I Reject Your False Null Hypothesis!....at least I think I maybe do.

Do two negatives make a positive? In math they do, but how about in the world of science? If you attack a hypothesis that used bad science with bad science does that make it null?

A long time ago I took a logic class in college and one of the arguments had something to do with fish, gills and whales. If I remember it went something like this:

Fish swim in the sea, whales swim in the sea, therefore all Whales are fish

In the world of toxicology we have to make a lot of conjecture simply because no one wants to volunteer to be the “case” side for the dose. There are a number of scientists that think endocrine disruptors - small amounts of natural and synthetic hormones or chemicals that act like hormones - are causing a number of health issues, primarily male reproductive problems and breast cancer. There is evidence to show in laboratory studies that this is plausible, however, in humans the link is not adequately supported according to some scientists.

Dr. Stephen Safe with Texas A&M University lectured our class the other day discussing his paper called “Endocrine disruptors and human health: is there a problem” (note: there is no question mark at the end so I am not sure if it is a statement or a question)

Good science needs it skeptics, and when it comes to endocrine disruptors there is no bigger naysayer than Dr. Safe. For the record, I tend to be skeptical about a lot of conclusions about cause and effect, but I try to have an open mind so that I don’t miss the truth, at least the truth that can be supported by sound science.

And therein lies the problem with Dr. Safe's lecture and paper on endocrine disruptors. He believes, and he has published support for his point of view, that their hypothesis is based on incorrect or inaccurate data. The foundation for their belief is that endocrine-active chemicals may be responsible for the increased incidence of breast cancer and disorders of the male reproductive tract. If this foundation is not true, as Dr. Safe suggests, then their hypothesis is not correct.

Dr. Safe makes a convincing argument and backs it up with his own meta-analysis. So what is a lowly grad student like me supposed to take away from this? Well for me, if I am not convinced or have concerns with the premise then I will have a heck of a time convincing someone else in the general public that knows less than I do.

Where he lost me, both in his lecture and in his paper, was on “Xenoestrogens and breast cancer” A xenoestrogen is defined as a by-products of industrial or chemical processing that have estrogen-like effects. There are three major naturally occurring estrogens in women, estradiol, estriol, and estrone. Each one does something different but they are all called estrogens. From his paper:

"The endocrine disruptor hypothesis regarding decreased male reproductive capacity suggest that inappropriate in utero exposure to estrogens plays a role in the testicular dysgenesis syndrome (TDS) Swerdlow et al. (1997) tested this hypothesis by investigating the rates of testicular cancer [in] dizygotic and monozygotic twins since studies have shown that free estrogen levels are [naturally] higher in the former group. Their results showed that there was a 50% increase in the risk for testicular cancer in dizygotic compared to monozygotic twins."

To counter this, Dr. Safe then writes, in the same paragraph:

"A recent twin study from Denmark directly tested the role of in utero exposure to estrogens on sperm counts/quality of singletons mono- and dizygotic twins [showed] no significant differences in sperm quality in any of the three groups of men and concluded that “higher prenatal concentrations of oestrogen are not related to reduced sperm counts in adulthood.” Offspring of women who were prescribed high pharmacologic doses of DES or estrogens during pregnancy are among the highest in utero exposed individuals to hormones. Studies in the United States and Finland showed that fertility in these high exposure groups was not different from a control population."

So here is where I scratch my head and say "say what?!?":

• Does the higher concentration of oestrogen mean the same effect would be seen for any of the other estorgens, single or combined?
• Is there an additive, synergistic, or potentiating effect that low levels of Xenoestrogens could play that are different than what the natural production of hormones would show, or the consumption of a single hormone, like DES would show. I am reading this as: Because oestrogen and DES are estrogen-like, any estrogen-like material would show similar results.
• Swerdlow showed an “increase in the risk for testicular cancer” to support the hypothesis whereas Dr. Safe rebuts this with research that showed “no significant differences in sperm quality.” An apples and oranges problem here.
  

Like I said I am just a lowly grad student trying to figure out how all this stuff fits together. The fact that I pose these questions may prove that I am ignorant as all get out. But because I do, because they are there and I can see them, they can be asked by anyone.

If we has a profession are going to tell people to be afraid we better have something real to show them, and if we tell them not to worry, we had better be beyond reproach.

Throwing the first stone

It was a simple question, “who are you voting for?” asked to random University of North Texas students in the October 24, 2008 Homecoming Edition of the North Texas Daily.

“John McCain” Senior Sarah Carroll responded. “Mostly for moral issues” she replied when asked why.

