Scribbles

Circumcision — mutilation or necessity?

Sun, 28 Oct 2007 08:54:53 +1100

What would you do if I told you that I was going to have my newborn daughter’s ears pierced at the ripe old age of eight days? How would you feel if I had a nasal ring torn through the septum in my baby’s nose? Would you blanch if I told you that I had a small but intricate pattern tattooed on my baby son’s penis without anaesthetic?
I assume that you would report me to the police for child abuse. But if I told you that my son was being circumcised, you might frown, but you wouldn’t report me to the police, would you? Why not? What is it about circumcision that is acceptable in our society (if considered a bit peculiar) but piercing my baby is completely unacceptable? Surely both are forms of mutilation; although varying in severity. Circumcision is permanent mutilation whilst piercing can be reversed.
In Australia, between ten and twenty percent of baby boys are circumcised. The rates in other Western countries vary widely with sixty percent of American boys being circumcised, thirty percent in Canada, six percent in the United Kingdom (rates fell dramatically when it could no longer be claimed free on the National Health Service) and less than two percent in Scandinavia (with it being found by a court to be illegal in Finland in 2006).
There are many reasons given for circumcising baby boys. This article considers each reason and examines whether the claims made stand up to scrutiny.
A circumcised penis is easier to keep clean
I’m the father of two young boys. My partner and I have managed to teach them to wash their hands after going to the toilet. It wasn’t difficult. They even wash their hands without my asking before meals. We’ve also taught them to brush their teeth before school and after dinner. It hasn’t taken any effort to teach them to wash their penis. My bet is that once their foreskin starts to retract, they’ll be more than happy to practise pulling it back to wash! Teaching boys to wash their penises is nothing more difficult than teaching them basic hygiene. Why don’t we surgically remove fingernails? Then dirt wouldn’t get under them and we wouldn’t have to clean our nails!
There seems to be two origins to this notion that uncircumcised penises are unclean. The first is the generally held view that circumcision originated in the Middle East because of all the sand and dust. The argument is made that sand lodges under the foreskin and causes irritation and infection. This is a fallacy. This idea was laid to rest by Robert Darby in an article in the New Zealand Medical Journal, “The Riddle of the Sands: circumcision, history and myth” (July 2005) where he analysed the medical records of Allied Troops in the Middle East during both World Wars. His findings were that there was no increase in any infection of the penis caused by the rigorous conditions of the deserts of the Middle East, despite the vast majority of troops being uncircumcised. As the owner of an uncircumcised penis, my mind boggles at the thought of how you’d get sand under the prepuce. What were those soldiers doing?
A little further thought indicates that it is bizarre to consider that the Jewish and Islamic practice of circumcision was based on hygiene. Cutting off the foreskin with a semi-sharp stone or knife, and bandaging the resultant wound with unsterilized material is the best possible way to injure, maim or kill a baby. One concern that the World Health Organization has raised with its proposal that men in Sub-Saharan Africa should be circumcised (see below) is that the act of circumcision itself (through the use of unsterilized implements) can lead to the transmission of HIV. Circumcision would not have arisen for hygiene purposes.
The second reason that people believe that a circumcised penis is cleaner than an uncircumcised one is the existence of some evidence showing that uncircumcised men have higher rates of infections of the penis than those who are circumcised. In all cases (except where the man has a reaction to soap) these infections could be avoided with some basic cleanliness. There is little doubt that a study of gastro-intestinal upsets would show that those who wash their hands have fewer stomach upsets than those who don’t wash their hands. The answer to the hygiene issue is simple — wash your penis!
I also hazard to suggest that a boy, who has a regular habit of washing his penis, is going to be considerably more alert to the issue of sexual health when he gets older, than one who hasn’t needed to think about it.
I want my son to look like me! Or like his brother / uncle / grand-dad / best mate / my best mate / my bank manager…
Why? If you wear glasses, do you want your son to wear glasses? If your son’s brother has a bendy penis (penises that have bends up to 30° are considered normal by GPs) does that mean your son has to have one too? How are you going to bend it? Rubber bands and paddle pop sticks? If your son’s uncle is bearded, does your son have to have a beard? Why are penises any different? The worst that will happen is your son will say “Dad, why does your penis look like that?” and that gives you the wonderful opening to discuss penis maintenance with him. It also gives you the opportunity to suggest that it will be a choice he can make when he is eighteen.
A circumcised penis is sexier…
Err, this is your baby son we are talking about here. I don’t think you need to worry too much about penile fashion eighteen years hence. An American Study entitled “Women’s Preference for Penile Circumcision in Sexual Partners,” showed a preference for circumcised men. But a major problem with the study, was that only 38 of the 128 women in the study, had ever had sex with a uncircumcised man. Familiarity breeds, well… familiarity. Making conclusions on the basis of such a small sample size is fraught with inaccuracy.
And then on the flip side, according to Kirsten O’Hara writing in “Sex as Nature Intended It,” (2002) women are five times more likely to have an orgasm with an uncut man than with a cut one and that premature ejaculation was far more prevalent in circumcised men than in uncircumcised men. I’ll leave you to consider the ramifications of this data.
I’m Jewish so I’m required to circumcise my baby boy
Under Jewish law in the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible, the necessity for circumcision arises from Genesis 17:1-14:
God [then] said to Abraham, 'As far as you are concerned, you must keep My covenant — you and your offspring throughout their generations. This is My covenant between Me, and between you and your offspring that you must keep: You must circumcise every male. You shall be circumcised through the flesh of your foreskin. This shall be the mark of the covenant between Me and you. 'Throughout all generations, every male shall be circumcised when he is eight days old. [This shall include] those born in your house, as well as [slaves] bought with cash from an outsider, who is not your descendant. [All slaves,] both houseborn and purchased with your money must be circumcised. This shall be My covenant in your flesh, an eternal covenant. The uncircumcised male whose foreskin has not been circumcised, shall have his soul cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.
Further, Leviticus 12:3 states “on the eighth day, the [boys’] foreskin will be circumcised. Jews believe that failure to do circumcise will lead to karet, or excision from being one of God’s people, as stated in Genesis. Indeed, circumcision is so much a part of Judaism that grown men, if they convert to Judaism, must be circumcised.
The fallacy of relying on Genesis or Leviticus for guidance on the importance of circumcision is that so much of the Tanakh is ignored by modern Jews already. So why stick with circumcision? A few examples of ignored laws:
Leviticus 5:1-10 If you commit a sin then you can expurgate your sin by sacrificing a goat by gouging it through its neck. If you can’t afford a goat then two turtle doves are okay.
Leviticus 20:13 Gay men must be stoned to death.
Leviticus 25:44 Slavery is perfectly acceptable;
Lev 25:46 Any slave you own is hereditary property that you can happily pass onto your children when you die;
Deut 21:1-29 If you find a dead human body on your land then you must decapitate a female calf and wash your hands in its blood over a swiftly running stream.
Deut 21:10:14 Rape is perfectly acceptable as long as it is an enemy woman you are raping.
Deut 21:18-21 If your son doesn’t do as he says, then feel free to flog him. If he still doesn’t do as you ask, the priests will organize some blokes to stone him to death on your behalf.
I could go on and on with the number of rules and commandments that have been abandoned (quite rightly too) by modern Judaism. If the Tanakh is the inerrant word of God, then all these rules must be kept. If the Tanakh is not the inerrant word of God, then why is circumcision so utterly important? Cannot circumcision be ignored just like most other archaic laws are ignored?
And indeed there is a growing movement of contemporary Jews who do not accept the Tanakh’s requirement to circumcise. This movement has developed a ceremony called the Brit shalom, or “Covenant of Peace” that takes the place of the traditional Jewish Brit Milah or “Covenant of Circumcision.” The movement relies on Leviticus 19:28 (“Do not make gashes in your skin”) and Deuteronomy 14:1 (“Do not mutilate yourself”) for its religious basis. And thus it is clear that being Jewish doesn’t mean that circumcision must be a requirement to maintain the faith.
I’m a Moslem so I’m required to circumcise my baby boy
Why? Where does this law come from? The Koran makes no mention of circumcision, unless you follow a most convoluted path to find it. Verse 16:123 of the Koran states:
“Then We revealed to you: Follow the faith of Ibrahim (Abraham), the upright one, and he was not of the polytheists.”
By being told to follow Abraham, Moslems are being told to follow the teachings of Abraham, which leads back to the Jewish Tanakh and Genesis 17:1-14 (see above). However, various Islamic scholars do not accept this approach, and not surprising, as it would mean that Moslems would need to accept and follow all the Abrahamic laws, outlined in Deuteronomy and Leviticus.
Moslems against circumcision quote three verses of the Koran that they state shows that God wanted nothing to do with circumcision:

Our Lord, You did not create all this in vain (3:191).
He perfected everything He created (32:7); and
[The devil said]: "I will mislead them, and I will create in them false desires; I will order them to slit the ears of cattle, and to deface the fair nature created by God" (4:119)
Thus if the Koran does not extol circumcision, where does the requirement come from? The Sunnah (which is the traditions and words of Mohammed, interpreted by scholars) does mention circumcision.
Mohammed said: “Circumcision is a sunnah for the men.” The term sunnah here means that it is conform to the tradition of Mohammed himself, or simply a custom at the time of Mohammed.
Someone came to Mohammed and became a convert before him. Mohammed told him: “Shave off your unbeliever's hair and be circumcised.”
Mohammed said: “Let him who becomes a Muslim be circumcised, even if he is old.”
One asked Mohammed if an uncircumcised man could go to pilgrimage. He answered: “Not as long as he is not circumcised.”
However, these statements are not without controversy. Some believe that they are not authentic statements from Mohammed. And it is generally accepted that these recitations were not collected until 200 years after the death of Mohammed and therefore their accuracy is very much open to question.
Therefore the spiritual guidance for Muslims, suggesting the need for circumcision is missing.
I’m a Christian, so I’m required to circumcise my baby boy.
No you’re not. As a general rule, Christians are not required to follow their God’s rules laid down in Genesis and Leviticus because at the Council of Jerusalem held in circa 50CE, it was agreed between two competing sects of Christians, after vociferous and fiercely argued debate, that Christians did not need to be circumcised. St Paul declared that:
Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh. May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. Galatians 6: 12-15
Despite Paul’s declaration, some Christian creeds, such as the Eritrean Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox still practice circumcision. The Catholic Church for a while seemed a little unsure of whether or not it supported the practice. Until the Second Vatican Council in 1965, Catholics celebrated 1 January as a Holy Day of Obligation as it was the Feast of the Circumcision of our Lord. Post Vatican Council, the Holy Day of Obligation was renamed the Solemnity of St Mary, the Mother of God and circumcision was no longer celebrated.
There is one final point to be made about circumcision and religion, and that is that a small baby does not understand the ‘covenant’ he is making with his God when he is circumcised. Surely, it is a greater act of faith for the boy to under go circumcision when he is an adult, and can make the decision of his own free will? Circumcision when the child doesn’t know the significance of the sacrifice is surely meaningless in not only the child’s eyes but also his God’s eyes?

