Oregon congressional candidate thinks law is more of a guideline.

pretend I made an Oregon trail joke here, something about only being able to carry 15lbs of illegal funding back to the wagon or whatever

A Republican candidate for a Congressional district in Oregon has received mysterious support to the tune of $150k from anonymous donors which if it is from a single individual is extremely illegal. He appeared on the Rachel Maddow show to... well allegedly to address this issue but mostly to rant and gurn like a crazy old man. What clear message he did give was that because his Democratic opponent has around a million dollars of funding (to his ~$350k) and because Maddow can't account for every penny said Democratic candidate has spent (which is not really relevant as long as it was donated legally) then him receiving $150k of highly suspicious funding is of no consequence. I suppose he sees campaign funding laws as a kind of handicap system so the less likely you are to win the less they apply to you.



To save you from having to watch the later parts of the video, he is quite uncomfortable to watch, I will point out the guy is... how should I say it? Adamant in his claims he is a scientist but in possession of insights and views that the majority of the scientific community is not. To wit, he is fucking crazy. Hes a Republican so his denial of global warming and Evolution aren't especially shocking. Nor is the fact he supports home schooling (he has home school curriculum business) but his vehemence is noteworthy, he believes the public school system should be abolished:

He also believes Women and African Americans don't have the mental capacity or inclination for science and that the best place to store nuclear waste is in the foundations of buildings, why? because it is good for you!

Robinson is an advocate for nuclear power and a proponent of radiation hormesis, a theory claiming that very low levels of radiation can be beneficial to humans. He writes in a 1997 issue of Access to Energy, “The most sensible use of low-level radioactive waste is as a concrete and insulation additive in residential homes — especially in areas where there is insufficient natural radiation for optimum health.” He told EW that a state like Oregon, with its lower radiation rates, suffers from higher cancer rates than Colorado, which has higher background radiation. The damage done at a very low level of radioactivity keeps the immune system in shape, he says. In response to a question regarding whether this is similar in principle to homeopathy, he says, “Homeopathy is so strange; it’s outside of my field of specialization.”

Both the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation say there is no evidence to support the theory of radiation hormesis. What has been proven is that high levels of radiation are indeed pretty bad for our health.

So really I suppose his disinterest in the law is unsurprising, he seems pretty disinterested in reality as a whole. But after a few depressing posts of late I can bring you a ray of hope in regards to this guy. As things currently stand he has a 0.0% chance of winning the election. All the more reason to cheat I suppose.

Myths about Spiders.

I have been pondering recently on why we find small rodents cute when as a species they're a threat to our food supply, spread disease and so on, apparently its a consequence of the evolutionary need to find babies cute. Regardless that lead me on to wondering about why human beings generally don't like and are often afraid of spiders who are supremely beneficial to humans in their consumption of numerous pests. I don't know that but I did google to see if I was mistaken in thinking spiders so useful, I wasn't but I did find this great website that dispels various myths about spiders.

While I'm not very good at science I like to read any kind of academic subject and find out things I'd just assumed to be fact aren't correct at all and this list has several myths I'd completely bought into so it was fun to have my perception of the world shifted a bit. Also even if you're an arachnophobe its worth a look because the list explains how spiders are often less dangerous than they're thought to be.

Charles Darwin: Building Better Worlds.

Terraforming, a concept familiar in sci-fi for decades now is rapidly coming into the mainstream. In fiction it has generally been shorthand for the alteration of planets for colonisation, forming planets to be more like Terra, Earth. In reality while it is brought up from time to time in relation to Mars the reason it is starting to move into public knowledge is that it is (and will increasingly prominently continue to be) Industry's favoured solution to climate change. Instead of cutting emissions or adapting to less polluting ways they instead want to continue as usual and hope that future science will magically fix things. The fact that the impact of climate change and dwindling resources will almost certainly lead to larger and larger wars and thus less chance for innovation in peaceful areas is irrelevant in their world. After all the quarterly financial report is all that really matters anyway.

However it seems terraforming has been around a lot longer than most people had assumed, back in the middle of the C19th Darwin, the Royal Navy and Kew Gardens botched together their own forest eco-system that turned a barren volcanic island into a lush expanse of greenery. But hey, creationists could've achieved something even better if they cared to pray hard enough.

Exceptionally important seed bank to be destroyed because "priceless" = "worthless" to capitalists.

A seed bank, in fact the seed bank, the world's first, on the outskirts of St Petersburg is looking set to be destroyed so some flats can be built in its' place. The concept of seedbanks is one of Russia's greatest gifts to the world but not only will the capitalist inability to perceive value in anything but the most vulgar and short terms destroy a cultural and scientific artefact but also 90% globally unique plant stock that could well be useful in feeding people as climate change renders traditional crops ungrowable.

Oh well.


thanks jonny

Take that Amber!

Global problem of biased medical research

One of the more trumpeted argument against UHC in America was that without gouging the sick and needy there wouldn't be enough money for research. This was proven to be wholly false with Pharmaceutical companies pending twice as much on advertising as they do research but it seems pharam companies shouldn't be involved in research at all. Not I imagine a especially surprising to anyone but it seems over 50% of drug trial results aren't published so as to make drugs seem much more effective than they are. When filthy lucre is involved it seems reality takes a distant second place in drug company's considerations.

Doesn't capitalism own?

A graph of female sexual attractiveness over time.

But yeah, feminism has won and those bulldykes should shut up or something.

Bystander effect may not exist.

The Bystander effect is believed to be something that causes humans to be less likely to intervene and help someone in distress the more people are witnesses an event. Its a generally accepted psychological phenomena but recently a scientist has cast doubt on the theory:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8761745.stm

So we might be almost as good as Orangutans!