Brain gym

[Srelex]

Who else has heard of this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_gym

Having read up on it, I can agree with those who consider it pseudoscientific nonsense--but what's really galling is that it's taken seriously in many schools in Britain, and less surprisingly in the US and Canada. Now, this made me wonder what other pseudoscience, besides creationism, is promoted in such places as North America.

[Broomstick]

Bullshit like that gets taken seriously because people are always seeking a magic bullet to cure the disabilities it purports to help.

[Serafina]

It works.

That is, any kind of non-straining exercise helps with learning.
There is absolutely no need to assume that these "special exercises" are any better than, say, a couple of situps.

A bit of googling (and even Wikipedia) casts a sufficient shadow of doubt to declare this pseudoscience.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Plus, the guy in the article looks like he owns a van without windows. That's always a red flag.

[Darth Wong]

Who else has heard of this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_gym

Having read up on it, I can agree with those who consider it pseudoscientific nonsense--but what's really galling is that it's taken seriously in many schools in Britain, and less surprisingly in the US and Canada. Now, this made me wonder what other pseudoscience, besides creationism, is promoted in such places as North America.

Those stupid "no cell phone" warning signs are placed next to all gas pumps in Ontario because our idiot politicians actually bought into those moronic lies about cell-phone signals igniting gasoline fumes.

Pseudoscience is everywhere, and while must of it is religious, a lot of it also comes from the simple fact that people are generally stupid, and the majority of the population sucked at science class when they were in school. Of course, you wouldn't know it from the way everyone is so confident of his opinion on complex scientific matters in the political sphere ...

[Ryan Thunder]

Those stupid "no cell phone" warning signs are placed next to all gas pumps in Ontario because our idiot politicians actually bought into those moronic lies about cell-phone signals igniting gasoline fumes.

Pseudoscience is everywhere, and while must of it is religious, a lot of it also comes from the simple fact that people are generally stupid, and the majority of the population sucked at science class when they were in school. Of course, you wouldn't know it from the way everyone is so confident of his opinion on complex scientific matters in the political sphere ...

Some of it may simply be that nobody's caused them to actually think about it (people, I mean.) For example, the problems with that cell phone stuff didn't occur to me until you mentioned that it was bullshit, because I'd been taught that it was the case ever since I was a child and thus assumed it was correct because nothing had challenged it.

[Surlethe]

You never thought to challenge it yourself? Being able to criticize and challenge your own beliefs is a key component of critical thinking. It's also important to recognize the limitations of your knowledge and have a sense of where your beliefs are tenuous and where they are assuredly well-founded. For example, if you have never had a thermodynamics class in your life, you must a priori question any opinions you have that involve heat transfer -- in particular, this cell phone nonsense.

[Darth Wong]

Those stupid "no cell phone" warning signs are placed next to all gas pumps in Ontario because our idiot politicians actually bought into those moronic lies about cell-phone signals igniting gasoline fumes.

Pseudoscience is everywhere, and while must of it is religious, a lot of it also comes from the simple fact that people are generally stupid, and the majority of the population sucked at science class when they were in school. Of course, you wouldn't know it from the way everyone is so confident of his opinion on complex scientific matters in the political sphere ...

Some of it may simply be that nobody's caused them to actually think about it (people, I mean.) For example, the problems with that cell phone stuff didn't occur to me until you mentioned that it was bullshit, because I'd been taught that it was the case ever since I was a child and thus assumed it was correct because nothing had challenged it.

OK, let's look at some basic individual-level observations that you could have used to challenge this cell-phone thing yourself:

1) Have you ever used a cell-phone?
2) Did the cell-phone cause massive burns to your face?
3) Is the cell-phone hotter than the exhaust pipe of a warmed-up car?
4) How long would the cell-phone battery last if it were putting out power commensurate with, say, a microwave oven?

Think about this. This goes double for those stupid faked Youtube videos where they pop popcorn with cell-phones.

