Student Questions: Swine Flu and Depleted Uranium

Skeptoid answers questions sent in by students all around the world.

by Brian Dunning

Filed under Feedback & Questions

Skeptoid #158
June 16, 2009
Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe

Chuck Yeager and the Bell X-1
A Mexican soldier handing out facemasks to stem the swine flu
(Photo credit: Wikimedia)

This week we have some more questions sent in by students all around the globe. Today we're going to find out if wearing a face mask will prevent you from catching the swine flu; whether depleted uranium on a battlefield can give you lymphoma or other cancers; whether expensive audio cables can affect the tone or quality of sound from a guitar; we're going to see what kind of research has been done to test the usefulness of New Age "Family Constellations" therapy; and we're going to look into whether "Functional Medicine" is fact or fancy.

Hi Brian. This is Johnny from Mexico City. In relation to the whole swine flu epidemic, the Mexican government recommended that people wear surgical masks to prevent infections. How effective are these masks in preventing an infection like swine flu?

It's a good question, so I went to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to find out the latest recommendations. The short answer is no, the CDC is not recommending that people wear facemasks to avoid getting sick, in most cases. Surgical facemasks are neither designed nor intended to offer protection from aerosol particles containing viruses, instead they protect against splashes or sprays. The CDC offers the same three rules that everyone should follow:

For people who already are sick with flu-like symptoms, the CDC says they should stay home from work and avoid contact with anyone. If they have to go out, it's important that they cover their mouth when they cough, and cough away from other people. If they do have to be in close contact with others, they probably should wear a facemask.

There are two exceptions. The CDC does recommend that facemasks or respirators should probably be worn by healthy people if they are healthcare workers who are required to be in close personal contact with people exhibiting flu-like symptoms, or if they have some health problem that puts them at high risk of severe illness from influenza and are required to be in close personal contact with people exhibiting flu-like symptoms. For the rest of us, even if you have a family member at home who's ill, the CDC does not find any special benefit from wearing a facemask.

Hey Brian, this is Iris. My brother-in-law, an Iraqi war vet, has been diagnosed with lymphoma. My mom says this is because of depleted uranium sources in Iraq. Is this true?

There's a lot of controversy, and misinformation, about the military use of depleted uranium. It's often used in projectiles because it's super dense and carries a massive kinetic energy whallop. In modern battlegrounds like Iraq, hundreds of tons of depleted uranium can be splattered around the country in a single week. People often react with "Oh, it's uranium, it's radioactive, it's going to give us cancer." Not true. Although depleted uranium is weakly radioactive, it's not dangerous, no more so than the glow-in-the-dark buttons on your TV remote control. The danger comes from the fact that it's a toxic heavy metal, similar to lead or mercury. When you have a high-energy projectile impact, the depleted uranium can vaporize into the air, where it can be inhaled. The predominant health effects from depleted uranium toxicity include kidney damage, neurological effects, nausea and vomiting, and possible birth defects. Lung cancer has been reported in animal tests, but so far not in humans.

Searching online I found plenty of references to depleted uranium and leukemia, lymphoma, and other cancers, but these are speculations and are in sharp contrast to the medical literature. For example, one study of the long term effects of depleted uranium on Croatian children published in the European Journal of Epidemiology found that leukemia and lymphoma actually decreased during and after the war.

Depleted uranium also has civilian uses, again because of its density: It's used as shielding for x-ray machines, in gyroscopes, and as balance weights, uses which are generally safe because they don't involve exploding the metal into the environment. A projectile that has missed and is sitting in the sand somewhere is stable and safe, but out of fears that it might leach into the water table or something like that, the Pentagon spends millions in ongoing cleanup efforts.

Hi, my name is Mario and I'm a music student at Queens College in New York. I want to know if different or more expensive audio and guitar cables can actually make a difference in the tone of the instrument.

The short answer is no. There are cases where a really bad setup can cause noticeable problems, however. Using a ridiculously long run of cable, or unrealistically thin wire, can result in noticeably reduced or muted levels. Unshielded cables in a noisy electrical environment can produce hum or interference. Cables with cheap connectors on the ends can cut out if the contact is broken. Beyond obvious cases like that, any commercial cables produce sound quality just as good as any other, despite the claims made by manufacturers of high-end cables. Expensive cables may be more durable or better shielded, or better made and less likely to rust and degrade, but they can't produce better sound.

