First study of Oregon’s seafood processing workers finds high rate of injury [The Pump Handle]

As a PhD student, Laura Syron had been helping her advisor research workplace safety issues in the Pacific Northwest commercial fishing industry. The project got her thinking about worker safety throughout the seafood supply chain, from the boat to the processing plant. So she decided to do a study of her own.

The result is likely the first to examine occupational health and safety inside Oregon’s seafood processing industry. Along with her co-authors, Syron, a doctoral student at Oregon State University College of Public Health and Human Sciences, examined data from workers’ compensation disabling claims at the Oregon Health Authority. That dataset offers information on industry, occupation, worker gender and age, incident circumstances, medical costs, fatality, and temporary disability days paid. A “disabling” claim includes missing three or more days of work as well as hospitalization and long-term disability. The big takeaway: Oregon’s seafood processing workers experience injuries at a higher rate than the statewide average.

“I wasn’t sure what we would find — I was just curious if this was an industry that merited more research,” Syron told me. “And we found that it does.”

Published this month in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, the study found 188 disabling claims in Oregon’s seafood processing sector between 2007 and 2013. No worker fatalities were reported in the dataset. In that time period, the average annual claim rate in the seafood processing industry was 24 claims per 1,000 workers. Both claim frequency and the claim rate for such workers increased during the years studied, though there were slight drops in 2009 and 2013. In comparison, the disabling claim rate for all industries in Oregon was 11.9 per 1,000 workers in 2007, dropping to 8 per 1,000 by 2013. Most of the seafood processing claims were among men, with workers ages 25 to 34 experiencing the highest frequency and rate of disabling claims.

Syron and study co-authors Laurel Kincl, Liu Yang, Daniel Cain and Ellen Smit write:

Oregon’s seafood processing industry disabling claim rate was nearly two and a half times higher than the all-industry rate. Additionally, while the disabling claim rate for all industries in Oregon decreased over the study period, the rate in the seafood processing industry increased. Potentially, a contributing factor for the increasing trend in the seafood processing industry claim rate over the study period could have been the increased demand for seafood preparation and packaging. During 2007-2013, Oregon seafood landings (i.e., the amount of seafood that is harvested and brought to shore for processing) experienced a 22% increase, from 271,062,716 pounds in 2007 to 349,434,448 pounds in 2013. Additional research is necessary to identify causes for the increase in disabling claims in the seafood processing industry.

“It was encouraging that there were no occupational fatalities in the industry during the study period — that’s the great news,” Syron said. “But the musculoskeletal injuries are a big concern.”

On that issue, the study found that about half of the seafood processing claims involved traumatic injuries, with the most common being injury to a worker’s muscles, tendons, ligaments and joints. More than half of claims involved worker overexertion and bodily reaction, and about one-third were due to contact with objects or equipment. Nearly all the musculoskeletal injuries were due to overexertion and bodily reaction. More than half the claims involved workers who did tasks such as cutting and trimming fish or batching food. About a quarter of claims were among workers involved in transportation and moving. Among both groups of workers, injuries to muscles, tendons, joints and ligaments were most common.

The authors noted that their findings align with previous research on seafood processing in the Pacific Northwest that also found high rates of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. For example, a study on Washington state workers’ comp data from 1987 to 1995 found that seafood cannery workers experienced some of the highest rates of carpel tunnel syndrome. On the issue of prevention — which averts injuries to workers and lowers workers’ comp costs for employers — the study said fellow animal product manufacturing sectors, such as poultry processing, could likely offer some valuable safety insights to seafood processors.

“I hope that researchers and public health practitioners can partner with industry to think about how they can work together to prevent these injuries,” Syron told me. “Hopefully, these findings can start a discussion and help workers and industry reach that goal of keeping everyone safe and healthy.”

For a copy of the seafood worker study, visit the American Journal of Industrial Medicine.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for 15 years.

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

As a PhD student, Laura Syron had been helping her advisor research workplace safety issues in the Pacific Northwest commercial fishing industry. The project got her thinking about worker safety throughout the seafood supply chain, from the boat to the processing plant. So she decided to do a study of her own.

The result is likely the first to examine occupational health and safety inside Oregon’s seafood processing industry. Along with her co-authors, Syron, a doctoral student at Oregon State University College of Public Health and Human Sciences, examined data from workers’ compensation disabling claims at the Oregon Health Authority. That dataset offers information on industry, occupation, worker gender and age, incident circumstances, medical costs, fatality, and temporary disability days paid. A “disabling” claim includes missing three or more days of work as well as hospitalization and long-term disability. The big takeaway: Oregon’s seafood processing workers experience injuries at a higher rate than the statewide average.

“I wasn’t sure what we would find — I was just curious if this was an industry that merited more research,” Syron told me. “And we found that it does.”

Published this month in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, the study found 188 disabling claims in Oregon’s seafood processing sector between 2007 and 2013. No worker fatalities were reported in the dataset. In that time period, the average annual claim rate in the seafood processing industry was 24 claims per 1,000 workers. Both claim frequency and the claim rate for such workers increased during the years studied, though there were slight drops in 2009 and 2013. In comparison, the disabling claim rate for all industries in Oregon was 11.9 per 1,000 workers in 2007, dropping to 8 per 1,000 by 2013. Most of the seafood processing claims were among men, with workers ages 25 to 34 experiencing the highest frequency and rate of disabling claims.

Syron and study co-authors Laurel Kincl, Liu Yang, Daniel Cain and Ellen Smit write:

Oregon’s seafood processing industry disabling claim rate was nearly two and a half times higher than the all-industry rate. Additionally, while the disabling claim rate for all industries in Oregon decreased over the study period, the rate in the seafood processing industry increased. Potentially, a contributing factor for the increasing trend in the seafood processing industry claim rate over the study period could have been the increased demand for seafood preparation and packaging. During 2007-2013, Oregon seafood landings (i.e., the amount of seafood that is harvested and brought to shore for processing) experienced a 22% increase, from 271,062,716 pounds in 2007 to 349,434,448 pounds in 2013. Additional research is necessary to identify causes for the increase in disabling claims in the seafood processing industry.

“It was encouraging that there were no occupational fatalities in the industry during the study period — that’s the great news,” Syron said. “But the musculoskeletal injuries are a big concern.”

On that issue, the study found that about half of the seafood processing claims involved traumatic injuries, with the most common being injury to a worker’s muscles, tendons, ligaments and joints. More than half of claims involved worker overexertion and bodily reaction, and about one-third were due to contact with objects or equipment. Nearly all the musculoskeletal injuries were due to overexertion and bodily reaction. More than half the claims involved workers who did tasks such as cutting and trimming fish or batching food. About a quarter of claims were among workers involved in transportation and moving. Among both groups of workers, injuries to muscles, tendons, joints and ligaments were most common.

The authors noted that their findings align with previous research on seafood processing in the Pacific Northwest that also found high rates of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. For example, a study on Washington state workers’ comp data from 1987 to 1995 found that seafood cannery workers experienced some of the highest rates of carpel tunnel syndrome. On the issue of prevention — which averts injuries to workers and lowers workers’ comp costs for employers — the study said fellow animal product manufacturing sectors, such as poultry processing, could likely offer some valuable safety insights to seafood processors.

“I hope that researchers and public health practitioners can partner with industry to think about how they can work together to prevent these injuries,” Syron told me. “Hopefully, these findings can start a discussion and help workers and industry reach that goal of keeping everyone safe and healthy.”

For a copy of the seafood worker study, visit the American Journal of Industrial Medicine.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for 15 years.

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

Scientists understood the climate 150 years ago better than the EPA head today

The current head of the US Environmental Protection Agency Scott Pruitt does not believe or understand long-known principles of climate science and basic physics. Recently he claimed on CNBC that carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to global warming:

I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So, no, I would not agree that’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don’t know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.

There are two undeniable ironies in this statement. First, taken at face value it would suggest that we actually need to do more analysis – but the current administration is proposing draconian cuts in our climate science research budget. They are doing just the opposite of what he recommends.

The second irony is that scientists have known about the importance of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas for well over 100 years. There is no debate among any reputable scientists that carbon dioxide is the most important human emitted greenhouse gas. Furthermore, humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 43%. These are facts.

So, I wanted to revisit some of the first studies on carbon dioxide and its effect on the climate to put into perspective how backwards Pruitt is. One of the first works, and certainly a seminal study was completed in 1827 by Jean Baptiste Fourier. An excellent summary of the contributions of his work is provided here. 

While Fourier produced multiple publications, my favorite is the one from 1827. From his work, scientists were able to describe how heat entered and left a planet’s system. He described heat loss by infrared radiation from the Earth and other planets. He correctly concluded that energy transferred within the Earth was negligible compared to that transferred by radiation. He also recognized the important nature of the atmosphere – that it is transparent to visible light but not to infrared light. This is why the greenhouse analogy to our atmosphere is so apt. Shockingly, Fourier knew more about climate change than does the current head of the EPA.

So what was happening in the world back then? Well, both Beethoven and William Blake died that year. The first African American newspaper was published. The Russian-Persian war was ongoing. The Stockton and Darlington railway had just opened in England. Life expectancy in the UK was approximately 40 years, and less than that elsewhere in the world. I would have shown a photograph of what the world was like in 1827, but photography had not yet been invented.

Another major discovery occurred in the 1860s by researcher John Tyndall. He studied various gases and their ability to absorb radiant heat. Among the gases he studied were oxygen and nitrogen which he found were virtually transparent to radiant heat. On the other hand, he found that some gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide can absorb heat, even though they are present in small amounts. 

The genius of Tyndall was his measurement device. He used a galvanometer with a tube that he could fill with various gases. He couldn’t use glass to make the walls because glass is a radiant heat absorber. In fact, his original paper was filled with a detailed description of his experiment and the issues he had to address to ensure quality results. But, in the end he was able to quantify the importance of trace gases on the energy absorptivity of our atmosphere. A nice review of his work is available here. Shockingly, Tyndall knew more about climate change than does the current head of the EPA. 

What was the world like when Tyndall did his work? Well, America was at war – with itself – in the most deadly US war to date (the US Civil War). Russian serfs were freed by Tsar Alexander II. Oil refining had begun and soon whale oil would be replaced. Telegraph lines connected the East and West coasts of the USA. Victor Hugo published Les Miserables. A terrible Indian/settler conflict brewed in my home state of Minnesota. The Emancipation Proclamation became law, and the Gatling gun was invented.

1861 photograph of a log kitchen. Photograph: National Archives and Records Administration

The final stop on our way-back trip brings us to 1896 and Swedish researcher Svante Arrhenius. He became the first person (that I know of) to make predictions about how much the Earth temperature would change as we add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The title of his work, “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground” says it all. 

Using measurements of the energy incoming from the moon, Arrhenius showed that changes to trace gases in the atmosphere can dramatically affect the temperature of the planet. He also discussed how gases are able to absorb specific wavelengths of light. Using experimental data from other preceding studies, he predicted global temperatures would rise approximately 5–6C in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. 

Arrhenius also noted that humans were increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. One significant part of his work is that he was able to make predictions without the use of high-power supercomputers. In fact, there are many ways to make climate predictions – using techniques like those from the 1800s, using the history of temperature changes of the Earth to predict the future, using computer climate models, and others. It is a fallacy to say that our current predictions rely totally upon computer models. Of course, during his age, the rate of increase of carbon dioxide was very very slow. Shockingly, Arrhenius knew more about climate change than does the current head of the EPA.

Click here to read the rest

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/2nnKSfH

The current head of the US Environmental Protection Agency Scott Pruitt does not believe or understand long-known principles of climate science and basic physics. Recently he claimed on CNBC that carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to global warming:

I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So, no, I would not agree that’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don’t know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.

There are two undeniable ironies in this statement. First, taken at face value it would suggest that we actually need to do more analysis – but the current administration is proposing draconian cuts in our climate science research budget. They are doing just the opposite of what he recommends.

