SkepticLance

To insanerob In the days before antibiotics, deep puncture wounds were common causes of death. They led to deep infections, and there was no way to fight them. In a limb, sometimes amputation worked, but the operation often simply became the cause of death! Any puncture wound through the peritoneum was a 100% death sentence. In agony! Compound fractures did not work that way, though they frequently led to long term deformity and extreme pain. Only if the broken bone punctured the skin would infection get in. Under normal circumstances the interior of the human body, excluding air passages and digestive system, is sterile. No bacteria at all. Thus, damage in that sterile environment could heal without infectious complication. Fractures in the old days were set as best they could - manipulating them back into position. Then they were strapped and splinted to hold them in place to permit healing. Rather too often they were not set right, and healing was slow, and painful, and resulted in a deformed limb. If you want to know how to carry out this procedure, there are lots of first aid courses that cover the method, if briefly. I am sure there will be more advanced courses as well.

If you are happy to accept a topical rather than systemic treatment, there are lots of options. For example : animals lick wounds - with good reason. Saliva contains antiseptic materials. A classical treatment that has been shown to work quite well is honey. Soak a bandage in honey and place it over the wound. The high sugar content provides osmotic drying that dehydrates bacteria, and kills them. Lots of leaves, barks etc contain antiseptic materials that kill bacteria, and lots of 'pre-civilisation' societies have collected these materials and pulped them to make antiseptic material. None of them will systemically, as an antibiotic can. Thus, the antiseptics will kill bacteria at the surface of a wound, but not deeper. Puncture wounds result in deep infections that cannot be destroyed with any treatment short of antibiotics.

Edtharan I am not quite sure why this has descended to an argument. I have no problem with solar power, and in fact would love to be able to install solar panels on my house and attain a limited independence from the national grid. I was merely pointing out that it is still about 300% more expensive than conventional means, and we have no way of knowing if and when this will change. I do not believe that energy policy should be based on something that represents a form of speculation. That is why I prefer to see planners going with proven technology. Increasing silicon supply may help drop prices. After all, silicon is one of the most abundant elements on Earth. However, it is the uncertainty that should recognised. If the price comes down enough, that is great. Should we base energy plans on something so uncertain? I doubt it. I would also point out that energy storage actually makes the cost problem worse. Storing, and later tapping energy from the store always causes very significant losses. This will double, at least, the cost of that energy.

Swansont As I said before, dollars per watt is not an appropriate unit to use for comparisons. Comparing solar with nuclear on a dollar per watt basis is especially nefarious, since solar produces a lot of power in direct sunlight, but this drops when the light dims, and drops to zero at night. On the other hand, nuclear can continue its maximal power output 24 hours a day, and does. If you want to compare costs, do it on the basis of cents per kilowatt hour over a 24/365 average, which is realistic. And if you build a lot of nuclear power plants, the cost per plant goes down, not up. The cost of Uranium will go up with a lot of plants, but that is less important, since it constitutes only about 10% of the cost of making electricity from nuclear reactors. On your last comment - I am saying that solar panels will probably not be a major supplier to national grid power in the near future. It has a great future, but for more specialised uses, until and unless the cost drops enough to compete with the main mass generation systems.

The main cooling mechanism for the human body is sweating. This requires a flow of air over the skin for maximum cooling efficiency, and also requires regular consumption of liquids. Which is why people without water die very quickly in the desert. That applies to arabs also. There is a degree of adaptation in desert peoples, but I do not know the details. Perhaps someone else does?

This question throws us firmly into the realm of speculation, and there are no right or wrong answers. However, I enjoy speculation too. My opinion is that in the medium term future (a few hundred years) humanity will change mainly as a result of our own genetic modifications. Once we have the capability, why would any parent allow a child to be born with the gene for multiple sclerosis? Or for that matter, why would a parent allow a child to be born fated to grow up ugly? In my opinion they would not, and we will see a new 'beautiful people' arising, with higher intelligence, greater athleticism, greater lifespan, and higher general health. In about a thousand years or so (plus or minus one hell of a margin for error), we can expect humanity to begin exploring and colonising the galaxy. Since there is no theoretical way of exceeding the speed of light, this will result in a large number of genetically isolated communities. Whether through natural evolution, or deliberate genetic modification to adapt to the new environments, we can expect humanity to split into a vast number of new and genetically different populations. Eventually new species. Having massive numbers of different and massively separated populations would be an exceedingly effective protection against extinction. And the separation makes any warfare between such populations also exceedingly unlikely. The logistics of war would be impossible. The original query talked of a billion years. I see no reason why our descendents should not be around by then, but they will no longer be human.

