Thursday, November 20, 2003
Baen Free Library interesting initiative in no-fee online publishing, mainly if not entirely SF. As well as free books to read (if you like e-books) there is a lively discussion of pros and cons of such a model, and some data on wheter print sales have been hit....
Monday, November 10, 2003
Rather late in the day to discover this, but as the debate about plans for compulsory flouridation heats up, I have discoovered the "York Committee" report from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) The Department of Health commissioned CRD to conduct a systematic review into the efficacy and safety of the fluoridation of drinking water; its review was published in October 2000. The Centre now writes at http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm that "We are concerned about the continuing misinterpretations of the evidence and think it is important that decision makers are aware of what the review really found. As such, we urge interested parties to read the review conclusions in full at http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/summary.pdf."
What I found startling was the headline conclusion:
"We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.
What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth.
This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor.
An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down's syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor.
The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.
Since the report was published in October 2000 there has been no other scientifically defensible review that would alter the findings of the York review."
The full report is available via the CRD Fluoridation Review web site (http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluorid.htm).
(Now, speaking personally, I have long been very dubious about fluoridation on the grounds that it is liable to induce changes in bone composition just as much as teeth, and this so more than well-flushed toothbrushing. I can recall various reviews, eg one in Science and Public Policy in the '90s, that gristed this mill. What I didn't realise is that the opponents' claim about the tenuousness of te pro case was perhaps better-founded!)
What I found startling was the headline conclusion:
"We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.
What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth.
This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor.
An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down's syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor.
The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.
Since the report was published in October 2000 there has been no other scientifically defensible review that would alter the findings of the York review."
The full report is available via the CRD Fluoridation Review web site (http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluorid.htm).
(Now, speaking personally, I have long been very dubious about fluoridation on the grounds that it is liable to induce changes in bone composition just as much as teeth, and this so more than well-flushed toothbrushing. I can recall various reviews, eg one in Science and Public Policy in the '90s, that gristed this mill. What I didn't realise is that the opponents' claim about the tenuousness of te pro case was perhaps better-founded!)
Thursday, November 06, 2003
BBC - Radio 4 - Science Index for streaming audio and a brief introduction here
Monday night's "Britain's X-files" (this seems to be a good series) covers some of the most interesting UK UFO cases, with a good airing for psychosocial researchers like Mike Clark and Andy Roberts, and a fine further tracking down of just what the US air base sighted during the Rendelsham Forest scare (lightship as well as Orford Ness lighthouse, which I just happened to be in sight of and close to last week). There was a failure though to be very conclusive about the apparent coincidences of lights and earth tremours in a major Wesl incident: one commentator claimed coincidence of meteor and tremour (Fort has too many cases of this for coincidence to be plausible, but there was no mention of the "earth lights" hypothesis of Paul Devereux and others); and there was another story about poachers using bright lights which sounded plausible and completely unsubstantiated. A fascinating feature of both of the main cases studied here was the acumulation of myth about MIBs, autopsies etc in these cases - people apparently convinced that these things had happened, invariably to FOAFs. For my take on Forteana, see Why the Future is Fortean in Foresight, February 1999 vol 1 no 1 pp 73-90
Monday night's "Britain's X-files" (this seems to be a good series) covers some of the most interesting UK UFO cases, with a good airing for psychosocial researchers like Mike Clark and Andy Roberts, and a fine further tracking down of just what the US air base sighted during the Rendelsham Forest scare (lightship as well as Orford Ness lighthouse, which I just happened to be in sight of and close to last week). There was a failure though to be very conclusive about the apparent coincidences of lights and earth tremours in a major Wesl incident: one commentator claimed coincidence of meteor and tremour (Fort has too many cases of this for coincidence to be plausible, but there was no mention of the "earth lights" hypothesis of Paul Devereux and others); and there was another story about poachers using bright lights which sounded plausible and completely unsubstantiated. A fascinating feature of both of the main cases studied here was the acumulation of myth about MIBs, autopsies etc in these cases - people apparently convinced that these things had happened, invariably to FOAFs. For my take on Forteana, see Why the Future is Fortean in Foresight, February 1999 vol 1 no 1 pp 73-90
Monday, November 03, 2003
http://www.fipr.org/ is the web address of
The Foundation for Information Policy Research, an independent body founded in
1998 to study the interaction between IT and society, to commission and
undertake research into public policy alternatives, and promote public
understanding and dialogue between technologists and policy-makers in
the UK and Europe.
