The Professor's Notes

This story, “Panel: Teflon Chemical a Likely Carcinogen,” is another of those interesting scientific findings that will get lots of “air play” and then die down. It is research that will most likely scare many, who will fail to read the full story, and never go read the actual report. What is the likelihood that anyone will actually contract cancer from teflon, or any other ‘non-stick’ surface? I suspect (NOTE: Opinion through observation) that since the incidence of cancer hasn’t increased since the introduction of teflon, and the projected life-spans have increased, we have seen little practical impact.

This reminds me of the studies that came out in the mid-1980s, where a “link” was found between aluminum in the brain, and Alzheimer’s. At the time, the “fear mongers” then started encouraging the disuse of Aluminum Pans (oddly enough, in favor or cast iron, and teflon) and discouraged drinking sodas out of a can. (forget that sodas themselves are evil, evil things.) At the time, I pointed out, to those around me, young pup that I was, that the evidence was only that there existed a link–high levels of aluminum in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients.

Note a few things here:
– They had only looked at autopsies of Alzheimer patients, so couldn’t draw a solid comparison
– They (The researchers) found high levels of alumnimum

I surmised that it could be one of two (or many) things. The two most obvious is that a) Aluminum causes/contributes to Alzheimer’s, or b) whatever the cause of Alzheimer’s, it may, as a result, *also* result in the brain retaining significant levels of aluminum. (Of course, there was the next option–that the levels were high, but no higher than in anyone else… )

I believe later studies have shown that there is no causal link. I leave that research to you, dear reader. But if you find anything, be sure to come back here and tell us–certainly a motivated reader makes the best researcher! (In fact, that’s one of the things I like most about the blog at “the Lobby“–Let is quite motivated!)

Keep on thinking!

The Prof

WSJ.com – Science Journal

Many of you may remember my writing about Science and assumptions This article does a good job of talking about the assumptions that Science makes–and often must make. As the article points out “‘What science is is settled methodologically,’ says Prof. Forrest. ‘It’s not that science rules out the supernatural as a precondition. But scientists want to apprehend the world, and there is no procedure for studying the supernatural. God is not a controlled variable.’”

Yup–they can’t have as assumption that God did it. But as the article points out, science gets in trouble when it argues that one must choose between God and Scientific truth. As this article points out, nothing could be further from the truth.

Oh–and if the link has disappeared, let me know.

Apple Offers College Lectures Via Podcasts – Yahoo! News

This is very interesting–Apple supporting the podcasting of lectures. Forget for a brief moment that removing the students from the classroom removes the interactivity between the prof and the class, and between each other, that often leads to serendipitous learning. Additionally, ignore for the moment that this might result in the prof actually talking to a COMPLETELY empty room (and how motivated a speaker can you be with that?).

Ignoring all that, this might be a very neat idea. Several years ago, MIT started the open university project (or whatever they called it) making the materials for their classes available online. Their logic? The course materials are not the reason MIT is so good. MIT is an outstanding university because of the interactions, and the faculty. This goes that next step, and brings the faculty–at least in a one way transmission–to the viewer/listener. (MIT, to its credit, will still have an edge, since so much of their educational experience is hands-on learning.) Perhaps this is another way of extending the distance education approach, that started with mail-order classes, has recently moved to the web-based courses, and now, is supported by your little iPod.

I am curious about this, though. Do you, dear class, believe that students today are, as the story says, “digital natives”? Are they so wired in, that this is not only a good way to reach them, but perhaps, the ONLY way to reach them?

What do you think the net effect on the education of these students will be? Will they be better educated, since they can learn where and when they want, or perhaps lose out because of the lack of interaction?

Let me know!

The Prof

(Oh, and visit The Lobby–for all my wranglings with that site, I do believe it is a fun site to read, and honestly, worth anyone’s time!)

