SGU Episode 352

Links

• Show Notes
• Podcast
• Forum Topic

Skeptical Rogues

• S: Steven Novella
• B: Bob Novella
• R: Rebecca Watson
• J: Jay Novella
• E: Evan Bernstein

Introduction

Steven Novella: Hello, and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday April 11th 2012 and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella.

B: Hey everybody.

S: Rebecca Watson

R: Hello everyone

S: Jay Novella

J: Hey guys

S: And Evan Bernstein.

E: Good evening everybody.

J: Hello.

S: How's everyone doing this evening?

R: Super

B: Pretty good

J: Quite well

This Day in Skepticism

Titanic Disaster

R: Guess what today is.

S: uuuh, it is 100 years after the Titanic struck an iceberg.

R: Steve, why do you have to step all over my stuff?

S: Because you asked!

R: It was a rhetorical question, Steve.

S: Oh, I don't know Rebecca, what is today?

R: Today is the 100th anniversary of the Titanic sinking, you see how I said that even better that you did?

S: Except you were wrong.

R: Shut up.

S: The Titanic did not sink on the 14th, it struck the ice burg at 11:40 on the 14th. It sunk on the 15th.

E: Aaah. Sunk on the 15th, that's right.

R: I was going by Australian time, Steve.

S: (laughs) But not local ship time. I'm going by local ship time.

R: No.

E: Local shipwreck time.

R: I was trying to be kind to our Australian friends.

E: They said it hit a Goldberg? What? Oh, an iceberg.

S: (laughs) an iceberg, right.

E: That old joke.

S: But tell us the story.

R: You know the story, Steve. You know the story. Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet got on a boat. The boat sank. One of them died I guess, I didn't make it to the end.

(laughter)

R: Really long. Long movie. Yes, in 1912, the Titanic was the hot ticket supposedly unsinkable liner. And they were wrong. They hit an iceberg and sunk, there were not enough lifeboats to go around, lots of people died, we talked about this last week I believe.

S: We did, a lot of interesting details about the story. As I said last week, 1514 people died. There were only enough lifeboats on the Titanic for half of the current passengers, only a third of maximal capacity.

E: Yeah, and they didn't even fill those boats, like some of them launched with a dozen people. Cos it was a big mess, yeah.

S: Yeah, it was poor training. The crew didn't know how many people were supposed to go in the boats so they were launching them half-full yeah. It was crazy. And most of the men died, they did women and children first. Most of the men, even first class. 67%, two thirds of men in first class died. Most people who died, died from hypothermia. As soon as they hit the water, they lasted a minute. They died almost immediately. Were you guys aware that there was a ship that could have rescued everybody? The SS Californian was very close at hand, had spotted the Titanic, had spotted the flares, the rockets that were launched. The captain who was asleep, Captain Stanley Lord, he was awakened by a junior officer and he was like aaaah waah, alright whatever, he rolled over and went back to sleep. He basically said, well what colours were they, were they just trying to identify themselves or something? I guess the ships would use different coloured flares as ID. He said nope all the flares were white captain. It's like, alright keep me posted. But they didn't do anything. They could have. They arrived at 5 o'clock in the morning after the Carpathia had already rescued everybody who was in the lifeboats. It was too late to be of any use. So it was, really a tragedy. I mean, just no idea.

B: Oh my god, Steve now it's kind of worse.

E: Yeah.

J: Could you imagine that guy a week later?

S: Yeah.

R: Yeah.

J: He must have... it probably ruined his life.

S: Oh it did, he was actually, an enquiry found that he acted improperly. So probably his career was over at that point.

B: wow.

R: yeah, I hate to say this, but good. I mean it should ruin his live.

S: It should!

R: He ruined the lives of thousands of other people.

J: Yeah I agree.

B: Wow. Hey guys, I read, I went through a website that was just talking about the common myths of the Titanic, and one that surprised me was that this whole idea of the ship being unsinkable, according to this website anyway, the company that made the ship didn't really promote hardly at all this idea of it being unsinkable. And it seems to be a myth that was created after the sinking. And if you looked you really won't be able to find too much that said hey it's unsinkable before it actually sank. But after it sank, that's when that whole idea just kind of exploded. Which I thought was really, kind of odd.

S: I never heard that. That is interesting.

