Whooping Cough, or Pertussis, is making a comeback big time.
Why?
Because people are being misled by the anti-vaccination lobby and not getting the medical treatments that can easily, and safely, prevent a wide number of communicable diseases.
1. Vaccines do not contain dangerous mercury: Since 2002, thimerosol is no longer used as a preservative in childhood vaccines. Furthermore, there are NO valid scientific studies that support the linkage of thimerosol and autism (the one previous study was withdrawn due to proved fraud by the authors.) Then there is the fact that thimerosol, while containing a mercury atom in the molecule, is not the same as free metallic mercury such as appears in fish and shellfish. One would get more dangerous mercury from one tuna fish sandwich and from all the recommended vaccines.
2. Vaccines are safer than they used to be: Some older vaccines were made with attenuated whole virus particles, and occasionally could cause low-grade infections in some individuals. Modern vaccines are more often made now with only protein extracts of viruses that contain only the parts necessary to induce the immune system to recognize the virus and to cause it to generate antibodies to the virus.
3, Vaccines cause less side effect than they used to: As medical technology has advanced, vaccines are cleaner and more specific in their effects, due to more precise control over the production and purification of the antibody-inducing proteins used.
4. Vaccines work: The currently available vaccines work well against their targets and confer specific immunity to a variety of highly communicable diseases. The recent outbreak of epidemics of Whooping Cough in the USA show this clearly. Where folks are up-to-date on their vaccinations, or get the vaccine as soon as possible, the rate of Pertussis is low; where folks are not vaccinated, the rates are higher.
5. Vaccinations are NOT linked to the increasing incidence of Autism Spectrum Disorders: The ONE study that claimed to show a linkage between vaccination and autism has been withdrawn because it was discovered that the researcher fraudulently invented the statistics used and presented. Independent analysis of the original data, and numerous other studies looking for such a linkage can find no correlations in the data. Additionally, other research is indicating that autism is much more likely to be caused by other factors, such as obesity, water and air pollution, and genetic factors. To repeat: there is no indication that vaccination causes or is linked to autism.
For a very small number of people, with certain specific conditions, vaccination may not be recommended. And an exceeding small number of folks may get other reactions from vaccinations. For most average infants, children and adults, vaccination is safe and effective.
Getting vaccinated as recommended is the socially responsible thing to do; it protects you, it protects your children, it protects the community, and it protects the nation and the world.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Thursday, July 5, 2012
In praise of the light bulb
Electricity is not a recent phenomenon to humankind. The ancient Greeks knew about it and essentially named it. They didn't know what caused it, but they clearly recognized it.
During the Renaissance and since, with the development of the modern scientific method, the mechanics or rules of how it operates began to be recognized, and many of the famous names of electricity studied it. Volta, Ampere, Ohm, Faraday, Weber, etc. This first phase culminated with James Clerk-Maxwell developing the equations and formulating the mathematical basis of electromagnetic theory.
The second phase of advancement in electric theory came with the rise of particle physics and the development of quantum theory. This elucidated the actual mechanisms and causes of electricity, magnetism, and atomic phenomena. The original work on mathematical formalism for electricity has become the basis of quantum theory, relativity (Einstein won his Nobel Prize for work on the photovoltaic effect) and lead to recent developments leading toward a Theory Of Everything.
But all this theoretical work would be for naught were it not for the work of Thomas Edison in making electricity the most commonly used physical theory in the world today. And this huge use of electricity would not have happened except for the development of the humble incandescent light bulb. The whole electricity infrastructure underlying industrial society is a direct result of wanting to use and enjoy the light bulb.
The history of the development of industrial infrastructure is easily found by reading from Wikipedia, but the impetus and impelling factor in extending electric power to everywhere in the developed world is that folks want light.
The light bulb, since its invention, rapidly settled into its most common form: the incandescent tungsten filament in a glass enclosure. It stayed that way for decades without much fundamental change in the technology. As high tech developed, the original low technology was always present right alongside. Can you imagine them building the Large Hadron Collider without having light bulbs around to illuminated to construction and operation?
Even now, you are reading this blog (in all probability) somewhere where there are light bulbs providing illumination. Most likely, the basic technology behind the light bulb is providing the screen on which these words are being displayed.
But now the simple incandescent light bulb is in danger of extinction. This is because the basic incandescent process is too inefficient, converting only about 9 percent of the power consumed into desired light. the rest of the power is consumed in resistance to current flow and the production of waste heat.
The short-term successor to the incandescent bulb is the fluorescent bulb. However, it has to be short term for a variety of reasons. The chemicals involved in the fluorescent effect are toxic and will have long-term affects on the environment if they are not quickly replaced with less adverse alternatives. (It is worth noting that the fluorescent technology still uses heat producing filaments and plasma production in generating light.)
