I'm either stupid, or a genius!

According to the British Journal of Cancer, having early sex explains why cervical cancer is more common in poor women

It could be that the infection (as this cancer is basically an STD) has more effect on younger women - fair assumption I guess

Now, the number of sexual partners has no impact apparently, so that knocks my theory a bit - but could it not be that poorer girls from deprived areas are more likely to be hooking up with infected young males (or 'chavs') from council estates?

This is what the sources on wikipedia (from the American Cancer Council in the US) suggest, and considering this is effectively an STD does that not explain the rich/poor divide quite well also? If it's caused primarily by an STD, how can the number of partners not make any difference to risk? This is how all STDs tend to go - 'deprived' people from council estates tend to be somewhat less cautious than their middle-class counterparts, it's well documented

Me smells a rat:

"Importantly, the results back up the need for the HPV vaccination to be given in schools at an age before they start having sex, especially among girls in deprived areas."

Glug

Ah, good old sir Liam, he was the one who warned us all about swine flu deaths...remember?

Now he's saying parents (specifically middle class ones) who let their teenage kids 'taste' booze will make them more likely to be heavy drinkers as adults

Any stats for that?

I'm not saying he's wrong...but if you've been wrong before you can be wrong again, right?

Far be for me to use anecdotal evidence - but I was tasting booze from about 14, drinking possibly too much at 17 and 18, but nowadays I barely drink at all - I got bored of it once I got away from the first-year student culture, and I'd have to blame my friends and the culture of binge-drinking far more than my parents for my occasional excesses back then, I was a teenager - teenagers are quite stupid

Yet, here I am, faculties in order, with a proper academic degree and writing in prose - we all know alcohol is harmful, worse than a lot of illegal drugs in many ways - but it's not a substantial risk to drink it, particularly in moderation, we have a life expectancy of what? 78? And we've been drinking the stuff for millenia, while kids all over the world do fine after drinking, the stats do show that more liberal countries in Europe don't get nearly as much alcohol-related-violence so there's some balance to this debate, Liam

But don't take my uninformed opinion on it, thankfully the BBC love a good counter-argument

here's Jeremy Todd of Parentline Plus

He said: "Parents can have a huge influence on their child's drinking choices.
"Rates of teenage drunkenness are higher amongst both the children of parents who drink to excess and the children of parents who abstain completely.

So irresponsible and draconian approaches don't work - meaning being responsible does work, unfortunately no amount of government interference can make people responsible - stop trying, Liam

"Whilst parents have a greater influence on their children's drinking patterns early on, as they grow older their friends have a greater influence.
"It is therefore crucial for parents to talk to their children about alcohol and its effects."

Quite right, and banning stuff = not talking, I'm not sure if Sir Liam has ever met a teenager

I particularly liked Professor Ian Gilmore:

"We know that adults who drink sensibly tend to pass these habits on and that some families choose to introduce alcohol to their children younger than 15 in a supportive environment."
He stressed that not drinking alcohol at all remained the "healthiest option" for children.

Spot on - why isn't this man Chief Medical Officer? (He's already president of the Royal College of Physicians)

What we do not need is more bloody preachy adverts:

"He announced a major publicity campaign on the subject in England, which will get under way in January 2010."

 Stop wasting our bloody money on 'don't drink' adverts! Unless they actually return a profit through less cost to the NHS then they are a frivolous drain on our ever-growing deficit - don't they know there's a recession on?

Still here

Still having net problems (hopefully sorted next week) and now I'm behind and don't know what to blog about

The only really big news has been of Copenhagen and dear god am I bored of this rubbish

Most of the blogosphere has been raging against 'the lie', while the press have been indulging in it, the politicians are in their element away from their constituents, eating fine dinners and having cosy chats away from all accountability, and bloody annoying activists are...well, bloody annoying

So where do I sit? Am I a 'sceptic' or 'denier'?

Not in the proper noun sense - I am a proper sceptic about pretty much everything, which means I view everything. particularly politics, with one eyebrow raised, much like the Roger Moore-era Bond - I am a very sceptical and cynical person

So I would be a hypocrite to totally and unequivocally accept the assertions of some incredibly preachy people and politicians, in all fairness I probably would accept the science if there weren't such a lot of idiots going around screaming 'we're all going to die'

I'm not sure if I've been reading too many right-wing blogs, and the old saying, 'repeat a lie often enough and you start to believe it', has come true and made me question something quite widely accepted

But as I say, I am not a 'denier' - I can't say I know either way, and I honestly don't believe most of those activists and politicians know a thing about the science either, I don't like blind faith

