Giant's Causeway visitor centre controversy

[Main Street]

Species/populations adapt, not individuals. With individuals its down to the luck of the genetic draw.

That's poppycock, which flies in the face of Darwinian science and the historical evolution of humankind and disease.
Where on earth does science accept luck?  Science demands a bit more rigour than that.
The factors that mount up an individual's susceptibility are varied -  hereditary, nutrition, environment, hygiene, exposure
and a person's adaptability to that threat depends also on those factors.

Genetic diversity is one of the cornerstones of natural selection, so assuming that you are as educated about evolution as you claim, you must have misunderstood me.

Obviously the environment and its effect on the phenotype in terms of survival and reproduction are the other pillars.

My point was that even IF measles-caused morbidity and mortality has been on the decline long term due to adaptation by humans, that this is a population or species-level effect. Individuals can and still does die from diseases such as measles, so acquired immunity in the form of a vaccine is a very valuable tool to combat this.

The population species effect as you call it arises from individuals gaining natural immunity. This does not happen with artificial immunity.

The endless cycle artificial immunity is never ending, Unless of course the allopathic theory is correct that a disease threat will just fade away. So far after 45 years of vaccination there is no sign of that happening. History shows that diseases fade away and are replace by a lesser threatening disease. This is how the human species has adapted to their environment. When cholera broke out in London mid 19C, human beings adapted by cleaning up the sewage and water supply.

Not sure I really get your point here. Are you advocating just allowing the human-disease evolutionary "arms race" to naturally run it course or reach some kind of equilibrium, just  treating the symptoms and hoping for the best for individuals? Was the vaccination and quarantine programme that led to the eradication of smallpox wrong in your view? I don't get your dismissal of the value of acquired immunity. Are you for prolonging life and fighting disease through medical interventions such as surgery and nuclear therapies?

You mention the relatively simple process of reducing water-borne diseases such as cholera through water treatment. Fair enough, but infection prevention is rarely that simple.

Part 1.
I have given you a scientifically sound basis my choosing not to partake in the method of artificial immunity. That's my considered choice. I say this because you (perhaps in blind ignorance) gave grave insult to the quackery of such a choice   You can chose to deny the science or accept there is a science and then discuss whether Darwenian science of natural selection is appropriate for society.  Or perhaps outdated ? superceded by artificial immunisation? Is it appropriate in some parts of the world?  I'd say when it comes to measles in the UK and Ireland, according to the recorded statistics of its rapid decline, there was a solid enough case for allowing natural acquired immunity to take further root and the costs of perpetual artificial immunity are too high.
Part 2  on Cholera
True, each disease is different. However water borne related diseases are amongst the most lethal in the impoverished areas of the world and you might wonder about the obstacles to establishing this basic human fundamental right, considering the massive beneficial effects.

Ok. So what do you know that the WHO, UNICEF and CDC apparently don't know or just dismiss? They estimate that more than a million deaths from measles were prevented by their vaccination programs from 1999-2004, much of this in sub-Saharan Africa.

I wasn't referring to impoverished areas in Africa. Where on earth do you get this 'one size fits all' dogma from?
As you are probably aware, it is poverty and malnutrition which underly the health complexities in SSA. Poverty is inextricably linked also to large families. The cesspits of poverty are in the urban slums, due to migration   - escape from economic slumps, drought, wars, famines etc.
Making a claim for one specific intervention in SSA is an acknowledged impossibility.
There are 2 interesting studies which are actually pro-vacccination  as being part of an integrated program.
The first http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2208&page=R1 deals with the period 1970-85 and studies the effects of all interventions and in general is favourable to an integrated approach.

The 2nd http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/7/218/ is more recent and states that  under 5 mortality rates varied from 185 (per 1,000 live births) in 1990 to 172 in 2003. This slow  progress is not anything to write home about, both poverty and malnutrition are the nr 1 issue.
The rate of reduction in child mortality rates from 1960 -1975 in SSA  was much more substantial.
The dominant health issue now in SSA are the living conditions in the urban slums.

So are you saying that sanitation and treatment is the answer? That morbidity and mortality from these diseases would have reached present-day levels without vaccinations?
How do you know?

How do I know the answer to something I have not claimed?
I am not saying that sanitation and treatment was responsible for the rapid pre-vaccination decline in death and notifications of Measles and TB.
These are merely the full factual statistics of these numbers. And I don't see any observable reason why the decline would have slackened should artificial immunity   not intervened.

