contrary science is fun

The blog failed me last night.  The Christmas tunes entry should’ve auto-posted Tuesday at midnight, like most of my entries do.  Welp, it didn’t – and I only noticed late in the evening my time Tuesday.  Regardless, it’s published now and should fall just below this post for your reading pleasure.

Construction began last night.  Keaton held the walls steady as Sharaun fixed them with a sturdy bead of royal icing.  Before long, the roof was on the gables and iced down.  To ensure compliance with California’s stringent earthquake-rating building codes, we let the hull of the house sit overnight, roof propped on cups to  avoid slippage.  Tonight she was ready for gale force winds… and the finery began.  Gumdrops, peppermints, licorice sticks, jelly beans and fruity Cheerios were stuck here and there (under Keaton’s direction) to make for festive, icing-drenched gingerbread house.  Are we really supposed to be able to eat this thing, too?

I saw a study online the other day that really tickled me.  It stated that, due to the amount of food they consume and associated resources needed to produce it, dogs have double the carbon footprint of an SUV.  This means that, if you’re in favor of the environmentalist concept of “trading” or “offsetting” environmental impact, it’s half as bad for Mother Earth if you drive an SUV than if you own a dog.

I love when real science proves to be antagonistic or contrary to popular psuedo-science (or Oprah-fueled public misconception).  Organic food leads to obesity; sunblock contributes to cancer; anti-bacterial sanitizers actually weaken your natural ability to fight off germs, and thus make you more likely to get sick; etc.

I think it would be hilarious to see a bigger comparative chart of activities that are thought of as environmentally-conscious vs. those that have garnered a bad name.  For instance, the impacts of the massive fleets of recycling trucks burning fuel nationwide on a weekly basis graphed against the regained-resources we get from the materials they collect.  Or, cloth diapers and the water and energy they consume vs. disposables.  Maybe showing, unit-for-unit energy, that a landfill is actually the most efficient way of dealing with waste.

By the way, I don’t know if any of those things are true, but contrary science is fun.

Have a good Christmas Eve eve, folks.  Until later.

Also written on this day...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *