“Fair dealing for criticising or review and reporting current events is allowable for any type of copyright work except a photograph as long as it is with sufficient acknowledgement” (UK Intellectual Property Office, ipo.gov.uk)

(Oh no! I’ve quoted something without permission! Sue me! Sue me!)

Anything that is published is explicitly declaring itself available for critisim and review. Publishing on a website is still publishing. If you don’t want to be quoted, DON’T PUBLISH!

Quite right! I absolutely agree with you.
So I don’t like to discuss anything with different quacks (wasted time!). However to dicuss interesting themes with clever people – it was good form even in our secondary school (I finished secondary school not in England).

I’d like to add some details to all interesting stories about photosynthesis sounded here. Explaination of crana(44) is good, but complicated a bit. He consideres that Robert Carnegie(39) knows about Photosystems I and II.
Certainly, pure chlorophyll can’t produce oxygen at all. Chloropyll can absorb the energy of light and convert it in energy of electron moving. Photosystems I and II are actually systems of donors and acceptors of electrons and protons. All these donors/acceptors are bound to specific membrane proteins (some of these proteins are donor or acceptor themselves). It is very important that all these proteins are membrane proteins (why – see below). Chlorophyll absorbs quant of light and loses the electron, which then runs from one acceptor to other one in Photosystem-II. Chlorophyll, which have lost electron, is powerful oxydizer. He takes part together with Mn-claster (twice-mentioned here) in splitting of water to oxygen, electons and hydrogen-ions. Chloropyll is reduced, taking one of these electons. Other electrons are transferred to Photosystem-I. Now it is known well, that Mn-claster requires carbon dioxide for its work. There are wonderful theories described this process and smashing hypothesis of photosynthesis evolution, which issues from these theories. See about it here:
www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/5/2170
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=11953312
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=11038543&ordinalpos=39&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Note! Molecular hydrogen is never produced in photosynthesis! Only – hydrogen-ion (proton) and atomic hydrogen. Water splitting produces protons, which can’t premeate across membrane of thylakiods and accumulate inside thylakoids, so proton gradient is created. Second way of proton gradient creation is work of Photosystems (see post of crana (44) – it is right description. Protons move from stroma to inside of thylakoid). This proton gradient itself is part of general membrane potential and is also “energy currency” like ATP (theory of Peter Mitchell)! Protons can run through specific membrane proteins from inside of thylakoids to stroma. ATP-syntase is one of this membrane protein. When proton moves across ATP-syntase, latter creates ATP. Thus process of ATP syntesis and photosynthesis are coupled by membrane. That is way I’ve said above that membrane localization is important (main!)feature of photosynthesis.
Atomic hydrogen is produced from electrons and protons in stroma and then is used for creation NADPH.
Nevertheless, Robert Carnegie is right telling about photosynthetical production of hydrogen as a fuel. Simply – in this process hydrogen is produced by specific enzyme (hydrogenase), which are in some species of photosynthetic microorgaisms. There – photosynthesis is only source of energy for hyrogenase work. Hydrogenase itself isn’t member of system of photosynthetic proteins.
Water is not only donor of protons for photosynthesis. Some photosynthetic microorganism uses hydrogen sulphide for this aim. Bacterial photosynthesis is more simple process unlike photosynthesis, which uses water and produces oxygen, because water spliting requires more energy for its realization (see my links above).
Thus – we see that oxygen can be produced only by intact complicated system of membrane proteins (plus bounded to them pigments and cofactors) and on conditions of intact membranes. If photosynthetic complexes (or membranes, where they are) are destroyed, then photosynthesis is impossible. But if they are intact, then process comes.
For example, if we cut plants into little pieces and expose them to light (better – laser!:) Labs in our institute prefer laser), then we could observe the photosynthesis in them. So if we have eaten any plants, then its piece, which still are in stomach, could photosynthesize under light action. But if we try to carry out same experiment with intestinal contents (where active photosynthetic system are absent already, are destroyed), then (alas, dear Dr. Goldacre ) we will see nothing even under laser action. Escpecially, if we will torch the bum…

Ouch – is that South Africa by any chance? If so I thought that woman had been given the boot and that your government had been forced in to a U-turn on that or was that just unrealistic optimism on my part?

Still, there seems to be quite a bit of confusion about photosynthesis.
Chlorophyll itself does not produce any oxygen, even when illuminated. It’s the Mn4Ca cluster of the
oxygen evolving complex that makes the oxygen and the whole process only works when all the pigments and cofactors are bound to proteins in the membrane.

Unless we acquire photosynthetic organisms or complete chloroplasts (which some animals do), we are very unlikely to function photosynthetically.

Sorry to be pedantic – but, contrary to what’s written in most text book, glucose is not a direct product of photosynthesis. Triose-phosphates (a form of sugar) are produced first and then converted into sucrose.

Anyway, this may not contribute much to the discussion here. There is no doubt that all of us are occasionally wrong about scientific issues. The important thing is that, in contrast to many of those selling nutritional supplements, scientists (or those truly interested in science) try to find out how things really work and should therefore welcome if they are challenged (instead of threatening to sue).

Dubber’s crime was not writing anything offensive to Birch, but simply linking to an article which Birch felt promoted “hatred of the recording Industry”. Now I am aware that promoting race hate is a crime, but hatred of the recording industry? Apparently that warrants a lawsuit.

