Imperial Evidence

Well done, voters of Queensland (ABC)

I'm usually fairly derisive of Q&A. I regularly admonish its fans and audience as being part of #QandAland, a happy land where harsh political realities cease to exist and we all sing kumbaya around a camp fire, holding hands with a leather-jacketed Malcolm Turnbull who has taken his rightful place as the leader of the Liberal Party (polite applause).

Most of the time, it is a pretty terrible exercise in inertia that gives Fairfax its main news stories for the next week. Sure, it's fun seeing Richard Dawkins and "Big" George Pell field incendiary questions about how evolution is just a "theory" or if an atheist can be a good person, but it's less a debate than a sideshow. There will never be a middle ground reached—there can't be—and the producers are perfectly happy to keep it that way.

Occasionally, however, the show can be revelatory. Duncan Storrar's questioning of a hapless Kelly O'Dwyer demonstrated how out of touch the Turnbull government was (and is), and how low the Murdoch papers will stoop with ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with their noxious world view.

Last night's National Science Week-themed Q&A also offered some gems, along with a great lessons in how to deal with the incurious, ignorant, chemtrail-addled obscurantist bore in your life (c'mon, we all have at least one).

Simple rule: don't argue with Professor Brian Cox unless you are discussing something which is impossible for him to have knowledge of, like the number of cracked Ikea coffee mugs in your cupboard (although he could probably give you a global mean) or on the finer points of Australian New Wave cinema.

One Nation lunatic-elect Malcolm Roberts gave a textbook performance as a conspiratorial nutjob. He challenged Professor Cox to present "empirical" evidence of climate change (it's almost like Malcolm knows what those words mean), and when presented with said evidence, claimed it was doctored. It's classic conspiracy believer stuff, with evidence against their tinfoil worldview appropriated as evidence for their conspiracy.

Think moon landing hoaxers: for them, the extensive photographic and data record of the Apollo program is fabricated, therefore this evidence the average person considers supports the moon landing is seen as evidence against the moon landings in the conspiratorial mind. Any evidence presented by authorities in inherently untrustworthy because it comes from Big Pharma, Big Farmer or the Guvment or Big Space (which is how I assume they refer to NASA).

Even though Brian Cox would have known he would be unlikely to alter Roberts's unfalsifiable position by presenting actual evidence, Cox's approach is a good one to keep in the critical thought toolbox when dealing with nutcases.

First off, Cox presented data. Now, presenting data almost never whips your a conspiracy-minded opponent into contrition, but it's worth a try. At least you know you have evidence to support your contention.
Secondly, when Roberts inevitably objected to the data, Cox asked specific questions as to why he objected. When Roberts claimed the data had been "corrupted" and "manipulated", Cox asked "by who?" By NASA, of course.
For many observers, this will be enough to demonstrate your opponent is a loon. Indeed it was enough for the residents of #QandAland to start laughing. Conspiracy theorists are, by and large, great at creating a compelling macro-scale worldview, but are woeful at detail. Once again, this doesn't change the mind of the conspiracy theorist, but it does deny them credibility among reasonable fence-sitting people.

For #QandAland, this is probably just the first appearance of many by this particular One Nation loon-elect. In an effort to concoct a sense of "balance", the ABC has gone out of their way to make sure fringe individuals like Pauline Hanson and Lyle Shelton get oxygen on programs like Q&A and The Drum. It is even less reason to engage in the alleged "debate" the show engenders.

