At the RSL, Moore St, Civic. Refreshments from 7.30 pm. Come and discuss Canberra's water problems with Alan Wade.

Thur 13th May, 7.30pm. Alan Wade :"Fire and water − a virtual reality" RSL, Civic.

Sun 13th June, 7.00pm. Glühwein and Pizzas. Venue to be arranged.

Fri 25th June, 7.30pm. Dr Jill Gordon: "A sceptical view of psychotherapy" Canberra Bridge Club, 60 Duff Place, Deakin (behind the Deakin Shops). Please note the change of date.

Thur 8th July, 7.30pm. Lynne Kelly: "Science and the paranormal − a writer's perspective". RSL, Civic.

Fri 13th Aug, 7.30pm. Social evening at the Wig and Pen, Civic.

Sat 21st Aug, 1.00pm. Forum on Global Warming. CSIRO Discovery Centre

Sat 21st Aug, 7.00pm. Dinner and Debate "This house believes Global Warming is a Good Thing"

Sun 22nd Aug, 10.30am. Ride for the Planet. Hall to Parliament House.

International Skeptics conference will be held in Italy, at Padua (which is 30 mins drive from Venice) from October 8-10, 2004.

Planning for the August Forum and Ride for the Planet is under control. The Committee would much appreciate it if some skeptics out there were prepared to drag themselves away from the Olympic Games coverage (yes, folks, the Forum etc is bang in the middle) and volunteer to help us with both the Forum and the Ride for the Planet, if only by indicating they intend to participate! The program (below, last page) is yet to be lodged on the website.

While roving the www the other day I chanced upon the term rhinotillexomania. Those trained in the classics will quickly work out the meaning. A clue for those who aren't but saw the film "Stork" − remember the smoked oyster episode? The significance of the word is not that it is too long for Scrabble (there are just 15 spaces each way on the board) and that the chance of it turning up in Boggle is effectively zero, but that it is a recent term for an ancient habit − of which more anon.

I have an interest in the causes of the asthma epidemic. There is no doubt that environment plays a part in the development of this disease. After all identical twin studies show 60-70% concordance rather than the 100% that would be expected were asthma totally genetic. One current theory is that the increasing incidence of asthma and allergies is a consequence of children not being exposed to sufficient dirt or infections in childhood. This, it is theorised, does not allow the immune system to acquire tolerance to common allergens at some critical stage of infant/toddler development. It is based on the observation that in developed countries the fifth child in a large family is much less likely to suffer from asthma than the first.

The explanation is that the toddler acquires childhood infections from its older siblings at an earlier age than they did. Furthermore, asthma in children is rarely seen in developing countries, even those with appalling pollution like India and China − places where children are exposed to all sorts of childhood infections which are less common or even absent in the West. Indeed the practice of anointing the umbilical wound in the newborn with cow dung in certain parts of the world, apart from perhaps protecting against puerperal fever, could be seen as an extreme form of immune system challenge with tetanus at a time when maternal antibody acquired by the foetus in utero is at its highest level and available to protect. And if the baby died, better then than at age 12.

Another problem with the low dirt theory of asthma is that several studies show breast-fed babies are, compared with bottle fed controls, less likely to develop asthma and less likely to suffer infections in infancy, particularly of the gut and the respiratory tract. This is presumably because they get a steady dose of mum's IgA in the breast milk rather than IgA to bovine food, bovine gut flora and bovine infectious agents. So, if the dirt theory is correct, all these bottle fed babies − with their greater exposure to infant infections − should be less asthma prone: in fact the reverse is the case.

I have some other problems with the theory. Apart from the introduction of disposable tissues (of which more anon) and nappies, dishwashers, and soaps and shampoos loaded with antimicrobials, hygiene in the West over the last 40 years has not changed so dramatically. Indeed, the ready availability of antibiotics has made us blasé about things like minor abrasions − having spent four days in hospital last year with pre patella bursitis (i.e. house maid's knee) that became infected through an unwashed graze, I speak from experience.

