We can't tow that away! Think the clamps will work?

Caption on Twitter: "Would the owner of the Ariane rocket parked outside please report to reception."

This was just tweeted by Newbury Astronomical Society - the Twitter account which led the twittersphere to meteor watching, which was the subject of a talk at the Royal Astronomical Society! (I made the comment that Twitter can indeed be very powerful, for example when it helped overthrow Trafigura's injunction. I might however have kept my mouth shut if I knew everything said was being written down and that I would later be approached for my name . . .)

Sadly, I barely saw any meteors either last summer or the summer before that. It was too cloudy. But in summer 2007 we did have clear nights and a dark moon, and my sister and I would take out the deck chairs and blankets and woolly hats and count as many as 18 in less than an hour. They're so fast, and so silent. I'll never forget my first ever - I was leaning out of the skylight of my attic room in Brighton before it was even quite dark, a truly magical experience! But the silver lining of all those clouds getting in the way is that, at least, the things they hide will be back next year. That's the lovely thing about astronomy. It never stops waiting.

Anyway, presumably largely as a result of all that tweeting, I'm delighted to announce that Adrian West of Newbury Astronomical Society was recently invited to the UK Space Conference, nominated for an Arthur Award (he's under "Individual Achievement"). "Didn't win, but just being nominated was an honour. It was fantastic and well worth going too," he told me on Twitter.

It was at the UK Space Conference that that beautiful rocket picture was taken. That's definitely an original and very effective form of advertising. Well, it got my attention, anyway!

On that subject, I recently heard an excellent story about a Saturn V rocket "parked" in a similar fashion near Utrecht Cathedral to demonstrate just how huge and impressive a rocket can be (they were about the same height) - and that that captured the public's imagination pretty well. I immediately wanted to write about that, of course, but Googling got me nowhere - does anyone have any links?

Crisptrals

This all just came to me whilst making myself a ham and cheese omelette . . .

VOICEOVER: Following defeat at the Castle of Common Sense, each of the chiropractors rode their separate ways. Sir Chiro rode north, through the dark forest of Suing, accompanied by his favourite Crisptrals.

CRISPTRALS: Bravely bold Sir Chiro rode forth from BCA
He is not afraid to lose, oh, brave Sir Chiro!
He is not at all afraid to be mocked in nasty ways
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Chiro.

He was not in the least bit scared to be argued to a pulp
Nor to lose the public's trust, and his accounts broken
To have McTimoney split and his e-mails all on show
And his lawyer's subluxations, brave Sir Chiro!

The skeptics laugh and the public look
At the evidence, trials and our Singh's great book
And the spotlight on all the stupid claims
They make -

SIR CHIRO: That's, errrrr, that's enough music for now, lads, it looks like dirty skeptics at work.

They pick their way uncomfortably through a forest of bogus evidence. At one point they see DENNIS and the laboratory woman cleaning up the mess.

DENNIS: But anarchy in science is a way of preserving freedom!

WOMAN: Oh, Dennis, forget about freedom. This paper 'ere is rubbish.

SIR CHIRO is so busy looking left to right and back to left again, he fails to see the THREE-HEADED SKEPTIC in front of him!

THREE-HEADED SKEPTIC: HALT!!!!!!!!!!

SIR CHIRO staggers to a stop, his eyes bulging.

THREE-HEADED SKEPTIC: WHO GOES THERE?

CRISPTRALS: He is brave Sir Chiro, brave Sir Chiro -

SIR CHIRO: (to CRISPTRALS) Shut up! (to THREE-HEADED SKEPTIC) Errrrrr, errrrr, nobody really, just a salesman!

THREE-HEADED SKEPTIC: WHAT DO YOU WANT?

CRISPTRALS: To claim, claim . . .

SIR CHIRO: (to CRISPTRALS) Shut up!! (to THREE-HEADED SKEPTIC) Oh, er, nothing really, just - just trying to get into the medical business, good sir skeptic!

THREE-HEADED SKEPTIC: I'M AFRAID NOT!

SIR CHIRO: Ah - er. W-well, actually, I am a knight of the Spinal Patients.

THREE-HEADED SKEPTIC:: YOU'RE A KNIGHT OF THE SPINAL PATIENTS?

SIR CHIRO: I am!

HEAD 1 (who turns out to be Simon Perry): In that case I shall have to report you.

HEAD 2 (who turns out to be Zeno): Shall I?

HEAD 3 (who turns out to be Jack of Kent): Oh I don't think so.

ZENO: Well, what do I think?

SIMON: I think report him.

JACK: Oh, let's see if he can use any science.

ZENO: Oh shut up.

SIMON: Perhaps -

ZENO: And you.

SIMON: Oh, quick, get the Advertising Standards out, I want to take his website down.

JACK: Oh, take your own website down!

ZENO: Yes, do us all a favour.

SIMON: What?

JACK: Typing on all the time.

ZENO: You're lucky, you're not next to him.

SIMON: (outraged) What do you mean?!

ZENO: You write billions of tedious letters.

SIMON: Oooooh, I don't - and anyway, you write bad tweets.

ZENO: Well, it's only because you don't join Think Humanism.

JACK: Oh, stop bipping and let's go and have tea!

SIMON: All right, all right, all right. We'll report him first and then have tea and biscuits.

ZENO: Yes.