[Ryan Thunder]

Yeah, I know, I did calcs to show that the radiation produced by a cellphone was less intense than that recieved by the sun even if it was next to your head once.

The connection just never occurred to me until I actually asked myself whether the notion of cellphone signals igniting gasoline made sense or not. It lasted all of about 2 seconds after that.

[Winston Blake]

OK, let's look at some basic individual-level observations that you could have used to challenge this cell-phone thing yourself:

1) Have you ever used a cell-phone?
2) Did the cell-phone cause massive burns to your face?
3) Is the cell-phone hotter than the exhaust pipe of a warmed-up car?
4) How long would the cell-phone battery last if it were putting out power commensurate with, say, a microwave oven?

What about electromagnetic induction causing microscopic sparks? When I first heard about the 'mobile phones can spark fumes' thing, my instant reaction was to hypothesise that induction was the reason. Hertz' historical radio experiments with inducing sparks in a metal ring are well-known, as is lighting a fluoro tube remotely with a Tesla coil. I did not (and do not) know or care about the design details of all the equipment used at petrol stations. Until I encountered studies proving that such ignition concerns were invalid, I considered it basically plausible.

Think about this. This goes double for those stupid faked Youtube videos where they pop popcorn with cell-phones.

Now that is just goddamn stupid.

[Surlethe]

Offhand, what's the difference between metal and gasoline with regard to the ability to be heated via electromagnetic induction?

[Winston Blake]

Offhand, what's the difference between metal and gasoline with regard to the ability to be heated via electromagnetic induction?

Since hydrocarbons are non-polar and non-conductive, they shouldn't be affected by eddy currents & ohmic heating. I'm no expert or anything, but I expect microwaves would just pass through petrol with almost no effect. For example, microwave ovens are poor at heating cooking oil - to fry food in the microwave there needs to be water (or other polar substances) mixed in the food.

In fact, fears about mobile phones directly heating petrol could be handily disproved by microwaving a small plastic bag with a little petrol inside. The power is obviously vastly higher than any phone, yet I expect the petrol would not even boil. I say 'a bag', because that would hopefully prevent any fumes from wafting into the circuitry of the microwave oven.

[Darth Wong]

OK, let's look at some basic individual-level observations that you could have used to challenge this cell-phone thing yourself:

1) Have you ever used a cell-phone?
2) Did the cell-phone cause massive burns to your face?
3) Is the cell-phone hotter than the exhaust pipe of a warmed-up car?
4) How long would the cell-phone battery last if it were putting out power commensurate with, say, a microwave oven?

What about electromagnetic induction causing microscopic sparks?

If there's enough static electricity on objects near the gasoline for an electromagnetically induced spark to ignite the fumes, you've got a very dangerous situation with or without a magnetic field present (never mind the puny field from a cell-phone).

When I first heard about the 'mobile phones can spark fumes' thing, my instant reaction was to hypothesise that induction was the reason. Hertz' historical radio experiments with inducing sparks in a metal ring are well-known, as is lighting a fluoro tube remotely with a Tesla coil. I did not (and do not) know or care about the design details of all the equipment used at petrol stations. Until I encountered studies proving that such ignition concerns were invalid, I considered it basically plausible.

I hate to break it to you, but that's really, really dumb. You're ignoring magnitude. You can concoct some bullshit mechanism for just about anything if you disregard magnitude; that is actually how a lot of pseudoscience is packaged and sold to the public.

[Rogue 9]

Who else has heard of this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_gym

Having read up on it, I can agree with those who consider it pseudoscientific nonsense--but what's really galling is that it's taken seriously in many schools in Britain, and less surprisingly in the US and Canada. Now, this made me wonder what other pseudoscience, besides creationism, is promoted in such places as North America.

Those stupid "no cell phone" warning signs are placed next to all gas pumps in Ontario because our idiot politicians actually bought into those moronic lies about cell-phone signals igniting gasoline fumes.

They're on gas pumps across the United States as well; it's hardly just Ontario.

