Slashdot Mirror

Then i found outnhow much blood banks were making selling donated blood to hospitals and other places that nneded blood or plasma. It was discusting, not to mention the huge salaries that were supported basted on these fees. I think one story was based on the Central Florida Blood Bank. I think NPR's Planet Money did a show on this also. Do not believe all those " our reserves are low, donate now". Sorry, it was Radio Lab - http://www.radiolab.org/story/...

Vaguely off-topic but your post reminded me of an interesting NPR Radiolab episode I heard over the weekend. The upshot being "how do we even know the people we talk to everyday are real" and how we all go through life making a series of small leaps of faith just to keep ourselves grounded in what we perceive as reality. Listening to it and than making the comparison to the Turing test makes it seem to be forever out of our reach to prove anything about consciousness, human or artificial.

Since she is responding to verbal questions, her marbles are there. The essential thinking parts of the brain, the parts that will help keep her OCCUPIED and SANE through this awful time... are intact. But it is also possible that anything she attempts to do that may require visual perception and especially focus, will be difficult and frustrating.

Decide on a daily schedule for her that includes presence of family --- not just monologues, even two or more people in the room talking with one another is great. Hand holding, massage is a must. Also some time for her to listen to audio content with which she is presently unfamiliar, even when she is alone. And a firm block of time for sleep -- where a nurse turns off and removes any audio devices and dims the lights.

For the audio portion... delve into the great audio that is publicly available: great podcasts such as RadioLab, old time radio programs, chapters of audio books, certain songs of favorite music. Load an mp3 player with these and PLAY IT ON RANDOM SHUFFLE. If *I* was trapped inside my mind, I would much rather face a sense of not knowing what comes next in a mix of music and voice, even if it was out of sequence, which is stimulating --- than be double-trapped into listening to some audiobook in which I have long since lost interest.

Nothing creepy or scary, even if she likes such things! No crime or horror. Go for radio comedy or sitcom and variety like Fibber McGee or Roy Rogers, etc. You don't know how well the various parts of her brain are working, and many hospital meds (esp morphine) make one vulnerable to dark thoughts and paranoia. Chapters of Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer, 15 minute radio programs, RadioLab-type stuff (but not the creepy stuff) all shuffled together (when she is alone) or played through sequentially (when someone is present to ask her if she's enjoying it) would make for an excellent entertainment without the ultimate strain of conversation.

Bear in mind that she may be in this condition for awhile, and being exposed to audio material that is new to her might become a welcome part of her day.

All the best to her and the family in this difficult time.

AUMF that allow's it. It is overly broad. I congress person voted against it and was labeled a traitor by most American at the time.

Listen to Radiolabs : 60 words.

http://www.radiolab.org/

You cannot mitigate an individuals responsibility just because we know the factors that can affect someones actions. Here is a great podcast that discusses the topic - http://www.radiolab.org/story/...

There was a fairly interesting Radiolab podcast about a program that shipped New York City's biosolids to Colorado for use as fertilizer: http://www.radiolab.org/story/...
It includes a significant discussion of waste treatment, pathogens, and the economics of shipping what some municipalities call hazardous waste cross-country.

You're probably thinking of anisomycin as heard on RADIOLAB.

If you haven't heard "The Bitter End" segment from Radiolab, I highly recommend a listen: http://www.radiolab.org/story/262588-bitter-end/

We may not be able to identify his tomb, but sure as heck we can identify his ancestors

Strangely, that is about his descendants and not his ancestors.

We may not be able to identify his tomb, but sure as heck we can identify his ancestors! It so happens that this guy had about half a thousand children that have descendants that survive today. Rape and pillage he did, allrighty. There's more than ten million of those descendants alive today, by the way. Genetics for the win, I say.

Reminds me of the Oops RadioLab episode where they talk with a guy that killed the oldest thus-far-known tree on Earth (4000+ years old, and yes, that's thousands).

There are many stories about Bigfoot as well.

And you need to try to understand the studies you link to.

