bullshit
There’s no evidence for it, but it’s a scientific fact: the woman who makes lights flicker when she’s sexually aroused
Street lamps flicker when she passes, TVs change channels when she walks into a room and she sends electronic clocks haywire.
Debbie Wolf claims she is one of Britain’s growing army of “sliders” - people who believe their presence causes havoc with household appliances, radios and light bulbs.
Her bizarre abilities, dubbed by paranormal experts “Street Light Interference” syndrome or SLI, don’t just make life a nuisance for Debbie, they have earned her international fame.
…Sceptics say SLI is purely wishful thinking and coincidence - and has yet to be demonstrated by Debbie or anyone else in a controlled laboratory experiment.
But if Debbie and her fellow “electric people” are proved right, scientists will have to re-write all the known rules of physics.
If the only proof you need to get a story like this printed is your own-say so, perhaps we should sell our own real-life spooky stories to the Mail? I’ve instructed my agent to see what they’ll pay for “The spooky speccy Scot who can make magic monkeys fly out of his arse”.
Xbox is “crack for kids”, says woman
A nice, reasoned piece in The Times by Janice Turner:
I refuse to buy them portable gaming consoles, Xboxes, GameCubes, PS2s. These are Satan’s Sudoku, crack cocaine of the brain. Even the crappiest cartoon or lamest soap teaches a child about character, plot, drama, humour, life. Playing videogames, children are mentally imprisoned, wired into their evil creators’ brains.
Consoles are crack for kids? I suspect that increasingly, the crack for kids is, er, crack.
From The Independent:
Drug agencies in the city [Cambridge] report a marked increase in clients using crack cocaine in the past 18 months, mostly men in their 20s and 30s. Younger people are also getting hooked. Cambridgeshire Youth Offending Service is treating a girl aged 13 who is taking crack more than once a week.
What it’s like to work for a holiday club sales firm
A wee while back I ranted and ranted about firms flogging holiday clubs. John - not his real name - has been in touch to describe what it’s like to be the person doing the phoning. He’s a 21-year-old student who, like many students, decided to get a part-time job to help make ends meet.
Over to you, John…
I was first aware of something strange on arrival. I stood outside in the rain, completely soaked, and wondered why there were no markings indicating the company name. No sign. Nothing. And I was worried about being soaked, partly because I was attending a job interview and looked like a twat, and partly because I was afraid I’d drip water all over their computers if I had to do a data entry test.
Turns out I didn’t need to worry, because there were no computers and there was no interview. Well, almost. It lasted about 30 seconds, and if I’d quacked like a duck or baa-ed like a sheep I’m confident I’d still have been offered the position.
There’s a small office at the front - with computers! - but I’ve no idea what actually occurs there. It was never mentioned. The main area is one large room and it’s the call centre. One lonely computer sits on a desk at the front manned by a manager, who’s about 20, and the rest of the room is filled with scabby desks equipped with two phones each. There is a complex filing system consisting of state-of-the-art cardboard pigeon holes randomly dumped on the floor, each one overflowing with sheets containing names, addresses and telephone numbers. Random coat hangers decorate the wall.
Basically I was told that they are a travel agent, and that my job would be to call people who’d filled in a survey and won a free holiday. I was to call them and inform them that they’d been awarded a free holiday consisting of luxury accommodation for up to four people and two return flights. I would then have to arrange appointments for the people to come and collect their prize.
I would be paid ÂŁ6 per hour, and I’d be paid ÂŁ10 commission for every person that collected their prize.
I’d done cold calling before and this sounded like a piece of piss. If people had filled in surveys to win a holiday, then surely they’d be well chuffed to have won.
Yes, the place looked like a squat but I was broke - and being fairly well trained on the phone in previous jobs, I was confident that I’d make loads of cash from the commission. And I probably would have done, if anything they’d told me was true.
So it’s my first day and I arrive an hour early for training before starting my first shift. The group consisted of me, one other guy and our manager. After training the other guy bolted for the door with such pace and conviction that he nearly bowled over a poor girl who had arrived for work, still wearing her school uniform. I looked at the manager with astonishment, and he was exchanging looks with another manager - but without any obvious dismay or signs of caring. On retrospect, it occurs to me that it probably happens a lot.
I was directed to sit beside some guy who I was to watch working for the first half of the four hour shift, and then I’d be let loose on my own. I say “watch”, not “listen in”, because there wasn’t a second headset, so I could only hear his side of the conversation.
I watched as he worked his way through - not surveys, but sheet after sheet of names, addresses, phone numbers and credit card details. I’m kidding about the credit card details. But still, it didn’t look as if this stuff came from surveys. He did have the odd survey form, but from what I could gather they were only given out a few times per week and only if you were doing well. I also noticed that half the time he wasn’t offering free holidays; he was telling people they’d won a shopping spree.