The second irony is that scientists have known about the importance of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas for well over 100 years. There is no debate among any reputable scientists that carbon dioxide is the most important human emitted greenhouse gas. Furthermore, humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 43%. These are facts.

So, I wanted to revisit some of the first studies on carbon dioxide and its effect on the climate to put into perspective how backwards Pruitt is. One of the first works, and certainly a seminal study was completed in 1827 by Jean Baptiste Fourier. An excellent summary of the contributions of his work is provided here. 

While Fourier produced multiple publications, my favorite is the one from 1827. From his work, scientists were able to describe how heat entered and left a planet’s system. He described heat loss by infrared radiation from the Earth and other planets. He correctly concluded that energy transferred within the Earth was negligible compared to that transferred by radiation. He also recognized the important nature of the atmosphere – that it is transparent to visible light but not to infrared light. This is why the greenhouse analogy to our atmosphere is so apt. Shockingly, Fourier knew more about climate change than does the current head of the EPA.

So what was happening in the world back then? Well, both Beethoven and William Blake died that year. The first African American newspaper was published. The Russian-Persian war was ongoing. The Stockton and Darlington railway had just opened in England. Life expectancy in the UK was approximately 40 years, and less than that elsewhere in the world. I would have shown a photograph of what the world was like in 1827, but photography had not yet been invented.

Another major discovery occurred in the 1860s by researcher John Tyndall. He studied various gases and their ability to absorb radiant heat. Among the gases he studied were oxygen and nitrogen which he found were virtually transparent to radiant heat. On the other hand, he found that some gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide can absorb heat, even though they are present in small amounts. 

The genius of Tyndall was his measurement device. He used a galvanometer with a tube that he could fill with various gases. He couldn’t use glass to make the walls because glass is a radiant heat absorber. In fact, his original paper was filled with a detailed description of his experiment and the issues he had to address to ensure quality results. But, in the end he was able to quantify the importance of trace gases on the energy absorptivity of our atmosphere. A nice review of his work is available here. Shockingly, Tyndall knew more about climate change than does the current head of the EPA. 

What was the world like when Tyndall did his work? Well, America was at war – with itself – in the most deadly US war to date (the US Civil War). Russian serfs were freed by Tsar Alexander II. Oil refining had begun and soon whale oil would be replaced. Telegraph lines connected the East and West coasts of the USA. Victor Hugo published Les Miserables. A terrible Indian/settler conflict brewed in my home state of Minnesota. The Emancipation Proclamation became law, and the Gatling gun was invented.

1861 photograph of a log kitchen. Photograph: National Archives and Records Administration

The final stop on our way-back trip brings us to 1896 and Swedish researcher Svante Arrhenius. He became the first person (that I know of) to make predictions about how much the Earth temperature would change as we add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The title of his work, “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground” says it all. 

Using measurements of the energy incoming from the moon, Arrhenius showed that changes to trace gases in the atmosphere can dramatically affect the temperature of the planet. He also discussed how gases are able to absorb specific wavelengths of light. Using experimental data from other preceding studies, he predicted global temperatures would rise approximately 5–6C in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. 

Arrhenius also noted that humans were increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. One significant part of his work is that he was able to make predictions without the use of high-power supercomputers. In fact, there are many ways to make climate predictions – using techniques like those from the 1800s, using the history of temperature changes of the Earth to predict the future, using computer climate models, and others. It is a fallacy to say that our current predictions rely totally upon computer models. Of course, during his age, the rate of increase of carbon dioxide was very very slow. Shockingly, Arrhenius knew more about climate change than does the current head of the EPA.

Click here to read the rest

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/2nnKSfH

Teachers: Be on the alert for this anti-science mailing! [Greg Laden's Blog]

A well known anti-science “think” tank has sent around, to teachers, a mailing including an antiscience book, a movie, and nice letter and, oddly, a pamphlet exposing the fact that the mailing is entirely politically motivated.

Most science teachers will ignore this. A few science teachers are science deniers, and they already had the material in the mailings. So, I think this was a huge waste of money and effort. But it happened and you should know about it, and you should warn anyone you know that is a teacher.

The real concern, in my opinion, is not this falling into the hands of science teachers. The science teachers will recognize this for what it is. The concern is this mailing in the hands of non-science teachers who are not innoculated against it, who may then wonder why their colleagues down the hall are not “teaching the controversy,” as it were.

The Heartland Institute, famous for supporting research to prove that smoking is not bad for people, and more recently for promoting research that climate change is not real, has sent this mailing to many thousands of teachers. I’ve heard the number 300,000, but that number is probably from Heartland, and they lie all the time, so I don’t believe it.

The Heartland Institute

…is a Chicago-based free market think tank … that has been at the forefront of denying the scientific evidence for man-made climate change. The Heartland Institute has received at least $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998 but no longer discloses its funding sources. The Union of Concerned Scientists found that “Nearly 40% of the total funds that the Heartland Institute has received from ExxonMobil since 1998 were specifically designated for climate change projects.”

David Padden founded The Heartland Institute in 1984 and served as its Chairman between 1984 and 1995, co-chairing with Joseph Bast. Padden was also one of the original members of the Board of Directors of the Cato Institute…

In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking second-hand smoke to health risks, and lobbied against government public health reforms. Heartland continues to maintain a “Smoker’s Lounge” section of their website which brings together their policy studies, Op-Eds, essays, and other documents that purport to “[cut] through the propaganda and exaggeration of anti-smoking groups.”

In a 1998 op-ed, Heartland President Joe Bast claimed that “moderate” smoking doesn’t raise lung cancer risks, and that there were “few, if any, adverse health effects” associated with smoking.

The mailer includes the book “Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming, with three authors including Craig Idso, Robert Carter, and Fred Singer, with a forward by conservative columnist Marita Noon.

Idso is the head of an organization who’s stated purpose is to “separate reality from rhetoric in the emotionally-charged debate that swirls around the subject of carbon dioxide and global change,” which means, in this case, to deny the basics of atmospheric physics. He has numerous ties with the oil industry. Carter died in 2016. He advised several climate change denying organizations and filled the print media with many anti-science op eds and editorials. He has openly admitted that he is a paid shill of the petroleum industry. Singer is an actual former scientist but recognized by his colleagues as an anti-climate science spokesperson. Singer has been on the Heartland Institute payroll for quite some time.

The book is full of lies and misdirections. It is mainly an attack on the “scientific consensus” on climate change.

You have probably heard a lot about the “climate consensus.” Since the attacking the consensus is the main objective of this mailing, I’d like to spend a moment on that topic. Feel free to skip down to the bottom of the post for suggestions on what books would be good for your favorite science teacher to have in his or her room, in case you want to participate in a sort of grass-roots counter mailing!

In most scientific endeavors, where new discovery is being made, a period of uncertainty, perhaps confusion, perhaps vigorous competition among ideas, is usually followed by a period of growing consensus around a particular scientific idea (a model, a theory, a set of methods and interpretations of findings, etc., depending on the science).

The growth and establishment of consensus is one of the key objectives of science. Scientists know that consensus is powerful and even limiting; an incorrect consensus can mislead researchers and be very counter productive. For this reason, scientists take consensus pretty seriously. Like a jury deciding on innocence or guilt of a person accused of a very serious crime, scientists don’t want to make a mistake. However, scientists are more like a civil case jury than a criminal case jury. We are not required to reject an otherwise well developed case because someone has raised doubt about one tiny aspect of it. Rather, we arrive at consensus using the preponderance of evidence, like in American civil law.

And, once consensus is established, it does not become dogma. Rather, it becomes a dart board, always hanging there in sight, always subject to attack and interrogation. (OK, I know that nobody interrogates their dart board. Maybe it is more like an Elf on the Shelf. But I digress.)

Consider “continental drift” (aka plate tectonics). When Alfred Wegener proposed his theory that continents move around in the early 1900s, he noted that many others had suggested similar ideas. Wegener proposed a comprehensive model of what may have happened in the earth’s past, but he lacked a good mechanism for it. So, the middle of the 20th century involved a period of criticism of his theory, with the idea eventually being more or less thrown out. One of the key features of plate tectonics is how the two kinds of Earth’s crust interact, but geologists did not yet know that the Earth has these two kinds of crust. “Deep sea” exploration had found submerged continental crust, and that looked like regular crust, so it was assumed that the land under the sea was the same as the land on the land.

I note that even though oceanic crust was not understood in the 19th century, Darwin had observed, during the voyage of the Beagle, that a set of islands in the Atlantic, which are actually a bit of ocean crust thrust above the sea surface, was very odd, and that with more study, may cause us to think novel thoughts about rocks.

Even though the theory was eclipsed, some people still thought it was a good idea.

So, we went from nobody getting continental drift, but with a few people mentioning it now and then, to a surge in thinking about it, to a widespread rejection but with a few people thinking it might be valid. I oversimplify, but it is safe to say that by the middle of the 20th century, even though “continental drift” had been a conversation in science since even before science could be said to exist, there was no consensus.

The later part of the middle of the 20th century, however, saw more and more evidence mounting. Rocks were found to be absolutely identical in the evidence of how they formed (that is the main way geologists divide up rocks) across large areas. For example, there are rock formations in South America, South Africa, India, Antartica, and Australia that clearly were once part of a single geological formation all on the same continent. This required that the continents had moved, and in this case, that these particular continents were all attached to each other at one (or more) time.

Also during this period, deep water oceanography was advanced and the actual sea floor was observed and sampled. Mid ocean ridges were discovered and documented. This is where the continents were spreading.

Meanwhile, the dynamic of continental crust subducting under other crust were being figured out, and the significant movement of continents right now (like around the Pacific) became the only way to explain, for example, Japan. The fossil record, which demonstrates a complex biogeoagprhy of evolution and movement of species, either restricted by being on different continents, or able to move around large areas that are now on different continents, started to makes sense only in the light of the emerging and increasingly detailed theory of continental movement. Research on how the Earth itself works as a planet, below the surface, eventually allowed for, if not definitively providing, a means for the continents to move.

Plate tectonics (the process) and continental drift (the historical events) eventually became consensus science.

Climate change, the processes by which climate patterns form and change over time, including the role of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and the potential contribution of human release of fossil Carbon as CO2 or Methane in causing significant change in climate, was consensus science at least a few decades ago. But agents of the petroleum and coal industries preferred citizens (voters and consumers) and governments (regulators) to not act on this already happening climate change. They funded libertarian and conservative front groups and others to manufacture doubt about climate change. For this reason, five years ago, to pick a date, the casual observer could not tell, depending on who they listened to and what they read, whether or not climate scientists were all on the same page.

A group of rather brave and smart scientists decided to do something that had not been done very much before, and that had never been addressed with a fully committed research program: Measure the consensus.

I have a few comments on that, but the best way to learn all about this effort is to check out “The Consensus Project.”

Normally the consensus over a scientific issue forms and all the scientists know about it. That is part of what being a scholar of science is about. You learn to learn about the developing arguments, the fights, the building consensus, the overturning of ideas, all of it, over historical time, recent decades, the present, as you study to become a scientists and you continue to keep track of this information as a working scientists.

Scientists know what consensus means, and they know its limitations and what questions remain. Today in geology nobody is working to disprove the idea that Cambridge Argillite and its sister rock in Norway match up and were once part of the same sea basin prior to the opening of the Atlantic Ocean, because that fact can only be wrong if everything we know about rocks is wrong. But others are working on, and arguing about, important details of the deep layers of the Earth and how they act in moving continents around.

But the scientists studying climate consensus were forced into the position of addressing consensus, as a concept or as a measure of the maturity or stability of a particular scientific construct, because the bought and paid for deniers forced them to do so with their politically motivated anti-science (and anti environmental) yammering.

There were actually two groups, and their work is often confused. The less widespread but excellent analysis that happened first showed that almost 100% of scientists agree on the basics of global warming related science. The more intensive analysis showed that nearly 100% of the literature agreed on the basics of global warming. In both cases, they were a couple percent short of full consensus, but I note the following:

1) The research was conservative, biased a little towards including items or people on the non-consensus side, in order to be unassailable.

