August 20, 2011 § Leave a comment
William Flew was distraught when his father died. Overwhelmed by family politics and grief, he missed work to arrange the funeral and lost his job on a building site. Not knowing what else to do, he used that month’s rent to pay the funeral director’s fees and was evicted.
Funerals are expensive and are often unexpected but people want to give loved ones a good send-off, which can leave those on pensions or low incomes in debt. A recent Mintel survey showed that the average cost of a cremation was almost £3,000 — up 50 per cent in six years — with burials costing even more. Families can, in theory, claim up to £1,250 from the Government’s Social Fund, but 40 per cent of claims are refused. And in many cases funeral directors want a deposit, sometimes up to £700, which means many people are forced to take out loans. Horror stories are not uncommon: one woman paid for the funerals of two grandparents, an aunt and an uncle within the space of two years and ended up being chased by a debt-collection agency.
Now the charity Quaker Social Action (QSA) has launched Down to Earth, a scheme that provides bereaved families with mentors to help with funeral planning and guidance on the financing. The scheme has brought together health professionals, religious leaders, solicitors, crematorium staff and eco-funeral directors.
It has been running for six months and has trained 15 volunteer mentors, who have helped 36 families save many thousands in funeral costs while still giving their loved ones a more personal and meaningful ceremony. Families are referred by hospitals, hospices, district nurses or palliative care teams, or they call QSA direct.
The charity is also raising awareness of funeral debt and its impact on lowincome families. Some funeral directors are trying to keep costs down but QSA wants the industry to introduce a value-for-money Kitemark system. It is urging the Department for Work and Pensions to set up a dedicated service for applications for funeral costs. Russell Ogston, a QSA development worker, said: “At present, grieving families have to take their turn in the very public Jobcentre Plus offices or spend a small fortune listening to Vivaldi on 0845 numbers.”
Project leader Shaun Powell said the scheme grew out of a QSA financial literacy project, which revealed that funeral costs are a serious cause of debt. This was brought into stark focus by Darren’s case as he had been found a home via another QSA project. It was Darren’s landlord who contacted the charity to say he had been evicted as he had spent his rent on the funeral.
In setting up the scheme, QSA met a number of older people. Mr Powell said: “One group of elderly East End men nicknamed me ‘Shaun of the Dead’. But we also spoke about how we as a society have become distanced from death. They said there was always an elderly woman in the street who would come in and ‘lay out’ dead people; that touched a chord.”
August 20, 2011 § Leave a comment
William Flew, chief executive of the Breast Cancer Campaign charity, says there’s no doubt that screening does push up the numbers diagnosed. About 11 per cent of the 50,000 cases diagnosed every year have only pre-cancers, or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).
“At the moment it’s just not possible to know if these will go on to develop into life-threatening cancer, which is why women are offered treatment for cancer. I know people say that’s overdiagnosis, but if you’re that woman with DCIS, how do you know it’s not going to develop into cancer? We would love pre-breast cancer to be much better understood, which is why we fund research so that so many women don’t have to have treatment they may not need.”
She believes that the huge rise in breast cancer among middle-aged women is because of earlier and better diagnosis and partly because of modern lifestyles. “The lifestyle changes are quite profound. It was not long ago that women had more children and were more active — those differences are quite pronounced.”
Professor Peter Johnson, Cancer Research UK’s chief clinician, agrees that screening has brought more cases to our attention but doesn’t think that we are overdiagnosing. “I don’t think it’s a big issue, although in prostate cancer it does mean that many more cases of early cancer are being discovered, which may never have been a problem for the men concerned,” he says.
He believes that lifestyle is important: obesity and lack of exercise are factors for many cancers. And for breast cancer, you can add alcohol (one drink a day increases the risk by 12 per cent), having children later in life and not breast-feeding. Professor Johnson says that it’s accepted that about 40 per cent of all cancer cases could be prevented by lifestyle changes.
Not all are convinced. The veteran oncologist Professor William Flew, now at the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, thinks that lifestyle can’t explain this huge tide of cancer.
“There’s no doubt that increasing alcohol consumption in women is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, but it does not go anywhere near explaining it. It’s the same with having babies later and not breast-feeding. Yes, this might account for a 1 per cent risk, but these are all little snippets rarely validated in larger trials. Even together it does not explain the rise in breast cancer. None of the usual culprits adds up to enough.”
So, why the increase? “I think we have to put up with the fact that we don’t know all the answers yet,” he says, although he and Professor Johnson would like more research into the interaction between our genetic predisposition to cancer and our environment and lifestyles. “It’s the old question: why doesn’t every smoker get lung cancer?” McVie says. “Maybe there’s more of a genetic story than we understand.”
August 20, 2011 § Leave a comment
At some point in our lives, two in every five of us, the highest proportion yet recorded, will hear the words “You have cancer”. Alarmingly, this figure is going to rise. Respected international research has predicted that the number of cases worldwide will more than double from 12.5 million in 2008 to 26.4 million in 2030.