The longer term replacement is, it seems, the Light Emitting Diode (LED) technology, which efficiently produces photons with very little waste heat. The main disadvantage of LED technology is that current means of production involve low efficiency methods and more toxic chemicals. There are changes in the production technology coming along that may sufficiently mitigate these environmentally-unfriendly affects.
However, if the environmental disadvantages cannot be overcome, the earth may be better served by returning to the incandescent filament. This is maligned as a more primitive situation, but be aware that the emotionally loaded word "primitive" is used deliberately to discourage such a development.
I'm certainly committed to progress, but not at the expense of the survivability of the human species and the planet. Those who are pushing the fluorescent bulbs, and the LEDs don't seem to be thinking far enough ahead to see that these technologies may be ultimately non-sustainable. We must place our safety and survival ahead of convenience and progress simply for the sake of change.
In this position, I part ways with the ideologies of the left-wing and right-wing paradigm. I risk getting labeled as a "crazy environmentalist" and being dismissed as a "fringe" ideologue. However, the "Principle of Enlightened Self-Interest" is, so far, the only means I have found to maximize and identify the "best" results for all concerned. Until everyone actually realizes this, the earth and all its life will remain at risk. It takes quite a bit of self-discipline to keep this methodology in focus, and I often fail; however, it is truly worth the effort.
So, honor the simple light bulb and realize that we may not have seen its demise after all.
During the Renaissance and since, with the development of the modern scientific method, the mechanics or rules of how it operates began to be recognized, and many of the famous names of electricity studied it. Volta, Ampere, Ohm, Faraday, Weber, etc. This first phase culminated with James Clerk-Maxwell developing the equations and formulating the mathematical basis of electromagnetic theory.
The second phase of advancement in electric theory came with the rise of particle physics and the development of quantum theory. This elucidated the actual mechanisms and causes of electricity, magnetism, and atomic phenomena. The original work on mathematical formalism for electricity has become the basis of quantum theory, relativity (Einstein won his Nobel Prize for work on the photovoltaic effect) and lead to recent developments leading toward a Theory Of Everything.
But all this theoretical work would be for naught were it not for the work of Thomas Edison in making electricity the most commonly used physical theory in the world today. And this huge use of electricity would not have happened except for the development of the humble incandescent light bulb. The whole electricity infrastructure underlying industrial society is a direct result of wanting to use and enjoy the light bulb.
The history of the development of industrial infrastructure is easily found by reading from Wikipedia, but the impetus and impelling factor in extending electric power to everywhere in the developed world is that folks want light.
The light bulb, since its invention, rapidly settled into its most common form: the incandescent tungsten filament in a glass enclosure. It stayed that way for decades without much fundamental change in the technology. As high tech developed, the original low technology was always present right alongside. Can you imagine them building the Large Hadron Collider without having light bulbs around to illuminated to construction and operation?
Even now, you are reading this blog (in all probability) somewhere where there are light bulbs providing illumination. Most likely, the basic technology behind the light bulb is providing the screen on which these words are being displayed.
But now the simple incandescent light bulb is in danger of extinction. This is because the basic incandescent process is too inefficient, converting only about 9 percent of the power consumed into desired light. the rest of the power is consumed in resistance to current flow and the production of waste heat.
The short-term successor to the incandescent bulb is the fluorescent bulb. However, it has to be short term for a variety of reasons. The chemicals involved in the fluorescent effect are toxic and will have long-term affects on the environment if they are not quickly replaced with less adverse alternatives. (It is worth noting that the fluorescent technology still uses heat producing filaments and plasma production in generating light.)
The longer term replacement is, it seems, the Light Emitting Diode (LED) technology, which efficiently produces photons with very little waste heat. The main disadvantage of LED technology is that current means of production involve low efficiency methods and more toxic chemicals. There are changes in the production technology coming along that may sufficiently mitigate these environmentally-unfriendly affects.
However, if the environmental disadvantages cannot be overcome, the earth may be better served by returning to the incandescent filament. This is maligned as a more primitive situation, but be aware that the emotionally loaded word "primitive" is used deliberately to discourage such a development.
I'm certainly committed to progress, but not at the expense of the survivability of the human species and the planet. Those who are pushing the fluorescent bulbs, and the LEDs don't seem to be thinking far enough ahead to see that these technologies may be ultimately non-sustainable. We must place our safety and survival ahead of convenience and progress simply for the sake of change.
In this position, I part ways with the ideologies of the left-wing and right-wing paradigm. I risk getting labeled as a "crazy environmentalist" and being dismissed as a "fringe" ideologue. However, the "Principle of Enlightened Self-Interest" is, so far, the only means I have found to maximize and identify the "best" results for all concerned. Until everyone actually realizes this, the earth and all its life will remain at risk. It takes quite a bit of self-discipline to keep this methodology in focus, and I often fail; however, it is truly worth the effort.