Conductive wire is characterized by its resistance, its capacitance and its inductance, and virtually any copper wire has capabilities that far exceed the electrically modest needs of professional audio. A thicker cable produces less resistance, but any common cable already has way less resistance than the audio requires. That would be like being more or less pregnant. As far as a specific subtlety produced in the audio, like variations in the tone of a guitar, no. This is not a capability that cable manufacturers can control. Yes, there are many articles available online that go into great detail discussing all kinds of subtle effects and different ways of coring or braiding the wire. It's over-the-top to a degree that's just goofy. Audio simply doesn't require fancy wiring.

Hi Brian. My name is Qayin, I come from Poland. I'm very skeptical about Family Constellations, also known as Systemic Constellations. I'd like to know if any research has been done about this New Age like psychotherapy. Thanks.

Family Constellations, or Systemic Constellations, is a New Age energy based group therapy technique. Let's say one group member is depressed because her husband lost his job. Several group members would stand: One representing the husband, one representing the job, one representing the depression, and the member taking her own place. Nobody speaks. Practitioners believe that this recreates an energy field, and at a certain point, when everyone is positioned just right, the practitioner claps her hands or speaks some sentence, and magically everything is healed. Obviously this is something that's well outside mainstream psychotherapy, as are all magic-based systems that claim miraculous results.

You ask if any research has been done about this, and I presume you mean good quality research from the mainstream. I strongly doubt it. I did spend a few minutes browsing the usual sources and didn't see anything, but my question for them is "Why should anyone research it?" It makes sense to expend the resources to do a good study when there is a measurable effect taking place, or when there is a sound theoretical argument that such an effect might exist. I do not believe Family Constellations has reached that point. Nevertheless, believers in this and many other woo-woo New Age inventions tend to think it's irresponsible for mainstream science to not expend resources to research it: They say we're pooh-poohing it, and that's not responsible science. There's a good reason we don't expend those resources yet, and it's that they have yet to establish that there's anything more to their claims than if I were to suddenly announce that I was an alien from Planet Zero with the ability to transmute stone into ice cream. The question you should ask instead is "Have any Family Constellation proponents put forward any sound theoretical basis for their technique, or presented any measurable clinical effect?" They have to do their job before mainstream science has any reason to respond.

Hi, I'm Kelly Patton.  I'm a student at Middlebury College in Middlebury, VT. I recently ran across something called Functional Medicine. Is Functional Medicine science-based, or is it pseudoscience-based?

Functional Medicine is a relatively new term, and it's made up of New Age folks and doctors who are mistrustful of modern medicine. Nowhere on the association or conference web sites will you find a cogent explanation of what it is. Take this for example:



My reaction to that is "Huh?"

Basically it's yet another label for people who share the same tired old mythical criticisms of medical science. They believe that medical science treats only the symptoms and is disinterested in the actual problem; that doctors see patients as diseases and not as people; and that doctors wrongly see all people as exactly the same and don't understand that everyone is an individual. In short, "We're the only ones smart enough to know anything about doctors; we certainly know more about them than doctors do." Functional Medicine falls into the same old trap of believing that criticism of science constitutes support for pseudoscience, and so they use these beliefs as justification for the usual range of New Age treatments: Vitamin megadosing "personalized" for each individual, "energy" therapies, and "detoxification". Dr. Wallace Sampson has written a fine analysis on the Science-Based Medicine blog.

Their big thing is integrative medicine, which means integrating medical science with medical pseudoscience — which for reasons that elude me, is considered politically correct to do. By definition, alternative medicine consists of practices that have either not been proven to work, or been proven not to work; and unfortunately, the Institute for Functional Medicine is actually accredited to provide continuing education for medical professionals in the United States. Failings of the system like this are on ongoing illustration of why you need to be more vigilant than ever, and why you should always be skeptical.

Brian Dunning

© 2009 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information

References & Further Reading

BPH and IOM. Gulf war and health: Updated literature review of depleted uranium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2008.