Stretching my memory waaaaaay back ....... There was an article in New Scientist about 20 years ago about the heavy clothing arabic peoples used. Sorry, but that far back I definitely cannot tell you the exact issue! Anyway, some researchers tried the clothing set up and placed thermometers inside and outside the clothing. To their surprize, they found that the temperature inside was lower than out. It appears that the loose nature of the clothing actually led to a flow of air through inside the clothing. The arabs are not fools. They use a system that thousands of years of experience taught them was better.

Edtharan Here is an up to date reference on solar power price, dated May 2008. http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=solar&id=20702&a= I quote : "Solar power is more than three times the cost of electricity from conventional sources, according to figures from the industry tracking firm Solarbuzz and the United States' Energy Information Administration. Solar power cost about $4 a watt in the early 2000s, but silicon shortages, which began in 2005, have pushed up prices to more than $4.80 per watt, according to Solarbuzz. " This is an optimistic reference which believes prices will drop. But not by enough to make a big difference. Again, I quote : "A report from Michael Rogol, an analyst at Photon Consulting, says that demand for solar panels will quickly rise in response to even slightly cheaper prices, holding the price drop between 2007 and 2010 to a mere 20 percent" It is possible that the price will drop enough to become competitive in due course, but that is speculation. Right now, and for the short to medium term future, solar panel generated electricity will continue to be expensive. It will still have a place, especially where sunlight is intense and largely uninterrupted (deserts?), but is unlikely to make substantial inroads into large scale power generation for national distribution grids. At least not for a long time. Nuclear power takes a long time to set up - yes. But at least we know how long. Proven technology, and electricity at current pricing way cheaper than solar panels. Time may prove me wrong, and solar energy may become dirt cheap quite soon. However, that has been said for a long time, and it is still expensive. I do not think we will see any overnight miracles.

As suggested, Dyson spheres would radiate in the infra red and be detectable. However, in another thread on a similar theme, it was suggested that Dyson swarms would be technically easier to construct. That is : instead of a continuous structure around a star, you have a trillion orbiting space habitats, with perhaps a million beings in each. I have always felt that a species that is advanced enough for that kind of development would not be restricted to a star. They would have advanced nuclear fusion power. The deuterium required for this is enormously abundant, and each habitat could generate its own energy - all that it ever needed. Thus, the galaxy might, for all we know, have octillions of space habitats, not only orbiting stars, but throughout interstellar space. Of course, that does not answer the question of why none of them have ever come knocking on our door???

To layman There is no such thing as 'race'. There is simple variation between different humans and different human populations. These variations range across a continuum with no clear distinctions. If you look at skin colour, it varies from pure black in some African populations, through dark brown, light brown, and mere tan. And that is just in Africa. Outside Africa, it varies from almost-black to almost snow white. Skin colour is determined by about 20 different genes. Offspring between dark and light skinned parents results in a mixture of these genes, and an intermediate skin colour. Your suggestion that there are three races is quite incorrect. These are just the extreme cases for certain physical traits. There are just too many intermediate traited populations.

To layman Instinct is not right or wrong. Instinct is just a behavioural trait we need to take into account when making decisions. If we can work with instinct to achieve a better outcome, that is all to the good. As far as physical chastising goes, millions of years of evolution would not have placed this behaviour in mammals if it were harmful. One of the problems with many studies into the effects of physical punishment is that they tend to look at extremes. I am not aware of any rigorous scientific study into the effects of mild physical punishment on children. I seriously doubt that it would show any harm. The experience stevo reported is another matter entirely, and stevo has my total sympathy.