AIDS and circumcision — the World Health Organization recommends circumcision
Well not quite. The World Health Organization has stated that recent experiments show that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission by sixty percent and that circumcision should be considered as a public health measure in sub-Saharan Africa. While this recommendation may be quite apt for Africa, I’m not convinced by the argument for those who live in the affluent West.
How many couples would make use of a contraceptive, which has a 40% failure rate? And given that the outcome of failure of the method is not a baby, but potential death, it seems a crazy reason to circumcise. And it is a most dangerous idea to promote. “Am circumcised, will bonk!” is not something that will lead to a reduction in HIV!
We know that a condom is by far the best reducer of HIV, so why promote something that reduces transmission by 60% when we know that condoms do it by 99%?
Circumcision stops masturbation
I nearly wasn’t going to include this as a serious argument for circumcision, as most men rather enjoy the practice, except it was the main argument put forward by doctors in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century for doing circumcision:
In the 1890s, it became a popular technique to prevent, or cure, masturbatory insanity. In 1891 the president of the Royal College of Surgeons in Great Britain published On Circumcision as Preventive of Masturbation, and two years later another British doctor wrote Circumcision: Its Advantages and How to Perform It, which listed the reasons for removing the “vestigial” prepuce. Evidently the foreskin could cause “nocturnal incontinence,” hysteria, epilepsy, and irritation that might “give rise to erotic stimulation and, consequently, masturbation.” Another physician, P.C. Remondino, added that “circumcision is like a substantial and well-secured life annuity ...it insures better health, greater capacity for labor, longer life, less nervousness, sickness, loss of time, and less [sic] doctor bills."
Now I’m not quite sure why anyone wants to stop masturbation when we know that it neither causes hysteria nor epilepsy and in fact may help reduce the chance of prostate cancer but those who claim that circumcision reduces masturbation appear to be correct. A 2007 study found:
There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.
Conclusion
Listed above are the main reasons put forward for circumcising baby boys. There are many arguments put for not circumcising babies, but I think the main one, is simply it is a breach of a fundamental human right — the right for bodily integrity. We do not condone the bashing, mutilation or injury of any adult, as we believe that a person has a right to bodily integrity and autonomy. Why as a society do we punish so severely criminal assault? When we circumcise we take away the right of that child to be intact. We also take away the right of the child to make his own decision at a later date about circumcision himself. None of us has that right to make that decision for our baby boy.

David Vernon is a freelance writer. Based in Canberra he writes about science, parenting, health and history. In mid-2006 he completed his third book, an anthology of birth stories told by men, called Men at Birth. He has just released his fourth book, With Women.
Website: http://web.mac.com/david.vernon Email: dvbooks@mac.com
This is a reprint of “Circumcision Myths” from “The Skeptic”, Spring 2007, vol 27, No 3

To download a fully referenced PDF of this article, please click here

David Vernon — Man of the Year!

Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:39:15 +1000

by David Vernon
When dealing with people, let us remember we are not dealing with creatures of logic. We are dealing with creatures of emotion, creatures bustling with prejudices and motivated by pride and vanity. — Dale Carnegie, Author, “How to Make Friends and Influence People.”
“Man has always sacrificed truth to his vanity, comfort and advantage. He lives by make-believe.” — W. Somerset Maugham, The Summing Up, 1938
Since 1927, the United States-based Time Magazine has ‘awarded’ the epithet Man of the Year to the man who has had the “biggest effect on the world’s news.” The title was updated in 1999 to be the Person of the Year. Despite popular perception, Time has always made it clear that the title need not be an accolade (Hitler and Stalin were both given the label). Regardless, the general notion is that Man of the Year is an overwhelmingly positive award. So much so, that a Google search on the phrase shows up a myriad of Men of the Year.
A search in February 2007 identifies some 1.8 million references to Men of the Year. Roughly half of these references are for the Time Magazine bloke. So to whom are the remaining 900,000 references made? Who are these people who claim such fame? A significant proportion of these people are ‘winners’ of various NGO, media and industry prizes created in the image of Time Magazine. These people probably deserve the recognition in some way. But if you redo your Google search and this time with the additional terms “Man of the Year” and “American Biographical Institute” (ABI) or “Man of the Year” and “International Biographical Centre” (IBC) you get a very different selection of people. These Men of the Year are not household names and you are highly unlikely to recognize them. But their biographies are all boldly published on the ‘net for all to see.
Please meet Dan Theobald, the American Biographical Institute’s Man of the Year for 2004. Dan was born on 21 June 1949 in Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. His professional expertise is providing “cost reduction services for industrial facilities (sewage and waste water)” and he enjoys playing and watching football, baseball, bowling and basket ball. And why was Dan awarded the prestigious Man of the Year 2004? Dan’s wall plaque says: “The American Biographical Institute does herby proclaim that Daniel L Theobald has been selected… based on his outstanding accomplishments to date and the noble example he has set for his peers and entire community.”
Please let me introduce to you Dr David Schweitzer who in 1992 was awarded ABI’s Man of the Year for his contributions to complementary medicine. His field of endeavour was “demonstrating that water can act as a liquid memory system capable of storing information. This discovery now makes it possible to photograph the stored frequencies of homeopathic remedies, as well as research the impact of positive and negative thoughts on the fluids of the body…” David explains how he came to this remarkable discovery, “The whole thing started out after having observed blood for over a decade and discovering that blood cells expressed themselves with a language based on sacred geometry, shape, colour, and harmonious shapes.”
If alternative medicine isn’t your field, then perhaps ABI’s Man of the Year for 1991 — Dr Joe Bannon, PhD is someone more obviously deserving. Dr Bannon’s biography states that he is a: “Street Patrolman, Undercover Narcotics Agent, Sergeant-Inspector, Covert and Special Operator, Tactical Counter Intelligence Agent, and Undercover Anti-Terrorist Operator in the most violent, dangerous, high crime ridden areas and ghettos of Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York City and the Caribbean.” Joe was awarded his Man of the Year wall plaque in 1991 and to top it all off he was awarded the title “Most Admired Man of the Decade 1990-2000” by the ABI in 2000.
These are but three of the thousands of men and women who cite their ABI and IBC awards in their on-line biographies. How did they achieve such pinnacles of world acknowledgement? They received a letter just like the one reprinted below. How would you react when confronted by these words when you opened the envelope?
“The Governing Board of Editors of the Institute have nominated you for the prestigious title MAN OF THE YEAR—2006… The Institute’s International Board of Research decided on your nomination due to your overall accomplishments and contribution to society… The ABI Board continually researches the achievements of men and women from around the world and most are recognized in the Institute’s internationally acclaimed Who’s Who publications. Occasionally, the Board finds other individuals deserving of such top honors as MAN OF THE YEAR. The task of choosing such a group from around the world is overwhelming to say the least.   The Institute is assisted in its research through personal recommendations from the ABI Research Board of Advisors, a panel of 10,000 influential members living in as many as 75 countries. We also received nominations for high accolades from business leaders, university staffs, organizational officers, government officials, and media executives from around the world. You are to be commended on your nomination.  .. I wish you much continued success and look forward to hearing from you concerning your nomination for the 2006 MAN OF THE YEAR.”
Surely your first reaction would be, “About time I was recognized for my work.” Although I suggest that your warm fuzzy feeling might fade a little when you get to the part asking for a small contribution fee towards your “Decree Custom Laminated onto Finland Birch Wood.” Perhaps your fuzzy feeling might disappear altogether when you calculate that the small contribution fee of US$295 equates to A$375! And you have a right to be confused and perhaps a bit annoyed — after all, when you receive the Nobel Prize for ‘outstanding accomplishment’ they pay you. You don’t pay them.
So what is this? Is it a scam? Is it vanity? Do the many thousands of people with Man of the Year certificates on the wall really deserve them? Perhaps some do. Both ABI and IBC allow you to nominate people (or yourself) on their website. They will then send you a form to fill out your details so you can be included in one of their many biographical directories, such as: 2000 Outstanding Intellectuals of the 21st Century or the Dictionary of International Biography or 2000 Outstanding Scientists of the 21st Century. Shortly after sending off your form you will receive a letter from them saying that having considered your biography they now wish to nominate you for an award.
The awards offered by ABI and IBC make you sound very special. Interestingly, neither ABI nor IBC lists their entire menu of awards on their websites — perhaps they think that to do so might make even the most gullible person a little suspicious. However, a Google search will find the following awards in existence:
American Biographical Institute
Ambassador of Grand Eminence
American Medal of Honor
American Order of Excellence Medal
Congressional Medal of Excellence
Continental Governor for the United States of America
Deputy Governor of the American Biographical Institute Research Association
Gold Record of Achievement
Genius Laureate of the United States
Great Minds of the 21st Century Award
Great Women of the 21st Century Award
International Medal of Vision
International Peace Prize (United Cultural Convention Award)
Key Award
Legion of Honour (United Cultural Convention Award)
Man of Achievement
Man of the Year
One of the Genius Elite
Order of International Ambassadors
Outstanding Man of the Century
Outstanding Professional Award
Platinum Record for Exceptional Performance
The Statesman's Award
Woman of the Year
World Lifetime Achievement Award
World Laureate of the United States of America
World Lifetime Achievement Award
World Medal of Freedom
20th Century Achievement Award
500 Leaders of Science Award
500 Leaders of Influence Award
1000 World Leaders of World Influence Award
2000 Millennium Medal of Honour
5000 Personalities of the World Award

International Biographical Centre
Archimedes Award
Associate of the International Biographical Centre
Certificate of Appointment - Honorary Governor and Member of the Board of Governors
Certificate of Diploma of Annual Fellowship
Certificate of Inclusion as Honorary Member of the International Biographical Centre Advisory Council
Certificate of Proclamation - Outstanding Speaker Award of the 20th Century
Companion of Honour, Defensor Elegentiae
Da Vinci Diamond
Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man Diploma
Decree of Membership of the Order of International Fellowship
Decree of Merit
Deputy Director-General of the International Biographical Centre
Diploma of Authority - Deputy Director-General (America Division)
Diploma of Life Fellowship
Distinguished Leader's Plaque of Honour
First Five Hundred
Gold Star Award Certificate of Achievement
Governor, Board of Governors of the International Biographical Association
Greatest Living Legend
Hall of Fame
Honourable Director-General for the Americas
International Ambassador of Goodwill
International Man of the Millennium
International Man of the Year
International Medal of Honour
International Musician of the Year
International Order of Merit Illuminated Testimonial
International Order of Merit
International Order of Distinction
International Personality of the Year
International Professional of the Year
International Register of Profiles
International Scientist of the Year Testimonial
Kings College Diploma
Leader of Achievement
Leading Health Professional of the World
Leading Philosopher of the World
Life Fellow of the International Biographical Centre
Life Patron of the International Biographical Centre
Lifetime Achievement Award
Lifetime of Achievement One Hundred
Lifetime of Scientific Achievement
Living Legend
Man of the Year
Meritorious Decoration
One-in-a-Million Medal
One Thousand Great Americans
One Thousand Great Intellectuals Medal and/or Plaque
Order of International Fellowship
Outstanding Scientist of the 20th Century
Outstanding Intellectual of the 21st Century Award
Outstanding Intellectual of the 21st Century Diploma
Outstanding Intellectual of the 21st Century Medal
Outstanding Speaker Award
Pi Diploma
Plaque of Warrant of Proclamation as International Man of the Year
Vice-Consul of the International Biographical Centre
World Peace and Diplomacy Forum, Life Member
World Wide Honours List
20th Century Award for Achievement
21st Century Award for Achievement (Bronze Medal of Honour)
21st Century Award for Achievement (Silver Medal of Honour)
21st Century Award for Achievement (Illuminated Diploma of Honour)
Just as neither organization publishes a consolidated list of their awards, neither publishes the award criteria, further fuelling the suspicion that these two organizations exist simply to feed on people’s gullibility and vanity. Any legitimate organization would proudly display its list of awards and their criteria for being awarded.
“Vanity is so secure in the heart of man that everyone wants to be admired: even I who write this, and you who read this” — Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
But clearly these organizations survive because nobody can believe how brazen they are in their promotion and the care they take to ensure that they make no claims that can be challenged in court. For example, they never claim that they rigorously check their material. Indeed, the introduction to the American Biographical Institute’s Great Minds of the 21st Century makes that very clear when it states that biographies are written and submitted by the subjects themselves. So are they committing fraud by offering such awards?
Fraud is the offence of obtaining property or money by false pretences. Is suggesting that David Vernon be awarded Man of the Year, because he has written so many marvellous articles for The Skeptic, fraudulent? Because neither ABI nor IBC publishes their criteria for an award then they are not blatantly deceiving anyone over David Vernon’s credentials. Further, they tell everyone that the subjects themselves submit the biographies! They might be travelling mighty close to the edge but if I chose to hand over my US$295 on the basis of their letter telling me that I’m a pretty good bloke, then it’s probably caveat emptor.
What is of greater concern are those tens of thousands of people who claim that their ABI or IBC ‘award’ is valuable and worth citing in their resumès. Are they the ones committing fraud? A Google search on the words “American Biographical Institute” and “CV” returned 12,400 references. A search on “International Biographical Centre” and “CV” returned 9,100 references. People are using these bogus awards in their claims for employment. In such a case there may be some claim regarding fraud. If people are claiming that they hold a “Companion of Honour, Defensor Elegentiae” and thus they are notable and should get the job, then they are deceiving their potential employer.
On the other hand, one wonders why some people bother. Some people appear to have done enough notable things in their lives without a bit of additional expensive paper on the wall to state that they are notable. Western Australian Senator Ross Lightfoot, in his 1997 entry in Who’s Who in Australia p970, and on his Parliamentary website states that he is a Life Fellow of the International Biographical Centre. Such Fellowships can be had for a one-off payment of £795.
Australian Composer, Miriam Hyde (1913-2005) who was awarded an OBE in 1981 and an AO in 1991, lists that she was awarded an “International Woman of the Year” from the IBC in 1992 in her biography. Indeed the IBC award gets more space than her AO, which is a shame because an AO is a vastly greater achievement than a certificate that can be bought by anyone. Why the need to trumpet the worthless IBC award? Perhaps being “International Woman of the Year” sounds so much better than being an “Officer of the Order of Australia.”
But even the hallowed halls of academe seem keen to promote the nonsense of these awards. One would have thought that the Australian National University’s, ANU Reporter would have known better than to state in Vol. 29, No.1:
“Dr Miklos Gulacsi, of the ANU's Department of Theoretical Physics has been appointed a Deputy Director General of the International Biographical Centre (IBC). The Centre has featured biographies of Dr Gulacsi in various Who's Who publications over the past few years. The invitation is a rare one - fewer than one in every thousand IBC biographees are invited to take up positions in the Centre.”
Dr Gulacsi, himself doesn’t trumpet this award in any of the 500 or so mentions of him on the internet, just the ANU Reporter.
The Australian Academy of Science promoted one of its speakers at the Australian Frontiers of Science Conference in Canberra in 2003 thus:
“Professor Richard Frankham… School of Tropical Biology, James Cook University … was included in Outstanding Scientists of the 21st Century, 1st edition, International Biographical Centre.”
Unfortunately, even Australia’s elite science body, believes that IBC publications are worthy of note.
Jack Gordon Beale, AO and ex-Minister of the Environment in New South Wales, scored a listing in the International Biographical Centre in England as one of the “2,000 Outstanding People of the Twentieth Century” according to The Hon Peter Debnam (NSW Opposition Leader) in an obituary he gave for Jack Beale in the NSW Parliament on 19 September 2006. Does Peter Debnam know the real value of this praise?
So what motivates people to cite these bits of paper? For some it must be vanity, but for others it must be gullibility and perhaps the request from ABI and IBC that they pay for their sheets of paper in their eyes, adds to the value of the award. For others it is part of building up a presence and a claim of greatness that can be used to impress others. Neither of these two theories explains why notable and successful people also purchase these bits of paper. Maybe they, like so many of us, believe that most people, most of the time, are honest and being busy people, accept what ABI and IBC tells them, with little consideration that they may not be being told the entire truth.
Regardless of motivation, it is clear that society is not enriched by the existence of ABI and IBC. It is only the owners of ABI and IBC who are enriched. Nevertheless I still want to be Man of the Year!

