Home Blog Page 9

From the archive: Martian waterways – the story of the canals of Mars

Sean O'Brian
-
0
From the archive: Martian waterways – the story of the canals of Mars

This article originally appeared in The Skeptic, Volume 5, Issue 1, from 1991.

Today it is widely know that people once believed that there were canals on Mars. But the story behind this strange state of affairs is much less well known. The astronomical data in the following account comes from William Sheehan’s Planets and Perception, an excellent account of the story.

During the nineteenth century, telescopes increased in size and quality and Mars naturally became the subject of increased observation. The best views of it are obtained approximately every two years, when Earth lies between Mars and the sun (this is known as an ‘opposition’). The distance between the two planets at opposition ranges from 34.6 million miles (55.7 million km) to 62.9 million miles (101.3 million km). This results in significant differences in the quality of Earth-based observations with the best oppositions occurring every 15 years.

In the opposition of 1877, Mars was only 35 million miles away; Asaph Hall in the USA discovered its two moons, and Giovanni Schiaparelli in Italy drew the best map of Mars of that time, also inventing the modem naming system for Martian features. He copied some of the existing naming systems in calling dark coloured areas after bodies of water and lighter areas after lands and deserts. Connecting the dark areas he drew a large number of canali – which in Italian means channel or canal. Although past astronomers had also observed canali, Schiaparelli was the first to mark them in such numbers and to draw attention to them.

Schiaparelli confirmed the existence of the canali during the oppositions of 1879 and 1881, but in these drawings they became significantly straighter and narrower. He also saw that many of these canali had ‘germinated’, such that they were actually two narrowly separated lines. The name, their straightness and germination all suggested they were artificial, but on this fact Schiaparelli always remained unsure.

Other astronomers agreed there was something where Schiaparelli drew his canals, as they were by then being called in English, but they believed he had simplified what was really there. Although they remained unconfirmed, his observations were not dismissed because of his high reputation, gained in the 1860s for his work on meteors. This led to many observers assuming that their inability to see the canals was a reflection on their own lesser observational skills.

In 1886 independent confirmation of Schiaparelli ‘s canal observations was made, and reported in the prestigious journal Nature (3 June 1886). By 1890 the existence of canals was generally accepted by astronomers. Almost all the maps of Mars produced at that time showed them, many even in the same positions as those of Schiaparelli.

To understand why other observers confirmed the canals some knowledge of how Mars was observed is required. Because of atmospheric interference, the view of the Martian surface is normally neither clear nor persistent but is constantly fluctuating, with details only sharp for brief moments. Hence observers had to be selective in which details they recorded. So observers who knew the layout of the canals would know which details to record as canals. Observers had to go by eye in planetary observation at this time because photography was too slow, only being good enough to record the coarsest features.

Great things were expected from the 1892 opposition, in which Mars would make its closest approach to Earth since 1877, but unfortunately the best views were obtained from the southern hemisphere, away from the best telescopes. Edward Pickering at Arequipa in Peru reported seeing lakes on the Martian surface. Other astronomers reported high altitude clouds, and some publicly claimed that these were attempts by the Martian inhabitants to communicate with Earth.

Following this, two events occurred which may have affected the later developments of the canal story by their influence on Percival Lowell. In 1892 the French astronomer Camille Flammarion published La Planete Mars. A believer since the 1860s in life on other worlds, he interpreted the canals as proof of Martian habitation. In his book he assumed the canals were indeed waterways, and described how Mars, being an older world, might contain a more advanced and wiser human race. The second event was a paper published in 1893 by Schiaparelli, in which he argued that Mars had a significant atmosphere, ice-covered polar regions and temperatures similar to those of Earth. Although he supported the highly geometric appearance of the water carrying canals he argued they had been created naturally.

Not until 1894 did Percival Lowell, the person now most associated with the canals, enter the story. Lowell came from a wealthy family in Boston, Massachusetts. A gifted mathematician, he declined an offer to teach at Harvard, travelling to Europe instead. On his return he chose to work in his grandfather’s textile business for six years. Between 1883 and 1892 he made three journeys to the Far East and his interest in this area led to four books. An amateur astronomer, Lowell was so taken by Schiaparelli’s canal observations that he decided to devote his own time and money to their study. He wanted to build an observatory somewhere in the American west where he believed the air was better. Returning to Boston in December 1893 he was given a copy of La Planete Mars. In January he, Picketing and others went west, reaching Tombstone, Arizona in March. They tested various sites, finally choosing one near Flagstaff. On May 31 they made their first observations of the 1894 opposition.

Schiaparelli’s 1893 paper and Flammarion’s book provided the outline of Lowell’s own theory, which he formed after only two months observation of Mars. It generated great public interest, inspired HG Wells’ War of the Worlds and he continued to promote and defend his ideas until his death in 1916. His theory was as follows.

He noticed there were canals in the dark areas, areas which other observers had assumed to be seas. With this and other evidence he realised that Mars must be almost all desert. Mars was smaller than Earth and had therefore aged more quickly, and so any intelligent races would also be at a later stage of evolution. The ancient, peaceful Martian civilisation – desperate for water – had constructed a planet-wide canal system. With the end of winter the polar ice melted and the water was carried by the canals to the drier equatorial regions. In Lowell’s view, the dark lines on Mars were not the canals, however; they were actually strips of irrigated vegetation growing on either side of the canals. These strips ranged in width from 2 miles to about 30 miles and could be over 2000 miles long. The interest of the general public was increased by Lowell’s claim that this planetary desertification would also happen on Earth, the existence of deserts demonstrated that it had already started.

The California Aqueduct snakes through a brown valley
An aerial photo of the California Aqueduct at the Interstate 205 crossing, just east of Interstate 580 junction. Not Mars. Via Wikipedia, by Ikluft, CC BY-SA 3.0

Lowell promoted his theory in a series of lectures and magazine articles, and in December 1895 he published Mars, discussed what had been observed, designed a possible planetary canal system and speculated on what Martian society might be like.

In July 1896 Lowell and his assistants began new observations which generated greater criticism than their Martian results. They recorded lines on both Venus and Mercury, and one observer saw lines on a satellite of Jupiter. Most of the lines on Venus radiated from a central point like spokes of a wheel. For Lowell to claim he saw the surface repeatedly when most astronomers agreed that Venus was covered by a layer of clouds sowed doubt in the minds of some of those who supported him over the canals.