B: If that is true, I never heard of it either.

S: It's not odd, that makes perfect sense, that's exactly what happens. People change stories to make them more profound. How many times have you heard someone said, oh the doctors said I would never walk, and here I am walking. You know what, no doctor ever said that. You made that up after rehab and you were able to walk again. So it's the same, I totally believe that because I see that happen all the time in other contexts. But that is interesting because I'd never heard that before about the Titanic.

B: Yeah, I'm not surprised either, it just surprised me that after a century I would guess most people have no idea about that, if it's true. This is just based on one website that I read.

S: Yeah.

E: The Titanic had a sister ship, the Olympic.

S: There were two other ships in that class.

B: Britannia was one, was another one. Actually this website had another interesting titbit. You know there wasn't actually much recorded footage of the Titanic because, what was it, what was the first one that had its maiden voyage previously.

E: Olympic was in service in 1911. And it's Britannic, not Britannia.

S: So the Olympic had its maiden voyage previously, and the captain of the Titanic was also the captain of that ship. And they went and they sailed the exact same route by the way. So the fanfare wasn't as special of an event because it had already happened and some of the footage that you may see for the Titanic was actually not the Titanic, it was one of its sister ships. Because there wasn't a lot of footage for the Titanic because it was just kind of like, like almost like ho-hum here we go again type thing.

R: That reminds me of one of the other problems that people who really love the whole Titanic thing, one of the problems they face is that it's difficult to get any kind of souvenir that has the word Titanic on it. Because most of the things on the ship just said White Star Line because it was one of several basically identical liners.

S: Yeah.

J: Oh, that's interesting.

E: The Britannic was sunk by a mine during World War One.

S: A mine!

E: 1916! But the Olympic lasted quite a while, it was retired out of service in 1935, so it was the only one to not see a disastrous end.

S: Well happy 100th...

R: Sink day.

B: (laughs)

S: No, iceberg day.

R: Iceberg hitting day.

E: Ice burg day.

J: For the record, I thought the movie sucked. I know I'm in the minority, did not like the movie.

R: No it was an awful movie, are you kidding?

E: I saw Kate Winslet in an interview recently about the movie and it made me very happy when she said whenever she hears the Celine Dion song, her eyes roll, and in her mind she's thinking, wow I really can't stand this song at all.

R: Yeah I love her, Kate Winslet is awesome.

(laughter)

News Items

Blow Up Space Junk

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46980575/ns/technology_and_science-space/#.T4V1ZatSRLp

S: All right, well let's move on to the next item. Bob, there is yet another crazy scheme to deal with this whole space junk hubbub.

B: Yeah, resident space objects have been in the news lately. Have you ever heard of those? That's a euphemism I came across for common old space junk. I think NASA uses that term. Specifically, NASA is seriously considering a new way to get rid of our dangerous orbiting debris. The idea is to literally blow up some of the Earth's atmosphere so that it goes into space and cause some of the space junk that's there to de-orbit and burn up in our atmosphere. When I first saw that I was like, well you've got to be kidding, right. But actually I more I read, the more interesting it becomes. And this is a really cool idea for many reasons. First though, just a quicker primer on space junk. Space junk consists primarily of spent rocket stages and dead satellites and collision degree and etc. and all that. There's quite a bit of it out there, about 22,000 pieces as large as a softball or bigger. There's 500,000 pieces approximately bigger than a marble. And if you count everything bigger than a millimetre, you're talking literally hundreds of millions of items just careening around at orbital velocities. And the tiny ones can pack a punch, you think oh, you know it's smaller than a millimetre, big deal, but these high orbital velocities though really give it tremendous kinetic energy. For example, a marble travelling at 22,000 miles per hour has the kinetic energy of a 400 pound safe dropped from 100 feet.

S: That would crush a rabbit.

(laughter)

S: A rascally rabbit, in particular.

B: You know, what really scares me though, the most. Many people believe that we've already passed what's called this critical threshold. It's possible that now or some time in the near future, that even if we do nothing from this moment on, the junk will multiply, causing a cascade as it hits itself making more little pieces which then hit other pieces, etc. etc. until it gets so bad that nothing could survive a journey in space, could you imagine that?

S: I predict that if we just completely ignore this problem, it will just go away.

