Penumbral Lore; the Shadows of Science

It’s nice to know that people really do read the blog. According to Statcounter most of the hits are coming from Ravelry and from NaBloPoMo, which isn’t really surprising, but I’ve also gotten Google hits from searches on “medical activism” and “blood groups why are they different?” It’s nice to know I’m being read, and I even have a few comments to respond to.

Scooterbird, whose secret identity is my husband, Steve, commented on the post “Mathematics as a Language“

“It really isn’t “check the math yourself”…you have to check more than that. There’s more to the use of stats - often common sense will tell you enough to know that a number is being misused, even when the overall math is correct. Sure, 2+2=4, but what does “4″ mean in this context? And so forth…”

I’d agree with that absolutely. As I said,watch out for “liars, damn liars and statisticians”, and remember that sincere misinterpretation can be as dangerous as deliberate manipulation of the numbers.

meloukhia commented on “Why I Go Orgo” with the observation

“I hadn’t read that study on the nutritional value of organic foods; thanks for linking to that post. I had always suspected that organic foods were probably more sound nutritionally because of the healthier soil on which they are grown, which would suggest more absorption of useful minerals.

I would offer a note of caution with so-called “Free Range” foods, because that label doesn’t mean what most people think it means. Food labeling is extremely deceptive, and a “free range” chicken can still be raised inside a shed, as long as the farmer leaves a door open for a few hours every day. “Pasture raised” is probably a better bet, since it suggests that the animal actually gets to go outside and eat grass.”

This is a really good point. The truth is, while there are several agencies which will certify “Organic” produce (each of which has publicly available criteria) I don’t think there’s any agency doing the same thing for ‘free range’ or ‘pasture raised’ meat or dairy products. Your best bet is to buy locally, talk to the farmer yourself, and maybe even drive by for a visit. It’s not always possible, but it’s worth a shot.

Finally, I thought you’d enjoy this response to Bioethics, a Retrospective:

Well, that’s out there. I’m all for solving the problem of overpopulation, but I’m bothered by the doctor’s suggestion of ‘dramatic’ solutions and ‘forceful steps’. I suppose it’s possible to construct a set of ethics which allows for it, but that doesn’t mean that it could ever be moral. How about you, readers?

Oh, and a final, timely note:

As I was getting ready to post “Something About Quantum”* this morning I got the following urgent message:

Naturally, I went and downloaded the November 2 Science podcast (15.7Mb .mp3). It didn’t take long to figure out the story Debbie was talking about. Apparently, genetic engineers have had to re-engineer the BT toxin due to crop damage by resistant pests.

Some background here. Bacillus thuringiensis is a naturally occurring bacterium which produces a pesticide. The genetic sequence for the toxin was mapped years ago, and it’s been spliced into various crops in order to make them pest resistant. Organic farmers objected immediately, not for some vague ‘fiddling with nature is bad’ reason (OK, some of them may have been jerking their knees, but not as a whole), but because of the known fact that swamping a fast breeding creature with a toxin is the way to breed toxin resistant creatures. University of California, San Diego has a web site detailing the risks and benefits of the strategy.

A note to the wise - when talking about chemistry ‘organic’ has to do with the class of chemicals ‘having a carbon basis’. In agriculture, ‘organic’ describes the practice of limiting fertilizers and pesticides, both in their origin and in how they are used. Both are examples of scientific jargon. The general meaning of the term ‘organic’ has to do with ‘arising from organs’ or occurring naturally.

Personally, I favor Integrated Pest Management as the most ecologically and health sensitive method of food production, but the momentum is behind the organic movement. The problem is that IPM and organic farming are both very labor intensive ways of producing food compared to the overuse of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The advantage is that they, unlike ‘conventional’ farming (which has been the ‘convention’ for about 60 years), preserve and increase the fertility of the soil. It’s a question of short term profits (due to higher yields) vs sustainability.

What one usually hears as the argument is that organically grown foods are better for you. Opponents jump up and down and claim that the evidence isn’t there. It’s only now that studies comparing the nutritional qualities of the two types of food production are being done. Early results favor organic foods for nutritional value, but peer review is going to take time.

Then there’s the question of how much pesticide one is ingesting, and whether or not it’s harmful. The answer to that question is going to vary from substance to substance. In general, those which have been tested do tend to accumulate in body tissue, and to be passed ‘up the food chain’, so if you eat meat from livestock which have been feed on pesticide laced grain, odds are that your own body tissues are in turn laced with the stuff. Will it make you sick? It hasn’t necessarily been tested, so the truth is we just can’t say.

Finally, ‘conventional’ farming tends to favor monocultures - huge swaths of land devoted to growing a single variety of crop. This makes our food supply vulnerable to any pest or disease or other factor which targets this particular variety. That’s a poor way to safeguard our food supply.

If it’s available to you, buy Organic (or IPM) produce from local farms when it’s in season and you can afford it. Likewise, look for locally produced Organic meat for the same reason. Better yet, cut down on meat consumption and choose Free Range products when you can find them.

According to CNN, farmers are suing the DEA over the right to grow hemp. Even the DEA admits that hemp is not a drug, the issue, apparently is that it would take too much effort for DEA agents to figure out who’s growing marijuana and who is merely growing hemp.

According to Michael Pollan in The Botany of Desire, the pot grown today is far stronger than the drug I heard about growing up. That’s because it is now hybridized, dwarf strains which were bred to grow indoors, away from neighbors. In other words, the strains of pot which could be mistaken for hemp are the weak stuff, the stuff no one but amateurs would bother with. Yet, evidently, DEA agents can’t tell the difference?

I’m not even going to start talking medical marijuana, or the social effects of prohibition here. I’m too busy scratching my head about the policy here.

The DEAs response to the arguements is that they have to enforce the laws as written. I think that’s about the most reasonable thing I’ve heard them say. If we could count on the DEA to enforce the laws, as written, I’d be willing to put up with a little stupidity about marijuana. Unfortunately, that agency has the reputation of being nearly as corrupt as the BIA or BATF.

I’m not going to make sense of this right now. For a biased, but interesting take on the issue, go take a look at The Hemp Museum, or take a break and knit something with (imported) organically grown hemp yarn.