When I was a kid, I had to *walk* to school ...

I just paid $1.73 for non-ethanol gas. I can't really even remember the last time gas was that cheap. That's a lie. When I was a kid, the thing I remember about gas is that it was always around 97-99 cents/gallon. That was nice, but the times, they are a changin'. I think in high school I paid less than two dollars for gas, but I was perhaps a little spoiled back then and my parents paid for the gas, so I wasn't too concerned. The prices must have crept up while I was away at college where I was in absolutely no need of a car (3 cheers for Boston's public transportation system). I remember something about the price increasing while I was having a little too much fun on the T in Boston but again, wasn't too concerned. Now that I pay for gas and drive myself most places, I'm a little more concerned. And when the gas prices started rising I got a little nervous as I'm sure everyone did. I even went out and bought a new (used) car!!

Alright, so the reason I'm not kicking myself now that gas has gone down is actually that miles-per-gallon was really just an excuse to get rid of my 11-year-old mommy-mobile which was white. I mean, really, do I read like a person who likes the color white?? Not that I wasn't grateful to have the car at all (I was super lucky that my family seems to have so many cars on the brink of not being able to start again ... ever ... RIP, our red corolla). I'm also super lucky that my mother insists that for me to stick around as a dependent and keep their lovely insurance package they have to actually pay for a few of my things, so they absolutely cannot go without paying for my car insurance. Yay mom! Thanks! Not that I couldn't handle it ... it's just, who would want to?

Back on point, gas has dropped 2 dollars here in the past month or so, and it's starting to freak me out. I actually want it to go back up! Because, let's face it, gasoline is not nice. When the prices go up, people start to become concerned with finding energy sources that aren't gasoline, and they were for awhile. I'm still happy with my car, first because it doesn't make me look like I have a couple of 11-year-old kids, but mostly because it doesn't waste as much gas with little ol' me driving just little ol' me around. I'm still concerned with global warming and foreign dependence and all that ... is the rest of the country?

Add to that point that every time I see gas prices it reminds me that we are seemingly in the midst of a 'bagel.' If you don't get that, you should watch more West Wing. The state of the economy is surely the main reason that gas prices are so low right now. I don't think it can be that suddenly the people who have the oil are cool with us ... eh Chavez! What's up, friend?

Uh ... anyway. What I'm (nervously) saying is: Go back up, gas!! Not too high ... maybe around 2.50? Or better yet, just stand still for a little while. Just relax, chill (chillax, if you will), and be stable. That would make me happy. But if that were to happen, surely it would mean the whole economy would have to be stable, and that's a whole 'nother can of worms ... (yeah, that's right--I wrote "a whole 'nother")

Hey, at least there hasn't been anyone complaining about BPA in awhile!

I wasn't going to bother

But I was sent articles reporting this study from 2 3 (now) different people from 2 3 different places (Thanks Steph and Aunt Wendy--glad to know I have the crazy BPA girl rep down). The Reuters article is much more level than the consumerist post (surprise, surprise). BPA is still hot. I suppose the scientific community likes how easy it is to attract media attention just by releasing a BPA study. This new one decided study health problems in relation to BPA. If you look hard enough for some sort of relation, I betcha one will pop out at you.

The study tested urine samples for BPA, and it found that the people with higher concentrations of BPA in their urine had higher risks of heart disease and diabetes. Sounds scary, right? It's the 'had higher risks of.' That phrase implies causality--that BPA gives people a higher risk of heart disease and diabetes ... oops

It reminds me of a study done a few years ago that found that people who drank diet soda were at a higher risk for being overweight or obese. My local news (not your station, Patrick) reported it just like that, and then afterward the newslady said "so you may want to think twice before drinking those diet sodas." I couldn't believe she said that. I also couldn't believe this was news. If I were overweight or obese, I would probably drink diet soda, also. Doesn't sound so scary when I say it that way, does it? If you read the article linked above, it's actually a fairly balanced account of the study, that is if you read all of it and don't stop after the first couple of paragraphs (way to go WebMD, btw. The link I previously posted that presented all the sides of the BPA story pretty fairly was also from WebMD) Higher risk is also a deceptive term. It makes one think that if they drink diet soda, they are more likely (at a higher risk) to gain weight, when what it actually means is the average health of the people in the study who drank diet sodas was such that they would probably gain weight or had gained weight. AKA overweight people drink diet soda, and most people I know who drink diet soda do so to keep from drinking regular soda which would make them gain more weight. I know that's not as exiciting as the irony of diet sodas actually encouraging weight gain (irony check, Alisha!), but it's the statement that is not fabricated to stop at nothing to get you to watch the news every night ...

Another common misleading word used in the Reuters article is 'linked.' "Common Plastics Chemical Linked to Human Disease" It's not linked! It'snotlinked, it'snotlinked, it'snotlinked. Ok, well, maybe it's linked: the same way that I'm linked to anyone else in the world possibly through 6 degrees of separation--possibly not. Correlation does not imply causation. Who knows what causes the correlation. It could be that things that people who tend to have diabetes and heart disease consume often have containers which incorporate a polymer that uses BPA. It could be a complete coincidence! There's no way to know .... so don't freak out.

