Science

Homeopathic remedy

This past Sunday I was really sore from dancing for four hours after a two-and-a-half-hour intro-to-yoga class. So a friend of mine offered some homeopathic-remedy pills (Arnica). I followed the directions and took four pills under the tongue, but the next morning I was still sore.

So then I started thinking… homeopathic medicine gets stronger the more you dilute it, right? So that next morning I took just two pills — kinda like taking twice the recommended dose of ibuprophin I figured. Even that didn’t seem to be enough though, so that evening I really pushed it and didn’t take any of the pills. And you know what? The next morning I wasn’t the least bit sore.

After that experience I’m afraid I went overboard, and started not taking all sorts of homeopathic remedies. I didn’t take Belladonna for headaches, took no Allium for my allergies and even avoided Ferrum Phosphoricum to improve my stamina. So far I feel great, but to be honest I’m a little concerned. After all, there are a lot of other homeopathic remedies I’m not taking, and most of them I don’t even know I’m not taking them! Could I be going too far with this? Is better living through lack of chemistry really the answer?

Homeopathic remedy Read More »

Walter Lewin’s halo revealed

Walter Lewin's ring picture

A couple months ago, MIT physics professor Walter Lewin posted a photo of an MIT construction site to the Astronomy Picture of the Day webpage with the challenge “explain the bright ring of colors.” Now after answering about 3000 answers (only 5 of them fully correct), Walter Lewin explains all.

(Note also that 75 of Prof. Lewin’s lectures are available online at MIT’s OpenCourseWare site, plus four more at MIT World).

Walter Lewin’s halo revealed Read More »

TV and paying attention (to the facts)

A couple days ago the AP reported about a new study that links the amount of time one- and three-year-olds spend watching TV to subsequent attentional problems at age seven. The study, which was published in the April issue of Pediatrics, analyzed interviews from a U.S. Department of Labor longitudinal study and found that for every extra hour a toddler watched TV per day there was a 10% rise in the likelihood that the child would show attentional problems later. The study and accompanying commentary both suggest that, while Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is known to have a significant genetic component, early television viewing might make already susceptible children more likely to manifest symptoms, and they rightly suggest further study. They also point out, however, that one “cannot draw causal inferences from these associations.” For example, though most experts believe ADHD symptoms don’t manifest until well after age three, it is still possible that parents are more likely to park their fidgetty children in front of the TV. Since parents of ADHD children are more likely to have attentional problems themselves, it is also possible that the results are due to parents with attentional problems being more likely to use the television as a babysitter. The article and commentary are both good science: they present their hypothesis, describe their data in detail, and point out both why they think their data supports their conclusions and how they may still be wrong. Their conclusions are well measured given the data: additional research is needed, and if the results are confirmed then attentional problems should join increased aggression and obesity as reasons to limit television viewing in early childhood.

Unfortunately, since the AP broke with the lead that television might permanently “rewire” the developing brain, most of the editorials have not been so measured. WhiteDot (an anti-TV organization) declares “It’s Official: TV Linked to Attention Deficit” and presents the shocker “Are parents who use infant videos such as ‘Baby Einstein’ and ‘Teletubbies’ putting their child at risk for a lifetime of Special Ed classes, school ‘behavioral therapy’ and Ritalin?” The Boston Globe goes one step further, suggesting that “the passive baby sitter we let into the house turned out to be a drug dealer, altering the brain perhaps even more permanently than a bag of dope.” The Philadelphia Inquirer threw in the specter that even Sesame Street might not be safe: “And it had bad news for parents who congratulate themselves that their kids watch only ‘educational’ TV. It didn’t seem to matter what type of shows babies and toddlers watched — whether Sesame Street or Barney or Cartoon Network.” (Not true — the researchers have no information about what kind of TV the children watched, and only concluded that if educational TV isn’t bad then non-educational TV must be even worse to account for the differences found.)

I take away two lessons from this. First, it’s likely that ADHD is yet another condition where genetics and environment interact (ala Matt Ridley’s Nature via Nurture). Second, the guys writing these editorials clearly watched too much TV when they were toddlers — ’cause they just plain aren’t paying attention!

References

TV and paying attention (to the facts) Read More »

Science of marriage

This American Life had a fascinating show on marriage a couple weeks back (and have made an audio stream available). Most interesting was an interview (in act one) with Dr. John Gottman, a researcher who videotapes & bio-monitors couples discussing something they disagree about and codes their heart rates, expressions and how they speak to each other. From about 15 minutes of data he has an 85% chance of predicting if the marriage will last the next 4 years and whether they’ll be happy with it. If he records another hour or so of the couples talking about how they met & things they share, his success rate goes up to 94%.

Science of marriage Read More »

News on Mars

Well this should be interesting…

NASA will hold a press conference Tuesday to announce “significant findings” about water on Mars based on evidence from its Opportunity Mars rover.

“It’s going to be the most significant science results that we’ve had from the rovers, and it’s bearing on their primary mission,” NASA spokesperson Don Savage told SPACE.com . That mission is to find signs of water that might support life.

Will the announcement change how we think about Mars?

“Anything of a significant nature has that possibility,” Savage said. “Sure.”

I was right. It was interesting.

News on Mars Read More »