JACK: Oh not biscuits.

SIMON: All right, all right, none of the biscuits, but let's report him anyway!

JACK AND ZENO (to each other): Right.

They look around.

SIMON: He buggered off.

JACK: So he doesn't have any evidence.

CRISPTRALS: Brave Sir Chiro ran away.

SIR CHIRO: No!

CRISPTRALS: Cherry-picked away, away!

SIR CHIRO: I didn't!

CRISPTRALS: When science reared its curious head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes, Brave Sir Chiro turned about
And gallantly went to the court
To use the libel laws instead -

SIR CHIRO: I never did!

CRISPTRALS: He beat a very brave retreat -

SIR CHIRO: All lies!

CRISPTRALS: - from sci--ence!

SIR CHIRO: I never!

(Related posts: The Back Knight; The Back Knight's Mentor; The Back Knight's First Practical)

The Periodic Table of Science Bloggers

Today I present to you the most genius Periodic Table I have had the fortune to come across. It's by David Bradley of Sciencebase (@sciencebase on Twitter), and it's the Periodic Table of Science Bloggers. I waited a few days before putting the pictures up, since he's been refining it beautifully as the real Periodic Table was refined during its gradual appearance into the world. As you see, science type is colour-coded; symbols are there; rollover text describing the element is there; links are there; and best of all - new names are there!

I have the honour to be magnesium - Milky Way, rather than Penguin, Galaxy - rather appropriate for me as often rather firey and reactive (not reactionary, please), especially when provoked, though I will allow people to meld me into skinny grey ribbons sometimes. You will often find me near hydrogen, potassium, ununtrium and xenon. I'm hoping one day that some clever chemist will discover Zoonivum and Edminium!

I see that I do need to start branching out and trying to react with an awful lot more elements - though obviously the first place my brain starts reaching for is wondering what other Periodic Tables I might be able to dream up . . . ?

Ada Lovelace Day

Ada Lovelace Day is a worldwide effort to get as many people as possible to blog about a heroine of science or technology. Why it's held 24th March I'm not quite sure, for Ada Byron, Countess of Lovelace, was born on December 10th 1815 and died of cancer on November 27th 1852, at the tragically early age of 36. But I bet you wouldn't have thought that the first ever computer program was written by a woman, would you? It was, though. By her.

Ada was born to the poet Lord Byron and to Anne Isabelle Milbanke who, having separated from her husband only a month after Ada was born, was keen that Ada learn mathematics be turned away from such pursuits as poetry, in case she inherited her father's rebelliousness and worrying moods! This did not work. Her life seems to have been full of complex Victorian scandals and not always generous comments from other people. It is only recently that her work with Charles Babbage and his analytical engine seems to have become well-known. She spent many months translating an article about it and writing her own set of notes for its use. As this website puts it,

Ada called herself "an Analyst (& Metaphysician)," and the combination was put to use in the Notes. She understood the plans for the device as well as Babbage but was better at articulating its promise. She rightly saw it as what we would call a general-purpose computer. It was suited for "developping [sic] and tabulating any function whatever. . . the engine [is] the material expression of any indefinite function of any degree of generality and complexity." Her Notes anticipate future developments, including computer-generated music.

Not being much of a one for computer programs myself, I will turn to three science heroines I know. Finding Ada asks us to write about just one. But that's never really been my thing; I've always seen science as a complex and often social process, practically every achievement being made by many people one way or another. Well folks, if you want one favourite you can have Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, but now for lots more . . .

If I have to pick one right now I think I'll go for Dr Helen Walker, who's not only running She is an Astronomer, but got an IAU Resolution - a positive move for female astronomers across the entire world - up and running. In a few days we're going to be advertising the She is an Astronomer conference which should take place in April. Helen works on satellites, our atmosphere, dust around stars old and young, and is one of the three Scientific Secretaries for the Royal Astronomical Society. She has published around 100 papers. When asked about her career with Rutherford Appleton Laboratories, she says, "I would like RAL to recognise the contribution I make, and this would normally be through promotion, but that’s not going to happen. I do not fit the accepted model, and I enjoy my semi-detached status working with scientists outside the UK." But she predicts that younger women astronomers will have more opportunities than she did. I've met her a couple of times and she gave a great impression of strength and calmness. I'm really looking forward to helping out with her conference!

Another woman I feel very honoured to have met is Jill Tarter of SETI. She is named as one of the 100 most influential people in the world, and when I shuffled up to talk to her after Astrofest she left an impression as strong as Helen's. Obviously I had to wait some time to get to her, but when she turned to me, she immediately took my Solar System shirt and stretched it a little to admire it in full! After securing private funding for SETI to continue its work after public funders gave it up, after the (I am told) extreme annoyance of being the inspiration for the character Ellie Arroway in Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan's "Contact", and goodness knows how much more, Jill is still full of new ideas for SETI. In fact, "Galaxy Zoo on speed" is a phrase that came up: there are some distinctly interesting plans ahead, and the public may be able to take a more active role in SETI than simply downloading a program. That was why I went to talk to her, and it might just turn out that I have a little contribution to make - I am on tenterhooks with hope . . .