I was trying to decide what to post about today. Alito? Done… Kennedy’s blustering about how long he was willing to fight to subpeona the Library of Congress to release Alito’s records about Princeton (they voluntarily offered them–once asked…)

But then, I realized, I have some unfinished business. I had engaged in a brief discussion about gays in the military at the Lobby. It’s not really a fight–certainly not one about dogma, or philosophy. Honestly, I think the main author, Let, just is perhaps not as familiar with the military as one needs to be to make some statements.

But I have engaged. Please, dear readers, especially those with a military background–go read the discussion and, if you feel like contributing, do so.

I am sure the hosts at the Lobby welcome thoughtful people from all backgrounds, and would never do anything to discourage participation. And, while, as the lead author points out, opinions are like… (I am assuming she included her’s in that rather broad generalization) I know she welcomes factual discussions.

The Prof

UPDATE: Sorry, the “Lobby” died.  It’s too bad, honestly.

It’s amazing how work often seems to get in the way of fun–including the fun of blogging. Of course, it doesn’t seem to slow down some blogs.

Now, while I haven’t been able to keep up with Randi Rhodes–even though I have succumbed, and added her podcast to my subscriptions–I still try to make time to go through the blog from the left–the lobby.

I do like their new look. I think it’s quite stylish. I do think though that the post about Alito, and then the post about New Orleans, go a bit beyond the pale. It’s alright to disagree with the decisions, but the vitriol–well, it’s a bit much.

For instance, Let (the main blogger) writes “Alito is a walking constitutional amendment and we all know it. We might as well have put the Religious Right and the head of every corporation up on that court.” Interesting, except David Broder, in his commentary last week, essentially argued that the problem with Alito is not his willingness to rewrite the constitution, but his rather literalist reading of it. In fact, it is the “left” justices that have most often been cited as “writing” law rather than interpreting it. Remember the “right to privacy”? Which amendment is that one? Hmmm?

And let’s tackle the New Orleans blog entry. “Anyone remember Dubya saying this? ‘”“I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.’ Prior to Hurricane Katrina hitting New Orleans, Homeland Security reportedly knew what was to come, despite claims to the contrary and now there are documents to prove it.” (check out the link to the MSNBC site–go to “the lobby” to get the link–and read this blog. Seriously, it is worth it!) I have to agree that the President’s statement that no one anticipated it was perhaps hyperbole. But I suspect it was more likely a combination of a failure to brief the President by his staff, and an overwhelming sense of so many that it would never really happen.

I have family from New Orleans, so I as much as anyone know the feelings leading up to the hurricane. My family, being conservative, always expects the worst. However, I have been told that often the sense of the population has been one of complacency. It’s not hard to believe that, if the general population didn’t think it could really happen, that perhaps that view was shared by the local leadership in Louisiana. Just perhaps…

The Lobby(ists) go on to write “Not only that, but anyone tracking the story has probably read that the Dept of Homeland Security went through an exercise where a mock Hurricane Pam created all types of catastrophic damage. The results of the exercise were eerily similar to the reality Katrina left in Louisiana, Missourri, and Mississippi and this was way back in 2004.” Interesting. Should we spend billions of dollars after the DHS or DOD have a “doomsday scenario” exercise? I believe they have also done these for earthquakes, terror attacks, and various other natural and man-made catastrophes. What if the decision had been made to spend the money on the levies but we had actually lost San Francisco to another earthquake–would they have applauded our willingness to be prepared–or continued to attack, this time criticizing the inability to “get it right?”

So what is my point? What is the “golden thread of knowledge” to all this? Let’s be critical of the right things. Let’s get the stories “right” before we attack from the left.

The brief morning Sun…

Okay, I haven’t revealed much personal, but I figured it was about time I showed a picture from the lake house. I woke to a gorgeous sunrise (some would say it was “fabulous”) and grabbed the camera. It’s a good thing I did. It didn’t last long.

I also have a RAW version, which of course has far more detail.

enjoy.