2) The research was done with scientists and peer reviewed papers over a period of time, and the work ended (most of it) a couple of years ago. So, a figure like “97%” reflects, perhaps, the state of the field in 2010 better than 2017. The last few years have seen the total wiping out of certain non-consensus generating observations (like the so called “pause” in global warming). In other words, if this work showed a 3% non-consensus, I expect at least half of that to have gone away by now.

3) The deniers and their works, if they are scientists and if the work is peer reviewed, are of course considered in such studies, so that accounts for a half percent of so.

4) In normal society, something like 8% of people believe they were abducted by aliens. About 1% or a bit less probably believe they are aliens. (That works out nicely.) Among scientists, there are always going to be a few oddballs. There is a tenured professor at Harvard who is a UFO-ologist. There was until recently a tenured professor in Washington who thought Bigfoot was real. There are probably one or two geologists who think plate tectonics is fake. Science is lucky that the oddball number is low compared to society in general. But it is not zero.

The Heartland mailing asks teachers, “How do you teach global warming?”

Let me ask you that now, if you are a teacher? I’d love to know how and if, and using what materials and methods, you address climate change and global warming. Let us know in the comments!

Meanwhile, please let any teachers you know about this mailing. Feel free to share this blog post with them. And, if you are not a teacher but know one, or if you are a parent with a kid in school, consider sending the teacher a note, and if you feel up to it, a book! (But not the one Heartland sent!)

I do have some suggestions for you. There are many books on climate change and global warming, and they have tended to differentiate themselves so that there is remarkably little redundancy. Here, I’ll note a handful of recent (all are very current) books that serve a variety of different purposes. I’ve reviewed most of these on this blog (see links below) if you want more info on them.

Dire Predictions, 2nd Edition: Understanding Climate Change by Michael Mann and Lee Kump.

The UN’s IPCC periodically summarizes the state of scientific thinking on climate change. It is a huge report written for an expert audience. This book turns that report into something accessible by the average person, and does so with excellent graphics and other material. This book should be on the shelf in every science classroom.

Explore global warming with graphics, illustrations, and charts that separate climate change fact from fiction, presenting the truth about global warming in a way that’s both accurate and easy to understand. Respected climate scientists Michael E. Mann and Lee R. Kump address important questions about global warming and climate change, diving into the information documented by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and breaking it down into clear graphics that explain complex climate questions in simple illustrations that present the truth of the global warming problem clearly.

My review

A Global Warming Primer: Answering Your Questions About The Science, The Consequences, and The Solutions by Jeffrey Bennett.

This is the book sent around to teachers by the National Center for Science Education. It is an excellent overview of climate change and human impacts, using a unique approach that will work especially well in both high school science and social studies classrooms.

Is human-induced global warming a real threat to our future? Most people will express an opinion on this question, but relatively few can back their opinions with solid evidence. Many times we’ve even heard pundits say “I am not a scientist” to avoid the issue altogether. But the truth is, the basic science is not that difficult. Using a question and answer format, this book will help readers achieve three major goals: To see that anyone can understand the basic science of global warming; To understand the arguments about this issue made by skeptics, so that readers will be able to decide for themselves what to believe; To understand why, despite the “gloom and doom” that often surrounds this topic, the solutions are ones that will not only protect the world for our children and grandchildren, but that will actually lead us to a stronger economy with energy that is cheaper, cleaner, and more abundant than the energy we use today.

Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know® by Joe Romm.

This is more for the parents and teachers than the students, but it could be an excellent choice for an environmental science class. Romm discusses many of the pragmatic aspects of global warming, for the average individual, which is not seen as intensively developed in other books.

This book offers the most up-to-date examination of climate change’s foundational science, its implications for our future, and the core clean energy solutions. Alongside detailed but highly accessible descriptions of what is causing climate change, this entry in the What Everyone Needs to Know series answers questions about the practical implications of this growing force on our world:

· How will climate change impact you and your family in the coming decades?
· What are the future implications for owners of coastal property?
· Should you plan on retiring in South Florida or the U.S. Southwest or Southern Europe?
· What occupations and fields of study will be most in demand in a globally warmed world?
· What impact will climate change have on investments and the global economy?

My review.

Climatology versus Pseudoscience: Exposing the Failed Predictions of Global Warming Skeptics by Dana Nuccitelli.

Dana examines climate change by comparing what people, both real scientists and the fake ones, predicted, with what happened. He does other stuff too, but that is my favorite part of this book.

28 Climate Change Elevator Pitches: Short Explanations on the Scientific Basis of Man-made Climate Change by Rob Honeycutt.

This is hot off the presses. Again, this is more for the teacher and parent than the school setting, but since it is new I wanted you to know about it. My review is here.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2nE0JIx

A well known anti-science “think” tank has sent around, to teachers, a mailing including an antiscience book, a movie, and nice letter and, oddly, a pamphlet exposing the fact that the mailing is entirely politically motivated.

Most science teachers will ignore this. A few science teachers are science deniers, and they already had the material in the mailings. So, I think this was a huge waste of money and effort. But it happened and you should know about it, and you should warn anyone you know that is a teacher.

The real concern, in my opinion, is not this falling into the hands of science teachers. The science teachers will recognize this for what it is. The concern is this mailing in the hands of non-science teachers who are not innoculated against it, who may then wonder why their colleagues down the hall are not “teaching the controversy,” as it were.

The Heartland Institute, famous for supporting research to prove that smoking is not bad for people, and more recently for promoting research that climate change is not real, has sent this mailing to many thousands of teachers. I’ve heard the number 300,000, but that number is probably from Heartland, and they lie all the time, so I don’t believe it.

The Heartland Institute

…is a Chicago-based free market think tank … that has been at the forefront of denying the scientific evidence for man-made climate change. The Heartland Institute has received at least $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998 but no longer discloses its funding sources. The Union of Concerned Scientists found that “Nearly 40% of the total funds that the Heartland Institute has received from ExxonMobil since 1998 were specifically designated for climate change projects.”

David Padden founded The Heartland Institute in 1984 and served as its Chairman between 1984 and 1995, co-chairing with Joseph Bast. Padden was also one of the original members of the Board of Directors of the Cato Institute…

In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking second-hand smoke to health risks, and lobbied against government public health reforms. Heartland continues to maintain a “Smoker’s Lounge” section of their website which brings together their policy studies, Op-Eds, essays, and other documents that purport to “[cut] through the propaganda and exaggeration of anti-smoking groups.”

In a 1998 op-ed, Heartland President Joe Bast claimed that “moderate” smoking doesn’t raise lung cancer risks, and that there were “few, if any, adverse health effects” associated with smoking.

The mailer includes the book “Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming, with three authors including Craig Idso, Robert Carter, and Fred Singer, with a forward by conservative columnist Marita Noon.

Idso is the head of an organization who’s stated purpose is to “separate reality from rhetoric in the emotionally-charged debate that swirls around the subject of carbon dioxide and global change,” which means, in this case, to deny the basics of atmospheric physics. He has numerous ties with the oil industry. Carter died in 2016. He advised several climate change denying organizations and filled the print media with many anti-science op eds and editorials. He has openly admitted that he is a paid shill of the petroleum industry. Singer is an actual former scientist but recognized by his colleagues as an anti-climate science spokesperson. Singer has been on the Heartland Institute payroll for quite some time.

The book is full of lies and misdirections. It is mainly an attack on the “scientific consensus” on climate change.

You have probably heard a lot about the “climate consensus.” Since the attacking the consensus is the main objective of this mailing, I’d like to spend a moment on that topic. Feel free to skip down to the bottom of the post for suggestions on what books would be good for your favorite science teacher to have in his or her room, in case you want to participate in a sort of grass-roots counter mailing!

In most scientific endeavors, where new discovery is being made, a period of uncertainty, perhaps confusion, perhaps vigorous competition among ideas, is usually followed by a period of growing consensus around a particular scientific idea (a model, a theory, a set of methods and interpretations of findings, etc., depending on the science).

The growth and establishment of consensus is one of the key objectives of science. Scientists know that consensus is powerful and even limiting; an incorrect consensus can mislead researchers and be very counter productive. For this reason, scientists take consensus pretty seriously. Like a jury deciding on innocence or guilt of a person accused of a very serious crime, scientists don’t want to make a mistake. However, scientists are more like a civil case jury than a criminal case jury. We are not required to reject an otherwise well developed case because someone has raised doubt about one tiny aspect of it. Rather, we arrive at consensus using the preponderance of evidence, like in American civil law.

And, once consensus is established, it does not become dogma. Rather, it becomes a dart board, always hanging there in sight, always subject to attack and interrogation. (OK, I know that nobody interrogates their dart board. Maybe it is more like an Elf on the Shelf. But I digress.)

Consider “continental drift” (aka plate tectonics). When Alfred Wegener proposed his theory that continents move around in the early 1900s, he noted that many others had suggested similar ideas. Wegener proposed a comprehensive model of what may have happened in the earth’s past, but he lacked a good mechanism for it. So, the middle of the 20th century involved a period of criticism of his theory, with the idea eventually being more or less thrown out. One of the key features of plate tectonics is how the two kinds of Earth’s crust interact, but geologists did not yet know that the Earth has these two kinds of crust. “Deep sea” exploration had found submerged continental crust, and that looked like regular crust, so it was assumed that the land under the sea was the same as the land on the land.

I note that even though oceanic crust was not understood in the 19th century, Darwin had observed, during the voyage of the Beagle, that a set of islands in the Atlantic, which are actually a bit of ocean crust thrust above the sea surface, was very odd, and that with more study, may cause us to think novel thoughts about rocks.

Even though the theory was eclipsed, some people still thought it was a good idea.

So, we went from nobody getting continental drift, but with a few people mentioning it now and then, to a surge in thinking about it, to a widespread rejection but with a few people thinking it might be valid. I oversimplify, but it is safe to say that by the middle of the 20th century, even though “continental drift” had been a conversation in science since even before science could be said to exist, there was no consensus.

The later part of the middle of the 20th century, however, saw more and more evidence mounting. Rocks were found to be absolutely identical in the evidence of how they formed (that is the main way geologists divide up rocks) across large areas. For example, there are rock formations in South America, South Africa, India, Antartica, and Australia that clearly were once part of a single geological formation all on the same continent. This required that the continents had moved, and in this case, that these particular continents were all attached to each other at one (or more) time.

Also during this period, deep water oceanography was advanced and the actual sea floor was observed and sampled. Mid ocean ridges were discovered and documented. This is where the continents were spreading.

Meanwhile, the dynamic of continental crust subducting under other crust were being figured out, and the significant movement of continents right now (like around the Pacific) became the only way to explain, for example, Japan. The fossil record, which demonstrates a complex biogeoagprhy of evolution and movement of species, either restricted by being on different continents, or able to move around large areas that are now on different continents, started to makes sense only in the light of the emerging and increasingly detailed theory of continental movement. Research on how the Earth itself works as a planet, below the surface, eventually allowed for, if not definitively providing, a means for the continents to move.

Plate tectonics (the process) and continental drift (the historical events) eventually became consensus science.

Climate change, the processes by which climate patterns form and change over time, including the role of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and the potential contribution of human release of fossil Carbon as CO2 or Methane in causing significant change in climate, was consensus science at least a few decades ago. But agents of the petroleum and coal industries preferred citizens (voters and consumers) and governments (regulators) to not act on this already happening climate change. They funded libertarian and conservative front groups and others to manufacture doubt about climate change. For this reason, five years ago, to pick a date, the casual observer could not tell, depending on who they listened to and what they read, whether or not climate scientists were all on the same page.

A group of rather brave and smart scientists decided to do something that had not been done very much before, and that had never been addressed with a fully committed research program: Measure the consensus.

I have a few comments on that, but the best way to learn all about this effort is to check out “The Consensus Project.”