(laughter).

B: Just wait your 20 centuries and you're all set. Did you guys know that the international space station recently had a really close call? A real close call with space junk.

J: How recent?

E: How close, close?

B: Well, the astronauts aboard, imagine you're an astronaut on the ISS and you get a call, and they're like um, guys, could you go into the closest Russian Soyuz spacecraft and just wait for further instructions OK guys?

S: (laughs)

B: That's what they were told, scary.

J: When was this, Bob?

E: A week ago, two weeks ago?

B: Yeah, just this past month. The other scary part is that no-one knew about this potentially imminent collision until it was too late to move the ISS. They actually can and have moved the entire space station out of the way, but there was like not enough time, because they do need a lot of hours to actually, you know, get this thing moving. It turned out that a piece of a disabled Russian rocket was bearing down on them at 17,000 miles per hour. Luckily it missed them by seven miles, which might seem like a lot, but it really isn't when you're in orbit. But last June, a piece missed them by get this 1000 feet.

J: D'oh!

E: That's close. That's close.

B: 1000 feet, would be just like a bullet grazing your forehead.

S: Eerily, by the way, it's similar to the Titanic, they saw the iceberg a long time before they hit it but it just takes so long to turn that ship around that they just couldn't turn it around fast enough and the scraped past it.

J: Bob, did they shoot this thing with lasers? What did they do?

B: Hah no. Actually, yeah that is possible and China actually tested that a bunch of years ago, and they of course created lots of debris. Really pissed me off. But you know, you might think you could just clean it all...

S: That's good work boys.

B: Yeah, right. It's kinda easy to think, well just clean it all up, right? Just go gather it. But physics and economics just kind of giggles at you a bit when you say that. General William Shelton is head of the air force space command, what an awesome title that is. He's very pessimistic. He recently said, there's no solution just don't generate new debris.

E: There's no solution!

B: He said, if you look at the problem of trying to clean up debris, the physics just don't close. That's a direct quote, I get his gist but his phrasing seems kind of awkward.

S: Does not have way...

B: He finished with, with what we know about propulsion, there's no way to get there. So um...

S: So NASA's going to blow up the atmosphere.

B: Yeah, right. But if you look at the ideas that have been posited in the past, generally it involves a ship going from satellite to dead satellite picking them up. And really, I mean really it doesn't work, it's not practical at all, I mean think about it you have to change orbits and positions and velocities so often, the cost and weight to accomplish all that would be just, would be a joke. But the really important point there is that there's a lot of debris that you can't see. We can't see it. I mean there's literally millions of things in orbit that we cannot see, and that stuff is incredibly dangerous even if it's really tiny. You know, we can't track any of that stuff. Are you going to go and find and intercept all of them? There's no way we're going to do that, not with today's technology. Anyway, but that's where SPADE comes in. That stands for Space Debris Elimination which has been proposed by Daniel Gregory of Ratheon BBN Technologies in Virginia. And it is an interesting idea. The idea is to somehow fire focussed pulses of our atmosphere at the junk flying above it to change its trajectory, causing it to de-orbit and burn up faster. This is actually being seriously vetted by the NIAC or NASA's Innovative Advanced Concept project. And two ways they think they can pull this include a high-altitude plane or balloon being used to ignite enough fuel to cause this directed explosion. And calculations show that it wouldn't even need that much fuel, perhaps, I think the number was 500 gallons, I mean it was not a lot to accomplish this. Daniel recently said, or preliminary results show that we can affect the orbits of low earth orbit debris. We think we have a viable solution. And the beauty of this whole idea I think is threefold. We can handle all of the junk in the size spectrum from the biggest to the smallest, there's really no limitation. There's also no chance of adding new debris, and that's really key. You know, you're not putting machinery into orbit to accomplish a task so there's no chance of a mishap like, say an explosion and then just adding more mass to the space junk that's already there. Now, of course there could be, you know it's not foolproof. You could ignite prematurely or too late and affect the orbit of something you don't want to affect, or you could just change the orbit in such away that it causes the debris to careen into some other debris, so yeah, it's not foolproof. But it's good that you're not actually putting, you know, more objects into space than you have to. And the atmosphere that gets exploded into space just settles back down into the atmosphere like nothing happened, so that's not a problem. Also, many pieces can be dealt with at once, and the thinking is that you only need 3% change in velocity and that could probably be enough to de-orbit most debris. Now remember, orbital mechanics is not like flying in an atmosphere. If you're in orbit and your velocity decreases, you will enter a lower orbit, no if, ands or buts. That's why the Moon is moving away from us as it steals angular momentum from the Earth, it moves faster and therefore enters into a higher orbit, just getting farther and farther away. So I hope this idea pans out, I'd rather not have future generations, you know, curse us because we're so messy and short sighted. And please, China and other nations, please don't show off and test your lasers by blowing up satellites and creating thousands more pieces of these resident space objects. We have enough there, thank you very much.