Information travels so fast on the Internet that anything can become viral. Except apparently logic and critical thinking ...

I should change the name of this blog

To "Hi! You're an Idiot." Because that's my favorite thing to do. Point out how idiotic people are. One major difficulty I have with the internet is stupid people. Really really. They just kill me. Might literally someday ... you never know. I read a few blogs because they're entertaining and smart, and the bloggers aren't morons! They don't talk about what they don't understand. usually. When they talk about what they don't understand, you just can't prove them wrong, and don't even *try* to prove the commenters wrong, cuz that's just silly. I have come to the conclusion (which perhaps you have already attained) that the people who write blogs and comment are ... well, mostly unwaivering in their beliefs. They either know what they are talking about or have such specific research that they are certainly right (which I like), or they're morons who infer and have nothing to backup their claims and don't understand the full situation (which I do not like). And while it is moderately hilarious to read people making moronic asses of themselves, they are reenforcing the misinformed ideas of other morons who also don't understand everything. I try not to do that ... I also try to be devil's advocate which doesn't turn out very happy for me usually ... I would also say that I'm a rare blogger who doesn't resolutely stick to her position. Maybe that's why I have a small readership ;-)

Anyway here is just one example, but it's the simplest one to pick out and explain. We're back on BPA, btw. Hooray, Bisphenol-A! Anyway, as I have said before, the FDA said BPA is cool, and that's good enough for me thus far. They have some pretty good guys over at the FDA, one of them being one of my old professors from MIT who is smart as shit (seriously, how do you think he got where he is). He didn't work with BPA as far as I know, but still, if they've got him, they must have some big guns. The FDA said it wasn't harmful, but people are still complaining, (that's what happens when morons explode on the internet) and the consumerist wrote this post about an article printed by the Washington Post. About the 4th comment down, someone decides to post this graph. Let's see if we can point out everything wrong with this picture ...

So first of all, there's no reference and it's done in excel! If s/he wanted to make all this up, s/he totally could have. But I'm very clever and actually found the main site where the picture is from, and it looks to be a biotech company, but I still have no idea what this graph was intended for. I just got the URL of the pic, and I bet if you click on my pic you'll get the URL as well. So now you've got about as much information as I do. So since it's a biotech company who's obviously hurting for money since they are using excel to make graphs for what I assume are presetations or papers they are publishing, we'll just go ahead and say that the data is not BS. Accept the premise! So let's look at that increase. Whoa! that looks like a 200% increase in the last 30 years. We learned about this the 5th grade, so I make fun of it all the time. These people obviously want to make it look like cancer rates have gone up a lot. If I wanted to make it look less like cancer rates had gone up, I might, I dunno have started the y-axis scale from 0. This is actually only about a 27% increase. Which by itself is still a little disconcerting. I guess it just didn't look scary enough on the 0 graph, which, incidentally, excel defaults to. I'm just saying that they obviously had to do some work to make it look like that.

What next, friend? Well futher down, other people (thank god) start talking a little sense and point out that people are living longer and that by itself means there will be more incidences of cancer. Also that there are millions of carcinogens out there, and how do we know which causes what? And there's absolutely no evidence on that chart relating cancer rates to BPA use! There's not even a 'use of BPA' chart alongside it going up with the cancer rates ... that and we've been using BPA since before 1975. come on, buddy. And then some one made another lovely excel chart relating global warming to the number of pirates on the high (and low) seas. See, now that's funny.

The internet is such a vast and informative place. Where you could actually read the FDA review and the papers published examining the BPA as a carcinogen and actual scientists' responses to these papers. Why would you listen to the dumbass that posts on consumerist with a fake chart that is designed specifically to look like cancer has gone up dramatically more than it has? Or even the Washington Post or your local news? So many people have pointed out over time that these people know about as much about science and technology as you do. If not much much less (if you are one of my friends, you probably know what I am talking about). I never understand it ...

It's over!!!

The olympics are over now, and I can get back to normal life, although I've got to be honest with you, I was a little busy working 2 jobs all week last week in order to make up for my being on vacation in Boston over my 'extended' weekend (extended is in quotes, b/c I extended it ...), and I didn't really watch it at all. How sad. I kinda miss it now that it's gone. Perhaps China will, too.

Anyway, since I've been obsessing with the olympics and on vacation, I have missed a few updates that you might want to know about.

One is that the FDA recently declared BPA safe. This article was from just before everyone started freaking out about BPA. This is an obviously dissatisfied washinton post follow-up article (but of course they're dissatisfied--they didn't get their way!). And this is an article I like because, it's not so much a level headed evaluation as it is a direct oposition to the washington post articles in tone as well as spin. Turns out straight forwardness doesn't always get you what you want. If you want a more level-headed approach, you should go for the Web MD article. Now that's some good journalism. They displayed and defended all 3 viewpoints in this matter. The FDA seems to be continually monitoring new research about BPA just in case. They sound like they're doing a pretty good job to me, so feel free to drink your nalgenes!!! all day long!! Alright, don't drink the nalgenes. Just what's inside of them. Unless it's been in there since you were first worried about BPA. Then I might wash it out first ... I don't think BPA kill bacteria

The next part I was going to let you know about has to do with Pandora, but I don't know how long that's going to be, so I'll just wait until next post. I can, however, show you how the consumerist called Sam's club on being deceitful when it comes to polystyrene cups. Just check the picture out. It's from this post. Oh boy. You are so very not environmentally concious. Though, it doesn't actually claim that it is better for the environment. But if that's not what they are wink-nudging at, I don't know what it is. Sam's club (aka Walmart), you suck, and I am not amused!