The Stanford experiment was a 6 day experiment with very few people that the person doing the experiment participate in. It is, in no way, a valid study.
The horror is that he didn't go to prison.

The milgarm experiment link is incorrect:
". He found that the percentage of participants who are prepared to inflict fatal voltages remains remarkably constant, 61–66 percent, regardless of time or place.[9][10]"
False. In fact time place and person would go all the way down to 0% giving a 'lethal' shock.

It really depended on the prod and how it was delivered, by whom ad what condition. So if you where told you where in an experiment, and the person telling you was a scientist, in another room talking over a microphone you had high numbers of people who would give a lethal shock. But if you had the scientist in the room with the person, that percentage dropped dramatically. If the person was in the room and NOT wear a white lab coat and present as a non scientist, the number fell to 0.
It's an interesting study, but it doesn't show what people think it does.
I recommend this:
http://www.radiolab.org/2012/jan/09/

In that episode they do a good breakdown of the experiment.

Radiolab did a story on this a few years ago. It's absolutely worth 11 minutes of your life...
http://www.radiolab.org/2010/may/17/henriettas-tumor/

If it was this story that you listened to, there is more to the story. When the man was released, he murdered a woman.

But in a way that supports your point even more - eyewitness testimony is a bad way to get to the facts (let alone the truth!). Maybe she remembered right the first time, maybe not, we can never know.

Pennsylvania investigators concluded that Dunn was driving up to 140 miles per hour when he crashed. His blood alcohol content was .196, which is far higher than the legal limit of .08.

This behaviour displays a wanton disregard for the life and safety of those around him. Would you bite your tongue in respectful silence when Patient Zero is freshly planted?

From Snopes:

Dugas appeared to move between denial that whatever he had could be transmitted sexually ("Of course I'm going to have sex. Nobody's proven to me that you can spread cancer"), depraved indifference to his partners' wellbeing ("It's their duty to protect themselves. They know what's going on out there. They've heard about this disease"), and a desire to take others with him ("I've got gay cancer. I'm going to die and so are you").

In what way was Dunn's behaviour any better than Dugas? Was is the first time he ever drove over the speed limit? The first time he drove bombed out of his mind? The first time he combined being twice the legal limit and driving at twice the speed limit? Somehow I doubt it.

Ebert's tweet was really aimed at the jackasses who knew about and enabled Dunn's behaviour and decided to tolerate it, not caring enough about public safety to have him arrested and jailed (which he certainly deserved), and not caring enough about Dunn himself to prevent his foreseeable death. As a former alcoholic himself, Ebert had some strong personal opinions about the behaviours of his fellow alcoholics and those around them, the same way a sex offender might be harsh in condemning another sex offender. In-group vitriol is 200 proof.

What has it achieved this respectful biting of lips? Self-centered assholes like Dunn still put the public at risk after forty years of public awareness efforts. I would have been much happier with the outcome if Dunn had redeemed himself to "former asshole" by seeking treatment rather than killing himself.

Somehow the polite grieving process and the social institution of denial has become joined at the hip. Ebert decided to fire a cap into this unholy union before the glue dried. As a result, every time someone criticizes Ebert for his tweet intended as true, the message behind his tweet is reopened for examination. We might even be saving lives here if the message finally sinks into the public consciousness that people behaving like Dunn aren't much better than people behaving like Dugas. Or is there a subtle hierarchy on acceptable ways to expose people to mortal danger without their consent? Not for me, there isn't.

And who are we protecting by our polite silence? The people who either meekly or gutlessly enabled Dunn to continue his reckless behaviours? Well, guess what? Gutless sucks. And meek sucks, too. The respectful silence just serves to confirm in people's minds that they did the best they could, without forcing them to confront the public sentiment that it damn well wasn't good enough. The true enablers in this story? The phony friends who hung around and encouraged his outlandish behaviour because they found Dunn to be funny or entertaining, but didn't give a damn about his well being or the well being of the babies and children and parents and sisters and brother who shared the same highways with the drunken, hard-driving Jackass.