One more lady to mention: our very own Jules Wilkinson, who has just taken over as moderator for the forums of Solar Stormwatch and Moon Zoo - about which more as soon as I have time. Jules has set both forums up beautifully, though will soon to leave Solar Stormwatch in the capable hands of Els and two or three others. She is a tireless force for knowledge and enjoyment at Galaxy Zoo, has collected galaxies for and prepared beautiful help threads, and has also got us to do 365 Days of Astrophotography - I don't think a single day has been missed yet! Jules has just retired and can devote herself to astronomy now; she's already been studying for it at the OU and indeed pushed me into doing the same thing. And just a couple of days ago, another of her pictures made AAPOD. Good for you, Jules!


There are a great many women - and men - doing an outstanding job in astronomy, not to mention other sciences and technology, these days. Three cheers for them all - I wish I could write about so many more, but sleep calls. But I hope Ada Lovelace Day gets a lot of good blogs about a huge variety!

Update: I think the best Ada Lovelace story has to be Hedy Lamarr at Vagina Dentata. What do you think?

And therefore . . .

Proofs That Homeopathy Works!

THE CONSPIRACY THEORY ARGUMENT
1) Anyone who doesn't like homeopathy is clearly in the pay of Big Pharma.
2) The fact that Big Pharma also makes homeopathy pills is neither here nor there.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

THE CHERRY PICKING ARGUMENT
1) Some quotes support homeopathy.
2) The skeptics say not if you read them properly, but that's just twisting things.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

THE CHERRY PICKING ARGUMENT (2)
1) Some scientific papers find that homeopathy does work.
2) Others find it doesn't.
3) The skeptics claim that #2 are the better ones, because they have better methodology.
4) Yeah, but they were funded/invented by Big Pharma.
5) Therefore, homeopathy works.

THE "HOLISTIC" ARGUMENT
1) Homeopathy treats the cause, not the symptoms.
2) The very principle of homeopathy is to find an ingredient that mimicks the symptoms. But the same symptoms can mean a host of different things. For example, a headache may mean tense muscles, eye strain, or meningitis.
3) But homeopathy is holistic.
4) And you just don't understand homeopathy.
5) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPREHENSIBILITY
1) Quantum physics is weird.
2) I don't understand it, and surely you don't either.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

THE CONSUMER CHOICE ARGUMENT
1) For Boots to remove homeopathic products from the shelves is to attack consumer choice and deny us our freedom.
2) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM NECESSARY OPPOSITES (1)
1) There are problems associated with conventional medicine.
2) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM NECESSARY OPPOSITES (2)
1) Homeopathy doesn't cause side-effects like conventional medicine.
2) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM NECESSARY OPPOSITES (3)
1) A doctor once misdiagnosed my head cold/food allergy/weird wart on my finger.
2) This was disgraceful. I pay his wages. I will never go to a doctor again.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM NECESSARY OPPOSITES (4)
1) When I was 13 a doctor was mean to me and dismissive of my headache/period pains/splinter.
2) See #2, above.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

THE MYSTICAL ARGUMENT
1) You don't understand how homeopathy works, which only goes to show how ignorant you are.
2) I don't understand how homeopathy works, which only goes to show the mysteries of science and the life-force which narrow tick-boxes cannot define.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
1) Someone had an idea!
2) It is just petty to suggest this idea might be wrong. You're jealous and close-minded.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM POLITICAL CORRECTNESS (2)
1) I have an opinion.
2) I am entitled to my opinion.
5) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM POLITICAL CORRECTNESS (3)
1) My opinion is that homeopathy works.
2) If I disagree with your opinion, that is my right.
3) If you disagree with my opinion, that is persecution.
4) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM POLITICAL CORRECTNESS (4)
1) We felt really intimidated by the mean-spirited Ten23 protest.
2) We didn't even dare unfurl our banner.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

ARGUMENT FROM INCREDULITY
1) I can't believe the placebo effect would work on animals and children.
2) Apparently it does, but I don't believe that.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM INCREDULITY (2)
1) If it's harmless and doesn't work, why are they attacking it?
2) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

ARGUMENT FROM THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE
1) I don't understand the science of homeopathy, but once upon a time we didn't understand electricity either.
2) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL PREFERENCE
1) I don't like what skeptics say.
2) Therefore, skeptics must be narrow-minded.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL PREFERENCE (2)
1) I don't like skeptics.
2) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY
1) Galileo was persecuted for his belief that the Earth revolved around the Sun.
2) The fact that Galileo had deduced this with experiments rather than simply thought it up, while the Church was the source of unreasoned faith, is far too complex a matter to understand and you are simply picking holes in my argument because you have no ideas of your own.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM DIGNITY
1) Skeptics ask why water does not remember poo.
2) That is a very undignified question.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

ARGUMENT FROM DISLIKE OF SCIENCE
1) Double-blind randomised trials make it clear that homeopathy does not work.
2) Well, they must be wrong.
3) And I don't like science anyway.
4) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES
1) Homeopathy cured my auntie of cancer.
2) She took chemotherapy and had an operation too, but she didn't like either of them and it can't have been that, chemo contains nasty chemicals.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM ALLIES
1) Skeptics don't like chiropractors either.
2) Poor chiropractors.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM SMUGNESS
1) The Ten23 campaigners are only proving their own ignorance by overdosing.
2) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

THE OPPOSITION ARGUMENT
1) I read in an article that skeptics approve of GM food and think 6 month old babies can survive 900 vaccinations in one go.
2) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

THE THEORETICAL ARGUMENT
1) Skeptics claim to be the guardians of universal truth.
2) Those of us who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

THE THEORETICAL ARGUMENT (2)
1) Our bodies are designed to heal themselves.
2) Excuse me? Are you saying that deaths of starvation mean homeopathy doesn't work?
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

THE MORAL ARGUMENT
1) We went all the way to Haiti to treat earthquake victims with homeopathy.
2) Wasn't that nice of us?
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

THE ROYAL ARGUMENT
1) The Royal Family use homeopathy.
2) They have very long lives.
3) And they must be right. They're the Royal Family!
4) What? Of course they don't live longer due to other causes as well. Don't try to sidetrack my point.
5) Therefore, homeopathy works.