Any references?

I have already given reference to nobel prize winner Gerald Edelman's research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Edelman  based on Darwin's natural selection, where he outlines how the immune system, through a natural process of adaption, maps out and retains a memory of how to deal with a disease it has encountered, how this information is passed on from the mother to the child and where the inherited immunity rises to a peak when the child is 4 years old.
Artificial immunity does make this claim, admits that the body does not retain any memory of such immunity and admits that no immunity is passed on to the next generation.

[Eamonnca1]

Result!

Giant's Causeway visitor centre interpretation statement
Posted on July 18, 2012 by ntsteve

The National Trust has welcomed over 25,000 visitors through the new Giant's Causeway visitor centre since we opened its doors at the beginning of July.

We have been delighted with the positive feedback we have seen and heard from our visitors.

However, one small part of the visitor centre's interpretive display has caused mixed reactions, mainly from people reacting to media coverage and online discussions.

The display in question focuses on the role that the Giant's Causeway has played in the historical debate about how the earth's rocks were formed.

Our intention in this section was to provide visitors with a flavour of the wide range of opinions and views that have been put forward over the years.

Our intention was not to promote or legitimise any of these opinions or views.

Unfortunately, elements from this part of the display appear to have been taken out of context and misinterpreted by some.

A spokesman said: "Having listened to our members' comments and concerns, we feel that clarity is needed.

"There is clearly no scientific debate about the age of the earth or how the Causeway stones were formed.

"The National Trust does not endorse or promote any other view.

"Our exhibits, literature and audio guides for visits to the Causeway stones and this renowned World Heritage Site all reflect this.

"To ensure that no further misunderstanding or misrepresentation of this exhibit can occur, we have decided to review the interpretive materials in this section."

Our focus at the Giant's Causeway is to ensure that the 700,000 or so visitors we expect to welcome in the coming year will have a thoroughly enjoyable, informative and rewarding visit.  During this summer we have extended opening times from 9a.m. to 9p.m. See www.nationaltrust.org.uk/giants-causeway/  for details of opening times, pre booking arrangements and specials deals for those who arrive by green transport.

[Maguire01]

Well done Eamonn!

[Eamonnca1]

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. *takes bow*

[ziggy90]

Hmmmm... that's an ever-so-slight exaggeration.  It's not particularly beautiful or interesting to look at and neither is it a jaw-droppingly interesting phenomenon.  IMO of course.  I can't undertstand the attraction at all.  I've been once and I'll never be back.

As you say, IYO. No matter how many times my wife sees photos of it she expresses bewilderment at how it can be real. When I'm in that part of the world again - and it's when, not if, the north Antrim coast is worth visiting on its own - I'll be going to the Giant's Causeway. I wonder what people expect of it. Sydney Opera House, perhaps? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically...?

I haven't done it for over twenty years but it's unarguably the most scenic drive I've ever done. Btw re The Giant's Causeway, I've seen it once and if I never saw it again it wouldn't bother me.

[Franko]

Hmmmm... that's an ever-so-slight exaggeration.  It's not particularly beautiful or interesting to look at and neither is it a jaw-droppingly interesting phenomenon.  IMO of course.  I can't undertstand the attraction at all.  I've been once and I'll never be back.

As you say, IYO. No matter how many times my wife sees photos of it she expresses bewilderment at how it can be real. When I'm in that part of the world again - and it's when, not if, the north Antrim coast is worth visiting on its own - I'll be going to the Giant's Causeway. I wonder what people expect of it. Sydney Opera House, perhaps? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically...?

I had no such delusions.  I expected a few inanimate hexagonal basalt columns neatly arranged set against a scenic background.  I was waiting for the 'WOW Factor' but it never came.  Hence, I left, suitably unimpressed and never to return.  What exactly do you find so attractive about it?

See below (taken directly from Wiki of course).  I haven't even heard of most of these 'wondrous' places.

