Portland is Epically Failing at Science

I have to hand it to Portland, its a nice place to live. It's arts and culture are a vibrant and welcome change of scenery compared to other large metropolitan areas. Its nearly a universal fact here that everyone either plays in a band, is an artist, or has a bohemian lifestyle. Progressive and intellectual thought is encouraged here in Woolandia, just don't go around challenging our tightly-held naturalistic beliefs or there will be hell to pay. We have one of the largest bookstores in the country (it takes up an entire city block for shit's sake) with small independent bookstores catering to all sub-genres and all tastes that can be found everywhere. So, why do we embrace so many anti-science and scientifically illiterate stances? It goes against all common sense. So lets go through all of the things this science class failing city embraces!

#1 - Anti-Fluoridation

Despite being the last of the U.S. top 30 most populated cities to not fluoridate its drinking water [1], Portland defeated (by a substantial margin) the recent measure to fluoridate this year and its been defeated here four times before (once voting in favor, then shortly after reversing the decision). Why would Portlanders defeat such a simple health measure when all of the scientific consensus is firmly in favor of fluoridation? Rampant "chemophobia" (or the irrational fear of chemicals), the appeal to nature (the logical fallacy that because something is natural it is inherently better), manipulative political campaigning combined with internet misinformation (Clean Water Portland, the anti-fluoride lobby here, has a name which contains a fallacious appeal), and—to beat a dead horse—a lack of scientific knowledge by the general public. In defiance of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Dental Association universally hailing water fluoridation as one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century [2], the 65 years of studies in which the overall scientific consensus is that community water fluoridation is as safe as can be measured [3], and its incredibly low cost to high benefit ratio [4], Portland remains fluoride-free (except, of course, the level that already naturally occurs) and has no sign of swaying in favor anytime soon.

I consider anti-fluoridation to be number one on this list because of its widespread acceptance. The last time we voted, the measure was struck down by a 20-point margin [5]. Selected articles for further reading on the topic: Why Portland Is Wrong About Water Fluoridation, Water fluoridation controversy, and The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride... And Why They're Still Wrong

#2 - Anti-GMOs

If there's something else that can inspire a knee-jerk emotional reaction (MONSANTOOOO!) out of people here, just mention GMOs. Thanks to a rigorous campaign of misinformation and fear-mongering from grocery stores like Whole Foods [6] and New Seasons [7], if there's one thing people fear ingesting more than trace amounts of fluoride, its genetically modified organisms. Sure, who doesn't want to conserve the environment and eat good, healthy food? But how does organic food address these issues? Environmentally, growing organic food is a less efficient use of land (numbers are varied, but a fair estimate is that organic food is somewhere around 25% to 35% less productive [8])—food production takes up a substantial portion of the Earth's surface (with estimates as high as 40% [9]). Land use and its maximization is something that organic food will be unable to match with modern agriculture. The fact shatters the idea that organic farming is more environmentally friendly, especially since more and more arable land will be needed for food production due to an ever increasing human population. Are GMOs dangerous or have they caused a single illness or fatality? Are they less healthy than organic food? Its an unequivocal no on all counts, hippies. There is no evidence whatsoever that any GMOs are any more dangerous or unhealthy than organic food [10]. The scientific consensus is broad and clear on this [11].

Often the same companies that mass produce organic food also have products which are produced conventionally so the idea that buying organic is some sort of consumerist rebellion against large corporations and conventional agriculture is a myth. I consider myself to be an environmentalist and I'm strongly interested in preserving the Earth's extremely fragile and varied ecosystem. However, our current methods of organic food production are wasteful and costly to the environment. Its also important to note that I am not entirely arguing against organic food, rather the false modern science verses organic food ideological dichotomy. Obviously, using technology and engineering to splice genes together can have negative consequences and should be researched carefully, but its an option that needs to be explored if we're going to feed the planet and stop global warming. Every technology has risks, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take them, especially when the stakes are so high.