Aristolochia Nephropathy

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/herbal-medicine-and-aristolochic-acid-nephropathy/

S: All right well, thanks Bob. Going to come down to earth a little bit for the next one. This one is about an herbal product that's deadly toxin. Did you guys ever hear of Aristolochia Clematitis.

B: No!

R: No.

B: What the hell is that?

S: Well, yeah, they're actually the same root.

R: Actually yes.

E: Chlamydia?

S: These are flowers that, yeah not to put too fine a point on it, the flower kind of looks like the exit from a womb. The birth canal.

(laughter)

R: Very well put.

S: You know what I'm saying there Evan?

E: OK, there you go.

B: Gotcha.

J: I do now.

R: I think you're really going to have to spell it out here, Steve.

B: No wait, let me google this so I can see what you're talking about.

E: Visual aids?

S: A lot of natural, herbal or whatever remedies were based upon the notion that whatever the plant looks like, that's what it's used for. So this has been a traditional remedy in a lot of cultures for easing birth. You know, to use during birth, the birthing process. It was a very popular herbage in traditional Chinese medicine. However, it was recently found in the 1990s, and so again used for hundreds, perhaps a couple of thousand years as an herbal remedy for lots of things, again birth symptoms, but also snake bites and rashes and other things. For this reason, because it has had a long traditional use, a lot of people make the naturalistic argument, well it's natural, it's been used for thousands of years, it's got to be safe, right? Turns out, it's a deadly nephrotoxin. It will destroy your kidneys. This was first discovered in the 1990s as I said when there was a rash in kidney failure among young Belgian women. And it was discovered they were all visiting the same herbalist and were getting treatment for weight loss which included an aristolochia species. It was found that the aristolochic acid which is produced by some species of aristolochia is a nephrotoxin. Another similar case, this one in the Balkans. It was discovered that again, there was an increase in kidney damage and it was found that aristolochia seeds, which is a weed that commonly grows in the wheat fields was finding its way into the bread that was being made, so people were eating the aristolochia seeds. Now, researchers believe that these were both the same syndrome rather than having, they called the first syndrome Chinese Herbal Nephrotoxicity and the second one Balkan Nephrotoxicity, but now they're saying actually they're both just aristolochic acid nephropathy. They're both the same entity. And a lot has been discovered about the mechanism and how this toxin works. Well now there's a new study that shows in addition to causing kidney failure, the aristolochic acid also causes or increases the risk for urinary tract cancers. The researchers originally became suspicious of this because it was known that in Taiwan there is about four times the rate of bladder and other urinary tract cancers than in the Western World. So there's a cluster, you know. And whenever there is a cluster it always makes Epidemiologists interested. What is it, genetic or is it environmental? Researchers were able to find a strong correlation between Taiwanese with urinary tract cancers and mutations that are known to be caused by aristolochic acid. So it's one line of evidence that is correlating use of, again herbal aristolochia with significant increase in cancer. This is a very important story because in many countries, including the U.S., herbal remedies are not well regulated. In the U.S. in 1994 they were taken essentially away from the FDA in that the FDA no longer had to approve herbal remedies before they can go on the market and companies could also make these pseudo-structure, function claims for herbs. They became regulated like supplements, as if they were vitamins. And since 1994 the FDA has only been able to pull one herbal remedy from the market, and that was ephedra. You guys remember the whole ephedra thing?

B: Yeah.

J: Sure.

E: Sure do.