I think Brian Cox said it best last night on the show when trying to communication the Australian Academy of Science's climate change report to Sovereign Idiot-elect Roberts: "...you can never get any sense on programs like this. They're adversarial things..."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Ultimately, you're unlikely to change the closed mind of a deliberately ignorant individual. As a rational being, you're already at a disadvantage compared to the science denying loon because you require evidence to support your claims—the denier does not adhere to such inconvenient niceties. No amount of peer-reviewed evidence is going lead someone like Roberts along the road to a Damascene conversion.
But not everybody out there is intentionally ignorant. Sometimes, people just receive bad information and carry it with them. So here's advice from UQ PhD student Diana Lucia, as offered on Radio National's Ockham's Razor:

...next time you’re at a dinner party and find yourself sitting next to a science denialist, return the favour, latch onto every illogical inconsistency they throw at you and force them to address it. Find out exactly what they object to and where they have been getting their information from. I doubt you’ll force them to have a sudden epiphany by the time dessert is served, but you can be part of the process that breaks down the barriers to begin to change people’s minds. 

Until next dinner party...

Good resources:
How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming, Grist.org
Science deniers use false equivalence to create fake debates, Skeptical Raptor
Don’t let denial get in the way of a good science story, The Conversation

Bad Science: Catalyst's Radioactive Waste Dump on Reason

ABC Catalyst's fear-inducing "radiation" absorption of a child's face is little more than a heat map – Source: ABC

It began like an A Current Affair story into 'Australia's Dodgiest Builder Who Cons Retirees Out of Their Life Savings by Posing as an Injured Person While on Welfare'...

You can't see it or hear it, but wi-fi blankets our homes, our cities and our schools...

 Our SCHOOLS? But...but...the Children!?

Dr Devra Davis: Children today are growing up in a sea of radiofrequency microwave radiation that did not exist five years ago...  

Cell phones emit pulsed radiation...

"Our" safety agencies don't reckon there's a problem with this dangerous sea of Wi-Fi pulsing and throbbing THROUGH our children, we're told, but:

some of the world's leading scientists and industry insiders are breaking ranks to warn us of the risks.

THANK YOU "leading" experts for being brave enough to come forward! I HAVE NO IDEA who or what would be stopping you from doing so otherwise, I guess the others are in league with Big Wireless or something, but THANK YOU for being so BRAVE!

Sadly this wasn't 6:30pm schlock on the commercial networks, it was Catalyst, once Australia's premiere science program, now run purely for ratings and controversy. This loaded use of language from the first thirty seconds of the programme was (literally) just the beginning. Viewers were conditioned at almost every point reject the opinion of our safety agencies (and mainstream scientific consensus because, I dunno, conspiracy or something) and accept the scary things the fringe researchers are saying because CHILDREN, damn it. DO YOU WANT YOUR CHILDREN DEAD FROM CANCER?

After watching the episode and reading through the transcript for this piece, I've had to prevent myself from rebutting line-by-line the nonsense peddled by some of the alleged 'experts'. You can find comprehensive and accurate rebuttals here, here and here. But the gist of it is this: Catalyst devoted the majority of this episode to promoting harmful effects of electromagnetic radiation, effects that are rejected by mainstream science and our fundamental understanding of radiation.

It is not my goal to go tit-for-tat on the claims made in the episode – it was a very bad episode of Catalyst and is the final nail in the coffin for the show as far as I'm concerned – but I do want to discuss the average person's strange relationship with science.

Cognitive Dissonance (no, it's not a form of deadly radiation)
Whether we realise it or not, science forms the basis of entire lives. From your alarm clock to your breakfast cereal to the milk in your coffee to the ignition of your car, all exist today in their current forms because of the knowledge science has provided us and continues to provide us with.

To take just a single example, look at a GPS navigation unit. You have the technology of the device itself: (liquid crystal display, touchscreen, microprocessors, memory, miniaturised componentry etc), the manufacturing process of the device (computerised global supply chains, global shipping, automated fabrication systems etc), the 3–4 satellites which calculate your position through trilateration, and then, underpinning it all, Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Believe it or not, but without proper application of relativity, GPS would be useless within 2 minutes. As lay people, we might not be familiar with the theories underpinning the functionality of the GPS, but we accept that someone somewhere has worked it out far better than we ever could.

Contrast this with radiation. The very word is prejudiced. But it's actually quite a simple concept: radiation is energy that goes from one place to another, with an associated electric field and magnetic field, also known as electromagnetic waves.

