Home Blog Page 38

We shouldn’t worry too much over aspartame being classified as a possible cancer risk

Alice Howarth
-
0
We shouldn’t worry too much over aspartame being classified as a possible cancer risk

A few weeks ago, Panorama did an episode on the apparent dangers of ultra-processed foods. In it, they discuss the purported dangers of artificial sweeteners, with a particular focus on aspartame.

The program talks to Dr Mathilde Touvier, Director of a Nutritional Epidemiology Research Team, and principle investigator on a long cohort study which aims to identify the role of nutritional factors in cancer and CVD morbidity/mortality, aging and quality of life, and to create a comprehensive database covering food and nutrient consumption and eating habits, physical activity and the nutritional status of the population, as well as the surveillance of the evolution of food consumption and dietary behaviours.

Discussing the research, Panorama explained:

Dr Touvier’s findings don’t prove aspartame causes cancer, but they do suggest the more aspartame you consume, the more likely you are to develop cancer as well as other diseases… a working group from [the World Health Organisation’s] International Association of Research on Cancer is meeting to examine aspartame’s possible links to cancer later this month

Aspartame has been around for a while – it was discovered, apparently by accident, in 1965 by James Schlatter, who was looking for a compound to use as part of an experiment to test anti-ulcer medication candidates, but when some of the reagent spilled onto his hand and he (for some reason) licked it off, he noticed how sweet it was. Aspartame is said to be about 200 times sweeter than regular sugar, which means you can use a great deal less of it as a sweetener.

It was subsequently tested for safety and approved as a sweetener in the US by the USFDA. As David Hattan, the then-Acting Director of the Division of Health Effects Evaluation in the United States Food & Drug Administration (USFDA) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, told Snopes in 2003:

There were well over 100 separate toxicological and clinical studies conducted to establish the safety of aspartame before it was approved for regulatory acceptance. Since its approval in 1981 by the USFDA, there have been many additional studies performed to follow up on some of the more creditable reports of aspartame- mediated adverse effects… the USFDA continues to consider [aspartame] to be among the most thoroughly tested of food additives and that this information continues to confirm the safety of aspartame.

At the time, Hattan was asked about links between aspartame and multiple sclerosis, but science changes as we collect more data, and the IARC have now assessed aspartame for its risk in causing cancer.

The IARC report won’t be available for a couple of weeks, and we can’t evaluate the scientific basis for their conclusion until we can see it, but we do have its conclusion, which has been widely publicised in the media. The Guardian wrote: “Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports”. Vox headlined their article: “The WHO is about to declare aspartame can cause cancer. Here’s why you should listen.” Meanwhile, The Independent’s headline read: “What is aspartame? The key ingredient in Diet Coke set to be declared ‘possible cancer risk’ by WHO”

Readers may recall that a similar IARC report made headlines back in 2015, when we saw all those headlines insisting that bacon is akin to smoking in terms of cancer. And while there is evidence that processed meats (such as smoked or cured) cause cancer, and that red meats probably cause cancer, there is a vast difference between ‘hazard’ and ‘risk’. Just because something is capable of causing cancer, doesn’t say to what extent that it is likely to cause cancer. In reality, we know that eating 50g of processed meat a day increases your lifetime risk of developing bowel cancer from 6% to 7%.

Terminology is key, here: particularly as we discuss whether things ‘possibly’, ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’ cause cancer. Those words have very specific meanings in this context.

The IARC has four categories when it assesses something for its cancer causing risk, with category 3 the lowest category. It means that the IARC are unable to determine whether something causes cancer in humans. It’s labelled as “not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity in humans”.

The three other categories say something about carcinogenicity. Category 1 is the category where we know there is definitely a causal relationship between the substance and cancer development in humans. Things in category one are labelled “carcinogenic to humans”. Substances in this category include smoking tobacco, solar radiation, consumption of alcoholic beverages and ionizing radiation.

Category 2A are things labelled “probably carcinogenic to humans” – meaning that there is limited evidence for cancer in humans, but sufficient evidence for cancer in experimental animals. Things in this category include eating red meat, the insecticide DDT, night shift work and emissions from high-temperature frying.

Category 2B are things labelled as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” – so, there is limited evidence of cancer in humans and some evidence in animals, but not sufficient to make any conclusions. Aspartame will sit in this category. We are less sure than we are with red meat or processed meat. Other things in category 2B include engine exhausts, aloe vera, pickled vegetables, and working as a hairdresser or firefighter.

So we have four IARC categories. One is for anything that has insufficient evidence to make any decision. Of the other three, aspartame is in the lowest level of certainty. It’s possible it causes cancer in humans. But it’s not probable, and it’s not definitely not certain. And, remember, the USFDA considers this substance to be one of the most thoroughly tested of all food additives – there have been thousands of studies on aspartame, and yet there is still insufficient evidence to suggest a causal link to cancer.

Equally, the IARC doesn’t say anything at all about dosage – it assesses substances on a binary level. Something either does or does not cause cancer (and the scale of possible/probable where evidence is insufficient). It doesn’t say anything about how much exposure you need to be at risk. That’s where other agencies come in.

This week, another committee will conclude on this topic – the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). The committee is undertaking a risk assessment which will include reviewing the acceptable daily intake and dietary exposure assessment for aspartame. In the meantime, the FDA acceptable daily intake (ADI) for aspartame is 50 milligrams per kilogram of body weight, and in Europe The European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) ADI is a slightly more conservative 40mg per kg. That would equate to between 12 and 36 cans of diet coke, every single day, for a person who weighs 60kg.

The ‘compound’ aspartame is made up of two amino acids, aspartic acid and phenylalanine, that you might expect to encounter in your normal diet. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, and these two amino acids can be found in meats, grains and dairy products. When it comes to the diet, an overabundance of anything can have negative effects, but we know that many foods are perfectly safe in moderation. I see no reason to consider that this would be different for aspartame.

There are plenty of reasons we might see a correlation between high aspartame intake and poor health. We know that our diet can be influenced by a whole range of lifestyle factors, including wealth, which also influence our health. I’ll be interested to see which evidence was used in the IARC’s categorisation of aspartame, and to see if the JECFA reduce the acceptable daily intake when they report this morning, but in the meantime – I’ll be continuing to drink diet coke without concern.

Closed coffins and open coffers: the costs of Singaporean Chinese funeral practices

Ang Kai Randall
-
0
Closed coffins and open coffers: the costs of Singaporean Chinese funeral practices

I was taken aback when my mother told me what we paid for my grandfather’s funeral. “I believe the final amount was around $15,000 or more”. $15,000 was no small amount for a single mother with a household of four children and one elderly parent. Yet for my mother, this amount spent was worth it if it meant that my grandfather was peacefully sent off into the afterlife.