For the two hours I was there, he didn’t have much luck. He got through to about ten numbers, of which half hung up immediately. And no wonder, because everything’s scripted. You basically start by saying “Hi, my name’s Gus from X Company, and I’m calling regarding a holiday survey you filled out for us.” You then ask if it’s okay to check a few details to confirm that you’re speaking to the right person. That checking is to see if you’re not married, don’t own your own property, are too old, are too young or don’t earn over ÂŁ20,000. If you are, we say sorry, you’re not the person we thought you were, our bad, no holiday for you.
Halfway through we get a break, during which two or three people are sacked for not reaching the target of four appointments per hour. You’re warned about this at the very beginning of the shift. Apparently they can’t afford to pay people who underperform, even for just two hours.
The next two hours were the longest two hours of my life. I finished my shift and swore that I’d never again cross the door.
My friend - the guy who’d told me about the job in the first place - quit about a week later over a dispute with his pay or lack of pay. You’re paid cash, so I suspect they’re probably skimping on tax.
In summary, then: if they call you, please be polite - there are human beings on the other end, so don’t lower yourself to the company’s level. Say you’re not interested and if they persist, hang up.
Wi-fi grows tits on bulls, or something
I’ve just been given a press release (thanks, Paul) showing that Wi-Fi may be linked to autism - if by “linked” you mean “not linked”. It’s toss, of course, based on studies by a nutritionist and the infamous Wi-Fi “expert” Dr Carlo, a regular subject of Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science blog. An extract:
The autistic children followed specific detoxification protocols in an environment that was mitigated with regard to sources of EMR including mobile phones and WiFi. Heavy metal excretions were monitored from hair, urine and feces over periods ranging from several weeks to several months. The researchers found that with protocols administered in the mitigated environment, heavy metals were cleared from the children?s bodies in a pattern dependent on time and molecular weight. The heaviest metals, such as mercury and uranium, cleared last. In many of the children, the decrease in metals was concomitant with symptom amelioration.
It’s a classic of its kind, actually. Not only does it have killer wi-fi, but it also has the heavy metals/autism link - which doesn’t exactly have a happy history:
An autistic boy died after receiving an unproven treatment that some people believe may cure the neurological and developmental disorder, officials said.
Abubakar Tariq Nadama, 5, had received his third treatment of chelation therapy at a doctor’s office Tuesday before going into cardiac arrest, said Deputy Coroner Larry Barr.
…Some people believe that autism can be linked to a mercury-containing preservative once commonly used in childhood vaccines, and these people sometimes advocate chelation therapy, which causes heavy metals to leave the body through urine.
…Howard Carpenter, the executive director of the Advisory Board on Autism-Related Disorders, said it was just a matter of time before there would be a death linked to the therapy.
“Parents of children with autism are desperate. Some are willing to try anything,” Carpenter said.
Buried in the wi-fi/autism study:
…the study was a retrospective observation based on subjects with severe autism whose parents chose to pursue alternative metal detoxification methods after other traditional approaches had failed.
In other words, desperate parents who were willing to try anything.
Expect to see it in the papers tomorrow.
Writers blocked
A while back I mentioned the “So You Want To Be a Writer?” ads, whose claims were a tad misleading. Rob Spence took ‘em to the Advertising Standards Authority and won.
The danger of selective quoting…
…is that people might go and see what the full quote was.
From the press page of Nicopipe.com, a place selling nicotine inhalers:
More Smoke, Rod Liddle - The Times OnLine, 6th July 2007
…A friend bunged me one of those new smoke-free smoking devices, called the “Nico pipe”, a slender, tapered, black metal thing into which you insert a nicotine cartridge purchased from “pharmacies or your doctor”…
What came after the dots? Let’s have a look at the Times piece.
I don’t think it’s for me. I’m not walking the streets sucking on what appears to be a weasel’s dildo, nor queuing up in the surgery for six hours to get a prescription. Also it seems like a particularly cowardly form of capitulation and collaboration with the enemy.
Oops.
Booze hooligan announces government crackdown on himself
If only.
CHEAP booze deals in shops and supermarkets are to be outlawed, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill warned today.
That’s Kenny “detained in 2000 for being drunk and disorderly at a football match” MacAskill.
MacAskill says that the government “isn’t anti-alcohol”, and I think he’s telling the truth. After all, in June - in a move that surprised Scottish Rugby officials - he speedily scrapped the 25-year-long ban on drink at Murrayfield rugby internationals. The booze ban still applies to football, though. As he said at the time:
There is still a difference between football and rugby in terms of alcohol.
The problem isn’t booze, then - it’s the sort of people who get pissed-up and cause trouble at football matches. Like, er, Kenny MacAskill.
Sheesh.
ASA clouts Clarins for phone fear nonsense
Remember those Clarins ads for face cream to protect you against evil electromagnetic fields? They’ve just been spanked by the advertising standards authority.