This article was first published in “The Skeptic”, Winter 2007.

David Vernon is a freelance writer. Based in Canberra he writes about science, parenting, health and history. In mid-2007 he completed his fourth book, With Women. He is the father of two boys and is their fulltime carer.
Website: http://web.mac.com/david.vernon Email: dvbooks@mac.com

This article first appeared in the Winter 2007 edition of
The Skeptic vol 27, No 2, p16 http://www.skeptics.com.au under the title “What Price Fame?”

To download a fully referenced PDF of this article, please click here

David Vernon is a freelance writer. Based in Canberra he writes about science, parenting, health and history. In mid-2007 he completed his fourth book, With Women: midwives’ experiences.
Website: http://web.mac.com/david.vernon

Echinacea — the wonder herb

Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:34:11 +1000

by David Vernon
Coming into winter, pharmacies all over the country are stocking up on a herbal remedy made out of a rather beautiful North American plant, Echinacea purpurea. And is it any wonder? It seems to be a remarkably profitable product for the retailers. A 100g bottle of E.purpurea made from the powdered root of the plant can be bought at my local pharmacy for $21.95. To give some perspective on how horrendously expensive this is, you could dry and powder Daucus carota (aka the common carrot) and a 100gm bottle would cost less than $1.50.
“Ah,” I hear you say, “but Echinacea helps me recover from a cold. I don’t think powdered carrots would help me with anything, other than perhaps constipation.”  My reply to that is simply, “On what basis do you believe Echinacea is useful for the common cold?”
Most proponents for herbal medicine argue that humans have successfully used herbal remedies for many centuries. It is often stated that remedies are based on ancient knowledge. And not-surprisingly this claim is made for Echinacea with herbalists claiming that it was used extensively by North American Indians as a cure for the cold. In reality, it was only one tribe, the Cheyenne, who used it for colds. But it was used far more widely as a general panacea. Apparently the Lakota used it for snakebite, sepsis and rabies. Blackfoot used it for toothache. Delaware claimed it cured venereal disease. The Dakota used it for eye infections and the early European settlers in 1762 used it to treat saddle sores on horses. In American Materia Medica (1919) Echinacea is listed as used for syphilis, typhus, diphtheria, mastitis and tuberculosis!
Its use in the USA faltered with the rise of antibiotics, although it continued to be popular in Europe, particularly Germany, because in 1938 a German Doctor called Gerhard Madaus brought Echinacea back to Germany to study for its medicinal purposes. The company he founded, Madaus GbH, remains in existence today, and it publishes a large database on the various herbs and botanical specimens the company has researched over the decades, particularly for manufacturing its homeopathic remedies. Madaus promoted the use of Echinacea, through its product Echinacin, specifically as a cure for the common cold, and thus its widespread use for this purpose is only some 70 years old. With the renaissance of homeopathy in the alternative medicine field in the USA and Australia from the 1970s, the generally accepted view that Echinacea is an effective cold preventative seems to have arisen (although one also notes that its use as a syphilis suppressant seems to have been dropped by modern pharmacists — perhaps consumers were a little shy to buy bottles with “VD Cure” emblazoned upon them).
It is now apparently common knowledge that Echinacea purpurea is supposedly effective in combating the common cold. Indeed, this knowledge seems to be so well engrained that even some of the most well-educated believe that it is efficacious. We recently had a highly qualified medical professor staying with us and in the morning he staggered out of bed and with his morning caffeine, he sipped at an Echinacea rich drink. “For my cold,” he explained when I looked at him quizzically.
With even medical professors quaffing the herb, is it any wonder that Echinacea makes up 10% of the US herbal remedy market? It is the fifth highest selling herbal preparation after ginko, St John’s Wort, ginseng and garlic. And, in Australia, it is the largest selling herbal preparation in a market worth $190 million annually. You might imagine with so many millions being spent on this herbal remedy that the evidence for its efficacy would be utterly overwhelming. But it’s not.
The evidence for its effectiveness is completely underwhelming — indeed it is practically absent. And that can be stated with some certainty, because unlike many other herbal remedies, Echinacea has been extensively studied. Many double-blind randomised control trials have been done on the efficacy of the herb. The National Centre for Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States provides government funding for the scientific study of complementary and alternative medicines. Its most recent fact sheet on Echinacea states the following stark conclusion, after reviewing the scientific evidence and after commissioning its own independent studies:

♦ Studies indicate that Echinacea does not appear to prevent colds or other infections.
♦ Studies to date have not proven that Echinacea shortens the course of colds or flu.
What scientific studies have been done? One US study reported in 2004 looked at the efficacy of Echinacea in reducing the duration or severity of upper respiratory tract infections (URIs) in children. The trial met the gold standard for scientific trials by being a randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trial. Participants (n=407) were divided into two groups. Over the four month study period, there were 707 URIs in the total group. 337 were treated with Echinacea purpurea and 370 with the placebo. The median duration of the URI was 9 days and there was no difference in the duration or severity of the Echinacea receiving group and the placebo group. Nor was any statistically significant differences between the two groups as to when the severity of symptoms peaked. The only difference between the groups were that those who received Echinacea were three times more likely to have a rash as an adverse outcome (7.1% of URIs treated with Echinacea suffered a rash) than the placebo group (2.7%).
In case it wasn’t E.purpurea which was the effective species, but a related species, such as E.angustifolia another 2004 US study checked its efficacy on rhinovirus infections. 437 volunteers used in this exercise either received a placebo or the E.angustifolia preparations. The results showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups, either in the rates of infection or the severity of symptoms. Nor were there any difference in the quantities of nasal secretions (the things scientists do for the sake of knowledge!) between the groups. The conclusion drawn by the authors was that E.angustifolia had no clinically significant effect.
A meta-analysis of sixteen trials reported in the Cochrane Database concludes: “Echinacea preparations tested in clinical trials differ greatly. There is some evidence that preparations based on the aerial parts of Echinacea purpurea might be effective for the early treatment of colds in adults, but results are not fully consistent. Beneficial effects of other Echinacea preparations for cold and flu treatment and for preventative purposes might exist but have not been shown in independently replicated, rigorous randomized trials” [my italics].
The authors of the meta-analysis also noted that there was a bias in their study as they knew of a number of ‘unpublished’ studies that showed no effect. They postulated that there was a bias in the studies they looked at as “some authors tended to report only those findings which were statistically significant.”
Oddly enough, the great majority of studies that show effectiveness are those undertaken by those who receive a financial benefit from the consumption of Echinacea — the manufacturers, naturopaths or herbalists. Those studies funded by Governments that have no financial incentive for finding an effect, find no effect. This appears to be further confirmation of the aphorism, “Money Talks.”
But even the few studies that do show that Echinacea has some effect, don’t indicate any worthwhile effect. Maybe a twelve hour reduction in duration or maybe several fewer tissues used. This then raises the additional question, if the effectiveness of Echinacea is so minor, why would you bother? Going to bed half an hour earlier and getting a bit more rest can probably achieve the same results relating to severity and duration, as spending $21.95 on 100 grams of dried vegetation! And all that money spent on this most expensive herb, could be spent on buying healthier food!
Oh, and there are a couple of final things to consider. ConsumerLab, an American laboratory that provides independent certification and testing (a bit like Choice Magazine in Australia — but with the added certification element), tested eleven brands of Echinacea products. Just below half of the test brands failed the claims made on their labels for levels of the active ingredient and one brand contained 2.5 micrograms of lead per daily serving, which exceeded the Californian State limit above which a warning label is necessary. Give that Australian Governments do not test Echinacea products in Australia, how do you know that the tablets you are taking for your cold, aren’t killing you rather than curing you?
And if they aren’t killing you, they may be causing some harm. The German drug regulatory authority recommends that Echinacea not be taken for more than eight weeks at a time (if you are planning to use it as a preventative) owing to the lack of safety testing, and the Cochrane review recommends that owing to the evidence of increased rash in children, it should not be used in minors.
Next time I feel a cold coming on, I’ll go to bed with my dried Daucos carota, and have an extra few hours of sleep.

This article first appeared in the Winter 2007 edition of
The Skeptic vol 27, No 2, p32 http://www.skeptics.com.au

To download a fully referenced PDF of this article, please click here

David Vernon is a freelance writer. Based in Canberra he writes about science, parenting, health and history. In mid-2007 he completed his fourth book, With Women: midwives’ experiences.
Website: http://web.mac.com/david.vernon

Tempting Shopping — kids and supermarkets

Fri, 11 May 2007 23:30:08 +1000

By David Vernon

Many column centimetres have been written about the highly irritating practice of supermarkets flogging tempting goodies at children’s eye-height at checkouts. Indeed, for a while supermarkets responded to parental criticism and sometimes offered designated checkouts that were not replete with chocolate bars, plastic space creatures and sugar-coated lollies.

However, most supermarkets seem to have reverted to their old approach and most of the sweet-free checkouts are no more. And who can really blame them? Supermarkets exist to sell groceries to people. The more groceries sold, the more profitable the company and the happier the shareholders. Is it their role to reduce their sales of product, simply because parents cannot say “No” to their children? It isn’t only children tempted by the array of goodies. It is very common to see the person in front of you in the queue make a last minute impulse buy of a chocolate bar.