When it comes to death, people continue to place an importance on the methods in which they send off their loved ones. Funerals in general are a costly process. On average in Singapore, for a simple cremation or burial, you can expect to pay at least $1,000. But for most, arranging a proper funeral inclusive of sending off rites begins at a minimum of $3,000. One should wonder why we spend so much on a corpse who can no longer appreciate such material rewards.

But before we can delve into the intricacies of Chinese death rituals, it is important to understand the reasoning behind these actions. That is, the belief in the human soul. There is plenty of evidence against the existence of ghosts and spirits, but still, a large part of death-related superstition still runs on the assumption of the existence of the soul and afterlife.

For the Chinese, the need for funeral rites and beliefs stem from the belief of the sentient soul, where these rites act as a form of “sending off” and untethering them from the mortal realm. In Chinese culture, there is a belief that the dead exist in a spiritual plane rather than our mortal one. The Chinese place a high reverence and respect for deceased family members who are believed to have joined their ancestors in the afterlife, but who are said to watch over the remaining living family.

In Taoist beliefs, it is required of living family members to give offerings to the deceased in the form of food, incense, and prayer materials such as joss sticks. The frequency of these offerings, however, can differ for each family.

The Chinese also celebrate a yearly event known as Qing Ming, where families would make trips down to columbariums or graveyards to clean the tablets or graves of their loved ones and ancestors. It is then no wonder that with such a strong belief that the soul is sentient, aware and involved with the living that the Chinese place such importance on keeping the spirits of their ancestors satisfied.

It is not uncommon for people to have prepared for their deaths. In Singapore, one can reserve niches in columbariums or slots in ancestral halls and temples way ahead of their deaths. Oftentimes these are spouses who wish to have their tablets or ashes placed together or next to their loved ones. While the niches would simply remain as a reserved empty slot, tablets that have been reserved are covered with a red cloth and only removed when their owner “moves in”.

Should couples be occupying the same tablet, the name of the living individual will be covered with red tape. It is not uncommon for the living spouse to be recommended this option upon the death of their significant other. My grandmother was more than willing to have her name pre-carved on the stone and covered with that very red tape, as morbid as it might seem.

“For her, death is something natural that would happen sooner or later, and she would want to rest next to someone she loves the most”, my mother explained.

In Singapore, such reservations are often due to a lack of space. Public niches typically cost at least $500 for a random location, with an additional $250 if one wishes to pick a comfortable location for their ashes to rest. For the more religious, private columbariums catered for specific religions offer niches that start at $2,000, and rise to a whopping $10,000. That’s definitely something to consider when planning for post-retirement.

But death is often an uninvited guest, and visits most unexpectedly. In organising the funeral of a late loved one, there are many factors that family members must take note of. The majority of Chinese in Singapore are either Taoist or Buddhist, which would then determine the type of rites and religious figures they are to hire. Various types of rites have different costs, depending on the nature of one’s death. This is especially so for unnatural deaths.

In Singapore, funerals are often held below apartment blocks in the void decks, or at funeral parlors. Chinese funerals mostly follow the same structure; before the coffin there will be the picture of the deceased placed on a table in front of an altar with lit joss sticks and food offerings. Historically, the family would take part in rituals of cleaning and dressing the body before its placement into the coffin, but today this task is mostly performed by undertaking firms.

Before a funeral is opened for visiting by the deceased’s friends, acquaintances and extended relatives, the family must conduct several rituals, to ensure that the soul and body of the deceased is ready for the visiting. Once the body has been prepared by the undertaker, it will be brought and placed into the coffin. During this process, none of the family members are allowed to look at the body. It is believed that this process helps the spirit to move on as they will not feel guilty or unwilling to part with their family members. Then, the eldest son will kneel before the altar table and bow three times in prayer, this process will then be mirrored by the rest of the immediate family in the order of their age.

Usually Chinese funerals last for at least two days, or as much as a week, in which visitation will be open to the deceased’s acquaintances and relatives. During this period of time, hired monks or priests will conduct prayer rituals which mainly consist of the reading of scriptures. Guests may choose to partake in these rituals along with the family members if their religion allows. The chanted scriptures would usually call for repentance of the deceased’s sins, in hopes that they will have a smoother journey through hell. The ritual would function similarly to the pre-funeral ritual, where family members line up with joss sticks in hand and bow in accordance to the monk’s or priest’s instructions. For Taoists, incense paper and offerings will be burnt as well, each of them available in a package, at no small cost. The prayers can last from thirty minutes to over an hour, and the process of kneeling, standing and walking in circles repeatedly would be very draining for the less fit.

On the final day of the funeral, there will be a funeral procession held as the coffin is transferred into the undertaker’s van which will bring it to the cremation centre. The coffin is closed, and no one is allowed to look at the coffin except the undertakers, as it is believed that if one were to look into a closing coffin their soul will be trapped within it. Following which the lead priest or monk will officiate the sending-off ceremony as the bereaved family follows suit behind the van in a procession to officially send off the deceased. This process may or may not be accompanied by Taoist musicians or Buddhist flutes played by monks. Afterwards the family will arrange for transport to take them to the crematorium, where they will say their final farewells.

It is interesting to note that while the majority of death related superstitions apply mostly to the deceased’s immediate family, guests who are visiting are also subject to certain rules that they are obliged to follow to prevent misfortune from befalling upon themselves. To begin with, as a funeral guest you should only dress in dull and dark colours to reflect the act of mourning. Dressing in bright colours is indicative of celebration, and would be an insult to the bereaved family should guests show up wearing something red. You are also obliged to offer condolence money, similar to how you would offer congratulatory money at a wedding. These amounts would go to the costs of the funeral.

Guests leaving the funeral would be required to have a red string tied around their finger, which should fall off or be removed before stepping into their own homes. Buddhist funerals may also have a small sink or pool where guests can wash their arms and face to rid themselves of the negative energy surrounding the funeral. It is believed that doing this would prevent evil spirits drawn by the negative energies of the funeral from following one home.

Much of these superstitions stem from Chinese geomancy and beliefs in yin and yang energy, although it is much more likely that these superstitions are practiced as a form of self-comforting. Almost no one ever feels pleasant after attending a funeral. 

Chinese superstitions around death do not just stop once the body has been cremated. For a period lasting approximately a year, or sometimes even two, the family has to follow certain customs strictly in order to avoid incurring misfortune on themselves or angering the spirits.

On the seventh day, it is believed that the spirit of the deceased will return to their familial home, and the family is obligated to cook a full course meal for the spirit as a form of respect. Joss sticks must be left at the door of the house to signal to the spirit where their home is located. It is also believed that if one were to spread flour over the floor, they would see footprints the next day, as proof that the spirit had returned. Aside from that, there would be no physical evidence of a spirit having actually visited. Some claim to have dreamt of their deceased loved ones, yet it is much more likely to chalk it up to a trick of the human mind.