We told Clarins not to state that electromagnetic waves generated by modern-day devices or domestic communications equipment could damage or age skin or to imply anti-ageing and pro-health efficacy claims for Expertise 3P unless they held robust scientific evidence to support that. We also told them not to make an undue appeal to consumers fear of the harm that could be caused by man-made electromagnetic waves.
[Via The Inquirer]
Mobile phones and electrosensitivity, again
When I wrote about electrosensitivity for PC Plus a few months back, I mentioned that while every study to date had found no evidence that the condition was anything other than psychological, a key study at Essex University was taking place to look even more closely at the issues. The results are in, and guess what? There’s still no evidence that electrosensitivity is anything other than a psychological condition.
There’s much more here at Bad Science, and of course the newspapers are beginning to cover it too (although probably not on their front pages, I suspect).
Usual disclaimer here: I think that people who believe they are electrosensitive are indeed suffering. But while they believe that electromagnetic fields, particularly those from Wi-Fi and mobile phones, are causing their condition, there’s absolutely no evidence to support that claim. And the more scientists look at it, the more solid the “it’s got nothing to do with electromagnetic fields” case becomes. Something is making them sick, but it could be the nocebo effect: if you believe something will make you ill (mobile masts, a gypsy curse, a black cat crossing the road the wrong way) then it may well make you ill.
Aaaanyway. Comment number one on the Daily Mail’s report on the study, which notes that this is one of the largest and most detailed studies into electrosensitivity, is:
“In the short term at least.”
Note these words.
What about the long term?
*Sigh*
Update
The BBC quote from Powerwatch is interesting:
“So whilst it cannot be entirely ruled out that a small minority are truly sensitive, the proportions of any truly sensitive people are likely to be far lower than the 3% - 35% that has been quoted.”
Credit where credit’s due, that’s a decent response.
Even assuming that some people are genuinely electrosensitive (which I very much doubt), the research says the majority of ES sufferers are ill because of psychological factors. Hopefully some common sense will prevail and we can actually start treating them and making them better instead of chasing after electronic bogeymen.
Purity rings and hats of meat: what’s God got to do with it?
The Silver Ring Thing case has been thrown out of court on the entirely reasonable grounds that wearing a purity ring is as much a part of mainstream Christianity as wearing a hat made of meat. The only downside is that my plans to send my own child to school dressed as either a ninja or a pirate to honour the Flying Spaghetti Monster have been ruined by the judgement.
As ever, online comments prove that people never let the article get in the way of their opinions. From the Daily Mail’s article on the case:
Last year, Muslim Shabina Begum, 15, fought to wear a jilbab - a long loose gown - in class, and earlier this year a 12-year-old who cannot be named battled a Buckinghamshire girls’ school for the right to wear a full-face veil. Both were granted legal aid, and both lost their cases.
Presumably that was too far down the article for the commenters to read. Here’s genius number one.
Would not dare ban the ring if it was any other relgion than christrianity. What a country that denies its own culture and promotes others.
Our own culture? The Silver Ring Thing is American, and was created by a youth minister in 1995. It arrived in the UK in 2004.
Come in number two!
Another case of religious freedom for anyone but Christians…
This is not a religious thing. It’s a business thing. Irrespective of its intentions, The Silver Ring Thing is a business that sells costume jewellery, clothing, DVDs and training courses - and the girl at the centre of this case is the daughter of two key figures in the UK franchise for that business. That SRT claims to be non-profit is irrelevant: it’s not a registered charity, and therefore its status is identical to any other limited company. It’s no different to a McDonalds.
Actually, that’s a thought - a marketing opportunity for your local burger bar. Jesus was a fisher of men, yeah? Well, that means preventing kids from eating Filet-O-Fish in class is a breach of their right to religious expression! Yeah!
Let’s backtrack. School has uniform policy, kid breaks uniform policy by wearing costume jewellery, kid gets away with it until she recruits a bunch of other kids to buy the same jewellery from her parents’ business, kid claims religious persecution and nearly costs the school ÂŁ12,000 in legal fees. What a nice, heartwarming story. Maybe the Beeb should rewrite its intro:
A 16-year-old girl was not discriminated against when she was banned from modelling her parents’ jewellery range in class, the High Court has ruled.
Jon from London, you’re a breath of fresh air:
The school isn’t banning the universally accepted symbol of Christianity - pupils can wear a crucifix if they so choose. It is banning, under its existing rules, a piece of jewellery - the purpose of which was almost unknown in this country until all the free publicity generated by this court action. A court action started by Lydia’s parents (who also just happen to be the UK agents for the movement’s founders in the US - from whose webshop the ring can be exclusively purchased along with a range of other expensively priced ‘merchandise’).
Update, 18 July.
As Simon Pickstock points out over at the PC Answers blog, Ministry Of Truth uncovered key information that changes the story completely, and it’s appalling that MOT’s information hasn’t been reflected in any of the subsequent coverage:
It’s a shame that traditional news sources can’t be so thorough in their reporting, especially when it makes the front page of so many papers.