Actually, Facebook doesn't cause syphilis after all

2010 is shaping up as a good year for Facebook scare stories.  Earlier this month the rabidly right-wing Daily Mail exposed Facebook as a den of drooling paedophiles waiting to prey on its readers' innocent young darlings, only to have to correct the story later in the face of threats of legal action from Facebook.  Then this week a story that claimed Facebook use was responsible for an increase in the spread of syphilis was picked up by the usual suspects among the UK "news"papers.

Now I'd like to think that most readers of 23narchy.com are more than capable of spotting these kinds of silly stories a mile off, but for a complete dissection of the nonsense behind the headlines, have a look at Ben Goldacre's excellent post on his Bad Science blog.

The Great Moon Hoax of 1835 | Boing Boing

 Wikipedia Commons F Fb Great-Moon-Hoax-1835-New-York-Sun-Lithograph-298Px
In the latest episode of The Memory Palace podcast, reporter Nate DiMeo tells the captivating story of "The Great Moon Hoax" of 1835. According to a series of New York Sun articles published that year, a respected astronomer named Sir John Herschel had observed an amazing array of flora and fauna on the moon, including bipedal beavers, winged humanoids, and (yay!) blue unicorns. None of it was true. (Or so we're told now.) And Herschel wasn't even aware until much later that he was the star of this bit of science fiction presented as fact. The lithograph above accompanied one of the articles to illustrate what Herschel had "seen" through his giant telescope. "The Moon in the Sun"

 

Locations of Ancient Woolworths Stores follow Precise Geometric Patterns


Press Release – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

5 January 2010

Locations of Ancient Woolworths Stores follow Precise Geometrical Pattern

Matt Parker, based in the School of Mathematical Sciences at Queen Mary, University of London, has analysed the locations of the 800 Woolworths stores to reveal precise geometric patterns. This was based on the work of Mr Tom Brooks (a retired marketing executive of Honiton, Devon) who found similar patterns in prehistoric monuments across the UK.

Mr Brooks looked at 1500 sites and found that some of them follow geometric patterns and he concluded that they must have been part of a sophisticated navigational system. This was reported in the UK national press on 5 January 2010, with the Daily Mail reporting that the patterns were so “sophisticated and accurate” that “he does not rule out extraterrestrial help.”

Matt Parker then decided to apply this technique to another ancient and mysterious civilisation: that of the Woolworths stores.

“We know so little about the ancient Woolworth stores, but we do still know their locations” explains Matt Parker, “so I thought that if we analysed the sites we could learn more about what life was like in 2008 and how these people went about buying cheap kitchen accessories and discount CDs.”

The results revealed an exact and precise geometric placement of the Woolworths locations. Three stores around Birmingham formed an exact equilateral triangle (Wolverhampton, Lichfield and Birmingham stores) and if the base of the triangle is extended, it forms a 173.8 mile line linking the Conwy and Luton stores. Despite the 173.8 mile distance involved, the Conway Woolworths store is only 40 feet off the exact line and the Luton site is within 30 feet.  All four stores align with an accuracy of 0.05%.

The bisector of this same triangle then passes through the Monmouth, West Bromwich and Alfreton store locations with an accuracy of 0.5%. There are also grids of isosceles triangles – those with two sides of equal length – on each side of the Birmingham Woolworths Triangle. One such isosceles triangle made with Stafford only has an error of 3% and it points directly at the Northwich Woolworths store that is itself only 0.6% off being exactly isosceles.

Matt Parker concludes that “these incredibly precise geometric patterns mean that the people who founded the Woolworths Empire must have used these store locations as a form of ‘landmark satnav’ to help hunters find their nearest source of cheap sweets that can be purchased in whatever mix they chose to pick. Well, that or the fact that in any sufficiently large set of random data it is possible to find meaningless patterns of any required accuracy.”

These patterns were found from the 800 random ex-Woolworth locations by simply skipping over the vast majority of the sites and only choosing the few that happen to line-up. Matt Parker claims he could find many more such patterns, but he had some actual real work to do. He does envy Mr Tom Brooks though, who with 1500 locations, had almost twice as much data to pull meaningless patterns from.

 “It is extremely important to look at how much data people are using to support an argument” Matt Parker warned. “For example, the case for global warming covers vast amounts of comprehensive evidence, but it is still possible for people to search through the data and find a few isolated examples that appear to show otherwise.”

Map showing locations and patterns:

ENDS

Notes for Editors


Contact Matt Parker for high resolution images and for versions without Google Maps copyright. All location data and calculations are also available.

Contact:

Matt Parker

matt@standupmaths.com

Ph. (+44) 7962 466288

Original media coverage of Mr Tom Brooks’ findings:

 

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/807855-did-prehistoric-satnav-help-britons-find-their-way

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1213400/Ancient-man-used-stone-sat-nav-navigate-country.html

A clarification: why people have been concerned by Baroness Greenfield | bengoldacre

Since my brief tweet, a few people have asked me why I dislike Baroness Greenfield. I’m a bit cornered now. I don't want to turn this into unpleasantness just after she's been made redundant by the Royal Institution, so I'm not going to write a big post on badscience.net, but equally, I wouldn't want anyone to think I make negative comments lightly. Here is a very brief summary, in an email, which I wrote to a friend earlier, and which I’m bunging up on my posterous account here.