I asked my mother about this practice, and she told me she would rather be ignorant as to whether or not the spirit of my grandfather had indeed returned home.

Subsequently, for the next forty-nine to one hundred days the family is not allowed to wear brightly coloured clothes, to signify that they are still in mourning (Singapore Funeral Group, n.d.). For the next year, they are not allowed to participate in Lunar New Year celebrations and must refrain from visitations during that period as a form of respect to the deceased.

This dedication to the late family members of the Chinese is admirable, yet for the living, it may become taxing to continuously maintain the upkeep of the dead. To start off, food offerings made to the dead are strictly not to be eaten. That means that a good amount of food is thrown away simply because of superstitious beliefs. Much money and effort is spent cooking a meal only to offer it to a tablet, stone niche or simply even a picture that cannot consume and appreciate its flavour.

Incense that is burnt at the funeral and during festivals such as the Hungry Ghost Festival can also be considered frivolous spending. Religious meaning aside, incense burning can be simply put as buying paper to burn it. The action in itself feels rather ludicrous and meaningless without context. Furthermore, an individual’s lifestyle is heavily affected by another’s death as they prevent themselves from celebrations and wearing certain clothing due to superstition. One’s wardrobe is severely limited during the period of mourning.

This then begs the question of who these superstitions are really for. The rites and post-funeral rituals carried out by family members with the idea of allowing their deceased loved one to have a more comfortable afterlife can be seen as a form of dealing with death. Imagining the existence of a spirit that lives on after death is comforting for some in overcoming their grief. Carrying out repeated rituals has been proven to be psychologically comforting to those who have experienced sudden changes in their lives as it creates a safe bubble for family members for them to come to terms with their loss. If we were to put ourselves in the shoes of the bereaved, as I had been once upon a time, spending this great amount of money and resources on a dead person may not be so frivolous after all. Religion, after all, can be a source of comfort for the vulnerable. If one believes in having a grand send-off to honour and say goodbye to their loved one, while at the same time bringing themselves a sense of closure, then what they choose to do with their energy and money is not for to us to judge.

In conclusion, we should take superstitions with a pinch of salt. Death, as elusive a topic as it already is, causes people to think and act irrationally when it takes their loved ones. While the religious beliefs and practices of funerals and post death rituals take a physical and financial toll on the individual, they no doubt bring a piece of mind to the grieving.

In essence, if you can afford it and it makes you feel better, why not have that grand farewell for someone you love. To some, funerals and funerary rites may seem like getting rid of a body with extra steps, but to the bereaved family, it may be like a twenty-one gun salute to a beloved family member.

Hit them in the feels: confirmation bias and the emotional component of reason

Brian Macrae Davis
-
0
Hit them in the feels: confirmation bias and the emotional component of reason

Imagine that you are a willing participant in a study. In this study, you are shown the photo of a man. You are given his name and credentials in the field of meteorology, and the credentials are impressive. You are asked to rate this man’s expertise from low to high on the subject of climate change. Without knowing his specific credentials, how do you imagine you might answer the question?

In the next stage of the study you are then given his scientific opinion on climate change, and find that he is dismissive of the idea that humans are causing the rise in global temperatures. You are then asked to rate his expertise again. Would your rating change?

Now imagine that you are placed in the other group that is being tested. You are shown the same photo and given the same list of credentials, and of course you give the same rating for the man’s expertise. The next step is different, you are given his scientific opinion but this time the opinion supports the idea that humans have caused the rise in global temperatures. This time around, would your rating of his expertise change?

When this study was conducted by Dan Kahan, who was exploring the Political Motivated Reasoning Paradigm (PMRP), whether people’s opinion of this man’s expertise changed or not depended on their political ideology. Liberals were more likely to lower their rating of his scientific credibility when he dismissed global warming, and conservatives lowered their rating when he expressed support for the idea. This study shows that more important than someone’s expertise is whether their perspectives align with our own.

The study illustrates that we tend to look for the data that supports our beliefs, and dismiss the rest. This is known as Confirmation Bias, which is well known among those who value a skeptical mindset. It is very easy to find Confirmation Bias in the arguments of others, but very difficult to recognise it in our own views.

Return to the study and your opinion of the expert. If your opinion of his expertise did not change once you learned that his opinion contradicted your own, you resisted the completely natural impulse to dismiss information that contradicts your belief. On the other hand, if your opinion of his expertise changed, you are a victim of your own Confirmation Bias. At this moment, you might want to consider whether you are proud of yourself for your impartiality, or whether you justified your shift in opinion with a comment that starts with something like, “Yeah, but he was wrong because the science shows…”

Debates of changing temperatures fall into a category of topics that we cannot explain by personal experience. We can’t look out the window and point at climate change. We might be able to point to an effect of climate change, but that is a faulty premise for an argument. All your opponent needs to do is point to a regional weather pattern that counters your experience and your argument flounders. Convincing a person from Iowa that the drought in India is caused by climate change as they watch their town disappear under the Mississippi River is a tough message to sell because it does not fit with their experience.

That one winter which was incredibly harsh in your neighbourhood also saw record high temperatures somewhere else. That one summer that had the highest number of hurricanes on record was followed by 4 years of normal hurricane seasons. When we discuss climate, we must remove our personal experience and look at the data across the entire globe, and spanning many decades. Our personal experience does not prove that humans cause a rise in global temperature, the data does.

The separation by distance or time can diminish the sense of urgency that an issue weighs on us. We may understand the problem intellectually, but we don’t feel pressured to act. The further we are removed from an issue, the harder it is to respond to the issue. To express it more simply, emotional response is proportional to proximity.

Most people are moved by feelings, not facts. Motivation is an emotional driver. It is difficult to feel an emotional response to an abstract issue like climate change. Other issues that fall in this category are famine or war on the other side of the world (separated by distance), and the loss of fossil fuels in the future (separated by time), and recycling (we assume the soda bottle that we put in the bin is being repurposed, while in reality it often ends up in landfills in some other country). This is why those trying to earn your donations will show images or tell stories of a victim. They attempt to personalise the suffering and bring it closer to you, so you will have an emotional response.

A white woman (Sally Struthers) cuddling a black child

If you are old enough and lived in the US, you may remember the Save The Children commercials with Sally Struthers who informed you that for $1.38 per day, you could have a profound impact on a particular impoverished child. This commercial, and others like it, attempted to humanise the problem by giving it a face. Not only is the problem given a face, but you are given the opportunity to help a particular, specific child with an inconsequentially small amount of money (when it is broken down into daily amounts). Other programs allow you to send a goat to a village, or purchase a decorated gourd made by an indigenous artisan.

