Oxford dictionary says misogyny is "Dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women". I mean precisely that, and not your reductionist version based only on the Greek roots. As a feminist, I also mean that the articles on McClintock and von Neumann should be held to the same standards. By what non-sexist standard do we include von Neumann's fondness for limericks and not McClintock's life beyond her research? (Hint: 'the charge that they don't take women seriously' is sexist, because we often talk about the personal lives of male scientists and also treat them as serious scientists.)
As a scientist, I laugh at your claim I am "anti-science". As an amateur historian of science, I think it's worthy to understand the people and social context behind the science, in order to better understand the process by which we do science ourselves. So no, you have misinterpreted me in multiple ways.
I didn't have the sources. I had an uncited quote from a brochure for a science exhibition, and a memory of a book I read 25 years ago. With your prodding, I spent some 20 minutes to track down the Neurospora citation and update the WP article.
Whoo-hoo! I get to boast that I recognized Barbara McClintock from the image on Neatorama, without peeking at the answer. I did a report on her in college. She was amazing!
Her Wikipedia article, alas, slants more towards her published results and is staid and boring. Did you know she enjoyed tennis? Not from the article. Compare it to John von Neumann's article, where we learn "Von Neumann liked to eat and drink; his wife, Klara, said that he could count everything except calories. He enjoyed Yiddish and "off-color" humor (especially limericks).[12] He was a non-smoker.". Oy vey - what a difference!
Or, the WP entry for McClintock says only "She successfully described the number of chromosomes, or karyotype, of N. crassa and described the entire life cycle of the species." From http://old.weedtowonder.org/files/pdf/McClintocks_World.pdf we learn the more powerful comment "Barbara, in two months at Stanford, did more to clean up the cytology of Neurospora than all other cytological geneticists had done in all previous time on all forms of mold.”
I'm dismayed to read the talk comments at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barbara_McClintock . The phrase "the current picture is so sexy" reeks of the misogyny which dogged her life. More power to you Temple-Wood!
I don't think you should look at the fraction of the litter due to containers but the overall amount of litter. As it points out on page 17, there appears to be a correlation between introducing a bottle bill and the reduction of other types of litter, though the reason isn't known. I can conjecture that if you throw the can you just finished out the window then it might be easier to toss out other trash. But you are right, that isn't persuasive evidence. The strict numbers look like about an 8% reduction in litter (geometric mean of 4% and 21%, with 90% success rate at 10 cent deposit.) At this point I'm arguing the difference between "small" and "slight", so I concede.
Quoting p26, "The cost-versus-revenue bottom line for recycling programs is a hotly debated topic, due in part to whether the analysis is strictly fiscal or includes externalities such as reductions in air pollution, energy use, and environmental degradation." :)
"Slight impact on littering"? If http://efc.umd.edu/assets/2011impactanalybevcontmd.pdf is right, "The states that have enacted deposit programs report significant reductions in beverage containers in the litter stream. Hawaii, for example, saw a 60% reduction in beverage containers as a percentage of total litter" and it looks like there's a 30% reduction in overall litter when a state introduces a beverage container deposit bill. How is that "slight?"
I remember a scene in John Christopher's Tripods series with a similar premise. If the convicted prisoner could outrun a Tripod over a stretch the he was free.
The "don't get in the car while fueling up because you may cause a fire" suggesting is very close to its own myth. See http://www.snopes.com/autos/hazards/static.asp . Only a few dozen such fires have happened out of billions of fuelings per year, *and* of the few reported cases of static electricity causing a fire, almost as many take place before the refueling begins as during. If you're really worried about, then get leather seats ("Leather Seats Are The Best is myth #1").
To set the stage, New Mexico's views towards Texas started a long time ago. The Republic of Texas laid claim to part of northern NM, and in 1841 sent a force to try and secure the land and gain control of the Santa Fe Trail. Then during the Civil War, Confederate troops - mostly Texans - tried to take over the state, and briefly held Albuquerque and Santa Fe. (Arizona Territory, which had split a few years earlier from NM, side with the Confederates.) US was also suspicious about New Mexican statehood, in part because of the long Spanish culture dating back to the 1600s. There were many questions about if the NM population had "assimilated" enough to be US state. Imagine the resentment which might occur when a New Mexican-born American, who can trace their local family ancestry back to Imperial Spanish colonization in the 1600s, and who grew up in a Spanish speaking household, is called an immigrant. Texans seem to go out of their way to prove they are more American than the rest of Americans, and that cultural difference might help antagonize things. And there are still problems by the US breaking its treaty obligations to honor Spanish land grants. Quoting the 'Milagro Beanfield War' - “The war never ended in 1848”.
As a scientist, I laugh at your claim I am "anti-science". As an amateur historian of science, I think it's worthy to understand the people and social context behind the science, in order to better understand the process by which we do science ourselves. So no, you have misinterpreted me in multiple ways.
Her Wikipedia article, alas, slants more towards her published results and is staid and boring. Did you know she enjoyed tennis? Not from the article. Compare it to John von Neumann's article, where we learn "Von Neumann liked to eat and drink; his wife, Klara, said that he could count everything except calories. He enjoyed Yiddish and "off-color" humor (especially limericks).[12] He was a non-smoker.". Oy vey - what a difference!
Or, the WP entry for McClintock says only "She successfully described the number of chromosomes, or karyotype, of N. crassa and described the entire life cycle of the species." From http://old.weedtowonder.org/files/pdf/McClintocks_World.pdf we learn the more powerful comment "Barbara, in two months at Stanford, did more to clean up the cytology of Neurospora than all other cytological geneticists had done in all previous time on all forms of mold.”
I'm dismayed to read the talk comments at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barbara_McClintock . The phrase "the current picture is so sexy" reeks of the misogyny which dogged her life. More power to you Temple-Wood!
Quoting p26, "The cost-versus-revenue bottom line for recycling programs is a hotly debated topic, due in part to whether the analysis is strictly fiscal or includes externalities such as reductions in air pollution, energy use, and environmental degradation." :)