Normally the consensus over a scientific issue forms and all the scientists know about it. That is part of what being a scholar of science is about. You learn to learn about the developing arguments, the fights, the building consensus, the overturning of ideas, all of it, over historical time, recent decades, the present, as you study to become a scientists and you continue to keep track of this information as a working scientists.

Scientists know what consensus means, and they know its limitations and what questions remain. Today in geology nobody is working to disprove the idea that Cambridge Argillite and its sister rock in Norway match up and were once part of the same sea basin prior to the opening of the Atlantic Ocean, because that fact can only be wrong if everything we know about rocks is wrong. But others are working on, and arguing about, important details of the deep layers of the Earth and how they act in moving continents around.

But the scientists studying climate consensus were forced into the position of addressing consensus, as a concept or as a measure of the maturity or stability of a particular scientific construct, because the bought and paid for deniers forced them to do so with their politically motivated anti-science (and anti environmental) yammering.

There were actually two groups, and their work is often confused. The less widespread but excellent analysis that happened first showed that almost 100% of scientists agree on the basics of global warming related science. The more intensive analysis showed that nearly 100% of the literature agreed on the basics of global warming. In both cases, they were a couple percent short of full consensus, but I note the following:

1) The research was conservative, biased a little towards including items or people on the non-consensus side, in order to be unassailable.

2) The research was done with scientists and peer reviewed papers over a period of time, and the work ended (most of it) a couple of years ago. So, a figure like “97%” reflects, perhaps, the state of the field in 2010 better than 2017. The last few years have seen the total wiping out of certain non-consensus generating observations (like the so called “pause” in global warming). In other words, if this work showed a 3% non-consensus, I expect at least half of that to have gone away by now.

3) The deniers and their works, if they are scientists and if the work is peer reviewed, are of course considered in such studies, so that accounts for a half percent of so.

4) In normal society, something like 8% of people believe they were abducted by aliens. About 1% or a bit less probably believe they are aliens. (That works out nicely.) Among scientists, there are always going to be a few oddballs. There is a tenured professor at Harvard who is a UFO-ologist. There was until recently a tenured professor in Washington who thought Bigfoot was real. There are probably one or two geologists who think plate tectonics is fake. Science is lucky that the oddball number is low compared to society in general. But it is not zero.

The Heartland mailing asks teachers, “How do you teach global warming?”

Let me ask you that now, if you are a teacher? I’d love to know how and if, and using what materials and methods, you address climate change and global warming. Let us know in the comments!

Meanwhile, please let any teachers you know about this mailing. Feel free to share this blog post with them. And, if you are not a teacher but know one, or if you are a parent with a kid in school, consider sending the teacher a note, and if you feel up to it, a book! (But not the one Heartland sent!)

I do have some suggestions for you. There are many books on climate change and global warming, and they have tended to differentiate themselves so that there is remarkably little redundancy. Here, I’ll note a handful of recent (all are very current) books that serve a variety of different purposes. I’ve reviewed most of these on this blog (see links below) if you want more info on them.

Dire Predictions, 2nd Edition: Understanding Climate Change by Michael Mann and Lee Kump.

The UN’s IPCC periodically summarizes the state of scientific thinking on climate change. It is a huge report written for an expert audience. This book turns that report into something accessible by the average person, and does so with excellent graphics and other material. This book should be on the shelf in every science classroom.

Explore global warming with graphics, illustrations, and charts that separate climate change fact from fiction, presenting the truth about global warming in a way that’s both accurate and easy to understand. Respected climate scientists Michael E. Mann and Lee R. Kump address important questions about global warming and climate change, diving into the information documented by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and breaking it down into clear graphics that explain complex climate questions in simple illustrations that present the truth of the global warming problem clearly.

My review

A Global Warming Primer: Answering Your Questions About The Science, The Consequences, and The Solutions by Jeffrey Bennett.

This is the book sent around to teachers by the National Center for Science Education. It is an excellent overview of climate change and human impacts, using a unique approach that will work especially well in both high school science and social studies classrooms.

Is human-induced global warming a real threat to our future? Most people will express an opinion on this question, but relatively few can back their opinions with solid evidence. Many times we’ve even heard pundits say “I am not a scientist” to avoid the issue altogether. But the truth is, the basic science is not that difficult. Using a question and answer format, this book will help readers achieve three major goals: To see that anyone can understand the basic science of global warming; To understand the arguments about this issue made by skeptics, so that readers will be able to decide for themselves what to believe; To understand why, despite the “gloom and doom” that often surrounds this topic, the solutions are ones that will not only protect the world for our children and grandchildren, but that will actually lead us to a stronger economy with energy that is cheaper, cleaner, and more abundant than the energy we use today.

Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know® by Joe Romm.

This is more for the parents and teachers than the students, but it could be an excellent choice for an environmental science class. Romm discusses many of the pragmatic aspects of global warming, for the average individual, which is not seen as intensively developed in other books.

This book offers the most up-to-date examination of climate change’s foundational science, its implications for our future, and the core clean energy solutions. Alongside detailed but highly accessible descriptions of what is causing climate change, this entry in the What Everyone Needs to Know series answers questions about the practical implications of this growing force on our world:

· How will climate change impact you and your family in the coming decades?
· What are the future implications for owners of coastal property?
· Should you plan on retiring in South Florida or the U.S. Southwest or Southern Europe?
· What occupations and fields of study will be most in demand in a globally warmed world?
· What impact will climate change have on investments and the global economy?

My review.

Climatology versus Pseudoscience: Exposing the Failed Predictions of Global Warming Skeptics by Dana Nuccitelli.

Dana examines climate change by comparing what people, both real scientists and the fake ones, predicted, with what happened. He does other stuff too, but that is my favorite part of this book.

28 Climate Change Elevator Pitches: Short Explanations on the Scientific Basis of Man-made Climate Change by Rob Honeycutt.

This is hot off the presses. Again, this is more for the teacher and parent than the school setting, but since it is new I wanted you to know about it. My review is here.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2nE0JIx

April guide to the bright planets

Watch the waxing moon over the next few evenings as the moon moves past the star Aldebaran, the brightest in the constellation Taurus the Bull.

Our annual fund-raiser is here! Help EarthSky stay an independent voice.

All five bright planets appear in the April 2017 night sky. Mercury and Mars shine in the west at dusk/nightfall while the dazzling planet Jupiter beams in the southeast sky. Look for Mercury and Mars first because they’ll set in the west during the evening hours. Jupiter, on the other hand, will shine all night long, from sundown to sunup. The two morning planets are Saturn and Venus. As April 2017 opens, Saturn rises at late evening or around midnight. Venus, which transitioned over to the morning sky in late March 2017, now appears low in the east at morning dawn. Although Venus will remain in the morning sky for the rest of this year, Venus will actually beam at its brightest best as the morning “star” by the end of April! Follow the links below to learn more about the planets in April 2017.

Brilliant Venus low in east before sunrise

Mars, east of Mercury, until early evening

Saturn lights up morning sky

Bright Jupiter from dusk till dawn

Mercury in the evening sky

Like what EarthSky offers? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

Astronomy events, star parties, festivals, workshops

Visit a new EarthSky feature – Best Places to Stargaze – and add your fav.

For northerly laitudes, the planet Mercury is making its best evening appearance for the year. Look westward some 45 to 60 minutes after sunset. Read more.

Skywatcher, by Predrag Agatonovic.

For a few days, centered on April 23, 2017, watch for the beautiful pairing of the waning crescent moon with Venus, the sky’s brightest planet. Read more

Brilliant Venus low in the east before sunrise Until fairly recently, Venus had been an evening object, lighting up the western sky after sunset. Venus, in its faster and smaller orbit around the sun, passed in between the sun and Earth on March 25, 2017. At this juncture, at Venus’ March 25 inferior conjunction, Venus transitioned out of the evening sky and into the morning sky.

In short, when Venus was east of the Earth-sun line in the first several weeks of March 2017, we saw Venus as an evening “star” in the west after sunset. After Venus’ inferior conjunction on March 25, Venus then moved to the west of the Earth-sun line, placing Venus in the eastern morning sky before sunrise. Because Venus will be to the west of the Earth-sun line for the rest of the year, Venus will remain a morning star throughout 2017. The chart below helps to illustrate.

The Earth and Venus orbit the sun counterclockwise as seen to the north of the solar system plane. When Venus is to the east (left) of the Earth-sun line, we see Venus as an evening “star” in the west after sunset. After Venus reaches its inferior conjunction, Venus then moves to the west (right) of the Earth-sun line, appearing as a morning “star” in the east before sunrise.

Actually, since Venus passed 8^o north of the sun on its March 25 inferior conjunction, it was possible to see Venus as both the evening and morning “star” for several days at northerly latitudes. That’s because, at northerly latitudes, far-northern Venus set after the sun and then came up before the sun as this inferior planet moved over to the morning sky. If you missed the double feature of Venus as both an evening and morning “star,” keep in mind that the double feature recurs in cycles of 8 years. It’ll happen again when Venus reaches its 5th inferior conjunction in 8 years on March 23, 2025 – and then its 10th inferior conjunction in 16 years on March 20, 2033.

Venus after sunset and before sunrise!

If you’re an early bird, you can count on Venus to be your morning companion for many months to come. This month, in April 2017, enjoy the picturesque coupling of the waning crescent moon and Venus in the eastern sky before sunrise on or near April 23, and witness Venus at its greatest illuminated extent on April 30, 2017.

From mid-northern latitudes (U.S. and Europe), Venus rises about one hour before the sun in early April and nearly two hours before sunrise by the month’s end.

At mid-southern latitudes (Australia and South Africa), Venus rises about about one hour before the sun in early April and 3 hours before sunup by the month’s end.

Click here for an almanac giving rising time of Venus in your sky.

Use the moon to find the planet Mars, the star Aldebaran and the Pleiades cluster as darkness falls on April 1. Read more.

Mars, east of Mercury, until early evening. After appearing as a fiery red light in our sky last May and June 2016, Mars is now a fading ember of its former self. Look for Mars rather low in the west as soon as darkness falls because it’ll follow the sun beneath the horizon by nightfall or early evening. Since Mars is edging closer to the sunset day by day, it’ll disappear in the twilight glare in a month or two.

Mars is not the only celestial object to sink into the twilight dusk in April. In fact, you can use Mars to spot the fading Pleiades star cluster, starting on or near April 17. The Zuni of New Mexico called the Pleiades the “Seed Stars” because the cluster’s disappearance from the evening sky signaled that the danger of frost had passed.

From mid-northern latitudes (U.S. and Europe), look for the red planet Mars to set in the west roughly an hour after nightfall in early April and around nightfall by the month’s end.

At mid-southern latitudes (Australia and South Africa), Mars sets at late dusk or nightfall all month long. Mars may be hard to see in the twilight glare from southerly latitudes and binoculars might be needed to spot it.

Let the waxing crescent moon help guide you to Mars on April 27 and 28. Don’t mistake the red star Aldebaran for the red planet Mars, this 1st-magnitude star shining twice as brilliantly as the red planet.

Let the waxing crescent moon help guide your eye to Mars on April 27 and 28. Read more.

Mars will linger in our sky for a few more months. Keep in mind, however, that Earth is traveling away from Mars as we speak – moving far ahead of this planet in the endless race around the sun – so Mars is dimming in our evening sky. Mars is in its long, lingering, relatively inconspicuous phase now. At tropical and northerly latitudes, it’ll be still visible in the west to the unaided eye, though not prominent.

Mars won’t make its transition from the evening to morning sky until July 27, 2017. Even so, Mars’ stature in the evening sky will continue to diminish to that of a rather faint “star,” and we expect few – if any – skywatchers to observe the conjunction of Mars and Mercury in the evening sky on June 28, 2017.

The conjunction of Mars and Venus in the morning sky on October 5, 2017, may well present the first good opportunity to spot Mars in the morning sky when it returns from being behind the sun on July 27, 2017.

Looking for a sky almanac? EarthSky recommends…

View larger | Mikhail Chubarets in the Ukraine made this chart. It shows the view of Mars through a telescope in 2016. We never see Mars as a disk like this with the eye alone. But you can see why Mars was bright to the eye in 2016, and is now fading.