Basalt columns are a common volcanic feature, and they occur on many scales (because faster cooling produces smaller columns). Similar sites include: the flood basalts of the Columbia Plateau of eastern Washington state, the Prismas basálticos da costa sul de Santa María in Santa María, the Azores, the Prismas Basálticos in Hidalgo, Mexico, the Los Tercios waterfall in Suchitoto, El Salvador, Fingal's Cave and the 'Kilt Rock' on Skye in Scotland, east coast of Suðuroy, the Faroes, Svartifoss in Iceland, Jusangjeolli in South Korea, the Garni gorge in Armenia, the Cyclopean Isles near Sicily, Devils Postpile National Monument in California, Devils Tower National Monument in Wyoming, the Organ Pipes National Park just outside of Melbourne, Australia, the "Organ Pipes" formation on Mount Cargill in New Zealand, the "Rocha dos Bordões" formation in Flores, the Azores, near Twyfelfontein in Namibia, Gành Đá Đĩa in Vietnam,[23] Cape Stolbchatiy in Russia, Coloanele de bazalt in Racoş, Romania, Fingal Head in New South Wales, Australia, the Hong Kong National Geopark in High Island Reservoir in Hong Kong, and on St. Mary's Islands on the west coast of India and in Riyom, Nigeria.

[Eamonnca1]

In all honesty, I see the place as having more educational value than tourist attracting value.  Not all science has to have some sort of Hollywood style 'wow' factor.

[deiseach]

I had no such delusions.  I expected a few inanimate hexagonal basalt columns neatly arranged set against a scenic background.  I was waiting for the 'WOW Factor' but it never came.  Hence, I left, suitably unimpressed and never to return.  What exactly do you find so attractive about it?

Steven Spielberg built an entire film around the wonder of basalt extrusions (see Devil's Tower in your list). What did I find so attractive? I find it hard to credit that nature can make something so vast and regular. Molten rock cooling in perfectly hexagonal shapes? Yeah, I got the wow factor.

[Franko]

I had no such delusions.  I expected a few inanimate hexagonal basalt columns neatly arranged set against a scenic background.  I was waiting for the 'WOW Factor' but it never came.  Hence, I left, suitably unimpressed and never to return.  What exactly do you find so attractive about it?

Steven Spielberg built an entire film around the wonder of basalt extrusions (see Devil's Tower in your list). What did I find so attractive? I find it hard to credit that nature can make something so vast and regular. Molten rock cooling in perfectly hexagonal shapes? Yeah, I got the wow factor.

Fair enough, you were amazed, I wasn't.

However, your first assertion is bollocks.  It was used as a location in the film.  The film itself had the sum total of f**k all to do with volcanic basalt columns.

[deiseach]

However, your first assertion is bollocks.  It was used as a location in the film.  The film itself had the sum total of f**k all to do with volcanic basalt columns.

Fine, we'll leave it at that.

[Aerlik]

On the "definitely to do" list when I'm home with mini-me next week.  He's been asking about it.  We'll also be taking in the Titanic area of Belfast.   

[J70]

Not sure I really get your point here. Are you advocating just allowing the human-disease evolutionary "arms race" to naturally run it course or reach some kind of equilibrium, just  treating the symptoms and hoping for the best for individuals? Was the vaccination and quarantine programme that led to the eradication of smallpox wrong in your view? I don't get your dismissal of the value of acquired immunity. Are you for prolonging life and fighting disease through medical interventions such as surgery and nuclear therapies?

You mention the relatively simple process of reducing water-borne diseases such as cholera through water treatment. Fair enough, but infection prevention is rarely that simple.

Part 1.
I have given you a scientifically sound basis my choosing not to partake in the method of artificial immunity. That's my considered choice. I say this because you (perhaps in blind ignorance) gave grave insult to the quackery of such a choice   You can chose to deny the science or accept there is a science and then discuss whether Darwenian science of natural selection is appropriate for society.  Or perhaps outdated ? superceded by artificial immunisation? Is it appropriate in some parts of the world?  I'd say when it comes to measles in the UK and Ireland, according to the recorded statistics of its rapid decline, there was a solid enough case for allowing natural acquired immunity to take further root and the costs of perpetual artificial immunity are too high.
Part 2  on Cholera
True, each disease is different. However water borne related diseases are amongst the most lethal in the impoverished areas of the world and you might wonder about the obstacles to establishing this basic human fundamental right, considering the massive beneficial effects.

Oh, I stand by calling the followers of Wakefield and those who deny the effectiveness of vaccines quacks.

But I am glad to see you're not totally anti-vaccine and acknowledge their effectiveness and (presumably?) endorse their use in some parts of the world.

Ok. So what do you know that the WHO, UNICEF and CDC apparently don't know or just dismiss? They estimate that more than a million deaths from measles were prevented by their vaccination programs from 1999-2004, much of this in sub-Saharan Africa.