If I had a family member who was a hard-living alcoholic and he hung out with a bunch of enabling carousers and high-functioning deadbeats who let him (or her) walk out of a pub shit-faced to hit the highway with death-wish testosterone or toxic depression, and someone of Ebert's status tweeted about it that "friends don't let friends drink and drive" my own reaction would have been an angry "Damn straight!"

Or maybe I'm wrong about myself, and in my grief over my dead family member I'd be grateful for the social courtesy of respectful

Similarly, it could be argued that the scandal over Elvis had quite a bit to do with him singing "negro music".

Radiolab did an episode a few years ago which told the story of The Rite of Spring but also a very interesting one about a guy who listened to a lot of Gregorian Chant and... well, I won't spoil it for you, but it's a very thought-provoking story.

http://www.radiolab.org/2007/may/24/one-eye-open/

porpoises mentioned 7:30 but it's all fascinating

Also water retention. Mostly that applies to women, and it's a small bit, but don't discount it.

"Ultimately, you have free will,"
maybe. OTOH, when people who have the dopemine relationship to fast food grow up, they don't have the tools to deal with breaking that dopemine connect. If the connection is strong enough, the will never be able to break it without intervention. Even then they might not be able to.

You're will isn't nearly as free as you think.
http://www.radiolab.org/2008/nov/17/is-free-will-really-free/

http://www.radiolab.org/2009/jun/15/seeking-patterns/

Also water retention. Mostly that applies to women, and it's a small bit, but don't discount it.

"Ultimately, you have free will,"
maybe. OTOH, when people who have the dopemine relationship to fast food grow up, they don't have the tools to deal with breaking that dopemine connect. If the connection is strong enough, the will never be able to break it without intervention. Even then they might not be able to.

You're will isn't nearly as free as you think.
http://www.radiolab.org/2008/nov/17/is-free-will-really-free/

http://www.radiolab.org/2009/jun/15/seeking-patterns/

itself.

There was an experiment. They would measure the Dopamine level, give the animal a sweet drink, then measure it again. as expect, after the drink, the Dopamine would rise up.
After time, the Dopamine would increase when the animal heard the door open. then when they heard foots steps, then all by itself at the specific time of, even if no one was coming.
So that's what we see. The answer is not to give the kids fast food and break the expectation.

Citations:
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1120460

Great radiolab episode on this subject:
http://www.radiolab.org/2009/jun/15/seeking-patterns/

The concept of a human, say vs. a lump of human cells (please read The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, it's pretty interesting) usually includes the concept of consciousness, which for most babies doesn't occur at birth. Obviously a baby is alive, and has feelings and such, but consciousness as humans understand it doesn't appear to exist. A very interesting possibility is that consciousness is thinking, and you need language to think. There was a RadioLab Episode where they interviewed deaf people after they learned Sign Language, and they claimed an altered consciousness before they knew language, as if it was a void before.

That said, my wife has a very good friend who claims to have memories in utero, and of her own birth. I have no reason to doubt her. So there are at least a few counterarguments to the GP claim.

I'm not so sure it is just a void on non-existence before learning language. I listened to one of the Clever Apes shows from NPR a while back and they were talking about childhood development of memory. There is a period when most people have a mass amnesia and can no longer remember the very early parts of their childhood. The thought is that it is related to learning language. The brain was recording memories before, but the key to access them was lost. After language becomes a part of the new persons frame of reference, their brain uses that (perhaps not exclusively) as the key for the memories. Once your brain switches it's organization method the old storage is not accessible any more.

The concept of a human, say vs. a lump of human cells (please read The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, it's pretty interesting) usually includes the concept of consciousness, which for most babies doesn't occur at birth. Obviously a baby is alive, and has feelings and such, but consciousness as humans understand it doesn't appear to exist. A very interesting possibility is that consciousness is thinking, and you need language to think. There was a RadioLab Episode where they interviewed deaf people after they learned Sign Language, and they claimed an altered consciousness before they knew language, as if it was a void before.