Are you an early riser? Look for the moon, the star Antares and the planet Saturn in the predawn and dawn sky on April 15, 16 and 17. Read more.

Saturn lights up morning sky. Saturn swung behind the sun on December 10, 2016, transitioning from the evening to morning sky. In both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, Saturn is easy to view in the morning sky throughout April 2017. From mid-northern latitudes, Saturn rises in the east around midnight local time (1 a.m. daylight-saving time) in early April, and by the month’s end, Saturn comes up somewhere around 10 to 11 p.m. local time (11 p.m. to midnight daylight-saving time).

At temperate latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere, Saturn rises about 10 p.m. local time in early April, and by the month’s end, Saturn rises around 8:30 p.m. local time.

But your best view of Saturn, from either the Northern or Southern Hemisphere, is during the dark hour before dawn. That’s when Saturn climbs highest up for the night. Click here to find out when astronomical twilight starts in your morning sky (remember to click on the astronomical twilight box).

Be sure to let the waning crescent moon guide you to Saturn (and the nearby star Antares) for several days, centered on or near April 16 or 17.

Saturn, the farthest world that you can easily view with the eye alone, appears golden in color. It shines with a steady light.

Binoculars don’t reveal Saturn’s gorgeous rings, by the way, although binoculars will enhance Saturn’s golden color. To see the rings, you need a small telescope. A telescope will also reveal one or more of Saturn’s many moons, most notably Titan.

Saturn’s rings are inclined at nearly 27^o from edge-on, exhibiting their northern face. In October 2017, the rings will open most widely, displaying a maximum inclination of 27^o.

As with so much in space (and on Earth), the appearance of Saturn’s rings from Earth is cyclical. In the year 2025, the rings will appear edge-on as seen from Earth. After that, we’ll begin to see the south side of Saturn’s rings, to increase to a maximum inclination of 27^o by May 2032.

Click here for recommended almanacs. They can help you know when the planets rise, transit and set in your sky

Tom Wildoner over-exposed Saturn itself to capture this view of Saturn’s moons on June 25, 2016. Visit Tom at LeisurelyScientist.com.

Contrasting the size of Saturn and its rings with our planet Earth via Hubble Heritage Team.

As the moon travels in front of the constellation Virgo on April 9, 10 and 11, it bypasses the king planet Jupiter and Spica, Virgo’s brightest star. Read more.

Bright Jupiter from dusk till dawn. Jupiter reaches opposition on April 7 and comes closest to Earth for the year on April 8. Jupiter will not only shine at its brightest best for all of 2017 but it’ll beam all night long, from dusk till dawn.

Jupiter’s prominence in the nighttime sky will be hard to overlook in April 2017. Seek out the brightest starlike object at nightfall and that’ll probably be the king planet Jupiter! Look low in the southeast sky.

From mid-northern latitudes, like those in the U.S. and Europe, Jupiter rises at dusk or nightfall in early April. By the month’s end, Jupiter is seen above the horizon at dusk.

The same applies to tropical latitudes and mid-southern latitudes (Australia). Jupiter rises shortly after sunset in early April and shines above the horizon at dusk in late April.

Watch for a full-looking moon to join up with Jupiter for several days, centered on or near April 10, just a few days after Jupiter’s opposition date. Despite the moonlit glare, Jupiter should be able to withstand the onslaught of moonlight. See the above sky chart.

By the way, Jupiter shines in front of the constellation Virgo, near Virgo’s sole 1st-magnitude star, Spica. Jupiter serves a great reference for learning the constellations of the zodiac, because Jupiter stays in each constellation for roughly a year. So use Jupiter to become familiar with the star Spica and the constellation Virgo, starting now, and throughout 2017.

Look for the planet Jupiter to rise into your southeast sky after dark. If you are blessed with a dark sky, seek out the constellation Corvus near Jupiter and Spica, the brightest star in the constellation Virgo the Maiden.

If you have binoculars or a telescope, it’s fairly easy to see Jupiter’s four major moons, which look like pinpricks of light on or near the same plane. They are often called the Galilean moons to honor Galileo, who discovered these great Jovian moons in 1610. In their order from Jupiter, these moons are Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto.

Jupiter and its four major moons via Jan Sandberg

These moons circle Jupiter around the Jovian equator. In cycles of six years, we view Jupiter’s equator edge-on. So, in 2015, we got to view a number of mutual events involving Jupiter’s moons through a high-powered telescope. Click here or here or here for more details.

Although Jupiter’s axial tilt is only 3^o out of perpendicular relative to the ecliptic (Earth’s orbital plane), Jupiter’s axis will tilt enough toward the sun and Earth so that the farthest of these four moons, Callisto, will NOT pass in front of Jupiter or behind Jupiter for a period of about three years, starting in late 2016. During this approximate 3-year period, Callisto will remain “perpetually” visible, alternately swinging “above” and “below” Jupiter.

Click here for a Jupiter’s moons almanac, courtesy of Sky & Telescope.

Wow! Wonderful shot of Mercury – over the Chilean Andes – January 31, 2017, from Yuri Beletsky Nightscapes.

For northerly laitudes, the planet Mercury is making its best evening appearance for the year. Look westward some 45 to 60 minutes after sunset. Read more.

Mercury in the evening sky. For the Northern Hemisphere, Mercury will put on a good showing in the western evening sky for several weeks, centered on April 1. Mercury should be in fine view when the waxing crescent moon pairs up with Mercury on March 29.

Mercury is tricky. If you look too soon, Mercury will still be obscured by the haze of evening twilight; if you look too late, it will have followed the sun beneath the horizon. Watch for Mercury low in the sky, and near the sunset point on the horizon, seeking for this hidden treasure around 45 to 75 minutes after sunset. Remember, binoculars are always helpful for any Mercury search. Good Luck!

For the Northern hemisphere, this particular apparition of Mercury in the evening sky will be the best of the year. From temperate latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere, it’ll be a poor evening showing of Mercury. But don’t despair if you live at southerly latitudes. You’ll have your turn, when a super apparition of Mercury takes place in your morning sky all during May of 2017.

Click here for recommended almanacs; they can give you Mercury’s setting time in your sky.

What do we mean by bright planet? By bright planet, we mean any solar system planet that is easily visible without an optical aid and that has been watched by our ancestors since time immemorial. In their outward order from the sun, the five bright planets are Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. These planets actually do appear bright in our sky. They are typically as bright as – or brighter than – the brightest stars. Plus, these relatively nearby worlds tend to shine with a steadier light than the distant, twinkling stars. You can spot them, and come to know them as faithful friends, if you try.

This image is from February 8, 2016. It shows all 5 bright planets at once. Photo by our friend Eliot Herman in Tucson, Arizona.

Bottom line: In April 2017, three of the five bright planets appear in the evening sky: Mars, Jupiter and Mercury. Saturn and V enus are found the morning sky.

Easily locate stars and constellations with EarthSky’s planisphere.

Don’t miss anything. Subscribe to EarthSky News by email

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/IJfHCr

Watch the waxing moon over the next few evenings as the moon moves past the star Aldebaran, the brightest in the constellation Taurus the Bull.

Our annual fund-raiser is here! Help EarthSky stay an independent voice.

All five bright planets appear in the April 2017 night sky. Mercury and Mars shine in the west at dusk/nightfall while the dazzling planet Jupiter beams in the southeast sky. Look for Mercury and Mars first because they’ll set in the west during the evening hours. Jupiter, on the other hand, will shine all night long, from sundown to sunup. The two morning planets are Saturn and Venus. As April 2017 opens, Saturn rises at late evening or around midnight. Venus, which transitioned over to the morning sky in late March 2017, now appears low in the east at morning dawn. Although Venus will remain in the morning sky for the rest of this year, Venus will actually beam at its brightest best as the morning “star” by the end of April! Follow the links below to learn more about the planets in April 2017.

Brilliant Venus low in east before sunrise

Mars, east of Mercury, until early evening

Saturn lights up morning sky

Bright Jupiter from dusk till dawn

Mercury in the evening sky

Like what EarthSky offers? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

Astronomy events, star parties, festivals, workshops

Visit a new EarthSky feature – Best Places to Stargaze – and add your fav.

For northerly laitudes, the planet Mercury is making its best evening appearance for the year. Look westward some 45 to 60 minutes after sunset. Read more.

Skywatcher, by Predrag Agatonovic.

For a few days, centered on April 23, 2017, watch for the beautiful pairing of the waning crescent moon with Venus, the sky’s brightest planet. Read more

Brilliant Venus low in the east before sunrise Until fairly recently, Venus had been an evening object, lighting up the western sky after sunset. Venus, in its faster and smaller orbit around the sun, passed in between the sun and Earth on March 25, 2017. At this juncture, at Venus’ March 25 inferior conjunction, Venus transitioned out of the evening sky and into the morning sky.

In short, when Venus was east of the Earth-sun line in the first several weeks of March 2017, we saw Venus as an evening “star” in the west after sunset. After Venus’ inferior conjunction on March 25, Venus then moved to the west of the Earth-sun line, placing Venus in the eastern morning sky before sunrise. Because Venus will be to the west of the Earth-sun line for the rest of the year, Venus will remain a morning star throughout 2017. The chart below helps to illustrate.

The Earth and Venus orbit the sun counterclockwise as seen to the north of the solar system plane. When Venus is to the east (left) of the Earth-sun line, we see Venus as an evening “star” in the west after sunset. After Venus reaches its inferior conjunction, Venus then moves to the west (right) of the Earth-sun line, appearing as a morning “star” in the east before sunrise.

Actually, since Venus passed 8^o north of the sun on its March 25 inferior conjunction, it was possible to see Venus as both the evening and morning “star” for several days at northerly latitudes. That’s because, at northerly latitudes, far-northern Venus set after the sun and then came up before the sun as this inferior planet moved over to the morning sky. If you missed the double feature of Venus as both an evening and morning “star,” keep in mind that the double feature recurs in cycles of 8 years. It’ll happen again when Venus reaches its 5th inferior conjunction in 8 years on March 23, 2025 – and then its 10th inferior conjunction in 16 years on March 20, 2033.

Venus after sunset and before sunrise!

If you’re an early bird, you can count on Venus to be your morning companion for many months to come. This month, in April 2017, enjoy the picturesque coupling of the waning crescent moon and Venus in the eastern sky before sunrise on or near April 23, and witness Venus at its greatest illuminated extent on April 30, 2017.

From mid-northern latitudes (U.S. and Europe), Venus rises about one hour before the sun in early April and nearly two hours before sunrise by the month’s end.

At mid-southern latitudes (Australia and South Africa), Venus rises about about one hour before the sun in early April and 3 hours before sunup by the month’s end.

Click here for an almanac giving rising time of Venus in your sky.

Use the moon to find the planet Mars, the star Aldebaran and the Pleiades cluster as darkness falls on April 1. Read more.

Mars, east of Mercury, until early evening. After appearing as a fiery red light in our sky last May and June 2016, Mars is now a fading ember of its former self. Look for Mars rather low in the west as soon as darkness falls because it’ll follow the sun beneath the horizon by nightfall or early evening. Since Mars is edging closer to the sunset day by day, it’ll disappear in the twilight glare in a month or two.

Mars is not the only celestial object to sink into the twilight dusk in April. In fact, you can use Mars to spot the fading Pleiades star cluster, starting on or near April 17. The Zuni of New Mexico called the Pleiades the “Seed Stars” because the cluster’s disappearance from the evening sky signaled that the danger of frost had passed.

From mid-northern latitudes (U.S. and Europe), look for the red planet Mars to set in the west roughly an hour after nightfall in early April and around nightfall by the month’s end.

At mid-southern latitudes (Australia and South Africa), Mars sets at late dusk or nightfall all month long. Mars may be hard to see in the twilight glare from southerly latitudes and binoculars might be needed to spot it.