Such impulse products at the cash register are highly profitable for the supermarkets. Most impulse goodies have a fifty percent plus profit margin on them. Cutting back this selling space really does hurt business. Some people argue that supermarkets have a moral obligation to stop flogging sweets to kids as parents are at their most vulnerable to the crying child when feeling hassled in a checkout queue. They argue that it is unconscionable conduct on behalf of the supermarket and therefore it’s probably illegal under the Trade Practices Act 1974.

If one takes this view, then it is also unconscionable conduct that supermarkets put the bread, milk, eggs, fruit and vegetables in completely different parts of the shop and therefore stop you having a lightning dash in from the car for just the essentials. Nope, supermarkets make you wander to the far corners of their emporium, past all the tempting goodies, before you can get near the milk.

It’s also unconscionable that meat is often placed under lighting that accentuates its colour so as to make it look more tempting, or that vegetables are arranged in pleasant pyramids so that you salivate at their sight.

Shops are set up to sell to you and me and our children. We go to shops to buy. It may be unfashionable to say so but it is our challenge to teach our children that we only buy certain products at certain times, and regardless of how much they want the chocolate bar, it may not be the time for them to have it.

I am lucky that my two boys do not pressure me every time I go to the checkout for a treat. But I often find myself looking on with some empathy at the woman struggling not only with a basketful of groceries but a child throwing a tantrum because she wants a chocolate bar.

I have used two techniques to teach my boys that supermarkets are not bottomless pits for their desires.

When they were both young, they received their ‘bribe’ at the beginning of the shopping expedition. On entering the supermarket we made a beeline for the pyramids of shining fruit and I would give them a choice. “Boys, would you like to nibble on strawberries or grapes for this trip?” I found the choice bit really important. If I gave them a choice then they felt that they had some control. If I simply gave them the fruit then they were simply the recipient of my decision. A bit of autonomy early on does wonders for peace and quiet. And if later they complained that they didn’t like their grapes, then I could look at them and remind them that they made the choice.

The first time I offered the fruit choice, I let the older boy decide, stating clearly that it would be the younger boy’s turn next time. “Pretend it’s fuel and see if you can make it last the entire shopping trip,” I suggested. And they did make it last the entire trip. The checkout operator simply smiled at me as she scanned the strawberry container which had but three strawberries left. This technique has worked beautifully. While some people might see this is a bribe, I see it as a mutually satisfying outcome. The boys eat and enjoy healthy food (even if unwashed!) and I get to shop without requests for junk food.

As they both got older they seem to have grown out of the need to have their mouth full whilst we shop. I gave them new tasks — chief packer, or chief list holder, or chief gatherer. I asked them to spot the cheapest price, the largest package, the smallest package… These activities also seemed to keep their minds off their stomachs. Occasionally they would ask for some junk food and I’d simply say “No.” I only needed to do it a few times and they knew not to ask. I would often give them an explanation of why I said “No.” This would give me an opportunity to explain a bit about nutrition. Soon my older son was able to find how much sugar, salt or fat a product contained.

Very occasionally, I’d allow them to choose a treat. And because it was only very occasionally, they’d appreciate it as a ‘treat.’ They felt special and I felt good. Shopping is still a chore, but it’s a chore because it has to be done. It’s not a chore because my boys make it so.

And I think all three of us get a bit of a buzz from cheating the big supermarkets out of a fifty-percent mark up!

David Vernon is a fulltime carer to two boys, aged eight and five and fits writing articles and books around their needs. He gave up his career in the Australian Public Service, to try his hand at a far more challenging and valuable task – bringing up two young children to be competent, pleasant human beings. He has authored several books, his latest being Men at Birth (2006).

This story originally appeared on Kindred Magazine’s website on 1 March 2007 as a featured article.

Em: dvbooks@mac.com
Website: http://web.mac.com/david.vernon

Light bulbs — Don’t be Dim. Light up your Life!

Sat, 21 Apr 2007 12:41:14 +1000

by David Vernon
In mid-February 2007 the Australian Government announced that from 2009 it would ban the use of incandescent light bulbs. The reason according to the Government is to reduce Australia’s annual greenhouse gas emissions by some 800,000 tonnes. The Environment Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, said Australians would replace the millions of incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs).
The Government should be applauded for this idea, for although we have known for years that switching to CFLs will save us money in the long term, we are notoriously short sighted and most of us will happily choose a 60 cent incandescent light (IL) bulb over an equivalent $3.00 CFL, even though the CFL will last five times longer and consume four times less electricity than an IL bulb. The average cost of electricity to run a 60 watt IL bulb for three hours per night, for one year is about $8.50. The total cost, including purchase of the bulb is about $9.10. The equivalent total cost for a CFL is $2.70 (assuming a five year bulb life span). Despite such massive savings in total cost, we seem to be mesmerized by the 60c cost of the IL bulb and buy it instead of the cheaper CFL. No wonder the Government believes it needs to ban the IL bulb — we consumers are economically irrational.
But has the Government thought through all the implications of this ban? The CFL, whilst a remarkable technology, is not without its problems and cannot be used to replace all IL bulbs. Most cheap CFLs will not operate properly where temperatures fall below 0°C and so they aren’t much use in low temperatures, such as outside lights in Canberra’s winters. They also fail reasonably quickly where they are turned off and on frequently, such as in motion sensors, or in rooms where you dash in and out in a short time, such as pantries or toilets. CFLs require extra electronics to be able to be dimmed, which makes them difficult to use in circumstances where light control is required, such as restaurants, theatres and cinemas. Even when the CFLs have the additional dimming controls, they do not dim ‘orange’ as ILs do, but retain their white light output and thus as they dim they go grey, which doesn’t usually provide the romantic and intimate atmosphere that dimming tries to achieve.
Unfortunately, the environmental benefits of the CFL are not completely straightforward either. CFLs are far more complex than ILs and contain intricate electronics within their base. These electronic components require sophisticated recycling equipment to handle and the CFLs also contain low levels of the toxic heavy metal mercury in the form of mercury vapour and thus CFLs should not be disposed in domestic waste collections.
Europe has built a recycling system for electronic waste and all CFLs include in their retail cost a recycling levy to pay for the safe disposal of old CFLs. Australia has no such system in place and there is a danger that if there is a massive increase in the use of CFL bulbs, an electronic waste problem will arise. The Government has not yet announced any corresponding electronic waste collection scheme with its proposed banning of ILs.
CFLs also suffer from a light quality problem compared to IL bulbs. Light from lighting sources is measured using a scale called the ‘colour-rendering index’ (CRI). This index indicates how well the light source provides an accurate rendering of the real colour of the object being lit. The sun has a CRI of 100 and everything is measured relative to sunlight. An IL bulb, because it emits a full spectrum of colours in its light, has a CRI of nearly 100. This makes IL bulbs useful for task lighting where eyestrain needs to be avoided. CFL manufacturers can make ‘sunlight’ CFLs but at the expense of efficiency. CFLs work by passing electricity through mercury vapour inside the bulb. The vapour gives off ultraviolet light. This light strikes the sides of the glass bulb that is covered in a material called a phosphor that gives off visible light when struck by ultraviolet light. Cheap CFLs use only one phosphor on the glass of the bulb and this phosphor gives off only harsh light, often perceived as a blue/white light. Manufacturers describe this light as ‘cool white’ and it has a CRI of only 63. However, the quality of the light can be improved by using different kinds of phosphors as coatings. The more expensive, ‘triphosphor’ or ‘sunlight’ CFLs use mixtures of phosphors that give off light in the blue, red and green light frequencies. These triphosphor CFLs can have a CRI as high as 90. Unfortunately, the more phosphors used, the great the manufacturing cost of the CFL and the less electrically efficient the CFL becomes, and thus the lower the environmental benefits from changing from IL to CFL.
A further disadvantage of CFLs is that their light output is proportional to the area of glass covered in phosphors — so to get greater light output, a greater surface area is required. This contrasts to ILs where to get greater light output a different filament, either in size, shape, length or composition, can be used and a greater voltage forced through the filament. In practice, this means that some light fittings will not take a CFL unless smaller and therefore lower light emitting CFLs are used.
The final major disadvantage of CFLs are that because they produce diffuse light as opposed to a brightly glowing filament in a IL, CFLs cannot be used where bright beams are required. CFLs cannot replace car headlights, torches, spotlights and other such intense lighting requirements.
Has the Government jumped in too quickly with its statement that it will ban incandescent lights in 2009? Certainly CFLs are a marvellous advance for general lighting and a great environmental improvement in terms of reduced greenhouse gas production, but they still have a range of drawbacks that appear not to have been considered by the Government. The ban is only two years away, and that may not be nearly enough time to develop a nationwide CFL recycling program.
Fortunately, there is another technology waiting in the wings, which has only recently appeared commercially, and that is the white light emitting diode. It is this technology that the Government could be promoting as our greenhouse saviour, rather than the CFL.
Light emitting diodes (LEDs) have been around for a long time. The first LEDs came onto the market in 1962 and they are now common in every house. Nearly every indicator light on electronic equipment is an LED. The great advantage of LEDs as a light source is that they use tiny amounts of energy to illuminate and they are practically indestructible in normal use — they can be shaken, jolted and dropped with little likelihood of damage.
While IL bulbs work by heating up a bit of wire until it glows and gives off light, and CFLs give off light when phosphors are encouraged to glow by ultraviolet radiation, LEDs work on a completely different basis. LEDs are a kind of semi-conductor. A semi-conductor is a material that only partially conducts electricity. Its conducting ability has been limited by the introduction of impurities into it. These impurities are simply other chemical compounds. It is the different types of impurities that give LEDs different colours. In LEDs two zones are created by the zones having different amounts of impurities. One zone has extra electrons (called the N-type zone) and the other zone has holes that electrons can jump into (called the P-type zone). When an electrical charge is put across the zones, electrons jump from the N-zone into the holes in the P-zone. As an electron drops into the hole a tiny packet of energy, called a photon, is emitted. Photons are what our eyes see as light. This process uses very small amounts of electricity to work, and thus LEDs are incredibly energy efficient.
Until recently, LEDs for lighting have suffered from a range of technical difficulties — the main ones being brightness and colour. Getting a true white light with a CRI close to 100 has been difficult. Techniques to obtain a white light are varied. The cheapest way is to use blue LEDs to excite phosphors to give off yellow light. The blue and yellow light blended doesn’t give green light as might be expected but a white light. Unfortunately this technique only gives a CRI of 70. A better way is to blend the light from multiple coloured LEDs. By blending four coloured LEDs of different intensities a much better white light can be achieved, in the order of 85 CRI.
These four coloured LED lights are now commercially available. One brand, made by the US company Enlux, states that their lights last 50,000 hours (which equals 34 years if the lights are on four hours per day), produce CRI of 85 and produces 26 lumens (a measure of light) per watt. Its 15 watt globe produces 400 lumens of light, which is the equivalent of a 40 watt IL or an 8 watt CFL, without the mercury residue of the CFL. Whilst the light output per watt of the Enlux LED is not competitive with a CFL, LED research is leaping ahead at such a pace that shortly CFLs will be left behind. Seoul Semiconductor, based in Korea has created a LED that produces 135 lumens per watt (equivalent to a 200 watt IL!) or in other words can produce the light of a 60 watt IL with 4.5 watts of power. To run this light for 3 hours per night for a year would cost less than 65c per year. This LED will be commercially available later this year.
LEDs can operate at temperatures down to -40°C, do not lose light quality when dimmed, can last up to 50,000 hours (although Philips has just released their Luxeon range which claims 100,000 hours of life), use no mercury, can be dropped and mishandled, can be used in spotlights and headlights, have a rapidly improving CRI and use 10% of the power of equivalent ILs. Let’s hope that the Government doesn’t push consumers down the CFL path, when affordable LED technology is just around the corner.

David Vernon is a freelance writer. Based in Canberra he writes about science, parenting, health and history. In mid-2006 he completed his third book, an anthology of birth stories told by men, called Men at Birth.
Website: http://web.mac.com/david.vernon Email: dvbooks@mac.com

© David Vernon , 2007

This article was first published on 9 April 2007 in the Science and Technology Insert of The Canberra Times, p6

This article has also been reprinted with permission at http://www.enviro-friendly.com/lightglobes.shtml on 11 May 2007

Why Science is Good For You

Sat, 14 Apr 2007 15:21:30 +1000

Why Science is Good For You
Research Roundup Number 1

The first article in a series examining scientific research
about conception, birth and antenatal care.