This emotional disconnect to certain problems are, in a way, the opposite issue of Confirmation Bias – which itself is nothing more than an emotional reaction that should be suppressed. Confirmation Bias is an emotional response to an intellectual challenge. When Confirmation Bias influences our mindset, evidence loses relevance. When Confirmation Bias is in play, the most important thing is how the information fits our existing worldview, not how accurate it is. We irrationally defend perspectives that align with our worldview and dismiss perspectives that contradict.

Remember the original study of the scientist whose expertise diminished when he contradicted participant’s views? The facts did not change, the emotions changed.

When someone presents information to you, how quickly do you assimilate or dismiss it? As soon as you determine whether it aligns with your existing beliefs or after you have been presented with the facts? Are you willing to dispassionately hear information that contradicts something that you take as fact or is your mind made up? How deep does your Confirmation Bias go?

What really happened in the case of the Philadelphia Experiment?

Sean Slater
-
0
What really happened in the case of the Philadelphia Experiment?

On the 28th of October 1943, at the height of the Battle of the Atlantic, a strange, top-secret experiment took place in the US Navy docks in Philadelphia. What was about to be tested would turn the tide of a war that had cost 45 Allied ships in January of that year alone. Called Project Rainbow, Dr Franklin Reno intended to use the physics of Einstein’s Unified Field Theory to surround a ship with a special force-field that would render the ship invisible to radar. The subject of the experiment was to be the USS Eldridge, a Cannon-class destroyer of 1,600 tons, with a crew of 216 officers and men. The ship had only been launched in July of that year and had yet to see active service.

Along with navy personnel on other ships and stevedores on the dockside, various top brass looked on expectantly while the boffins fired up their strange machinery. But, when the test began, the ship suddenly began to glow bright green before completely disappearing in front of the disbelieving eyes of hundreds of incredulous witnesses.

Subsequent reports stated that within moments of its vanishing, the ship materialised briefly in the Norfolk Navy Yard, 100’s of miles from Philadelphia. At the same time, two sailors from the ship appeared mysteriously in a harbourside bar where they were well known, before once again vanishing in the middle of a bar-room brawl. And when the ship finally re-appeared four hours later in the harbour at Philadelphia, some sailors were horrifically fused within the metal structure. Many crewmen had been driven insane by the phenomena. Some vanished completely and were never seen again. Others seemed to be fading in and out of sight, as though caught between two dimensions.

Wrist watches on the crew and the ship’s clocks were all 10 minutes out of sync with the actual time, seeming to indicate they had somehow travelled through a big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff.

The US Government and the Navy, fearing a huge scandal in the middle of WW2, had little choice but to cover-up the whole thing. Many of the more vociferous witnesses died under mysterious circumstances or were transferred to more dangerous out-of-the-way assignments that would likely result in their deaths in combat. Other crewmembers were subject to brainwashing and memory-wiping procedures.

But, despite the Navy’s efforts in silencing witnesses, after the war the story started to leak out.

In 1965, Vincent Gaddis published Invisible Horizons: True Mysteries of the High Seas. This was the first published account of the event.

In 1979, infamous paranormal peddler Charles Berlitz (the writer whose books popularised the Bermuda Triangle, Atlantis and Rosewell ‘mysteries’) wrote the definitive book on the subject. Berlitz had included a chapter on the experiment in his 1977 book on the Bermuda Triangle – Without a Trace: New Information From the Triangle – which was largely based on Gaddis’s initial account. His later book, written with William L Moore and simply called The Philadelphia Experiment, expanded on the events and brought to light many of the more outlandish stories.

In 1984 Hollywood even made a relatively successful Sci-Fi film, and in 2014, a not so successful film. Throughout this time, the US government has continued to deny the experiment ever took place, despite the film, many accounts, books and continued interest in the story.

One story often overlooked is the 1978 fictional novel Thin Air, by George Simpson and Neal Burger. The synopsis of the book bears some strange similarities to Berlitz’s account released the following year:

At the war’s end, the men of the USS Sturman were ordered to join hands on the ship’s deck, ignorant pawns in a top-secret Navy experiment.

An alarm sounded. A humming began. Moments later a common surge of desperate, disoriented terror was felt by every crewman as they watched the ship beneath them, and finally their own bodies, disappear into thin air.

Now, after more than 25 years, a man wakes up screaming from a nightmare having “something to do with the Navy…” Another, hopelessly insane, draws, in a childish scrawl, pictures of figures holding hands…

And Naval investigator Nicholas Hammond scratches at the iceberg tip of a complex network of cover-up and deceit, hiding a scientific breakthrough that could save the world…or destroy it.

As skeptics, it all seems extremely implausible. 1,600-ton ships do not just dematerialise, no matter what experiments 1940’s scientists were capable of. But what really took place?

The truth, as is often the case, is rather mundane.

In 1955, Ufologist writer Morris K Jessop, published The Case for the UFO. Jessop received a letter shortly after publication from one Carlos Allende, detailing some of the events in 1943, claiming to have been a witness. Jessop asked for evidence, but in subsequent correspondence – Allende now calling himself Carl M Allen – did not offer any real details, so Jessop dismissed it as hoax.

Two years later, Jessop received a parcel from the Office of Naval Research (ONR) in Washington. Inside was his book, with handwritten annotations in three ink colours, all detailing some of the supposed events of the experiment, alongside strange suppositions about aliens and other dimensions. The notes were allegedly written by two interstellar travellers. Jessop recognised the handwriting as Allende/Allen’s.

Some less-skeptical officers from the ONR subsequently published the book – complete with notations – and Allende/Allen’s letters. It is still available as the Vero Edition of Jessop’s book.

For several years, Allende/Allen would write to many UFO writers telling his elaborate tales of time-travel, alien contact and UFO propulsion systems, as well as some features of events in Philadelphia he had witnessed as a US Marine.

From these unlikely beginnings, like so many paranormal claims swilling about the 1960’s and 70’s, the story got legs. The Vero edition likely formed the basis for Gaddis’s book, which, alongside the fictional Thin Air, gave rise to Berlitz’s book. Add in the movies, and claimed accounts of supposed witnesses on the internet, and you can see how it creates conjecture upon addition upon made-up nonsense.

There were many poorly researched unexplained strange tales books and articles which included UFOs, ancient aliens, the Bermuda Triangle, Nazca Lines and, of course, The Philadelphia Experiment, written in the 70’s and 80’s. Writers like Berlitz, Erich Von Daniken, Zecharia Sitchin, and Robert K. G. Temple outdid each other in finding mysteries to add to their books, resulting in stories like this becoming accepted as having some basis in fact, despite being utterly ridiculous.

