Any set of figures needs adjusting before it can be usefully reported
The last two [articles], at least, made a good effort to explain that this effect disappeared when the researchers accounted for social and demographic factors. But was there ever any point in reporting the raw finding, from before this correction was made?
Bristol physicists break 150-year-old law
By “break a law,” of course, they mean “find where the law doesn’t apply”. Can’t break a law when you’re in a jurisdiction that doesn’t have that law.
In 1996, American physicists C. L. Kane and Matthew Fisher made a theoretical prediction that if you confine electrons to individual atomic chains, the Wiedemann-Franz law could be strongly violated. In this one-dimensional world, the electrons split into two distinct components or excitations, one carrying spin but not charge (the spinon), the other carrying charge but not spin (the holon). When the holon encounters an impurity in the chain of atoms it has no choice but for its motion to be reflected. The spinon, on the other hand, has the ability to tunnel through the impurity and then continue along the chain. This means that heat is conducted easily along the chain but charge is not. This gives rise to a violation of the Wiedemann-Franz law that grows with decreasing temperature.
… because you have found conditions where the law does not apply. So: neat science. Predictable behavior from the title editor.
Scientific American claims Nuclear Fission Confirmed as Source of More than Half of Earth’s Heat
Nuclear fission powers the movement of Earth’s continents and crust, a consortium of physicists and other scientists is now reporting, confirming long-standing thinking on this topic.
But … there’s a problem. The paper’s abstract says nothing of the sort.
[U]ranium-238 and thorium-232 together contribute 20 (±error) TW to Earth’s heat flux. The neutrinos emitted from the decay of potassium-40 are below the limits of detection in our experiments, but are known to contribute 4 TW. Taken together, our observations indicate that heat from radioactive decay contributes about half of Earth’s total heat flux.
That’s radioactive decay, not fission. While they are both nuclear interactions, they are very different, and any science journalist writing on the topic should know the difference. David Biello and Scientific American screwed the pooch on this, and need to issue a mea culpa.
edit: maybe the body of the paper says something different, but it would be strange to not include it in the abstract
You may have read about photographer David Slater, and the tale of some monkey taking a self-potrait with a camera he left unattended. Techdirt wondered who owned the copyright. Monkey Business: Can A Monkey License Its Copyrights To A News Agency?
Technically, in most cases, whoever makes the actual work gets the copyright. That is, if you hand your camera to a stranger to take your photo, technically that stranger holds the copyright on the photo, though no one ever enforces this.
I pointed out the work-for-hire loophole in a tweet, but seriously doubt the macaque was in anyone’s employ. It gets better, though, because Techdirt got a takedown request, and inquired about the reason, given the questionable copyright claim.
Monkeys Don’t Do Fair Use; News Agency Tells Techdirt To Remove Photos
[W]e stand by our original analysis. We do not believe Caters News Agency has a legitimate copyright interest in the photo, and the company is in no position to issue a takedown of the images. Furthermore, even if it does turn out, through some convoluted process, that Caters does have a legitimate copyright interest in the photo, we believe that our use falls squarely into the classical confines of fair use under US copyright law. Thus, we have no plans to remove the photos or make any changes, barring Caters providing us with a sound basis for doing so.
h/t to moo
Potatoes bad, nuts good for staying slim, Harvard study finds
The findings add to the growing body of evidence that getting heavier is not just a matter of “calories in, calories out,” and that the mantra: “Eat less and exercise more” is far too simplistic. Although calories remain crucial, some foods clearly cause people to put on more weight than others, perhaps because of their chemical makeup and how our bodies process them. This understanding may help explain the dizzying, often seemingly contradictory nutritional advice from one dietary study to the next.
Every time I read a study where they imply that energy isn’t conserved, it seems that they sneak in a caveat, like this:
Although the study did not evaluate why potatoes would be particularly fattening, other research shows that starches and refined carbohydrates such as potatoes cause blood sugar and insulin to surge, which makes people feel less satisfied and eat more as a result, Mozaffarian said.
Eating more = more calories consumed.
Survey: 36% Of U.S. Adults “Not Concerned” With Electronics Power Consumption
Adults in the U.S. could use a little more education on economics and physics, it seems. We’re not drawing the connection between power consumed by our electronics and the cost of our electric bills.
A new survey from the Consumer Electronics Association found thirty-six percent of adults in the U.S. are “not concerned” with the amount of power consumed by their gadgets, gear and appliances. Sixty percent of U.S. adults, by contrast, are concerned about the cost of their electric bill.
I’m not sure where the conundrum is supposed to be. 60% vs 36%. Since that adds up to 96%, the numbers are not such that you could conclusively say that there are people who are concerned about their electric bill and yet not concerned with the amount of power their gadgets draw. I would not be surprised if such people existed, mind you, but this survey does not present any evidence of irrationality in that regard.
Americans say ‘no’ to electrics despite high gas prices
Nearly six of 10 Americans — 57% — say they won’t buy an all-electric car no matter the price of gas, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll.
That’s a stiff headwind just as automakers are developing electrics to help meet tighter federal rules that could require their fleets to average as high as 62 miles per gallon in 2025. And President Obama has set a goal of a million electric vehicles in use in the U.S. by 2015.
I’m assuming that journalism school covered metaphorical statements and the author used “stiff headwind” as he meant to.
That statistic presumably means ~40% are open to the idea. The US adult population is more than 200 million people, so in what world is a group of 80 million potential electric car drivers less than the 1 million needed to reach that goal, thus representing that stiff headwind?
Way down at the end, it is noted that
Nissan interprets the poll numbers as a good sign, pointing out that “as many as 40% are considering driving electric vehicles.”
While math is the obvious problem here, I don’t think it’s the larger issue, which is that of spin. The author/headline writer wanted to cast the story in a negative light and so they leveraged the existence of a slim-margin majority to make a statement. People resisting change really isn’t news. I wonder if they had done a poll around 1900 about the enthusiasm for driving an automobile, what kind of results they would have gotten.
Refuting Einstein: a media controversy in Ireland
At first, professional physicists paid very little attention to the story. In the few instances where their opinion was sought, the ‘debate’ was portrayed as one voice against another, not as the overwhelming consensus of 100 years of scientific evidence against one engineer. Most of all, the debate was portrayed as Kelly vs Einstein – I do not recall a single journalist draw attention to the fact that physicists’ belief in relativity stems not from a belief in Einstein, but from the mountain of experimental evidence that supports the theory (a confusion of the context of discovery with the context of justification).
The author makes a lot of good observations about what’s bad in science journalism, most of which I agree with and have pointed out a number of times in the past, such as manufacturing controversy by making it appear that both sides have equal merit. Sacrificing scientific accuracy for the sake of the appearance of neutrality is something that ultimately undermines your credibility. When the average reader gets the message that relativity is a religion, you’re doing it wrong.
… but this would violate the second law of journalism (sensationalism can never spontaneously decrease), so it will probably never happen.
Antihydrogen could lead to antigravity
Scientist also want to find out if the anti-atoms exhibit antigravity effects. This would mean the atoms would fall up instead of down. Since this would be a violation of the law of conservation of energy it is unlikely, however many scientist still find the idea worth exploring.
IOW, antihydrogen could lead to antigravity if some well-established physical principle turns out to be wrong. It hasn’t been ruled out, so it’s technically not a lie, but amore accurate title like “Gravity properties of antihydrogen to be tested” is way too boring for an article that’s not about bat-boy or some new diet. Which it could be — they could have gone with “Shed ten pounds with new antihydrogen diet!” Boy did they ever blow it on this one.