Let the waxing crescent moon help guide you to Mars on April 27 and 28. Don’t mistake the red star Aldebaran for the red planet Mars, this 1st-magnitude star shining twice as brilliantly as the red planet.

Let the waxing crescent moon help guide your eye to Mars on April 27 and 28. Read more.

Mars will linger in our sky for a few more months. Keep in mind, however, that Earth is traveling away from Mars as we speak – moving far ahead of this planet in the endless race around the sun – so Mars is dimming in our evening sky. Mars is in its long, lingering, relatively inconspicuous phase now. At tropical and northerly latitudes, it’ll be still visible in the west to the unaided eye, though not prominent.

Mars won’t make its transition from the evening to morning sky until July 27, 2017. Even so, Mars’ stature in the evening sky will continue to diminish to that of a rather faint “star,” and we expect few – if any – skywatchers to observe the conjunction of Mars and Mercury in the evening sky on June 28, 2017.

The conjunction of Mars and Venus in the morning sky on October 5, 2017, may well present the first good opportunity to spot Mars in the morning sky when it returns from being behind the sun on July 27, 2017.

Looking for a sky almanac? EarthSky recommends…

View larger | Mikhail Chubarets in the Ukraine made this chart. It shows the view of Mars through a telescope in 2016. We never see Mars as a disk like this with the eye alone. But you can see why Mars was bright to the eye in 2016, and is now fading.

Are you an early riser? Look for the moon, the star Antares and the planet Saturn in the predawn and dawn sky on April 15, 16 and 17. Read more.

Saturn lights up morning sky. Saturn swung behind the sun on December 10, 2016, transitioning from the evening to morning sky. In both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, Saturn is easy to view in the morning sky throughout April 2017. From mid-northern latitudes, Saturn rises in the east around midnight local time (1 a.m. daylight-saving time) in early April, and by the month’s end, Saturn comes up somewhere around 10 to 11 p.m. local time (11 p.m. to midnight daylight-saving time).

At temperate latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere, Saturn rises about 10 p.m. local time in early April, and by the month’s end, Saturn rises around 8:30 p.m. local time.

But your best view of Saturn, from either the Northern or Southern Hemisphere, is during the dark hour before dawn. That’s when Saturn climbs highest up for the night. Click here to find out when astronomical twilight starts in your morning sky (remember to click on the astronomical twilight box).

Be sure to let the waning crescent moon guide you to Saturn (and the nearby star Antares) for several days, centered on or near April 16 or 17.

Saturn, the farthest world that you can easily view with the eye alone, appears golden in color. It shines with a steady light.

Binoculars don’t reveal Saturn’s gorgeous rings, by the way, although binoculars will enhance Saturn’s golden color. To see the rings, you need a small telescope. A telescope will also reveal one or more of Saturn’s many moons, most notably Titan.

Saturn’s rings are inclined at nearly 27^o from edge-on, exhibiting their northern face. In October 2017, the rings will open most widely, displaying a maximum inclination of 27^o.

As with so much in space (and on Earth), the appearance of Saturn’s rings from Earth is cyclical. In the year 2025, the rings will appear edge-on as seen from Earth. After that, we’ll begin to see the south side of Saturn’s rings, to increase to a maximum inclination of 27^o by May 2032.

Click here for recommended almanacs. They can help you know when the planets rise, transit and set in your sky

Tom Wildoner over-exposed Saturn itself to capture this view of Saturn’s moons on June 25, 2016. Visit Tom at LeisurelyScientist.com.

Contrasting the size of Saturn and its rings with our planet Earth via Hubble Heritage Team.

As the moon travels in front of the constellation Virgo on April 9, 10 and 11, it bypasses the king planet Jupiter and Spica, Virgo’s brightest star. Read more.

Bright Jupiter from dusk till dawn. Jupiter reaches opposition on April 7 and comes closest to Earth for the year on April 8. Jupiter will not only shine at its brightest best for all of 2017 but it’ll beam all night long, from dusk till dawn.

Jupiter’s prominence in the nighttime sky will be hard to overlook in April 2017. Seek out the brightest starlike object at nightfall and that’ll probably be the king planet Jupiter! Look low in the southeast sky.

From mid-northern latitudes, like those in the U.S. and Europe, Jupiter rises at dusk or nightfall in early April. By the month’s end, Jupiter is seen above the horizon at dusk.

The same applies to tropical latitudes and mid-southern latitudes (Australia). Jupiter rises shortly after sunset in early April and shines above the horizon at dusk in late April.

Watch for a full-looking moon to join up with Jupiter for several days, centered on or near April 10, just a few days after Jupiter’s opposition date. Despite the moonlit glare, Jupiter should be able to withstand the onslaught of moonlight. See the above sky chart.

By the way, Jupiter shines in front of the constellation Virgo, near Virgo’s sole 1st-magnitude star, Spica. Jupiter serves a great reference for learning the constellations of the zodiac, because Jupiter stays in each constellation for roughly a year. So use Jupiter to become familiar with the star Spica and the constellation Virgo, starting now, and throughout 2017.

Look for the planet Jupiter to rise into your southeast sky after dark. If you are blessed with a dark sky, seek out the constellation Corvus near Jupiter and Spica, the brightest star in the constellation Virgo the Maiden.

If you have binoculars or a telescope, it’s fairly easy to see Jupiter’s four major moons, which look like pinpricks of light on or near the same plane. They are often called the Galilean moons to honor Galileo, who discovered these great Jovian moons in 1610. In their order from Jupiter, these moons are Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto.

Jupiter and its four major moons via Jan Sandberg

These moons circle Jupiter around the Jovian equator. In cycles of six years, we view Jupiter’s equator edge-on. So, in 2015, we got to view a number of mutual events involving Jupiter’s moons through a high-powered telescope. Click here or here or here for more details.

Although Jupiter’s axial tilt is only 3^o out of perpendicular relative to the ecliptic (Earth’s orbital plane), Jupiter’s axis will tilt enough toward the sun and Earth so that the farthest of these four moons, Callisto, will NOT pass in front of Jupiter or behind Jupiter for a period of about three years, starting in late 2016. During this approximate 3-year period, Callisto will remain “perpetually” visible, alternately swinging “above” and “below” Jupiter.

Click here for a Jupiter’s moons almanac, courtesy of Sky & Telescope.

Wow! Wonderful shot of Mercury – over the Chilean Andes – January 31, 2017, from Yuri Beletsky Nightscapes.

For northerly laitudes, the planet Mercury is making its best evening appearance for the year. Look westward some 45 to 60 minutes after sunset. Read more.

Mercury in the evening sky. For the Northern Hemisphere, Mercury will put on a good showing in the western evening sky for several weeks, centered on April 1. Mercury should be in fine view when the waxing crescent moon pairs up with Mercury on March 29.

Mercury is tricky. If you look too soon, Mercury will still be obscured by the haze of evening twilight; if you look too late, it will have followed the sun beneath the horizon. Watch for Mercury low in the sky, and near the sunset point on the horizon, seeking for this hidden treasure around 45 to 75 minutes after sunset. Remember, binoculars are always helpful for any Mercury search. Good Luck!

For the Northern hemisphere, this particular apparition of Mercury in the evening sky will be the best of the year. From temperate latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere, it’ll be a poor evening showing of Mercury. But don’t despair if you live at southerly latitudes. You’ll have your turn, when a super apparition of Mercury takes place in your morning sky all during May of 2017.

Click here for recommended almanacs; they can give you Mercury’s setting time in your sky.

What do we mean by bright planet? By bright planet, we mean any solar system planet that is easily visible without an optical aid and that has been watched by our ancestors since time immemorial. In their outward order from the sun, the five bright planets are Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. These planets actually do appear bright in our sky. They are typically as bright as – or brighter than – the brightest stars. Plus, these relatively nearby worlds tend to shine with a steadier light than the distant, twinkling stars. You can spot them, and come to know them as faithful friends, if you try.

This image is from February 8, 2016. It shows all 5 bright planets at once. Photo by our friend Eliot Herman in Tucson, Arizona.

Bottom line: In April 2017, three of the five bright planets appear in the evening sky: Mars, Jupiter and Mercury. Saturn and V enus are found the morning sky.

Easily locate stars and constellations with EarthSky’s planisphere.

Don’t miss anything. Subscribe to EarthSky News by email

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/IJfHCr

Finding Earth’s Twin In Space May Be Impossible (Synopsis) [Starts With A Bang]

“You can spend too much time wondering which of identical twins is the more alike.” -Robert Brault

When we think of the idea of “Earth’s twin,” we inevitably think of a planet like ours orbiting a star like ours at the same distance and speed. Most planets are not rocky and Earth-sized; most stars are not like the Sun; most planetary orbits don’t have Earth’s orbital parameters. Yet the idea that a twin of our planet is out there, and that’s the most likely place to look for life, persists.

Although many of the Earth-like candidates from Kepler are close to Earth in physical size, they may be more like Neptune than Earth if they have a thick H/He envelope around them. Additionally, they predominantly orbit dwarf stars. Image credit: NASA Ames / N. Batalha and W. Stenzel.

Why would that be the case? Of the billions and billions of Earth-sized planets in our galaxy alone, only a very small percentage meet our naive “Earth twin” criteria. Yet there are billions meeting other criteria that may well be habitable, meaning that unless complex life is heavily restricted to worlds around Sun-like stars for hitherto undiscovered reasons, we may be looking for all the wrong things by seeking a twin to our world.

While the brightest stars dominate any astronomical image, they are far outnumbered by the fainter, lower-mass, cooler stars out there. Image credit: NASA/ESA/Hubble/F. Ferraro.

Finding a twin of our world may be practically impossible, and far less useful that we generally assume. The best place to look for life may not be around an Earth-twin at all.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2op7z4H

“You can spend too much time wondering which of identical twins is the more alike.” -Robert Brault

When we think of the idea of “Earth’s twin,” we inevitably think of a planet like ours orbiting a star like ours at the same distance and speed. Most planets are not rocky and Earth-sized; most stars are not like the Sun; most planetary orbits don’t have Earth’s orbital parameters. Yet the idea that a twin of our planet is out there, and that’s the most likely place to look for life, persists.

Although many of the Earth-like candidates from Kepler are close to Earth in physical size, they may be more like Neptune than Earth if they have a thick H/He envelope around them. Additionally, they predominantly orbit dwarf stars. Image credit: NASA Ames / N. Batalha and W. Stenzel.

Why would that be the case? Of the billions and billions of Earth-sized planets in our galaxy alone, only a very small percentage meet our naive “Earth twin” criteria. Yet there are billions meeting other criteria that may well be habitable, meaning that unless complex life is heavily restricted to worlds around Sun-like stars for hitherto undiscovered reasons, we may be looking for all the wrong things by seeking a twin to our world.

While the brightest stars dominate any astronomical image, they are far outnumbered by the fainter, lower-mass, cooler stars out there. Image credit: NASA/ESA/Hubble/F. Ferraro.

Finding a twin of our world may be practically impossible, and far less useful that we generally assume. The best place to look for life may not be around an Earth-twin at all.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2op7z4H

Is homeopathy the end of vaccines? Only quacks would think so… [Respectful Insolence]

Yesterday, I wrote about an antivaccine “march on Washington.” As is often the case with antivaccine rhetoric, if you listened to the people organizing the conference and planning to speak there, you’d think that they were fighting an apocalyptic battle for the very future of the human race. Certainly, Kent Heckenlively seems to think so. I’m not going to write about this march again, at least not today. It’s too soon. I don’t know how ridiculous, how pathetic it was, mainly because, as I write this, it hasn’t happened yet. What I can write about is something I came across while researching yesterday’s post that has to be up there on the list of the most ridiculous things ever written about vaccines. Not surprisingly, I came across it on Patrick “Tim” Bolen’s website, as I perused Kent Heckenlively’s all caps rant in which he compared himself to Nelson Mandela.

