Frackin’ heck

Apparently, self-classification as a scientist brings with it some kind of assumption that you know stuff. Despite the fact I’m about as credentialed as Dr Nick from the Simpsons (“Hi everybody!” “Hi Dr. Nick!”) and do as much cutting edge science on a daily basis as Dr Dino and convicted tax fraud, Kent Hovind, people expect you to have a knowledge about stuff beyond the ken of the ‘lay person’, whoever he is.

It’s not that I know things, or even that I do science (in the meaningful sense) on a regular basis. The distinction is that, even as someone who works on the fringes of science and research, it’s about attitude, an attitude towards learning and reading about new things beyond the headlines and sound bites, into the underlying principles. Then, and only then, can an opinion be formed safely.

This isn’t an attitude reserved for scientists though, before I suffer from delusions of grandeur. Anyone who cares about being rational and skeptical could (and should) examine the evidence for any position and at least make an attempt to rationalise their viewpoint before speaking out. On issues like badger culling, GMO’s, embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia; there’s evidence to be read beyond the emotional appeal of fluffy animals, innocent babies and the dubious commercial practices of multi-national biochemical industries.

One issue lately that has become loaded with emotion instead of evidence, in the popular press anyway, is that of fracking. I’m a chemist, and not a very good one at that, not a geologist, so my understanding is limited. However, as a rationalist and skeptic, I felt obligated to read up on the mechanics behind it before formulating an opnion and I felt it only right to share that. Disagree if you want, but please do so after considering the evidence.

Continue reading


Fluoride to again be added to west Cumbria’s water supply” says the headline on the website of the News and Star (09/09/13) bringing to the fore the issue both the specific issue of water fluoridation and the wider issue of widespread public medication. I’m not going to go into the issue of putting additives into our food or water supply for our own good because that’s an ethical issue and not the point I’m trying to make. What I want to discuss here is the science behind fluoridation, why it’s a good idea and why the anti-fluoridation brigade has it wrong and what they’re really opposed to and why.

Continue reading

Our Scientifically Illiterate Overlords

There’s been a fair bit in the news in the past few years that shows an alarming tendency of those in power to ignore science when it comes to making policy, preferring instead to pander to illogical and irrational prejudices that they think will gain them votes.

We had the well respected Governmental scientific advisor, David Nutt, who was dismissed for daring to suggest that recreational drugs be classified according to their health risk.

Next we have noted pro-homeopath, Jeremy Hunt, being appointed Health Minister.

We have our heir to the throne, Prince Charles, lobbying government on behalf of his own flapdoodle products.

Now we have this:

Continue reading

The Political Compass

In a conversation I was having in the last meeting, some conjecture was performed on political leanings, particularly the concept of libertarianism. For those unaware of the subtleties of the political scope, libertarians advocate that the state should have as little to do with people’s lives, especially in the fields of economics, leading to laissez-faire economies where anything goes, extremely low levels of taxation and minimal social security.

Continue reading