Our Strange World

Jesus The Jew! What the hell is this?

According to all of the reports I have seen, including boingboing.net, this beast apparently washed ashore on a beach in Long Island. We have no information about it, only this one photograph. Nevertheless, this is quickly becoming an internet phenomenon. The creature is grotesque, shocking to look at. The level of detail seems convincing enough. But what the hell is it?

The most popular theories put forward by internet denizens are as follows;

1. It’s a hoax, drawn up in photoshop,
2. It’s a weird demon-creature created by mad scientists in a nearby research facility,
3. It’s is a de-shelled turtle, and
4. It’s a dead dog.

My personal favorite is the idea that it is a genetically modified creature. “everyone” knows that Montauk is the site of some pretty freaky science experiments. In fact there are so many crazy ideas in that conspiracy that I could devote my life to trying to disprove them all and still fail miserably! Time travel? Mind Control! It’s like a skeptic training ground!

Basically the claims made for the government behind some kind of crazy science falls flat on the complete lack of any compelling evidence what so ever.

Whether or not this is a PS invention, I am not sure. It looks remarkably life like, but there is always the possibility that it has been digitally created. Unfortunately it is hard to prove this either way. If it is a PS hoax, it is an incredibly good one.

The possibility that this creature is a de-shelled turtle is alluring at first. I have never seen a turtle without it’s shell before, but the shape of the skull, the tail and the appendages seem plausible. Many people suggest that actually removing the shell from a turtle is extremely messy and leaves terrible wounds along the animals sides and back where the shell is ripped off. I scoured the net and only found two pictures of turtles without there shells and neither look much like the Montauk Monster at all. Click here for de-shelled turtle on a bed of ice or on rice.

These turtles do not show the wounds, but there bodies are still very much shell-shaped. They do not look anything like this picture.

Finally, the theory that it is a dead dog. Maybe a hound which fell from a yacht and drifted at sea for a week or more before washing ashore.

However, a better match would be made with a young raccoon. The short snout with what seems like a beak certainly do not belong to any dog I know of (not even a pug – you noticed the resemblance in the eyes too?). However a raccoon skull looks remarkably similar to the “monster”

And a raccoon’s hand also bears striking resemblance to the paws of the “monster”

It would appear that there is nothing mysterious about this creature. It is simply a dead, ocean soaked, naked raccoon.

I’m back at last!

It has been three long weeks of Eskom-induced internetlessness for me and my skeptical brain is aching for a little exercise! Many events in the news have caught my attention over the past weeks and I have many things I would like to talk about.

In the days to come I will talk about autism and vaccines, UFO’s and ET cover-up plots, evangelists and even a man who defecates money. Yes the world is a strange and wonderful place and never ceases to offer exciting skeptical opportunities.

Check back often for new posts.

SD

You’re glowing Dude!

I remember reading a newspaper article a few years ago addressing the concerns over the possible construction of a pebble-bed nuclear reactor about 50 kilometers from my then hometown. I can vividly recall the diagram showing concentric rings depicting the area which would be devastated should a catastrophic melt-down occur. Right there, just within the border of the outermost ring was the little circle of Midrand.

I was terrified at the prospect, but I was also only about 13 years old and I soaked up the fear mongering, convincing myself that should a nuclear reactor be built so close to home, I would surely end up with all kinds of terrible, radiation induced deformities.

I relate this story because that was the first thing I thought of when I read this news24.com article today. While we all understand the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) principle, we have to seriously consider the arguments brought forward by Tyrone Smith.

There are a few claims made by Mr. Smith which are untruthful, misleading and outright ridiculous!

The first important point for consideration is that Thyspunt has been proposed as a possible site for the construction of a nuclear reactor, but such construction is a long way off. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study performed by ESKOM and freely available online outlines the careful process by which five separate sites in the Eastern, Northern and Western Cape areas were evaluated for the construction of this reactor. Here are the findings of the study as presented on page 18 thereof;

7. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
It is important to stress that the inferences below are unsubstantiated and are based on
an intuitive assessment.
· It is possible that the normal operation of a reactor at Thyspunt and Bantamsklip
could limit future tourism development with significance for the local and provincial
economies. A substantial nuclear incident could have significant economic costs for
tourism and the associated Eastern Cape and Western Cape economies.
· It is possible that a substantial nuclear incident at Duynefontein could have a serious
impact on tourism in the Western Cape, with significant national economic costs.
· It is possible that the normal operation of a reactor at Schulpfontein or Brazil could
promote tourism locally, with economic benefits accruing at the local level. A
substantial nuclear incident is unlikely to permanently diminish the Namaqualand
tourism asset as a whole. This assumes that no major tourism developments are in
the planning process at present.

From this summary it would be reasonable to infer that the Thyspunt site would not be the first choice for the construction of this reactor.

I would now like to address some of the exagerated claims made by Mr. Smith;

“Local and international surfers…will not fancy a surf in radioactive waves” This statement demonstrates Mr Smith’s lack of understanding of the principles of a water cooled nuclear reactor. Approximately two thirds of the energy produced by a nuclear power plant is wasted thermal energy (this is comparable to coal fired power stations). This excess energy needs to be dissipated into the environment and using the water as a carrier is sensible (as this water is already used in the reactor to move the turbine).

The water can either be expelled from cooling towers as water vapor (literally a cloud) or can be discharged into large bodies of water. It is important to note that this water is NOT radioactive.

All radioactive waste is treated with the utmost care as it is extremely dangerous. For a detailed description of how the solid waste is handled please click through to Wikipedia or the California Energy Commission which has an exhaustive archive of material on the subject.

