STUPID SCIENCE

October 15, 2012

 

Those super-smart scientists are at it again. This time it’s the turn of a team of physicists at Yale University. They have published an academic paper suggesting they’ve found a planet which is made from – wait for it – diamond!

Yes, this whole twinkle-twinkle is one big diamond sparkler.

This academic paper was, of course, followed by a Press Release thereby ensuring you don’t have to get a real job in the real world, while justifying your funding for the following year.

Even if this planet IS one big giant diamond, that contributes what exactly to humanity? It’s 40 light years away from earth.

Meanwhile, at Bonn University, physicists say they may have evidence that the universe is a computer simulation. Really, I promise you, I am not making this up.

You see, in layman’s terms, they made a computer simulation of the universe, and it looks a lot like us. Additionally, they say that any civilisation of sufficient size and intelligence would eventually create a simulation universe. The upshot of this is that by their reckoning it’s more likely than not that our world is artificial.

So there, you go. There is no God, but we are actually a PlayStation 3 game.

Somebody pays these people a salry?

You couldn’t make it up… Well, you could, and they would give you a whacking great grant for it. Nice work if you can get it.

But can you spot the problem with all this nonsense… other than being a masterful waste of money and resources, I mean? The answer is; you can never prove any of this one way or the other.

And that’s the really clever bit.

Which is why I want the world to know that the stars at the very edge of the universe are actually made of chocolate. What’s more, we don’t actually exist; we are just the figment of a giant monkey’s fertile imagination.

After all, the chocolate and monkey theory is about as likely as the cutting-edge scientific notion that we’re all part of a computer simulation.

I wonder where I apply for my grant.

Drew McAdam

Advertisements

THE SCIENCE OF SMOKING

September 9, 2012

I started smoking to make myself look older. And I have to say, I think it’s beginning to work!

The problem was when I tried to stop. It turns out that cigarettes, and the little parcels of nicotine they deliver, really are addictive.

As it happens, I was in the pharmacy the other day. And there, on the counter, was a new product. An electronic cigarette. Well, everything is electronic these days; so why not fags?

Looking just like a filter cigarette, it has a lithium-ion battery which you recharge by plugging it into your computer – I kid you not. When you suck on it, it produces what looks exactly like curling smoke, but is actually water vapour, and delivers the ‘hit’ of nicotine.

In comparison, traditional tobacco cigarettes contain around 80 carcinogenic chemicals. The electronic version is also a fraction of the price of real cigarettes.

I have to report that I have now been smoking the e-ciggy for two weeks, and haven’t been back to the real thing since. Yay!

And then it happened: the headline “Experts Warn Electronic Cigarettes Can Damage Lungs”. Here we go again.

It didn’t take too long before Junk Science stepped in with “science by press release”.

It turns out that this headline is based on a report by Professor Gratziou from Athens. Having said that, her actual research paper has neither been published nor peer reviewed – which means it’s not actually available for analysis.

What’s more, the “study” doesn’t find that the use of electronic cigarettes causes damage to the lungs. Rather, it suggests that there is an “observable effect”. In other words, inhaling water vapour has an immediate and short- term (ten minutes) effect on the lungs. Wow, who would have thought?

Want to know who has funded this study? Google the professor’s name and the words “financial conflict of interest”, but don’t be too surprised at what you find.

Once again science with an agenda distorts the truth. These e-cigarettes have weaned me off the deadly weed and its cocktail of poisons. And yet here is “science” trying to scare people from using them.

Perhaps the headline should be “Unethical Junk Science can seriously damage your health.” At least it would be an honest headline.

And with that out of the way, I make two predictions. Firstly, e-cigarettes are going to become a massive hit – if you haven’t seen anybody “vaping” yet, you soon will. And, secondly, the bureaucrats will find some way of taxing them.

Remember, you heard it here first.

Drew McAdam


SKOOLS OOT

January 3, 2011

 

Here’s a surprise. Straight into school at 5-years of age has a negative effect on a youngster’s education. Leave it a couple of years, and they will do much better.

Sound crazy? Stick with me a while longer.

Our kids are rounded up and bundled off to school at 5-years of age when, really, they should still be with their family, learning from playing rather than instruction. Growing in confidence and self-reliance, rather than having their imaginations stripped away to fit the acceptable norm.

Now, you would think that the earlier they start the better their education, wouldn’t you? Unfortunately, statistics demonstrate the opposite. Top of the European leaderboard in terms of education are countries like Finland and Denmark, where formal education does not begin until the age of – wait for it – seven.

While our kids are being bogged down by a class curriculum, their kids are chasing butterflies, exploring their world and constructing stories with their dollies. Yet the kids left to their own devices consistently obtain higher educational results later in life.

In fact, with the exception of The Netherlands and Malta, we are the only European country jamming our little ones into a contrived learning environment at the age of five. (And sometimes even four!)

According to the Primary Review report, compulsory learning at such a tender age was introduced in 1870 and had nothing to do with learning. Rather, it was a way of combating the negative effect of inadequate and abusive Victorian parents. In other words it was about child protection, not education.

There is no question that kids gain little benefit from formal learning at such a young age. They are not designed that way.

All that would be bad enough, but when they get out of school they have homework. Lots of it… I mean REALLY lots of it. If you don’t believe me, find the parent of an 8-year old and get them to show you. It’s enough to put any kid off education for life.

I swear, some of these tots will spend more time on homework than I found necessary when my O’levels were drawing near. And let’s be honest, all this homework is only so that teachers and educationalists can tick boxes and meet arbitrary criteria set down by the grey men in grey suits. It’s certainly not about teaching the youngsters. No, it’s about paperwork and meeting standards that are based on… well, figures plucked from the air.

Kids are kids. Early and imposed learning will turn them away from the wonder of knowledge. Let them learn from amusing themselves, spending moretime with their family, and having fun – the way it’s meant to be. Let the children play, I say.

Drew McAdam


CASH FOR CONFUSION AND CONTRADICTION

May 31, 2009

DID you enjoy the recent unexpected bout of hot weather? You did? Well, haven’t you seen the warnings about skin cancer from being out in the sunshine?

There again, you might have seen the scientific report that exposure to the sun produces massive amounts of vitamin D –which in turn actually reduces the risk of many types of cancer by as much as 50 percent. Confused? Well, that’s experts for you.

I mean, have the know-all authorities made it clear whether eggs are good or bad for you? What about red wine, coffee, milk or meat?     Read the rest of this entry »