During the 1890s some objections to the canal theories were raised. In 1894 Edward Maunder explained how the canals could just be a series of separate dark areas, ‘lakes’ not ‘canals’. In 1903 he and JE Evans performed what Lowell later called the ‘small boy theory’. They found that when a disc containing dot-like markings was viewed from a great enough distance, their volunteers (boys from a Greenwich school) drew canals. Lowell correctly responded that this only showed what might be the cause, not what actually was.

Photographic evidence of the canals was finally obtained at Lowell Observatory during the 1905 opposition. Of the experts who viewed the quarter inch diameter images, half saw canals and half did not. Subsequent photographs obtained in 1907 and 1909 were no more decisive. Eugene Antoniadi had seen many canals while working with Flammarion in the years 1895 to 1902. In 1903 the small boy theory, together with his existing doubts about the canals, led him to publish one of the first maps of Mars for 25 years which showed no canals. During the 1909 opposition he observed Mars using the largest telescope in Europe. The atmosphere was so good that on his first night’s viewing he saw the surface of Mars for seven hours. He saw no canals or lines just ‘a prodigious and bewildering amount of sharp or diffused natural, irregular detail.’ (Sheehan 1988, p. 244 ). Similar conclusions were reached by many other astronomers.

In the following years supporters of the canals made more use of photography as the technology improved. As late as 1962 Earl Slipher (who had worked with Lowell) published a photographic atlas showing the canals, but once again while some could see the canals others could not (Mutch 1976). It was not until 1965 when the spacecraft Mariner 4 passed Mars and returned photos showing no signs of canals that the controversy finally ended.

So, the big question remains: why did people see the canals? The answer comes from the study of perception. Schiaparelli, in 1877, observed surface features at the limit of resolution for the type of telescope he used. Atmospheric interference permitted only brief glimpses of surface features and colours. His mind had to build an image from these and the canals were part of the structure it built. Later observers had the same problem but the maps of Schiaparelli gave them an idea as to how their glimpses of the surface of Mars should be interpreted.

The idea of canals on Mars may be charming, but alas, it is without foundation.

Notes

  • Percival Lowell’s three books on Mars are Mars (1895), Mars and its Canals (1906) and Mars as the Abode of Life (1908).
  • For a detailed account see William Sheehan’s Planet and Perception: Telescopic views and interpretations, 1609-1909 (1988). For good short accounts see The Planets, by Peter Francis (1981), and The Geology of Mars by T A Mutch et al ( 1976).

The abuse of the scientific method in so-called alternative medicine

Edzard Ernst
-
0
The abuse of the scientific method in so-called alternative medicine

To accuse anyone of an abuse of science is by no means a trivial charge. In the case of proponents of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), the accusation seems, however, often justified. Let me explain this by using the example of chiropractors (I could have chosen homeopaths, faith healers, acupuncturists or almost any other type of SCAM practitioner).

Put simply, science might be understood as a set of tools that can be employed for establishing the truth. In the case of chiropractic, science is used, for instance, to answer three questions:

  1. Is chiropractic plausible?
  2. Is chiropractic effective?
  3. Is chiropractic safe?

The way to answer these questions is to try falsifying the underlying hypotheses, such as to attempt demonstrating that:

  1. Chiropractic is not plausible.
  2. Chiropractic is not effective.
  3. Chiropractic is not safe.

It is only when all of our reasonably rigorous attempts at falsifying these hypotheses have failed that we can conclude that chiropractic is plausible, effective and safe.

This is rather elementary stuff that should be taught during the first lessons of any decent science course. Yet, practitioners of SCAM are either not being properly taught, or they are immune to even the most basic facts about science, or both. I regularly have the opportunity to observe the results of this deficit when I study the papers SCAM practitioners publish.

In the case of chiropractors, this is often embarrassingly obvious. They cherry-pick the evidence to persuade us that their hallmark intervention, spinal manipulation, is a plausible approach for treating a wide range of health problems. Plus, they cherry-pick the evidence to persuade us that spinal manipulation is effective to cure this or that specific condition. And, finally, they cherry-pick the evidence to persuade us that spinal manipulation is safe.

A white person's wrist, with a watch, and their hand holding up a pair of freshly picked cherries by the stem, with their thumb and index finger. The cherry orchard trees are behind them
Someone holds up two freshly picked cherries. Photo by Howard Walfish, via Flickr: CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Similarly, when they themselves conduct primary research, they set up their investigations in such a way that they confirm their beliefs that spinal manipulations are a plausible treatment, and that such manipulations are both effective and safe.

In other words, they do not try to falsify their hypotheses, but they do their very best to confirm them. And this, I am afraid, is nothing other than an abuse of science.

How can the average consumer (who may not always be in a position to know whether a scientific paper is reliable or not) tell when such abuse of science is occurring? How can they decide who to trust and who not? My simple but sadly not fool-proof advice consists of just two main points:

Firstly, never rely on a single paper or investigation – instead you should look to multiple papers to see if there is a consensus among the literature.

Secondly, you should check whether a discrepancy exists between the results and views of SCAM proponents and independent experts, such as where the chiropractors, homeopaths, acupuncturists, naturopaths or energy healers claim one thing, while independent scientists disagree or are unconvinced. In such cases, your alarm bells should start ringing.

You should then ask yourself: do I trust the person with such a clear and significant conflict of interest, or should I trust the independent scientist? If you chose the latter, it might be wise to use caution and avoid the treatment in question.

The anti-fluoridation movement is born of public health mistrust and misinformation

Elissar Gerges
-
0
The anti-fluoridation movement is born of public health mistrust and misinformation

My 10-year-old son recently had a palate expander, an oral device used to widen a narrow upper jaw, fit in the roof of his mouth. The orthodontist applies a fluoride-releasing adhesive to prevent caries (tooth decay) and reduce the level of demineralisation near the orthodontic brackets. Fortunately, tooth decay can be prevented. Beyond good oral hygiene and diet, chemical measures like fluoride are critical in strengthening teeth against decay.

Tooth decay, also known as dental caries, refers to the process that can eventually lead to holes in the teeth, cavities. It is the most common chronic disease affecting both children and adults despite being largely preventable. Partly due to the divide between the fields of medicine and dentistry, caries are not commonly regarded as a chronic disease.

The benefits

Tooth enamel is primarily made up of hydroxyapatite, a material easily harmed by acids. Mouth bacteria thrive on sugars, breaking them down into acids that lead to cavities. However, when fluoride is included in the diet or applied topically to teeth, it integrates into the enamel, forming fluoroapatite, a more acid-resistant substance. Additionally, fluoride can inhibit enzymes, including those that bacteria use to convert sugars into acids. Given the widespread nature of tooth decay, adding small amounts of fluoride to drinking water offers a straightforward and effective preventive measure.