CDC. "Interim Recommendations for Facemask and Respirator Use to Reduce 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) Virus Transmission." H1N1 Flu. CDC, 24 Sep. 2009. Web. 26 Jan. 2010. <>

Labar B., Rudan I., Ivankovic D. et al. "Haematological malignancies in childhood in Croatia: investigating the theories of depleted uranium, chemical plant damage and 'population mixing'." European Journal of Epidemiology. 1 Jan. 2004, Volume 19, Issue 1: 55-60.

Sampson, W. "Functional Medicine – New Kid on the Block." Science-Based Medicine. Science-Based Medicine, 30 Oct. 2008. Web. 16 Jun. 2009. <>

Singer, M., Lalich, J. Crazy Therapies: What Are They? Do They Work? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.

Winer, Ethan. "Dispelling Popular Audio Myths." Audio Media. 1 Apr. 1999, 101: 95.

Reference this article:
Dunning, B. "Student Questions: Swine Flu and Depleted Uranium." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc., 16 Jun 2009. Web. 27 May 2015. <>


10 most recent comments | Show all 48 comments

I have been an audiophile for about 10 years now and was shocked by your discussion of cables. It appears you made your argument about the lack of difference between different brands and price points of well shielded/constructed cables purely on theoretical models of how cables work. Have you actually sat down and done blinded, side-by-side comparisons of different cables? I have, and I can say unequivocally that they DO NOT all sound the same or have the same quality. I've done this test with my non-audiophile friends, as well as my very non-audiophile wife, and although they may not be able to hit on the exact qualities that differ, they can tell a difference and usually decide which is better (yes, I used appropriate controls).

This is not to say expensive is better - often it isn't. I've seen many $100 cables outperform ones twice the cost. There are, however, clearly audible differences. Whether they matter to you is a separate question. In my case a better sound clearly adds to my enjoyment of the music, but this is not the case for many of my friends who can hear the difference but don't seem to care as much.

Get yourself a good pair of headphones or a good listening session on a high quality home theater system, grab a few different interconnects from different manufacturers, a friend to help out, and do the blinded tests yourself. I bet you, like most people, can tell the difference. Whether you care or not, though, is a separate question.

Krishna Rao, Ann Arbor
June 19, 2010 10:32am

Why did you say that there is no difference between different quality audio cables!!! Personally I find this strange because every cable that I have that is different in style or quality to the next all sound different. For guitar, phono, speaker, any use. different = different. Cant explain why apart from some of the the reason listed above and that with speakers the high frequencies distort at high levels in cheap thin wire.

Ed, Stockton UK
June 30, 2010 4:07pm

Ed, get a cro... I save money using el cheapo building wire.

As far as junky cables go, your musical instrument cables only compare on robustness.

Stand on your cables and they probably die (my son has this habit on mine... death to the teenage shredder). Good quality cables have a tad more QC inherenly built into them. That is not to say I would be stupid enough to buy $40 cables over $20 cables but $10 junk will probly fall to bits on tough guy treatment.

you stereo doesnt have to put up with a kid thinking he is glen tipton

Henk van der Gaast, Sydney
October 14, 2010 10:40pm

In terms of conducting the test to see if people "hear a difference " with the audio cables (cheapo vs expensive, etc) - did you switch them each time ? did you conduct a control test ? I assume if you are changing them each time, then the listener will know they are "supposed" to hear a difference. just curious about the best way to conduct the test at home.

Chris, Chicago
November 6, 2010 4:25pm

I thought I'd try to clarify some of the issues regardning cables that weren't properly addressed in the pod or in any of the comments.

Different cables DO sound different, but close to NEVER for the reasons the manufacturers claim.

I'ts all a matter of matching a cable's electrical and mechanical properties to the devices they connect.
A few basic properties in a cable needs to match the corresponding properties of the connected devices.

If you have a poorly designed output stage and connect a cable with a large parallell capacitive component in the overall impedance of the cable, you'll get a harsher sound and a change in tone.

If you have a large serial inductive component combined with a low input impedance on the receiving end you'll get a similar effect but this time you'll get a loss of detail as well as a change in tone.