THE POLITICAL ARGUMENT
1) Politicians such as Evan Harris are losing votes by their bad behaviour attacking homeopathy.
2) We know he's wrong because he's a politician.
3) Politicians such as David Tredinnick are doing a great deal of good in the face of a difficult Parliament.
4) We know he's right because he's a politician.
5) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM THE TOILET
1) The water in your toilet is different in more ways than in chemical composition than water out of a spring.
2) You need me to explain that?!?!?! HA HA HA HA HA YOU ARE SO IGNORANT!
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

ARGUMENT FROM HUMOUR
1) We can make a lot of claims about skeptics, that will make you laugh until your throat is sore!
2) For example, they believe pregnancy is a disease, think people should be vaccinated, and don't know the difference between LIVING and DEAD FOOD!!!!!!!!
3) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
4) Actually, some skeptics are laughing at you for saying that.
5) But of course they are. They have nothing real to laugh at because they live such miserable lives.
6) Of course they will deny their stupidities, once said stupidities are exposed.
7) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

THE CONSISTENCY ARGUMENT
1) Sometimes skeptics change their minds.
2) THEY RETRACT THEIR VIEWS!!!
3) THEY ADMIT THEY WERE WRONG!!!!!!
4) Therefore, homeopathy works.

THE HARMLESSNESS ARGUMENT
1) Nobody died as a result of the Ten23 protest.
2) This only goes to show that homeopathy is not dangerous, like conventional medicine.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

THE LEGAL ARGUMENT
1) Simon Singh is being sued for libel.
2) He must be a malicious liar.
3) Homeopaths are being criticised and mocked and defamed.
4) We must be right; truth is always attacked.
5) Therefore, homeopathy works.

THE ARGUMENT FOR "NATURE" (AND IGNORANCE)
1) Homeopathy is natural.
2) What, it isn't herbal?
3) Well, it was invented 200 years ago.
4) My mind's made up. Don't confuse me with facts.
5) Therefore, homeopathy works.

THE ECONOMIC ARGUMENT
1) Homeopathy saves the NHS money.
2) It also doesn't make drugs companies a profit (unless of course they're the same drugs companies that manufacture conventional drugs).
3) Therefore, drugs companies say homeopathy doesn't work.
4) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

THE SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT
1) ΨPPR = a ΨPx + b ΨPr + c ΨRx.
2) There you are - serious science!
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY ARGUMENT
1) Show your support for homeopathy! Please retweet!
2) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

THE NUMERICAL ARGUMENT
1) Only three MPs have so far signed the so-called "evidence check" on homeopathy!
2) That is disgraceful.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

GODWIN'S LAW ARGUMENT
1) I don't understand why homeopathy is being attacked.
2) It must be something to do with Hitler.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

And finally, a masterpiece of beautiful, logical thinking by one of my new Twitter followers . . .

ARGUMENT FROM CONSTIPATION
1) Skeptics are constipated.
2) How I think I know about their bowel movements and indeed why I concern myself with such things is an undignified question.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

Thanks to Captsharkey, Batarista and Medtek for pointing me to specific sources, and many highly amusing websites and comments pages I've been enjoying myself over the last couple of months!

Please point me in the direction of any more sources or arguments - and you know what I'd really love? For this to become a chain e-mail.

Update 1: Very many thanks to @FerFrias on Twitter for this wonderful translation - and Menéame, a Spanish website, for bringing in más tráfico!

FerFrias wrote two more "reasons". How I could have failed to include the latter I don't know. Here they are:

ARGUMENTO DE LA REPUGNANCIA FÍSICA
1) No me gusta tu cara, así que no pienso escucharte.
2) Luego la homeopatía funciona.
(Fuente)

ARGUMENTO DE LA FAMA
1) Algunos famosos utilizan la homeopatía.
2) Obviamente, los famosos saben sobre la salud mucho más que los simples médicos y científicos.
3) Luego la homeopatía funciona.
(Fuente)

This means:

ARGUMENT FROM PHYSICAL REPUGNANCE
1) I don't like your face, so I don't have to listen.
2) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM FAME
1) Some famous people use homeopathy.
2) Obviously, celebrities know far more about medicine than doctors and scientists.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

Right on!!!

PS again - This has now appeared on at least 4 Spanish websites and at least one German one. Thanks to all of you and I hope you were suitably entertained. You can now download a Spanish translation as a PDF file here!


