bearing blog


bear – ing n 1  the manner in which one comports oneself;  2  the act, power, or time of bringing forth offspring or fruit; 3 a machine part in which another part turns [a journal ~];  pl comprehension of one’s position, environment, or situation;   5  the act of moving while supporting the weight of something [the ~ of the cross].


  • Co-sleeping and SIDS (Updated)

    Once again, SIDS and co-sleeping is in the news:

    Researchers say the results of this study show that sharing a couch to sleep, sleeping in a room alone, and sleeping in bed with parent are also associated with an increased risk of SIDS.

    "The safest place for your baby to sleep is in a cot [crib] in your room for the first six months," states researcher David Tappin, MD, MPH, of the University of Glasgow, in a news release.

    I say, note the "in your room" part.  I’ll blog more on this when I see the article in the Journal of Pediatrics, which is not yet online. 

    UPDATE:  I just gained access through the University of Minnesota.  As far as I know the article is not available online to non-subscribers, but it may be in your local library.  The reference is D. Tappin, R. Ecob, and H. Brooke, "Bedsharing, roomsharing, and sudden infant death syndrome in Scotland:  a case-control study." J Pediatrics 147, 32-37 (2005). 

    It’s important to realize that SIDS is by definition a catch-all.  From the website of the American SIDS institute,  http://www.sids.org:

    SIDS is the sudden death of an infant under one year of age which remains
    unexplained after a thorough case investigation, including performance of a complete
    autopsy, examination of the death scene, and review of the clinical history. (Willinger
    et al, 1991).

    In other words, any unexplained sudden death of an infant is SIDS.  Find an explanation,
    and it’s not SIDS.

    Of course, when I want to know my child’s sleeping risks, I don’t care whether it’s
    explainable or not.  I only want to know what is the risk of my child dying from
    all causes. 

    The absolute difference in risk (as opposed to the percent increase in risk) would have to be significantly large for me to give up the tangible benefits of co-sleeping.  What all these news
    reports always miss is some perspective, some comparison of the absolute risks involved
    to the absolute risks of other activities (e.g., driving) or the risks of other
    choices.  For example, how much does it increase our children’s risk of death when
    we leave them with babysitters?  I don’t know the answer, but given that almost
    all of us do it to some extent, it would be interesting to compare to the increase
    in death rates (if there is one) from co-sleeping.


  • Fake Christian ministers for real weddings, in Japan.

    Amy Welborn points to the Japanese trend of "Christian-style"  weddings.  I observed this on a trip to Hawaii a few years ago, Hawaii being a major wedding destination for Japanese brides and grooms. 

    I didn’t know that Christians are only 1.4% of the Japanese population.  That seems surprisingly low to me.


  • “What don’t we know?”

    The journal Science has published a list of the top 125 unanswered questions.  The link takes you to a list of the editors’ top 25, with links to essays; here are the remaining 100.  A selection:

    What is a species?

    How did flowers evolve?

    Why do some countries grow and others stagnate?

    Does Poincare’s test identify spheres in four-dimensional space?

    To what extent can we stave off Alzheimer’s?

    What powers quasars?

    Are we alone in the universe?

    Some of them are really "what can’t we do yet" rather than "what don’t we know."


  • The baby fell in the fire.

    Not my baby, my friends’ baby.  Three families went camping, we among them, and on the last morning after breakfast, not ten minutes after we’d all agreed that the trip was a resounding success, fifteen-month-old Finnian backed towards the smoldering fire ring; three or four adults yelled "Finnian!"; he jerked his head up; and the momentum knocked him off balance and he tumbled butt-first into the fire.

    The next instant stretched on and on as people were reaching and grabbing and pulling him out; it seemed long enough for me, several meters away, to think He’s in the fire, pull him out and then to think He’s still in the fire, why isn’t anyone pulling him out? and then to think He’s still in the fire, he has to come out! But of course it was only a couple of seconds.  And then he was in someone’s arms, and someone, inexplicably, was beating Finnian on the side of the head with a hat, and then it seemed that everyone was shouting, "Water! Water!" and the bucket was empty, and then someone was holding him under the pitifully thinly streaming spigot of our collapsible drinking water container, and then two of the men were running away with him, away down the two-hundred-foot path to the potable-water faucet, and his mother was running behind.  And he screamed and he screamed and he screamed.

    It turned out okay in the end.  His ear was blistered and the edges of the peeling blisters blackened.  His hair was singed (that was why he had been beaten with the hat, of course) and the skin was reddened.  After holding him under the faucet for many minutes, his mother took him into her lap and nursed him, and we viewed it as a good sign that he stopped screaming and nursed and calmed.   While he nursed we could inspect and treat the burns we could see.  And then one of the men drove Finnian and his mother to the emergency room and the rest of us started to pack up, talking and talking and thinking how much worse it could have been.  When they returned a couple of hours later, Finnian ran down the path himself.  His head was bandaged and he also had a bandage on his arm (we hadn’t noticed the burn on his arm) but he seemed to have forgotten all about it.