Penicillium is a genus of mould fungus, and has an enormous number of different species. Most will not produce useful quantities of penicillin. The species currently used by the industry is Penicillium chrysogenum. You are seriously unlikely to manage to isolate this species in anything other than a very well equipped laboratory. The best way to get hold of some is to buy a freeze dried specimen, and then grow it on culture medium. It can probably be bought by one of your local scientific supply companies, but you will need to phone around. At the same time, buy suitable culture medium. This can be prepared in a kitchen, and sterilised with a pressure cooker, on high for 15 to 20 minutes.

There is no doubt that violent and abusive parenting correlates strongly with children becoming violent adults. However, we are left with a nature versus nurture query. Do the children become violent because they learn to be violent, or do they become violent because they inherit genes for violence? I suspect it is a bit of both. I also doubt that non-violent parents who administer physical punishment of a more moderate nature will cause their children to become violent. I tend to look at these things from a biologist's viewpoint. If we look at other mammals, we find that mild physical admonishment is very common - indeed quite normal. A cuff with a paw, or even a bite, is used to provide negative reinforcement for undesirable behaviour, and especially behaviour that leads to the offspring entering a dangerous situation. That leads me to think that for a human to administer mild physical punishment, such as a smack, is not going to cause harm. After all, we are 'natural' animals too. It is more excessive physical punishment, leading to actual physical trauma, that is so bad.

iNow I suggest you re-read my post. You have seized on a small point you disagree with, and ignored the larger one.

Most of you guys are Americans. Ask yourself why your government is prepared to get into a war in Iraq that one writer estimates will cost $US 3 trillion in the long run, while being unwilling to spend a few billion on essential energy research. My own view is that the net must be cast wide. Research should be on short term returns like wind and solar power, and new technology nuclear fission, as well as long term benefits like nuclear fusion and ocean wave energy. I also think that we cannot wait too long for new development. Research is great, but the need for a massive increase in generation capacity ( and expanded distribution network) is now, and money needs to be poured into new power plants now. I support nuclear fission for this, since it is proven technology, and it is one of the few options that supports the sheer quantity of electricity generation that will be needed, without pouring out greenhouse gases. One estimate says that 10,000 new fission plants will be needed globally in the long run if we use no other source of power. That is difficult but doable. Less difficult if supplemented by new power sources as they become available. Options like wave energy, and large scale solar power are still a decade or three away. Research them, yes. Invest now in proven technology.

It seems to me that the postings in this thread are discussing two equal and opposite problems. 1. The over-use of jargon and stupidly obscure terminology, making papers hard to understand. 2. The opposite is to use imprecise and inaccurate language, making the clear meanings of science unclear. Is this not another case where the key is balance? Science writers should be seeking the right and propare balance - obtaining precision without descending to obscurity? If that is correct, and I think it is, then the balance will be different for each publication. A paper in 'Science' or 'Nature' should be more widely readable than a paper in a more specialised and obscure journal. This is because Science and Nature print papers on a wide range of fields, and are read by people who are not specialists in those fields. Thus, greater readability is required.

When investing money for retirement, the main principle is to spread the risk. That is - do not put all your money into one investment. Invest in a range of possibilities, so that if some fail, the rest will do what is needed, and give you an overall gain. The same must apply to researching new energy sources, and ways to generate electricity. Research many possibilities so that the ones that fail will not cause a disastrous shortfall in energy production. And of course, that is exactly what the world is doing. If solar fails, we have hot rock. If biofuels fail, we make synthetic fuel. If wave power fails, we try new generation nuclear. And so on. It is nice to have enthusiasms. But probably not a good idea to invest all your enthusiasm in one line of development.

Many of the people contributing to this forum will be very familiar with the mirror test as a means of estimating animal intelligence. Any animal able to recognise that its reflection is, in fact, only its reflection, and make use of that reflection, is considered to be high on the intelligence scale. So far, the number is restricted to man, four apes, bottlenose dophins and elephants. Now we have the first bird. Magpies have passed this test. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14552?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn14552 Other birds have shown high intelligence before, with New Caledonian crows making tools, and African grey parrots learning to use speech with meaning. How can an animal with such a small brain be so smart?