[Winston Blake]

When I first heard about the 'mobile phones can spark fumes' thing, my instant reaction was to hypothesise that induction was the reason. Hertz' historical radio experiments with inducing sparks in a metal ring are well-known, as is lighting a fluoro tube remotely with a Tesla coil. I did not (and do not) know or care about the design details of all the equipment used at petrol stations. Until I encountered studies proving that such ignition concerns were invalid, I considered it basically plausible.

I hate to break it to you, but that's really, really dumb. You're ignoring magnitude. You can concoct some bullshit mechanism for just about anything if you disregard magnitude; that is actually how a lot of pseudoscience is packaged and sold to the public.

Like I said, I don't care about the design of petrol station equipment. If the staff tells me that something there is dangerously sensitive to mobile phones, then I'm not going to bark in their faces and talk loudly on my phone while glaring at them sideways. All I'm saying is that it's not such an implausible risk that it can be dismissed out of hand based on thermodynamics alone, because that's not the sole possible mechanism.

Hospitals are a similar case. I have no idea what is so sensitive to EMI in hospitals that mobile phone usage is banned, but hey, there seems to be something. To my reasoning, such equipment should obviously be shielded, therefore such fears should be baseless.

[Darth Wong]

Like I said, I don't care about the design of petrol station equipment. If the staff tells me that something there is dangerously sensitive to mobile phones, then I'm not going to bark in their faces and talk loudly on my phone while glaring at them sideways.

Apathy is not an excuse for thinking that it's plausible. It's just an excuse for not getting into arguments about it.

All I'm saying is that it's not such an implausible risk that it can be dismissed out of hand based on thermodynamics alone, because that's not the sole possible mechanism.

Bullshit. The other mechanism you proposed was stupid because of magnitude: since when does a cell-phone create such immensely powerful magnetic fields that you would be afraid of it inducing significant static discharge from nearby objects? Do you see coronal discharge around your phone? Look, if you just didn't give it any thought, I could understand that. But actually researching a mechanism and then ignoring magnitude is the path to pseudoscience, complete with paving.

Hospitals are a similar case. I have no idea what is so sensitive to EMI in hospitals that mobile phone usage is banned, but hey, there seems to be something. To my reasoning, such equipment should obviously be shielded, therefore such fears should be baseless.

If I ran a hospital I would ban cell-phones inside the building just because I wouldn't want workers using the damned things while on the job. Of course, there's also the possibility that there is certain very sensitive diagnostic equipment which picks up those kinds of emissions. That's not related to the idea that cell-phones create monster magnetic fields or powerful heating radiation which would set off gasoline fumes or pop popcorn.

[Oskuro]

I personally was under the impression that the notion behind banning cellphones in gas stations was to prevent users from being distracted while operating the gas pump. As for hospitals, I believe it has more to do with the actual ringing of the phones being a nuisance to patients, same reason you're not supposed to use your car's horn around them.

[Winston Blake]

Like I said, I don't care about the design of petrol station equipment. If the staff tells me that something there is dangerously sensitive to mobile phones, then I'm not going to bark in their faces and talk loudly on my phone while glaring at them sideways.

Apathy is not an excuse for thinking that it's plausible. It's just an excuse for not getting into arguments about it.

I'm not talking about winning or losing arguments, I'm talking about a certain threshold of disbelief in trusting people to do their jobs, in fields that one knows little about and cares little about.

All I'm saying is that it's not such an implausible risk that it can be dismissed out of hand based on thermodynamics alone, because that's not the sole possible mechanism.

Bullshit. The other mechanism you proposed was stupid because of magnitude: since when does a cell-phone create such immensely powerful magnetic fields that you would be afraid of it inducing significant static discharge from nearby objects? Do you see coronal discharge around your phone?

I don't even understand this. 'Inducing discharge from nearby objects'? Corona discharge? In no way was I suggesting that sparks would leap from nearby objects to the phone due to actual breakdown of the air. There need not be obvious effects like corona discharge (or 'massive burns to the face' for direct heating). EMR capable of causing small sparks can be imperceptible. More intense EMR capable of trashing electrical equipment can be imperceptible.

