Medical Myths and the Myths about those myths - Part 6 (woman decides the sex of her baby)

An old myth is that the woman decides the sex of her baby when she gets pregnant. Even today, some cultures still have this belief. So, what's the myth about this myth? When I was a child, I learned that it is the father that determines the sex of the baby. Of course, this is as big of a myth as believing the mother has control over this event.

The fact of the matter is that barring actual (and expensive) medical intervention, and for all practical purposes, the selection of a baby's sex is completely random. Neither the mother nor the father can make the selection through conscientious efforts.^[1] There are many different and often bizarre myths surrounding conception, as an article at babycenter.com covers.^[2]

Many different actions can be tried with to improve the chance of getting pregnant, but sex selection is still not directly in the hands of either parent. Granted, Y (male) sperm have been deemed weaker and can be more affected by a woman's pH balance more so than X (female) sperm, but more boys are born than girls on a world wide basis. Nature has already figured all this out for us, and if decision making has happened, it is a result of our species' evolution, and not preferences we conjure up in our own minds.

Creationist say what? Nothing?

Arguements for Christian creationist beliefs can often be summed up with one word, "nothing". The linked site is a classic example for creatisionist to attempt to prove evolution is somehow in doubt by scientists. It pretty much just takes a bunch of quotes out of context and pins them together to form what appears to be one cohesive argument against the validity of the Theory of Evolution. The main problem with this, of course, is that these are not valid references. They are quotes taken out of context from a diverse, unrelated, outdated and very often unauthoritative sources.

Many times, they quote from reputable publications, but don't make it clear that these quotes are of quotes by the source to argue against creationism. In other words, it is creationists quoting creationists. They try to make the creationist seem as though they are scientists that is lamenting evolution.

Another trick is they quote scientists of unrelated fields. I am amazed how often an oft-handed comment by Einstein or Steven Hawkins is quoted as proof that scientists question the Theory of Evolution.

They also grab quotes from newsletters or other unvetted periodicals and present them as though they were creditably published.

So, in the end, they are just quoting a bunch of random comments in a way the becomes original research of their own, finding a conclusion that in no way is reasonable if the whole of their sources are read.

Medical Myths and the Myths about those myths - Part 5 (reading in the dark is bad)

Another myth I have found to be false is the idea that reading in the dark, or otherwise straining your eyes can adversely affect your vision. According to a recent report, researchers have found no evidence that reading in dim light causes permanent eye damage. It can cause eye strain and temporarily decrease vision, but that subsides after rest.^[1] Personally, I've never worried too much about what reading in the dark can do to my vision because it never made sense to me as to why it would have a permenant affect.

In fact, my own experience suggests that it is important to execise my eyes. Both my parents and my sister require glasses, having less than ideal vision. I've always tried to keep my eyes exercised. Until a few years ago, I never noticed any issues with my eye sight. Recently, I started noticing some imperfection in my sight, so I went into the eye doctor. Come to find out, vision in one of my eyes is 20/15, and it's 20/20 in the other. Apparently, my vision used to be in the 20/12 to 20/16 range. I was getting fussy about having lowly 20/20 vision. At times in the past, I doubted what I was doing. Now though, I at least have some sense of control regarding the health of my eyes.

Medical Myths and the Myths about those myths - Part 4 (hair and nails grow after death)

A myth I didn’t hear about until sometime in the past ten years is that fingernails and hair grow after death. However, I never believed this myth because I heard it in the context of history and how people believed vampires in the past. They used to dig up graves of recently dead people to look for signs of undeath. They apparently often found such signs in the form of what appeared to be hair and nail growth on a corpse. Please note that I personally am not 100% convinced this is the source of the myth because this directly contradicts a similar vampire evidence story (myth?) about people in the Dark Age believing bloated bodies of the recently dead was a sign of a vampire. Not to mention the fact that one of the beliefs about vampires is that if fed with blood, they return to the physical form from the point they become a vampire (meaning their hair can't grow). [How's that for talking on myths about myths? :-)]




The fact is, as I’ve heard from many difference sources by now, the body’s skin dries out sometime after a person dies. As it does so, it shrinks. The nails and hair remain in place, so it can appear as though they grow because they protrude farther out from the skin. That said, I would still guess it is possible the nails and hair do grow a tiny bit right after death, though they certainly do not continue to grow once all body functions stop.

Movie: I am Legend

I haven't been excited for a film in awhile. I was mildly excited to see I am Legend. I know the story from its previous incarnations and was looking forward to a big budget version that would do it justice. Though I enjoyed much of the film, I found that is lacked a strong story.

The movie is based on a book by the same name. Also, several low budget or independent movies have been made based on this book. This version deviated from the book and the other versions in some ways that seemed necessary, but in other ways, made this movie weaker than other versions. I will say I feel that if the movie would've followed the book, the movie would've been boring. Granted, the book does make excellent social commentary. With that said, it is not one of the better books written in the realm of fiction. I am of the sort that thinks if a movie can be made better than the work upon which it is based, then it should be. In this case, I will say that the movie was well paced. Choices in differences in the plot from the book through much of the movie were good.

However, not enough effort was given to the ending. Where the movie deviates from the book the most (the ending) is perhaps where it should've stuck to the original story more. The whole reason for the title "I am Legend" is that main character becomes as scary to the new vampire civilization in the new world as vampires are scary to us in our world now; deep social commentary. Instead, with this movie, there's a simple ending that doesn't do the rest of the movie any justice and ended up making this movie seem like a prequel to 28 Days Later (which, in my opinion, is a better film). At the end, I was like, "It's over already? That sucks." The voice-over by the heroine at the ended made an attempt to explain the movie title with the movie ended, though this was a very weak attempt at that.

One other point, the CGI was very weak and dated. It felt cartoony.

Movie: The Namesake

There was enough interest generated in The Namesake movie during its release, Allie and I felt it was worth renting it now. The movie is about an Indian family living their lives out in America. I was disappointed by this movie. Cinematography was annoyingly inconsistent. Some scenes gave too much space above or below the actors. Others where just simply centered on the scene itself, without much regard to where the actors actually were in the scene. Acting was good sometimes, but shoddy at other times.

Some of the scenes lost importance because the acting wasn't up to par. This one scene where the father is trying to have a conversation about life with his son didn't work at all because Kal Penn was trying so hard to be the teenage with angst that it actually distracted from the moment instead of making the moment what it was meant to be (and needed to be) for the film. I would say it was a case of overacting, but I think a better word for it is wrong-acting. Also, other scenes suffered from a lack of acting effort.

Editing was not well conceived or executed. The flashbacks of Gogol's character (Ken Penn) came off as just cheesy. Some scenes were awkwardly cut in order to hold off on that portion of the story until later in the movie. This, unfortunately, made the movie seem like it dragged on, with random spatterings of story telling. Overall, the story felt disjointed, without much reason for why it was edited this way.

The story itself meandered from point to point. There was no real main character, though it was supposed to be Gogol. Most of the movie seemed aimless. Character motivation was poorly executed. Again, Gogol's character kinda just took action that didn't really have a solid explanation. It made the character seem extremely superficial, even as he faced up to his heritage (which I am sure was an unintentional impression by the film maker). Well, either way the story wasn't well written.

The movie appeared to be a jumbled mess. I can't understand what many of the critics saw in this movie. It was a lackluster attempt to show something didn't really end up being all the important to the story (why the main character was named Gogol). This movie seemed to be an independent film for which the big studios wisely did not waste their money. I'm sure I would've cared about this movie more were I of Indian background, but even then I would have to admit it was not an example of good film making.