Kirsten: And that is Garrett Pierce off of 2006 Science Music Compilation.
Justin: That’s the song I would play if my son’s in the car. Rock that a couple of them and begin to fall asleep.
Kirsten: Go to sleep. [Laugh]
Justin: Then repeat it a couple of times
Kirsten: That’s right.
Justin: Plus the eyelid and get droopy.
Kirsten: [Laugh] Fabulous. Well we’re back. This is This Week in Science. We’re here for the next almost 20 minutes and what did I have? I have this crazy story here that another one sent by Ed Dyer a couple of weeks ago that I didn’t get to.
The answer’s in Genesis, the group that started the Creation Museum in Kentucky.
Justin: Mm hmm?
Kirsten: They have decided to start a new Creation Science Journal. So this is going to be called the “Answers Research Journal”. Free on-line publication devoted to research on recent creation and the global flood within a biblical framework.
Justin: Oh. That’s so – how are they going to come out?
Kirsten: Papers – papers.
Justin: That’s going to be a whole show right there.
Kirsten: [Laugh] I know.
Justin: We could just pick that up and spend an hour. We need another hour could be pick up – because that’s going to be a entire show right there of just content material for us to ponder. You know.
Kirsten: Exactly.
Justin: If you..
Kirsten: Papers will be peer reviewed. So this is the pear reviewed journal..
Justin: Yes – but whose..
Kirsten: By those who support the positions taken by the journal.
Justin: That’s such a joke.
Kirsten: I just want everyone..
Justin: Peer reviewed by the people who agreed with me.
Kirsten: Yes. Exactly.
Justin: I love that to have a peer reviewed people who are to agree with me in everything.
Kirsten: Exactly. Yes. So it’s a – it’s a
Justin: Be myself but..
Kirsten: I just want to – the reason I’m bringing this up is not – it’s not a bashing thing
Justin: Yes it is.
Kirsten: From – from me?
Justin: It’s so bashing — exposing
Kirsten: From me personally for you – It might be bashing..
Justin: Well I think exposure and bashing are the same but..
Kirsten: I’m trying – I’m trying to expose this – the name of the journal because people who look at scientific literature who are not within the scientific community often – it’s difficult to tell what is the reputable source and what is not.
And within the scientific community, peer reviewed journals means that it’s reviewed by people within the field who know the topic matter but they’re not from any one particular biased viewpoint or at least they shouldn’t be.
And the fact that this is – the fact that this is peer reviewed by people who already believed one particular thing not just – I mean, it doesn’t – it doesn’t work. That’s not science. That’s not the process of trying to get the best, most correct answers of how the world works out there.
Justin: Kirsten?
Kirsten: What?
Justin: Kirsten, listen to me closely there. See, there – there’s a problem because we are going to be peer reviewed in a Christian approved Kirsten and I really suggest that you take a look at your devilish scientific way and change them before it’s too late..
Kirsten: That’s right.
Justin: …when you’re thrown in the holy fires below and burning for all eternity.
Kirsten: Justin – Justin – Justin – no. Too much – too much.
A researcher who is also an evangelical Christian Miller – Keith Miller at the Kansas State University in Manhattan. He says that we need to be careful when responding to the launch of this journal because taken strong stand against the Journal will fuel the Creationist’s accusations of scientific bias against religion.
So, we need to instead educate non-scientist about the scientific process, which is I’m trying to do.
Justin: You can do that.
Kirsten: Yes. And you can just fuel the fire.
Justin: I will fuel the fire because I think it’s good to fuel the fire. Because I think a lot of – I think this – this journal is very positive.
Kirsten: That’s going to be a popular journal.
Justin: No, it’s – it’s fine because – I think it’s good because the more you get these ideas out there into the public under the – is the light and scrutiny of having these things not being hidden away.
View points where people are lead to believe things within one room and one audience and nobody else gets to see what is being taught to these children for instance.
As soon as it becomes exposed then the rest of the world can look at it and analyze what they’re telling their people. Yes, the light of day tends to make some of that– melts a little bit of the ice – on the ideas. I think it’s a good thing.
Kirsten: Okay.
Justin: And I think it’s going to be fun.
Kirsten: Yes.
Justin: I’m looking forward to it.
Kirsten: Yes. You are.
Justin: I’m excited.
Kirsten: I know you are.
Justin: Where do I subscribe?
Kirsten: I’m sure it’s on the internet. As they’ve said, free on-line
Justin: Really?
Kirsten: Oh huh.
Justin: Oh. Nice.