It's a bit sad that I can't believe scientists, one group I would usually always back - but from what I can tell their science is based on guesswork - what will happen, why this has happened etc - it's certainly not totally conclusive, and that means I can't come to a rock-solid conclusion either

There are a couple of points against it, but generally the 'scientists' quoted by 'deniers' are discredited, and/or in the pay of big oil (e.g Plimer) - it doesn't exactly help the case, I base my view on the evidence that I can see myself, or at least get a grasp of - while I can easily spot a flaw in someone's analysis, I still can't in all certainty agree or disagree that in 50 years Fiji will be underwater

Regardless of the science debate, I have always felt that pumping tonnes of black clouds into the sky is probably not a good thing, regardless of whether it's melting the icecaps, burning dirty things that we have a finite resource of is not the wisest idea, nor is chucking plastic into landfills and the ocean - so I have always wanted to move to clean, renewable energy and sustainable living anyway, the issue of global warming and why it's happening are by-the-by for me

All I have ever wanted the politicians to do is work towards supporting renewable energy with funding, but instead they talk about a few percentage points of emissions, and then tax the consumer to the hilt

This is probably the biggest reason I dislike Copenhagen - I have a similar end to the eco-loons, whether or not we agree on rising sea levels, so I don't hugely have a problem with a big climate meeting

No, my problem is my usual one - politicians, they aren't going to do anything

Their aim is for a 20% cut in emissions - that'll come down for a start, and presumably 20% won't halt anything, merely delay it a few years, if they were really serious, felt it was really urgent and about saving the world then they would actually do something serious

If the threat is real, like a giant asteroid hurtling towards us, as many activists see it, then they don't really fear it, perhaps because it's not visible, perhaps because they'll all be dead by then, as some woman who claimed to represent my generation put it (god, I hate those bloody activists)

Either way, this meeting is about as pointless as the Munich Agreement - there will be no drastic action to save us from the asteroid - no rocket sent up to destroy it, just more taxes to 'combat' the asteroid while we continue living normally

If they were really serious, they'd be wanting rid of all fossil fuels, funding research in more efficient renewable sources - but they won't, it'll be a bit of posturing and a 'pledge' to cut emissions, while the average person is fleeced of more and more money in the name of 'green'

So it doesn't actually matter if it's real or not - Copenhagen is a crock, the politicians involved would have more dignity if they didn't believe in it, rather than just going along with it and then doing nothing but taxing us

and I guess that's a blog - about global warming! Don't expect another one of those for a while

Back to School again

There is a little bit of defence going on in the magazine over Media Studies

Apparently Chemistry is easier

Is it? - I downloaded the pdf they provide and would question this, apparently if I question the intelligence of the students taking it instead I will face a problem with Maths, which has an even lower pass mark...

All true - however, take a look at the pdf, and you would think a statistics nut such as Michael Blastland, who is normally very good, would spot something

Let's take a look:

Media Studies had roughly 68,000 students, pass rate of 65.6% - Chemistry 92,000 pass rate: 93.9%

So, wow, Chemistry is obviously statistically easier according to this data - they are certainly comparable in size

Except for one thing, which a pure look at statistics would never notice (perhaps the whole point of this exercise) - Chemistry is not 'Chemistry' - you need to look at the human factors here, the Chemistry that the vast majority of us study is in fact what is now called 'science' with an uptake of 493,000 and 'additional science' with 397,000 (that's the old double award - which sadly only had 15,000 entrants and a pass rate of over 80%)

And so the pass rate is actually:
Media 65.6%
Additional Science: 62% (approx)
Science: 60% (approx)

Ah...so that's nearly 900 thousand students with a lower pass rate than Media

Now, no prizes for guessing why the single subjects - all studied by roughly 100,000 students, were at the very top?

Yes that's right, individual sciences are only taken by the best students and the best schools (mine didn't even offer it, but then it didn't offer Media either)
So let us add those extra 95,000 or so students (I will assume they all did three, which is why the figures are so close) who didn't do 'pleb science' as I once heard it called

Average students = 94,000
Average pass rate = 93% roughly
Meaning 87,500 students passed, give or take

Meanwhile 896,000 took the other versions of science, with an average pass rate of 61%

That's 546,500 passes

Add 87,500 = 634,000 passes out of 990,000

= 64.04% with even the best and brightest included...