That said, my wife has a very good friend who claims to have memories in utero, and of her own birth. I have no reason to doubt her. So there are at least a few counterarguments to the GP claim.

WNYC's excellent program, RadioLab will have a Google Hangout and possible a meatspace meetup somewhere in the Lower East Side in NYC.

Headliners for their event include:

• Packing for Mars author Mary Roach
• A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines author and physicist Janna Levin
• Martian Summer author Andrew Kessler
• Other unspecified scientists and journalists

Side note: RadioLab is a production of New York's NPR affiliate. Apparently the show is just a couple years old and apparently it's not carried on stations everywhere. If you haven't heard it, and you like science, check out their podcast. It's quirky, incredibly well produced, and overall very well done.

WNYC's excellent program, RadioLab will have a Google Hangout and possible a meatspace meetup somewhere in the Lower East Side in NYC.

Headliners for their event include:

• Packing for Mars author Mary Roach
• A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines author and physicist Janna Levin
• Martian Summer author Andrew Kessler
• Other unspecified scientists and journalists

Side note: RadioLab is a production of New York's NPR affiliate. Apparently the show is just a couple years old and apparently it's not carried on stations everywhere. If you haven't heard it, and you like science, check out their podcast. It's quirky, incredibly well produced, and overall very well done.

Planet Money is (IMO) just as good as TAL, though their segments tend to be shorter and, obviously, they focus on financial and economic stories.

While we're on it, Radio Lab is as equally well-presented as the other two, but it focuses on more of the humanities, science, and social sciences rather than current events or other topical issues.

This topic was covered in a segment of RadioLab a few years back.

neurology, the less I like legalized gambling.

People like to think there is some sort of choice involved, but for a great many people it's an illusion of choice.
If you have high dopemine levels, you're brain is more likely to come up with reasons, or a compulsion to gamble.

This is why I am now against online gambling in the home, and gambling in places people must go to needs. Grocery stores etc.
Here is an example:
http://www.radiolab.org/2009/jun/15/seeking-patterns/

Some of the details aren't 100% accurate, but close enough for the average person.

You look at someone that is gambling there life away an think it's just a bad decision they can control may not be correct.

"Is There an Edge to the Heavens?"

The radio show RadioLab had an episode that talked a little bit about this. It's not a new problem but the results are just as hilarious. http://www.radiolab.org/2010/jun/28/

AP Headline: "Homosexual eases into 100 final at Olympic Trials.

Tyson Homosexual easily won his semi-final for the 100 meters...

1990 Fresno Bee Article: New taxes that will help put Massachusetts "back into the African-American"

Chicago Tribune Obituary for Walter Cronkite refers to "Walter Leland Mr. Cronkite Jr." and his show "Walter Mr. Cronkite's Twentieth Century..."

Search and replace gone awry.

How to you become a retired hobbiest? Isn't that just stopping to do the hobby?

Anyways, robots are not stagnant, not by any stretch.
Big dog, cheetah, we have bipedal robots that run.

You need to define sentience. Please apply the definition to fire. If fire can be described with your definition, then the definition is wrong, OR fir is sentient.

Oh, and we have system that can learn stuff we don't know and can't figure out when they tell us:

http://www.radiolab.org/2010/apr/05/limits-of-science/

If you haven't read it, I suggest you get "Understanding Computers and Cognition" by Terry Winograd and Fernando Flores

AS humans we will have no problem with the compartmentalization issues. So we could have 'slave' robots and not apply that to anyone else.

Finally, we have computer virus the evolve, computers that can figures out mathematical formulas through observation, computers that can profile people who have never used them, and self driving cars. So, yeah it's here.

we already have robots that learn. Mostly via a USB cable and download, but also through observation.

In fact, sometime they learn things and give us a mathematical answer that works..but humans haven't figured out how.

http://www.radiolab.org/2010/apr/05/limits-of-science/

There's a Radiolab episode that covers the story of Prometheus being cut down. Sad story.

http://www.radiolab.org/2010/jun/28/

It's fundamentally no different than doing it to Jews or black people, there's no genetic sequence to identify those people either.

