Many products are being sold that are suppose to increase your energy. Unless your food is completely indigestible, this will always be true. Food by definition has calories which provide you with energy. But food manufactures have moved on and this trivial definition of energy is rarely used. These days energy food typically contains Caffeine. In particular energy drinks, such as Red Bull, Mother and V contain a considerable dose.
Cadbury is selling a chocolate bar called “Energy” and while I was not expecting anything as good as Methamphetamin in it, as it was done during the Second World War, I hoped that there would be at least a grain of truth in their advertisement. The ingredients list did not reveal anything that would suggest “energy”. The only thing I learned from looking up the ingredients on their web page is that there is a problem with their SSL certificate. Maybe they are trying to hide this product?
I contacted Cadbury and ask them about their secret energy ingredient and in an email they informed me that their Energy bar chocolate is a New Zealand specific brand and in 1936 they used its calorie value to justify its title. It contains 2200kJ per 100 gr. Their own Dairy Milk Chocolate contains 40kj more: 2240kj. Cadbury Dream even contains 2350kJ.
The time in which a high calorie value is a sales argument has long passed. These days we are interested in reducing our calorie intake. The Cadbury Energy Chocolate is a scam. It does not contain anything above what a regular chocolate bar contains. It even has less energy than their regular milk chocolate.
Distinguishing the signal from the noise is one of the main challenges in science. Scientists are trained to understand and judge the uncertainty in the world. We discuss our results and their limitations in articles and their merit is judged through the peer review process. Often these academic discussions have no immediate influence on the lives of the people around us, people who are not trained at interpreting statistics.
Italy has a tradition for lengthy legal proceedings and the recent overturn of six manslaughter convictions for Italian earthquake scientists is no exception. They were part of an expert panel discussing the earthquake risks for the south Italian city of L’Aquila on March 31st 2009. The citizens felt reassured and many decided to spend the night inside their houses. It is argued that 29 out of the 309 victims of the tragic earthquake in that night felt victim to this decision.
The six scientists and Bernardo De Bernardinis, who in 2009 was deputy head of Italy’s Civil Protection Department, were originally sentenced to six years in jail in an October 2012 trial. The trial caused an international outcry amongst scientists. How could we continue to discuss science in public when there is a chance that we could get jailed for it? How can we contribute to expert panels that advice policy makers? Earthquake scientists know and understand the uncertainty associated with their predictions. Could they be punished for the ignorance of their fellow citizens?
Judge Marco Billi justified his verdict by arguing that the panel had carried out a “superficial, approximate and generic” risk analysis. It is rare that judges participate in a scientific peer review process, but in this case it happened.
In the appeal court judge Fabrizia Francabandera acknowledged that the scientists could not have predicted the earthquake and overturned the original verdict with one exception. De Bernardinis received a two year sentence for his role in communicating with the public.
This is certainly a relief for many scientists, but the controversy around this case is directly relevant not only for New Zealand’s earthquake scientists, but for all scientists. For science to work we need to be able to make mistakes and to openly discuss our results. If society aims to prosecute us for the work we do for them then we better hire an army of lawyers. I think we could spend our money more wisely. We should invest into the scientific education of our students.
Given the two year sentence for De Bernardinis I will certainly be more careful when talking to the media in the future. I do not want to be held responsible for not warning the world about the upcoming robot uprising.Read More
I am participating in the National Novel Writing Month of November. It is the first time I write non scientifically and from the few workshops I recently attended here in Christchurch I realize that this will be an interesting experience. I make steady progress but writing 1666 words daily is challenging. Most of all because there are all those other tasks that sneak up on me.Read More
Katja Rosenberg has put together an amazing show entitled “Misbehavior” at the CMR Gallery in Redruth. The project features contributions by members of CMR and other artists from Britain including London, Manchester Cambridge and Margate, as well as from from Germany, France, Slovenia, Portugal, New Zealand and the United States. The show will be on October 8-29, 2014. If you are around, check it out. Or download the complete catalog. This is my second art object that is being displayed. Yeah!Read More
We are going to participate in the annual Robot Film Festival. Eduardo and Mitchell made an exciting move based on a short story by Isaac Asimov. Check it out:Read More
So finally, after more than twenty years, my two favorite illusions cross again: LEGO and The Simpsons. Of course we already know about The Simpsons house and the Minifigures. But now we are going to have a Simpsons Episode made of LEGO. Well, they go the CG path and not stop animation, but that is fine with me.Read More