Furthermore, in certain respects today's infants are exposed to more childhood infections at an earlier age than previously. These are the live vaccines of measles, mumps, rubella, and now chicken pox virus and rotavirus; in the past these included poliovirus and, for my generation, BCG and smallpox. A live cholera bacillus vaccine is also available. In these the attenuated agent/s is/are designed to produce inapparent or, at worst, subclinical infections. Today's infants in the West are, at an early age, also injected with material associated with other nasty diseases of childhood − the killed vaccines used protect against tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, Haemophilus inflenzae B (HiB), hepatitis A and B, meningococcal meningitis, pneumococcal pneumonia and influenza: others are in the pipeline.

Now the antivaccination lobby claim these vaccines are setting children up for asthma; however it has yet to produce the epidemiological evidence to support its case. But I do have some worries about the routes by which these vaccines are administered (and in particular the old whooping cough vaccine) for a variety of quite technical reasons, but am keeping mum about that for now. But the use of antibiotics is another matter.

Following infection, the immune system produces protective antibodies (with differing properties) in a particular sequence. The ones produced early in the immune response (immunoglobulin IgM and IgG) are able to induce aggressive inflammatory responses that are useful in knocking out invading organisms but can cause damage to tissues too. Better to end up damaged than dead from overwhelming infection. Later in the immune response other antibody types (IgE and IgA) are developed. IgE can cause an aggressive response seen as a sometimes-fatal anaphylaxis (e.g. reactions by some to bee stings, or food such as peanuts or royal jelly, or certain drugs) or in asthma as narrowing of the airways. IgE is believed to be important in protection from gut and lung parasites. The other antibody type formed late in the immune response (IgA) is the most benign. It simply locks on to its target without inducing inflammatory or anaphylactic responses. This is the antibody that ends up in mucus secretions produced by the various mucosal membranes of the body, and in breast milk. This is the one, if it is present, which mops up surface allergens in the respiratory tract before they can interact with tissue IgE, IgG or IgM. It is the one produced by the body in the greatest amount (5-15 grams per day).

So, what about antibiotics? Well, basically they arrest the growth of, or kill, infecting microorganisms. And, if administered early in an infection, reduce the amount of microbial material to which the immune system is exposed. Maybe this interferes with the development of a fully effective immune response − one that ends up producing the benign but protective IgA. If so, in the absence of a memory to the appropriate IgA, re-exposure to the same microbe in breathed air, or in food, triggers an inappropriate inflammatory and/or allergic response involving the other antibody classes. So in a sense the "less dirt" theory for the asthma epidemic may be right. But is it the use of antibiotics, and not increasing hygiene, that's behind it? Maybe. But pollen grains, cat dander and dust mite frass (faeces) do not multiply, so how do we get enough of this in the right way at the right time in the right amount to produce the right immune response? Good question, and we don't yet know the answer. The dirt theorists claim children raised from babies in a house full of cats and with bedding full of house dust mites are less prone to asthma than those given a cat and a non-washable mattress for their 4th birthday. Well, we'll see.

But what about rhinotillexomania? This is the new term for compulsive nose picking. Most primates perform it and Homo sapiens is no exception. And transferring gorbies to the mouth is normal too. Andrade and Srihari report (J Clin Psychiatry (2001) 62(6):426-31) in a survey of 200 adolescents in four urban schools that "Almost the entire sample admitted to nose picking, with a median frequency of 4 times per day; the frequency was > 20 times per day in 7.6% of the sample". So why do they do it? The protein content is not great, so there must be some other explanation. My guess is this behaviour does have survival value. The gut is especially good at processing material for presentation to the immune system, and in particular generating the benign but protective IgA response. It does this with our food and the normal gut flora. White blood cells trained in the gut to produce IgA to ingested material do migrate to the mucosa of the respiratory tract. [Those trained to produce the allergic response IgE antibody do too, which is why eating certain foods can induce asthma in susceptible individuals]. So in my view there is merit in removing pollen grains, cat dander, house dust mite etc trapped in the nose and transferring the stuff, with a finger, to the gut for appropriate processing.