So, honor the simple light bulb and realize that we may not have seen its demise after all.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
About the age of the Earth
I was on the bus yesterday and a little kid was running around with a toy T.Rex dinosaur. A couple of folks across the aisle then got into a discussion about dinosaurs, and about how early humans dealt with them!
Excuse me? There is no overlap between the time of the dinosaurs (ending about 145 million years ago) and the early humans (beginning about 2.3 million years ago with the rise of the genus Homo.) Humans have never been around true dinosaurs, despite religious claims to the contrary.
The problem, of course, is that quite a few religious traditions are supporting the false belief that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old (some even hold that it is only 6,000 or so years old.) The best estimates of geological science is that the planet is around 4 billion years old, plus or minus 200 million years.
The evidence for the age of the earth is quite abundant, and can be observed and comprehended easily if one cares to look. The oldest continental rock formations are dated by measuring the mineral contents and comparing the elemental isotopes that are present. Owing to the way that radioactive decay works on isotopic composition, and knowing about how long it takes for radioactive decay to take place, rather accurate estimates of the age of rocks can be made. It turns out that the oldest rocks we can find are just short of 3.9 billion years old since they cooled and settled down.
Other estimates of the vast reaches of geologic time can be seen in the various layers of rocks (and their changes) that can be seen in mountains and canyons around the world. Each separate layer can also be placed in time by measuring its isotopic composition.
So, how can folks justify ignoring the geologic evidence and preserve their beliefs in a young Earth?
First of all, they just deny the validity of the science that measures the time. This denial is just plain ignorance an unreasonable prejudice. Then they try to apply false history to try and explain the rock layers and other evidence as the result of the Flood of Noah as "revealed" in the Bible; or the misinterpret the evidence as representing events as occurring at the same time as other events. (Such as dinosaur tracks and human footprints occurring together. Those are not human footprints.)
The most outrageous claim, however, is the belief that the Earth was created old! That is, the creator made things to look as if they were 4 billion years old, but only about 10,000 years ago. I'm sorry, but I can't accept this or give it any credence. It would mean that the creator is downright malicious and deceitful -- not a pair of traits that I find worthy of honoring.
Those who don't yet know me well should be aware that, while I'm not an atheist, I do require that my religion conform to reason and evidence. So, I reject any claims of "young-earth creationism" as being ridiculous and false. The reasonable alternative is to accept the evidence of the scientific method as true, and to realize that works by and for humans are not infallible truth. So the various religious scriptures are just stories that explained the observed world in terms comprehensible to the people of the time they were written and developed.
Welcome to a world of reason and sense. Enjoy the journey.
Excuse me? There is no overlap between the time of the dinosaurs (ending about 145 million years ago) and the early humans (beginning about 2.3 million years ago with the rise of the genus Homo.) Humans have never been around true dinosaurs, despite religious claims to the contrary.
The problem, of course, is that quite a few religious traditions are supporting the false belief that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old (some even hold that it is only 6,000 or so years old.) The best estimates of geological science is that the planet is around 4 billion years old, plus or minus 200 million years.
The evidence for the age of the earth is quite abundant, and can be observed and comprehended easily if one cares to look. The oldest continental rock formations are dated by measuring the mineral contents and comparing the elemental isotopes that are present. Owing to the way that radioactive decay works on isotopic composition, and knowing about how long it takes for radioactive decay to take place, rather accurate estimates of the age of rocks can be made. It turns out that the oldest rocks we can find are just short of 3.9 billion years old since they cooled and settled down.
Other estimates of the vast reaches of geologic time can be seen in the various layers of rocks (and their changes) that can be seen in mountains and canyons around the world. Each separate layer can also be placed in time by measuring its isotopic composition.
So, how can folks justify ignoring the geologic evidence and preserve their beliefs in a young Earth?
First of all, they just deny the validity of the science that measures the time. This denial is just plain ignorance an unreasonable prejudice. Then they try to apply false history to try and explain the rock layers and other evidence as the result of the Flood of Noah as "revealed" in the Bible; or the misinterpret the evidence as representing events as occurring at the same time as other events. (Such as dinosaur tracks and human footprints occurring together. Those are not human footprints.)
The most outrageous claim, however, is the belief that the Earth was created old! That is, the creator made things to look as if they were 4 billion years old, but only about 10,000 years ago. I'm sorry, but I can't accept this or give it any credence. It would mean that the creator is downright malicious and deceitful -- not a pair of traits that I find worthy of honoring.
Those who don't yet know me well should be aware that, while I'm not an atheist, I do require that my religion conform to reason and evidence. So, I reject any claims of "young-earth creationism" as being ridiculous and false. The reasonable alternative is to accept the evidence of the scientific method as true, and to realize that works by and for humans are not infallible truth. So the various religious scriptures are just stories that explained the observed world in terms comprehensible to the people of the time they were written and developed.
Welcome to a world of reason and sense. Enjoy the journey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)