In 1901, Frederick McKay established a dental practice in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and quickly observed that many of his patients had stained or mottled teeth, a condition now known as fluorosis. Surprisingly, those with this condition also had very few cavities. The cause was identified as an unusually high level of fluoride in the local drinking water.

McKay’s discovery prompted studies comparing the dental health of communities with varying fluoride levels in their water supply. It was found that with natural fluoride levels of up to 1.0 part per million (ppm) in drinking water, cavity rates dropped by approximately 50-65%, and causing only mild enamel fluorosis in a small percentage of people. Based on these findings, the World Health Organization began recommending fluoride supplementation in areas with low natural fluoride levels.

Currently, around 6 million people in England live in areas with water fluoridation schemes, mainly in the West Midlands and the North East. If you reside in the US, you are likely drinking tap water enhanced with fluoride, as local governments have been adding fluoride to municipal water systems. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), this practice has been a notable public health achievement, reporting that fluoridated water reduces tooth decay by 25%.

A blue and white toothbrush with blue and white toothpaste sitting atop its bristles, next to a tube of toothpaste and in front of a glass of water.
A toothbrush with toothpaste and glass of water. Image by Bruno via Pixabay

While fluoride can be obtained from sources like toothpaste, adding fluoride to drinking water ensures equal access to essential health measures for everyone in society; for the same reason, iodine is added to salt and folic acid to grains. While suggesting “just buy toothpaste” for those with a stable income is simple, access to dental care remains out of reach for many. Fluoridating water is the most economical way to provide fluoride to the population.

The arguments

Despite its benefits, fluoridation has been a focal point for misinformation and conspiracy theories. Among its most recent outspoken critics is Robert F. Kennedy Jr, a well-known anti-vaccine advocate and critic of COVID-19 protection measures. In a comment on November 2, Kennedy argued for banning fluoridation to safeguard children from potential neurodevelopmental issues and other health problems, often citing its industrial origins. While he might be accurate about its origin, the CDC’s recent statement counters the health concerns raised by Kennedy, emphasising that the only potential risk is fluorosis resulting from prolonged exposure to excessive fluoride.

Discussions about fluoride toxicity often ignore the principle that toxicity depends on the dose. “The dose makes the poison” is a fundamental concept in toxicology. Dentists argue that the benefits of introducing fluoride into community water supplies in carefully regulated amounts outweigh the harms.

The NIH states that excessive fluoride exposure, usually from rare incidents involving abnormally high levels of fluoridated water or accidental swallowing of fluoride dental products meant for external use, can lead to symptoms like nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhoea, periostitis and, in extreme cases, death. However, the NIH emphasises that reaching such a high dose from water or toothpaste with typical fluoride concentrations would be nearly impossible.

Another recent argument from the anti-fluoridation movement is that fluoride lowers IQ in children, based on a recent review from the US National Toxicology Program. Other than the fact that IQ tests are considered unreliable in predicting cognitive performance, prone to various biases, and largely viewed unfavourably in modern times, the studies in the review indicating a link to lower IQ frequently compare the average IQ of children in areas with water fluoridation programs to those in non-fluoridated regions, without accounting for the numerous other factors that can influence test results. Furthermore, the focus was on extremely high fluoride levels in drinking water, concentrations exceeding 1.5 mg/L, more than twice the amount found in water supply.

Fluorosis is the only clearly established health risk, characterised by pearly white lines on the surface of the teeth, and is purely cosmetic rather than dangerous. The NIH states that researchers, including those involved in a review by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, believe the evidence linking higher fluoride intake during early development to lower IQ and other cognitive impairments is weak and methodologically flawed.

The claim that water fluoridation infringes on personal choice is among the most compelling arguments against its implementation. Critics suggest that fluoride could remain in products like toothpaste and mouthwash, allowing individuals to decide whether to use it. While this perspective respects autonomy, it overlooks systemic inequities and the broader objectives of public health.

Public health measures are not about limiting choice but about ensuring a baseline of protection for all. For those preferring to avoid fluoride, options like bottled or filtered water are available. Meanwhile, policymakers must continue ensuring fluoridation levels remain safe and effective, addressing public concerns openly to foster trust.

Changing opinions is much more difficult when politics is involved. The narrative common to the anti-fluoridation movement asserts that corrupt elites, such as organised dentistry, have conspired with public health officials and the government to implement a hidden agenda aimed at controlling and weakening the population. According to the claim, fluoridating community water supplies represents the “perfect crime” of gradual poisoning.

Fluoride, which they claim is known for its carcinogenic effects and use as a rat poison, is said to impair the population over time, causing blurred vision, cancer, coma, and ultimately death. The gradual increase of fluoride in water is likened to the undetectable action of slow-release medication. Ironically, these arguments fail to explain why dentists, whose income might decrease with reduced cavity rates, would advocate for fluoridation.

Notably, opponents of fluoridation do not object to the presence of fluoride in toothpaste, nor do they express the same concerns about countries using fluoridated salts, despite their belief that fluoride causes numerous severe health issues. Logically, one would expect any group concerned about a substance’s potential harm to advocate for its complete removal from the environment. Instead, the anti-fluoridation movement argues that water fluoridation is unnecessary because fluoridated toothpaste provides sufficient protection against tooth decay. This suggests that the anxiety lies specifically in adding fluoride to the water supply rather than with fluoride itself.

At low levels, fluoride is safe. The studies linking fluoride to reduced IQ in children involve methodological flaws and only consider higher doses, and a judge’s ruling does not validate these claims. While continued research is valuable, it is misleading to skew the discussion by presenting the issue as more contentious than it truly is. It’s crucial to emphasise that no one supports the unsafe fluoride doses, and such levels are almost never present in community water fluoridation.

The movement to end water fluoridation highlights broader societal trends: increasing distrust in public health systems, rising concerns about persistent chemicals, and a growing movement to challenge established public health policies by shifting the responsibility for healthcare onto individuals and, in this case, parents when it comes to their children’s dental care.

Policymakers must continue to balance public trust with the collective benefits of fluoridation, fostering informed discussions that prioritise community wellbeing over fear and misinformation.

How genuine is cultural commentators’ ‘concern’ for OnlyFans model Lily Phillips?

Abigail Kennedy
-
0
How genuine is cultural commentators’ ‘concern’ for OnlyFans model Lily Phillips?