Look, if you just didn't give it any thought, I could understand that. But actually researching a mechanism and then ignoring magnitude is the path to pseudoscience, complete with paving.

There was no 'research' involved. I had read a book about Heinrich Hertz's ring experiments when in was in primary school (something like 'What is Radio?'). A spark on one side of a room can induce a broken metal ring to spark on the other side of the room.

OK, so I ignored magnitude. I admit I gave it hardly any thought. Radiated power was the farthest thing from my mind back then, years ago. I simply encountered a phenomenon and spontaneously hypothesised a possible mechanism. I did not give it as an explanation to other people, nor did I assume it was the correct explanation. It was simply a sufficient basis for me to accept official warnings as basically plausible, in that they were not blatantly and obviously baseless (e.g. did not require severely injuring people). I don't think this is unreasonable.

Hospitals are a similar case. I have no idea what is so sensitive to EMI in hospitals that mobile phone usage is banned, but hey, there seems to be something. To my reasoning, such equipment should obviously be shielded, therefore such fears should be baseless.

If I ran a hospital I would ban cell-phones inside the building just because I wouldn't want workers using the damned things while on the job. Of course, there's also the possibility that there is certain very sensitive diagnostic equipment which picks up those kinds of emissions. That's not related to the idea that cell-phones create monster magnetic fields or powerful heating radiation which would set off gasoline fumes or pop popcorn.

The point I was making was that I was told that it was due to EMI, and I accepted it on the staff's authority. Their warnings met my internal standard of disbelief because there was a possible mechanism, even though such a mechanism should not cause problems.

[Steel]

There was a funny experiment done on a show called brainiac over here a few years ago. They filled a caravan with barrels of petrol, poured petrol and lighter fluid and loads of other flammable crap all over the insides. Then allowed it to vaporise and fill the air with a good flammable mixture. Then called the 50 various models of phones stashed inside at once. Absolutely nothing happens for 15 minutes. Then they take one person wearing a raincoat and have them work up a charge by jogging in a plastic paddling pool for a minute. That person then touches the end of a wire leading into the caravan and the whole thing goes up!

Not the most rigourous experiment, but I found it pretty convincing that there is no reasonable danger due to phone radiation. I think its still reasonable based on retards managing to cover themselves in petrol while talking (which I did see once). Not sure how they manage it given its supposed to cut off when you overfill isnt it?

[Darth Wong]

I'm not talking about winning or losing arguments, I'm talking about a certain threshold of disbelief in trusting people to do their jobs, in fields that one knows little about and cares little about.

This seems hardly relevant if you were getting this from Internet rumour instead of scientists or engineers, for whom it would actually be their jobs.

EMR capable of causing small sparks can be imperceptible. More intense EMR capable of trashing electrical equipment can be imperceptible.

Induction is a function of EMF, not EMR. And it's pointless to say that it's "imperceptible". Even a very powerful magnetic field is usually imperceptible. You don't see aurora borealis around an MRI machine. The point is that a cell-phone doesn't have the power to create a powerful magnetic field.

OK, so I ignored magnitude. I admit I gave it hardly any thought. Radiated power was the farthest thing from my mind back then, years ago. I simply encountered a phenomenon and spontaneously hypothesised a possible mechanism. I did not give it as an explanation to other people, nor did I assume it was the correct explanation. It was simply a sufficient basis for me to accept official warnings as basically plausible, in that they were not blatantly and obviously baseless (e.g. did not require severely injuring people). I don't think this is unreasonable.

As I said, if you didn't give it any thought that's understandable. In your first post, you made it appear as if you actually did give it some thought, and declared that it was plausible until you were informed otherwise.

The point I was making was that I was told that it was due to EMI, and I accepted it on the staff's authority. Their warnings met my internal standard of disbelief because there was a possible mechanism, even though such a mechanism should not cause problems.