Midwives, obstetricians and general practitioners often state that their practice is ‘evidence-based’ or ‘research based’, and if they don’t claim this then they should! ‘Evidence-based’ research is research that follows the scientific method.

The scientific method is simply a way of drawing conclusions from observations that are testable and repeatable. The method gives humans a tremendous tool for understanding cause and effect and has given us the modern technological wonders that have so improved our lives — hygiene, nutrition, palliative care, solar energy, smallpox vaccine, telephones, remote-sensing, aerial fire-fighting, understanding of ecological processes and on and on and on…

However, the use of the scientific method within medicine is very recent. Some of the method’s most potent and powerful processes are less than eighty years old. Randomized design was first proposed in 1926. The placebo trial was first suggested in 1937. The notion of double-blind experimentation didn’t arise until 1950 and the meta-study, so beloved in medical research didn’t hit the scientific literature until 1962. Therefore, a vast body of medical ‘knowledge’ and understanding has never been scientifically tested. Many newly graduated midwives come across this daily when they question a process or procedure they see in hospital. When they ask “Why are we doing this?” the answer is, “Because we have always done it this way.” They don’t get the answer, “Because the research evidence shows us this is the best way to do it.”

The greatest advantage of the scientific method over past methods of ‘knowing’ is that it is flexible and self-correcting. The self-correction may take a long time. For example, Clyde Tombaugh first discovered Pluto in 1930 and promptly named it the 9th planet. Seventy-six years later we now know that it can’t really be considered a planet at all. We now know that Eris, which is sometimes closer to the sun that Pluto is bigger than Pluto. We now know that Pluto consists of two tightly orbiting rocks, consisting of Pluto and Charon (it’s moon), and as Charon is nearly bigger than Pluto, it’s probably best to consider them as a binary planet and not a single planet. Astronomy has been recently in ructions over these discoveries, but the scientific method, gives a sound basis for rejigging knowledge and moving on.

So whilst the scientific method is robust (but also under continual review and refinement), scientific ‘conclusions’ can never be considered 100% conclusive. There are statistical methods to work out how conclusive a ‘conclusion’ is, which is helpful, but it remains foolish for any inquiring human to stake their life on something being an undeniable fact. We simply need to settle for saying, “Our best research evidence shows that…” and leave it at that, until we have better evidence for saying something.

Each quarter, I’ll be bringing you interesting research evidence from the world of scientific inquiry. Evidence that midwives, obstetricians and general practitioners can use to improve their practice and evidence which consumers can use to improve their care and decision making.

Epidurals can make breast-feeding a struggle
International Breastfeeding Journal 1:24 11 Dec 2006 (Available online)

If you have an epidural, be prepared for a longer than normal settling in period when teaching your baby to feed.

1280 women who gave birth to a single live baby in the ACT were studied. In the first week after the birth, 93% of women were either fully or partially breastfeeding their babies. This fell to 60% after 24 weeks. It appears that women who had epidurals were less likely to fully breastfeed their babies in the first few days and were also more likely to stop feeding within the first 24 weeks.

The effect was quite marked with women who have had epidurals being twice as likely to have stopped, even after taking into account other issues such as education and the age of the mother.

It appears that the culprit may be the opiate-derived drug fentanyl which passes easily into the bloodstream and thus quickly crosses the placenta and into the unborn baby. The baby appears to react to the fentanyl and lose its ability to instinctively feed. The same effect has been noticed by midwives in babies whose mother has had an intra-muscular injection of pethidine, shortly before delivery.

See also: Article in The Australian by David King, 11 Dec 2006 (Available online).

Vaginal Births After Caesarean (VBACs) get better with practice
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 104(4):715-9 Oct 2004 (Abstract online)

The objective of this research was to see if one successful VBAC increased the likelihood of future successful VBACs. The research took place at the Mt Sinai Medical Centre in New York, USA and studied 1216 cases of planned VBAC from 1996-2000.

The outcomes were clear. Women who had a previous successful VBAC were seven times more likely to have a successful VBAC than women who were having their first VBAC. 94.6% of ‘experienced’ VBAC women had successful VBACs compared to 70.5% of women attempting their first VBAC. Thus if you can do it once, it is highly likely, in the absence of other negatives, of doing it successfully again.

The hidden effects of caesarean sections — readmission to hospital
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 105:836-42 April 2005 (Abstract online)

Most of our perinatal statistics collected in Australia do not look at the longer-term effects of caesarean sections on women, thus giving a false view of the effects of caesarean sections on women. This study looked at whether there was an increased chance of being readmitted to hospital after a caesarean section compared to being readmitted after a non-instrumental vaginal delivery.

The sample size for this study was huge, consisting of over 900,000 Canadian women who had singleton births between 1997 and 2001. The findings were not surprising. Women who had a caesarean section had double the risk of being readmitted to hospital within 60 days of original discharge. 2.7% of women who had a caesar were readmitted compared to 1.5% of women who had a vaginal delivery. The readmissions were for serious complications — pelvic injuries and wounds, thromboembolisms (bloodclots) and infections.

It would be useful if Australian perinatal statistics units would include collecting data on readmissions. This would give an improved picture of the real cost of interventions.

That completes this edition’s Research Roundup. If you know of any peer-reviewed research that you think would be useful to highlight in this section, please email me at: dvbooks@mac.com

David Vernon is an editor and writer. He has qualifications in economic, politics, law and science. That’s why he likes breeding chooks, growing pumpkins and looking after his two boys. He is the editor of Having a Great Birth in Australia and Men at Birth and has an endless collection of books and articles, about birth and other topics, in the pipeline. His website is: http://web.mac.com/david.vernon

© David Vernon , 2007

This article was first published in March 2007 edition of Birth Matters, the Journal of Maternity Coalition.

Checklist — Men at Birth — Should your bloke be there?

Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:03:36 +1100

By David Vernon, Editor of Men at Birth.
Should your bloke attend the birth of your baby?
“What a stupid question,” I hear you say, “Of course he will be at the birth of our child.”
When I set out to compile the book Men at Birth I spoke with many men and received many letters and birth stories from men. For the large majority of men, birth was seen as an empowering and significant event in their lives. But not for all men. Consider the following quotes from men who attended the birth of their child.
“I was nervous, anxious and at times shaking with worry. I couldn’t bear the noises Susan was making. I knew that I had to reassure her but who was reassuring me? The midwives popped in and out and the obstetrician wasn’t available. All I could think about were my feelings.”
— Jason at the birth of Kyle
“Oh it was easy. I mostly sat in the corner and watched the TV, which the hospital had provided, with the headphones on. Janet seemed not to care much whether I was present or not. The midwives cared for her and when early on in the labour I had offered drinks and energy foods to her in the ad breaks she just said ‘No’ and told me to go back to the TV. She seemed a bit petulant — it was probably the pain.”
— Andrew at the birth of Josh
“We had done heaps of planning — well Cheryl had done the reading and planning and she told me about how she wanted it to go. She gave me a birth plan to read, but I didn’t have time as I work long hours. But that was okay because we had employed a private obstetrician and so I knew that it was going to be fine. I made it to the birth in time as it ended up being a caesarean, so there was some delay in getting the operating theatre ready. I had been interstate at a sales conference, but made it. Cheryl was unhappy about the caesarean, but at least she didn’t have all that pain with the drug relief. The blood made me feel a bit woozy... The baby was healthy and that’s all that matters.”
— Duncan at the birth of Lesa
I didn’t know what Jane wanted me to do. I tried massaging her back but she said I did it wrongly. Eventually I got tired of getting it wrong so I fired up my laptop and played computer games in the corner, so to be honest I didn’t experience much of it. I do remember the midwife interrupting me when I had nearly finished a level to tell me that the head was crowning and I might want to come and help. The baby was born while I was still finishing the level, but I got up anyway and cut the cord. Jane seemed tired but happy. So I guess I didn’t really pay much attention but I didn’t get in the way either. Oh and I got a new high score!”
— Peter at the birth of Sarah
“I was terrified. Utterly terrified. I wanted the drugs. I didn’t want to be there but Dawn was insistent. She wanted my support. Her Mum was much better at the support stuff than I was. I think it was much better when men paced the corridor and waited for the cigar. Had I done much reading? No, I’d left that stuff to Dawn. She was having the baby not me.”
— Martin at the birth of Caitlin
“Where I come from it’s womens’ business. Men don’t attend and therefore I didn’t know what to expect. I felt pretty helpless. The birth classes at the hospital hadn’t prepared me properly for what I was going to witness. But I think I performed well. I didn’t feel sick. Anxious, yes but not really sick. But I left the room when things got really intense. Anh did really well and she thought I was good too and gave her good help at the start. Then the midwives did their work and I wasn’t needed, so they suggested that I wasn’t needed and so I went outside. That was good.”
— Thanh at the birth of Mai
“If I hadn’t been there I don’t know what would have happened. I basically ordered the midwife to get the epidural. She was faffing around with positions and stuff and Leanne was in pain. I mean I couldn’t bear the pain. It was really getting to me. But the epidural fixed it fine and then it was okay. I left when the obstetrician had to use forceps. Lucky that I had arranged the epidural or I reckon Leanne would have been out to it.”
— Tim at the birth of Jayden
“Geez. I was stuffed. Yeah, Cath was tired but so was I. I had to keep holding her and my arms got tired and my legs got tired and I got a cramp in my foot. Every time I moved she shouted at me to hold still. Eventually when a midwife came in to check everything was all right with Cath, I did a runner to get a drink and take a leak. I popped out to the car and had a snooze in the front seat for an hour and then I dawdled my way back. But I got there in time to see the head emerging and I got to cut the cord. I don’t think Cath missed me much.”
— Ian at the birth of Simon
All these men provided an honest appraisal of how they experienced their birth of their child. I have used their comments with permission (but changed their names) and I can say that most of them would not consider that their performance was lacking. Those men who felt anxious and worried would have preferred to feel otherwise, but in general, the rest felt that their behaviour was acceptable and the ‘best they could do’ under the circumstances.
When I compiled Men at Birth I received many perspectives on birth from men — some showed considerable understanding of birth and how to provide effective support to their partner. Others showed that some men didn’t understand the preparation needed before the birth to overcome their own anxieties and to learn to be an effective support person. Still others showed that they simply didn’t ‘get it.’ — they didn’t see the point of being there or if there, didn’t know how to behave.
I believe there are significant benefits for a couple when the man is involved in the birth of his child. The majority of men find the experience overwhelmingly positive. Men have described it to me in various terms, but the words ‘ecstatic’, ‘emotional’, ‘wonderful’, ‘fabulous’, ‘heart-rending’, ‘beautiful’, ‘amazing’ and ‘extraordinary’ are often used.
Stephan Schmidt, in Men at Birth said:
“I’ll never forget Kate sitting in the bath with Raphael in her arms feeding him for the first time. Her face spoke of so much. What a beautiful expression she had in her face — happiness, relief, pride and joy. I was, and still am, so proud of Kate for what she did to enrich our relationship with such a wonderful gift — our son.” (p211)
Attending the birth not only strengthens the bond between the father and the baby but also between the father and the mother.
David Wilkinson in Men at Birth commented:
“I lay there and couldn’t take my eyes off our new baby. He was so perfect, so tiny, so beautiful. My eyes met Anne’s and again I felt deep love for this woman who worked so hard to bring our boy into the world…” (p30).
For a man to see what his partner goes through to bring their child into the world is an awe-inspiring thing. And such feelings of awe and pride are so helpful in the postnatal period as both parents adjust to the arrival of their baby and the forging of new relationships between them. When such love is expressed between partners, the baby gets the best emotional start possible in its new world.
There is some interesting research that shows how important good birth support really is. Thomas Dellmann, in a paper entitled The Best Moment of my Life: a literature review of Fathers' experience of childbirth highlights research showing that when a labouring woman was supported by a doula during labour, she had less need for chemical pain relief, there was a reduction in the likelihood of caesarean section, a reduction the use of forceps, a reduction in the length of labour and the baby had a higher Apgar score.
Interestingly, the paper also notes that it cannot be automatically assumed that the presence of the male partner leads to similarly improved birth outcomes. Indeed, Professor Michel Odent, one of the ‘fathers of natural childbirth’ explains that when men are anxious, their adrenaline levels can be ‘contagious’ and this in itself can reduce the effectiveness of his partner’s contractions. Thus anxious men are not able to provide the same support as doulas. The research cited by Dellman also showed that compared to doulas, partners touched the labouring woman less often and spent less time being ‘close’ to the woman. This is a strange result given that it is the man and the woman who are lovers, and not the woman and the doula!
How can this result be explained? Dellman suggests that “fathers may be too emotionally involved and therefore sharing a woman's anxiety rather than allaying it. Furthermore, the doulas had experienced childbirth themselves and therefore were more knowledgeable and ... exerted a more calming influence than the woman’s male partner did.” An anxious or fearful man is not going to be touching, massaging or whispering sweet nothings into his partner's ear, he’s more likely to be thinking about his own emotional reactions.
So what can be done so that your bloke does provide you with the support you are hoping for? From the experiences men have related to me in Men at Birth and from other sources I have developed the following checklist to help you and your partner decide if he is likely to be able and willing to provide the support you need. Ask your partner to read it and discuss it with you before you decide if he should be there at the birth. It is also worthwhile discussing the quotes from men at the beginning of this article with him. Use them to work out where any differences may lie in how you view effective support. The investment you make now in understanding each other will not only be well worthwhile at the birth but also when you become parents.

