Ah! At last! Some sensible guidance on the consumption of alcohol.

Piloerection — more commonly known as goosebumps …
We all get goosebumps.
But I have recemtly found out two things about this common phenomenon — one is general and the other seemingly specific to me.

Atlantic Insight has an interesting interview (podcast & transcript) with Christopher Snowdon, Head of Lifestyle Economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs. He’s not at all impressed by the nanny state or public health lobbyists.
It’s worth a read, or listen: Interview with Christopher Snowdon
Lots of science-y bits again in this months offering …
Science & Medicine
I wonder when humans first started pondering about aliens? Well certainly they were in medieval times.
On the discovery of dinosaurs among us.
So what would you guess is the world’s deadliest poison? Well here are five of the top contenders.
Clean water. We all depend on it, but do you know what happens to it between its source and your tap? Simple explainer from Compound Interest.
Hugs generally feel good. Now researchers are beginning to understand why.

NHS in £2.4bn funding boost for GP services in England says the BBC News headline.
So OK, our hard-pressed GPs are going to get a funding increase over the next four years which will pay for 5000 more GPs and the same number of other GP practice clinicians (nurses, pharmacists etc.). There will also be:
– a relaxation of rules to make it easier to renovate premises or build new ones
– a public campaign to encourage junior doctors to become GPs
– the recruitment of 500 doctors from abroad to boost numbers.
While any extra help for GPs is to be welcomed, this does beg lots of questions, including:
So yes, good, but …
A few days ago there was an article in the Guardian under the banner Why it’s time to dispel the myths about nuclear power.
Just a couple of snippets:
Chernobyl was a perfect storm, a damning tale of ineptitude leading to needless loss of life. It was also unequivocally the world’s worst nuclear accident. To many, it is also heralded as proof-positive that nuclear energy was inherently unsafe, a narrative adopted by many anti-nuclear groups … But perception and reality do not always neatly align; in the wake of the disaster, the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and others undertook a co-ordinated effort to follow up on health effects … Despite aggressive monitoring for three decades, there has been no significant increase in solid tumours or delayed health effects, even in the hundreds of thousands of minimally protected cleanup workers who helped purge the site after the accident. In the words of the 2008 UNSCEAR report: “There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure … The incidence of leukaemia in the general population, one of the main concerns owing to the shorter time expected between exposure and its occurrence compared with solid cancers, does not appear to be elevated”.
… … …
Unlike the accident in the Ukraine, events at Fukushima in March 2011 were not the result of ineptitude but rather a massive natural disaster in the form of a deadly 15-metre high tsunami** … While the world media fixated on the drama unfolding at the plant, it lost sight of the fact that around 16,000 had just been killed in a massive natural disaster. Despite the preponderance of breathless headlines since the reality is that five years later, radiobiological consequences of Fukushima are practically negligible — no one has died from the event, and is it extraordinarily unlikely that anyone will do so in future. The volume of radioactive leak from the site is so small as to be of no health concern; there is no detectable radiation from the accident in Fukushima grown-food, nor in fish caught off the coast.
… … …
It is important also to see these disasters in the wider context of energy production: when the Banqiao hydroelectric dam failed in China in 1975 it led to at least 171,000 deaths and displaced 11 million people … None of this is to denigrate the vital importance of such technologies, but rather to point out that every form of energy production has some inherent risk.
Do go and read the whole article.
** It is worth noting again that the containment at the Fukushima plant worked largely as designed. Excepting the natural disaster, the root cause failure appears to have been one of shortcomings in plant external safety design and process which would be just as likely with any major plant.
This from Weird Universe, 13 March 2016:
“Medical” marijuana will take on a new meaning soon if the Food and Drug Administration approves Foria Relief cannabis vaginal suppositories for relieving menstrual pain (from the California company Foria). Currently, the product is available only in California and Colorado, at $44 for a four-pack. The company claims the inserts are targeted to the pelvic nerve endings, but International Business Times, citing a gynecologist-blogger, noted that the only studies on the efficacy of Foria Relief were done on the uteruses of rats.

There’s a lot in this month’s edition, which is a few days late, so let’s get straight in.
Science & Medicine
Scientists have tried to work out the five most addictive substances on Earth and what they do to your brain.
No real surprises though.
Another set of scientists have discovered a mysterious boiling river in the middle of the Amazon rainforest. Well it’s almost boiling and certainly hot enough to lightly poach the unwary.


At which point it seems appropriate to ask why the clitoris doesn’t get the attention it deserves? And why does this matter?At last. Some people who might have some influence are finally getting the message: prohibition doesn’t work. And that by decriminalising and licensing things you can not only control them but you can tax them.
No, for once I’m not talking about sex work. This is about cannabis.
The headline in yesterday’s Guardian read:
Sell cannabis to over-18s in licensed shops, says Lib Dem panel
It isn’t quite the Dutch model, but the recommendations have been put forward by a panel of experts including a couple of top cops.
The article is worth a read.
Under the title No wonder Britain’s alcohol guidelines are so extreme — just look at who drafted them Christopher Snowdon at Spectator Health lifts the lid on the way in which the new alcohol guidelines were arrived at.
If true, and I have no reason to suspect Snowdon isn’t being truthful, this is a disgraceful abuse of power by the Chief Medical Officer, and others, to arrive at conclusions which suit their personal predilections in the face of major conflicting evidence.
Given the academic stature of many of those involved, they really should know better. The fact that they appear not to, should be sufficient to disqualify them from their roles and they deserve to be summarily sacked.