Kirsten: [Laugh]
Justin: Baby shampoos. Huh? Baby shampoos, lotions and powders may expose infants to chemicals that have been linked with possible reproductive problems. A smallish study is suggesting. Chemicals called Phthalates, even though they’re pronounced – or even though it’s written P-H-T-H-A-L-H.
Kirsten: Yes. Phthalates – Phthalates
Justin: Gosh. That’s a hoar. I’m glad that they put the pronunciation next to it cause I would never known how to pronounce it. But Phthalates, are found in many ordinary products including cosmetics, toys, vinyl flooring, medical supplies and they’re used to stabilize fragrances and make plastic flexible.
In the study, they were found and elevated levels in the yearn of babies who’ve been recently shampooed, powdered or lotioned with baby products.
Animal studies had suggested that Phthalates can cause reproductive birth defects and some believe they may cause reproductive problems in boys and cause early puberty in girls. I heard one place and I don’t have this in front of me that there was – like an eight-month old or 14-month old baby girl that was developing breast?
Kirsten: What?!
Justin: Yes. And she have been – she have been being – I think was – what was it? It will come to me.
Animal study – So the study’s lead author, Sheela Sathyanarayana – something – a University of Washington pediatrician said, “the bottom line is that these chemicals likely do exist in products that we are commonly using on our children and they potentially could cause health defects.”
And actually it’s not just chemicals to – it’s also a lot of the herbal stuff. Even if it’s free of these chemicals, a lot of herbs have synthetic estrogens in them.
Kirsten: Yes.
Justin: And can affect children.
Kirsten: Yes.
Justin: Concerned parents can seek products labeled Phthalates-free or check labels for common Phthalates including DEP and DEHP. So, if it has that then you might want to avoid it.
But on the other hand, there are also saying that you really don’t need that much product on your baby. It’s not necessary. You don’t really need very much soap or scent to wash a baby’s hair.
Kirsten: Usually they don’t have much.
Justin: No. They don’t have very much. To begin with.
Food and Drug Administration has a statement here. “That there is no compelling evidence that Phthalates pose a safety risk when used in cosmetics,” said spokeswoman Stephanie Winske – Winnek – Kwisnek. “Should new data emerge,” she says, “we will inform the public as well the industry.”
Kirsten: Thanks.
Justin: Yes. Great.
Kirsten: Okay.
Justin: So, you’ll inform the public and the industry. Wait, who’s going to inform you? Are you looking at it? No? Oh. So as soon as you get the information from somebody other than the sources that are giving you the information then you…
Federal Centers for Disease controlling preventions say that health effects in human are uncertain although several studies in people have explored – this is the statement from the CDC.
Although several studies in people have explored possible associations with developmental and reproductive outcomes – semen quality, genital development in boys, shortened pregnancy, premature breast development in young girls – more research is needed.
Wait, back-up?
Kirsten: Yes.
Justin: Did you say that there’s a – have a the semen quality, genital development in boys, shortened pregnancy, premature breast development in young girls and yet more research is needed. That was from 2005 CDC report.
Kirsten: Well, there is – yes. There is more research needed. There is probably a lot of co-relation, there’s probably not direct causation yet. There’s probably not a mechanism that well understood as to why and how these things are happening.
So, yes, a lot more research is still necessary. What we have so far are a lot of anecdotes of the stuff happening to children which is unfortunate and hopefully research can get to the bottom of it and we can change the way that we develop products for infants.
Justin: And even – even though – again even the non-chemical stuff, even the herbal oils or things that you put on – you can put on an infant. Those are still going to have effects that you don’t really necessarily want.
Kirsten: Yes.
Justin: Because a lot of estrogen – what is the one I keep – I can’t remember the herbs that’s got like a lot of estrogen…
Kirsten: I don’t know. I’m not sure. I do not know.
Justin: It’s a common one that is used a lot.
Kirsten: Lavander?
Justin: Yes. That’s the one.
Kirsten: Is it lavander?
Justin: That’s the – lavander. That’s it, exactly. I was trying to think color. I know it’s a color too, but I can’t…
Kirsten: [Laugh] It’s a color but it’s an herb. Yes a lot of herbal additives they do have stuff as well. I would imagine that if you’re using a product that probably is not concentrated or not have a high – a large effect a heavy effect. But you know, again, it’s not known about any of these stuff how much is necessary to have an effect.
Justin: Certainly cultural differences like there’s – you know – I’m sure people..
Kirsten: But we are becoming cleaner and since the advent of products for personal health. Health problems…
Justin: We’re talking in…
Kirsten: …are getting better.
Justin: We’re talking of babies..
Kirsten: You know, we’re not as…
Justin: …and we’ve got a phone call.