The truth is, the Eldridge was nowhere near Philadelphia in Oct 1943: her contemporary logs show she was undergoing sea trials with her newly formed crew, most of whom saw the war out unscathed, and went on to live unremarkable lives. The Ship itself had a successful life escorting convoys in the Mediterranean, before being sold to the Greek Navy in 1951, and renamed the Leon. Eventually it was scrapped in 1999.

The Oceangate tragedy has brought some of society’s ghouls to the surface

Brian Eggo
-
0
The Oceangate tragedy has brought some of society’s ghouls to the surface

There’s nothing like a tragedy to bring out the best and worst of humanity. On one hand there’s lessons to be learned, acts of kindness or bravery, and societal progress that can be made; but on the other there’s fame to be earned, derision to be spouted, and money to get paid.

The recent implosion of Oceangate’s Titan submersible, resulting in the death of the five people aboard, and its aftermath is proving to be a perfect case study, with the whole gamut of actions and reactions on display. As the international maritime community scrambled to conjure up some kind of rescue mission, the speculation and hot-takes quickly piled up. When the worst news was confirmed, things really went into overdrive.

There were of course some comparisons made between the huge media reaction to the plight of five rich men (or, more accurately, four rich men and one child of rich parents) and the seeming apathy towards the plight of migrants who are dying on the seas in far greater numbers.  Also of note is the intense, and highly justified, scrutiny now being placed on the apparently cavalier attitude that was taken towards safety, with the recently-deceased CEO Stockton Rush frequently parroting silicon valley tech-bro mantras like ‘regulation prevents innovation’, and ‘move fast and break things’. In the same way that opponents of gun control get just a little bit quieter every time there’s a mass shooting, we may get a temporary suspension of libertarians glorifying the elegance of free market solutions. Probably not though.

Of course, as Skeptics, it’s only natural for us to turn our eyes towards the usual suspects whose heads bobble up to the surface when disaster strikes. Namely,  grifters, ‘psychics’, lazy journalists, and conspiracy theorists. Unsurprisingly, the pickings were plentiful, so here’s a quick tasting menu of bad taste.

Grifters

There’s money and notoriety to be had from rabble-rousing, particularly when it comes to the carefully orchestrated culture wars we’re currently being subjected to. Whenever there’s a relevant news craft in the waters, you can almost guarantee there’ll be a right-wing outrage barnacle clinging to the hull and trying to pin the blame on whatever the moral panic-du-jour happens to be.

In this case they failed to find a transgender angle to the tragedy, so had to go to the backup option of ‘wokeness’. Those accusations were largely based on Oceangate CEO Stockton Rush’s statements from a few years ago saying he wouldn’t hire ‘50 year-old white men’ who knew how to command submarines and would rather train others.

Instead of identifying this as a somewhat transparent attempt to save money and employ people who are less likely to be in the position to be able to say no (and perhaps less likely to have the experience and knowledge to identify showstopping safety issues), this has been portrayed as a misguided attempt at diversity and equality employment policy. Unsurprisingly, some of the culprits are already well known lubricators of the outrage machine, including successor to Tucker Carlson’s throne of misinformation at Fox News Jesse Waters, and Charlie Kirk, the public face of the highly-funded right-wing American think-tank Turning Point USA.

Psychics

Tireless skeptical crusader Susan Gerbic first drew my attention to psychics’ attempts to gain traction from the Titan tragedy with a TikTok video from ‘psychic medium’ Gemma Lonsdale, which is now being touted as a prediction of the disaster. In a video on the subject, Susan clearly calls out the obvious flaws in the prediction: it is incredibly vague, and clearly mentions a ship (a cruise ship to be precise) rather than a submersible. Susan also highlights how ghoulish it is to claim to channel the deceased actor from the Titanic movie, Bill Paxton. If that wasn’t bad enough, Gemma is now claiming to be connecting with recently deceased Oceangate CEO Stockton Rush.

Of course, Gemma isn’t the only one claiming supernatural powers have given her insight. We also get Kamela Hurley claiming she knew of the fate of the Titan well before it had been confirmed, and even a return for Jessica Adams, who was last mentioned in The Skeptic by me back in 2021, in a piece about people who (falsely) claimed to have predicted the COVID-19 pandemic. A quick Google will find you many more jumping on the submersible bandwagon, but I’d recommend you don’t.

Lazy journalists

The thought experiment of the Infinite Monkey Theory is likely at some point in the not too distant future to be renamed to the ‘Simpsons Writing Room’. Paleontologists don’t fully agree on exactly when The Simpsons started, but there’s general agreement that in the post-apocalyptic wasteland of the earth we’ll be left with cockroaches and Homer in an endless search for surviving donuts.

The somewhat laboured point here is that we’re well past the point where you can find a Simpsons plotline which will intersect with pretty much anything happening in the real world.

This has of course already been covered for The Skeptic by Mike Hall, but it appears that some of the writers for the Daily Record haven’t read it yet, as we get another slightly tasteless and entirely vapid article claiming that the Simpsons ‘eerily predicted’ the Titan tragedy. Credit where credit’s due though, in terms of animated comedic longevity, Family Guy is getting there too, so it’s getting in on the action with a tenuous story as well.

Conspiracy theorists

Unusually, we haven’t heard anything from speculator-in-chief Alex Jones about the Titan tragedy. Presumably he’s somewhat reticent to cry foul and talk about crisis actors these days, so it’s not all bad news. Also unusually, we didn’t get David Icke playing the badly concealed antisemitic card. Instead, we got a much more overt accusation from Stew Peters, where he ties in a long-running conspiracy theory about The Titanic and the Federal Reserve with a fresh new one about the Rothschilds funding the Oceangate company.

The final sprinkling of conspiratorial nonsense comes from the GOP in America, with Senator Marsha Blackburn making a spectacular red-thread connection on her pinboard between a Coast Guard announcement and a testimony to congress about now-permanent fixture on the conspiracy theory bingo card Hunter Biden.

Closer to home

Unfortunately, it’s not just those ‘usual suspects’ who are blotting their copybook. There are some areas in social media tangentially related to the wider Skeptics community where we’re seeing some disappointing ‘Darwin Award’ type nastiness in social media comments, and many who think that the phrase ‘eat the rich’ is a literal culinary suggestion rather than a metaphor.

At a time when those who should know better could be promoting rational thinking and scientific rigour, with a focus on human wellbeing, they’re busy sharing f*ck around and find out memes for cheap laughs.

We could all do better. We should. Hopefully this time we’ll learn, but probably not.

“Natural” health influencers claim sunscreen is bad for you – but are they right? (No)

Alice Howarth
-
0
“Natural” health influencers claim sunscreen is bad for you – but are they right? (No)

The weather has been glorious here in the UK, which means out come all the warnings to apply sunscreen copiously and frequently. It also means out come all the warnings that chemicals in sunscreen are dangerous.