    So here’s what went wrong, and here’s what went right.  Wrong first:

    • Immediate cause:  The camp chairs were too close to the fire.  After the children went to bed the night before, the adults stayed up and drew the chairs close around the fire.  We’d never put them back, and when Finnian fell he’d been directly between the fire and the feet of an adult seated in one of the chairs.   
    • Possibly more important:  We hadn’t worked very hard at keeping the two toddlers aware of the fire.  On previous trips we’d been very vigilant, yanking them away whenever they came near and constantly reminding them "Hot! Hot!"  (Enough so that last year, my then-eleven-month-old started to say "Hot!").  This year, with eight children to keep track of, and none of them ever burned, we got complacent about the fire, even though we were vigilant about the unusually abundant poison ivy and ticks.  These hazards seemed new and interesting; the campfire, not so much.
    • We didn’t even catch the cues we were giving each other.  We kept pointing out to each other, "Wow, Finnian keeps getting really close to the fire.  He doesn’t understand it at all."  We kept making jokes about having to file near-miss reports.  And yet, only once the whole trip did anyone try to teach him about it.

    Mistakes we made that might have made it much worse, but luckily, didn’t:

    • We didn’t have a lot of water handy.  We’d given up on keeping a full bucket of water around because the children kept tipping it over and we were worried about one of them falling in.
    • We didn’t know where the closest emergency room was.  They drove him to the nearest town that they guessed would have a hospital, and luckily they were right; and time was not terribly important in this case, but it might’ve been.

    What went right, that might not have:

    • Finnian was fully dressed except for shoes.  Our little ones aren’t always.  I know my toddler was walking around in nothing but a diaper a few times during the trip.
    • We had three fully stocked first-aid kits, one of which contained a wilderness-first-aid manual.
    • We got him out of the fire very fast, we knew to apply cold water immediately and for a long time (five to fifteen minutes), and Finnian’s dad thought to run the water over Finn’s entire body instead of just the area that seemed burned.  That was smart, because he did have other burns that didn’t turn red until later.

    We resolved to buy a water bucket with a lid, to get some spray chalk to mark a Toddler Exclusion Circle (i.e. if they go inside it we yank them out) around the campfire, to forbid the girls from wearing dresses while camping, and to keep the babies fully dressed.  Of all the things that might’ve gone wrong, I am most haunted by the thought that Finnian might not have had two layers of clothes on.


  • How often does this happen?

    All along I’d been (naively) assuming that Terri’s case was some kind of first, at least on the national scene.  But no:

    Marjorie had once told her brother Maynard that she didn’t want a feeding tube if she were terminally ill. Despite the fact that she was not dying, Maynard believed that she had meant that she would rather die by dehydration than live the rest of her life using a feeding tube. Accordingly, he ordered all of Marjorie’s nourishment stopped.

    As she was slowly dehydrating to death, Marjorie began to beg the staff for food and water.

    The Washington Post reports that someone at the hospital restrained her in her bed to prevent her from grabbing food from other patients’ plates until she finally died.

    This was in 1996.  Hat tip: this week’s Grand Rounds.


  • A wrapup on Terri.

    A good article to keep in mind, with some new material.  By Robert Johansen.  H/T Bettnet.


  • One more reason why “Footprints” is not the same as the Gospels.

    Food for thought from Disputations:

    It’s kind of strange, isn’t it, how a familiar passage doesn’t become dull so much as silent. They don’t tell you what you already know; they simply don’t tell you anything at all. And of course there are passages that are silent from first reading on.

    And then… pop!

    This caught my eye because the process of coming to terms with "Footprints in the Sand" happened to me too.  For years I was somewhat ashamed of my thunderstruckness on my first reading, because after I discovered how ubiquitous it is on cheap "inspirational" plaques and samplers I started to regard it as treacle. 

    Which, of course, it is, compared to Scripture.   But then, so is a lot of stuff.

    Hat tip:  Emily at After Abortion.


  • Smart kid, close call (UPDATED)

    This, in my local paper, is the sort of thing that makes my heart skip a beat:

    The two boys told police that they noticed a man watching them as they played at an apartment building playground in the 1000 block of Duluth Street. Shortly before 6:40 p.m., the man grabbed the younger boy by the arm and started to walk off to a wooded area, police said. The older boy, 9, yelled and threw rocks until the man let go.

    Last summer I had a suspicious impulse towards a man who approached my four-year-old son at a playground, and stared him down until he walked away.  (Short version:  Lone man walking dog, ten o’clock on a weekday morning, starts conversation with small boys playing in an isolated corner of the playground.) 

    I know this sort of thing is very rare, but not rare enough for me to let a boy this age play unsupervised in a public place.

    UPDATE:  OK, so it’s even rarer than that.  The boys have admitted to lying.


  • Maggie hits it on the head.