Update 2: 17th January 2011

KERRYHOMEOPATH'S ARGUMENT
1) Your brain is 80% water.
2) You remember stuff.
3) Therefore, water has a memory.
4) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

SkepticBarista's reply: .@KerryHomeopath Excrement is 75% water. If Water has memory,#homeopathy is full of shit.
TimandraHarknes's reply: Beer is 93% water. I drink beer, I remember nothing. Therefore homeopathy cannot work.

Update 3: 23rd September 2011

ARGUMENT FROM GAIAHEALTH (WHICH THINKS IT UNDERSTANDS CERN)

1) CERN proves the speed of light is not the universal speed limit.

2) We'll just ignore the fact that this is not peer reviewed, nor published, nor certain rather than an error.

3) And hide that by accusing skeptics of ignoring studies that are . . . yes, flawed.

4) Therefore, homeopathy works.

(Source)

PPS - I originally wrote this at the top, but is has become quite secondary so can go at the bottom.

"It's been a good few weeks for the skeptics. Although we're still awaiting the outcome of Simon's appeal, it was much enjoyed by Jack of Kent, Crispian Jago, Index on Censorship, Skepticat, Jack in fun mode, and many more. You can read the entire transcript of the appeal here on Jack's website. I have read the beginning and end and a great deal awaits my untrained brain. It reminds me of a play in some parts. Perhaps it should become a play, performed perhaps at the Tricycle Theatre whose production of "Called to Account" I shall never forget?

"In the meantime, it's also been an enraging few weeks for, I think, the homeopaths even more than the chiropractors. The recent Evidence Check on homeopathy has not been good news for them. Spies inform the Twitterverse that a mass Twitter attack is on the way [NB. In fairness to all, I did not observe this in the end. But if it was homeopathic, I wouldn't have] . . . so I thought it time to hurry up and publish an especially nasty idea my mean-spirited nerdy brain had nurtured for a few days - inspired by Godless Geeks (health warning: you will either love this last link or hate it; I think you can work out which from the name)."

Simon's Appeal in 3 hours

Today, 23rd February at 9:45 a.m., Simon Singh's supporters are gathering outside the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL. Anyone can go along; and anyone can hear the appeal, which takes place at 10:30 - just under 3 hours from now.

Simon is in remarkably good spirits, tweeting about the London Word Festival (which looks fun!), and thanking people for their support. (I love Twitter.) I admire his bravery. The boss I was describing yesterday also attempted to take me to court for "theft", i.e. sending one or two e-mails to my friends during the 7 months I was lucky enough to work in his office with permission he subsequently denied giving me. Even that piece of petty idiocy was terrifying. But then I was only 18. It's wonderful the strength people can develop. The British Chiropractic Association say that Simon has rounded up a bunch of malicious supporters to get revenge. I, and I'm hardly alone, say that Simon has turned their mean-spirited and illiberal repressiveness into a wonderfully positive campaign, a campaign that seriously needs to happen in view of the English Libel Laws. It is mortifying that the wealthy can pop along to our country to sue people halfway across the world, and that the burden of proof is on the defendant. This had to change - and it is now changing!

For the latest news, Jack of Kent and Crispian Jago have, as ever, written great posts with, as ever, varying degrees of seriousness. And (update) here's a wonderful article in the Times: "Test medicine in the lab, not in the court" by Raymond Tallis. This wonderful sentence jumped out at me: '“Tested in court by the most powerful lawyers” is not an exactly reassuring statement on the patient information leaflet.' Whoopee!

Sense About Science, among so many others, have done a wonderful job in raising awareness. And Simon has had an idea to send more ripples of awareness through the population. I understand we're well over 30,000 signatures now . . .

Please sign the petition to reform libel laws. Doesn't matter if you're English, or live in England, or not - they are currently available to be hijacked by anyone of any nation, regardless of whether or not this is suitable or just. And good luck Simon today!

The Ticking Bomb and the Tooth Fairy

When I was very small, my mother told me that flies were bad. When I was also very small, I think it was "Black Beauty" in which I was very surprised to read a passage in which one boy beats up another boy for being cruel to flies. When I got older, I suddenly remembered that I used to think it was all right to be cruel to flies and general "bad" creatures, and felt shocked and sick with myself.

A lot more years later, I so often hear or read something like: "Yeah, that's a great theory, but real life isn't as nice as that" as an excuse for such things as cruelty. The implication is that innocence, immaturity, weakness, a general lack of thought, is the only place for goodness - while real thought and ability is the place for wrongdoing; and idealists should grow up, stop making others feel guilty, and join in. I suppose one could say that this idea goes back to the Garden of Eden, and probably many years before that. Personally, I'd say that it's the other way round.

A week ago, Bruce Anderson wrote an editorial in the Independent that caused a furore whose like I have rarely seen. He claimed: "We not only have a right to use torture. We have a duty".

He begins by detailing the revoltingness of torture, rather as a boss I once had used to begin trying to order my 18-year-old self to "grow up" and approve of corruptness and dishonesty by lecturing me on the damage that corruptness and dishonesty can do. Possibly this introduction is intended to forestall uncomfortable retorts, and make the opposition feel thoroughly depressed.

He then goes on to claim that torture provides us with useful information, that "although we find torture repulsive, it does not follow that those who are tasked with governing Pakistan could safely dispense with it", and that "we should be grateful for the Pakistanis' efforts on our behalf". He claims that America is too sophisticated to need to use torture at present, though it might in the future, if presented with the famous "ticking bomb" scenario.