The Electromagnetic Spectrum – Source: CDC

In physics classes, you probably remember it as a spectrum. At one end, you have weaker low frequency, longer wavelength radiation, through to visible light, then stronger higher frequency, shorter wavelength radiation. These weaker forms of radiation are known as non-ionising radiation , while the stronger forms are ionising. In short, it's ionising radiation that is known to damage cells, while non-ionising radiation lacks the power to do so. It's non-ionising radiation we find in many of our appliances at home, from microwave ovens, cordless phones, mobile phones and, yes, Wi-Fi routers.

All the devices mentioned in the episode of Catalyst – mobile phones, Wi-Fi routers, cordless phones, tablets, microwaves etc – generate a comparatively tiny amount of low-energy non-ionising radiation. After quite a few decades of devices operating at this frequency (usually around 2.45ghz) there's little in the epidemiological record to indicate an effect on humans. This is the crux of the issue and why the World Health Organisation, after reviewing some 25,000 papers on the matter, found that "despite extensive research, to date there is no evidence to conclude that exposure to low level electromagnetic fields is harmful to human health".

That said, non-ionising radiation does affect the body. It might not be powerful enough to damage cells, but it does leave its mark by way of heat. When you sit outside in the sun, you feel warm because the non-ionising radiation from the sun (visible light) is acting on you by warming you. Unfortunately, sunlight brings with it ultraviolet light which is damaging. Sit out in that for too long without protection, and you've got sunburn – ionising radiation acting on and damaging your cells.

There is also preliminary evidence to suggest that non-ionising radiation does have some other yet-to-be-discovered non-thermal effects. This has been leapt upon by anti-radiation activists to demonstrate that Wi-Fi devices are indeed dangerous and "mainstream science" is yet to catch up. But the research is at such an early stage and the alleged effects so minor that it is extremely unlikely to cause cancer in the way these proponents claim.

The Rise of Big Telco, Coming to Kill Your Children
My goal here is not to go on about radiation (although I do love it), but rather to demonstrate it is something scientists have studied for a long time and have a pretty good idea about. We know ionising radiation can harm humans because we have studied exposure and seen the results. Just as I am content to leave relativity to the physicists, so too am I content to leave radiation to physicists who understand the practice and the theory in far greater detail than any of us could possibly hope to. Couple these experts with the oversight of national and international governmental and non-governmental regulatory agencies and you've got a pretty good setup for a safe world with safe products. Of course, humans being humans, things aren't always perfect, but the worst is usually averted.

Going back to climate change for a moment, who among you has ever read a scientific paper on climate change? I bet hardly any of you have. I know I haven't. Instead, we've read interpretations of that data written by scientists and science communicators for lay audiences. Take the IPCC: they produce an assessment report every few years based on the most up-to-date science on climate change. The most widely-read section of that report is the Summary for Policymakers, which explains most of the assessment in plain English (an even more concise 2 page summary is also available for the time-starved). Reading the raw data that underpins the conclusions simply isn't an option for most of us.

Yet most of us "accept" climate change as a thing that is happening. Sure, we're divided on what and how much to do about it, but only a lunatic fringe entirely doubts its existence (such as our erstwhile Prime Minister's chief business advisor who called climate change a UN conspiracy for a new world order). Most of us accept the science. Yet the same people who accept the science on climate change, relativity and other sciences fundamental to our everyday lives charge national standards  organisations, such as our own ARPANSA, as being in league with "Big Telco" on some conspiracy to conceal the alleged dangers Wi-Fi routers and mobile phones pose.

Thinking of the Children
This is the difficult position scientists in all disciplines find themselves in these days. They are having to re-explain the fundamentals they thought were settled years ago by Pasteur, Curie, Röntgen, Planck, Hertz or any other number of researchers to an audience that barely grasps high-school level English, let alone physics, biology or chemistry. But because this audience read something on GuiltyMommy.com or HuffPo, sources that regularly end up on mass media outlets, science must indulge their ignorance.