1. I really don't think it's very helpful for people who are supposed to be promoting the publics understanding of science to run about generating scare stories about facebook, cannabis, etc.

Her claims about computers damaging childrens brains have been going on for years now (bits on it here and here, endlessly repurposed eg here). In my view her argument is pretty thin, and the goalposts and extremities of the claims seem to me to shift depending on the audience. All I have said is: write it up in an academic journal, making your hypothesis clear, set out the evidence, and set out what evidence you think should be gathered. Often overlooked, alongside this barrage of media work on the dangers of computers, but her media work explaining that cannabis can blow your mind forever was also a bit depressing, and built largely on plays from authority ("I'm professor of pharmacology, so what I say..."). I'd like to see someone in her position - director of the Royal Institution - showing people what science is about: by clearly describing and evaluating evidence.

2. I don't think it's very helpful for people who are supposed to be promoting the publics understanding of science to endorse commercial products.

In fact I really don’t like this. I think it’s ugly. Baroness Greenfield launched her own personally endorsed range of very expensive computer games to train your brain in the House of Lords, to much media fanfare in the Times, Telegraph, BBC and more. When Which magazine investigated the company’s claims they were sent three studies. Two had basic design flaws, and one they reported as being well designed, with some positive results, but this had not been formally published. “There is good evidence that some activities help maintain mental processes,” said Which, and I agree. “But many of these are cheap or even free, such as getting regular physical exercise, eating healthily and having an active social life.” Baroness Greenfield’s personally endorsed product, MindFit, costs £88. That’s quite a lot of money.

She's not alone. Robert Winston appeared in adverts for St Ivel "Clever Milk" with added omega-3 (an advert panned and banned by the ASA, it broke their rules on substantiation and truthfulness). Carol Vorderman – she knows about maths, I’d trust her – endorsed those horrible debt consolidation loans in a TV advert, while debt charities asked her to kindly stop. I think this is all a bit unpleasant. This is the old guard of “public engagement in science”. They don’t like the new guard.

Baroness Greenfield’s response to my concerns, and my suggestion that she should formally write up her concerns about computers damaging childrens’ brains, has simply been to say that I am like the people who denied that smoking caused cancer. I think that’s just offensive, I’m afraid, and I’d be happy to debate her sensibly and publicly at her convenience.

I’ll stop there.

Update 09/01/10

Sadly the BBC are now reporting that Baroness Greenfield is going to take the Royal Institution to court. Since her position of director was made redundant owing to a massive financial crisis, following a £22m refurbishment under Greenfield's stewardship which left the RI in deep financial trouble, this could be pretty sad news for an ancient and valuable organisation, as LayScience points out.

 

Elf science at Toys R Us | Boing Boing

Toys R Us puts elf toys in the science section


Madeline Ashby sends us this photo of "Elf" toys filed away in the Toys "R" Us "Science" section, noting, "My husband and I braved Toys R' Us on the final Sunday before Christmas to bring the happy mutants this FAIL. Our theory is that Toys R' Us committed a classic logic fallacy: science = nerdy; elves = nerdy; elves = science. It's the only explanation we can think of for what is an epic failure of toy taxonomy."

Educational Toy FAIL (Thanks, Madeline!)

Johnny Ball booed by atheists over climate change denial | Telegraph

Veteran children’s TV presenter Johnny Ball was booed off stage last night after denying man-made climate change before an audience of liberal atheists.

Johnny Ball booed by athiests over climate change denial
Johnny Ball Photo: PA

Ball, 71, claimed that spiders’ flatulence was more damaging to the environment than fossil fuels, and criticised the “bad science” of global warming during a performance at a Christmas show in celebration of atheism and science.

Audience members at ‘Nine Lessons and Carols for Godless People’ at the Bloomsbury Theatre, London responded with slow handclaps, whistles, jeers until he left the stage.

One blogger who was in the audience wrote that Ball had delivered a “ten minute rant descending to an incoherent ramble” in which he said that he doubted the small proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can cause global warming.

They added: “A cry of ‘shame’ from the audience broke the dam, the boos started and a perplexed and shaken-looking Ball was finally forced from the stage.”

Ball, the father of BBC Radio 2 DJ Zoë Ball, rose to fame in the 1970s and 80s as the presenter of popular science and technology programmes aimed at children.

He was performing as part of a bill which included science writers Ben Goldacre and Simon Singh, and outspoken atheists and comedians Robin Ince and Chris Addison.

Robin Ince, who organised the show, later wrote on the microblogging website Twitter that Ball had “overran doing manmade climate change stuff that both I and the audience disagreed with.

He added: “Johnny ball is a lovely man who has done much to popularise science it’s just his climate change angle seems wrong”.

Other audience members used Twitter to voice their surprise at Ball’s views.

