Monthly Archives: January 2010

I Overdosed on Magic water and nothing happened: Exposing the fallacy.

Well, the mass overdose went ahead as planned and nothing extraordinary happened. Over dosing on actual medicine would be dangerous so it’s a good thing Homeopathy is bull shit or those of us who survived would have almost certainly been banned from the pub. Last I checked they don’t like people holding mass suicides near their venues.

We overdosed outside the 24 hour pharmacy on Beaufort st, and apart from getting some funny looks from cars waiting at the lights nobody was bothered by the fact that a group of Skeptics was attempting suicide in broad daylight on the street corner.

I have no doubt that absurd accusations that this was all staged by a major pharmaceutical company will begin to emerge from the woo-woo crowd within the next few days. But what can we expect from people who fraudulently support remedies that we (Perth Skeptics) have demonstrated do not work. There are videos of the event which I will post when they become avalible.

Mass Overdose of homeopathic remedies.

In an effort to prove the fallacy of Homeopathic remedies Perth Skeptics are going to take an overdose of Homeopathic remedies to raise public awareness about the fact that there is nothing in them. The “overdose” will take place at The Flying Scotsman in Mount Lawley. On Saturday 30th of January 2010.

This is a part of the 10:23 campain against Homeopathy.

At 10:23am (UK Time) on January 30th, more than three hundred homeopathy sceptics nationwide will be taking part in a mass homeopathic ‘overdose’ in protest at Boots’ continued endorsement and sale of homeopathic remedies, and to raise public awareness about the fact that homeopathic remedies have nothing in them.

Skeptics and consumer rights activists will publicly swallow an entire bottle of homeopathic ‘pillules’ to demonstrate that these ‘remedies’, prepared according to a long-discredited 18th century ritual, are nothing but sugar pills.
The protest will raise public awareness about the reality of homeopathy, and put further pressure on Boots to live up to its responsibilites as the ‘scientist on the high street’ and stop selling treatments which do not work.

Since Homeopathy is a fake medicine with no active ingredients overdosing does nothing more than show Homeopathy for the pseudo-science that it is. We want pharmacies who sell Homeopathy to take notice of the fact that they are selling false medicine to the public.

Although Homeopathy contains no active ingredient it still poses a serious threat to patients suffering from serious illnesses such as cancer because it offers them a false alternative to the real treatment that could save their life. There is nothing harmless about selling fake medicine and there have even been deaths as a result of people refusing genuine treatment in favor of false alternatives.

Why are disasters used as a promotion for god?

Why do creationists insist that every disaster is proof of gods existence?

Right now in Haiti Christians are rushing in to spread the gospel to the Haitian people with solar powered bibles. But how is this a positive promotion for God. If anything I would expect disasters like this to turn the deluded masses against god rather than towards him. Patt Robertson is even claiming that the people of Haiti where punished by god for their sinful ways. However this is not the consensus of most Christians who believe God is there to help. My question is “Where was he earlier?” surely an all powerful being capable of being everywhere at once would not have simply gone out on other errands. 

This promotion for god is not a new phenomena Christians have been doing it for years, every time there is a disaster the God Squad is there to promote “God’s Love” without recognising his obvious absence and reluctance to answer prayers. 

Why it is incorrect to have "Faith" in science.

An argument that many Skeptics encounter from Creationist’s is that we have “Faith” in Science.


This is incorrect and fundamentally flawed because faith is trust in the absence of evidence. Supporting the scientific method is about as far from “faith” as you can possibly get. Science is the body of knowledge that describes the order of nature and the cause of that order. It is an on going progress of collecting and collaborating knowledge about the universe and organising that knowledge into testable laws and theories.


Scientific laws and principles are not absolute and immune from change. If a scientist finds evidence that contradicts a law or principle then that law or priciple must be either changed to accommodate the new evidence or be abandoned altogether. For example the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC) claimed that an object will fall at a speed apparent to it’s weight. This idea was held to be true for nearly two thousand years, due to Aristotle’s unquestioned scientific authority in the field. Until Galileo (1564-1642 AD) showed Aristotle’s principle to be incorrect with an experiment that involved dropping objects of various weight from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. This experiment invalidated Aristotle’s earlier hypothesis despite his scientific authority. In Science a single verifiable experiment can invalidate an established law or principle and outweighs the authority of the person whose principle is being invalidated. The Argument from Authority has little value in the modern Scientific Method.


In science all claims must be backed up by verifiable evidence that supports the claim otherwise it is not a valid Scientific Principle. Therefore Skeptics and Scientists do not have “Faith” in science. We support the Scientific method which requires our claims to be supported by evidence and stand up to scientific scrutiny. The Scientific Method also requires us to be corrected when verifiable evidence to the contrary is produced. Religion does not do any of these things, religion relies on “Faith” which is acceptance in the absence of evidence and a strong reluctance to accommodate new idea’s. So for a Creationist to claim that a Skeptic has “Faith” in science is completely incorrect.