So what are these “moral issues” that persons of Ms. Carroll’s persuasion speak about? And why do they attach them to Republicans, and more specifically, to Sarah Palin?

Is it Abortion? I think a lot of folks tend to vote Republican for their steadfast opposition towards Row v. Wade wrapping them in the morality blanket called “pro life.” This one single issue does produce a conundrum for those voters that see abortion as a strong moral issue.

But it is not just abortion that has led the self-proclaimed righteous ones that tag themselves as “values voters.” No, it is this simplistic idea that if you say you are Christian, wear a flag pen, decorate your car with a yellow ribbon, and fly the American flag you are somehow more moral then those of us that think deeds matter more than labels.

So there was McCain, struggling with his base of conservative value voters. Despite what he has persevered through, what he has done while in congress, and how he has led his life, he just wasn’t conservative enough for the base. No, they needed someone like them, someone they could identify as having Christian values. Enter Sarah Palin. “OMG! She is sooooo, like, value plus!”

There is a strange dichotomy on the Right. They like her for what they think she is, they do not like McCain because of what they think he isn’t. So using just a bit of irony and logic here ……

• Palin was born in 1964, that puts her at 44 years old
• She had attended the Wasilla Assembly of God, a Pentecostal church, for 32 years and until 2002.
• In 2002 Palin was 38 years old, which means she has been raised in a Pentecostal environment since she was about six years of age.
• She was the head of the “Fellowship of Christian Athletes” chapter at her high school.
• She was married on August 29, 1988.
• Her son, Track, was born on April 20, 1989 when she was 25.

OK, so if I do the math correctly that means Track was born…..premature!

Is this one of those “mostly for moral issues” things that girl was talking about? It is not that Palin needs to be tarred and feathered for her sin, heck there but before the grace of God go I, but come on! She is as far from being a poster girl for morals as Bill Clinton is.

At some point you need to see yourself as flawed, which means that everyone else is flawed too. You don’t own morality because you claim yourself to be a Christian or conservative. Even with Jesus in her life, 25 years of age, the Church, and her Christian Values, Palin still sinned.

I just wonder if that was Hilary would these “moral issues” voters be so forgiving about her past?

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I was going to write a blog entry dealing with the hypocrisy of the NRA using Charlton Heston’s own words. It was going to be great, if I do say so myself, a real work of wordsmanship that maybe two people might ever read.

I am not fond of any group that paints a black and white picture of the world and then uses propaganda to keep their faithful in line. No one deserve my dislike for their practices and unbridled vitriol more than the NRA – so with all their smugness about what a patriot is, I was winding up to throw out a spitball that would put them in their place.

And there they were, Heston’s own words and the NRA tribute juxtaposed against their opposition to banning “cop killer bullets.” That’s right, the NRA wants to allow for the sale of “cop killer bullets” while touting how patriotic, moral, and law abiding they are. What better way to show just how hypocritical they are than holding up their support for – yes, one more time – “cop killer bullets.”

Since this is a rather old story I wanted to get a little background so I typed in to Google “NRA cop killer bullets.” And guess what I found out? There are no such things as “cop killer bullets.” This story came out around 1982 and was the result of a company named KTW that developed a line of handgun ammunition using brass coated with Teflon to prevent damage to firearm barrels caused by firing hard metal projectiles through them.

So…..you mean to tell me they were not designed to kill cops? Not just "no" you moron, but in fact, from what I have read, both the Justice and Treasury Departments tests showed that the Teflon had little or no effect on penetrating soft body armor.

Damn it! There goes my great story idea.

Now don’t get me wrong, I still dislike the NRA’s method, tactics, and philosophy. They have shown themselves to be mean spirited bullies when they do not get their way. But I cannot perpetuate a mistruth even if it would support my position perfectly.

What I find odd about all of this is that for 25 or so years I thought there were actually “cop killer bullets” being produced for sale by anyone that felt the need to own them.

But then when I look at it is it really all that surprising I would think that? Now one can blame the “main stream liberal media” because, you know, they hate guns and want them banned, but really that is too pat an answer. It was more the result of hype to get attention for a news story, then the “in theory it could happen” mentality caught on, followed by “we need to do something about this possibility,” which then was immediately countered with the NRA’s “they just want to take our guns – stop them!” battle cry. Lost in all of this was the truth.