Their current press release:30 October 2003 - on UK proposals for
"Electronic life records".
"FIPR has called on the government to ensure that a new electronic
database of life events -- births, marriages, deaths etc. -- supports
rather than reduces privacy and liberty.
"In a response to the Office of National Statistics' consultation on
their plans for such a database, FIPR said that:
* This proposal amounts to establishing the foundations for a compulsory
dossier on every citizen. Once begun, it would develop its own momentum
as agencies discovered new advantages. Fraud and crime prevention could
be argued to justify the inclusion of information relating to social
security benefits, tax, passports, drivers' licences, criminal records
and much else. Public health considerations might be argued to justify
extension of the snapshot of information about the cause of death to an
accumulation of information about health events during life. The
protection of children might be argued to justify linkage with
information accumulated by social services departments. The needs of the
war on terrorism seem capable of being used to justify almost anything.
* The proposed database is already intended to store information that
goes beyond its stated purpose. It is difficult to see the justification
for including occupations, ranks and professions of brides, grooms and
their parents, or causes of death, within the registration system.
* Simpler measures could be cheaper, less invasive and more effective.
For example, a basic registry of deaths would allow the Passport Agency
to check applications for fraud.
* Paper records provide historical evidence that is hard to
retrospectively alter. Any computer database proposed to replace these
records must be very carefully designed to ensure that it prevents
information being altered after the fact.
Nicholas Bohm, author of the response, commented: "The government must
avoid the risks of turning the register of births into a set of
comprehensive dossiers on every citizen." He added: "We should not be
moving towards a system where our very identity is dependent on
registration by the Government in a central database."
The Foundation for Information Policy Research, an independent body founded in
1998 to study the interaction between IT and society, to commission and
undertake research into public policy alternatives, and promote public
understanding and dialogue between technologists and policy-makers in
the UK and Europe.
Their current press release:30 October 2003 - on UK proposals for
"Electronic life records".
"FIPR has called on the government to ensure that a new electronic
database of life events -- births, marriages, deaths etc. -- supports
rather than reduces privacy and liberty.
"In a response to the Office of National Statistics' consultation on
their plans for such a database, FIPR said that:
* This proposal amounts to establishing the foundations for a compulsory
dossier on every citizen. Once begun, it would develop its own momentum
as agencies discovered new advantages. Fraud and crime prevention could
be argued to justify the inclusion of information relating to social
security benefits, tax, passports, drivers' licences, criminal records
and much else. Public health considerations might be argued to justify
extension of the snapshot of information about the cause of death to an
accumulation of information about health events during life. The
protection of children might be argued to justify linkage with
information accumulated by social services departments. The needs of the
war on terrorism seem capable of being used to justify almost anything.
* The proposed database is already intended to store information that
goes beyond its stated purpose. It is difficult to see the justification
for including occupations, ranks and professions of brides, grooms and
their parents, or causes of death, within the registration system.
* Simpler measures could be cheaper, less invasive and more effective.
For example, a basic registry of deaths would allow the Passport Agency
to check applications for fraud.
* Paper records provide historical evidence that is hard to
retrospectively alter. Any computer database proposed to replace these
records must be very carefully designed to ensure that it prevents
information being altered after the fact.
Nicholas Bohm, author of the response, commented: "The government must
avoid the risks of turning the register of births into a set of
comprehensive dossiers on every citizen." He added: "We should not be
moving towards a system where our very identity is dependent on
registration by the Government in a central database."
Zillions of Universes? Or Did Ours Get Lucky?
NY Times (you have to register, but its free) piece on a meeting which debated the anthropic principle, multiversality, and the like.
NY Times (you have to register, but its free) piece on a meeting which debated the anthropic principle, multiversality, and the like.