Selected articles for further reading: What scares you about GE foods?, More bad science in the service of anti-GMO activism, and Fruitless Endeavors: The False Promises of Organic Agriculture

#3 - "Alternative" Medicine

Welcome to Woolandia, where you can't throw a rock into a crowd without hitting someone who's studying acupuncture, naturopathic medicine, or reflexology. Everyone here is so healthy and supplements their organic, non-GM food with delicious multivitamins, echinacea, and homeopathic wellness pills. Acupuncture doesn't work [12], naturopathic medicine is pseudoscience [13], reflexology is not an effective treatment for any medical condition [14], most people who eat a balanced diet don't need nutritional supplements (they're basically expensive urine coloring) [15], and homeopathy is outright unethical quackery (you're buying pills that have nothing in them) [16]. But never mind all of that science stuff. Evidence doesn't mean anything in Woolandia!

Further reading: ASA Smacks Down Homeopathy, Another Negative Study of Vitamins, and The difference between science-based medicine and CAM

#4 - Anti-Vaccinations

This one is another belief straight out of the appeal to nature file cabinet. There are people here that actually believe vaccines are harmful, cause autism, or whatever despite the mountain (and its a giant fucking mountain) [17] of evidence that points to the contrary. The logic employed to justify these beliefs is often so riddled with fallacies that it becomes incomprehensible to any thinking person. Here in Woolandia, logic means nothing! You think vaccines don't cause autism? Well I got vaccinated and my foot hurts. How about that? Huh?!

Mo' readin': Retracted autism study an 'elaborate fraud,' British journal finds

Why Does the Vaccine/Autism Controversy Live On?, Autism And Vaccines: Fears Persist Despite Overwhelming Evidence That The MMR Vaccine Is Safe, One Thing We Know About Autism: Vaccines Aren't to Blame, and The Crash and Burn of an Autism Guru

#5 - Scientology

Greetings Earthlings, it is I, the great lord Xenu, ruler of the Galactic Confederacy! 75 million years ago I brought billions of humans down to Earth in jetliner spacecraft. I stacked them around volcanoes filled with hydrogen bombs, which I detonated, which killed everyone's material bodies but their souls live on in you (they're called thetans) and they're the source of all human misery. You can only get rid of them through auditing (which is extremely expensive) but as you advance up in OT levels (also extremely expensive) you gain powers such as: immunity to disease, mentally increasing your body weight, healing by touch, ESP, telepathy and remote viewing, mentally project illusions into other people's minds, generate electricity with your body, and of course spiritual immortality.

Scientologists actually believe all of this.

Further reading: Supernatural abilities in Scientology doctrine, Scientology's Space Opera and Confidential Materials, and Scientology controversies

Sources:
[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2013/05/portland_fluoride_vote_will_medical_science_trump_fear_and_doubt.html
[2] http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/
[3] http://www.ada.org/fluoride.aspx
[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1459459/
[5] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/22/fluoridation-fails-in-portland-by-20-point-margin/ 
[6] http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/mission-values/environmental-stewardship/genetically-engineered-foods
[7] http://www.newseasonsmarket.com/our-story/welcome#gmo-foods-and-you
[8] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/nature11069.html
[9] http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-09-17/national/35495975_1_organic-food-organic-advocates-organic-agriculture
[10] http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8180.pdf
[11] http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/1025gm_statement.shtml
[12] http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/acupuncture-doesnt-work/
[13] http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Naturopathy/naturopathy.html
[14] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19740047
[15] http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/truth-behind-top-10-dietary-supplements?page=2
[16] http://skepticalvegan.com/2011/02/05/homeopathy-unethical-quackery/
[17] http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/toxic-myths-about-vaccines/

Joe Schwarcz - The Importance of Skepticism in Science (2012)

So many times during Portland's idiotic fluoridation debate, so many made the fundamental error of not understanding the dictum "the dose makes the poison". Repeatedly, without fail, studies were flung into the debate testing dosage levels far above any normal intake and showing detrimental effects. Studies (I'm mostly referring to the NAS 2006 meta-study because it was the most cited one) where rats were given human lethal levels of fluoride and obviously, the rat's bodies began to shut down. Because of Portland's near-universal lack of scientific literacy, they extrapolated high dose effects to low dose effects and were completely unable to critically analyze scientific data. If only I had a portable sound system and projector to constantly project this TED talk at the anti-fluoridation rallies.

AUDIO ONLY (MP3)

Kraftwerk - Radio-Activity (1975)

One of my favorite electronic music outfits of all time has to be Kraftwerk. Before I discovered them (sometime in high school), I thought electronic music was a wasteland of pretentious beats, pulsing out terrible kick drum samples to move the drugged out masses with artists entirely incapable of doing anything interesting. How wrong cursory observations can be is astounding (however unsurprising). This album is one of their more challenging records, heavily experimental and groundbreaking. Almost all of the songs revolve around science and engineering topics. The song "Radio Stars" is about pulsars and quasars.