THE SEVEN STEPS
Seven steps for men who wish to be good birth supporters and partners
Treat these seven steps as a checklist. If you can answer each question, positively and optimistically, then you are likely to be a wonderful support to your partner. Each step will require you to do some work — either reading or watching a video or attending a class and discussing the step with your partner.
1. Do I have a good understanding of my partner’s hopes and expectations from this birth?
Birth is a highly emotional event for women and despite some people’s claims that we should focus on the outcome and not the process, the process of giving birth is extremely important. When women experience appropriate and sensitive care and support during birth (and after) postnatal depression and other problems can be minimized. Work through a birth plan with your partner. Whilst it is unlikely your birth will go exactly as planned, the planning process helps you both identify issues that are important to you. You might wish to ask your midwife for a sample birth plan.
2. Do I know about the physiology of birth?
Knowing the basic facts about birth — what happens during first stage, transition, second stage and third stage — will give you a road map for the birth. Whilst any road will have twists and turns that may not be on the map, in general you will be able to say to yourself, “Ah, she told me to go away and that she can’t do it anymore. She must be at transition, so the baby will be here soon” and you will know where you are. Any good pregnancy book will give you this information. See the BellyBelly recommended reading list.
Attend antenatal classes with your partner. Consider going to a private antental class run by a qualified Child Birth Educator. While most hospitals run antenatal classes, they tend to be aimed at dealing with large groups of parents-to-be rather than providing information tailored to the needs of the individual participants. Some of them seem to be designed for the needs of the hospital staff. I remember being told by one Child Birth Educator that she had been asked to skip the warnings she gave about the side-effects of pharmacological pain relief as it took up too much of the doctor’s time dealing with the parent’s concerns. Check out the National Association of Childbirth Educator’s website (http://www.nace.org.au) for where your nearest classes are. Contact the appropriate State Branch.
As well as getting very helpful information from the classes, you will meet other couples and other men and quite often the contacts you make at these classes will help you in the early months of parenting.
3. Do I know about how I shall emotionally react to the birth?
This one is tricky. Of course you won’t know how you will react because you have never attended a birth before. But you need to know this, so you can be prepared for most eventualities. So ask your mates how they felt. Now this is also tricky. Men don’t like to talk about birth. Don’t stop when your best mate says, “Oh it was fine. A bit bloody and Mary made a bit of a racket,” because that is NOT enough information. Push him for more detail. Ask your Dad about attending your birth. Ask your brother-in-law. They’ll all think you are a bit odd or a bit obsessive, but forearmed is forewarned. This is perhaps the most important homework you can do. And if this is all a bit difficult, buy, beg, borrow, or steal a copy of Men at Birth. And then read it!
4. How brave am I?
Having done points 1, 2 and 3 above, you are now in an ideal position to sit quietly on the back deck with a cold beer and reflect on your inner strengths. You know what your partner wants — she wants a water birth with no chemical pain relief. You know about the physiology of birth and understand that water birth is for the vast majority of healthy women a valid choice that reduces the need for pain relief. You have spoken with (or read about) other men who have attended water births with no chemical pain relief. So how will you react?
It’s okay to know you will be anxious. It’s also okay for you to even admit to being a bit scared and perhaps even frightened. But are you brave enough to accept that you are scared and frightened but can still provide the support your partner needs? Ambrose Redmoon, an American writer, once said that, “Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgement that something else is more important than fear.” That ‘something else’, is supporting your partner.
Fear is a major enemy of effective labour. The hormone, adrenaline, which is so useful for running away from ravening beasts in the forest is counterproductive at during labour. Adrenaline shuts down the birth process and counteracts the women’s hormones that are trying to open her body to let the baby out. If your partner is fearful the birth will be more difficult. If you are fearful, your fear will be transmitted to your partner. If you feel fear, you must be brave and hide it.
A horror writer, Howard Lovecraft, once said that the biggest fear humans have, is the fear of the unknown. Make sure that birth is not an unknown for you. Re-read step 3.
One option that should be discussed between you and your partner is the option of you leaving the birth room if you are unable to contain your anxiety. If at some stage you feel you are focussing more on you, rather than her, it might be best if you leave; even briefly. During the birth of one of my sons, I felt quite dizzy and couldn’t focus on what I was supposed to be doing. It may have been because I had been sitting in a most uncomfortable position with my feet and legs in body-temperature water for what seemed to me like months, or it may have been my ‘hospital anxiety’ kicking in. Whatever the reason, I had previously discussed this with my partner and our midwife beforehand and I left the room. I sat down on the cool tiles, took some deep breaths and ten minutes later I returned as an effective support to my partner.
5. How wise am I?
This is another toughie! I bet you never imagined that preparing for the birth of your baby would be so difficult, especially as you’ve spent your hard earned dollars on buying the best obstetrician… ! I can do nothing better than quote Steve Biddulph in his introduction to Men at Birth:
“Most medical professionals are great, but some are dreadful. You can strike a midwife, nurse, or doctor who is incompetent, inexperienced, arrogant, unfeeling, or just not coping for reasons of their own, and you have to be able to say, “This isn’t right, get someone else, do it differently.” Just because you are getting medical help doesn’t mean you leave your brains at the door. You have to know what you want and stick up for it. Your partner needs you to help do this.” (pii)
Are you ready to stand up for your partner and know when something isn’t right? If you have done your homework and completed stages 1, 2 and 3 and understood what you have read then you will be fine. Combine your wisdom with your bravery and you will support your partner beautifully on this front. Medical staff are there to help your partner, but that doesn’t mean leaving your brains at the door.
6. How fit am I?
You’ve heard the traumatic stories of births that go for days (or is it weeks?). Either way, these are exaggerations. Most true labour, where the woman ‘gasps’ at the contractions, lasts for between two and twelve hours. But if you score a long labour, are you fit enough to be hanging in at the end to greet your baby with a smile on your face? You might be really busy during your partner’s labour — massaging, fetching water, keeping face cloths cold, fetching hot compresses, talking to midwives, holding hands, supporting your partner’s squats, feeding your partner, dealing with her emotions, being empathetic, being a coach, shutting up…
Your partner has to run the marathon of labour and so the least you can do is to be fit enough to be there to hold her in both arms and give her a victory hug.
If you don’t think you are fit, get out there and do something during the pregnancy. You’re going to need all the fitness you have after the birth, so you might as well be fit for the birth too!
7. How well do I know the birth team?
While this is the last on the checklist, it is one of the most important items. There is significant evidence showing that a woman who knows her birth team very well, will have the easiest labour and best outcomes. There is nothing amazing about this. Birth is as much a head thing as a body thing and thus if the woman knows and trusts her midwife or obstetrician, then the outcome will be far better. When I mean ‘know’, I mean she has met her midwife or doctor for some hours over many weeks before the birth. Her antenatal care has been provided by the same person and not by a fragmented collection of health professionals. There are a few birth centres and a few hospitals in Australia that offer this kind of care (often called ‘continuity of care’) but it is so popular that you need to book as early as possible to be accepted.
If you, as well as your partner have had an opportunity to meet on multiple times with the same midwife, then you will feel much calmer and prepared for the birth than if you are provided with fragmented care. Your partner will trust her midwife and thus be far more able to get into the ‘head space’ she needs to birth her baby.
Take the opportunity that knowing your own midwife or doctor provides, by asking her about what your role should be at the birth. If she dismisses your role along the lines of “It’s okay, we’ll do all the work, you can just relax,” consider getting yourself another care giver, for clearly she is not treating this birth as a wonderful bonding event for you and your partner and respecting your role as an important support person.
If you are unable to book into a service providing continuity of care, consider instead employing a doula or an independent midwife to provide additional support.
If you have employed a private obstetrician, on the grounds that you ‘get to know’ him or her, be aware that the obstetrician is most unlikely to attend the labour and in nearly all cases arrive only after transition and sometimes not at all. If this is the case you may wish to take a doula with you, to provide continuous support.
So there you have it — seven steps to preparing to give your partner ideal support during the birth of your child. After nine months of carrying your baby and then having to give birth, we blokes get it easy, don’t we?

The Myth of ‘Being There’
Until the mid 1970s it was rare for men to attend the birth of their child. Men were asked to remain outside the room and pace the corridors waiting. We now live in a much more enlightened age where it is recognized that men who are well prepared, provide excellent support for their partners by attending. And as a bonus, the attendance of the father usually speeds up the bonding process and also leads to great admiration for the woman for the work she has done.
But that said, there is no rule saying the man has to be in attendance no matter what. Poorly prepared men may not provide any support at all. Poorly prepared and anxious men may actually make the birth more difficult. One of the best gifts a man could give his pregnant partner is to make an honest assessment of his preparedness for the birth and his willingness to be an active partner. If, after reading the Seven Steps he honestly feels he doesn’t stack up, and he doesn’t wish to then the correct response is not to be there.
An absent partner doesn’t mean he doesn’t need to be engaged or useful. He can be getting the house ready, cooking meals and freezing them for later and generally preparing for no longer being a couple, but a family.
A final word to men
I have discussed with many men that it is our generation that is forging a new relationship with birth. Few of us had our fathers attend our birth. Certainly our Granddads did not attend our father’s birth. We are the leaders for our children. If we get it right then future generations will thank us.

David Vernon is a fulltime carer to two boys, aged eight and six and fits writing articles and books around their needs. He gave up his career in the Australian Public Service, to try his hand at a far more challenging and valuable task — bringing up two young children to be competent, pleasant human beings. He has authored several books, including Men at Birth (2006) and Having a Great Birth in Australia (2005).