Not knowing much about the kind of diagnostic equipment in use in hospitals, I would hesitate to assume that EMI should not cause problems. There are plenty of kinds of electronic equipment which are quite sensitive to EMI. You could argue that they should all be heavily shielded, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are.

[Broomstick]

The point I was making was that I was told that it was due to EMI, and I accepted it on the staff's authority. Their warnings met my internal standard of disbelief because there was a possible mechanism, even though such a mechanism should not cause problems.

Not knowing much about the kind of diagnostic equipment in use in hospitals, I would hesitate to assume that EMI should not cause problems. There are plenty of kinds of electronic equipment which are quite sensitive to EMI. You could argue that they should all be heavily shielded, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are.

Also remember that there is a lot of older equipment in hospitals that may not be economical to either thoroughly shield or replace. I expect wherever possible new machinery for hospitals is made resistant to such interference but I don't expect them to throw out everything older than X years if it is still usable.

Medicine is not the only field where this is a consideration, either.

Since it's much cheaper to ask people to turn off the damn phones than to gut and re-do hospitals that's another reason why the signs are there.

[Winston Blake]

I'm not talking about winning or losing arguments, I'm talking about a certain threshold of disbelief in trusting people to do their jobs, in fields that one knows little about and cares little about.

This seems hardly relevant if you were getting this from Internet rumour instead of scientists or engineers, for whom it would actually be their jobs.

True, but I didn't get it from internet rumour. The warning signs have been present in Australia for years now. The staff who decided to put up those signs are the personnel I'm referring to.

EMR capable of causing small sparks can be imperceptible. More intense EMR capable of trashing electrical equipment can be imperceptible.

Induction is a function of EMF, not EMR. And it's pointless to say that it's "imperceptible". Even a very powerful magnetic field is usually imperceptible. You don't see aurora borealis around an MRI machine. The point is that a cell-phone doesn't have the power to create a powerful magnetic field.

I'm familiar with using 'EMR' to refer to RF and microwave frequencies, both of which are certainly capable of induction. I'm only familiar with 'EMF' either as a general physics term, or as referring to very slowly changing fields like those of pulsed magnets.

I see the main point as being whether or not warnings about ignition can be summarily dismissed because no obvious and severe effects are present. You say here that even very powerful magnetic fields are usually imperceptible; regardless of the radiated power necessary to cause ignition, you must admit that imperceptible ignition by induction is a much more plausible mechanism than face-burning heat, even though it is not actually plausible. My point from the beginning, which I seem not to have made clear, is that that was enough for me to provisionally accept the official warnings I encountered.

Regarding the actual supposed mechanism, I have gone a-googling and have found the reasoning behind the warnings:

Manufacturers have said there is a risk

It's always tempting to dismiss "pass it on" rumors as bunk, but the fact is that mobile phone manufacturers have warned consumers in the past against using the devices near gas pumps. This is an excerpt from a Motorola brochure for the Satellite Series 9500 Portable Telephone:

[T]his telephone has not been designed or approved for use in potentially explosive atmospheres. Areas with a potentially explosive atmosphere are often, not always, clearly marked.

Potentially explosive atmospheres include:
Fueling areas such as gasoline stations
Below deck on boats
Fuel or chemical transfer or storage facilities
Vehicles using liquefied petroleum gas such as propane
Areas where the air contains chemicals or particles such as grain dust or metal powders and
Any other area where you would normally be advised to turn off your engine.

Sparks in such area would cause an explosion or fire resulting in bodily injury or even death.

No laughing matter, apparently, nor should we suppose Motorola is trying to pull our legs. Similar cautions have been issued by other manufacturers, though industry spokesmen have more recently begun downplaying them, saying the actual risk is very slim, especially with newer and better-constructed models.