Radio-Aktivität

1.  Geiger Counter
2.  Radioactivity
3.  Radioland
4.  Airwaves
5.  Intermission
6.  News
7.  The Voice of Energy
8.  Antenna
9.  Radio Stars
10. Uranium
11. Transistor
12. Ohm Sweet Ohm

 

Michael Specter - Authors@Google (2009)

This week has been a whirlwind of band tour and now I'm preparing to hike the Timberline trail around Mt. Hood tomorrow. Should take me a few days to complete the hike and the posts will start flowing again. Its nice to get off the internet for days at a time, I highly recommend it.

AUDIO ONLY (MP3)

Rebecca Watson - The Religious Right vs. Every Woman on Earth (2011)

As the accusations of skeptical sexism start flying left and right, the rift between skeptics begins to grow. Emotions run high, people accuse each other of bigotry, and the apologists attempt their ill-fated defenses. If there's one thing that sends my skeptical alarm into red alert, its an emotionally charged argument. That's not to say that I'm dismissive of emotions like some sort of transmuted, real-life Spock like character. Obviously emotions are real, we all have them, and its a big part of what makes us human. The issue I take is when emotions are high, rationality and skeptical thought begins to crumble. This is understandably true when accusations of sexual harassment start being thrown. As with all things, I think its important to never think simplistically about any issue, to hear all the arguments from every side and absorb every piece of information you can absorb. Everyone is quickly taking sides, decrying injustice from either party.

I think its imperative to recognize a very important thing about our society at large before branding all skeptics as sexist pigs, which I've begun to hear from many people from within and outside the skeptic community. We live in a patriarchal society. Human culture has trained men and women to behave in certain ways for certain reasons and undoubtedly women have been given the shorter end of the stick over and over again (and a large portion of that reason belongs to organized religion). The reasons for this are many and I encourage you to explore the literature yourself, even to challenge this assessment. This absolutely needs to be rectified and I believe a secular humanist viewpoint/ideology should—rather must—include a feminist ideology. And this is why this rift is so fraught with emotion in addition to the horrendous nature of the allegations. How could secular humanists be sexually harassing women? The statement itself is a simplistic ad hominem against an exceedingly complex group of emotional, unbelievably diverse organization of humans. The answer can be somewhat reduced: we live in a patriarchal society. Inequality breeds sexism. We are a group existing within said patriarchal society, where men are commonly taught by society that women are sexual objects and nothing more. We're bombarded with sexual ads, pornography, a sexual superiority complex handed down to us from our bible-thumping fore bearers and note my intention is not to simply say, "Oh us poor men, we're just trained to act this way!" I'm merely attempting to place sexual harassment in its societal context and to examine the source of this abhorrent human behavior. Although our group premises make sexual harassment exceedingly hypocritical, it will undoubtedly happen (although I wish it very much to be eliminated). We are humans. We are inherently hypocritical. We make mistakes. What makes us the supposedly higher-level of primate that many skeptics, freethinkers, atheists, secular humanists think we are is how we learn from them.

AUDIO ONLY (MP3)

Charles De Goal - Algorythems (1980)

This French post-punk/coldwave band was undoubtedly named after the French President Charles de Gaulle, one of the few senior French military officials to oppose the armistice with Germany—during World War II—right from the beginning. The band plays a fantastic mix of coldwave and post-punk, switching between drum machine and live drums indiscriminately, even sometimes in the middle of tracks. They're still a band (albeit with a long hiatus), have put out many records, and still play shows. After a few listens, I've become a huge fan.

Algorythems

1. Exhibition 
2. In the Labyrinth
3. Synchro 
4. Man-stone 
5. Radio on 
6. Hang on to yourself 
7. Frederic 
8. slowdown on the highway 
9. Modem

Michael Specter - Denialism (2010)

I took a short break from reading heavy non-fiction, but I will be returning to the grind shortly with Michael Specter's Denialism. After watching this lecture, I can expect a grand take-down of leftist science denialism. He takes on anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, and generally anti-science left activists that have taken over progressivism. 

AUDIO ONLY (MP3)