New Age Energy vs Reality

Energy, I see allot of psychics and alternative healers talk about energy as if is is some magical substance from wich they can draw mystical power. Energy is not a magical substance. It is a scalar quantity used to describe how much work can be done by a particular force. Energy is the ability to do work and it can exist in a variety of forms such as heat (thermal energy), chemical energy, light (radiant energy), nuclear, mechanical and electrical. If you see the Psychic talk about energy just ask them what type of energy they are talking about, I guarantee you will catch them off guard.


It seems very apparent that New Age followers really have no understanding of what energy is and fraudulent practitioner such as Psychics and Alternative Healers often exploit this ignorance for financial gain. They use the term “energy” because sounds good to the average layperson who simply does not know any better.


An Australian Psychic website  claims”


“Psychic energy, like all forms of energy, is a ‘boomerang’ – the energy you give out will return to you.

When we think of psychic energy, the picture that immediately invoked in the mind is of a person possessed with mysterious, supernatural powers of intuition.”


This would be laughable if it was not so serious. New Age Practitioners do not know what energy is and use the term only to mislead the ignorant for financial gain. So the next time you hear a new ager talking about energy you should understand that what they are talking about and actual energy are in reality are two entirely different things.




California Energy Commission. “Energy Story. Chapter 1. What is Energy?” Energy Quest. California Energy Commission, 22 Apr. 2002. Web. 6 Dec. 2009. <>


Dunning, Brian. “New Age Energy.” Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc., 3 Oct 2006. Web. 12 Jan 2010. <> “PSYCHIC ENERGY.” Psychic Readings from Genuine Psychics. Access Positive, n.d. Web. 12 Jan. 2010. < >

I will of course cover more on Alternative Healing and Psychics as this blog progresses.

Nuclear Energy: Leave Chernobyl in the Past

Nuclear Energy is not only clean but it is also incredibly safe, despite what many less educated individuals might have you believe. In  Australia there is strong opposition to Nuclear Energy in favor of coal fired powerplants which are not only the biggest contributer of carbon emissions but also carry a significantly higher death toll world wide than all the Nuclear Reactors to date.

Let’s start with the most commonly used argument against Nuclear Energy, the accident at Chernobyl in 1986. The accident at Chernobyl took place when the reactor was intentionally run outside of it’s safe operational parameters during an experiment to see how the system would cope during a cooling system failure. The test involved shutting down the water pumps responsible for cooling the reactor to see if the cooling system was capable of starting it’s self up again automatically. The system failed to restart and the graphite core of the Russian RBMK-1000 (reactor) caught fire causing the reactor to explode. Because Chernobyl did not have a containment vessel designed to prevent the escape of radioactive material in the event of an accident (a common safety device) radioactive particles were allowed to escape into the atmosphere.

Not only was such a dangerous test carried out with an unsafe reactor design but many of the technicians on duty were untrained workers from a local coal mine and the only trained technician got his experience installing small reactors on board Soviet submarines. It was a combination of bad reactor design, untrained technicians and dangerous conduct that ultimately lead to the disaster. Many experienced engineers would not so much as contemplate running such a dangerous experiment with the cooling system, a critical component for the RBMK Reactor.

Today’s modern reactors are designed very differently from the reactor that was operational at Chernobyl. Modern reactors are designed in a way that ensures a reaction cannot be sustained if things go beyond the designated parameters, safety is built into the fundamental design of modern reactors. This means that if all the workers in a modern Nuclear Power plant where to suddenly drop dead from a heart attack the worse case scenario is that the reactor might shut down and cause a blackout. No nuclear explosion, no “end-of-days” just a blackout and the expense of bringing the reactor back online. That’s the worse case scenario for a modern Nuclear Powerplant.

What about the alternative, coal fired power stations? For this I would like to quote Brian Dunning from

A report in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that some 50,000-100,000 Americans die each year from lung cancer caused by particulate air pollution, the biggest cause of which is coal-burning power plants in the midwest and east. Even taking the maximum predicted death toll from Chernobyl, we would need a Chernobyl-sized accident every three weeks to make nuclear power as deadly as coal and oil already is. Shall I repeat that? If the world was filled with Generation I reactors run by feuding coal miners, we would need a worst-case scenario every three weeks just to match the US death toll we’ve imposed upon ourselves by clinging to our current fossil fuel system.

So which is really looking better now, Coal or Nuclear?

Before you jump on the anti-nuclear bandwagon. Do some research and you will find the truth is very different from what the hippies would have you believe.



Dunning, Brian. “Rethinking Nuclear Power” Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc., 18 Mar 2008. Web. 3 Jan 2010. <>

Sevior, Martin. “Nuclear Power: Cure or Curse.” Up Close Podcast. University of Melbourne., 1 Nov 2006. Web. 3 Jan 2010 <>