The article mentions that in the U.S. and other countries, warning decals were being put up at petrol stations as early as 1999. It also mentions batteries/power supplies as being the cause of the issue, not direct heating or induction. This is actually very similar to the treatment of electrical equipment in the mining industry, where IIRC many months of exhaustive testing are required for even the simplest equipment to be approved for use in potentially explosive atmospheres. Even a rate of something like 0.01% defective units would be all it takes to cause a disaster at a mine.

Do you still stand behind your advice to Ryan Thunder that any individual could see that the warnings were bullshit, based purely on the lack of severe and obvious thermal effects? I don't think anyone can deny that potentially defective power supplies are a valid ignition danger.

OK, so I ignored magnitude. I admit I gave it hardly any thought. Radiated power was the farthest thing from my mind back then, years ago. I simply encountered a phenomenon and spontaneously hypothesised a possible mechanism. I did not give it as an explanation to other people, nor did I assume it was the correct explanation. It was simply a sufficient basis for me to accept official warnings as basically plausible, in that they were not blatantly and obviously baseless (e.g. did not require severely injuring people). I don't think this is unreasonable.

As I said, if you didn't give it any thought that's understandable. In your first post, you made it appear as if you actually did give it some thought, and declared that it was plausible until you were informed otherwise.

I apologise for giving that impression.

[Darth Wong]

True, but I didn't get it from internet rumour. The warning signs have been present in Australia for years now. The staff who decided to put up those signs are the personnel I'm referring to.

The signs are put up by lawyers and politicians.

No laughing matter, apparently, nor should we suppose Motorola is trying to pull our legs.

Oh for fuck's sake, do you honestly not realize that warnings like this come from the corporate legal department? Yes, the phone was not specifically designed for use in explosive environments, hence they tell customers to avoid such environments just to be safe. After all, a damaged phone could drop on the ground and spark off a fire. But there is absolutely no special risk from cell-phones. Every year, a significant number of gas pump fires occur just because of ordinary static electricity between peoples' bodies and their own cars; where are all the cell-phone fires?

The article mentions that in the U.S. and other countries, warning decals were being put up at petrol stations as early as 1999. It also mentions batteries/power supplies as being the cause of the issue, not direct heating or induction.

A complaint which would apply just as easily to iPods, for which nobody bothers posting warnings. The fact is that stupid people believed that cell-phones could cause gasoline fires through radiation, and any attempts to justify the resulting bans after the fact are nothing more than ad hoc bullshit.

This is actually very similar to the treatment of electrical equipment in the mining industry, where IIRC many months of exhaustive testing are required for even the simplest equipment to be approved for use in potentially explosive atmospheres. Even a rate of something like 0.01% defective units would be all it takes to cause a disaster at a mine.

A fucking automobile would never be certified for use in an explosive environment, Einstein. Maybe we should ban automobiles from gas stations.

Do you still stand behind your advice to Ryan Thunder that any individual could see that the warnings were bullshit, based purely on the lack of severe and obvious thermal effects? I don't think anyone can deny that potentially defective power supplies are a valid ignition danger.

Yes. The whole idea was fucking stupid, and if you're talking about bad batteries (the bogus ad hoc reason some people would like to give for a warning that was originally based on pure pseudoscience), then they should ban iPods too, or anything else that has batteries in it. By the numbers, these things are simply not a significant source of fires. You are more likely to spark a fire simply by touching your car and having static electricity on your person.

In fact, gas pump fires from ordinary static electricity are surprisingly common, and yet there is no interest whatsoever in putting up signs warning people about the risk.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/12/05/g ... index.html

Once more: the cell-phone thing is pseudoscientific bullshit. The fact that cell-phones are not certified for use in explosive environments is an incredibly stupid way of justifying it. Nobody would ever certify any powered device for use in explosive environments unless it was designed with special safety measures in place.

[Winston Blake]

By the numbers, these things are simply not a significant source of fires.

[...]

Once more: the cell-phone thing is pseudoscientific bullshit. The fact that cell-phones are not certified for use in explosive environments is an incredibly stupid way of justifying it.

Can I ask you what you think my position is?