This "ticking bomb scenario" is the crux of his argument: "the intelligence chiefs, grey and drawn from lack of sleep, inform the Prime Minister, ditto, that it seems almost certain that a nuclear device is primed to explode in the next few hours. There is a man in custody who probably knows where it is. They are ready to use whatever methods are necessary to extract the information..." Anderson favours waterboarding. He also favours the torturing, if possible, of the prisoner's wife and children.

The general idea of the article is that it is better to torture one person, or a few, than to allow "the ticking bomb" to explode and kill millions. He says what so many people say, to make the idealists feel immature: "There is nothing to be gained from refusing to face facts".

Very well. Let us actually start thinking, and examine some facts.

Of course, we don't have very many facts to hand - which is why, for example, we are simply supposed to take it on trust that the information gained by the Pakistani torturers or Guantanamo is useful, accurate, worthwhile, and could not be obtained by other means. I don't take that on trust. Anyone being tortured will eventually say absolutely anything to get the agony to stop. They will sign false confessions, they will probably end up babbling nonsense. And of course any terrorist with half a grain of sense will have a good misleading cover story or two. Meanwhile, what is the actual likelihood of knowing that somebody has planted a bomb, and while you don't know where the bomb is you do capture the right person? If there is one incident of this ever happening (TV shows do not count), I would be very interested to know. Frankly, I doubt that it has ever happened or ever will.

. . . Where do I get all these "facts"? From logic, from the news, from the Internet - from, I hope, growing up and understanding human beings. Even from being bullied at school, where I was once thrust up against a fence, had my arms pinned behind my back, and had a lit cigarette shoved into my mouth, and this was a fairly normal day; and at the office when I was 18, where I eventually found it less trouble to admit that it was entirely my fault that the boss had made an idiot of himself or trashed all the company files, than to tell the truth and be disciplined even further for arguing.

And from books, of course. I recommend "The Railway Man" by Eric Lomax, which I found by reading The Independent's version of this haunting article about Nagase Takashi, a wartime interpreter for Japanese torturers and who has spent the rest of his life in repentance. Isabel Allende's books describe how Pinochet's Chile used torture to terrorize and repress its citizens. Thomas Powers's "Heisenberg's War" reminds us of the horrors Fritz Houtermans went through at the hands of the Soviets, who thought him a German spy, and the Nazis, who thought him a Soviet spy. The former told him untruthfully that they had captured his wife and children, at which point he signed all the confessions they wished. Anhua Gao's "To the Edge of the Sky" tells the story of interrogation in Mao's China; how, having nothing to tell them, but knowing they would not let her go until they had a name, she simply gave them a name of a woman she did not like - and it worked. And Sattareh Farman Farmaian's "Daughter of Persia", the best book I have ever read, shows us only too clearly what it was like living under a reign of constant terror of imprisonment and torture in the Shah's Iran.

Torture is never one isolated incident. Anderson's article makes it sound like one; offers a choice between one wrong and another. But it doesn't work like that. The torturers, those who ordered the torture, and the victim and their community, are all a part of it. How many countries whose governments use torture are forgiven and respected by the rest of the world? A torture victim who may not have been radicalised before capture is far likelier to do so afterwards, as are their family, friends, and perhaps whole country. After the ultimate suffering and humiliation, they will probably be a broken person. A broken person cannot trust others, form relationships, or, probably, hold down a job and be a productive citizen. Pure cold selfish economics should decree that breaking down a person in such a way leaves the state an expensive mess to clean up. You've also taught them torture, which they might go on to use on others. To say "they do it, so why shouldn't we" simply says, "We do it to them, so they can do what they like to us". And I have seen people argue that a terrorist whose intention is to blow up everyone surrounding them has given up their human rights - whether or not that is so, that does not mean we have given up our human responsibilities.

Just as I disagree with the message of the Garden of Eden, I also disagree that "sin" is something we carry around inside us until it is extracted by a mythological being, rather as detox purports to purge us of past burgers and fries. And yet it is rather a good metaphor, because a torturer must carry what they've done inside them forever. They might become a Nagase; which would certainly defeat the government's purpose, so they'd have to employ someone else. More likely, they'd have to desensitise themselves to what they'd done. They might become lost and withdrawn. They might grow to hate themselves. They might enjoy their work, the implications of which are sinister. What kind of a work culture would it be, having colleagues like that? Would they do it to each other; would they bring it out of the workplace, perhaps? And once a moral boundary has been crossed, how far do we go beyond it? Would the government start setting targets for how much information must be got out of suspects per year, requiring arbitrary torture? At what point, in any case, do you decide you can stop torturing someone because they've told you everything you want; at what point, indeed, do you decide that torture is necessary?

The comments pages (12 pages, by now) are heartwarming. To read a few of them right after the article, I felt like despairing at the human race. To read most of them, however, affirms my faith in it, and my hopefulness at learning and teaching us not only citizen science and working together, but to choose the right thing. Many people wrote movingly that they would prefer to die in a terrorist's bomb than live under a state that tortured. Others suggested that a good way to avoid the need for torture, and fear of bombs, is not to invade other people's countries. The Independent's letters have been pretty good too; though why they call it a "debate" I know not, given the unity of the writers! They'll probably be deeply buried soon, so I'll link them: Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday - in which one of mine got published, sarcastically (I couldn't resist) comparing the "ticking bomb scenario" to the tooth fairy telling a reader to rape a child in order to bring about world peace. I hope it is clear by now that, put in a sort of vaccuum, one might choose to sacrifice the child - but to put it into the context of the whole world, it's obviously nonsense. (The rapist and raped are not exactly in a state of peace for starters.)