So the invention of the handkerchief and disposable tissues has to be a really bad idea. And training little Jo to blow his/her nose − and not practise rhinotillexomania − is an even worse one. In fact I believe all children should be taught and encouraged to back-draught, and then swallow, socially unacceptable as it may be. The negative pressure helps suck out mucus from the sinuses and tubes draining into the back of the nose. The positive pressure of nose blowing just pushes it back, with a risk of middle ear infection and/or sinusitis. And infants should be breast-fed on milk from recently re-vaccinated mothers who, during pregnancy, have gorged on cookies made from vacuum cleaner dust − and little Jo should be weaned on these cookies too! Why? More on that in a future Ramblings.

Pete Griffith

11 May 2004

As you may know, one of my other interests is writing speculative fiction. I haven’t had much time to indulge this interest lately, but I’m still a member of the Canberra Speculative Fiction Guild (http://www.camrin.org/csfg/). Other members of the CSFG were involved in organising and running "Conflux", the 43^rd Australian National Science Fiction Convention, which was held at the Rydges Lakeside in Canberra over the Anzac Day long weekend, 23 to 26 April 2004.

Because of my memberships of both the Canberra Skeptics and the CSFG, I was invited to take part in a debate on the opening evening of the convention. The proposition to be debated was "There is evidence that intelligent extraterrestrials have visited the Earth." I was one of four people asked to speak for the negative side.

The four speakers on the affirmative side were Antony Searle, Rob Hood, Chuck McKenzie and Michael Barry. All four are published speculative fiction writers, and the first and last are Canberra residents and members of the CSFG.

The other three speakers on the negative side were Scott Westerfeld, Simon Brown and Sean McMullen, who are also all published speculative fiction writers. Longtime members of the Canberra Skeptics may remember that Simon was a member and office holder in the Canberra Skeptics in years gone by (early 1990s I think).

Our planning for the debate was limited to the exchange of a few emails in the weeks before the debate, and a brief chat over drinks on the Friday afternoon. Erudition definitely took second place to entertainment on this occasion!

At this point, please excuse an aside to explain science fiction conventions. These conventions have been running for many years, both in Australia and around the world. The custom in Australia is that each is named with a word including "con" as a prefix or suffix. Conflux attracted one major overseas science fiction writer (Greg Benford), although unfortunately another withdrew (Harry Turtledove). Most of the other official guests were Australian writers or artists. The convention ran three parallel streams of panels in various rooms over the three and a half days, with other rooms for traders (mostly books and art), games and reading. Panel discussions covered a wide range of topics of interest to both writers and consumers of speculative fiction.

Roughly 200 people paid to attend some or all of the convention, people from around Australia, from New Zealand, and even from the USA. Although it’s tempting to dismiss these sorts of events as being for Trekkies, Star Trek ™ plays only a small part in the world of speculative fiction.

A quick word about speculative fiction too, if I may. Speculative fiction encompasses science fiction, fantasy, horror and alternate history. It’s hard to come up with a specific definition which doesn’t inadvertently include genres which don’t belong, but as a general rule, if it doesn’t belong in our world, it’s speculative fiction. (And yes, I have one published short story, in the CSFG’s first anthology of short speculative fiction.)

Anyway, the convention opened with a cocktail party raucous with good humour as old friends caught up with each other, and new friends introduced themselves. Many attendees did their best to maintain the image of the starving artist (many writers are full-time students) by swarming like seagulls on the waiters’ plates of finger food, as soon as the latter emerged from the kitchen. Following the cocktail party, we retired to the main room for the official opening. As befitted such an important event, the speeches were short and entertaining, but the amount of laughter generated set a daunting precedent for the debate, which followed soon after.

Any visions I had of a full house for the debate evaporated as people left after the opening ceremony to watch other panels taking place at the same time as the debate. Perhaps 50 people precipitated back into the room for the debate, which was still a reasonable crowd.