Lily Phillips is an OnlyFans model who, as a publicity stunt and an add-on to her subscription platform, slept with 100 men in one day. This act, captured in a documentary, catapulted her into the global spotlight. Predictably, the reactions were swift and polarising, especially among conservative commentators, who framed her actions as emblematic of moral and cultural decay. However, what strikes me most about the discourse is the pretence of concern: do these commentators genuinely care about Lily Phillips? Does anyone? And if they don’t, should they?

This question, whether we care about people like Lily, goes beyond her specific case. It challenges the ethics of profiting from public judgment while claiming moral high ground.

Figures like Candace Owens, Matt Walsh, and Russell Brand have been at the forefront of the reactionary commentary. Candace Owens, in a widely shared interview, positioned herself as a voice of “concern” for Phillips. Yet, this concern often felt performative. Owens accused Phillips’ mother of being abusive for not intervening in her career choices, a claim Phillips strongly denied. When corrected, Owens ignored her and continued to push the narrative in subsequent videos. This suggests that Owens’ focus was less about understanding Phillips and more about promoting her own ideals of motherhood and morality.

A screenshot of YouTube video with Lily Phillips and Candace Owens on screen. The subtitles read "have recognized your mother's abuse in this which is quite alarming to me"
A screenshot from one of Candace Owens’ videos featuring her concern for Lily Phillips, in which she informs Lily of the abusive role she feels Lily’s mother has played. The video has been viewed by more than 1.3m people, and features sponsored advertising for four different companies.

Similarly, Russell Brand framed Phillips’ exhaustion in the documentary as a spiritual reckoning, claiming her tears were evidence of divine intervention, a return to the sacred value of sex. While Brand draws on his past experiences with promiscuity to connect with Phillips’ story, he often uses these moments to remind viewers of his own growth and redemption. Like Owens, Brand’s commentary centres his views rather than what Phillips says about her experience.

A screenshot of a YouTube video. Russell Brand talking into a microphone. The subtitles read "know that your body is a temple did you not know that you were made for worship".
A screenshot from Russell Brand’s response to Lily Phillips, in which he lectures her on her body being a temple made for worship, and claims her tears are a sign of her experiencing the Holy Spirit. Brand’s response video has received almost half a million views on YouTube.

Matt Walsh, in his video titled “Why This Viral OnlyFans Model Deserves Zero Sympathy,” disregarded even the mask of empathy. Instead, he used Phillips’ story as a springboard to critique modern feminism, claiming it promotes freedom without accountability. Walsh dismissed Phillips’ own assertion that she neither seeks nor needs sympathy, saying, “I don’t want people to pity me or feel sorry for me; this is what I chose to do,” framing her instead as a cautionary tale to advance his broader argument against female autonomy.

While conservative commentators use Phillips to advance traditionalist values, radical feminists frame her story as a symptom of systemic exploitation. Julie Bindel, for instance, shifted the focus to the men who participated in the stunt, questioning their motives and calling for greater regulation of the porn industry. Yet, like the conservatives, Bindel ultimately used Phillips as a symbol to advance her own agenda, this time advocating for the abolition of pornography. Though less judgmental toward Phillips herself, this perspective still reduces her to a vehicle for broader societal criticism.

The common thread in all these reactions is that they commodify Phillips’ story. Content creators on all sides profit from positioning her as a victim or a moral failure. This raises the question of can anyone truly care for Lily while simultaneously using her story to advance their own views? And if they don’t genuinely care, is it ethical to claim they do?

The reality is that none of these commentators know Phillips personally or have insight into her mental or emotional state. Candace Owens, for example, confidently labelled Phillips as “traumatised” despite Phillips explicitly rejecting this classification saying in response to Owens ‘I personally don’t think I was traumatised, I chose to do this this was something that I wanted to do I mean I’m not going to sit here and say it was fucking easy but I don’t think I was traumatised from it at all’.

Exhaustion and overwhelm do not inherently equate to trauma, a fact most adults can relate to in different contexts. Similarly, Phillips’ claim of dissociation during the event is complex and not something that can or should be pathologised by strangers on the internet.

Ultimately, the people most qualified to care about Phillips are those who know her personally, friends, family, and people she trusts. Public figures claiming to care while ignoring her own voice only add to the noise, making it harder for Phillips to define her narrative on her own terms. In the documentary, Phillips reflected on the emotional toll of her public persona, stating, “Everyday someone picking at you, that’s the hard part, and also the pure fact that people think so much less of you.” She admitted she struggles to “make real friends who just see me for who I am and not like a porn star online, this sort of persona,” expressing frustration about the challenges of being reduced to a caricature. Phillips also highlighted the toxic nature of online platforms, saying, “All of social media, like everyone is praying on your downfall.”

As for the rest of us, we might reflect on whether our opinions truly matter and as she says are they helpful. If the goal is to support Phillips, or anyone in a similar position, then respecting her autonomy and privacy is essential. Public commentary that frames her as a victim or moral cautionary tale does little to help her and may, in fact, exacerbate potential harm.

The discourse surrounding Lily Phillips is a reflection of how society engages with viral figures. We project our values onto their stories, often under the guise of care, while ignoring the ethical implications of profiting from their narratives. If Phillips is in need of help, the endless stream of commentary will not provide it. True care would mean stepping back, allowing her room to breathe, and trusting that those who genuinely know and love her are better equipped to offer support.

So, does anyone truly care about Lily Phillips? Perhaps, but it is unlikely that the loudest voices in this discourse are among them. While there may be some genuine concern, it often feels limited and misplaced. I don’t think most contributors to this conversation are acting with outright malice, but I would encourage them to redirect their concern inward. Instead of amplifying narratives that portray Phillips as a vulnerable victim and inviting further voyeuristic scrutiny of her supposed weakest moments, they might reflect on their own contributions to the larger societal issues they claim to address.

Should we care? That is for each of us to decide. If we do, the most meaningful action may be to speak less, listen more, and respect her autonomy, allowing her the space to reclaim her story on her own terms.

From the archive: Analysing handwriting analysis and graphology

Barrie Whitaker
-
0
From the archive: Analysing handwriting analysis and graphology

This article originally appeared in The Skeptic, Volume 5, Issue 1, from 1991.

I have always been over keen to offer my mind and body in the furtherance of the Sciences. Years ago at University, I was usually the first to put my name on the ‘Guinea Pig’ volunteer list to participate in the latest research into human behaviour, and this inclination has stayed with me to the present day.