    Fabulous essay by Maggie Gallagher in the NCR.  It’s in the form of a letter explaining love and marriage to her grown son Patrick.

    Here’s the place to begin. Every time you make love, you could be making your first-born child…

    The fate of your first child will lie in the hands of this woman to whom you give the perhaps unwelcome gift of your seed. Afterwards, our society gives you no say in what happens next: whether she kills your baby, or bears it away from you, or asks for your help raising it in a quasi-family, one where love, money, sexual attachments, and parenting are split up among multiple people and households.

    If you are lucky perhaps she will secretly long for you to propose marriage. But you lose control. What happens next will be up to her, not you.

    Your capacity to protect your own child will depend entirely on the woman to whom you have made love. You have placed your fatherhood in her hands.

    (My son, here’s a secret: Fatherhood is always the gift of a woman).

    Read it all.  Hat tip:  Sara Butler at familyscholars.org.


  • Scientists Say

    Mark was leafing through last week’s issue of Science at the breakfast table.  "This is a weird magazine."

    I said, "It’s really a journal, even though it looks like a trade mag.  It’s fairly prestigious to be published in there." 

    "Yeah, it looks like one in the back."  He pushed it across the table and pointed to the Letters page (link requires paid subscription).  "Is it prestigious to get your retraction published?"

    The report "Defective transcription-couped repair of oxidative base damage in Cockayne syndrome patients from XP group G" (1) is retracted.  An ad hoc investigatory committee … has found that the last author (S. A. L.) of the paper "fabricated and falsified research findings"… The first three authors of the paper were not cognizant of any irregularities and were not involved in any wrongdoing.  The fourth author (S. A. L.) declined to sign this retraction.

    I don’t know how often papers are formally retracted because fake data is uncovered.  Retraction because mistakes are discovered is a normal part of the process, or at least it should be, because mistakes happen all the time.

    A year out of graduate school, I suspect fakery is very, very common, especially if you include the omission of data along with fabrication and falsification.  I suspect that it falls on a spectrum:  at one end, the deliberate creation of data that never existed, reports from experiments that were not done or that turned out quite differently; at the other end, decisions to omit certain data and report others that are rooted in unconscious bias.  Somewhere in there, too, obfuscation or exaggeration in the write-ups.

    A lot of people are suspicious of university research that is funded by corporations with a stake in the findings.  Supposedly this creates an incentive for the investigator to skew the data in favor of the funding corporation.  Maybe that’s true at the level of the primary investigator, i.e. the supervising professor. 

    In my experience, it’s not true for the graduate students who do most of the research, at least not in physical science and engineering.  What do they care who funds them as long as they get their stipend? 

    No, with graduate students the incentive is all about time.  I’ve been here seven years and I don’t have anything to show for it.  If this keeps up they’ll kick me out.  As soon as I finish this up and get something—anything—that will look good to the thesis committee, I’ll be making real money. 

    Or maybe it goes like this:  Everyone else in my group finishes within five years.  I’m starting to look bad.  My advisor is pressuring me to finish.

    My own thesis was theoretical; the "data" came from one computer program I wrote myself, and later from another computer program that a visiting professor, who is much better at programming than I am, wrote after I set up the equations.  (Yes, I properly attributed the work to the professor.)  Mine has nothing but my own reasoning to stand on.  That’s one thing I like about theoretical investigation.

    UPDATE:  Here’s a link to a news article on the retraction.  Sounds like the alleged faker has issues that go beyond research.


  • In other news: Pope Catholic

    What were they thinking he would say?

    ROME, Italy (AP) — Pope Benedict XVI indicated Saturday he will stick to Pope John Paul II’s unwavering stands against abortion and euthanasia, saying pontiffs must resist attempts to "water down" Roman Catholic teaching.

    Also:  These are not "Pope John Paul II’s… stands." Such a phrase assumes that the popes are only politicians, and their comments about abortion and euthanasia are only party lines of one kind or another.  These are teachings that have been continuously upheld since the time of the apostles.  It’s not like JPII came up with them on his own. 

    But it fits with the MSM meme:  church as political party.


  • Michelangelo

    From the L. A. Times:

    Throughout the two-day conclave, Mahony said, he and other cardinals were moved by the fact that they were participating in a historic event in the dramatic setting of the Sistine Chapel, adorned with paintings of damnation and salvation by Michelangelo, including the "Last Judgment."

    "I kept looking up at all the paintings, at Michelangelo’s works, and thought, the only thing that stayed the same in this room is everything that Michelangelo painted here."

    He said that as he and others studied the artworks, it occurred to them that the message of the paintings was timeless and as relevant in the 21st century as they were when they were made in the 16th century.

    I like the idea that Michelangelo is the messenger chosen from among all the people of God to remind the cardinals why they are there; what it means to Feed my sheep. 

    This is what we need, says Michelangelo.  Let me show you what the stakes are.

    He is the ordinary person’s representative in the conclave.