So next time you hear someone tell you Obama wants to change the National Anthem because he doesn’t’ place his hand over his heart because he is a Muslim and his wife is not proud to be an American. Pause for a second and ask:

Is that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

My name is Jeff and I am a....gamer

I like to consider myself a gamer. I will never be as good as those 2/3 my age, but still I profess a liking and commitment to play them through to the end. I play only on the PC as I have never mastered the art of pressing six buttons in some particular order quick enough to beat the opponent I am up against. I also do not like first person shooters due to not being able to see behind me or on my sides. Which is why I like games from Blizzard.

I got into gaming when a friend of mine told me that he and his son were playing a game called Orcs and Humans. I was hooked, literally. There I was stumbling into work after finally beating the level at, oh, 4:00 in the morning. Apparently gamer must mean “he who sleeps little.” From there I played Warcraft, Starcraft, Diablo II, and then left Blizzard to try my hand at EverQuest, one of the first successful on-line multi-player game. This was back in the days of dial up which on large raids was an interesting endeavor as key people became disconnected or “DC’d” right in the middle of a fight.

To this day, EQ still holds the top position for depth of play in my humble opinion. But nothing can hold a candle to the all around game play and beauty of World of Warcraft. What I like about WoW is all the things I hated about EQ. Your character actually hits his foe, the skeletons don’t look like an empty toilet roll with a skull head, and best of all, everything you pick up has a purpose – crap to sell or crap for a quest. In EQ there were thousands of things that no one had discovered a use for – so for questers like me – I hung on to everything. Thank Rodcet Nife they started a shared bank slot!

What I hated about EQ most was the ridicules way you went about questing. Once figured out, you followed the directions posted on web sites. But for the ones still locked up, it was, well kind of stupid. First you had to find the NPC that would start the quest. No little yellow exclamation points over their head in EQ. You had to find them among all the thousands of NPCs that were in place. In terms of size, EQ is to North America as Wow is to Rhode Island.

So there you would be trying to find out if the grave dust you collected in some zone is part of a quest. You would walk up to an NPC and type in a question. The problem was you had no idea if this was the correct NPC or if you asked the question correctly. No response – move to the next one. But wait! Some NPCs would only appear at certain hours of the day or night. That is the one you needed, but in order to talk to him you have to bribe him with some ale. I kid you not – there were quests like this that someone figured out. So you would wait, and wait, and wait for the NPC to show only to find out that “opps sorry”, he was camped by another player who got him before you showed up. Come back in 24 hours.

But still I played until the time waiting for a group to quest or raid got to be drudgery. Which got me into WoW when it came out. Started on day one played ever since with a few months off to concentrate on school. But WoW also brought about the drudgery of “LFG” looking for group). I was lucky enough to be in a guild that could raid the upper stuff – but that demands more time than I want to give. Time is what it takes to move up in these types of multi=player games – and unless you can devote the time it takes to learn the fights you become less and less wanted because of your noobiness and chance to wipe the whole darn raid. So I either commit to playing three nights a week from 11:00 till about 3:00 in the morning or I sit there “LFG.” Wow is turned off right now….until the next expansion.

TRAIN!!!!!!!

The two McCains

Trey Parker and Matt Stone put out some of the best parody and satire around. The sad thing is that they would have never made it this far had they not been able to meld the two ingredients - lampoon and shock value - together to get a large number of eyeballs to watch the show. In the beginning it was more the latter but as they have matured so has the show particularly in its parody sophistication. Without the crudeness it would not have an audience anywhere near what it has now, and without the wit it would not be watched by people like me. What an odd combination of the two. But it works.

Which brings me to John McCain. He was on Letterman last night to eat crow about missing a scheduled appearance on the show. What struck me was how much I like John McCain when he is being John McCain. When he is in political mode – he makes me turn away. So there I was watching the two different McCain’s talk when it dawned on me why I am bothered by it. It doesn’t work.

The idea behind the straight talk express was for McCain to be McCain. It worked getting him the nomination because there is a lot of substance there. Not everyone in the Republican Party wanted him, but enough did to cause the others to drop out. But getting your Party’s nomination and winning the election are two different things which McCain soon found out would be his situation. He needed the Republican base and that base doesn’t want straight talk they want red meat.

Enter Sarah Palin. She is everything that McCain is not to the base. An evangelical-gun loving-gay loathing-conservative values-liberal hating-rhetoric spewing answer to what is all wrong with America. She is the artery-clogging red meat that was necessary to “energize” the folks that now make up the base of the Republican Party. These are the same ones that would have stayed home on Election Day because McCain was just not conservative enough for them.