Oddly enough, the post that attracted my attention was not written by Heckenlively, though. It was written by someone I’ve never heard of named Elissa Meininger, who bills herself as a “health policy analyst,” and it encompasses some serious, serious woo. Meininger seems to be a writer of some sort who bills herself as “fighting for health freedom.” Now she’s writing for Patrick “Tim” Bolen’s blog, which is about as far down the food chain as you can go, with the possible exception of writing for Mike Adams. No, it’s even lower than Mike Adams. Adams has a lot more traffic and, as batshit nuts as he is, at least his website has better design. Of course, both are so bad that it doesn’t really matter. Be that as it may, the title of the article is Is This The End Of Vaccines?, and if there’s any headline for which Betteridge’s Law applies, it’s this one. After asking whether vaccines are the best way to deal with infectious diseases, Meininger proclaims that “vaccines have never been the safest and the best way to deal with epidemic diseases,” which is, of course, a bit of a straw man and untrue as well. Vaccines are a major tool—and one of the most powerful—to deal with epidemic diseases, but it’s not the only tool.

You know that you’re in for some hard core woo when Meininger cites Rupert Sheldrake, a populizer (I refuse to call him an “investigator” or scientist) in paranormal phenomen as having pointed out the “scientific truths” of today, mainly as a prelude to attacking them for rooting science in the material. Of course, where else should science be rooted, but in the material? I’m not sure that these ten “core beliefs” really are “core beliefs,” but, even as distorted as some of them are in Meininger’s hands (via Sheldrake), it is true that science is based on them. For instance:

5. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures.

Well, yes. There’s no evidence that inheritance works by any other method than the material. Genes are material. Epigenetic mechanisms are material. What else could possibly carry the information necessary for biological inheritance? You get the idea. Meininger, like Sheldrake, doesn’t like science’s concentration on the material because they want to believe in the immaterial. For example:

1. Everything Is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, “lumbering robots,” in Richard Dawkins’s vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers.

You can tell from this passage that the complaint isn’t so much that everything is essentially mechanical, but the objection to the implications of such a view, which science generally supports, that there are physical explanations for natural phenomena like consciousness. Human beings don’t like accepting the fact that we are biological creatures and that our consciousness derives from the function of our brains and not some other magical mystical other mechanism that infuses our meat with thought and consciousness from…somewhere. Such concepts go against our exalted view of humans as being somehow apart from other animals, even though we are just animals ourselves. Personally, even when I was a religious Catholic, I had a hard time understanding just what was so horrible about being a part of the natural order, an animal like any other, even though we have complex language, self-awareness, and complex language.

What people like Sheldrake and Meininger really object to are the last three:

8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.
9. Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory.
10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

That all of these are true drives people who believe in woo crazy.

Now, here’s the funny part. Meininger is basically arguing that homeopathy is much better than vaccines, as you will see. She starts out by going back to Franz Mesmer. I kid you not. She references Mesmerism, which encompassed the belief that there was an invisible magnetic “fluid” that flowed throughout nature and that, when there were imbalances in this “fluid” disease resulted. Mesmer called this “fluid” “animal magnetism” and his techniques “magnetic healing”. Naturally, Meininger paints the rejection of Mesmer’s views as a grand conspiracy. Same as it ever was:

Naturally, the-powers-that-be needed to stop him, particularly because Queen Marie Antoinette was one of his most ardent supporters and King Louis XIV was not too pleased. In addition, Mesmer was the toast of pre-Revolutionary War Paris with associates suspected of being political agitators.

King Louis XIV convened a commission of “elite” scientists and medical experts to take a secret look at what Mesmer was talking about. As they were all philosophically committed to believing the world was a predictable, material, tangible system measurable by long-believed standards of measurement, they were hoping to find something they could measure. Since this “fluid” was invisible and not of the material world, they declared Mesmer a quack. That there were thousands who claimed they had been healed by his methods, didn’t count. Anecdotal information is not considered scientific evidence then or now by the standards of the “elite” “experts”. Mesmer became a laughing stock in the press so he left Paris.

After the Revolution, the Academy of Berlin formally acknowledged the validity of Mesmer’s ideas and invited him to Berlin but he chose to stay in Switzerland where he died In 1815.

I’m not sure where Meininger got the idea that the Academy of Berlin formally acknowledged the validity of Mesmer’s ideas. What I got from my research was conflicting. The Academy of Berlin did acknowledge Mesmer’s ideas and asked him to move to Berlin, something he didn’t want to do because he was quite old at the time and not too keen to do so.

Mesmer, as important as he was to the history of the paranormal, is not the main focus, though. The One Quackery To Rule Them All (homeopathy) is:

German allopath, Samuel Hahnemann had read about Mesmer’s work and it had provided the spark of an idea that turned into the philosophy and development of homeopathy. Hahnemann understood Mesmer’s idea about a universal energy that flowed through the universe and through people as well. He decided to call this energy the “vital force”. Like Mesmer, Hahnemann saw that if this vital force was disturbed, a person could become ill and if he could develop medicines that were able to restore normal flow of this energy, the patient could be restored to health.

For the record, the Chinese call it Qi, the Ayurvedic doctors of India call it Prana. 20th Century quantum physicists Max Planck and Albert Einstein called this field of energy “The Matrix” and both of them acknowledged that a greater mind had created it, thus confirming a spiritual dimension to its existence in modern times.

You can see why people like Sheldrake and Meininger don’t like current science. You can also see how she tortures quantum mechanics, as quacks are wont to do, to try to make it sound as though modern physics supports her prescientific vitalism. Notice how she conflates Max Planck’s and Albert Einstein’s spiritual beliefs with their scientific findings. Let’s just put it this way. Planck might well have believed that “religion and natural science require a belief in God,” but just because he was Max Planck doesn’t mean that he was correct.

Finally, we get to homeopathy. You knew that homeopathy was coming, didn’t you? Based on the defense of vitalism and how vitalism infused Samuel Hahnemann’s fever dream that turned into homeopathy, it didn’t take too long into the article before I knew that this would probably be about homeopathy, but first Meininger has to invoke Dr. Benjamin Rush’s famous statement, “To restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a republic.” It’s a statement that was seriously wrong-headed, although in the 1700s it might be somewhat defensible given how little was known about medicine. 200+ years later, it’s an idiotic statement. Then, of course, she invokes—who else?—Thomas Jefferson, to do what people love to do with the Founding Fathers and claim that they would be “appalled to find the medical monopoly we have in America today.” Of course, no one really knows what the Founding Fathers would think of today’s medicine. They’d probably think it was miraculous, because physicians in the 1700s had little other than basic surgery, herbal medicines, bleeding, purging, and toxic heavy metal tinctures in their armamentarium.

Which brings us to homeopathy.

The rest of the article is basically an argument that homeopathy is better than vaccines for the control of contagious disease but has been covered up because of the evils of big pharma trying to find medicines and vaccines that could be patented:

Meanwhile, the scientific “elite” were toiling in their laboratories and the big news of the day was that Louis Pasteur of France and Robert Koch of Germany were studying microbes to figure out how to invent patentable vaccines to kill them. This lab work gave all the “elites” an opportunity to talk endlessly about their “fanciful biochemical theories” and which of the germ theories was their favorite. Chemical companies started perking up their ears as the prospect of patentable drug products that could spell major profits and international trade. The public was entertained in the front pages of the press across Europe about all the excitement.

And, of course, Pasteur and Koch were in on the conspiracy to suppress homeopathy. Claiming that both “Pasteur and Koch were well aware of Homeopathy’s major successes,” Meininger lays down this major bit of revisionist history:

Consequently, each, in his own way, developed vaccines that were material in nature so they could be patented using what they thought were homeopathic principles. Problem was, homeopathy is an energy medicine and its healing qualities are based on Mesmer’s idea that it’s the vibrations that matter. They are non-toxic in nature unlike the allopathic vaccines, which had and still have all sorts of material ingredients that can cause harm. In addition, homeopathy, as a practice is focused on strengthening the person’s entire body and spirit, and not in the business of trying to kill germs.

Homeopaths frequently claim that vaccines are based on “homeopathic principles.” This is utter nonsense. Homeopathy, being The One Quackery To Rule Them All, posits two pseudoscientific principles. The first is the Law of Similars, which states that, to relieve symptoms, you should administer something that causes those symptoms. There is no scientific basis for this as a general principle—or even in the vast majority of individual diseases or symptoms. The second is the Law of Infinitesimals, which states that diluting a remedy makes it stronger. So homeopaths take whatever tincture they’re using and serially dilute it, usually by factors of 100, represented as “C.” To a typical 30C homeopathic dilution is in reality a 100³⁰, or 10⁶⁰ dilution. Given that Avogadro’s number is roughly 6 x 10²³, the chances that a single molecule of original substance remains after a 30C dilution is very small, other than carryover contamination on the glassware.

Now come the claims frequently used by homeopaths that homeopathy did so much better in epidemics of infectious disease, for instance, in a cholera epidemic in England in 1854:

The first report stated that under allopathic care, the mortality rate was 59.2%. When a member of the House of Lords asked why no homeopathic figures were included, the answer was that such information would “skew the results”. It turned out the homeopathic rate was only 9%.

Of course, I’ve frequently pointed out that “conventional” medicine in the 1800s and before was frequently toxic and ineffective and suggested that part of the reason that homeopathy seemed to do better at the time was that, for some conditions, doing nothing (which is all that homeopathy is) really was better than conventional medicines of the time, which, even though bloodletting was on the wane by then, still relied on purgatives, toxic metals like mercury and cadmium, and other potentially harmful interventions. There’s also the matter of selection bias, in which patients who were less ill might have chosen to try homeopathy while patients who were sicker would go to the conventional doctors of the time. Basically, what these figures, even if accurate, tell us is not informative, nor does it tell us whether homeopathy works. Then there’s the question of how many patients first sought out homeopathy, failed to get better, and then went to a conventional doctor before they died, where they would be counted as having been treated by conventional medicine.

Not surprisingly, Meininger also trots out the claim, frequently made by homeopaths, that during the 1918 pandemic of influenza victims treated with homeopathy had a 30-fold lower mortality rate (1% versus 30%). I’ve addressed this claim before when it was trotted out around the H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009. No doubt homeopaths reported low mortality, but was there any objective evidence that this was true? How do we know that patients who got sicker under the homeopaths’ care didn’t go to real physicians or die without being followed up. Do we know that the homeopaths’ patients were comparable to the patients treated by “conventional” medicine? We don’t.

Meininger even trots out this old homeopathic chestnut:

Confronted with an epidemic of leptospirosis in 2007, an epidemic that followed the annual hurricane season in Cuba, the Cuban Ministry of Health decided to conduct a study on homeopathy in several provinces that season. It was so successful that for the next 10 years they have used homeopathy on the entire 11 million Cubans. The disease is basically considered eradicated so they no longer administer the remedy automatically. The Cuban Ministry is now expecting similar results for dengue fever, “swine” flu, hepatitis A and conjunctivitis.

I covered this “study” when it was published, as did Le Canard Noir and apgaylard. It’s a bad study poorly described and reported. Basically, homeopaths claimed credit for something that they had nothing to do with. Same as it ever was.

Meninger basically concludes that “our future has already arrived” in the form of homeopathy as a vaccination strategy. What she’s really arguing for embracing mystical thinking that is 220 years old over modern science, although she does her best to slap a patina of real science over the mysticism and vitalism. I’ll stick in the present and look to the future, thank you very much.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2nqGTj1

Yesterday, I wrote about an antivaccine “march on Washington.” As is often the case with antivaccine rhetoric, if you listened to the people organizing the conference and planning to speak there, you’d think that they were fighting an apocalyptic battle for the very future of the human race. Certainly, Kent Heckenlively seems to think so. I’m not going to write about this march again, at least not today. It’s too soon. I don’t know how ridiculous, how pathetic it was, mainly because, as I write this, it hasn’t happened yet. What I can write about is something I came across while researching yesterday’s post that has to be up there on the list of the most ridiculous things ever written about vaccines. Not surprisingly, I came across it on Patrick “Tim” Bolen’s website, as I perused Kent Heckenlively’s all caps rant in which he compared himself to Nelson Mandela.

