star Arcturus sets at the same time and on the same spot on the west-northwest horizon as the summer sun.

What’s more, this star rises at the same time and at the same place on the east-northeast horizon that the sun does during the dog days of summer.

That’s why – every year at this time – you can consider Arcturus as a “ghost” of the sun.

Halloween – also known as All Hallows’ Eve or All Saints’ Eve – is observed in various countries on October 31, especially in the United States. It’s a big deal for America children, who roam from house to house trick or treating, hoping for candy and other treats. This modern holiday is based on a much older tradition, that of cross-quarter days.

2017 EarthSky Lunar Calendar pre-sale…is happening NOW!

At northerly latitudes, Arcturus sets in the west after sunset and rises in the east before sunrise

It’s fun to associate the star Arcturus with this time of year.

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere, however, you can’t see Arcturus right now. South of the equator, Arcturus sets at the same time and on the same place on the horizon as the winter sun. In other words, Arcturus sets before the sun and rises after the sun at southerly latitudes at this time of year.

2017 EarthSky Lunar Calendar pre-sale…is happening NOW!

Cover of ‘Star Arcturus, ghost of summer sun’ coloring book

At mid-northern latitudes, Arcturus now sets about 2 hours after sunset and rises about 2 hours before sunrise.

By watching this star in the October evening chill, you can envision the absent summer sun radiating its extra hours of sunlight. Not till after dark does this star set, an echo of long summer afternoons. Similarly, Arcturus rises in the east before dawn, a phantom reminder of early morning daybreaks.

You can verify that you’re looking at Arcturus once the Big Dipper comes out. Its handle always points to Arcturus.

By the way, if you live as far north as Barrow, Alaska, the star Arcturus shines all night long, mimicking the midnight sun of summer.

Donate: Your support means the world to us

Halloween derived from ancient Celtic cross-quarter day

Enjoying EarthSky so far? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1W6SzGH