As a psychometrician, I now have the pleasure of applying a large variety of valid psychological instruments on to a not-so-willing captive population and in my efforts to ease the pain, I have investigated other means of assessment, one of which was graphology.

There is some considerable debate as to how this activity should be classified. Is graphology an art, science or a myth, can it be taken seriously-after all, it is an ‘ology; or should we relegate it to the fairground?

Origins of graphology

According to some writers, the elementary principles of graphology were known six thousand years ago with the Chinese being the first to recognise handwriting as a means of revealing personality traits. However, it was not until very much later that the French decided to take the subject more seriously, and this has persisted to the present day where graphology is widely used on the European continent. It has also gained popularity in the USA where many large commercial organisations use it in employment selection.

Current uses of graphology

Its best known use is in crime detection, where criminologists have been able to present their findings in the Law Courts. Graphologists have gradually widened its use – unscientifically in my opinion – to generate personality profiles and predict behaviour from unwarranted generalisations. Handwriting analysis is used in job selection, vocational guidance, marriage compatibility, and in the detection of physical and mental illness. In the latter context, graphologist believe that they can see examples of the deterioration of mental functioning in the handwriting of Napoleon and Richard Nixon when they were in their final years of office.

Value of graphology

On the very simple premise that the brain communicates with the hand, in a similar way to which it does with the other skeletal muscles, there should be little doubt that the brain has an influence on hand movements and hence the workings of the psyche might be expressed in our handwriting. Experienced graphologists, whilst accepting that the writing emanates from the conscious, reckon they can detect the subconscious activity in the script and therefore assessment through handwriting cannot be faked.

They ignore the possible effects of classical conditioning in the infant stages, they ignore autosuggestion and compliance, they couch their reports with phraseology which is unspecific and consequently could apply to 90% of the population and finally they dismiss any serious attempts to objectively validate their work.

Under these conditions most of us could claim to be graphologists. After all, I recognise the handwriting of a friend, I recognise that my Doctor conceals his numerous weaknesses by scribbling. I have seen that some theatrical persons have flamboyant large handwriting (others can’t write at all). I could detect the introverted accountants who supposedly have small backward sloping features to their script, or the wavy letter formation on the octogenarians’ poll tax form. It all sounds very convincing stuff, doesn’t it?

Can I therefore accept that there could be an expression of our personality in our script?

Well I have found one lady to be accurate on two occasions – hardly significant I know – she predicted from my handwriting that I would suffer pain in my lower back and true to any self fulfilling prophecy, my back now aches; proof indeed that graphology works-or is it autosuggestion? She was also pretty accurate on some other attributes, her analysis was flattering so it must be true. However, I have yet to find anyone who can repeatedly and accurately predict personality from the written word.

A number of quite reputable organisations claim to have found graphology a great deal of help in assisting them with the selection, promotion and counselling of their very valuable employees, and I have met a number of graphologists who are dedicated to their work in striving to provide a scientific assessment of personality through this methodology. There is an institute which is further dedicated to providing bona fide credentials to this lucrative activity, and in 1985 an Academy of Graphology was founded. The theories of Jung and Le Senne have been embroiled in the graphologists armoury.

I have read a number of books (see notes) and attended courses on the topic but remain unconvinced of its predictive validity at this stage of the art – and yes I have decided that it is an art.

The objective study

In my efforts to vindicate the fairground art I asked several graphologists to take part in an experiment – it is amazing how the ‘ten green bottles’ fell from the wall to leave me with one very respected and ultra-confident chap who was eager to take part. The excuses from the other experts were numerous and included; graphology is holistic, it is a picture, it can’t be measured in an objective way, its output depends on the reason the analysis was carried out in the first instance and so on. Therefore this limited the statistical relevance of the study, (since it was based on one graphologist) however, he was well recommended to me and his services are used by several large commercial undertakings.

I compared the results of his graphological analyses with the results of personality questionnaires, and then compared both with the self rating of personality from the individual participants. The results on some of the factors are as follows:

Graphology was found to be interesting, flattering and realistic by some of the volunteers. The illustration shows the outcome of my study, using percentage comparisons. From this graphology looks useful, but it failed to stand up to a scientific and statistical validation. Using Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient, the results were statistically insignificant. Graphology was no more predictive or indicative of personality – and hence behaviour – than guessing. However, in percentage terms over the factors of personality shown above, graphology was 56% accurate and personality testing 84%, guessing would probably yield around 50% accuracy.

My conclusion is that graphology cannot be taken as a serious tool in the assessment of people, a view which is broadly supported by a study carried out at North East London Polytechnic and more recently by British Telecom. The best that can be said is that graphology may be marginally better than guessing and it may give an illusory feeling of comfort to those organisations whose methodologies lack a structured and scientific approach.

Placebo surgery: why performing fake operations doesn’t actually help anyone

Mike Hall
-
0
Placebo surgery: why performing fake operations doesn’t actually help anyone

Placebo effects are typically discussed in the context of drug trials, where sham pills and potions are claimed to induce healing through the power of belief.

I remain unconvinced that there is any real, meaningful, clinical effect that can be described as a ‘placebo effect’. The improvements observed in the placebo groups of clinical trials can be sufficiently explained by several known factors, including statistical effects, psychological influences, normal immune responses, external factors (like taking an unrelated medication at the same time), and even just straightforward mistakes.

In 2018, the BBC’s Horizon series aired a documentary titled The Placebo Experiment: Can My Brain Cure My Body? Presented by the late Michael Mosley, the programme made several claims of seemingly miraculous improvements attributed to the placebo effect. For this article, we are concerned with just one of these claims: the effects of placebo surgery.

In a drug trial, we could typically take a group of patients, randomly assign each patient to get either the drug or a placebo, and then examine the differences in health outcomes between the two groups. In a placebo-controlled surgical trial, the process is much the same. Patients suffering with some condition (for example, osteoarthritis) are recruited and randomly assigned to get either surgery or sham surgery.

Patients in the surgery group are given the real surgical procedure, as per usual practice. Patients in the sham group are prepped as normal, taken to theatre as normal, and anaesthetised or sedated as normal. Incisions are still made and for an arthroscopic (key hole) procedure, the scope is even inserted as normal. After a simulated surgery, patients are sewn up and sent to recover, without any meaningful surgical intervention having taken place.

For Horizon, Michael Mosley spoke with a surgeon named Andrew Carr, attached to Oxford University, who took part in such a study. The operation, known as an acromioplasty, involved the removal of soft tissue and bone spurs from the shoulder, in the expectation that it would relieve pain. In the sham condition, incisions were made and a scope was inserted, but no material was removed.