That's below PE and just above Business Studies

It is of course, virtually impossible to identify if Media is a doss subject just from the figures - the pass rate does not indicate that it is particularly easy, but it says nothing about the way it is taught, who takes it, and of what use it is - my only experience of it was at A-level where my school mates (none top students) all treated it as a doss (and it looked one) but they then all failed the exam...so I don't know, having never studied it, but regardless I felt it misleading to claim that Chemistry was somehow comparable without factoring in the general science qualifications

But that said, what we can see is that Maths and Science generally have a lower pass rate, as does English (but not Eng.Lit) - which most likely shows that the compulsory subjects are dragged down by the dimwits forced to do them

Instead, to compare Media we must look at it in relation to other optional subjects, and subjects with a similar take-up - such as Music, which has a pass rate of about 77% - from that we can assume that Media is far harder (a much fairer argument than Chemistry, although just as flawed)

But of course, we can prove nothing because we don't know why Media gets such a low pass rate - whether it's hard or easy and the students are just thick - we just can't tell without the variables

I have however found the stats I needed for my earlier post on History!! - History second only to DT and beating it's nearest rivals (Geography) by 20,000 students

---

I also meant to comment on this feature on ties a little while ago but never got round to it

For one, the ideas of 'Superfat' and 'Bonsai' ties was around nearly 2 decades ago, when I was at primary school, even though I have never encountered these particular labels before, so it's not news

A bit like the idiot woman who blamed Chris Moyles (on air for a whole five years) for inventing the use of the word 'gay' as a pejorative (it's somewhere in the archives)

Truth is, kids need to rebel and you'll never get them to all do up the silly things properly, except perhaps at the very poshest private schools

And why shouldn't they rebel? - I took the line that there was no sensible reason to wear one, and I still take it now - there isn't, the concept of 'smart' never appealed to me as a child and it still doesn't - it's a social construct from the 19th century

I do of course, conform for job interviews and the like - because let's face it, 1) I'm a hypocrite and 2) there's also economic benefits to conforming in that instance - there is none in the school environment - you are forced to conform to an arbitrary dress code in a place where you have to go (often against your childish will) - it is fascism incarnate

I don't say that as an anarchist or anything, I'm not saying it's wrong (or right) but I think school is very comparable to the authoritarian state - the whole concept encourages rebellion, not respect (which probably is what makes teachers jobs so horrible, but that's another argument)

So in short, you won't solve the tie problem because they'll rebel in some other way, unless you give them a reason to wear something (such as a lab coat or hard hat) they won't respect it - that's a fairly basic bit of human nature

And let's examine the point of a tie - what is the point of a tie?

from wikipedia:

The necktie traces back to the time of Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) when Croatian mercenaries from the Military Frontier in French service, wearing their traditional small, knotted neckerchiefs, aroused the interest of the Parisians. Due to the slight difference between the Croatian word for Croats, Hrvati, and the French word, Croates, the garment gained the name "Cravat". The new article of clothing started a fashion craze in Europe where both men and women wore pieces of fabric around their necks. In the late seventeenth century, the men wore lace cravats that took a large amount of time and effort to arrange. These cravats were often tied in place by cravat strings, arranged neatly and tied in a bow.

So basically they are a fashion article from the 17th century French - adopted by the vain Georgians like pantaloons and the idiotic powdered wigs

Meanwhile, fairly obviously it evolved as the lower classes mimicked their betters during the 19th century - the idea of being 'smart' comes from looking as though you aren't working in a mine:

The industrial revolution created a need for neckwear that was easy to put on, comfortable and would last an entire workday. The modern necktie, as is still worn by millions of men today, was born. It was long, thin and easy to knot and it didn’t come undone.

So why do we still wear these pointless things? It's just an archaic piece of fashion that really should have gone out a century ago - all fashion is pointless to me, so I guess I'm more interested in why we think children 'should' wear them

Because it's traditional no doubt...

...in that case fetch me my pantaloons!

And you wonder why

I remember this article from a week ago, saying that most people felt that cancer advice was constantly changing, and a load of scientists saying that simply wasn't true - it was single studies that keep proposing new ideas that confuse people

Is it any wonder? This is currently the Indie's top story - If that's a respectable paper, god knows how the tabloids will handle it

This is of course the problem - and the scientists questioned in the article were missing the point (or the BBC were performing yet another exercise in futility) - the media loves a new headline about cancer, I remember a few years ago when I read a story about trees causing cancer, and a month or so later read that trees were now good for you...it is dozy

Now it's not the scientists fault for researching and publishing their findings, but the media for reporting it all as actual conclusive proof - it's not, and it's hardly surprising people are highly sceptical of new cancer warnings in such an environment

But the scientists seem to misunderstand, as they say: their advice hasn't changed for over a decade - eat healthy, don't get fat and don't smoke - I don't think people ignore this advice as barmy, but most reports they will read will be in the Sunday health supplement and offer all sorts of weird opinions

It probably really doesn't matter, but I'm just pointing out this is really a non-story