Face Masks For Flu

I've read several criticisms lately of wearing face masks to protect against the swine flu.  They explain that influenza germs are small enough to pass through face masks and therefore the masks are useless.  

I disagree.  

No, I'm not disputing the size of the virus or the porousness of the face masks.  I disagree that the only benefit of face masks is stopping airborne germs.

Influenzas, colds, and lots of other disease are contagious through tiny droplets of euphemistic water.  Really it's droplets of spit or snot, but water is much nicer to talk about.  Lots of these water droplets are expelled when people sneeze and cough and a few when people talk and yawn.  Even though these germ filled water droplets are usually so tiny they are invisible and even though they fly through the air, a disease that can be transmitted this way is not really airborne.  Each droplet is a lovely wet microcosm that can sustain germs that couldn't live in plain, dry air.  Droplets are big enough to hold colonies of germs that are too big and too heavy to float in the air.  A truly airborne virus can float in the air like a dust mote and can exist outside of a water droplet.  

Face masks don't stop airborne germs but they do stop germ filled water droplets.  So either swine flu is not airborne today and face masks will stop its transmission or it is airborne and face masks will make it less contagious by stopping those germs in water droplets.

The other thing face masks do is change habits.  They stop people from biting their nails and rubbing their nose.  They stop people from coughing into their hand just before turning a doorknob or pushing an elevator button.

  

Why I believe in evolution

I believe in evolution for the same reason I believe in the germ theory of disease or that atoms are made of electrons, protons, and neutrons; it's basic science.  

Like all basic science there are reams of direct evidence for evolution.  One of the beautiful things about science is that I don't have to rely on an authority figure to tell me "There's plenty of evidence."  I can verify the evidence and reasoning myself.  I can start by picking up a textbook or two and learning the basics.  I can go to museums and see some of the evidence for myself.  I can read about current experiments in the popular press that rely on that basic science.  I can make my own observations and if I'm ambitious I can do my own experiments.

For example, there's a local weed that grows short in neighborhoods but long in the park.  If I mow my front and back yard to different heights (change the selective pressure), will that weed respond?    

The Texas school board is voting on whether to change the biology curriculum to cast doubt on evolution.  This kind of nonsense frustrates me.  

I am sad that scientists and science educators have to spend so much time trying to explain basic science to people who perceive controversy, gaps, or weakness in it.  I am sad that because of the way the textbook market works changes in a religious, anti-intellectual state like Texas can effect science classes in the rest of the country.  I am irritated that members of a school board either know so little science or choose to believe so little science that this change has a chance of passing.  I am irritated that a religious agenda* is interfering with public schools.

*Religion is the only reason to be actively against evolution while ignoring quarks, F=ma, and cholesterol.  

Mostly I am sad and irritated that a group of grownups who are ignorant about science are trying to keep the next generation ignorant about science.

Life begins at conception. So what?

Many of the anti abortion people in the media say that life begins at conception and that therefore abortion is murder.  I think that's a lousy argument.  

To be clear, I am pro choice so I disagree with their conclusion.  But I don't think life is special. 

Most things we eat were once alive.  Salt is a rock and was never alive.  A lot of fruit can be eaten without killing the plant it came from.  But every time you eat a carrot, a plant was killed for you.  Following the form of the anti abortionists' argument, that carrot plant was murdered for you.  

Every time you take antibiotics for an infection or use vinegar on a cutting board you kill things that had been alive.

I don't mourn when I bleed, even though blood cells that share my DNA die.  Nor do I morn when I give a blood sample to get my cholesterol checked.  

So arguing that abortion is murder because life begins at conception is hypocritical even for anti abortionists who are vegetarian and don't kill spiders.

Instructions Don't Cover All Contingencies

Most of Daughter 0.5's toys have specific, gentle cleaning instructions. "Don't immerse," they say. "Surface clean only," they say.

However, they don't say how to clean off copious amounts of spit up which is the consistency of pudding and which was generated while Daughter 0.5 was enthusiastically chewing on the toy.

Does Caffeine Fuel Hallucinations?

A friend sent me a link to Drink coffee, see dead people which looks at a study which "quizzed 200 students on their caffeine intake and found those with the highest consumption were also more prone to report seeing, or hearing, things that were not there." The article implied that either increased caffeine consumption or the increase in stress hormone (cortisol) caused by caffeine caused the increase in hallucinations. It allowed that one alternate explanation might be that people who had more hallucinations used caffeine to deal with them.

Let me start with medical facts that go against conventional wisdom before picking on the article. There's an incorrect stereotype that someone who sees things or hears things is unusual and has serious problems. Hallucinations are not rare, not certain indicators of mental illness, and rarely as immersive as seen in TV dramas. A lot of sane and normal people very occasionally think they hear someone calling their name when no one's there, or hear a snatch of music when none is playing. A standard symptom of serious fatigue is to see little black dots moving at the edge of one's vision. It's common to interpret a vague shape out of the corner of one's eye as a person.

Even a good article on a scientific study is less useful than looking at the study itself and its data. Plus media is always biased. Even if an article avoids leaning left or right, avoids favoring either the outlandish or the traditional, it is still biased towards being interesting. Writers (and yes, I am feeling self-conscious as I write this) select interesting topics and then try to describe them in an interesting manner. It is entirely possibly (and hopefully likely) that the study only reported the correlation between caffeine and self-reported hallucinations and avoided drawing unsupported conclusions, but that's only mildly interesting to a small group of people. The title of the article "Drink coffee, see dead people" is catchy and the implication is weird and interesting.

There's a difference between perception and interpretation. The fatigue symptom of moving black dots can be interpreted as seeing ants on one's desk. The article says that participants were "sensing the presence of dead people." I'd like to know the specifics. Did they feel a crawling or cold sensation on the backs of their necks? Did they hear a dead person's voice? Did they see a human shape out of the corner of their eye and assume it was a dead person?

The article gives a nod to the logical truth that correlation does not indicate causation by mentioning that hallucinations might increase caffeine consumption instead of the other way around. But it doesn't mention the possibility of a common cause. Lack of sleep and lack of food are known to increase hallucinations. Do you suppose that students with the highest caffeine intake are well-rested and haven't skipped any meals lately? Me neither. I'd like to see a follow up study that controls for sleep habits and diet.

The article mentions "a daily equivalent of seven cups of instant coffee". Flippantly, I'd like to see the data divided by type of coffee; instant versus french press or espresso. I have a completely unsupported belief that coffee connoisseurs understand their sensory input better than those who drink instant. Plus we're smarter.