I don't know about Jews, because that's sort of a complex label. But you can absolutely tell ancestry from a genetic sample. "African descent" (what most people in the U.S. would call "black") is easy to discern from a DNA sample.

Law enforcement agencies have been slower to adopt using this capability because it's considered a political landmine to say (for example) that they know that a murdering rapist is black with only DNA evidence to go by. But it can be done, and it has been done. Here's an example:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-16-dna_x.htm

You can get eye color, hair color, and other traits too. The science is getting better.

That said:

Just because you disagree with something, doesn't make it the same as something else that you disagree with.

Eugenics is selecting based on inherited traits. You can object to both practices without them being the same thing. This organization is doing something that you may object to. But it's distinct from eugenics. That doesn't make it right (or wrong), just different.

An interesting primer on the subject:
http://www.radiolab.org/2008/dec/15/race-doesnt-exist-or-does-it/

I know podcasts can be a PITA because it's slower than reading, but it's worth a listen if you're at all interested in the subject.

I wonder if they've had any success with the opposite -- trying to get rid of memories. I bet there'd be a big market.

Yes, inhibiting protein creation while a memory is being recalled, which actually re-creates the memory, can prevent the memory from storing again. There have been human trials. This Radiolab discusses it http://www.radiolab.org/2007/jun/07/

http://www.radiolab.org/2010/jun/28/even-the-worst-laid-plans/
Awesome show, really enjoyed the episode. I find that kind of stuff fascinating.

Linux is about choice. Don't like it? Install something else.

Do You Suffer From Decision Fatigue?

I made my choice when I installed Ubuntu in the first place with the hope of not having to revisit my initial choice any time soon.

From Benford to Erd(slashcode fuckup)s

Erdos carried a suitcase from one city to another, arrived at the doorstep of any living mathematician, and declared "My brain is open!" Are you advocating that I carry my home directory with me from one distribution to another and declare "My desktop is open!" as a model of good living?

"This is all just pattern matching, "

What do you think intelligence is?

" there are people guiding them."
entering moves isn't guiding.
Also, you are who you are because people 'guided' you.

"developing something that can learn and make inferences "

You mean like the tech in the android and iPhone 4s?

http://www.radiolab.org/2011/may/31/

And here is a software system than can duces laws of physice through observation: In fact, it's so good it ahs given biologists answer to queation they don't understand. Think about that: You give the system data, and it gives you a formula that you can use toa ccurate predict an outcome, but the scientist don't understand the formula.
http://www.radiolab.org/2010/apr/05/limits-of-science/

Finally, I know there are at least 3 AI bots with uid on ./ All have positive karma.

Yeah,it's here, it's new. The only problem is people give a mystical quality to intelligence as if it's some 'magic gift'.
It isn't.

"This is all just pattern matching, "

What do you think intelligence is?

" there are people guiding them."
entering moves isn't guiding.
Also, you are who you are because people 'guided' you.

"developing something that can learn and make inferences "

You mean like the tech in the android and iPhone 4s?

http://www.radiolab.org/2011/may/31/

And here is a software system than can duces laws of physice through observation: In fact, it's so good it ahs given biologists answer to queation they don't understand. Think about that: You give the system data, and it gives you a formula that you can use toa ccurate predict an outcome, but the scientist don't understand the formula.
http://www.radiolab.org/2010/apr/05/limits-of-science/

Finally, I know there are at least 3 AI bots with uid on ./ All have positive karma.

Yeah,it's here, it's new. The only problem is people give a mystical quality to intelligence as if it's some 'magic gift'.
It isn't.

Talking to Machines

The Robert Epstein segment still has me shaking my head a month later. It seems like for some men large breasts are the only reliable signal. Wake up guys. A B-cup is the French curve of aesthetic pleasure. With small adjustments of the gravity vector, it can become anything from a teardrop to a Tsarist onion, to say nothing of dynamic effects.