“The organisation said seawater would be used to cool the proposed plant’s condensers and then returned to the ocean.” This is factually incorrect and demonstrates Tyrone Smith’s ignorance on the functional aspects of the proposed nuclear reactor.

The remainder of Mr Smiths argument is purely fear mongering. He is trying to create public outcry by telling us that marine wildlife (including everyone’s favorite marine rapist, the dolphin) will get sucked into the water extraction pipes and be killed in the filters. This seems pretty far fetched to me and I am certain that Eskom would rather mashed-dolphin proof their cooling system before it is installed, instead of trying to clean it up after the fact.

A nuclear reactor is a finely tuned machine and it’s neither Eskom nor the South African government can afford the possible complications of sucking marine animals into the system.

I think the final point which needs addressing is the risk of a nuclear disaster. Can you name three such incidents in the course of mankinds use of nuclear reactors. It’s only been about fifty years. Okay, I’ll give you a hand;

1. The Chernobyl Disaster

2. The Three mile Island Accident

3…..

That’s right, only two major nuclear melt downs have occurred. TWO. And no deaths were reported as a result of Three Mile Island. NONE.

Smaller incidents have occurred, but only two major incidents in the history of nuclear energy generation. The nuclear reactors which would be used in Eskom’s proposed installation would be of a later generation then those used at three mile island, and are known to be safer.

In conclusion, while I am sure that there are many areas in which Mr Smith’s knowledge surpasses my own, like sex wax and right handers, I do not think that he is knowledgeable enough in the arena of nuclear reactors to have his thoughts published.

Why is the microwave so infamous?

Well, it seems that we all have a dangerous robot, intent on our destruction, lurking in our kitchens folks. Yesterday I received this e-mail;

Please read and take care, ensure that you make your families and friends aware of this. THIS ONE NEEDS TO BE SHARED!

Micro-Waved Water – one MUST read

A 26-year old guy decided to have a cup of coffee. He took a cup of water and put it in the microwave to heat it up (something that he had done numerous times before).

I am not sure how long he set the timer for, but he told me he wanted to bring the water to a boil. When the timer shut the oven off, he removed the cup from the oven. As he looked into the cup, he noted that the water was not boiling, but instantly the water in the cup ‘blew up’ into his face.

The cup remained intact until he threw it out of his hand but all the water had flown out into his face due to the build up of energy. His whole face is blistered and he has 1st and 2nd degree burns to his face, which may leave scarring. He also may have lost partial sight in his left eye. While at the hospital, the doctor who was attending to him stated that this is fairly common occurrence and water (alone) should never be heated in a microwave oven. If water is heated in this manner, something should be placed in the cup to diffuse the energy such as: a wooden stir stick, tea bag, etc. It is however a much safer choice to boil the water in a tea kettle.

General Electric’s (GE) response:

Thanks for contacting us. I will be happy to assist you. The e- mail that you received is correct. Micro waved water and other liquids do not always bubble when they reach the boiling point. They can actually get superheated and not bubble at all. The superheated liquid will bubble up out of the cup when it is moved or when something like a spoon or teabag is put into it. To prevent this from happening and causing injury, do not heat any liquid for more than two minutes per cup. After heating, let the cup stand in the microwave for thirty seconds before moving it or adding anything into it.

If you pass this on … you could very well save someone from a lot of pain and suffering.

Yes, it was in purple when I received it.

Well, I would be very sceptical of this claim.

Without going to snopes.com or breakthechain.org I will tell you why I think it’s not true;

1. It starts off with an appeal for you to spread this information – MAJOR RED FLAG!
2. The basis for the claim that water superheats and boils is a personal testimony. This is a logical fallacy; that is a type of argument which is flawed in one way or another. There are many logical fallacies (I will point out a few more later on). The fallacious misuse of anecdotal evidence is common, but entirely un-testable and is not evidence. When it is presented as evidence you have very good reason to be sceptical.
3. “he removed the cup from the oven. As he looked into the cup, he noted that the water was not boiling, but instantly the water in the cup ‘blew up’ into his face.” Can you see how weak this is? He removed the cup from the microwave, disturbing the water, moved it so that he could see into it and only THEN did it supposedly “blow up”. That just doesn’t make sense, if you disturb it, it should boil immediately, not after moving it around so much.
4. “all the water had flown out into his face due to the build up of energy” Here the author of the e-mail has tried to make the story more convincing by throwing in a scientific seeming fact, the “build up of energy”.
   
5. “the doctor who was attending to him stated that this is fairly common occurrence and water (alone) should never be heated in a microwave oven”. This is another common logical fallacy, the appeal to authority. It is used as validation of the claim. People are inclined to accept information presented to them by people in authority, even if that information is utterly untrue and would be hard to accept if it was presented by a person not in authority.
6. “something should be placed in the cup to diffuse the energy such as: a wooden stir stick, tea bag, etc”. This is more faulty science, the truth is that your coffee cup, no matter how lovely, will probably have imperfections in the surface, these imperfections help the water to boil and you do not have to put anything into the cup.
7. “General Electric’s (GE) response:” Wave as this one goes by, it’s the second use of the appeal to authority in this e-mail. I would be even more sceptical of this one as there is no reference to who wrote it, where it was published, or that it even came from GE.

However, there is a kernel of truth to this e-mail. Liquids can become superheated in microwave ovens, but only under specific conditions. In this article by Joe Wolf in the physics section of the University of New South Wales’ website superheating is discussed in excellent detail.

Even though this can happen, it is irresponsible to spread e-mails like this one. It spreads FUD, that is Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Whenever you receive an e-mail like this, please look for the evidence and the flaws before passing it on to your friends. If the e-mail does not convey the information in a reasonable, responsible way, PRESS DELETE!