Via a comment to an earlier post, here’s an example of a journalist doing science right: NPR’s Sarah Varney looks at “cleansing” foot pads, and finds them wanting.
She took a set of the pads, tried them out, and then brought used and new pads to a laboratory at Berkeley, where chemists studied the composition to see if the greyish black goo on the pad contained heavy metal toxins, as the ads claim. They didn’t.
Then she tested an alternative hypothesis, that moisture and warmth cause the color change, by holding a clean pad over a pot of hot water. The pad turned black.
What she did wouldn’t pass peer review, but it’s exactly the right scientific approach to the problem. This is exactly what we should be getting from our journalists when dealing with dubious scientific claims. Kudos to Sarah Varney.
(See also Orac’s comments.)
While listening to the NPR broadcast, I actually said to my wife, “Chad Orzel would be proud.”
The pads were absorbing unknown toxins from the steam as advertised. Steam generated from ultrapure water contains unknown toxins from chemical processing. When empirical reality gives way to faith any rigged demo is possible (e.g, Officially celibate pedophile pederast priests).
Are you going to believe what you see or believe scientists pursing godless pathological agendas? Faith is validated by its every failure. Test of faith!
NPR usually is one of the few outlets with very good science coverage. The NYT usually does quite well as well.
Goo that goes black when it gets wet? Any guesses, anyone? All I can think of is iodine and starch, but I’m no chemist.