But then, if you're a speech scientist and you can't tell the difference after a month of correspondence, I can see the merit in opting for overflow.

Chances are that power plant was there already when you purchased your property originally, which was not designed to survive a 100-year event, unless you also believe that skyscrapers designed in the 1960s were pancake-immune to aircraft impact.

I also live on the Pacific rim, and when the 400-year event arrives (presently tending toward overdue), I won't be expecting to sell any real-estate for a long while. I'm not looking around at any major infrastructure thinking it will still be there because the government said so. I live on Vancouver Island. Until recently, it was comforting to know we had the Sea Kings standing by (also known as "flying coffins").
Requiem for the Sea King

The Sea Kings require 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight, and they are unavailable for operations 40 per cent of the time.

It's an interesting tidbit on the intertubes that people with the clearest perception of risk tend to perform worse rather than better. Here's the version by the dulcet duo:
Lying to Ourselves

After the KHL crash, NHL players everywhere are being quoted about their gut response to the surprising fact of mortality. From Ryan Smyth, the epitome of a blue-collar multimillionaire with his feet on the ground: "You see how easily things can be taken away, so you can't take anything for granted when you leave your family and your friends behind." It was true yesterday, and it will be true tomorrow, yet the high-performance types tend to batch process with lightening bolts of grief comprehension.

Here's why I'm not planning to transact after the big one, regardless of whether it's overblown in the media, or not:
Thomas theorem
If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.

If the situation was as overblown as you make it seem, you would make tons of money investing in land around the area, yet no one is buying

And this is precisely what a rational person expects, if you're depressed enough to see this ahead of time. Sharp investors don't invest on value, they invest on timing. While grab an illiquid, under-priced asset when you can buy a slightly less illiquid asset for roughly the same price a year or two into the future? If you've read articles about the recovery in New Orleans, this is what eventually happened. In the interval, all you are buying is red tape.

It won't cheer you up, but it will make matters clearer in your mind if you imagine the accident as spewing a cubic terabecquerel of red tape with a half-life of five years.

Where government tends to fall down in risk management is grandfathering what came before instead of applying the mothballs when clearer heads prevail. Industry shows up with pole axes in fine hone whenever the government threatens to revoke a sunk cost, even when the sunk cost is poised over a gaping chasm with tonsils wagging.

I agree with you about podcasts and audiobooks for cardio, though every now and then I do mix in some music. Anything you recommend? I've been digging The Skeptics Guide to the Universe, Radiolab, and Sound Opinions.

I place the Bible roughly on par with what I remember about my childhood between the ages of three and five. The scraps I remember seem disproportionately important relative to much clearer memories from later on, yet also clouded by unbridgeable differences in mental perception and layers of reremembering.

Memory and Forgetting has some interesting content about the act of remembering rewriting memory. As usual, they sidle up to some really interesting stuff and gawk amusingly.

On the other side, memories of my later childhood and adult life are far less problematic having passed through the formative miracle of cognition and personality.

As I've matured my interests have changed. This double helix thing makes for fascinating reading. It's a great time and era to let the mists of time alone for a while; it's almost as if we lived on a clouded planet, and then one day the atmosphere cleared up and we could see the heavens for the very first time. Amazing as this development is, it doesn't seem to stop many people from rehashing starless origin stories, blind to the twinkle of a new cosmic perspective.

This also reminds me of conquest stories. The displaced tend to be the last group of people who lived somewhere without a writing system, regardless of how many other pre-literate peoples were chased off before them. An oppressor is any society with a written history. Amazing how that works.

It's quite the illusion to treat the Bible as a beginning point. Before I was four years old, I was two or three years old. Of this time I have essentially no memory at all. Neurologically, a lot of water has already passed under the bridge by the time you start recording conscious memories accessible (barely) to your adult mind.

Before Adam and Eve there was Mom and Dad.