S: About a hundred people dropped dead from heart attacks because of ephedra. That's what it too, so only one case where the FDA was able to do that, so now we have an herbal product that is a known kidney toxin and can increase the risk of cancer and the FDA cannot pull it from the market. It doesn't really have the authority to do it. It can ban its import and it has done that, so you can't import it, but there's no ban on selling or using it once it's in the country.

R: Sometimes it seems as if the FDA is just completely useless.

S: But it's not their fault, they were made that way by congress. Laws were passed to make them powerless, essentially.

R: Right, I'm not saying it's necessarily their fault, I'm just saying it's really frustrating to have something called the Food and Drug Administration that can't administrate drugs.

S: This is an ongoing battle, but unfortunately the two senators, Orin Hatch and Tom Harkin, who are behind DSHEA, the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, they're powerful, and they keep successfully squashing initiatives to revise that law and give more authority back to the FTA, so I think that as long as they're in the Senate it's not going to happen.

R: And I think that one of my big frustrations is with the fact that often times we get into arguments with alternative medicine proponents. It would be nice to have an administration that had pull and that was somehow helpful in rebutting claims of alt- matters. So, to say something like, well I know that you like that homeopathic treatment, but look here at the fact that the FDA has issued these warnings about it and made it illegal and, you know, it would help us a lot, it would help our jobs a lot if we had an organisation that provided real, solid oversight. It would help give our arguments more heft.

S: Unfortunately, so called complementary and alternative medicine is one of the pseudo-sciences that enjoys bipartisan support. It's not one where only one party that's really behind it and the other party can criticise them for being unscientific. It's really bipartisan. And it is Harkin and Hatch, that's one Democrat and one Republican, they get together and that's when problems happen, right? It's unfortunate.

E: In this case yeah.

S: There's just no political will, really, to deal with this, to deal with this issue. And again, the other lesson here is that herbs are drugs. People think of them as supplements or food or whatever, that they're somehow different because they're natural. They're drugs. They have a pharmacological activity, they contain chemicals, they have drug-drug interactions, they can cause the same kind of side effects that drugs can. The only difference is we don't really know what their pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, we don't know how much of what active ingredients you're getting and there's lots of hidden toxicity. This is something that was used for thousands of years and nobody noticed that people were getting more bladder cancer, how could they really? I mean we need to do epidemiological studies to figure out that this increases the risk of cancer so it really isn't reasonable to expect that, just because something has been used for a long time that people would have casually observed a medical or a health risk from that substance. But that's what we're left with now, so really we are in a situation where the consumer has to be savvy and has to be aware, it's why it's important for these stories to get play.

Homophobia

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120406234458.htm

S: But let's move on, Rebecca, you're going to tell us about some new research into homophobia.

R: Yes, OK. Quick quiz for you guys. What do these people have in common? Ted Haggard, Bishop Eddie Long, Congressman Larry Craig, New Jersey Mayor Chris Mayers and Chris Cooper in American Beauty. Go.

E: Uuuum, the vowels in their names.

R: Good guess.

B: They're all skeptics.

R: uuuh, no. Nope, nope. You guys are not good at this game. The answer is they are all severely homophobic people who, it later turns out, displayed allegedly homosexual behaviours. Ted Haggard, for instance, preached against same-sex marriage to his mega-church and was later found to be engaging in homosexual sex. Sexy, sexy homosexual sex with a meth dealer.

J: ha, oh my...

E: wow.