Some Twitterers were angry enough to set up a Facebook group against the torture of children. One letter was jointly from Amnesty International and the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, the very group that helped Eric Lomax. I looked up the latter and was very pleased that I had. The "Torture Myths" section is particularly well worth a read . . .

At first, I was nauseated that the Indy could have published such a hideous, violent piece; now, like one of the letter writers, I am pleased they did - for the way to defeat a hateful argument is to expose it, and answer it. Torture is in every way wrong, and arguments against it are not merely liberal, self-indulgent wooliness, nor childlike innocence that the thoughtful outgrow: both human and logical arguments answer it clearly. For those of it who accuse me of "not thinking", I can safely respond, "Think yourself."

The Mathematician's Valentine, etc.

Yes, I really will type up my Astrofest notes soon!

In the meantime - you must seriously check out the Mathematician's Valentine. Shapes, folds, Mobius-strips-turned-no-longer-Mobius-strips, graphs, equations, and finally sweets to fall back on - plus the, er, true heart-throb, fail-safe, sweep-'em-off-their feet poem:

Roses are red.
Violets are approximately blue.
A paracompact manifold with a Lorentzian metric,
can be a spacetime, if it has dimension greater than or equal to two.

(I suppose I should add that no really mathematically inclined person I've showed it to seems impressed yet. But I loved it.)

To mark the occasion of today, or probably rather choosing today as an excellent opportunity to cover something I hadn't realised was regarded as a long-standing mystery, ZookeeperChris wrote an Object of the Day about "The Heart Galaxy", or SDSS 587729227151704160.


If you're more patient with mysterious computer simulations than me, you'll do much better at the Galaxy Zoo Mergers project,which is featuring this galaxy today. Chris has a Masters student named Georgia Barrie studying the rings, who tells us that she will be sharing the results of the world's largest ring catalogue with us soon. Good to meet you Georgia, and I look forward to it!

And totally off-topic but not least, many congratulations to Zookeeper Karen, who's just produced her 2nd addition to her family!

Homeopathic Overdose Story in the Western Telegraph

The article about my homeopathic overdose is now in the Western Telegraph, our local newspaper. Check out the online version as the paper version has a photo of me looking extremely silly! Have this nice picture of the Town Centre instead, taken from PBASE. Boots is right behind the Clock Tower.


A very nice beginning!

A national campaign against homeopathic remedies being in sold in Boots stores was brought to Haverfordwest on Saturday.

One woman from Johnston took a lonely but determined stance against the so-called alternative remedies, joining a mass ‘overdose’ of homeopathic tablets, to prove that they have no effect.

At least two readers are less impressed. It's the first time I personally have been lampooned in comments pages, though customers and schoolchildren have said far worse things to me in my time - I can't quite decide what it's like, yet. These criticisms are really rather pitiful (so far). A very useful thing to go through, I guess - as Karen kindly showed me. I don't think I'm as ignorant as they call me, but it's a healthy reminder never to pretend I know everything - about anything!

Many thanks to Katy Woodhouse for interviewing me and writing the article! They didn't go into the science - I guess there wasn't room - so I did that in the comments for them.

Hope you enjoy it!

Update: By midnight, it appears to be the most read and commented on story! Though perhaps that is due to a lot of input from a few people, rather than some from lots!

I survived homeopathic suicide! Because there's nothing in it.

Shortly after 9:30 this morning I set off for the 10:23 overdose event - for the reasons I blogged a few days ago. It had hailed before I'd woken up and the car was covered in make-believe snow.

I'd brought the 30C arnica, and there was time to buy a bottle of water - I was a bit nervous in case I couldn't swallow the wretched things (I don't swallow pills easily and prefer tiny ones). I hadn't had much sleep, mostly because of nerves, though my boyfriend had cheered me up over instant messenger. He'd dutifully gone to bed at about 1am, and was then back about two minutes later saying he'd suddenly felt the irresistable urge to calculate how many glucose molecules there'd be in each pill.

I reminded myself of the molecular mass of glucose: 6 carbons, whose molecular weight is 12; 12 hydrogens, whose molecular weight is 1; 6 oxygens, whose molecular weight is 16. That came to 180. What this actually means is that 1 mole of glucose weighs 180g. 1g of hydrogen would contain the same number of molecules as 180g glucose. A mole is Avogadro's constant, a very specific number of atoms: approximately 6 x 10 to the power 23 (I wish this blog did superscript!). In fact, that's what inspired 10:23's name.

I let my boyfriend finish off the maths. He calculated that for every 1 molecule of arnica (assuming that it is, indeed, a pure substance!), there would be a number of molecules of glucose that ended in 39 zeros! Edd made a similar point: enough molecules for 15,000 solar masses ("Broadly speaking, on a clear night in ideal conditions, with your naked eye you will have around the right number of stars to add up to that much matter. Maybe not quite enough, but not far off").