Dubber, with Birch’s permission, published the correspondence in full at www.newmusicstrategies.com/. You can also read the story at onlinejournalismblog.wordpress.com/2007/06/19/dont-like-a-blog-run-to-the-bloggers-boss/

I agree. Really – “verbal equivalent”…
Simply I think that level of our criticism against them must be high. We are scientists.

)) Superclass!! I never laughed so before! Interesting technology…;) Some questions to “inventor”. Why does hydrogen produced (what sort of hydrogen)? How do you get the light there? Why do you believe so that there will be oxygen and water? And what about hydrogen sulphide?

Dr. Goldacre, while you keep silence your colleages develope and modernize your technology. Take care! You will lose gereat patent! What about my question?

Anyway, oxygen isn’t all good, it is what you take antioxidants to stop. (At least… sort of.)

But it is most terrible thing when talented real scientist degrades to level of quack. Probably you didn’t see it. And I have seen!..

“…Dr Goldacre’s opinion piece [1] takes a broad swipe at media nutritionists by focusing on some silly thinking and the ‘pseudoscience’ that undoubtedly can sometimes be found in the area. The author takes particular exception to Gillian McKeith’s claim that chlorophyll is rich in oxygen and that eating plenty of it will help to oxygenate the blood. In respect to this, Dr Goldacre comments “as any 14 year old biology student could tell you, plants only make oxygen in light: it’s very dark in your bowel; and even if, to prove a point, you put a searchlight up your bottom, you probably wouldn’t absorb too much oxygen through the gut wall.”

Fair enough, but I wonder how many of us (doctors included) have beliefs and, where relevant, employ clinical approaches that in their entirely would stand up to scrutiny. Take, for example, Dr Goldacre’s own suggestion to test the oxygen-producing capacity of chlorophyll in the gut by illuminating the large bowel: this hypothetical test, albeit tongue-in- cheek, is flawed because the process of digestion would render chlorophyll biologically inactive by the time it reaches the colon. On the face of it, some of Dr Goldacre’s own musings here might be regarded as nonsensical at those of McKeith…”

Certainly, McKeit is wrong about chlorophyll (moreover, her opinion about this subject absolutely wild). However, Dr. Goldacre is wrong about chlorophyll too (even considering immoderate polemical heat)! And Dr. Briffa’s opinion is more close to modern scientific ideas about photosynthesis (although not ideal).

Dr. Goldacre, could I ask you question? Do you really think that if the light acts on chlorophyll (pure substance), then chlorophyll produces oxygen? Or was it merely your “figure of speach”?

As a final aside I also noted her claims to be a psychologist and historian and, given the fuss she had made thgoughout the thread regarding the scientific qualifications of those she was arguing with I thought I’d see what her biog bit said about hers. To be fair it is refreshingly honest about her (lack of) qualifications in either field but given her earlier remarks the words “glass houses” and “stones” did spring to mind.

Between her, Anne Walker and Julia Stephenson it’s getting to be embarrassing being female aroud here. Cringe!

Ann Walker, BTW, used to (and perhaps still does) teach on Reading’s BSc degree in “Nutrition and Food Science”

www.rdg.ac.uk/Study/ug/NutritionandFoodScience(withorwithoutIndustrialTraining)BSc.asp

I quote:

“Nutritionists with training in food science are therefore now at the forefront of new product development, packaging design and relaying health messages to the consumer…”

How reassuring. And later:

“A core curriculum provides you with the necessary academic training to gain registration within the Nutrition Society as a ‘Registered Nutritionist’ following graduation.”

Ah.. those guys. And still later:

“In year 2 and the final year of the course you will be given module options so that you can develop your particular interests and will undertake an individual research project in a cutting edge area of research in either (a) food and human health and well being, or (b) food design and manufacture.”

So if you want to learn to concoct, market, and sell things like “Red Clover”, this degree will clearly give you the necessary, er, skills.

Oh. And sorry Eddie Izzard if you’re reading this. You are clearly much better looking!

Unfortunately, there is no comic sense in my second posting. And moreover – it is not off topic

Otherwise we should consider as “off topic” Colquhoun’s words from other theme: www.badscience.net/?p=432#more-432. Here is the qoute form DC words. Read attentively:
“…Oddly enough, the web site palaver has been just a distraction. A more important matter (for me) at UCL has just been lost. There is no longer a Department of Pharmacology. I do hope this is not a step in the direction of the corporatisation of universities that we’ve seen elsewhere www.goodscience.org.uk...”

What does it mean? What do you think ? It means that we HAVE LOST OUR BATTLE FOR GOOD SCIENCE. Yes, we won first stage of this battle, when the quacks attacked DC. But now second stage starts.
And here is still only one man, who have guessed it – Robert Carnegie.
Well! I explain for those “who within tank”! What first step could be done when Departments are disestablished? Quite right – it is dismissall! Who will be displased in the first place? The objectionable individuals, personae non grata. It will be either the fighters for justice or old scientists. Unhappily Professor Colquhoun have both these merits. Thus – the enemies didn’t hammer him, but “dear friends, colleagues and bosses” will manage this difficult task very simply!
Of course, you can answer me: “It is not our funeral. We fight against quacks here”. No, gentlemen, as I see you work here against bad science! And do you consider that when the scientist will be kicked out university for his honesty and old age – IS that GOOD science?

The Ann Walker Prize for Garbled Genetics? The Patrick Holford Prize for Preposterous Pendants? The Gillian McKeith Prize for Proselytizing Poo?

And what would the trophy look like?