Posts Tagged open letters

Response letter to an alarmist anti-caffeine organization

Stumbled across caffeineawareness.org by accident… weird site full of bizarre alarmist propaganda against the consumption of Caffeine.

For example: “Consume 5 grams and you’re DEAD, and it’s perfectly legal!” is touted in an ad on the sidebar of the website. The website also claims that caffeine is “highly addictive”, which seems hyperbolic, given how Caffeine actually works.

As I discussed previously, prolonged exposure to a significant (over 200mg) amount of Caffeine will result in an increase in the number of Adenosine receptors in your brain (this is called “upregulation”, and is your brain’s attempt at recovering homeostasis). This results in a “diminished returns” benefit of future Caffeine consumption until the brain is given a break from the chemical, and can downregulate back to normal levels. (this takes roughly 2 weeks for most people — individuals with severe Caffeinism may require longer periods, but you would have to be a serious compulsory consumer of Caffeine, 800mg or more / day, to be that bad)

Moderation is key, of course. If we view coffee as a tool, rather than a necessity, it can be a very beneficial ally. Habitual consumption of ANYTHING is generally a bad idea, and Caffeine is no exception.

Caffeine is nowhere NEAR as addictive as cigarettes, for example, or any harder addictive stimulants (Methamphetamine, Cocaine, Crack-cocaine, etc.). In fact, those harder stimulants don’t even interact with your brain in the same way that caffeine does (meth & coke tend to hammer your Dopaminergic receptors predominantly, whereas Caffeine simply prevents your Adenosine / Purinergic receptors from being used for a short while — there is some dopaminergic side-interactions with Caffeine, but it focuses largely on the Adenosine A1 / A2 receptors because of the homologous chemical structure to Adenosine.)

Here’s my response to them: Read the rest of this entry »

Popularity: 1% [?]

Tags: , , , , ,

An Open Letter to Andrew Alexander, Ombudsman at the Washington Post

Subject:
Please start double-checking George Will’s facts when he talks about science
Body
I don’t know if you’ve been following Carl Zimmer’s blog, “The Loom,” and if you haven’t, you may want to read today’s post  – it covers the outline of the “saga”, as Zimmer calls it.

The fact checkers FAILED. Citing a blog in lieu of contacting the original source is *NOT* good fact checking; particularly when you are reporting something as a FACT rather than an INTERPRETATION. If Will had written “The DailyTech blog interprets the data from the Illinois center as….” that would warrant fact checking to the DailyTech blog — but that’s not what he did. And his fact-checkers neglected to contact the center for the study AT ALL.

As for the issue of ice — I don’t care what you or anyone thinks about Global Warming, Climate Change, whatever the spin doctors are calling it these days — Will is misrepresenting the issue by focusing on two discrete moments in time; some would call this “cherry picking”. Consider, for a moment, that I were to compare the amount of snow in Washington D.C. on February 1st 1979 to the amount on February 1st 2009 — can I reasonably draw ANY conclusions regarding overall trends of snow? Whether the snow is less, more, or the same, it is meaningless without a swath of aggregated data across the 30 year time-span. And yet, that’s exactly what Will did.

The Center that Will cited has a couple charts up that illustrate my point, see here:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg
and here:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

The drastic ups and downs have an overall downward trend — but if you pick *JUST*  1979, at the low point, and compare it to the high point of 2009 — they are almost the same. But this totally misrepresents the data!

George Will may want to capitalize on the mock-troversy regarding Climate Change, and he apparently feels he knows the subject matter better than folks who study this professionally, but he is not doing humanity any favors by misrepresenting an issue simply so he can seem like a rebel.

Aaron Hill

Popularity: 16% [?]

Tags: ,