I wasn't referring to impoverished areas in Africa. Where on earth do you get this 'one size fits all' dogma from?
As you are probably aware, it is poverty and malnutrition which underly the health complexities in SSA. Poverty is inextricably linked also to large families. The cesspits of poverty are in the urban slums, due to migration   - escape from economic slumps, drought, wars, famines etc.
Making a claim for one specific intervention in SSA is an acknowledged impossibility.
There are 2 interesting studies which are actually pro-vacccination  as being part of an integrated program.
The first http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2208&page=R1 deals with the period 1970-85 and studies the effects of all interventions and in general is favourable to an integrated approach.

The 2nd http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/7/218/ is more recent and states that  under 5 mortality rates varied from 185 (per 1,000 live births) in 1990 to 172 in 2003. This slow  progress is not anything to write home about, both poverty and malnutrition are the nr 1 issue.
The rate of reduction in child mortality rates from 1960 -1975 in SSA  was much more substantial.
The dominant health issue now in SSA are the living conditions in the urban slums.

I have absolutely no problem with an integrated approach. How could I?

But unless I missed it, at no point until now did you state that your opposition was British Isles-confined and not applicable to the third world.

So are you saying that sanitation and treatment is the answer? That morbidity and mortality from these diseases would have reached present-day levels without vaccinations?
How do you know?

How do I know the answer to something I have not claimed?
I am not saying that sanitation and treatment was responsible for the rapid pre-vaccination decline in death and notifications of Measles and TB.
These are merely the full factual statistics of these numbers. And I don't see any observable reason why the decline would have slackened should artificial immunity   not intervened.

OK, I've obviously misinterpreted you. But assuming the natural decline in pathogenicity had been allowed to continue, at what point would the fatality rate have reached an acceptable level to negate the need for vaccinations? And again, how do you know the equilibrium point would have been low enough to have an acceptable background rate of serious illness? Is there research out there on this?

Any references?

I have already given reference to nobel prize winner Gerald Edelman's research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Edelman  based on Darwin's natural selection, where he outlines how the immune system, through a natural process of adaption, maps out and retains a memory of how to deal with a disease it has encountered, how this information is passed on from the mother to the child and where the inherited immunity rises to a peak when the child is 4 years old.
Artificial immunity does make this claim, admits that the body does not retain any memory of such immunity and admits that no immunity is passed on to the next generation.

I'll have to take your word for this for now. But thanks for the reference.

[Main Street]

With other NT sites like Stonehenge, I see they do accommodate  pagan and druid based beliefs on the reasons why it was built, as well as the old Newgrange standby absurdity, burial place chamber/ human sacrifice.

You can hardly compare the the Causeway with the treatment of attractions that are man-made!

You should have quoted my reply in total and considered the context.
My preceeding sentence was
"Though I haven't a clue where the Giant's Causeway in particular comes into the creationist belief system".

And quite honestly, I don't know where the Giant's Causeway in particular, comes into the creationist belief system. It's relatively straightforward to see where/how some of the more bizarre theories are incorporated without prejudice by the National Trust into the Stonehenge 'experience' and into the Newgrange 'experience'.
Nonetheless,  they do not arbitrate between science and myth, even when the myth is patently ridiculous, in the sense that there is some tolerance to  such bizarre myths that primitive man built it because they were sun worshippers or  built some 'awesome' burial chambers or went to an awful lot of trouble to perform bizarre human sacrifice rituals.

I suspect the creationists are using this to zealously propagate their myth on how the earth was created. In that case, it has no legitimate  place in this exhibition. I would regards it as equally bizarre as for instance the inclusion of a Gravity creator belief system into the exhibition 'experience', though I would be interested to see how such an explanation matches up to progressive scientific scrutiiny such as  the accelerating universe observations , perhaps we could do with a separate 'how this universe was created' exhibition? 

[Main Street]

I have absolutely no problem with an integrated approach. How could I?

But unless I missed it, at no point until now did you state that your opposition was British Isles-confined and not applicable to the third world.

I had no doubt that that you had no problems with an integrated approach. But you had asked me, do I dismiss the WHO statistics/claims you quoted and I answered that those claims are an acknowledged impossibility to make. Therefore imo they have no scientific credibility and I'd assign them to value of hysteria due to the manner in which they are made and considering the accumulated detailed research on SSA from which those claims are made.
Perhaps you missed where I have stated previously that these stats I provided were from UK and that impoverished areas in the world require different strokes.