In an environment with large amounts of vibrations for example a live recording, a cable with poor mechanical damping in the insulation will cause audible interference. If you also have a lot of electromagnetic interference you'll hear that too.

If there's a difference in ground potential between the connected devices, a cable with a higher resistance will sound less detailed because of the induced current from the screen laying parallell to the conductor.

I think you get my point.
You CAN hear a difference between cables, but this is due to the cable's electrical properties relative to the connected devices.
Not cool materials!

Johan Persson, Gothenburg Sweden
January 7, 2011 4:29pm

Regarding the Swine Flu and face masks...back when the SARS epidemic broke out and we first saw a mass public all wearing face masks on the news, me and my chemistry co-workers were all laughing at the idea a face mask could prevent viruses from getting through since viruses are smaller than the pores in a face mask filter. However one of us then pointed out that when somebody is wearing a face mask, they aren't going to be able to touch their face. Whatever virus they might have picked up on their hands while touching something is unlikely to get on their face. The premise is people touch their faces frequently unintentionally without noticing. With a face mask on, people don't tend to do so unintentionally and can't do so physically.

If this is true, then face mask do help indirectly....outside their intended purpose that is.

Henry, Vancouver, Canada
June 14, 2011 8:47pm

Johan, you have made a fantastic argument for buying better amps and speakers, keeping your instruments in good condition and not standing on your leads.

Henk v, Sin City NSW, Oz
September 8, 2011 10:29pm

About audio cables:

A lot of this stuff is subjective - true that we are talking electrical circuits and each component of it is part of the circuit; does that mean that human ears can actually detect the very small differences in reactance?

How many people have control blind tested their belief?

Even IF there were a real difference perceived by the subject's ear, could the difference actually be a more faithful representation of the sound? - Different sounding doesn't necessarily mean worse sounding.

I have known folks who have a special room with ONE seat at a precise distance - everything in that room has been surveyed and approved by some 'expert' to give the audiophile that perfect audio experience. I have then sat there, listened, and thought the sound was like a cheap 1970s 'Made in Taiwan' transistor radio. Then I realise the guy has long or bushy hair - sure to change his audio perception - and has never had his ears cleaned or hearing tested - so who knows if he is hearing things correctly at all!!

Decades ago the Vox AC30 guitar amp was considered too pure a sound by many and there was 'lore' about people cutting the speaker cones and taping them back closed in order to provide a 'rougher' sound. How I laughed - until one day I came across an amp that had been thus 'adapted'.

For me there is as much 'woo' and 'lore' in music as there is in any other area of life - and just like all 'woo' there are the 'It works for me.' anecdotes as arbiter to the 'truth'.

Mr C, Portsmouth, England
July 21, 2012 3:50am

Mr C, that explains the variation in telecasters. "Learn to use your stuff" is a passing fad..

well said..

Mud, back in Sanity, NSW
August 3, 2012 1:33am


Aw! That's totally clear and easy to understand: "If it works, use it."

spacegod, seattle
April 17, 2013 2:15am


Post a reply


What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?

Support Skeptoid

Listener Feedback: Fads
Skeptoid #468, May 26 2015
Read | Listen ()
Baby Myths
Skeptoid #467, May 19 2015
Read | Listen (16:35)
5 Answers for Creationists
Skeptoid #466, May 12 2015
Read | Listen (13:48)
Agenda 21
Skeptoid #465, May 5 2015
Read | Listen (13:15)
The Lake Michigan Triangle
Skeptoid #464, Apr 28 2015
Read | Listen (11:40)
#1 -
The Baldoon Mystery
Read | Listen
#2 -
Listeners Have Another Say
Read | Listen
#3 -
Tube Amplifiers
Read | Listen
#4 -
Read | Listen
#5 -
The Legend of the Flying Dutchman
Read | Listen
#6 -
Lie Detection
Read | Listen
#7 -
The Santa Barbara Simoom of 1859
Read | Listen
#8 -
Hillary vs. Mallory: The First to Everest
Read | Listen

Recent Comments...

[Valid RSS]


Members Portal


Follow @BrianDunning

Tweets about "skeptoid"

Support Skeptoid

characters left. Abusive posts and spam will be deleted.