More on my summer vacations and Pandora later!

Who needs credibility?

Click the title! (if you haven't read the last post)

Alright, so honestly I didn't do much research after I read the Reuters article, because I was really bothered, and all the water powered car websites I went to said stuff like 'fueled by pure water!!' and really nothing useful like how it works. So I *assumed* they combusted the Hydrogen, and well, you all know what happens when we assume.

I assumed this because A) Reuters did a terrific job of not giving any specifics at all. If that car actually ran efficiently it would be a scientific break through, and then they might have actually found a science dude to write a story . . . and B) because of how ridiculous it would be to break up water to create hydrogen, and then put the water back together to run a fuel cell. Oops. Anyway, I was alerted to this mistake through the Genepax wikipedia article by one of my dear friends (who is still wrong about BPA not being in all plastic water containers and other things). The article surprisingly lists references, or I would have suggested that the article was just speculating as I was. The reference is even very vague as the company seems to be, but it does mention the presence of a fuel cell, and it's possible that the water separation is not done through electrolysis, although that seems like a pretty intense scientific break-through as well. I've never heard of that. Anyone? In the end, that would still require energy of some sort.

So as I'm sure you've all figured out by now, water to Hydrogen and Oxygen back to water, in a perfect system, would end up with no net energy gain. This is what these guys are doing. The world, however, is not a perfect system, so you will lose energy in this method. Which would mean you are better off with an electric car, because then at least there's no electrodes to deoxidize or energy needed to electrolyze the water. In this setup, your car is being run by the electricity in the battery basically. It has been pointed out to me that this would be alright if someday we could use entirely wind/sun energy. That's probably true, but difficult, and today is not that day. If normal Joe had one of these cars, I feel as though he would be wasting more fossil fuels from his local power plant than he would be driving his Ford Expedition (I don't really know, I'm just guessing).

But . . . that car was really tiny . . . maybe it gets like 50 miles to the respective fossil fuel gallon. But I still wonder why it's not just straightforwardly battery powered . . . it would be loads more efficient.

My point, dear reader, is that news agencies are often stupid. And they leave stuff out! And you can never tell if they're giving you the full story, or if they are decidedly leaving something out because it's more interesting or makes them more money one way or the other, or because they were given faulty information and they didn't question it. Come on.

Here's my attempt at those funny pictures that used to be only cats . . .

Hey, what's Jason doing in the front seat? weird. Later . . . I'm gonna go look at icanhascheezburger.com

Don't freak out about Nalgene

Oh boy. People found out that Nalgene was coating their polycarbonate bottles with bisphenol A, and they all freaked out!

I love how the media accuses politicians and coporations and some such as being fearmongers. Sure, some of these people really are fearmongers, but if the media did a good job, with, oh I dunno, a little research, maybe we could all destress just a little. I read a blog article posted by a girl who was getting rid of/finding new uses for her Nalgene bottles because (oh no!) she read here that they are coated with bisphenol A, which studies have shown can increase the risk of cancer in rats. Well, that does sound kinda scary . . . until you realize that everything increases the risk of cancer in rats. It's too bad that people are more likely to watch and read controversial, scary stuff, than they are to watch/read well researched and unopinionated news! And don't even get me started about how skewed and stupid the science reporting is. Seriously, get a science editor or corespondent or something! Someone who can tell you that what you are saying doesn't make any sense to anyone who knows a lick about science or engineering.

Nowadays I read science blogs written by people who don't make something sound scary just because it sells more news. This guy takes a very level-headed approach to the issue. If you read both posts, you come to the conclusion that, we still don't know whether Bisphenol-A can cause cancer. The problem we have here is that the Reuters article has you disdaining the FDA for not outlawing this substance! When the FDA is completely in the right. If they haphazardly outlaw Bisphenol-A, that's millions and millions of dollars lost in a US economy which I hear isn't spiraling downward anymore, but probably is still a bit sensitive.

The other problem is that science has no way of proving that something doesn't happen. We can't prove that BPA doesn't cause cancer. That's why the list of things that causes cancer includes thousands and thousands of materials and substances while the list of things that don't cause cancer is only, well, once someone told me broccoli was just about the only thing on that list . . .

But all the same, it is possible that bisphenol A may increase the risk of cancer at least a little more than broccoli, but the FDA won't get rid of it until they know that it does. Just like everything else that's not on the cancer list and isn't broccoli . . . Though reassuringly, scientists do know that the dose that seems to be harmful to lab rats is negligible in humans . . . hooray!

The fun part is that BPA is a form of synthetic estrogen . . . sorry, guys!! Just look what it does to roosters!
More Links about bisphenol-A