Helen Lippell wrote: “Oh my god just been listening to johnny ball blame global warming on farting spiders. Weirded out.”

Paul Sims, news editor of New Humanist magazine, tweeted: “Johnny Ball, childhood hero of many younger than me, just rolled out climate denial.”

However, there were some dissenting voices. Andy McHaffie wrote: “I do hope the next few audiences…are liberal enough not to boo Johnny again.

It is not the first that time that Mr Ball has caused controversy with his views on climate change.

Two years ago he used a Christmas lecture at Edinburgh University to claim that “the greens…want society to collapse”, and said he doubted whether the polar ice caps were melting.

Ball told the Telegraph today that he "regretted" his comments last night and would not be repeating them at performances this evening or tomorrow.

He said: I knew there would be people vehemently opposed to what I was saying, but I think where I went wrong was accusing the University of East Anglia of cooking the books, and in going on too long and labouring the point.

"I shouldn't have turned it into a political rant and I won't be doing climate change again because I didn't go to be controversial or upset the show."

He added: "I looked on Twitter this morning and there were a lot of people saying how disappointed they are because they've admired my work in the past and I'm upset by that."

However, he remained defiant over his views and said he always planned to "make a stand" during the show.

"The reason I do this is because I canot stand by and see young people scared to death that climate change is going to bring about the end of the world by 2050," he said.

 

Health Warning: Exercise Makes You Fat – Bad Science

August 29th, 2009 by Ben Goldacre in bad science 

Ben Goldacre, 29 August 2009, The Guardian

Why would you listen to a government health message, or your GP practise nurse, when the Sunday Telegraph has much more exciting news? “Health warning: exercise makes you fat” is the kind of full-width headline you want to see across a broadsheet page: it’s affirmative, it’s reassuring, and it gives you clear permission to sit on your arse all day. “Re-programming body fat is the key to weight loss, not working out.” Praise be. “Is it possible that all that exercise is doing nothing to make us slimmer?” Please let the answer be yes.

 

imageThe Telegraph produced three lines of research for this claim. Firstly, more people are spending more money on more exercise than before, but there is also more obesity around in the UK than before: explain that with your science. Then there was some speculative laboratory research about interfering with brown fat in animal models using stem cells and things: interesting to read, but distant from the headline claim, and not much use to you on a Sunday.

To properly examine whether exercise really will make you fat, they described two trials.

The first one, I can tell you right now, is cherry picked. The Cochrane Library is a non-profit collaboration of academics who produce unbiased, systematic reviews of the medical literature, and they have a systematic review of all the 43 trials that have been done on exercise for weight loss. This produces clear evidence that exercise is beneficial, albeit more modestly than you’d hope. “Exercise plus diet” was compared with “diet alone” in 14 trials : both groups lost weight, but 1.1 kg more in the exercise group. High intensity exercise was compared with low intensity in 4 trials, high intensity exercise came out better in all of them, with extra weight loss of 1.5 kg. There are also improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugars, sense of well-being, and so on.

The Telegraph quoted one trial from Dr Timothy Church of Louisiana University, which compared three different levels of exercise with a personal trainer in overweight people. There were no significant differences between the weight lost in any of the groups, including the “control” group, who were not given a personal trainer at all. So it is true that exercise did indeed have no benefit, in this one single trial the Telegraph quoted, whilst ignoring the vast, overwhelming majority of published literature examing the same question. Dr Church speculates that the explanation for his finding is that people who exercised more also ate more. Fine.

Then there is the Telegraph’s second trial. “Another study due to be published next month in the journal of Public Health Nutrition by researchers at the University of Leeds draws similar conclusions. Professor John Blundell and his colleagues found that people asked to do supervised exercise to lose weight also increased the amount they ate and reduced their intake of fruit and vegetables.”

I have this trial in front of me. It’s simply not true that participants increased their food intake. Only 15% of all participants gained weight during the study, and these were the only people to increase their food intake, but in any case, the weight gained even by these people was lean tissue, and they lost fat tissue. In fact, what the Telegraph don’t tell you, bafflingly, is that overall, participants doing supervised exercise in this trial lost more weight. Much more weight. In fact, people doing exercise lost 3.2kg more weight, on average, over just 12 weeks.

Prof Blundell says: “the Telegraph article was a complete distortion of the facts of our investigation, which showed that exercise is very effective for weight loss. They completely reversed the outcome of our study.”

Misleading journalism like this is becoming a genuine public health problem. We’ve previously seen the evidence that people change their health behaviour in response to what they read in the media. To add to this, the World Cancer Research Fund recently commissioned a survey from YouGov. This was a proper survey, in a representative sample, from a reputable data collector, where anyone is allowed to see the questions and the results, not a secret PR survey to get free advertising in a newspaper.

Half of all respondents said they thought scientists and doctors were constantly changing their minds about healthy living advice, although in reality, healthy living advice hasn’t changed at all for at least a decade (don’t smoke, do some exercise, eat more fruit and veg). And a quarter of all respondents said that because scientists keep changing their minds, you might as well eat whatever you want, because it won’t make any difference anyway. Have another pastry and put the telly on.