But what does the science say?

Types of sunscreen

There are two main types of sunscreen: chemical or mineral. Chemical sunscreens contain chemical UV filters such as octinoxate and oxybenzone and some have retinyl palmitate added to them. Mineral sunscreens contain mineral compounds like titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide. Chemical sunscreens absorb UV light and convert it whereas mineral sunscreens are reflective and act as a physical barrier. This means mineral sunscreens are often thicker and have a less pleasant texture on the skin and they leave your skin a little ghostly.

Chemical sunscreen – the warnings

When we see warnings about the dangers of sunscreen it tends to be related to three things:

  • Does chemical sunscreen cause skin problems such as contact dermatitis?
  • Does chemical sunscreen cause cancer?
  • Does chemical sunscreen cause birth defects?

So what are these concerns based on?

Contact dermatitis

Some people have skin reactions to chemical sunscreens – this occurs in less 1% of users and can be a response to fragrances, preservatives or the UV absorber itself. Sensitivity can develop after using a particular formulation for a long time. If you have a sensitive reaction to sunscreen you can try switching formulations, or you can switch to mineral sunscreen which is less likely to cause a reaction. And of course, see your doctor if you’re worried.

Causing cancer

Some studies suggest that oxybenzone can cause hormonal changes in cells grown in the lab. These hormonal changes have been confirmed in animals like mice but have not been reliably shown to occur in humans. Hormone changes can cause cancer so some people believe that oxybenzone can cause cancer. To date this has not been shown to be the case. Oxybenzone has not been shown to cause the DNA mutations needed to cause cancer and hormonal changes are not always linked to cancer. This evidence is insufficient to prove any link between oxybenzone and cancer.

an image of a small white mouse standing on a white background

Retinyl palmitate is sometimes found in sunscreen. Retinyl palmitate is derived from retinol or vitamin A and it acts as an antioxidant. Retinol generates reactive oxygen species (ROS) when exposed to UV radiation and ROS are able to damage DNA. This is the basis for the concerns that Retinol will cause cancer.

Studies in mice did not show that retinol combined with UV radiation causes cancer. There is no data published in humans to suggest that retinyl palmitate causes cancer.

A recent meta-analysis confirmed that there is no evidence supporting an increase in cancer risk caused by sunscreen use.

Causing birth defects

There is evidence that medicinal retinol pills can cause birth defects however this has not been shown to be the case with topical retinol application. Still, as a precautionary method it is advisable that pregnant women do not use a sunscreen containing retinols for the duration of their pregnancy.

The context

It is important to note that while there may be some evidence suggesting some level of risk associated with chemical sunscreen – this must be taken within the wider context.

There are two main types of skin cancer – melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer. Non-melanoma skin cancer includes basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma and is largely treatable if it’s caught early. Non-melanoma cancers are the most common type of cancer. Melanoma skin cancer is an invasive form of cancer that is the 5th most common and at late stages is usually considered incurable. At early stages it is highly treatable but this form of cancer can progress rapidly and requires early intervention.  Both types of skin cancer are on the rise in the UK and this is linked to increasing sun and sunbed exposure. UV light exposure accounts for 86% of all melanoma cases, in the UK. Studies in Australia have shown a reduced rate of melanoma with regular sunscreen use.

Does sunscreen prevent cancer?

A white sunhat with a black ribbon on a table with a pair of blue lensed sunglasses

There is evidence that regular sunscreen use reduces pre-cancerous conditions and prevents skin cancer. However, the research into the efficacy of sunscreen is highly variable. This is partly because people are prone to using sunscreen in order to extend their time in the sun and misunderstand the most effective ways to use sunscreen.

Chemical sunscreens should be applied to the skin 30 minutes before going into the sun and should be reapplied every two hours or more often if you are perspiring or swimming. Even waterproof sunscreen will be removed by towelling down after a swim. Sunscreen does prevent sunburn however research shows that people who only rely on sunscreen to protect themselves from UV damage burn more often than people who also practice sun avoidance habits. A person who has suffered sunburn more than twice in their life is twice as likely to get melanoma.

So what should you do?

While there is evidence that chemical sunscreens can have some detrimental effects on the body – the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that over-exposure to UV light causes skin cancer. Not only that, the research shows that the benefits of using sunscreen far outweigh the risks. Unless you are completely avoiding any UV light exposure then in my opinion, using sunscreen is a risk worth taking.

In addition to wearing sunscreen and reapplying regularly, you should aim to avoid direct sunlight during the hottest hours of the day or wear clothing that covers your skin. And don’t forget, you might not burn through glass but you can still get UV skin damage through glass!

Extra reading:

Joss paper offerings: how to make Chinese hell a fun place for your ancestors

Lee Siew Yee
-
0
Joss paper offerings: how to make Chinese hell a fun place for your ancestors

If hell is truly what the Chinese people believe it is, I am quite excited to die. Having spent my whole life with a family who strongly believes in the afterlife and in burning paper offerings for our ancestors, I never found it to be a strange concept. That was, until recently, when I entered my uncle’s joss paper shop and was faced with a huge assortment of paper luxury goods and “American Hell Money”

a stack of "hell bank note"s tied together with red ribbon.

A joss paper shop, as the name suggests, sells that and other goods that Chinese people burn as offerings to their ancestors. Needless to say, I was pretty caught off guard by seeing these million dollar American hell bank notes. My first thought was: we are Chinese, why are we burning American Dollars for our relatives? 

To answer that, I asked the owner of the store, my great-uncle Vincent. Vincent is a man in his seventies who has been working in this joss paper store since its opening in 1962, and the third generation owner of this store, having taken over the store in the 1980s after his own grandfather wanted to retire.

“Why American Dollars? It’s because their currency is stable and stronger!”

His reply only caused me even more confusion. Was there a foreign exchange system in hell? And why is the American Dollar stronger, even in Chinese hell?

Before I continue into the rest of this story, let me briefly explain the afterlife and the point of this practice of burning paper offerings.

The Chinese concept of hell, usually called 地狱 (dì yù) literally translating to “earth prison”,  is very different from the Christian idea of hell. Rather than it being a final stage in the afterlife that someone will be condemned to forever, it is usually seen as a place where people must first pay for the sins committed in their lifetime, before being reincarnated.

There are many different beliefs about the amount of time spent in hell, and how reincarnation occurs, and it can differ from family to family, as many of these traditions and beliefs are passed down from generation to generation through word of mouth.

During this period in hell, the Chinese people believe their deceased loved ones still need houses, cars, money and other essentials, to get by in their time spent in earth’s prison before they get their chance at reincarnation.

Hence many Chinese people, mainly Taoists, burn paper offerings. Traditionally, people would burn Joss Paper (A rectangular piece of paper with gold or silver foil in the middle that would be folded into the shape of an ingot) or Hell Money (Fake currency, usually with the Jade emperor’s face on it) as offerings to their ancestors.