So McCain parked the straight talk bus and tried to disguise himself as red meat too. Trouble is he is not. Parker and Stone can make South Park work because they understand both aspects of what their show has to be in order for it to be successful. When they are crude it is because they themselves think it is funny – they get it. And when they parody and lampoon - they get that too. They understand it because they can relate to it, and because they relate to it they can pull it off.

McCain does not understand or relate to the base he needs for support so when he tries to placate them it falls flat and the attempt turns me away. He is substance only and substance doesn’t sell to the Republican base that doesn’t want to hear straight talk. They want to hear and be fed terrible things about Obama – and McCain don’t play that – at least not very well.

Neither Obama nor McCain will win because of the votes from people like me. We are drowned out by the “kill him” mindset that makes up too many of my fellow Americans. They care little about the substance in the rhetoric thrown to them. This needs to change. Call me naive but I really do think straight talk and hope are tangible but only if their messengers believe fully in them.

"You know what, I've learned something today…"

NIMBY and Risk

Christine Todd Whitman, the former Administrator of the EPA and former Governor of New Jersey spoke at our September ACHMM conference in Minneapolis, MN. I was impressed. The point of her talk was that we need to have balance in what we present for the future in terms of economic growth and meeting current and future energy needs. Her mantra was:

“We need to stop saying “no.”

The use of the word “no” dates back probably to the first true word uttered by man. Even God told Adam and Eve “just say no.” Unfortunately we have taken to saying the word “no” when we should be saying “yes – but proceed with caution.” Barack Obama has been very cautious in not mentioning nuclear power as a potential energy source for fear his base will jump ship. This is a prime example of not looking at what is best all around. You want to lower your carbon foot print – go nuclear, you want to reduce pollutants into the air – go nuclear, you want to lower the amount of foreign oil you import – go nuclear.

So why not go nuclear? Two reasons:

• That’s what the Republicans suggest – so the Democrats must say “no.”
• The public does not understand no such thing as zero risk.

And that is what drives policy – one side says go which the other side must, for their own self interests, boldly state “stop.” Then mixed into these two sides is a public that has not been educated on how to properly assess risk. In fact – they have been lead to believe that any risk is bad unless they themselves choose to partake in it.

“But the nuclear plants will generate waste that will stay radioactive for like a million years!” So? If properly managed – for example at Yucca Mountain – it will not present a risk. In order to have a problem that must be exposure, in order to have exposure it must be transported through the environment to the receptor (i.e. human). Tucked deep inside the salt mine – it ain’t a going anywhere.

"But to get it to the site it must be transported – it could be released then!” Not likely (and therein lies the problem – I can’t say it ain’t a never going to happen). How can I say not likely? Because I have seen for myself that they have engineered transportation caskets that can be hit by a train and remain closed. They have engineered out a real potential concern while the waste is being transported. If it can withstand a train it can withstand a truck or car or possible explosive device.

"But...but...but...well anyway still, not in my backyard!"

A grenade poses a substantial risk, however it was engineered to be safe when the pin is in place. If you take that same grenade and bury it deep in the ground it will still pose the same capability as it did before – but the risk of harm is minimized to a point where we could all reasonably say – “I am safe from that grenade.”

That is how we need to look at everything that posses a risk – can we engineer out the risk to a point where we can reasonably say “My concerns have been addressed.” It is not about risk vs. reward but about lowering the risk to a point where we can all feel comfortable. That means both sides have to give, and, in the words of Ms Whitman:

“We need to stop saying “no.”

Just Because I.......

I hate being labeled. And, if I am honest with myself, I will admit I do it too. It is easy to quantify what you see or hear for a second or two into a black or white sound bite label. But we are, or at least I am, more than just a label. Most folks I know are a little bit of this and that (queue Marie Osmond!). I am not an enigma but a mixture of many things I have seen and experienced over time. I have remained basically the same in my core values but have thrown out beliefs that can’t stand solidly on their own. So what you see is not always what you think I am.

Just because I am for government control of health care does not make me a socialist

Just because I am against school prayer does not make me an atheist.

Just because I do not hunt does not mean I support PETA.

Just because I like guns does not mean I like the NRA.

Just because I want abortion to end does not mean I am not pro-choice.

Just because I am for the environment does not make me against industry.

Just because I believe man evolved over a period of time does not mean I do not believe in a God.

Just because I do not go to church does not mean I have no faith

Just because I am against the war does not mean I am against the troops.

Just because I want a lean, fiscally sound government does not make me a conservative.

Just because I like John McCain does not make me a Republican.

And just because I will vote for Barack Obama does not make me a liberal.