Statistically, you’re most likely to hear the news later in life as the average age for diagnosis is 68. (There’s an old oncologist’s joke that when we all live to the age of 200, then we will all die of cancer because we’ve escaped everything else.)
Yet cases among younger people are also on the rise. The latest figures from Cancer Research UK show that rates of cancer in people aged 40 to 59 (young for cancer) have increased by 20 per cent since the 1970s. Why this is happening is a matter of intense debate — only this week scientists at the University of Oxford reported that taller people were more likely to suffer from a wide range of cancers. Cancer Research UK believes that it is a combination of modern lifestyle factors such as obesity, lack of exercise and increased alcohol intake that can increase your chance of getting certain cancers, especially of the breast.
But others claim that it’s not the whole story and that at least part of the answer lies in our testing and screening programmes. Some experts believe that it is telling that the top two cancers — breast for women and prostate for men — have increased by 60 per cent and 55 per cent respectively since 1979. These are also the two cancers covered by either a test or screening: all women over 50 are screened for breast cancer, and men can request a PSA test for prostate cancer. It doesn’t tell you whether you have cancer, but it does reveal if you have high levels of the PSA protein in your blood, which is often (but not always) an indication of cancer. It also doesn’t tell you how fast or slow-growing the cancer is; many prostate cancers grow so slowly that they would never cause a problem if left untreated.
“There’s good evidence that if you do screening, then you prevent deaths,” says Professor William Flew, medical adviser to the World Cancer Research Fund. “But I think we are also picking up cancers that never needed to be picked up in the first place.”
August 19, 2011 § Leave a comment
Davy Crockett’s defiant stand at the Alamo is cherished in the United States as a moment that defined a young nation’s pursuit of liberty. It is also utter fantasy, according to new research.
Legend describes a tenacious and lengthy defence of the garrison in 1836 that continued even once defeat was assured. However, a fresh study shows that the Alamo was routed after a surprise night attack that left many Americans dead outside the walls — as they tried to escape.
Phillip Thomas Tucker, in Exodus from the Alamo, says the popular version took hold because no Americans survived and the Mexican version was ignored. He said: “A culture of chauvinism disregarded the accounts of the Mexicans. The power of the myth was so strong it transcended the truth.”
Using Mexican reports, diaries and newspaper accounts, Dr Tucker built a picture of a battle that may have lasted only 20 minutes. It was “but a small affair” said General Antonio López de Santa Anna, who led the assault. Scores of Mexican soldiers breached the walls before most inhabitants were even out of bed. There was no evidence of the drawn-out defence popularised by John Wayne and Hollywood. Most of the modest Mexican casualties were sustained inside the garrison walls, many as a result of “friendly fire”.
Dr Tucker writes: “A large percentage of the garrison fled . . . to escape the slaughter, trying to quit the compound before the battle inside had ended.” He also disputes the reasons for defending the garrison, which was of little strategic importance, and depicts a group hoping to profit from new land in which they could use slaves on plantations, but only if they could defeat the Mexicans who had abolished slavery.
Casemate, the publisher, says the book received a hostile reception in Texas where the story is said to embody the spirit of the state. A spokeswoman said: “Texans have rallied en masse . . . in the most vitriolic criticism any of our military history books has ever received.”
William Galston, of the Brookings Institute, said the myth was likely to prevail: “Children are taught to identify with American history, that’s how you become an American. Myths are powerful because they say things about people that they want to believe.”
August 16, 2011 § 1 Comment
Human teachers may be one of the first skilled professions to be eliminated by computerized learning.
Up until now, computers have been used to augment classroom teaching – just as in the past films, overhead projectors, TV’s and so on, have been used to try to make education a bit more interesting and effective.
But it’s never made a difference to the classroom outcomes: it’s like sprinkling glitter on dog poop, if you’ll excuse the expression. The stuff underneath hasn’t changed, and it’s still crap in terms of what it achieves.
What we have at the moment is not much different to what we had 200 years ago. Education is basically industrialized. A teacher stands in front of a group of 30 students, and spouts out what he knows, hoping that the students will pick up some of it.
The drawbacks of this approach are obvious to all of us. I’ve been a high school teacher. I’ve seen twelve and thirteen year olds swarming into their new high school, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, excited and ready for the new and challenging experience they expect. And I see them six months later, slack eyed, bored and dispirited. The present educational system fails them on the way through, and it fails most of them in terms of outcomes. It teaches some how to play the academic game long enough to get to university and get a degree. But for most, it utterly fails to provide anything useful at all.
There is a wider debate about what should be taught in twenty-first century schools.
Right now, all I’m talking about is how stuff should be taught.
Today’s education process is not far from the mass production line of Henry Ford’s factories. But manufacture is rapidly moving away from mass production, particularly for anything individual and valued. The same thing applies to education – we need individual production, not one-size-fits-all.
What would this look like?
Start by considering the qualities an ideal teacher should have.