Imagine, for a second, if Catalyst ran a story on global warming that promoted the views of Christopher Monkton above those of James Hansen? Or if they broadcast a space special devoted to promoting a moon landing hoax? There would be understandable outrage. In the case of Wi-Fi and cancer, perhaps the content was not so inflammatory, but it does plant a seed of doubt in people's mind that does not need to be there in the first place.

But this isn't just about Catalyst, it's about a general scientific illiteracy in an era where science has never been more important. If we are to overcome the struggles of life in the 21st century, we are going to need science firing on all cylinders: agriculture, healthcare, power generation, manufacturing, resource management...the list goes on...and not indulge the paranoid fantasies of an illiterate few. In fact, if we are to give our children the best possible future, as the Wi-Fi Fearmongers and others claim is one of their main causes, we're going to need every weapon in the technological arsenal to overcome mankind's own stupidity and selfishness. Otherwise low-level non-ionising radiation will be the least of their worries...

Welcome To Australia, Huffington Post! Please Leave That Pseudoscience Nonsense At The Door

View image | gettyimages.com

~Originally published at Junkee.com~

The Huffington Post has finally arrived in Australia — and while our mainstream media will certainly benefit from more diversity, we may have reason to be afraid. Not just because of the brand’s infamous embrace of clickbait (we’re all guilty), or even its questionable practice of sourcing content from unpaid bloggers.

No: in a country where the CSIRO’s funding is free-falling, and science is routinely under attack from elected officials, of greatest concern to me is the Huffington Post’s uncritical promotion of pseudoscience and quackery.

Since its inception in 2005, the Huffington Post has provided a platform for anti-vaccine activists, new age spiritualists and other types of scientific illiteracy dressed up as genuine news. While media outlets sprouting the virtues of miracle diets and cures is nothing new, HuffPo’s massive world-wide reach and agenda-setting aspirations made its scientific illiteracy particularly concerning at the time. And although the publication’s embrace of pseudoscience has moderated in recent years, it’s worth taking a closer look at its recent past to be wary of what its Australian edition might bring.
The (Unvaccinated) Birth Of The Huffington Post

Arianna Huffington was a failed gubernatorial candidate and political divorcee when she founded the Huffington Post in 2005. A vanity exercise in the nascent blogosphere, it became a home for liberal politics and vitriolic pieces attacking key figures in the Bush administration. Huffington, formerly a Republican through personal belief and marriage, alienated many of her friends by her political conversion to the left — she even went so far as to ask her daughter Isabella to choose a new godmother (Isabella’s first godmother was appointed Secretary of Labor by Bush).

Shortly after HuffPo’s launch, some science bloggers noticed a disturbing trend in its coverage of health issues. Anti-vaccination activists such as Janet Grillo, Jay Gordon and David Kirby dominated the outlet’s “health” coverage; between them they published pieces supporting the long-discredited “link” between vaccines and autism, scare-mongering over pesticides (“parks and school ball fields are sprayed with chemicals so toxic they should be illegal”), and promoting the “Pharma-Political Complex” that apparently wants to harm all the children (presumably to sell them drugs to make them better or something).

These bylines were soon joined by the doyen of disinformation Jenny McCarthy, an actor and TV host who’s now infamous for leading the anti-vaccination movement, and her painfully unfunny then-boyfriend Jim Carrey. They both repeated the usual claims that “toxic” ingredients of the “lucrative vaccine program” are “causing autism and other disorders (Aspergers, ADD, ADHD)”. Of course there is no credible evidence to support this or any other of their claims; in fact there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. But in the world of the anti-vaxxer, contrary evidence isn’t valid, because it comes from government health organisations who are ‘in on it’ too.

