Topic: Podcast Topic suggestions

[ufo]

I've read and heard a fair bit about genetically engineering silkworms (and even goats) to produce spider silk.   It would be interesting to use the combined technical research abilities of the SGU gang to explore the possibility of using spider silk in the construction of a Space Elevator.   There should be an X-prize to develop this soon... as soon as we figure out how to make a cable 24,000+ miles long with enough strength to support a significant load beyond its own mass.   The benefits for space exploration and development are pretty obvious.

[Alvanorum]

Hi, The 5x5 #89 "Chemtrails" is missing.  Personally I think it's a cover up but I would really love to get that episode to help me calm down one of my friends on the issue.  Thank you much!

(I didn't want to bump the thread on the p-cast episode section)

[npoljak]

Recently I saw a news item about a group of 39 people in Italy imprisoned for selling tap-water which they marketed as holy water from famous pilgrimage sites like Lourdes. Of course, they promoted their water as the ultimate cure. I was instantly reminded of the italian blogger sued by Boiron in the homeopathy hubbub last year, so I decided to do a write-up, drawing attention the the many parallels, yet opposite outcomes with regards to the legal system.
The quackademic in charge of this "White Light" water went to the school of ear acupuncture in France, where she discovered "hydrofrequencies" and the principle of "infinite reproducibility" which meant that 9 drops of holy water could be mixed in a liter of tap-water while retaining the healing properties of the original substance. Sound familiar, ahem ahem?
Perhaps you might want to visit the topic in this manner in the podcast?
The original Telegraph article about the arrests can be found here, and a very poor Google translation of my write-up here.

[GodSlayer]

bicycle helmets / head injury

specifically, the strength of the evidence with respect to the standards we have for law (think of the evidence supporting vaccines that precedes any policy to make them mandatory).

apparently "further research is needed" regarding their efficacy, but perhaps this is close enough to Dr Novella's wheelhouse to determine whether that is just rhetoric from those who oppose the laws, or whether there are legitimate concerns about their ability to do the job expected of them (such that no superior alternative is demanded).

[ninkasi]

I don't know if this is true with other medical insurance providers globally, but I have found that Medibank Private in Australia reimburses members for certain 'alternative and natural therapies' (a huge list including myotherapy, remedial massage, reflexology, western herbalism, chinese herbalism, shiatsu, exercise physiology, Alexander technique, Bowen Therapy, aromatherapy, Kinesiology... ), in some cases more than you can get from real science based services. This has annoyed the [heck] out of me, and was wondering if this insanity was the case elsewhere and if so if perhaps some sort of campaign was in order? Just to get things moving, I'll post the message I sent to them about my coverage...

Hi

I'd just like to note my dismay at the fact my extras cover includes an allowance for Alternative and Natural Therapies - things like Acupuncture, Naturopathy, Aromatherapy..... most if not all having no scientific evidence that they provide anything more than what could be attributed to the placebo effect.

I have no problem with people choosing these sorts of services in a recreational manner, but my issue is with Medibank providing implicit approval of them.... basically implying that going to an Naturopath is as valid as going to a podiatrist or dietician. In fact I could claim up to $400 for seeing a Naturopath giving me pseudo scientific treatment, but can only claim $250 for the glasses I need to physically get around or $180 every three years for the nebulizer required to help my wife with asthma breathe.

The big issue is of course a person might be sick and decide to undergo alternative therapy rather than conventional (science based) medicine. Steve Jobs is a recent quite public example of a person who did this, and whose life was probably shortened due to his holding off from science based treatment.

So:
I am concerned that Medibank providing coverage for these services means that these are being supported by Medibank as true alternatives to real medicine and therapies that have been proven to work
I am concerned that people may not get the treatment they really need, when they need it
I am concerned that Medibank is paying for people to be treated twice for the same ailment
I am concerned that people may go to a naturopath and rather than have a child immunised, have 'homeopathic immunisation' that puts both the child as well as other children in the community at risk of serious illness from hooping cough, chicken pox etc.
I am concerned that Medibank may get sued because of the above, and that our monthly rates will increase to cover legal costs
I am concerned that part of my monthly payments are going towards funding these so called therapies

I would suggest that including these services be *optional* rather than by default, with a big warning when people select it that states something along the lines that these are not based on science and that Medibank strongly recommends consulting a doctor rather than, or in conjunction with, these services.
I would then suggest either reducing the current rates OR increasing the levels of coverage for approved medical services (eg increasing optical, dental, etc)

I know that this may take time to do, but although I am happy with other aspects of the services my family and I have recieved from Medibank over the years, this does concern me enough to consider changing to a different health provider.

Regards

[ninkasi]

...and of course I meant "whooping cough".... or pertussis... bit you know what I meant.... 

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Several years ago th podcast discussed a study that supposedly demonstrated that for non-controversial topics, Wikipedia is at least as accurate as the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Over the past few years, it seems that Wikipedia's reputation for accuracy has been rapidly diminishing, to the point that now conventional wisdom seems to be that Wikipedia is completely unreliable.

I would be interested in hearing an update on Wikipedia's accuracy, especially if there have been any more recent studies on how it compares to other sources of general information.