R: So this is something that has become a cliché in our culture, it's the virulently homophobic jerk who turns out to secretly be harbouring homosexual urges. Finally, there has been a study to determine whether or not there is any truth to the cliché. The journal of personality and social psychology has just published a paper called Parental autonomy support and discrepancies between implicit and explicit sexual identities: Dynamics of self-acceptance and defense. They really know how to make an juicy study sound boring, by the way, those psychologists. In this study there were four different experiments done on college kids in Germany and the U.S. In the first experiment, students gave their stated sexual orientation and then the students were primed subliminally with either the word "me" or the word "others". They were then shown pictures of straight and gay couples. Those who associated "me" with "gay". Oh, I should say they were shown pictures of straight and gay couples and then they were asked to categorise them as straight or gay. So those who associated the word "me" with "gay" quickly and "me" with "straight" slowly, were considered to have implicitly gay desires. In the second experiment, subjects were allowed to browse same sex or opposite sex photos. And they were apparently then judged. In the third experiment, questionnaires on types of parenting were given to them, so statements like "I felt controlled and pressured in certain ways" and "my dad avoids gay men whenever possible". And then in the fourth experiment, there was a homophobia test which included overt homophobia which they judged by using a questionnaire on social policy and beliefs, and implicit homophobia which they judged using a word completion exercise. So, after all of that, they found that those with more supportive parents had an explicit sexual orientation that matched their implicit orientation. So, for instance, they openly identified to the researchers as lesbian, for instance, and the test showed that their implicit desires were also lesbian. However, those from more authoritarian homes had the largest discrepancy between their explicit and implicit orientations, or the way they identified compared to their desires. Those who were explicitly heterosexual but implicitly gay, were found to be more likely to react with hostility toward gay people. That incongruence was also able to predict many homophobic behaviours like endorsement of anti-gay policies and discriminatory bias against homosexuals. So, it's a really interesting study. There are, of course, some problems. There are always problems. The study authors say one big problem is that they only tested college kids and in the future, they would like to test adults who have had time to separate themselves from their parents as well as adolescents who are still living with their parents. That's not the only problem though. Others I've seen have expressed some concerns about the study for the same reasons that I've seen people express concerns about any study that deals with homosexuality, and particularly with desire. So, it is extraordinarily difficult to differentiate between what sexuality people identify with, which you can identify by asking them, what people's actual behaviours are, their sexual behaviours which you can ascertain by watching them, and then what their desires are. And this study primarily looked at their desires, and that's the hardest of the three to figure out, because you can't just ask. So the question is do these tests really get to the heart of what people really desire? And I'm sure the study authors would say yes, but me, I'm not a professional psychologist, but I'm not too convinced because maybe it's desire, or maybe it's just interest or curiosity, like the second experiment, choosing to look at pics of same-sex couples compared to choosing to look at pics of heterosexual couples, that doesn't necessarily mean you want to have sex with them. It just means you just want to look at pictures of them.

S: Yeah, I agree, I was reading this study too. It's like that's a long chain of inference.

R: Yeah.

S: that's a lot of maybes getting to "therefore they have more desire for homosexual..." you know, that was, that really was the weak part of the study for me.

R: yeah, I feel like to suggest that, to suggest that wanting to look at people of same-sex couples means that you identify with them sexually actually is in and of itself a bit closed minded and overly prudish. So the other tests, I think are a bit more conclusive, a bit more convincing, I should say.

S: Mmhmm.

R: The first test of associating the words quickly, that makes more sense to me, but still it does, you know if they believe that that second test is an accurate picture of what a person's desire is, then that does, for me that calls into question the study. But I want to quickly mention that these findings match up pretty well with another study that just came out of Boston University. I think the press release just went out today. It was published in the journal of homosexuality. Researchers at BU surveyed more than 5000 people in Massachusetts and they found that gay and lesbian adults whose parents were not supportive of their orientation were six to seven times more likely suffer serious depression and engage in binge drinking. And they also found that the act of coming out of the closet resulted in significantly improved mental health, particularly in women. They didn't find the same effect in men, but the researchers say that might be an artefact in their study. So, there are a couple of studies now that are coming out about parental influence on our behaviours, how we manifest our desires, and they're pretty much fitting in with our clichés and they're fitting in with what we might guess to be true, what Freud, I guess might support this idea of sublimating your ideas only causes you misery. Not that Freud didn't say a whole lot of stupid shit.

B: Ha.

R: But it's worth noting that, in that respect, that's something that we've certainly seen borne out. But whether or not this is just a fluke, and a convenient sort of just-so story, I think it's going to take a lot more studies to determine.

S: Yeah, definitely, anything this complex, you need to line up the ducks quite a bit.

R: Yeah.

S: I mean just one study like this, it's hard to get too excited about. It is all a little bit pop-psychology you know. But it does make sense as far as it goes, in that traits that you fear in yourself you'll be highly critical of in other people.

R: yeah.

S: So if you fear, whatever, the homosexual in yourself because your parents are very judgemental about it, then you become hypercritical of the same thing, i.e. homophobic, in other people. So again, that seems to make sense from a pop-psychology perspective.