The format for the debate was that each speaker in turn had up to 5 minutes to speak, the captains speaking first. After all four had spoken, the captains then had 3 minutes to sum up. Victory in the debate would be determined by audience acclamation.

The affirmative team’s captain, Antony Searle, skilfully laid their case out by sticking limpet-like to a literal interpretation of the proposition. "There is evidence. Not very good evidence. In fact, most of it is pretty pathetic. But there is evidence." This raised a good laugh, and set the tone for the debate.

The negative captain, Scott Westerfeld, spoke in a more subdued manner, pointing out that humans have the ability to do all sorts of things, and that alien intervention isn’t necessary.

Rob Hood built on the affirmative case by relating the story of his life as a teacher, attempting to convince listeners of the alien-ness of his students and some of his fellow teachers.

I took the audience to a land where the leader’s word was final, where the workers’ favourite tipple was beer, where the workers went on strike for better conditions, where occupational health and safety was important, and where workers got the blame for the engineers’ screw-ups. And no, I wasn’t talking about Queensland in the 1970s, but rather about ancient Egypt. I then described four pieces of technology necessary to build tall buildings which were available to the ancient Romans but not the Egyptians, suggesting that if aliens helped Egyptians build the Pyramids, they had worse building technology than the ancient Romans. I finished by suggesting that the Egyptians were living proof of humans’ ability to do all sorts of things themselves.

Chuck McKenzie claimed to be an alien, interspersing his talk with occasional squawks which were obviously intended to be evidence to back up his claim. He proceeded to take us on a riotous explanation for all those anal probes and bizarre sex experiments aliens are generally credited with.

Simon Brown was once again a voice for light-hearted reason, using irony and a few examples from his life to counter those of Rob Hood.

Michael Barry again used real life to demonstrate the reality of the aliens, using his own son as proof. Everything from comparing human birth to the style of birth in the "Alien"™ movies, to babies’ ability to make their parents and relatives bend to their will was used to demonstrate the aliens’ power over us. And yes, even though I was on the opposite side, I found it hilarious (and even disturbingly convincing!).

Sean McMullen valiantly tried to turn the tide by asking where these amazingly beautiful Venusian princesses were which Chuck McKenzie had briefly mentioned in his talk. Sean grew ever more impassioned as he imagined the pleasures he could experience, as described by Chuck, to the point that we had to forcibly remove him from the podium lest he, er, suffer a complete breakdown.

Antony returned to the podium to sum up his side’s case, and castigate ours. He acknowledged the strength of my argument, but then backhanded it by pointing out its irrelevance, given that none of the speakers for the affirmative had mentioned Egpyt or its pyramids. At this point I felt the need to interject by saying that I couldn’t help their incompetence at not raising the topic in the first place.

Scott riposted with a last-ditch effort to prove the emptiness of our opponents’ arguments by claiming that as an American visiting Australia, he was the true alien.

The applause was long and loud for both sides, but in the opinion of the chairman, the cheering was louder for the affirmative than it was for the negative.

A very enjoyable event, with much fun had by all. I spoke to some of the audience afterwards, and they said they had a thoroughly good time. Some even indicated that they learned something from the debate. So not only were the audience entertained, they were even erudited as well!

That was the end of proceedings for that night. I returned briefly to the venue on the Saturday, where I discussed matters Skeptical with a couple of people in the traders room, then purchased a print. Once more, the fact of the Skeptics’ existence has been advertised in the community.

Peter Barrett

11 May 2004

Registration will be available from 1 June 2004 at www.skeptics.com.au

Adult $18 Concession $12 Double Helix Club members $6

Drinks will be available to purchase in the atrium of the CSIRO Discovery Centre.

A dinner will be held at the CSIRO Discovery Centre during which the ANU Debating

Society will debate "This house believes global warming is a Good Thing"

Dinner cost: $45

How thin is the atmosphere? Canberra Skeptics Inc, supported by Pedal Power ACT Inc, are organising a bike ride from Hall Village Reserve, Victoria Street, Hall to Parliament House during which this question will be addressed.

Ride fee: gold coin donation. Registration from 9.30 am at start.