Ever since I was a young child, I had always seen my grandmother folding joss papers into ingots as she watched her soap operas. These were not used for our own offerings, but instead sold in Vincent’s store. So I asked what was the difference between these ones and the stacks of paper, to which Vincent replied, “In the past, people would fold the joss papers into ingots themselves to show their love. Now, people are busy, they just pay us more for ones that we have already folded. To them, it’s the same thing, the extra money they spend is also a form of love”.

Paper shirts

Joss papers are burnt during the funeral of the deceased, on death anniversaries, and during the Qingming Festival (a tomb sweeping festival), or during the Hungry Ghost festival (which occurs during the 7th month of the Lunar calendar, and is where the souls of the dead can come back roam the earth).

Classic paper offerings that people burn would be things like food and snacks, clothes, shoes, or houses. There are also more modern items like paper phones, computers, and their respective chargers. Things that would be considered daily necessities.

My own family only burns these traditional items as offerings, and I tend to visit the joss paper store only once a year during the Lunar New Year, so I was not very familiar with all the types of paper offerings. Only after seeing the American Hell Money did I gain an interest in this tradition, and made another trip back to his store recently to ask more questions.

A paper bird cage, wine bottles and a hi-fi system.

To my amusement, when I asked to see what other paper offerings he had available, Vincent began taking out paper versions of bird cages (fake pet bird included), wine bottles (with paper bottle openers), huge speakers, and even slot machines.

I asked Vincent which of these items were his bestsellers. “Actually, these things are seasonal too. Other than the traditional things that always sell well, my customers love buying whatever new products we bring in. Whatever is new here, they want.” 

It seemed that most people were not really thinking about what they burned, just picking up whatever was new and shiny at the store, once again reiterating to me that something about this tradition had really changed.

Given that gambling is considered a sin that someone can be sent to the seventh chamber of hell for, I could not help but feel amused looking at the bright blue paper slot machine sat in front of me. Someone in hell trying to repent for gambling could continue to indulge in their vices in the afterlife if their relatives sent them a jackpot machine.

the blue slot machine as described in the text

If I could have all the latest technological devices, branded clothing, and my own personal jackpot machine in hell, I would be better off there than I am here.

This made me wonder what the true reason was behind people burning paper offerings. When it was just the basic necessities, I never thought twice about it, after all, everyone needs money, food and shelter to survive. However, when these offerings became excessive, with items that were more like luxury goods than necessities, it made me wonder if the reasoning behind it was something else.

Perhaps it is a case of overcompensating due to guilt. Everyone wants to give their loved ones the best, but for many, being able to afford expensive watches or clothes to give to relatives may not be a possibility.

A paper handbag and matching paper shoes

Curious to know Vincent’s point of view on this theory, I asked him for his thoughts, but he would not give me a straight answer. Instead, he told me a story of one of his customers, Ong (name changed to protect privacy) and his motivations for wanting to start burning paper offerings.

Ong walked into Vincent’s store looking anxious one day and said: “Uncle, I don’t know what I need but can you just give me one of everything that I should burn for my mother? It’s been about one year since she passed.”

A relatively young man in his thirties, Ong told Vincent that he had never burned or even purchased joss papers before and had only ever seen his parents do it for his grandparents when they were still alive. This was a rare case, as most of Vincent’s customers were in the older demographic, and the younger ones were usually just tagging along with their parents. Customers usually also have at least a basic idea of what they want.

Paper watches in a watch case

Upon further questioning, Ong revealed to my great-uncle that two nights ago, he had had a dream about his mother, in which she had been scolding him for being unfilial. In the dream, she had shouted at him: “I have no money to eat, no clothes to wear and no house to live in! For one entire year you have not burned anything for me. Why did I raise a son like this?”

Shocked and alarmed by his dream, Ong rushed to the joss paper shop to purchase some offerings for his deceased mother at the first chance he got. He then proceeded to purchase everything Vincent recommended to him without asking for any prices, and only asking continuously if what he was buying was sufficient. Randomly pointing to items in the shop asking if this and that was good to have, as the only thought on his mind was to “appease” his mother. 

After making his selection, the store assistants packed all the items into a bag, where Vincent then proceeded to ask him for his relation to the deceased and for her name and his name in Mandarin characters. Ong did not know the characters for his mother’s name, and hence they had to make do with writing it in English.

At this point, I interrupted to ask why he would need their names, to which he replied without skipping a beat, “When you send a letter you need to write who it’s addressed to and who it’s from right? We need to write so that the deceased can receive it.” I could not argue with that logic.

Filial piety is extremely important in Chinese culture, to the point where some see it as the overall foundation of Chinese society. So important that being unfilial is a sin that is seen as being even worse than committing murder, not being filial can land a person in the eighth chamber of hell, while murder or rape would only land them in the fourth.

Paper smartphones, a paper watch, a paper paid of ear buds.

Hence, it is not surprising that even after the passing of a parent, a child would feel a strong sense of guilt for not being able to provide them with certain luxuries while they were still alive. This felt even more true as I walked around the store, looking at the packages of luxury watches and branded bags, shoes and clothing. Items that the large majority of people would not have been splurging on while still alive.

The story of Ong, I believe was Vincent’s way of telling me that he, too, felt most of these purchases of paper offerings were more guilt driven than from belief in the actual practice. A son who did not know how to write his mother’s name in mandarin, having that realisation for the first time, further adding to his guilt, then making it up with even more items to send her.

Despite his occupation, Vincent has said that he is a freethinker, but believes in some aspects of these practices. He mentioned that whether or not one believes in the tradition of burning paper offerings, it still has its value in reminding people that they should not forget their ancestors, and also to be filial to their parents.

However, knowing his stance on the tradition, I felt that he was not the best representation of people who practice burning joss papers and offerings. Instead, I decided to turn to my extremely religious and superstitious grandmother, subtly hinting to avoid offending her, wanting to know if she actually believed that burning paper offerings was necessary for her ancestors to have a more comfortable stay in hell.

She laughs a little before saying to me “Some people have children who never call them and only visit them once a year and forget them for the other 364 days. Rather than a child like that who burns every luxury item for me after I’m already gone, I think I would prefer it if my children just spent time with me. No need to buy any bags or clothes, we can just go have a simple meal together.”

My grandmother is so superstitious that even in this day and age, she gets very angry if I go to her house wearing all black, as she tells me I am bringing bad luck into her house. Hence, through her reply, I knew that she did not fully believe in needing to burn paper offerings for actual use in the afterlife. Nevertheless, she continues to burn the offerings together with her siblings whenever there is a necessary occasion for it.