R: Right, I mean if it were just a matter of a homophobic person simply not agreeing with someone being gay, that doesn't still explain why someone would go out of their way to actively campaign against homosexuality. In that respect, the suggestion is that that person finds homosexuality actively threatening. And that is a really good explanation for why it might be threatening. Because it challenges something that they themselves have been trying to sort of clamp down on due to their authoritarian upbringing. So, yeah it fits what we sort of, what we see, but whether or not it's solid, yeah it's going to take a few more studies I think.

S: Right, yeah, all the more reason, as you say, to be skeptical of it, because it seems to make sense.

R: Yeah, exactly.

Toilet Water

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2126007/Bill-Gates-funds-new-machine-filters-toilet-waste-drinkable-water.html

S: OK, so we're really doing a lot of different kinds of items, we went from space to herbs, to homophobia and now Evan, you're going to bring us around to toilet water.

E: (laughs)

B: I knew it.

S: and Bill Gates has something to do with this somehow.

E: I know, yeah right? From the heights of the outer atmosphere to as about an earthy a conversation as you can probably have.

S: Right in the toilet.

E: Have you guys heard the phrase, "the only two things certain in life are death and taxes"?

S: Occasionally.

J: Of course.

E: I'd like to add to that by suggesting that the only things that are certain in life are death, taxes, and waste products.

S: Mmhmm.

E: How about that? Now think about it...

R: It's catchy.

E: If you were living, (laughs) I think it's true though, because if you think about it, right? All things that are living, they'll create some level of biological waste. Either in a form of a gas or a liquid or a solid or some combination of those, right?

S: Maybe all at the same.

E: At the same time. And even in death, as you decompose, you're still spewing out these bodily waste products, so. I know these are disgusting things to talk about, you know, these are things though that interest, maybe Bob.

B: Hah, I was thinking about that.

E: And then there's nanotechnology.

B: oooh.

E: Now nanotechnology and nano-science are the application and study of extremely small things. They're utilized across many, many scientific disciplines and fields such as chemistry, biology, physics, material science and engineering amongst others. How small are we talking? Well, there are 25,400,000 nanometres in an inch. A sheet of newspaper is about 100,000 nanometres thick. And on a comparative scale, if a marble were a nanometre then one meter would be the size of the earth.

J: Wow.

E: Now these are incredibly cool things to talk about. You know, things that interest Bob perhaps a bit more than the rest of us.

B: (laughs)

E: So what happens when you combine the topics of biologic waste products and nanotechnology?

B: Oh, boy.

E: One of two things I would suggest has happen, you've either entered one of Bob's lucid dreams, or perhaps the more likely option is that you're trying to solve one of the world's grand-scale problems that has literally plagued humans for thousands of years, ever since civilisation, and likely before that. We're talking about dysentery. So, there's another old saying, which takes its wording from one of the more basic principles in the animal kingdom, and that is you don't shit in the same place as you eat.

S: Yeah, don't crap where you eat.

J: Yeah, I try to follow that, OK.

E: (laughs)

R: He tries, it doesn't always work.

E: It's a really good principle to follow. It helps.

B: It's overrated.

E: But as the world's greatest producers of biological waste, we human beings are locked in an endless battle to keep our piss and crap out of our food and water. Now dysentery occurs when pathogens such as viruses and bacteria, parasites and other nasty bugs get into our digestive systems. These little buggers get into our guts because sometimes in places around the world, like the third world countries, the water there is sometimes only available in contaminated form. The water's been contaminated, sometimes that's the only water available. And millions of people around the world are sickened every year with dysentery and in many cases it's fatal. But, thanks to nano-scientists such as doctor Sarah Haigh of the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom, we may one day see the end of this awful condition. She's come up with a rather ingenious idea. She is experimenting with a nano-scale scaffold device, right? A little lattice of sorts which holds a mixture of bacteria and tiny metal nano-particles. And the idea is that this will react with dirty waste water from toilets for example, to extract useful hydrogen out of that dirty water, and then what's left over gets filtered once again and the end product is clean water. You can filter out filter out clean water through that. Dr. Haigh's work has caught the attention of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and we've talked about it on the show before, about the Foundation. It's one of the primary goals of the Gates Foundation to eliminate poverty and impoverished conditions from the people of the world in the poorest regions of the world. Dr. Haigh and her colleagues were recently awarded a $100,000 research grant from the Foundation and they stand to receive a further $1,000,000 from the Gates next year if they can demonstrate that the chemical reactions that they propose can actually work. And I quote Dr. Haigh when I say "We plan to turn this essential everyday outgoing into an investment by developing novel materials that convert natural waste into a useable resource. This technology will be particularly important for remote locations in developing countries and will have the added benefits of reduced pollution and lower waste disposal costs".