This study was published by Beard et al in The Lancet in 2018, and ultimately involved over 300 patients and 51 surgeons. It concluded that there was no significant difference in pain relief or functional improvement between the surgery and sham groups.

Several years earlier, the New England Journal of Medicine had published a similar study. Moseley et al (no relation) took 180 patients suffering with osteoarthritis of the knee and randomised them to get either arthroscopic débridement (the removal of damaged tissue), arthroscopic lavage (flushing with water), or sham surgery.

Moseley reported: “at no point did either of the intervention groups report less pain or better function than the placebo group […] the outcomes after arthroscopic lavage or arthroscopic débridement were no better than those after a placebo procedure.”

The straightforward interpretation of these studies is that, since surgery failed to outperform sham in both cases, the procedures are ineffective. Arthroscopic débridement and lavage do not treat osteoarthritis of the knee. Acromioplasty does not alleviate shoulder pain. These operations should therefore be discontinued as they do not provide a meaningful therapeutic benefit.

Metal surgical equipment (scalpels, forceps, probes etc) on a surgery tray with rows of holes in it
An assortment of surgical instruments – CC0 Public Domain, pxhere.com

Instead, due to the peculiar influence the placebo topic has on scientific rigour, there came calls for sham surgeries to replace real ones. Rather than viewing these studies as evidence that the surgeries themselves are ineffective, some interpret the findings as proof of the placebo’s effectiveness.

The Canadian science communicator Jonathan Jarry coined a term for this convoluted interpretation: the ShamWow Fallacy. This is when experts, invested in the power of the placebo, interpret negative outcomes as evidence of the power of placebos.

A systematic review in the British Medical Journal in 2014 found that, in about half of the studies, surgery failed to outperform placebo. Interestingly, it also found that in 74% of trials there was a beneficial therapeutic effect within the placebo group. On the face of it, this could present a problem. Shamwow effect aside, if it is the case (as I contend) that the placebo effect is an illusion, how do we account for the improvements observed in the placebo groups of surgical trials?

Beard illustrates this nicely. In contrast to many studies, Beard included three groups: surgery, sham surgery, and no treatment. Although surgery performed no better than sham, both surgical groups performed better than no treatment. So, does that prove that placebo surgery really does work?

Sadly, no. For one thing, any no-treatment control is necessarily unblinded. Patients who do not get surgery are aware they are getting no surgery, and this is likely to influence any patient-reported outcomes. Patients are less likely to report an improvement when they are aware they have undergone no intervention; this is why medical studies use blinding in the first place.

Beard also notes that while the difference between surgery and no treatment was statistically significant, it was not clinically important. That is to say, although there is an improvement on paper, it does translate to any meaningful change in the quality of life of the patient.

Perhaps most important is the fact that, in both Beard’s and Moseley’s studies, patients receiving surgery were also given post-operative physiotherapy to help support their recovery. Since physiotherapy is also a treatment for both shoulder pain and osteoarthritis, this likely contributed to the observed improvements. Patients were, in fact, being given a second treatment after the first, a parallel intervention. This is exactly the sort of external factor which can cause an illusion of a therapeutic placebo effect, if we are not careful in how we interpret our data.

As for Andrew Carr, according to Horizon he discontinued acromioplasty operations after the study he was part of demonstrated they were ineffective. His current recommendation? Physiotherapy.

Madmonq, or how not even video gamers are safe from the nutritional supplement industry

Alice Howarth
-
0
Madmonq, or how not even video gamers are safe from the nutritional supplement industry

Esports, or competitive video gaming, is not a new phenomenon – some of the earliest computer game competitions took place in Stanford in the early 70s, with students battling it out for a prize of a year’s subscription to Rolling Stone by playing Spacewar. Competitive gaming quickly scaled up to arcade game tournaments spanning locations across entire countries, with some competitions even being televised as early as the early 80s. And by the 1990s, large companies like Nintendo were running world championships in video gaming.

However, even though Esports has been a thing for a long time, it has expanded somewhat exponentially in the last few decades. Between 2014 and 2020, market revenue jumped from $194 million to $1,100 million. In 2020, sponsorship was up to the hundreds of millions of US dollars, media rights up to $185 million, and there were nearly 300 million viewers. In 2021, the total market value of the esports industry cleared $1 billion, and top players can earn in the millions of dollars through prize money, streaming, sponsorship and merchandise.

This is big business. And, as with any big business, the most successful players have to go all in to be successful. Training can take up a serious amount of time, with some practising for 16 hours a day, which can obviously be mentally and physically taxing. One 2020 review published in Current Sports Medicine Reports found:

The esports athlete posture in a gaming chair, prolonged screen exposure, and hundreds of repetitive motions during gaming sessions are all contributing factors to development of … hazards [including] headache, dry eyes, visual strain, psychologic and behavior issues, cervical, thoracic and lumbar pain, overuse shoulder, elbow and wrist pathology, carpal tunnel syndrome, cubital tunnel syndrome, excess weight gain, gluteal and ischial pain, hamstring tightness, a rare incidence of deep vein thrombosis, and infectious surface contamination.

The main causes of these health hazards are sitting for long periods of time, often with poor posture, and the strain brought on by repetitive actions – the review notes that “most professional esports players perform an average of 10 moves per second or up to 500 to 600 moves per minute”. 42% of esports players experience neck and back pain, 30% have hand pain, and 36% have wrist pain. 56% of players have eye fatigue. Screen insomnia (difficulty falling asleep when you’ve been looking at a screen too close to bedtime) is a problem for many.

Esports can clearly have health repercussions, but this is not a call for a ban; we all do things every day that are detrimental or hazardous to our health, from drinking alcohol to sitting at our work computers for too long without taking a break, to working from laptops that leave us hunched over, to driving a car in rush hour, and even cooking. Things we consider good for our health also come with health risks – long-distance running, especially on concrete, can leave us with knee pain. Weightlifting can lead to muscle tears and joint damage. And even yoga can cause muscle and tendon strain.

Esports players push their bodies and brains to extremes, so it’s important to consider how to mitigate those risks – whether that’s a gaming rig that takes posture into consideration, or a practice schedule with plenty of rest breaks, stretching and social connection, even when psychologically it’s preferable to “prioritise video gaming”. And it’s important to have access to easy nutrition when in high-intensity training periods to help keep balance when there isn’t time or inclination to cook.

And, wherever there’s a nutritional need, there’s a supplement company willing to fill it. Enter the obnoxiously titled “MADMONQ”.