Kirsten: Yes.
Justin: Good morning TWISminion you’re on the air in This Week in Science.
Caller: Thank you Justin. I, so agree with you.
Justin: Yes.
Caller: How many young kids have put their mothers lipsticks in their mouth?
Kirsten: Yes.
Caller: And also, what about the mothers when they are producing the eggs?
Kirsten: Right. That’s a really good question. As to what happens either during the actual development of the fetus in vitro or even the eggs or what about the male sperm?
Caller: Exactly.
Kirsten: How much is getting into our bloodstreams through the products that we use that’s ending up in our cells that actually have effects down the road?
Yes. We don’t know.
Caller: So, I still agree with Justin and you too, Kirsten. Thank you.
Kirsten: [Laugh] Thanks so much for calling in.
Justin: Thanks for the call.
Caller: Bye.
Kirsten: Bye.
Justin: I used to eat matches- the tops off a matches when I was a kid.
Kirsten: [Laugh]
Justin: I don’t know what that was about? But I get sulfur.
Kirsten: Lacking sulfur in your diet.
Justin: So this research, what they did was they took a 163 babies that were 2-28 months of age and they measured the Phthalates in the urine – in the diapers afterwards.
And they ask the mothers about the views of these products in the past 24 hours. All urine samples had detectable levels of at least one Phthalate. Most head levels have several more. Highest levels were linked with shampoos, lotions and powders and were most prevalent babies younger than 8-months old.
Kirsten: Huh?
Justin: John Bailey, Chief Scientist of the personal care products council, an industry trade group, questioned the methods surprisingly..
Kirsten: Huh. Surprise!
Justin: Instead that Phthalates could have come from the diapers themselves. From lab materials or other sources. Bailey said, he couldn’t explain why the researchers found such high concentrations in the babies that used lotions and other products. But he said, “scientist shouldn’t advice parents to stop using the products because they cannot yet prove they were the source or what the mechanism is.”
Kirsten: He has a fair enough comment – but..
Justin: Using the – using the age-old and the history defender logic? Better to be sorry that to be safe.
Kirsten: Right. [Laugh]
Justin: With your children Mr. Bailey. It’s children. Mr. Bailey stop. Mr. Bailey listen, Mr. Bailey. We’re talking about children Mr. Bailey. Children.
Kirsten: Yes. And in other children news. The CDC just came out with the report on cough and cold medication. It’s estimated that 7,000 children ages 11 and younger are treated in hospital emergency departments each year because of cough and cold medications. Two-thirds of those incidents approximately, were due to unsupervised ingestions.
So stuff being left around and during – this is the cough and cold season and people have [Ptusin] in their medicine cabinets and, you know, all over the place. But this something to be aware of as a parent. The study was published in the American Academy of Pediatric journal, Pediatrics.
Study found that children ages 2 to 5 accounted for 64% of all adverse drug events from cough and cold medications. And I think that’s just adverse events.
So that could be supervised, as well as unsupervised ingestion. That there was just a bad reaction to the stuff. Nearly 80% of the events for this age group were from the unsupervised ingestions.
Justin: Well..
Kirsten: Among all the age groups, 93% of the children did not require hospital admission. However, a quarter needed additional treatment to eliminate the medicine from their bodies.
I went to the hospital once when I was younger. My mom was afraid – they were moving into the house that we moved in to when I was like two and a half, and she found me with like a bottle of aspirin around my feet or something. I ended up in the hospital with a syrup of Ipecac.
Justin: [Laugh]
Kirsten: I never throw up though. Sort of Ipecac is supposed to make you throw it up.
Justin: Yum!
Kirsten: I didn’t throw up until my mom decided to feed me lunch like an hour later and gave me a tuna sandwich. I couldn’t eat tuna sandwiches for sometime. [Laugh]
Justin: That’s horrific.
Kirsten: Yes.
Justin: You know, I think that there’s a two solutions to the cough medicine unsupervised. First, either keep your medicine far away from the children. That’s the one. The other one is, to make medicine taste like medicine again.
Kirsten: I suppose the candy..
Justin: Back again. Back in my day.
Kirsten: Well, part of it…
Justin: Medicine tasted awful. We didn’t like it. No. Bad – bad tasting.
Kirsten: [Laugh]
Justin: How did they put sugar in the medicine? The medicine is no good. These young kids never going to learn.
Kirsten: They never going to learn.
These products have been marketed to infants and toddlers less than two years old. And recently they’ve been voluntarily withdrawn from the market due to safety concerns.
The safety of these products for children aged 2-11 is currently being reviewed by the US Food and Drug Administration. And parents should really NOT – NOT – NOT give products intended for older children or adults to younger children.