Of course, there are not this many molecules on the Earth, but this is because every single step of diluting involves adding a new 99 drops of water and dispensing with another 99. Most of the substance gets washed away!

To put it another way, to find a single molecule of arnica in little tubes like mine, my boyfriend worked out, at the price of £5.19 per tube, you'd have to buy enough to fund 2 billion billion billion Apollo programs!

Anyway, I wandered back and forth in front of Boots, and at one point went round the back to check there was nobody on that side. Finally Katy Woodhouse, a lovely lady from the Western Telegraph (my local newspaper), arrived with a big umbrella and a little camera and notepad. Her first question to me was: "Why do you feel so strongly about it?"

I had to answer, "I don't - I'm doing this partly for fun! That is, I think there are more important things to worry about - but I also believe the public ought to know what they're getting when they buy homeopathy." Because many people very clearly don't. I explained to her how it's often confused with herbal medicine, and how homeopaths are apt to advise people to give up vital conventional medicine when they need it - as pointed out in a poignant tweet last night from Josa Young: "I support www.1023.org.uk because consulting a homeopath delayed my mother getting proper treatment for her ovarian cancer. She died at 68."

I told Katy that this was taking place all over England, but I didn't know of any other lone demonstrations, or any others in Wales. If either of these did take place, I'd be so glad to know!

She was writing shorthand, which fascinated me. "It took ages to learn," she told me. She asked me if Boots really actually sold this stuff - since she didn't believe in it, she'd never looked for it! I took her in to see the rows upon rows of weird-named tubes. There was no note about "without approved therapeutic something or other" that I'd thought I'd seen. My arnica box was the only product that explained what it actually did. I showed her the "arsenic alba". At just that point an elderly gentleman needed to get in between us to pick out a couple, swearing that they cured his bruising. "Do they actually work?" asked Katy politely, and he assured her they did. I kept quiet until he'd gone, then said, "Many different testimonies."

By the time we got back outside, it was a minute or two after 10:23! Hurriedly, I put my bag down by the railings and tried to get the vial open. I couldn't. I tried and tried. You have to press the bottom upwards. Then Katy had a go. It was beginning to snow now. After several mintues of talk and feeling exceptionally stupid, I went back into Boots and asked an assistant - the same lady, I believe, who'd sold it to me! - if she could help me get it open! She gave me a strange look, but found that she had to practically stand on it as well. I thanked her profusely and dashed outside. Katy took a couple of photos, one with the river in the background, the other with the Boots sign. Then I settled down again and started clicking the dispenser. Every few clicks, a little white sugary blob skittered into the cap. I started munching them like crisps.

Katy couldn't help looking a bit worried - especially when I explained the symptoms of ingesting arnica! She asked me to give her a ring later to let her know what happened to me, as she had to go on and do other things. I just remembered in time to give her this sheet from Sense About Science, which is terrific. She was really nice, and let me rattle on about the weird statistics calculated during silly hours! The pills were yummy too - with roughly the crunchiness of especially tiny, dense Mini Egg covering, and not too surprisingly tasting precisely like, well, sugar. "And you believe so strongly that you'll be safe . . ." was one of Katy's parting lines. Yup. And I felt no ill effects at all. There weren't even enough to give me a sugar rush. I'd finished almost all by the time she'd gone. And then I went shopping and then I went home!

It didn't take long for the news to appear on the BBC website and a great many wonderful videos and pictures to appear on 1023. This is probably my favourite photo:


People on the Have Your Say BBC forum are beautifully divided. Many are greatly shocked to learn that such an unscientific quackery is even on sale, let alone in Boots. Others seem to be hurling accusations. Here are some FHA (Frequently Hurled Accusations):

"you are in the pay of Big Pharma"
Not this again. For one thing, the fact that that is wrong doesn't make it right. Does the Iraq war make the genocide in Sudan right? And what about the fact that Big Pharma produces homeopathy?

"it worked for me"
Everything works for somebody, or nearly. One chap's depression was cured after he got a mate to hammer a nail into his head as a suicide attempt. Interestingly, the diseases people were describing were stress-related, and the treatments involved extensive consultation following an annoying sort of time. The real treatment was probably getting a bit of attention, and feeling more positive. Anecdotes are where you start your studies, not where you conclude them.

"you are having a tantrum and throwing your dummie [sic] out of the pram"
Well, I had a great time, looked like everyone else was too. We sure educated some of the commentators, if not all.

"scientists used to say the Earth was flat, therefore homeopathy is right"
No, the ancient Greeks measured the lengths of shadows in different latitudes to work out the Earth's diameter.

And many more amount to - "live and let live" (Yeah - we don't want babies to die because their parents refuse to treat them normally . . . as does happen!); "you people have nothing better to do" (Yeah - I came home and ate a damn good meal!) and "I have an opinion; I am Entitled to My Opinion; This makes Me sacred; therefore homeopathy is right."

I meant to write something more serious than that, so I think I'll stop now.

Good on you folks for organising a hilariously funny day. Actually, sometime, I would be interested in taking on "Big Pharma", because I know that in some countries and situations they are pretty dodgy. I predict with some confidence that the homeopaths will go beserk with rage at us for this shameless attempt to undermine the noble, scientific producers of their . . . er . . . opinion-drink.

I'll post the link to the local rag when it comes out!