Popular Science Ends Comments

I received notice yesterday that Popular Science is ending their practice of allowing comments to their online stories. I was surprised that National Public Radio included a segment on the subject yesterday with the PopSci spokesman pretty much saying the same thing as their online explanation.

I can understand anyone not wanting to deal with some of the nasty comments that we often see online. I'm not so sure I go along with PopSci's reasoning. They seem to be concerned about University of Wisconsin research that suggested nasty comments to an article can actually change reader opinions of that article. I find that a bit hard to swallow:

Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant's interpretation of the news story itself.

In the civil group, those who initially did or did not support the technology — whom we identified with preliminary survey questions — continued to feel the same way after reading the comments. Those exposed to rude comments, however, ended up with a much more polarized understanding of the risks connected with the technology.

Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they'd previously thought.

They also make it clear that science is science and seem to think their reporting on science shouldn't be questioned. That's where I have a problem:

 "A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science."

In other words, they consider the science they present as absolute and don't want anyone effectively convincing others otherwise. I find that troubling. I don't like nasty comments either, but I'd like to think I could find a less drastic way to remove them and a better reason for doing so.

George Will Ponders Being Thankful

Washington Post columnist George Will takes a tongue- in- cheek look at whether we should be thankful about some things- in politics, anyway. I suppose it might not be considered funny by the politically correct, but don't worry. No Obama bashing. He did point out at least one thing I was unaware of:

"The Los Angeles Times announced that it had stopped publishing letters questioning global warming caused by human activity."

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but it should be scary to everyone when another newspaper goes the route of Popular Science magazine and stops accepting comments or letters that question their "science".

Will goes on to point out the Times' action might make sense to some:

"Which makes sense, if you agree with the New Yorker’s resident expert, who called the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on warming “the last word on climate change.” It evidently is the first science to reach the end of its subject, all questions answered." 

Frightening times we live in.

Elephant Pee

I never would have imagined that elephants lose about 42 gallons of pee when they urinate. Some other pee facts in this Popular Science story.

The Silver Bullet For Clean Water?

Popular Science magazine is reporting on an invention that might have huge implications for water starved areas of the world. Well, maybe not water starved, as it doesn't really create water. Vapor compression distillation machines can filter out clean water from just about dirty water source: sewage, seawater, polluted river water or whatever, or so the inventor claims.

They've already deployed the "Slingshots" to Africa. They're looking to spread them around even further with the help of the Coca Cola Company. I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more press, or did I miss it?

I'm wondering how effective they are with seawater but, more importantly, how much do they cost to buy and operate? Current desalination technology makes it pretty much the most expensive way to get potable water. If these machines are more efficient and less costly to manufacture and operate, might this be the silver bullet we've been searching for to make desalination practical?

Vaccination Stuff

This Popular Science article may be of interest to some of you. It supposedly refutes arguments anti- vaccination zealots have made. Whatever.

Vaccination is one of those things I roll my eyes about when I hear the complaints and conspiracy theories regarding it. My only question is when vaccination should be mandatory. Regardless, the info in the PS article might clear up things for some folks.

My only problem is the references to government approval of vaccines and no credible scientific evidence which seem eerily reminiscent of claims by the pro- fluoride folks in wanting to force fluoride on everybody: Trust us. We know what's best for you.

Satellite Pics of Haiti

Here's a few before and after satellite pics of the Haiti earthquake. Seems like I had to look real close on some of the first ones to see damage but the last two were pretty clear.

Thanks to Popular Science magazine for the heads up.

Blasting Killer Asteroids

This Popular Science article was almost what I was looking for. I've been thinking a bit lately about whether it's really possible to blast an incoming asteroid to smithereens using a nuclear weapon.

The article didn't explain it to my satisfaction. For one thing, the research is all done with computer models. I'm not set very much at ease by computer models. I think they should try it with real missiles. Maybe send one to the asteroid belt and pick a small one to blow up? I'm not sure it would cost all that much. We already have thousands of missiles and warheads we might be able to use.

*******

Speaking of comet and asteroid doomsday movies, you might enjoy this one I saw some years ago. Actually, I'm not sure Doomsday Rock is the one I saw as I don't recall the acting cast being quite the same. William Devane kind of looks like the main character, but I remembered it as being someone else.

It sounds about right, though, with the scientist enlisting some people to take over a nuclear missile silo with intent of taking out a comet, or some such, that's going to impact earth. Problem is, he needs two missiles but everyone thinks he's nuts. The Russians get all jittery when they hear about it and realize he might really be some nutcase that wants to launch on them.

Made for a great movie for me and the end turned out to be a real feel- good, if not a downright tear jerker. That assumes this is the same movie I'm thinking about. Keep an eye out for it should it be on TV again.