To JohnB (or anyone) a question on distribution. Do you have a more general figure for distribution losses? Like percent loss for every 1000 km transmission? But a point on energy need. Over the next decade or three we will be moving to using electricity for transport in a big way, as fuels become more costly. Electric cars, electric buses, electric trains with overhead power lines etc. There is a good chance that synthetic fuels will become common, and they will need BIG electric power input for manufacture. Add to this to the normal trend for more electric appliances per person, plus increasing population, and I suspect that the need for electricity will double within 20 years. Ditto the need for transmission capability.

I appreciate that a lot of the energy will be lost to other forms, such as sound, accelerating water, accelerating air etc. However, that portion of the energy that is converted simply to heat should be measurable. Seems to me that if you simply took an accurate temperature of the water at the top of the Niagara Falls, and another at the bottom of the falls, you should get a temperature increase. Sure, it is not the whole story, but it would be enough to demonstrate the principle.

To jimmy I applaud your post. I too, find it utterly reprehensible the way so many scientific papers are written in a way to make them almost incomprehensible. I have been known, on occasion, to go to the science library, and uplift the appropriate science dictionaries, and sit down with a paper to translate it. Literally! When I have spent an enormous amount of time rewriting the paper in language that can be understood, I re-read it and nail down the points that I need. All of which is utterly unnecessary if the damn writers in the first place exercised a little care in using good and simple English. I am not sure why they do not. Something to do with the need to impress everyone with their grasp of jargon! The jargon is definitely not required. I can always find simple English words or phrases to replace the jargon. Once I have determined from the appropriate dictionary what the jargon word means.

When we talk about natural evolutionary change, we need to specify what level of change. Homo sapiens has been on this planet about 200,000 years. That suggests that sufficient change to lead to a new species in a slow breeding species like our own normally takes hundreds of thousands of years. Simpler changes in gene frequency can take much shorter lengths of time. For example : the hemophilia gene is normally selected out of the population in about 10 generations. Damn thing keeps coming back through mutation!

Are we dooming ourselves? Short answer - no! Evolution is a long winded slow process. It takes thousands to hundreds of thousands of years to effect major change. Yet human society is changing dramatically on a decade long scale. One of those changes underway right now is an explosion of knowledge about genetics. Assuming humanity survives and progress continues, we can expect within 100 years that we will be eminently capable of genetic modification to remove harmful genes and incorporate useful genes into our offspring. My prediction is that, within a few hundred years, every human will be descended from those who were so modified, and the new human species will be genetically very healthy. Of course, choosing which genes are 'good' and which are 'bad' will be difficult. It will take the wisdom of a Solomon. Some are obvious. A gene for Parkinsons Disease will obviously be removed. What of Aspergers? Some 'sufferers' have made wonderful contributions to humanity. Should we remove that gene? I am glad it will not be my decision!

Interesting how this debate is going. It reminds me of waves crashing on the shore. The leading edge of the wave is one argument - say the comment that nations with tight gun laws also have suicides. I refute that argument and the leading edge crashes. The middle of the wave follows with its argument - say that a person who wants to suicide will do so with or without a gun. I refute that and the middle crashed. Then the tail end arrives - say a denial of the accuracy of my data. I refute that and the tail crashes. And in between waves? No arguments left, so someone tries to destroy my credibility with a personal comment. The low part of the wave with a lower tactic. Then what happens - the next wave and the same old arguments repeated to be refuted the same way. My data and statistics are good, and come from highly reputable sources. Suicide rates outside the USA are irrelevent. Places like Lithuania and Japan have high suicide rates, but so what? Japan has a suicide culture, and Lithuania has a serious problem of national depression. Either way, it is not relevent to this argument. The argument that a person who wants to suicide will do so is refuted by those who study suicides. The Harvard paper said that 90% of suicide attempts are done on impulse, and are not repeated if the attempt fails. If that impulse occurs where a gun, especially a hand-gun is available, there is a 90% chance death will result. If no gun is available, the overall statistic applies - that is a 90% chance that the suicide will fail. ParanoiA came up with a slightly novel argument - that lives are saved with guns in defense or deterrence - hence balancing the lives lost to suicide. However, in most states and all developed countries, deaths from suicide outnumber deaths from crime by a large margin. Simple arithmetic tells you that an equivalent reduction in death from suicide or death from crimes means more lives saved by the suicide reduction. In addition, the USA has 5 times the murder rate of NZ on a per capita basis, even though NZ has a high violent crime rate. This comparison applies if we make the comparison pretty much any other developed nation. That difference is gun availability. This is not a solitary statistic. Third world nations tend to have the highest murder rates, and among them the nations with high gun availability have the highest murder rate. In other words, the availability of guns leads to more deaths, not less, even excluding suicides.