In our modern world, I think that many people no longer truly believe that they need to burn paper offerings to help their deceased relatives get by in hell, but continue carrying out this tradition instead just for the sentiment of it. Even for many people in the generation who did believe it, Vincent told me that although many hope their relatives will be reincarnated one or two years after their passing, they continue to burn paper offerings every year, as a way to remember them.

It can also serve as a reminder to younger generations to be filial, seeing their parents burn offerings for their grandparents or great-grandparents could remind a child that they should do what they can for their parents in life, before the only way they can show their love is through burning offerings.

With every tradition based on superstition, there will be people on the opposing end that believe it does more harm than good. In this case, there are some who feel burning Joss Paper is very harmful to the environment, as mass burning during festivals can cause a reduction in air quality, especially in urban areas. Others think it is a fire hazard, and some simply dislike it, as they think it is a way of earning the money of people who are grieving and vulnerable.

However, as Vincent told me, people are getting more and more busy, and have little time to spend with their family. Many might not realise how lacking they were as a child until the parent is gone, and by the time they want to do better, it may already be too late. In cases like these, if the tradition of burning paper offerings and joss paper helps them feel like they are still able to show their appreciation to their parents and ancestors, I do not think that there is much harm in it. As long as they take caution when they are doing their burning, ensure they do not start fires, and reduce the amount of pollution by burning only the papers rather than the plastic packaging, of course.

Though the items are not cheap, given that they will almost immediately be burnt to ashes, the cost of these offerings are also not exorbitant. People might pay around £40 for a bag that will include joss papers, some food and snack items, clothing, and maybe a phone or two. If that is the price to pay for someone to feel like they have given their loved ones an easier time in the afterlife, in their eyes, it may be a price worth paying.

If you should go at midnight: legends and legend tripping in America

Mark Horne
-
0
If you should go at midnight: legends and legend tripping in America

Readers may not have heard the term ‘legend tripping’ before, but you’ve probably been legend tripping, and you’ve quite likely watched one of the many extraordinarily popular movies about the practice, from The Blair Witch Project to The Conjuring. You may even have had the fortune to stumble across one of the many legend-tripping TV shows, from the UK’s Most Haunted to American paranormal investigator Zak Bagan’s Ghost Adventures. 

Legend tripping, for the uninitiated, is a pilgrimage made to a site with some kind of legend, extraordinary or supernatural occurrence – perhaps most obviously ghost hunting, but also to sites of UFO encounters, urban legends, historical sites and scenes from true crimes like The Historic Lizzie Borden House. 

The book cover of "If you should go at midnight: legends and legend tripping in America".

Legend tripping has become a subject of some discussion for folklorists and anthropologists in recent decades, especially in the USA, and the practice is the subject of If You Should Go at Midnight: Legends and Legend Tripping in America, a new volume by sociologist Jeffrey S. Debies-Carl. 

Drawing on online accounts, more traditional documentary evidence and his own extensive fieldwork, Debies-Carl breaks down legends trips into their component stages in the book, before going on to some interesting discussion around the purpose of legend tripping in modern society. 

The archetypal legend trip involves a legend recounted, often by bored teenagers with access to a car, that relates to a particular site of mystery, perhaps a cursed or haunted graveyard or house, and often off-limits – especially at night for the bored adolescents! This is a fascinating insight into American legends in particular, some of which were quite unfamiliar to me, such as the eye-bulging, goblin-like, degenerate humans known as “Melon Heads” in the Midwest and Connecticut. 

Preparations are made, from a quick Google for directions for the more spontaneous trip, to packing electronic ghost-detecting gear or Bigfoot-hunting equipment for the more carefully-planned adventures. While Debies-Carl is more interested in how legend trips work than whether the legends themselves are true, he does characterise much of what takes place from a sensible standpoint, for example arguing that these preliminary activities “prepare the legend trippers for the events to come… a sense of expectancy and a willingness to accept wondrous, otherworldly possibilities that they might not otherwise find easy to entertain.” 

Then comes the journey itself. Legends trippers may encounter trials as they hunt for the entrance or location of a certain graveyard or an abandoned hospital, which may be unclear or even deliberately obscure. Further tribulations include the intentional hindrances that authorities or even private property owners may have in place; Debies-Carl reminds us that the owners of houses associated with legends don’t appreciate the endless troupes of legend trippers, which has led, unsurprisingly, to violent confrontations, including a 2006 shooting in Ohio that left a girl partially paralysed and the shooter serving a sixteen-year sentence. 

The destination for one’s legend trip need not be far, though, as long as there is a boundary of some sort to be crossed, which could be as simple as climbing the stepladder into your dusty, ill-lit loft. 

Rites and rituals follow, whether to inflame or summon the spirit or supernatural happening, or to placate them. Debies-Carl notes that the effect is the same either way; they reinforce the fear expectation and make the encounters more likely. 

Although Debies-Carl visited plenty of legend sites and slept in haunted bedrooms, the supernatural encounters the rituals were meant to provoke never seem to happen to our enthusiastic but dry author, for whom prosaic explanations for flickering lights seemed understandably more plausible than the alternatives, though he notes that being primed with the previous steps did at least make him consider the supernatural alternatives. 

He explains that “legend trippers frequently interpret even subjective feelings or ‘mood’ as having been caused by some supernatural source,” before recounting a tale of a midnight adventure at Saint John’s University in Minnesota, “where the ghost of a drowned monk is said to roam.” These Minnesotan legend trippers didn’t actually see or hear anything at all, but say that the experience of being there was so spooky that they left before anything ghostly or supernatural could happen. As Debies-Carl notes, “even the absence of evidence can be interpreted as the proof.”

It should come as no surprise by this point in the review that the book is full of references to work by Chris French, Elizabeth Loftus, Richard Wiseman and even Carl Sagan.

The legend tripper must then retreat, potentially in haste, to return to the normal world, and go on to tell the tale of the adventure. They may have something relatively concrete (though hardly supernatural for those who know the science) such as orb-photos or, if they were especially well-prepared, EVP recordings, or just a tale to tell of the adventure. The author recounts a particular experience from his own childhood, where lights seemed to be moving inexplicably, that he only learned the explanation years later: the autokinetic effect and social psychology. 

Debies-Carl finishes with a discussion of the role of legend-tripping as a rite of passage – or rather, as he is at pains to point out, an activity that is rather better than traditional adulthood rituals and rites of passage. While legend tripping can have dangerous consequences, from the aforementioned shooting to a role in causing the Satanic Panic of the 1980s, he convincingly argues this is a more positive and enjoyable activity than, say, the hazing involved in fraternities. 

1...373839...152Page 38 of 152

Expert skeptical analysis of pseudoscience, conspiracy theory and claims of the paranormal.

[email protected]

About

Categories

Shop