© 2007 David Vernon

His website: http://web.mac.com/david.vernon
His email: dvbooks@mac.com

This article was first published on www.bellybelly.com.au at:
http://www.bellybelly.com.au/articles/birth/men-at-birth

A Heavenly Sign - The Iridium satellite story

Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:40:41 +1100

Last weekend, for a few seconds — seven to be precise — my two young sons thought I was a modern day prophet. And for a fleeting moment, I felt like one too. It was 7pm and I hustled my boys outside where we had an uninterrupted view of the dark sky above South Canberra. “Quiet,” I commanded, “look into the sky where I am pointing and you will see a sign.” “But it’s dark,” stated the oldest one matter-of-factly. I was about to shush him again, when we all gasped. Just where I had pointed, exactly as I predicted, a dazzling white flash appeared, swiftly turned into a line, and then faded away to a little zooming dot. “Wow, Dad!” said the youngest.
I thought “Wow!” as well, and for a moment I too was amazed at the beauty of the heavens and the brilliance of science that had allowed me, ever so briefly, to predict a heavenly sign. For what I had predicted wasn’t spiritual guidance, a UFO, or even a meteor. It was a satellite, or more accurately, one of a constellation of sixty-six small satellites. I had the opportunity to show my boys what has become known in astronomical circles as an “Iridium Flare.”
The story of the Iridium Flare is both as exciting and as improbable as the stories that spawned the use of hand held communication devices many years ago. Maxwell Smart had his shoe phone, Buck Rogers his interstellar communicator and James Bond his ‘Q’ inspired inventions. But now, thanks to Iridium, we are all able to communicate with each other, regardless of where we are on this planet. We could be on top of Mt Everest, kayaking across the Tasman, or even lost in a valley in Namadgi National Park.
Rewind to 1987. While satellite phones were available in the ‘80s, they had limited global coverage and, owing to the height the satellites orbited, the transmission and receiving delay made a conversation sound as though you was speaking down a long tunnel. The large US electronics company Motorola thought that the world was ready for something better, and proposed creating a massive network of satellites that would provide global coverage. These satellites would orbit at a much lower altitude than their competitors and so the quality of transmissions would improve dramatically. The cost of the project was astronomical. Over A$7 billion was required to put 77 satellites into low earth orbit. Compare that cost to building the Titanic today — which is estimated at a mere A$580 million. And just like the Titanic, Iridium hit an ‘iceberg’ — but more of that later.
Because of the number of satellites required, the project was called ‘Iridium’ after element 77 in the periodic table — the hard, platinum-like metal iridium. However, cost-cutting by the accountants led to the scientists to redesign the project and it was agreed to reduce the number of satellites to 66. The marketers kept the name Iridium, rather than change the project name to element 66 — dysprosium. Probably a wise choice as ‘dysprosium’ comes from the Greek meaning “hard to get.”
The first group of Iridium satellites were launched from the US Vandenberg Airforce Base by a Delta 7000 rocket built by McDonnell-Douglas (now Boeing). The first five satellites were sent to a height of 780 km above earth. A Russian Proton rocket at Baikonur in Kazakhstan launched the next group of seven satellites. And in December 1997, Iridium 42 and 44 were launched from Taiyuan in China on a Long March rocket, proving that in the world of commerce there is no ‘loyalty’ to a particular nation.
The full Iridium service commenced in December 1998. Unfortunately, despite the brilliance of the technology, people’s expectations had changed since 1987. People expected their phone to be lightweight, usable inside buildings and the calls to be relatively cheap. Iridium phones were heavy — as they needed powerful batteries — they didn’t work inside buildings and call costs were around A$10 per minute. Saying “Hello, it’s John Smith,” cost A$1, and you spent your time hoping that you didn’t get an answering machine with a long message!
At the cost of construction of A$7 billion, Iridium needed over one million subscribers to break even. By mid 1999 it had gained 55,000 subscribers and was rapidly running out of money. In August 1999 the Iridium was bankrupt and subscribers found themselves without a dial tone. There were several attempts at selling Iridium, but no company could afford it.
By early 2000 the only employees left at Iridium were those employed to ‘de-orbit’ the satellites. It may not look like it, but our sky is littered with satellites, rocket debris and other space junk. According to the US Space Command Centre, there are 8,120 pieces of space junk orbiting the earth, including an astronaut’s glove from a Gemini mission in the 1960s. All these pieces of junk pose a danger to operating satellites, the International Space Station, and of course other space vehicles, such as the Space Shuttle. Therefore, Iridium was required to burn them up in the atmosphere. This spectacular end to a A$7 billion dollar dream was planned to start in late 2000 and would take two years to destroy all the satellites.
Then in November 2000 over the hill galloped the US Cavalry — literally. The US Defence Department teamed up with a little company called ‘Iridium Satellite’ which bought the whole system from Motorola for a bargain price of A$35 million. The Defence Department contracted Iridium Satellite to provide communications services to the value of A$100 million over two years. Iridium was saved. Under the new structure, the company only needed 60,000 subscribers to break even. It currently has 169,000 subscribers and the numbers are growing, despite the fact that the phone requires a line-of-sight with a satellite and thus can’t work inside buildings.
Flying above our heads is an array of over 66 Iridium satellites (there are a few spare satellites as well as a few damaged ones) travelling at over 17,000 kph, providing communication to every part of our planet. It may have been a disastrous financial project, but it is a remarkable technological achievement, and all of us can view these satellites and predict to the second when any given satellite in the network can be seen.
The brightness of objects in the sky, whether they are planets, comets, satellites or stars, is described by how much light they reflect or emit. This brightness is called ‘magnitude’. The brighter an object, the lower is its magnitude. Thus the sun has a magnitude of -26.7. The magnitude scale is logarithmic to base 2.5. That is, an object with a magnitude of -1 is 2.5 times brighter than an object with a magnitude of 0. The full moon has a magnitude of -12.7. The dimmest object that the human eye can perceive is about magnitude +6. The brightest Iridium flares are quite spectacular with a magnitude of -8, especially when viewed against a dark sky.
The sun reflecting off the satellite’s antennae causes the ‘flare’. Each satellite has three antennae that are made from brightly polished aluminium covered by silver-coated Teflon (for heat control), giving a total area of 4.8m2 of reflective surface. When the satellite is at the right angle the sun catches the antenna and we are treated with a spectacular white flare, which lasts between four and twenty seconds.
So, you too can be a prophet and predict where in the night sky an Iridium flare will appear. There are a number of flare prediction sites available on the internet. I used “Heavens-Above” and it can be found at: http://www.heavens-above.com/
The next excellent sighting for Canberra is on Thursday 22 February when from Red Hill Lookout the flare will reach a magnitude of -8, which is very bright. Iridium 19 will create a flare at an altitude of 62° (the horizon is 0° and directly overhead is 90°) and azimuth of 61°, which is East-north-east. Happy flare-hunting!
© 2007, David Vernon
This article was first published in The Canberra Times on 19 Feb 2007 in Times2, p6

David Vernon is a freelance writer. Based in Canberra he writes about science, parenting, health and history. In mid-2006 he completed his third book, an anthology of birth stories told by men, called Men at Birth. He is the father of two boys and is their fulltime carer.
Website: http://web.mac.com/david.vernon Email: dvbooks@mac.com

Is Staying at Home Ruining My Career?

Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:22:36 +1100

by David Vernon

I’m a stay-at-home Dad and have been since my first child was eighteen months old. Seven years later, I’m still a stay-at- home Dad. I’ve returned to work several times and left again to look after my kids. I was once a middle manager working for the Australian Government Environment Department. I once had grand career aspirations but if I were to return today, I’d still be a middle manager and I’d probably end up working for one of my trainees. My ascent of the corporate ladder has stalled. I’ve seen senior staff shake their heads when I’ve told them that I am part-time. My boss’ boss, never said it out aloud, but I could tell she was thinking, “That’s the end of a promising career.”
And I suspect that she was right. Employers have still not figured out how to manage workers taking career breaks to raise the next generation. I might have lost a career but I have gained something terribly precious — an intimate relationship with my two sons that would never have developed when I left work before they were awake, and returned home just before bed time.
An increasing number of Australian men are risking their careers to take on the domestic role of chief educator, bottom cleaner, chef, first aid officer and janitor. But how fast the numbers are increasing we don’t know as the Australian Bureau of Statistics doesn’t directly measure the number of men working as carers. At this time all the ABS can say is that less than one percent of the male labour force are carers.
The reason for the increasing numbers is hard to gauge. It is likely to be a combination of women’s improving earnings meaning that the lower paid male stays at home to look after the kids and the desire of men to be more involved in the upbringing of their children. A new generation of men are realizing that they didn’t see much of their Dad when they were a kid and they don’t want their children to have the same experience.
But for some men, being the carer is a matter of necessity and not choice. Peter Zauner recently arrived in Sydney from Austria to settle and raise his family with his Australian-born wife, Emma. He stayed at home for nearly two years, providing fulltime care for his then three-month old son, Casper. Unfortunately Peter found the social isolation, the reduced income and the need to quickly learn new skills difficult to cope with.
“Emma returned to work three months after Casper was born. It wasn’t ideal, but it was a financial necessity. I needed to get my qualifications up to scratch before I could work and so, Emma, who’s a nurse, earned the money.”
“I did everything for Casper — nappy changing, defrosting and heating stored breast-milk, taking him in his pram to the park and attending play groups,” explains Peter. “The actual baby care bit wasn’t too hard, rather it was all the other stuff.”
Peter, age 37 who had previously worked as a pathologist says that part of the hardship he experienced was due to his unrealistic expectations of the support he would receive as a new Dad in his new country. “Austria has a very advanced social system so young families are well supported by the government. There is up to three years paid leave for mothers or fathers. There are many cash incentives for young families, such as a monthly infant allowance paid to the carer worth 426€ ($A712) for the first three years. So when I arrived here and found so little support, we found it very hard.”
In addition to the financial shock was the need to deal with the distress when Emma had to leave Casper to go to work, when she wasn’t ready. “Emma felt quite heartbroken at going back to work. She was very emotionally attached to Casper and it was terribly hard for her to go to work. I therefore felt very upset at seeing Emma’s grief each day as she left.”
But for some Dads it is a matter of choice. Glenn Johnstone, 41 gave up a secure career as a geographer to do both fulltime and part-time parenting over ten years. While at times the family had some financial struggles, his partner Anna, a social scientist, brought in enough money that allowed him to choose to do the parenting. He felt there were many advantages from being Izzi (age 10) and Mia’s (8) main carer. “Children are very much ‘here and now’ people and so rather than worrying so much about the future, I’ve taken a leaf out of their book and enjoy the moment. Parenting makes you less selfish. The little being needs you and it can be quite humbling getting the smile of thanks from doing something quite minor.”
Dean Ransevycz, 38, a self-proclaimed computer geek for a major computer company, also chose to take time off work to provide care for his daughter, Zoe, 3 and his son Tristan, 10 months. He did it because he wanted greater intimacy with his children. “I want to be closer to my kids and I wanted to have the experience that my partner Sarah was having,” he explained.
“I wanted this experience, and in some respects, I think it is an obligation for dads to share the care with their partner. I really felt it was important to do this and I know from my Grandfather, for he’s said it several times, how much he wished he could have done what I’m doing. I earn’t more than Sarah and so taking the time off has been a financial sacrifice for us.”
Whether by choice or design, one feeling that many men share when they become new Dads is they suddenly feel responsible to provide for their new family. For a stay-at-home Dad this need to be a provider can be difficult to reconcile with their passive role as carer. Peter Zauner felt this. “There were periods when I felt quite useless and worthless because Emma was bringing home the money, doing the shopping etcetera. Although I did my best, with the cooking, cleaning and household chores I felt that I really wasn’t contributing to the whole family.” Peter’s feeling that he was not a good a provider only disappeared when he started his new career after the birth of his second son Otto. With Otto’s birth, Emma took over the role of carer for both the children. “Once I found a full-time job, in the field of my dreams, hydro-engineering, I was very happy again,” Peter said.
Steve Biddulph, is a psychologist and author of the best-selling books Manhood and Raising Boys. He has campaigned for twenty years on the need for society to value and support men to be better parents. He is not at all surprised that some men experience difficulties in the domestic role. “I think that young fathers throughout history have a surge of good intent — men are so moved by the birth of a child that we vow to dedicate our lives to them at some level. What happens then is that our culture either supports that desire, or crushes it. For a hundred years it’s been crushing. Men in the 1950s wouldn't be seen dead pushing a pram or cuddling a baby. It’s hard for us to appreciate how strong it was for a man to do that back then. But the thing is — deep inside, men wanted to. I hear this again and again when talking to old men. I hear of the grief they feel that they weren't close to their children. It’s literally their dying thought. Most men of that generation felt they had failed as a human being, because they knew they did not get the closeness thing right. We were an intimacy-impaired generation. But this is now being magnificently turned over with men starting to reclaim that intimacy,” states Biddulph.
Taking time to be a stay at home Dad obviously interrupts a career. But there can be plusses for employers. Dean Ransevycz believes the skills he learnt at home transferred well to the workplace. “I can handle difficult clients so much better now. I think to myself that I deal with this type of behaviour at home with an eleven-month-old child. I can therefore reason with a forty year old! Young children can be quite unreasonable, as can the clients. But the skills needed for dealing with both are very similar.”
Dean also sees himself as a more balanced person. “Work is no longer the focus of my life. I have a home and a work life now.” He also sees advantages to his employer. “By giving me unpaid time off work it keeps my skills, I am more loyal, and I am more productive, having learnt to be better at multi-tasking when I was at home.” Dean does admit, however, that not all his colleagues and bosses at work see the advantages of his dual life, with some of them making it difficult for him to arrange his flexible hours, such as by calling meetings at awkward times, despite flexibility being company policy.
Steve Biddulph believes that Australian corporate culture doesn’t support men who want a career and a family. “Corporate culture dominates our society. What we want, and what we are allowed by the company, are totally at odds. Corporate culture is anti-family. It’s as simple as that. If you've ever worked in a large organization you will know how dysfunctional and sad most male senior managers are — the level of people skills at the top of most of our companies and within government bureaucracy is woeful.
Five days per week, Rob Davis, 41 cares for his children; Bailey, who is nearly three and Lily who just turned two. Twenty hours a week, Rob works night shift as a stock picker for Safeways in Melbourne. For most men this would be seen as an untenable juggle, and yet, because his employer supports his family choice, he’d not give either job up. “It’s just brilliant,” Rob enthuses, “My partner Annette can follow her career as a podiatrist and I can get to know my kids, with some adult company and a bit of extra money.” It didn’t start that easily though. Rob explains, “When we first found out we were having Bailey I went through a big trauma trying to find a career that would sustain my family. It caused me a lot of stress. I went through five jobs trying to find something that would support us. I’m a painter by trade, did some training for St Kilda football club, was a technical consultant for Cabots but in the end it was pretty much a financial decision, Annette earned more than me and Cabot’s couldn’t accommodate my caring role, I left. I had hoped to have a long career with them but it just didn’t work.”