According to their website::

Gaming is evolving. Joining the elite ranks now demands a lot more than just mindlessly hammering away at a keyboard. It means optimizing your body across multiple fronts. It means optimizing your body, diet, and routines, along with the way you learn and sleep. Your brain is your super-weapon but it is important to realize that it can only go as far as your body allows.

We founded MADMONQ® to cut through all the nonsense and help gamers push their limits in a healthy, efficient and sustainable way. Our love for gaming and expertise in mental performance helped us develop the first health and performance gaming supplement with extraordinary nutritional benefits that is specifically tailored for gamers’ needs. We combined the world’s most scientifically studied superherbs with proven brain compounds into a tasty, healthy, portable tablet that can easily become a part of any gamer’s routine.

MADMONQ is a supplement brand, and they’re aiming to make it big. They have a 2030 Vision:

Health has been a neglected topic in gaming for far too long. MADMONQ is on a mission to support gamers in pushing their limits in-game and AFK. As the industry gets bigger, more people identify as gamers, and the sheer number of hours spent in-game increases, injuries and the overall demand on the body rise too. To level up, we’ll have to do things differently, especially when it comes to health. Our 2030 vision is to make sure every gamer gives health the same amount of attention they give to their hardware setup.

On the face of it, I think that’s a noble goal. There has to be a significant shift towards health when it comes to Esports, because it has significant physical and mental repercussions and should be treated as seriously as any other sport. But it’s probably also true that getting in on this game early is going to be a significant money-maker, as gamers – particularly those top gamers who earn several million dollars per year from Esports – need to invest in their health and wellbeing if they want to continue playing at the topic of their game for as long as possible.

MADMONQ continues:

RIGHT NOW, GAMING WRECKS OUR BODIES. Excessive screen time, suboptimal diet, lack of physical exercise, and lack of awareness around the importance of health are rampant in gaming and esports. The drive to perform means that health often takes a back seat to bad habits like consuming subpar energy products that lead to crashes, taking prescription medication, psychological strain, and lack of sleep. But these crutches aren’t sustainable. It is time to stop the self-sabotage.

So while they’re down on supposed crutches like taking prescription medication, what precisely do MADMONQ think is the solution? They favour the crutch of daily supplements, obviously. They say:

MADMONQ® is the first nootropic developed to naturally boost energy and improve brain performance for top-level gamers. CHAMPION is the first complex health supplement that fills over 30 nutritional deficiencies commonly faced by a player and their body.

They claim their MADMONQ supplement is a “synergistic combination of caffeine, tea extracts, non-essential amino acids, adaptogenic herbs and other nutrients. It provides a boost unrivaled by standard energy drinks”, while their CHAMPION supplement apparently “provides a daily comprehensive reinforcement for a healthy gaming routine.” All of which is terribly vague.

They do, somewhat inexplicably, imply their products will make their users look good, though: ”LOOK LIKE A CHAMPION and make being gorgeous a natural part of your day. Warning, no stick is included for fighting off eager admirers.”

Ingredient list for MADMONQ's 'VERSION 3.0' supplement. "Food supplement with sweeteners and caffeiene. Daily dose: 1 tablet 15-20min before gaming (max. 2 tbl/day), let dissolve in mouth." 15 ingredients are listed, divided up with icons indicating herbal ingredients, vitamins + minerals and... molecules of something else (caffeine, tyrosine etc.)
Ingredient list for MADMONQ's 'CHAMPION' gaming supplement. "Food supplement with sweeteners. Daily dose: 1 tablet after meal, chew or let dissolve in mouth." 23 ingredients are listed, divided up into 'herbal', vitamins and minerals, and other molecules (eg carnosine, methionine etc)

So this is a supplement that claims to boost your vitality, immunity and balance. Their MADMONQ claims to be effective for 3-6 hours, and comes in at around €27 for 28 tablets. The CHAMPION supplement costs around €25 euros for 30 tablets. Plus they have their GREENS powdered supplement range, which costs around €55 euros for 30 servings, promising to be good for your digestive health, because it’s filled with real fruits and vegetables (but in powdered form).

These supplements may seem pretty pricey, but never fear, there is a way you can get 10% or 20% discount on every purchase: you simply join their ELITE SUBSCRIPTION CLUB. For the low, low price of €24.30 per month, you can get a monthly subscription, which includes a 10% discount on product, and up to 50% off any merchandise you buy, should you want to dress like your favourite nutritional supplement. Plus you’ll get the chance to… buy future merchandise. And your subscription also comes with the perk of… being able to pause it, twice per year.

This is all clearly just expensive woo. We don’t need to once again cover old ground on why supplements are pointless – it has long since been demonstrated that unless you have a diagnosed deficiency, supplements mostly pass through your system and are excreted in your urine.

However, I do think there’s something interesting here, in the wellness industry’s ability and relentless willingness to move into fields where there is actually some kind of genuine need to fill, and where people are overlooked and stigmatised.

Because, while video game culture can be toxic, hyper-masculinised and misogynistic, to a degree that culture stems from a sense that there’s a stigma to overcome. For a long time, video gamers were considered nerds by society, nerds who don’t have a life and who need to get out more, rather than sitting at home playing childish games.

As Esports becomes more respected and serious, the wellness industry has sensed an opportunity to play on players’ insecurities, and their drive to be the best at what they do for as long as they can, while recognising that both physical and mental stresses can hamper that ambition. Of course we’re going to see the wellness industry pivoting into this area.

We are, apparently, in the age of the supplement, and nowhere is safe – not even the video games industry.

The recent New Jersey drone scare tells us a lot about how panics spread

Dave Hahn
-
0
The recent New Jersey drone scare tells us a lot about how panics spread

The drones. Remember the drones? Perhaps they are still in the news, but now they are buried way down the page; perhaps they are on your homepage slideshow but only because the algorithm remembers that you were interested in the subject. Maybe there is a story on BBC “The Ocho” about the subject; but as headline news, no longer. It was once a huge story. So huge that we even wrote an article about it that laid out the possibilities of what the lights in the sky could be and what they are probably not.

This article will not do that. Instead, I want to use the drone story to illustrate what we, as skeptics, ought to do when confronted with a situation like this (and what, I believe, most of us did).

If you are thinking to yourself, “I didn’t do anything” then this is exactly what I mean. Most of us heard the story and said, “Ok, that’s weird.” Then we waited for more information. This is what my former and current president, the governor of New York and New Jersey, and several other prominent politicians did not do. Reddit filled up with theories, and of course Alex Jones had to speculate that at least 1% of the lights in the sky were not of human origin. No response to these lights in the sky was based on anything other than fear.