[Boßel]

The other day a friend* of mine told me that he wants to increase his penis size by doing an exercise called jelqing. It would be nice to see your thoughts on this, since there is an entire forum of men that all claim that they have increased their size by doing said exercise.

http://www.thundersplace.org/forum/showthread.php?t=7510

Is this plausible?

*And when I say friend, I really mean friend. I don't mean me!

[GodSlayer]

The other day a friend* of mine told me that he wants to increase his penis size by doing an exercise called jelqing. It would be nice to see your thoughts on this, since there is an entire forum of men that all claim that they have increased their size by doing said exercise.

http://www.thundersplace.org/forum/showthread.php?t=7510

Is this plausible?

*And when I say friend, I really mean friend. I don't mean me!

for that matter, is it possible to increase the size of any organ (stomach, kidneys, liver, etc.) as though it were a muscle? -- the skin is one, obviously (done for skin grafts).

[Madfishmonger]

A quote:

“The difference between stupid and intelligent people—and this is true whether or not they are well-educated—is that intelligent people can handle subtlety.
They are not baffled by ambiguous or even contradictory situations—in fact, they expect them and are apt to become suspicious when things seem overly straightforward.”
- Neal Stephenson, The Diamond Age

[CultureClash]

I recently came across this http://www.superconductors.org/28c_rtsc.htm article claiming a room temperature superconductor.

And then I discovered that this is not the first article claiming such a thing on the site http://www.superconductors.org/News.htm

Now my skeptic senses are going a bit haywire because I follow science news and room temp superconductors is a BIG deal.

And I haven't heard anything on this.

Looking closely these articles are showing very tentative early results, but even so I would still thought this would have got more
attention if true...

So this is my question... Using your awesome SGU detective powers... can you determine if this story is true and if these really are the first hints of room temp superconductors.
Or just some kind of internet nonsense.

[Grognard]

Previously, it was thought that it was impossible for cellphone and Wi-Fi radiation to cause cancer, because of the fact that the frequencies of EM radiation are too low (e.g. 2.4 GHz and lower) to actually ionize molecules and cause any sort of chemical change.

However there is a bit of new research showing that this can actually happen with high-intensity low-frequency radiation acting in a similar way to a low-intensity high-frequency (e.g. X-Rays) radiation by actually activating the photo-electric effect.

Here is the article I read:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/03/thousands-of-photons-carry-the-photoelectric-effect-into-the-classical-regime.ars

Is it possible that one ramification of this (according to my own reasoning) might be to show how it is then theoretically possible for cellphone radiation to cause a chemical / biological change in humans if the intensity is high enough? Even if not, it should make an interesting topic.

Please can the Skeptics' Guide please address this.

Thank you.

Grognard

[le mig]

Along the same lines as Grognard - A new different study linking cell phone use to fetal development.... I just can't imagine the physics supports their hypothesis - especially given the difference in relative distances given spread in EM radiation levels.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120315110138.htm

[jt512]

I suspect that you are likely to discuss the new study published in the Annals Archives of Internal Medicine that found a linear dose-response relationship between intake of red meat and total mortality.  Typically, discussions of observational studies by skeptics stress the difficulty of ascertaining causal relationships between exposures and outcomes.  This one-sided view has become so entrenched in the skeptical subculture that it is common to see skeptics reject any observational study, no matter how rigorous its methodology, out of hand.

Therefore, I propose that the SGU take advantage of the publication of this new study to provide a more thorough and balanced discussion of observational studies, especially in nutritional epidemiology, where they are necessary and ubiquitous.  Perhaps you could invite one of the co-authors of the study onto the show to discuss the state of the art in nutritional epidemiology.  In particular, Frank Hu and Walter Willett have spent decades developing methodology in the field, and consequently have a deep understanding of its strengths and limitations.

Jay

[GodSlayer]

I suspect that you are likely to discuss the new study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine that found a linear dose-response relationship between intake of red meat and total mortality.  Typically, discussions of observational studies by skeptics stress the difficulty of ascertaining causal relationships between exposures and outcomes.  This one-sided view has become so entrenched in the skeptical subculture that it is common to see skeptics reject any observational study, no matter how rigorous its methodology, out of hand.

Therefore, I propose that the SGU take advantage of the publication of this new study to provide a more thorough and balanced discussion of observational studies, especially in nutritional epidemiology, where they are necessary and ubiquitous.  Perhaps you could invite one of the co-authors of the study onto the show to discuss the state of the art in nutritional epidemiology.  In particular, Frank Hu and Walter Willett have spent decades developing methodology in the field, and consequently have a deep understanding of its strengths and limitations.

Jay

I'd like to know how widely their "multivariate adjustment for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors" allows their conclusion to apply. does this mean we can assume it's true of the cooking of one country as much as another, and unprocessed no less than processed, or any other such variations? (a lot of the old rhetoric people throw around seems to be more relevant to an excessive American fast-food diet than a diligent and moderate omnivorous diet).
they say "Red meat consumption is associated with", but their results talk about "1-serving-per-day". is the conclusion not to concern those who eat meat once or twice a week? is there a reason they didn't look at a lower frequency like this (hard to find such a population? Harvard already addressed it? only looking to see if it's dangerous, not how much is safe?)