OK, I've obviously misinterpreted you. But assuming the natural decline in pathogenicity had been allowed to continue, at what point would the fatality rate have reached an acceptable level to negate the need for vaccinations? And again, how do you know the equilibrium point would have been low enough to have an acceptable background rate of serious illness? Is there research out there on this?

I made some sort of a case for measles and the recorded statistics already reflected a species adaptability in the UK and probably Ireland, fatality statistics were already so low as to be just incidental.  I hazard a reasonable guess that Mumps was in a similar decline to Measles
I regard it as poor quality science to have intervened at that time with vaccinations, in the case of childhood diseases.  There are definitely situations in the world where such crude interventions are needed while chronic underlying issues are dealt with, or more true -  not being dealt with.
There was a moment in time in the UK and probably ireland when the species had a proven long term adaptability in progress. That horse has now bolted and now the children are faced with a program of inoculations.
Eventually the species will still be faced with an ever expanding cycle of inoculations with no improvement in individual adaptability. These artificial interventions operating at a very crude level in the body will (in all likelihood) take an increasing toll on an individual natural immune levels. The theory that childhood disease threat will fade away, eventually negating the use for inoculations, quite frankly flies in the face of observable science/biology. I am aware of the arguments but I believe them to be seriously faulty.
Removing the artificial intervention would also be an act of madness considering the collective dependency and conventional ignorance towards the nature of the immune system.
I speculate that if natural adaptable capabilities of the species continue to be overridden, something will have to change with these interventions. Something will have to be engineered to work in harmony with the body's inherent superior intelligent design that  adapts, learns and memorises immune response experiences. Quite possibly artificial design of laboratory babies will provide such an alternative and eventually negating the necessity to endure the biological process

[LeoMc]

I have absolutely no problem with an integrated approach. How could I?

But unless I missed it, at no point until now did you state that your opposition was British Isles-confined and not applicable to the third world.

I had no doubt that that you had no problems with an integrated approach. But you had asked me, do I dismiss the WHO statistics/claims you quoted and I answered that those claims are an acknowledged impossibility to make. Therefore imo they have no scientific credibility and I'd assign them to value of hysteria due to the manner in which they are made and considering the accumulated detailed research on SSA from which those claims are made.
Perhaps you missed where I have stated previously that these stats I provided were from UK and that impoverished areas in the world require different strokes.

OK, I've obviously misinterpreted you. But assuming the natural decline in pathogenicity had been allowed to continue, at what point would the fatality rate have reached an acceptable level to negate the need for vaccinations? And again, how do you know the equilibrium point would have been low enough to have an acceptable background rate of serious illness? Is there research out there on this?

I made some sort of a case for measles and the recorded statistics already reflected a species adaptability in the UK and probably Ireland, fatality statistics were already so low as to be just incidental.  I hazard a reasonable guess that Mumps was in a similar decline to Measles
I regard it as poor quality science to have intervened at that time with vaccinations, in the case of childhood diseases.  There are definitely situations in the world where such crude interventions are needed while chronic underlying issues are dealt with, or more true -  not being dealt with.
There was a moment in time in the UK and probably ireland when the species had a proven long term adaptability in progress. That horse has now bolted and now the children are faced with a program of inoculations.
Eventually the species will still be faced with an ever expanding cycle of inoculations with no improvement in individual adaptability. These artificial interventions operating at a very crude level in the body will (in all likelihood) take an increasing toll on an individual natural immune levels. The theory that childhood disease threat will fade away, eventually negating the use for inoculations, quite frankly flies in the face of observable science/biology. I am aware of the arguments but I believe them to be seriously faulty.
Removing the artificial intervention would also be an act of madness considering the collective dependency and conventional ignorance towards the nature of the immune system.
I speculate that if natural adaptable capabilities of the species continue to be overridden, something will have to change with these interventions. Something will have to be engineered to work in harmony with the body's inherent superior intelligent design that  adapts, learns and memorises immune response experiences. Quite possibly artificial design of laboratory babies will provide such an alternative and eventually negating the necessity to endure the biological process

Is there not a case for the use of vaccinations to eradicate a disease rather than depending on genetics to evolve resistance quicker than the virus itself evolves?