R: Hmm, cool.

S: It would also be very useful on space stations and like Moon bases and Mars bases. If you have to recycle all your own waste.

B: Oh, yeah.

S: But obviously the more immediate and pressing benefit would be in lots of the world where they don't have safe drinking water. But you wonder how acceptable this would be. What if you knew that when you flushed your toilet, it went into a tank and came back out your kitchen sink?

R: I think people would get used to it.

J: yeah, we've talked about this. I mean there's a whole like it's too close. You know, you'd feel better if there was like a time period in between or more processes in between, you know.

S: Yeah, waste water does eventually get recycled, but that is a little close.

R: yeah.

E: yeah, a little close. But again, you have to compare it to, nothing, right? I mean better than nothing in areas where they have nothing to treat their water, deal with the waste products and so forth. So it can only help.

S: We get excited by a lot of breakthroughs that are really sexy, but it's sometimes just the simplest and most mundane and sometimes the not very pleasant things that could actually have the hugest impact on quality of life around the world. You know, something as simple as being able to clean waste water.

Monkey Bill Update

http://ncse.com/news/2012/04/monkey-bill-enacted-tennessee-007299

Questions and Emails

Gulf of Cambay Ruins

Question #1 - Grover's Algorithm Hi skeptics, really enjoy the show, but as a computer science student I just wanted to correct something Steve said in the explanation of one of the Science or Fiction items from the show for April 7. In the item about the quantum computer in a diamond, Steve said that the scientists tested it with an algorithm that finds an element in an unsorted database on the first try. I don't blame Steve, as it said this in the article too, but this is wrong. The algorithm used is called Grover's algorithm, and it does indeed search an unsorted database much faster than a classical computer, but not in one step. As Steve said, with a database with n elements, a classical computer would take on average n/2 steps to search it, or as we say in computer science, it has a time complexity of order n (represented as O(n) ). Using Grover's algorithm, a quantum computer can search the database with a number of steps that is the square root of the number of elements in the database, ( O(n^(1/2)) ), which is much faster but still not 'on the first try'. Too bad you couldn't have Gripp on for Science or Fiction, I'm sure he would have corrected this as well. Cheers, George Daole-Wellman Sunderland, Massachusetts http://www.bell-labs.com/user/feature/archives/lkgrover/

Gulf of Cambay Ruins OMG What will young earth creationist say. Then again now the believers of atlantis will be insufferable. http://www.spiritofmaat.com/announce/oldcity.htm. Theron from Battle Mtn NV

Science or Fiction

Item #1 Scientists have created a power cell inside a living snail that can generate usable electricity from the snails own energy stores. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120411120508.htm Item #2 A new study finds that fungal infections affecting the top five crops are responsible for destroying enough food to feed 600 million people each year. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120411132000.htm Item #3 A new survey finds that cancer patients prefer safe treatments with predictable outcomes to more risky, but possibly more effective, treatments. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-04-cancer-patients-risky-treatments-larger.html Announcer: It's time for Science or Fiction.

S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two real and one fictitious, then I challenge my panel of sceptics to tell me which one is the fake. Is everybody ready for this week.

Skeptical Quote

Superhero Pseudoscience "One sure mark of a fool is to dismiss anything outside his experience as being impossible." -Farengar Secret-Fire

S: Alright, well thank you for joining me this week everyone. And until next week, this is your Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.

The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe is produced by SGU productions, dedicated to promoting science and critical thinking. For more information on this and other episodes, please visit our website at www.theskepticsguide.org. You can also check out our other podcast the SGU 5x5 as well as find links to our blogs and the SGU forums. For questions, suggestions and other feedback please use the contact us form on the website or send an email to info@theskepticsguide.org. If you enjoyed this episode then please help us spread the word by leaving us a review on iTunes, Zune or your portal of choice.