To ParanoiA You are putting words in my mouth. I did not suggest banning guns. What I suggest is that tighter gun control leads to fewer deaths by suicide. Not the same thing at all. The result of differences in how strict gun control is on suicide rate - well that is an experiment that has already been done, in that different states have different levels of gun restriction. Those states that have tighter gun control have fewer deaths by suicide. My conclusion that tighter gun control reduces deaths is actually rather solid. To Sayonara Yes, I did re-read your post. I still could not make out exactly what you wanted, which is why I asked for clarification. To Pangloss You want to know my own emotional involvement. Let me tell you a true story. When I was a lot younger - in my 20's - I went with a bunch of male friends to another house for a beer drinking session, as young men do. When we were somewhat lubricated, one of the guys who lived at that house was induced to show us all his 'treasure'. He had bought a hand-gun in working order, plus a heap of ammunition, on the black market (hand-guns are strictly prohibited in NZ, except for police). He showed us all how it operated and gave us all a chance to heft it. I was surprised by its weight, and even more surprised by my own emotional response. I felt big, and powerful! After I got home and sobered up a bit, I felt utterly appalled at my own reaction. To let an instrument designed almost solely for killing people make me feel so powerful - well that was a serious disillusionment for me with regard to my self image. I felt seriously disappointed in myself. I was also in a position to observe the reactions of the other guys, and discover through the inevitable bull session that followed how they also felt. My reaction was exactly mirrored by the other guys. The main difference was that they saw nothing wrong with feeling good because they were in a position to deal death! This gives me something of an understanding of the emotional commitment gun owners have to their hand-guns. I have used rifles on many occasions, mainly for rabbit hunting, but never felt that sense of power. I do not believe there is anything positive about private ownership of hand-guns, except for that emotional thrill. The thesis that you need it for self protection is so much garbage. The United States has five times the per capita murder rate of New Zealand, but New Zealand has just as much overall violent crime. The difference is guns, and the US would be much better off with tighter restrictions, both in reducing suicides and reducing murders. Instead of guns reducing crime and reducing violence, they increase it, and dramatically. I do not want to veer off on a tangent and debate murder rates, though. The above is just to explain my own feelings about guns, since I have been asked to explain my own emotional bent. Lets keep to subject. Further to my personal emotions - yes - suicide is personal, since a flatmate of mine suicided. It was more personal since I appear to have been his only friend and his suicide occurred 48 hours after I went off on holiday, leaving him alone. I try to avoid inappropriate guilt, and I was not responsible for his suicide, but it leaves suicide as a touchy subject for me. The idea of large numbers of preventable suicides occurring due to irrational gun love leaves me unhappy. To SH3RLOCK Sure, restricting guns will not stop suicides. I have never made that claim. However, it will reduce the number of deaths from suicide. The United States has about 33,000 deaths per year from suicide, and 57% are using guns. 90% of attempts are not repeated. Simple sums show that, if there were no guns available, that would save 17,000 human lives each year. OK, the US is not going to make guns unavailable. Even with a progressive political effort, guns will be readily available for many years to come. But eventually the suicide rate would be reduced and dramatically. The argument that other factors are important is just a red herring, in relation to this debate. Again, I have not tried to suggest that society should not attack the causes of suicidal moods, such as depression. Quite the contrary. To reduce a problem such as suicide, many approaches need to be followed. However, one approach which would have very substantial positive results would be tighter gun control.