Oddly enough, the post that attracted my attention was not written by Heckenlively, though. It was written by someone I’ve never heard of named Elissa Meininger, who bills herself as a “health policy analyst,” and it encompasses some serious, serious woo. Meininger seems to be a writer of some sort who bills herself as “fighting for health freedom.” Now she’s writing for Patrick “Tim” Bolen’s blog, which is about as far down the food chain as you can go, with the possible exception of writing for Mike Adams. No, it’s even lower than Mike Adams. Adams has a lot more traffic and, as batshit nuts as he is, at least his website has better design. Of course, both are so bad that it doesn’t really matter. Be that as it may, the title of the article is Is This The End Of Vaccines?, and if there’s any headline for which Betteridge’s Law applies, it’s this one. After asking whether vaccines are the best way to deal with infectious diseases, Meininger proclaims that “vaccines have never been the safest and the best way to deal with epidemic diseases,” which is, of course, a bit of a straw man and untrue as well. Vaccines are a major tool—and one of the most powerful—to deal with epidemic diseases, but it’s not the only tool.

You know that you’re in for some hard core woo when Meininger cites Rupert Sheldrake, a populizer (I refuse to call him an “investigator” or scientist) in paranormal phenomen as having pointed out the “scientific truths” of today, mainly as a prelude to attacking them for rooting science in the material. Of course, where else should science be rooted, but in the material? I’m not sure that these ten “core beliefs” really are “core beliefs,” but, even as distorted as some of them are in Meininger’s hands (via Sheldrake), it is true that science is based on them. For instance:

5. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures.

Well, yes. There’s no evidence that inheritance works by any other method than the material. Genes are material. Epigenetic mechanisms are material. What else could possibly carry the information necessary for biological inheritance? You get the idea. Meininger, like Sheldrake, doesn’t like science’s concentration on the material because they want to believe in the immaterial. For example:

1. Everything Is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, “lumbering robots,” in Richard Dawkins’s vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers.

You can tell from this passage that the complaint isn’t so much that everything is essentially mechanical, but the objection to the implications of such a view, which science generally supports, that there are physical explanations for natural phenomena like consciousness. Human beings don’t like accepting the fact that we are biological creatures and that our consciousness derives from the function of our brains and not some other magical mystical other mechanism that infuses our meat with thought and consciousness from…somewhere. Such concepts go against our exalted view of humans as being somehow apart from other animals, even though we are just animals ourselves. Personally, even when I was a religious Catholic, I had a hard time understanding just what was so horrible about being a part of the natural order, an animal like any other, even though we have complex language, self-awareness, and complex language.

What people like Sheldrake and Meininger really object to are the last three:

8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.
9. Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory.
10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

That all of these are true drives people who believe in woo crazy.

Now, here’s the funny part. Meininger is basically arguing that homeopathy is much better than vaccines, as you will see. She starts out by going back to Franz Mesmer. I kid you not. She references Mesmerism, which encompassed the belief that there was an invisible magnetic “fluid” that flowed throughout nature and that, when there were imbalances in this “fluid” disease resulted. Mesmer called this “fluid” “animal magnetism” and his techniques “magnetic healing”. Naturally, Meininger paints the rejection of Mesmer’s views as a grand conspiracy. Same as it ever was:

Naturally, the-powers-that-be needed to stop him, particularly because Queen Marie Antoinette was one of his most ardent supporters and King Louis XIV was not too pleased. In addition, Mesmer was the toast of pre-Revolutionary War Paris with associates suspected of being political agitators.

King Louis XIV convened a commission of “elite” scientists and medical experts to take a secret look at what Mesmer was talking about. As they were all philosophically committed to believing the world was a predictable, material, tangible system measurable by long-believed standards of measurement, they were hoping to find something they could measure. Since this “fluid” was invisible and not of the material world, they declared Mesmer a quack. That there were thousands who claimed they had been healed by his methods, didn’t count. Anecdotal information is not considered scientific evidence then or now by the standards of the “elite” “experts”. Mesmer became a laughing stock in the press so he left Paris.

After the Revolution, the Academy of Berlin formally acknowledged the validity of Mesmer’s ideas and invited him to Berlin but he chose to stay in Switzerland where he died In 1815.

I’m not sure where Meininger got the idea that the Academy of Berlin formally acknowledged the validity of Mesmer’s ideas. What I got from my research was conflicting. The Academy of Berlin did acknowledge Mesmer’s ideas and asked him to move to Berlin, something he didn’t want to do because he was quite old at the time and not too keen to do so.

Mesmer, as important as he was to the history of the paranormal, is not the main focus, though. The One Quackery To Rule Them All (homeopathy) is:

German allopath, Samuel Hahnemann had read about Mesmer’s work and it had provided the spark of an idea that turned into the philosophy and development of homeopathy. Hahnemann understood Mesmer’s idea about a universal energy that flowed through the universe and through people as well. He decided to call this energy the “vital force”. Like Mesmer, Hahnemann saw that if this vital force was disturbed, a person could become ill and if he could develop medicines that were able to restore normal flow of this energy, the patient could be restored to health.

For the record, the Chinese call it Qi, the Ayurvedic doctors of India call it Prana. 20th Century quantum physicists Max Planck and Albert Einstein called this field of energy “The Matrix” and both of them acknowledged that a greater mind had created it, thus confirming a spiritual dimension to its existence in modern times.

You can see why people like Sheldrake and Meininger don’t like current science. You can also see how she tortures quantum mechanics, as quacks are wont to do, to try to make it sound as though modern physics supports her prescientific vitalism. Notice how she conflates Max Planck’s and Albert Einstein’s spiritual beliefs with their scientific findings. Let’s just put it this way. Planck might well have believed that “religion and natural science require a belief in God,” but just because he was Max Planck doesn’t mean that he was correct.

Finally, we get to homeopathy. You knew that homeopathy was coming, didn’t you? Based on the defense of vitalism and how vitalism infused Samuel Hahnemann’s fever dream that turned into homeopathy, it didn’t take too long into the article before I knew that this would probably be about homeopathy, but first Meininger has to invoke Dr. Benjamin Rush’s famous statement, “To restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a republic.” It’s a statement that was seriously wrong-headed, although in the 1700s it might be somewhat defensible given how little was known about medicine. 200+ years later, it’s an idiotic statement. Then, of course, she invokes—who else?—Thomas Jefferson, to do what people love to do with the Founding Fathers and claim that they would be “appalled to find the medical monopoly we have in America today.” Of course, no one really knows what the Founding Fathers would think of today’s medicine. They’d probably think it was miraculous, because physicians in the 1700s had little other than basic surgery, herbal medicines, bleeding, purging, and toxic heavy metal tinctures in their armamentarium.

Which brings us to homeopathy.

The rest of the article is basically an argument that homeopathy is better than vaccines for the control of contagious disease but has been covered up because of the evils of big pharma trying to find medicines and vaccines that could be patented:

Meanwhile, the scientific “elite” were toiling in their laboratories and the big news of the day was that Louis Pasteur of France and Robert Koch of Germany were studying microbes to figure out how to invent patentable vaccines to kill them. This lab work gave all the “elites” an opportunity to talk endlessly about their “fanciful biochemical theories” and which of the germ theories was their favorite. Chemical companies started perking up their ears as the prospect of patentable drug products that could spell major profits and international trade. The public was entertained in the front pages of the press across Europe about all the excitement.

And, of course, Pasteur and Koch were in on the conspiracy to suppress homeopathy. Claiming that both “Pasteur and Koch were well aware of Homeopathy’s major successes,” Meininger lays down this major bit of revisionist history:

Consequently, each, in his own way, developed vaccines that were material in nature so they could be patented using what they thought were homeopathic principles. Problem was, homeopathy is an energy medicine and its healing qualities are based on Mesmer’s idea that it’s the vibrations that matter. They are non-toxic in nature unlike the allopathic vaccines, which had and still have all sorts of material ingredients that can cause harm. In addition, homeopathy, as a practice is focused on strengthening the person’s entire body and spirit, and not in the business of trying to kill germs.

Homeopaths frequently claim that vaccines are based on “homeopathic principles.” This is utter nonsense. Homeopathy, being The One Quackery To Rule Them All, posits two pseudoscientific principles. The first is the Law of Similars, which states that, to relieve symptoms, you should administer something that causes those symptoms. There is no scientific basis for this as a general principle—or even in the vast majority of individual diseases or symptoms. The second is the Law of Infinitesimals, which states that diluting a remedy makes it stronger. So homeopaths take whatever tincture they’re using and serially dilute it, usually by factors of 100, represented as “C.” To a typical 30C homeopathic dilution is in reality a 100³⁰, or 10⁶⁰ dilution. Given that Avogadro’s number is roughly 6 x 10²³, the chances that a single molecule of original substance remains after a 30C dilution is very small, other than carryover contamination on the glassware.

Now come the claims frequently used by homeopaths that homeopathy did so much better in epidemics of infectious disease, for instance, in a cholera epidemic in England in 1854:

The first report stated that under allopathic care, the mortality rate was 59.2%. When a member of the House of Lords asked why no homeopathic figures were included, the answer was that such information would “skew the results”. It turned out the homeopathic rate was only 9%.

Of course, I’ve frequently pointed out that “conventional” medicine in the 1800s and before was frequently toxic and ineffective and suggested that part of the reason that homeopathy seemed to do better at the time was that, for some conditions, doing nothing (which is all that homeopathy is) really was better than conventional medicines of the time, which, even though bloodletting was on the wane by then, still relied on purgatives, toxic metals like mercury and cadmium, and other potentially harmful interventions. There’s also the matter of selection bias, in which patients who were less ill might have chosen to try homeopathy while patients who were sicker would go to the conventional doctors of the time. Basically, what these figures, even if accurate, tell us is not informative, nor does it tell us whether homeopathy works. Then there’s the question of how many patients first sought out homeopathy, failed to get better, and then went to a conventional doctor before they died, where they would be counted as having been treated by conventional medicine.

Not surprisingly, Meininger also trots out the claim, frequently made by homeopaths, that during the 1918 pandemic of influenza victims treated with homeopathy had a 30-fold lower mortality rate (1% versus 30%). I’ve addressed this claim before when it was trotted out around the H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009. No doubt homeopaths reported low mortality, but was there any objective evidence that this was true? How do we know that patients who got sicker under the homeopaths’ care didn’t go to real physicians or die without being followed up. Do we know that the homeopaths’ patients were comparable to the patients treated by “conventional” medicine? We don’t.

Meininger even trots out this old homeopathic chestnut:

Confronted with an epidemic of leptospirosis in 2007, an epidemic that followed the annual hurricane season in Cuba, the Cuban Ministry of Health decided to conduct a study on homeopathy in several provinces that season. It was so successful that for the next 10 years they have used homeopathy on the entire 11 million Cubans. The disease is basically considered eradicated so they no longer administer the remedy automatically. The Cuban Ministry is now expecting similar results for dengue fever, “swine” flu, hepatitis A and conjunctivitis.

I covered this “study” when it was published, as did Le Canard Noir and apgaylard. It’s a bad study poorly described and reported. Basically, homeopaths claimed credit for something that they had nothing to do with. Same as it ever was.

Meninger basically concludes that “our future has already arrived” in the form of homeopathy as a vaccination strategy. What she’s really arguing for embracing mystical thinking that is 220 years old over modern science, although she does her best to slap a patina of real science over the mysticism and vitalism. I’ll stick in the present and look to the future, thank you very much.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2nqGTj1

Budding Scientists Connect with DoD Pros during STEM Week

The weeklong event is a White House initiative designed to inspire students to explore science and math-related fields by visiting the nation's federal labs.
Read More

from Armed with Science http://ift.tt/2ooN0Fq

The weeklong event is a White House initiative designed to inspire students to explore science and math-related fields by visiting the nation's federal labs.
Read More

from Armed with Science http://ift.tt/2ooN0Fq