Itchy's moonlight study.

Ichimaru Gin has posted a study of the effects of moonlight on organisms in a section where only FE believers can respond, so I'm responding here instead:
1. The rattlesnake study didn't even use real moonlight.
2. There need to be control studies comparing the lighting patterns of moonlight against a similar lighting pattern of light from a non-moon source. Without this, no conclusions can be drawn about the properties of moonlight, merely about organism's reactions to any light of a certain intensity and periodicity.

Ichimaru Gin has posted a study of the effects of moonlight on organisms in a section where only FE believers can respond, so I'm responding here instead:
1. The rattlesnake study didn't even use real moonlight.
2. There need to be control studies comparing the lighting patterns of moonlight against a similar lighting pattern of light from a non-moon source. Without this, no conclusions can be drawn about the properties of moonlight, merely about organism's reactions to any light of a certain intensity and periodicity.

Not to mention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy

I wonder if well performed medical studies begin with:

"OK now you're going to get the real medicine and you make sure you tell us IF THE MEDICINE WORKS.  We'll keep giving you the REAL MEDICINE and tell us if your SYMPTOMS IMPROVE."

and

"Now you are getting the placebo which probably won't do anything."


Or, if perhaps they may disguise the two groups.

Hmmm....

Ichimaru Gin has posted a study of the effects of moonlight on organisms in a section where only FE believers can respond, so I'm responding here instead:
1. The rattlesnake study didn't even use real moonlight.
2. There need to be control studies comparing the lighting patterns of moonlight against a similar lighting pattern of light from a non-moon source. Without this, no conclusions can be drawn about the properties of moonlight, merely about organism's reactions to any light of a certain intensity and periodicity.

If you had read the entire article cited, it was conducted simulated moonlight against real moonlight. It wasn't even exclusively rattlesnakes either.

2. There need to be control studies comparing the lighting patterns of moonlight against a similar lighting pattern of light from a non-moon source. Without this, no conclusions can be drawn about the properties of moonlight, merely about organism's reactions to any light of a certain intensity and periodicity.

I thought the effects were common knowledge but I am mistaken. Thank you, I will be adding to my thread shortly.

Ichimaru Gin has posted a study of the effects of moonlight on organisms in a section where only FE believers can respond, so I'm responding here instead:
1. The rattlesnake study didn't even use real moonlight.
2. There need to be control studies comparing the lighting patterns of moonlight against a similar lighting pattern of light from a non-moon source. Without this, no conclusions can be drawn about the properties of moonlight, merely about organism's reactions to any light of a certain intensity and periodicity.

All of his personal data looks to be within the normal range. Mean and StdDev between the "population of 3" for each reading is mostly similar as are projected max and min values.  Nothing of note jumps out.  Any noise can be attributed to anticipation prior to taking the readings, by knowing which treatment was or was going to be performed amongst other factors.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on November 09, 2009, 01:24:15 PM

Ichimaru Gin has posted a study of the effects of moonlight on organisms in a section where only FE believers can respond, so I'm responding here instead:
1. The rattlesnake study didn't even use real moonlight.
2. There need to be control studies comparing the lighting patterns of moonlight against a similar lighting pattern of light from a non-moon source. Without this, no conclusions can be drawn about the properties of moonlight, merely about organism's reactions to any light of a certain intensity and periodicity.

All of his personal data looks to be within the normal range. Mean and StdDev between the "population of 3" for each reading is mostly similar as are projected max and min values.  Nothing of note jumps out.  Any noise can be attributed to anticipation prior to taking the readings, by knowing which treatment was or was going to be performed amongst other factors.

Under normal conditions, one's BP will be lower upon just waking up. Part of this is because they have not time to think or anticipate things. Another common use of this technique is when it used by doctors to help determine if someone has white coat

Under normal conditions, one's BP will be lower upon just waking up. Part of this is because they have not time to think or anticipate things. Another common use of this technique is when it used by doctors to help determine if someone has white coat

Like I said:
All of his personal data looks to be within the normal range. Mean and StdDev between the "population of 3" for each reading is mostly similar as are projected max and min values.  Nothing of note jumps out.  Any noise can be attributed to anticipation prior to taking the readings, by knowing which treatment was or was going to be performed amongst other factors.

There appears to be no statistical difference between Night/night day/day values.

Given that simulated moonlight disturbed the rattlesnake's behaviour, that renders results from real moonlight on them irrelevant. It proves there is nothing in the quality of moonlight alone that could be causing the change in behaviour.

Given that simulated moonlight disturbed the rattlesnake's behaviour, that renders results from real moonlight on them irrelevant. It proves there is nothing in the quality of moonlight alone that could be causing the change in behaviour.

Which is why the biological results, not the changing behavior was the most thoroughly discussed and relevant points of the analysis by that institution

Well, if nothing else, he manages to be more scientific then 99% of the other threads. So I'm not really sure what all the grouching is about.

Well, if nothing else, he manages to be more scientific then 99% of the other threads. So I'm not really sure what all the grouching is about.

I'm not grouching, I am pointing out flaws that even Mr Spock would consider worth mentioning. And he never grouches.
Also bringing the study into the arena of public discussion rather than closed shop discussion.

i'm not sure if it really fits in here

could you repeat your experiment for a third time using some sort of artificial light instead of moonlight? in my opinion you have proven that exposion to light during sleep is "harmful", you should check if artificial light (as sunlight isn't available) has the same, different or no effects.

you should check if artificial light (as sunlight isn't available) has the same, different or no effects.

I'm actually going to do something quite similar soon. Once I get some more free time and find someone that is free to help me out for the week, I plan on testing different intensities of artificial light.

ok, good luck 

Think she really is a feline goddess then and that he blew his chance big time to be the consort of a goddess?