Justin: Because they’re children Mr. Bailey.
Kirsten: [Laugh] Because they’re children.
Justin: Children.
Kirsten: Yes. So that’s it from the CDC this week and thanks to – who sent that in? Demia – Demia Wright. I hope I pronounced that right from Atlanta Georgia, thanks for sending that story in.
Justin: Beneath the surface of any artists is a great work of art waiting to be revealed. Now, thanks to science, we can see the art beneath the surface of great work of arts themselves. Huh?
Like x-rays, doctors see the bones beneath our skin. T-rays aren’t going to let art historians see murals hidden beneath coats of plaster or paint in century old buildings. This is from the University of Michigan Engineers.
T-rays pulse of tetrahertz radiation could also illuminate penciled sketches under paintings on canvasses without harming the artwork. Current methods of imaging under drawings can’t detect certain art materials such as graphite or sanguine – which is a red chalk that they believed a lot of masters of arts used to sketch out their paintings before committing to them.
Team of researchers which includes scientists at the Louvre Museum, used tetrahertz imaging to detect colored paints and graphite drawings of a butterfly through four millimeters of plaster. They believed their technique is capable of seeing even deeper. Paper on the research is published in the February edition of Optics Communications.
In March, the scientists will take their equipment to France to help archaeologists examine a mural they discovered recently behind five layers of plaster in the 12th century church.
“It’s ideal that the method of evaluation of historical artifacts such as frescoes and mural paintings, which are typically an inherent part of building’s infrastructure can be non-destructive and non-invasive, precise and applicable on sight. Current technologies may satisfy one or more of these requirements, but we believe our new techniques can satisfy them all,” says John Whitaker, author of the paper who is a research scientist, professor of Department of Electrical Engineering at UM.
Tetrahertz imaging – this is like – I didn’t really realize what tetrahertz is? It’s kind of a bizarre frequency here?
Kirsten: Yes.
Justin: It can reveal depth and detail that other techniques cannot and it’s not harmful. Tetrahertz radiation is apparently, it’s all around us in nature. But it’s been very difficult to produce in a lab because it actually falls between the range of electronic devices and lasers.
Kirsten: Huh!
Justin: It’s like light but it’s not light. It’s electromagnetic but it’s ..
Kirsten: Yes.
Justin: Not electromagnetic – it’s a strange range of electromagnetic spectrum. Because it is quasi optical.
Kirsten: Somewhere right in between.
Justin: Yes. It is.
Kirsten: Not quite optical and – yes.
Justin: It is light but it isn’t says Bianca Jackson, first author of the paper who is a Doctoral student of Applied Physics and no relation to me, as far as I know.
The device used for the research is the hybrid between electronics and lasers. It was developed in Ann-Arbor based company Picometrix. It’s called the T-ray system, it uses the pulses of ultra-fast laser to excite semiconductor antenna which in turn emits pulses of tetrahertz radiation.
In France alone, says Gerard Mourou, another Electrical Engineer at UM. In France alone, we have a 100,000 churches and many of these places we know that something is hidden.
It has already been written about but this is the quick way to find out. Because there is the Leonardo Da Vinci, Battle of Anghiari, for example, is believed to lurk beneath other frescoes at the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence, Italy.
So, we’re going to be able to do a whole – and looking underneath the surface because a lot of these churches have changed names.
Kirsten: Some names – yes.
Justin: But it changed religions…
Kirsten: To be able to see if it was..
Justin: …so many times.
Kirsten: What could have been there before and what did the people paint on the walls? What did they want to put down to record what they were believing in?
Justin: I heard it’s only like – it’s going to be like old – like bunch of old campaign posters, basically.
Kirsten: Right.
Justin: Overlapping each other.
Kirsten: And hopefully here in California the rains are done for a while but researchers looking at records from the US Environmental Protection Agency compared rainfall with corresponding air pollution and found that it rains more heavily on Tuesday through Thursday than it does on Saturday through Monday.
And the clearest day of the week is also Saturday. So, the day of the week with some of the most particular matter – Tuesday. So this is not causation, this is co-relation but it could be that traffic from driving increases particulate matter in the air and increases rainfall during the week. Although from my move on Saturday, I am going to argue the opposite because I moved on Saturday and it rained the whole time!
Justin: That’s because of all the driving on Friday.
Kirsten: Huh! Darn it. But that’s it for us today. It’s been the last hour, This Week in Science. Thank you for joining us and listening to all we had to say about science in general.
Justin: And if you learn anything from today’s show, remember..
Kirsten: It’s all in your head and so…