“This job is a challenge from the moment the kids wake up to the moment they go to bed. You need to entertain, feed, clothe, bum-change, cuddle, go to play group, go for a walk, shop and play. At the end of the day, you are exhausted and just at that moment your child sits up in bed, looks at you, gives you a kiss and says, ‘Daddy, I love you!’ it makes everything, and I mean everything worthwhile. Your heart just leaps.”

Rob describes his current manager as “Just brilliant,” in the flexibility he gives Rob when sometimes the kids aren’t well or Annette needs to work longer. But in return, he reckons he is a better employee. “One of the skills I’ve learnt is that I can help reduce workplace stress by knowing other’s perspective. Because I can manage kid conflict, I can manage stress at work so much better.”
And Biddulph agrees that some companies do the right thing. “There are glowing exceptions to poor corporate behaviour, and such companies are reaping benefits. Companies that give mothers and fathers great leave provisions, have parents who return to work and their skills and experience are retained. Such companies attract a better and more rounded kind of employee, who has mastered life balance.”
Even Peter Zauner found positive experiences in working at home. Peter says that the advantages of the close bond he developed with his son and the fact that he learnt to become a more patient and rounded person, made it worthwhile. And what of Peter’s career? “As a more settled and rounded person, I feel that these skills, combined with the fact that I’m not frenetically looking for a ‘’superior’ job, I reckon I am a better employee than before.”
Persuading employers that the stay-at-home Dad has gained skills while absent is a difficult task. John Russell can bring a long-term perspective to the impact of caring on his career. John, 52, was one of the first male employees in the New South Wales Government to apply for parenting leave in 1991. A court case forced the government to offer leave to men, and as John was working in the legal branch of NSW Parks and Wildlife Service he quickly knew about the the decision and immediately applied for six months leave to look after his daughter Kate. The Service grudgingly gave it to him. “At that time,” John explained, “as soon as your child turned one, you had to return to work, and so I was back at work on the day after Kate’s birthday.” Over the following years John negotiated a move to a more family-friendly part of the Service but eventually his desire for fewer working hours to allow him to spend more time with his two children led to his resignation.
John subsequently cared for his son Scott, aged 2, for three years and then attempted to get back into the workforce. “I certainly got job interviews, but I learnt that saying that a highlight of my career was looking after the children, got blank looks. Employers could not understand that parenting involves a whole new skill set. Looking after young children was the hardest work I ever did, and yet there was no credit given for this. Dealing with a selfish two-year-old who wants everything now and done his way, is absolutely the same as dealing with a politician who wants something done now! You need to placate, reason, smile and not aggravate the situation. Shouting only makes things worse. The only difference is the content and that can be learnt.”
Biddulph says The Office TV comedy show is not really a comedy, that’s just how it is. And why? Because, you don't get people skills with an MBA. People skills come from hands-on relationship work, and the best training for human skills is fatherhood. Men who are good with their families are good with their staff. Yet business treats the two as in competition. You are seen as soft and unsuitable for promotion if you put your family first. It’s the same with women too.”
John Russell has found that taking the time out to bring up his kids has put him into a Catch-22 situation. Now employed in the Department of Environment and Heritage, at his age, employers expect him to be a senior staff member, but he isn’t. “Their reasoning goes like this,” explains John. “As you haven’t been promoted, there must be something wrong with you and therefore I won’t promote you.” Is he bitter at this treatment? “I’ve learnt not to be. There is no happiness in being bitter. And I ask myself, do I want to work eleven hour days again?”
It’s not only a man’s long term career that can be affected by caring but some men also pay the price in their mental health for getting greater intimacy with their kids. Many stay-at-home Dad’s report they suffer anxiety and depression at some time during their time at home. In the 1950s women who suffered from domestic blues were told by their doctors to “Have a cuppa, a Bex, and a good lie down.” There is not yet any equivalent prescription for Dads suffering domestic blues. This is perhaps lucky because it’s not inactivity that men need to feel more cheerful when they are carers, but a regular dose of adult company and adult problems to solve.
Peter Zauner took the step of returning to work, to shake his feelings of depression, when he discovered that being Austrian and a bloke made it difficult to settle into a ‘mother’s group’ and the group he did attend didn’t give him the mental adult stimulation he wanted. Dean Ransevycz, described his anxiety as “Parenting anxiety, where I just wanted to get things right.” Dean sought assistance from his GP and with some good childcare advice, got himself out of his hole. Rob Davis, particularly in the early stages of juggling the demands of a two-year-old boy and a four-month-old girl, had times where he couldn’t cope. “I recall one day with Bailey constantly wanting my attention and Lily crying for a nappy change or a feed I just was losing it. I had to ring up Annette and asked her to come home, because I wasn’t coping.” Rob and Annette discussed the problem and Rob acknowledged he had to find it within himself to just cope. However, the big tonic for him is having adult male company when he goes to work on Friday nights and the time he has to himself to do renovations around the house. Glenn Johnstone found himself at times feeling very low from the constant demands made on him from two young girls. His solution is to ensure that he is able to commune with a cup of coffee and a newspaper for an hour every morning before the kids wake up. With this bit of personal space, he is able to maintain his parenting equilibrium.
As for me? I too went through a period of depression. I’m normally an optimistic bloke and yet I found myself not being able to sleep at night as I kept worrying about the future. I became lethargic — I couldn’t be bothered doing day-to-day property maintenance tasks (I live on a rural property so there is always lots to do). I did nothing for me and just did the chores that kept the house running. After much soul searching, and a visit to a counsellor, who was of little help, I finally realized it was lack of mental stimulation. I was missing adult company. I was missing the mental challenges that had been presented to me daily at work. After long talks into the night with my wife, I worked out what I wanted and needed to do to continue to be a stay-at-home Dad; I have published two books, and commenced writing two more. This activity gives me the sorely needed mental stimulation that kids in general don’t give you.
So does staying at home ruin your career? It all depends on your perspective. Glenn Johnstone summed it up for me when he said, “Bugger the career, you only get one shot at parenthood, and I don’t want to be on my deathbed saying I should have spent more time with my kids.”

• • •

NOTE: An abridged version of this article was published in Sunday Life Magazine under the title Man about the House on 21 January 2007. Cover article.

• • •
David Vernon is a freelance writer and fulltime Dad to two boys. Based in Canberra he likes to write about science, health and history. He has recently completed his third book, which is an anthology of birth stories told by men. Entitled Men at Birth it was published in July 2006 by the Australian College of Midwives.

3240 words

© 2007, David Vernon

Contact: GPO Box 2314, Canberra, 2601
Em: dvbooks@mac.com
Website: http://web.mac.com/david.vernon

Positive Warnings - Encouraging confidence

Tue, 2 Jan 2007 12:41:24 +1100

By David Vernon

My three-year-old boy fell off the couch last night. He banged his head on the tiles and cried for quite some time. This doesn’t really sound like anything worth writing about, does it? After all, many major experiences of childhood are about banging, bumping, scraping or hitting a part of one’s anatomy on something, or someone.

What made this unusual for my lad was that he did the damage on cue, just as though he was an actor. A good friend of mine who was staying for dinner noticed that Jonathan was balancing carefully on the back of the couch, so she said warningly “Careful Jonathan, you might fall.” Bang! Jonathan fell. Tears and tissues everywhere and I had to delay serving up the entrée for twenty minutes.

Jonathan doesn’t normally fall. He is usually a very balanced chap who can successfully climb most things without danger and when it comes to couch climbing is probably better than Tenzing Norgay. However, my friend’s well-intentioned warning was clearly a catalyst in Jonathan’s mind that encouraged him to try a bungy jump.

How often do you, or your parents or your friends say to your child, “Careful now, you might fall! Watch out! You might bump yourself. You’re going to slip, if you keep that up! Don’t touch that, it’s hot and you will burn your finger!”

It may not sound important, but your words to your child are powerful statements. They put images into the child’s mind. If you say to your child “Watch out, you will fall!” what picture forms in their head? Do they see a child balancing carefully along the wall, or do they see one falling headlong into the rose bushes below? It is the second picture they see, and this picture is rather distracting to the young tightrope walker. Is it any wonder that they end up scratched in the rose bushes?

You don’t believe me? Sports coaches use this technique constantly. They ask their athletes to visualize crossing the finishing line first; touching the wall before Ian Thorpe; or hurdling faster than Jana Pittman. They don’t ask their athletes to envisage themselves falling off the block at the start of the 200 metres freestyle, or injuring their knees during a big race. No. Coaches use positive imagery to support the athlete to achieve their goals. You can see something similar if you attend a Tony Robbin’s motivational seminar. Robbins asks you to visualize success. He doesn’t ask you to visualize failure. And yet what do we tell our children? “You’ll fall! Don’t burn yourself! Don’t run!” Indeed, how often do we have conversations with our friends where we say “I’d just told him to not touch the hotplate, when he did just that and burnt himself.” It’s all terribly common.

Now, I am not saying that warnings should not be given to children. On the contrary, I am simply stating that children should be given positive images to focus upon when you are concerned about their safety. Tell them what to do rather than what not to do.

Instead of saying, “Don’t fall!” we can say, “Balance carefully!”
Instead of saying, “Don’t slip!” we can say, “Hold on tightly.”
Instead of saying, “Don’t burn yourself!” we can say, “Keep well back from the hotplate.”

You can see from the above, that the first warning, doesn’t teach the child anything about safety. It is really a content free warning. However, the second statement helps the child understand what they have to do to stay safe.

Just like the high performance athlete, even very young children can successfully climb a tree, run down a slippery path and balance along a wall when they are helped to focus on succeeding at these things and are praised for their success.

It’s not easy to change your way of saying things, especially in moments of high stress, such as when your child is about to fall into the rose bushes. But if you can retrain yourself, your child will be safer, more confident in what they do and you are likely to have a less anxious time as a child’s parent. Oh, and you will spend less on bandaids.

David Vernon is a freelance writer and fulltime Dad to two boys. Based in Canberra he likes to write about science, health and history. He has recently completed his third book, which is an anthology of birth stories told by men. Entitled Men at Birth it was published in July 2006 by the Australian College of Midwives.

705 words

© 2006, David Vernon

Contact: GPO Box 2314, Canberra, 2601
Em: dvbooks@mac.com
Website: http://web.mac.com/david.vernon