TRC #298: China Study + Conscious After Decapitation + Asteroids vs Comets vs Meteoroids

GuillotineWith both Darren and Adam away, former host Jon Abrams steps up in style! First Elan takes a look at the book ‘The China Study.’ Next Jon asks whether someone decapitated by a guillotine might see their own body. Lastly Pat looks at the difference between asteroids, comets, meteoroids, meteors and meteorites.

 

Download direct: mp3 file

If you like the show, please leave us a review on itunes.

SHOW NOTES

The China Study

Wikipedia – The China Study

Science Based Medicine – The China Study (By Harriet Hall)

The Skeptic’s Dictionary – The China Study

Minger’s detailed analysis of The China Study

Science Based Medicine – The China Study Revisited

Conscious After Decapitation

Halifax Gibbet

Scottish Maiden

Cerebral perfusion pressure

Dr. Beaurieux’s report

Asteroids vs Comets vs Meteoroids

NASA – Asteroid Fast Facts

Universe Today: Asteroids and Comets

Wikipedia: Meteoroid

Universe Today: Infographic

Facebook Twitter Reddit Email
This entry was posted in The Reality Check Episodes. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to TRC #298: China Study + Conscious After Decapitation + Asteroids vs Comets vs Meteoroids

  1. Gem Newman says:

    Okay, pedantic correction time! In the discussion of asteroids versus comets versus meteoroids, Pat mentioned that a meteor’s bright tail was caused by atmospheric friction. My understanding is that while for very small meteoroids that may be true, for many of the meteors that we see the primary mechanism by which they heat up is actually ram pressure (compression of the air in front of them). I’ll quote Phil Plait:

    I’ll note it’s not really friction that causes a meteor to burn up. Most of the heating is due to the meteoroid’s hypersonic passage through air, which compresses the gas, heating it up violently. The heat melts the rock (or metal) in the meteoroid, which then blows off, leaving behind a train that fades rapidly. But the glow from the ionized gas takes much longer to decay, leaving the persistent train.

    Loved the episode, guys, and (even speaking as a vegetarian) it was great to see a takedown of the China Study. Bad arguments are bad arguments!

  2. Pat says:

    Gem. Who are you going to believe? Some guy named Phil Plait or the random person who wrote this Wikipedia article?

    (I’ll pass this along to the TRC corrections department).

  3. Pingback: Fluoride, Monsanto, No Kill, & The China Study | Skeptical Vegan

  4. Evan Allen says:

    Your statement that Dean Ornish’s study didn’t show reversal of heart disease makes me skeptical about the rest of your findings.

    The study is well-known to physicians and did in fact show reversal of heart disease.

    ” The average percentage diameter stenosis regressed from 40.0 (SD 16.9)% to 37.8 (16.5)% in the experimental group yet progressed from 42.7 (15.5)% to 46.1 (18.5)% in the control group. When only lesions greater than 50% stenosed were analysed, the average percentage diameter stenosis regressed from 61.1 (8.8)% to 55.8 (11.0)% in the experimental group and progressed from 61.7 (9.5)% to 64.4 (16.3)% in the control group. Overall, 82% of experimental-group patients had an average change towards regression. Comprehensive lifestyle changes may be able to bring about regression of even severe coronary atherosclerosis after only 1 year, without use of lipid-lowering drugs.”

    Using your own method, of following something along until you find something dubious, then researching it to find out what the facts are, I would conclude that both Dr. Hall and your podcast make a huge error here.

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>