(A quick debunk of the anti-vaccination movement: the vaccine ingredient anti-vaxxers claim causes autism – mercury – is not present in scheduled childhood vaccines. Thimerosal, a preservative used in some other vaccines, does indeed contain mercury, but in the form of an ethylmercury which is easily filtered out by your body. All this, however, is moot. Even if children are given vaccines that contain thimerosal, there is no known link between mercury and autism. None. The exact cause (or causes) of autism remain unknown, but what we do know is that vaccines are not to blame.)
The Sickness Of “Wellness”

Alas, HuffPo did not confine its anti-science stance to a few ill-advised stories on vaccines. In 2009 they devoted an entire section to “wellness”, edited by homeopath and licenced acupuncturist “Dr” Patricia Fitzgerald. Contrary to her title, “Dr” Fitzgerald was not a licenced medical practitioner, but rather held a doctorate in homeopathy. Unfortunately, this didn’t stop her offering dud medical advice, promoting ineffective “detox” routines while also having nice things to say about Jenny McCarthy.

Then it got worse. “Quantum healer” and self-help millionaire Deepak Chopra became a contributor, as did Kim Evans, who wrote that antibiotics are responsible for cancer, and that all cancers are fungi and can be treated with baking soda. Yep, you won’t believe what THEY don’t want you to know, dear sheeple.

There wasn’t a shred of credible evidence to support these astonishing claims either — only the assumption that Big Government, Big Pharma or Big Pineapple was out to get you. By 2010, the height of HuffPo’s questionable relationship with science, the site garnered around 28 million unique views per month. In 2011, AOL acquired the Huffington Post for $315 million. Since then it has only grown in size and audience to become the most popular blog in the world, claiming to attract some 100 million visitors per month. That’s a big global audience to be selling garbage science to.

But the web fought back. The same internet that helped propagate HuffPo also hosted a new generation of science-literate blogs and websites such as Science-Based Medicine, Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy and ScienceBlogs, among many others. The condemnation from these bloggers was swift, universal and derisive.

PZ Meyers of ScienceBlogs offered this gem:

image: http://junkee.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/huffpo.jpg



Slowly, contributors with science and evidence on their side began to have a regular presence on HuffPo, with the site even launching a science section in 2012. While today’s HuffPo continues to publish articles on topics of questionable scientific validity including acupuncture, immune system “boosting”, detox diets, and anti-GMO food, there are also a few choice bylines with the all-important post-nominals “M.D.” to counter the hokum and provide real actual medical science.

The problem is that the two types of articles sit side by side, and it is very difficult for the lay reader to determine what is a good, evidence-based article and what is pseudoscientific rubbish. While this is great for the free expression of quacks everywhere, it does little to further science in the popular understanding.

Search HuffPo today for “vaccines+autism” and you’ll find a hodgepodge of pro and anti-vaccine articles with vague, clickbaited headlines and questionable contentions. Presenting vaccination as a “debate” with two equal sides is bad journalism at best, and life-endangering at worst. When it comes to childhood vaccinations, there is no debate; there are not two equal sides. There is evidence-based science and there is opinion. As Neil deGrasse Tyson argued on the Colbert Report, science doesn’t care what your opinion is: “It’s true whether or not you believe in it”. Vaccines are the most effective medical intervention in the history of humankind.

Should we hold out hope that the Australian edition of HuffPo will improve on its parent’s chequered past? Perhaps. Right out of the gate, they have published two decent pieces on mental health, one by noted adolescent psychologist Dr. Michael Carr-Gregg, and the other looking at a new Beyond Blue anxiety program. They have also published a piece promoting the healing properties of crystals (they help “clear and release old toxic emotions”, apparently). If we can continue this ratio of 2-1 good science-based medical articles to hokum, there might be hope yet.

The methods of science are not optional to understanding our world; they are mandatory. They consist of careful observation and rigorous intellectual honesty, and are the best ways to confront the world’s many and varied problems. In a recent interview with the ABC’s Lateline, Huffington stated that she supports the key tenets of “fairness, accuracy and fact checking” in journalism, along with the scientific consensus of anthropogenic global warming. I sorely hope she implores her news sites, with a global audience of tens of millions, to follow the same principles.