I heard about this on RadioLab awhile ago - a trash dump full of fragments of old scrolls. I believe it was the "Detective Stories" episode: http://www.radiolab.org/2007/sep/10/

They were saying it would take centuries to match up all of the pieces, because they only had a few people working on it, and so many scraps to go through. My immediate thought was that they should scan them all and put them on the Internet, and some bored 17 year old would write a program in Scala that would run in the cloud and match everything up in a weekend. Sounds like somebody else had the same idea ...

The way they all got so pulled into the experiment is just crazy. Luckily, Zimbardo's grad student girlfriend came around.

This is one of the most fascinating insights: it's not crazy but typical. These were students who tested average on psychological exams (to the extent you can measure average), and still did these atrocious acts on people just like themselves. On fellow students whose only crime was the flip of a coin. Want further evidence?

Milgram, really?

Try this. Segment runs from roughly 4:30 to 13:00 and while the story isn't quite as innocuous as Zimbardo's, the conclusion is rather interesting.

Radio Lab has a great episode interviewing Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan's widow, regarding her part in developing the sound recordings for the voyager mission. She beautifully captures the art and love inherent in such an awesome act of science and exploration. If you have a free few minutes, you won't be sorry you listened.

One story can be listened to here--it's a podcast and the story begins around 10:20, but I'll recount it here.

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) was first classified around 1900, but no one knew the cause. People decided that a logical step was to dissect the bodies of SIDS babies and compare them to normal cadavers. What they found was that the thymus gland, part of the immune system, was different. SIDS kids had thymuses which were twice the size of other cadavers, and its proximity to the windpipe led to the reasonable hypothesis that if the kid rolled over wrong, the gland would press on the trachea and suffocate the child while he slept.

The treatment proscribed with this was to shrink the thymus gland using radiation, doses of 200-400 rads. The treatment worked in shrinking the thymus all right, but the then-unknown side effect was to vastly increase the risk of cancer. Estimates put the death toll from this procedure alone at 20,000-30,000 people due to thyroid cancer which developed decades later. And this use of radiation was a very widespread phenomenon not limited to medical science: you could go into a shoe store and have your feet x-rayed, irradiated water was sold, and it was said everywhere that "radioactivity is harmless." So there is one ill: death on a massive scale due to a lack of knowledge of radiation's long-term effects.

But this particular story isn't over and goes even farther back to the 18th Century, a little after the Revolutionary War. The newly-formed medical schools needed bodies to dissect and would pay people to dig 'em up and bring 'em in. This didn't sit well with living relatives and there were riots, so most European countries (where the schools were) passed laws which mandated that anyone who died in a poorhouse would have his body given to the anatomists. The result is that the overwhelming majority (estimated to be 99%) of cadavers used in medical science were those of poor people.

All of which sounded fine until 1936 when Hans Selye showed that being poor causes physical changes in the body. One of the effects of chronic stress found very often in the poor is that the immune system is weakened, and part of that weakening is a shrunken thymus gland. So what was thought to be a normal thymus was not, and tens of thousands of children with perfectly healthy thymuses were irradiated because of reasoning that was completely logical yet mistaken.

I am in no way anti-science, and anyone who claims to be yet lives in any technological society is a fool at best and a hypocrite at worst. But the prevailing attitude is that science can do no harm when in fact it has and does cause harm--and there is no way to prevent that without stagnation. Anyone who refuses to admit as much is a zealot no longer grounded in reality.

An excellent book on the topic is Jacques Barzun's Science: The Glorious Entertainment. It was written in the 1960s but remains quite relevant today, especially in its insights as to how most people act as though science is their religion, with the same amount of zealotry and faith in what the "clergy" tell them.

The guy mentioned in the summary is Robert Krulwich, an NPR correspondent and one half of the wonderful radio show Radiolab.

They usually look at the science behind all sorts of things, from psychology to physics to music. The production quality is fantastic, the content is almost always thought-provoking, and the hosts have an interplay that is often humorous while remaining informative. I've linked to several of their shows in the past when they were relevant to the discussion.

If you have a curious mind, you can easily spend countless hours listening to their shows, and unlike much entertainment they are all grounded in reality and will enrich your existence.

Check it out.