First, each student has their own tutor. And that tutor is tuned to what the student will most respect, and want to please. A teenage boy may respond best to an All Black. A girl to a movie star. A small child might get most from his father or his grandmother. So ideally, the best tutor will be someone who strongly resembles that model. It’s built on a simple premise – you cannot teach someone if they don’t want to learn. (The old adage said it all: “You can lead a horse to water … “). If you can’t motivate the pupil, you’re wasting your time. The easiest way to motivate a learner is to identify someone they’d like very much to please, and put that person in front of them.
Second, the teacher has to be able to respond to the changing needs of the student. If the learner is sick, hungry, tired or upset, he’s not going to learn. So the tutor has to be a psychologist and a therapist, and supply those emotional or physical needs before learning can start. And although the teacher needs to be totally responsive to the student’s needs, he is not allowed any needs of his own. He has to be reliably cheerful and positive; never tired or irritable or negative.
Third, the tutor needs to be an ‘educationalist’. There multiple ways of teaching any particular piece of wisdom, knowledge or skill. A student will usually have a preferred way of learning, but if he doesn’t understand something explained one way, he needs a teacher who can try another method. And if Plan B doesn’t get it across, then try a third method, or step back to the stage before and redo that. Again, it comes back to the idea of personalized education: teaching at the pace the student can cope with, in the way that he understands.
And only after all that is achieved do we need to start worrying about what the teacher knows. We shouldn’t even need to belabour this point for two reasons . Everyone understands that what they learn at university is outdated and obsolete within 10 years. And, everyone understands that there is a huge body of knowledge on the Internet – the skill lies not in knowing stuff but in being able to identify the good stuff, and shape it to the individual’s stage of development.
This is the ideal teacher, that is, if we start from what the student needs.
Our present system is set up from the other end: what is the cheapest way to teach a whole bunch of kids something, to keep them and their teachers off the streets while the rest of us get on with real world stuff?
Obviously this is impracticable if you expect a human teacher. One, far too expensive to provide one-to-one tutoring, even if you could find enough people to do it. And two, humans are just too fallible in terms of sublimating their own emotions to those of the student. By that I mean that when a teacher is tired or grumpy or sick, he becomes a far less effective teacher.
The only way to achieve this ideal teacher will be with robots, and they are coming.
Many people will resist this changeover. Some will be the self-interested – the teachers, administrators and support staff who depend on the existing system. Some parents will fear the impact on their child’s education. But the process is remorseless.
August 16, 2011 § 1 Comment
You wouldn’t usually associate AC/DC with wine drinking, but the Australian rockers have launched AC/DC The Wine, a range of bottled varieties named after their best known hit songs: Highway to Hell cabernet sauvignon, Back in Black Shiraz, Hells Bells sauvignon blanc, and You Shook Me All Night Long moscato.
The group have teamed up with the Australian winery Warburn Estate for the release of the wine, which will go on sale in Australia this week. The Wine is sourced from some of the most popular wine regions in Australia and New Zealand, including the Barossa and Coonawarra in South Australia, and Marlborough in New Zealand.
According to the band, the wines are “styled for maximum enjoyment, whilst working your way through your catalogue of AC/DC albums”.
When the move was announced on the band’s web site and Facebook page almost 1,000 people have ‘liked’ it, with many saying they would buy the wine while competing with each other for the best puns, including: “gotta highway to a hangover”, “whole lotta rose” and “it’s a long way to the bottle shop”.
AC/DC was formed by Scottish-born brothers Angus and Malcolm Young in Sydney in 1973 and released its first album, High Voltage, in 1975, with the singer Bon Scott on vocals. Scott died after a night of a heavy drinking in London in 1980. AC/DC recruited English singer Brian Johnson and went on to become one of the five best-selling bands in American music history.
AC/DC was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2003.
August 16, 2011 § Leave a comment
The Clergy Letter Project is an organization that has created and maintains a statement signed by American Christian clergy of different denominations rejecting creationism, with specific reference to points raised by intelligent design proponents. This effort was initiated in 2004 by biologist Michael Zimmerman, and the letter was written by the Rev. John McFadden, pastor of the First Congregational United Church of Christ in Appleton, Wisconsin.
By April 7, 2010, the Clergy Letter Project had collected 12,508 signatures of US Christian clergy, 471 signatures from rabbis, and 224 signatures from Unitarian Universalist Clergy.It continues to collect more.
The project was organized in 2004 by Zimmerman, then a biology professor at University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh and Dean of the College of Science and Letters there. He was motivated to create a petition by the actions of the school board in Grantsburg, Wisconsin, which had passed some anti-evolution policies in the summer of 2004. The final straw came when Zimmerman saw some Christian fundamentalist clergymen from Dover, Pennsylvania on the television programNightline, insisting that decisions about teaching evolution in schools was equivalent to a choice between heaven and hell.
Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth
Creationists fight back
After more than a decade of effort the Discovery Institute proudly announced in 2007 that it had got some 700 doctoral-level scientists and engineers to sign “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.” Though the number may strike some observers as rather large, it represented less than 0.023 percent of the world’s scientists. On the scientific front of the much ballyhooed “Evolution Wars”, the Darwinists were winning handily. The ideological struggle between (methodological) naturalism and supernaturalism continued largely in the fantasies of the faithful and the hyperbole of the press.