One of the lessons that Max Brooks writes for the protagonist of his Minecraft Book trilogy is, “Panic drowns thought.” Even though we do not live in a cube-based world where zombies, skeleton archers, and green walking sticks of dynamite appear in the darkness, the lesson is still important. Panic prevents rational thinking. It spreads like a virus and the more people panic, the less likely it is that the panic will stop. Rational thought gets smothered under the sheer weight of the masses of people afraid of lights in the sky. People who, we should note, are only expressing this panic because the people around them are also expressing that fear.

For those new to this story, I’ll provide the briefest of recaps. Since November, in the skies above the East Coast of the United States – primarily in the state of New Jersey – there have been some strange lights in the sky. Unlike the past where such a thing would have been considered a “UFO”, these were labelled as drones. Right then was the beginning of the panic. Someone saw a light in the sky, believed it to be a drone and, instead of just shrugging, reported this as something to worry about. From this first report, things multiplied as more and more people began to see lights in the sky and participate in the panic. The peak event was when Steward International Airport, a small airport about 100km North of New York City, temporarily shut down operations when lights thought to be a drone (or several) were seen in the area. The most important feature of this entire phenomenon is that all of the unidentified lights were unidentified.

Fuzzy reflected/refracted circles of coloured lights; red, yellow, blue, pink and orange. Some are overlapping, on a dark background.
Lights in the sky… is it a bird, is it a plane?

If we assume that they are drones, the appearance of drones in the sky should not be anything to be concerned about. According to current prices, I can get a pretty decent drone (with a 5-star rating on Amazon) for about $75 US. Anyone can fly a drone. If you are a private person and the drone is being used for purely recreational purposes, there is no license or registration required. You can fill the sky with them as long as they abide by FAA regulations concerning altitude and airspace. In the above-mentioned incident at Steward Airport, the lights did not cross into the traffic lanes of the facility and the temporary shut down was cautionary rather than necessary. Despite that information, the Governors of New York and New Jersey asked for federal assistance in dealing with the “drone problem.”

This panic reminds me of two events: the “clown panic” of 2016 and an incredibly odd car accident in 2023. The former was certainly a phenomenon fueled by the internet. In the US, UK, and Australia, there were reports of clowns in places where clowns should not be. These weren’t normal clowns either, they were scary “It” style clowns. There was one sighting, then another, then the clowns were everywhere. The internet seemed to shovel fuel this coulrophobic panic, but there were never any armies of clowns.

Halloween and costume stores pulled clown outfits from the shelves, even McDonald’s issued a statement saying that their mascot was going to have a lower profile. To be clear, there were some actual clown sightings, but we must understand their context. The very first was in 2013 and the “scary” clown was a character in a movie being filmed then. Most of the reported sightings amounted to nothing and, for those in which the police did find a clown, there was no crime involved. Reports of clowns luring children into the woods or the sewers (which is the actual first murder in Stephen King’s book “It”) were judged to be fictional. Then, it just stopped.

The second event took place a little more than a year ago. Car accidents are an unfortunately common occurrence. It is even more unfortunate that many are fatal. Rarely do such accidents go beyond the local news, much less hit national or international news. But, in 2023, a car went flying through the air and crashed in a fiery explosion. This crash and explosion happened on the US side of the US/Canada border. Footage of the crash was taken from the security camera at the actual border checkpoint. At first, nothing was known, and most news reports were hesitant to say anything.

An HDR photo of the Rainbow Bridge US/Canada border crossing at Niagara, with a cloudy sky and deep teal river.
The Rainbow Bridge US/Canada border crossing at Niagara. Via Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Fox News, however, had no hesitance in blaming terrorists and calling the crash an attack, even citing “high-level sources” who confirmed the presence of explosives. I bring this situation up not to drag on Fox News (well, not just that) but because, with their reporting on the matter, we at least knew what they wanted.

With the panic over the drones, I want to know what people who are panicking think is going on. Rather than telling people there’s nothing to worry about, I’ve been asking people this question. My point is to make them spell out their position. Unlike Fox anchors salivating at the opportunity to claim that the Biden administration was weak on the border (this time literally), most people fearing the drones do not have a concrete fear.

The only thing causing the panic was the reporting of it. In this case, the lights in the sky were just lights in the sky. They were not doing anything other than being in the sky.

Perhaps I am being unfair. The world has murder drones. In active war zones, a drone in the sky is more than just lights. The resistance in Ukraine has been using drones to attack targets deep in Russian territory while the Russian have been using them to strike back. The US has a long, troubling history of attack drones circling the Middle East like Nazgûl, ready to launch AGM-114 Hellfire missiles at targets. The conception that lights in the sky could be a dangerous thing is not a fairy tale.

The problem is that no one in the Eastern US lives in an active war zone. If they were foreign attack drones, they would require logistical support. Even the very latest model of military attack drone has a range of 1770km (1100 miles). Even if we liken this new situation to the balloon scare of last year, it isn’t the same. While initial reports did panic a bit, the balloons were determined to be Chinese in origin, and such devices can float across the Pacific. The Imperial Japanese used them to attack targets deep in the continental US.

These lights have not been judged to be anything other than a strange anomaly. To claim that “this has gone too far”, as the NY governor did, just makes the “this” out to be petrol for the fire. My position is not to hope that everything is fine until it’s too late, but to not rush to judgments and statements that add to the fear.

On 1 January 2025, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a temporary ban on drone flights within 1 nautical mile of various infrastructure and air traffic locations. The ban, according to them, is being issued “out of an abundance of caution.” Which makes sense from the perspective of the government. The FAA has reaffirmed the stance of the FBI (among many other US federal agencies), which has stated that there is no evidence of any threat. However, when it comes to statements from the FBI on events of this kind, the public is usually mistrusting unless it comes from two impossibly good-looking special agents. Nevertheless, the stance of any agency with jurisdiction over the matter is the same: it might be odd, but it’s not nefarious. With an added, “don’t point lasers at them,” in case they are piloted airplanes.

Maybe these lights are drones and, if so, they could become a problem to air traffic in the event of a collision. An event so rare that the Wikipedia page on this subject has four confirmed occurrences (not counting the military ones). The panic went beyond that. The atmosphere was one of fear that there was a malicious hand in all of this. A fear that was utterly unsubstantiated and requires skeptics like us to attempt to push rational thinking through.

1...8910...147Page 9 of 147

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

[email protected]

About

Categories

Shop