 Trade In this Item for up to £0.25
Get an extra £5 when you trade in books worth £10 or more until June 30, 2012. Trade in Dunk Your Biscuit Horizontally: 106 Strange Scientific Facts for an Amazon.co.uk gift card of up to £0.25, which you can then spend on millions of items across the site. Trade-in values may vary (terms apply). Find more products eligible for trade-in.
|
Frequently Bought Together
Product details
|
More About the Author
Product Description
Review
`quirky but witty, and occasionally enlightening... a smattering of... the curiously intriguing and amusing... A digestible compendium of amusing facts.' -- New Scientist, 17th July 2010
`compendium of strange and weird scientific facts.'
-- How It Works magazine, July 2010
`a collection of explanations and scientific findings on everyday life from around the world... Gems of knowledge.'
--BMA (British Medical Association) News, 17th July 2010
Serialised in The Mail on Sunday --Serialised in The Mail on Sunday
'A quirky book delves into the stranger side of medical science... bizarre findings from around the world' --The Mail on Sunday, 31 October 2010
'bite-sized strange science... a great gift for anyone whose sense of humour encompasses both the scientific and the scatological.' --Physics World, October 2010
`compendium of strange and weird scientific facts.'
-- How It Works magazine, July 2010
`a collection of explanations and scientific findings on everyday life from around the world... Gems of knowledge.'
--BMA (British Medical Association) News, 17th July 2010
Serialised in The Mail on Sunday --Serialised in The Mail on Sunday
'A quirky book delves into the stranger side of medical science... bizarre findings from around the world' --The Mail on Sunday, 31 October 2010
'bite-sized strange science... a great gift for anyone whose sense of humour encompasses both the scientific and the scatological.' --Physics World, October 2010
Product Description
Always dunk your biscuit horizontally Drinking beer is good for the environment A wig is safer than a cycling helmet Based on international scientific research but presented in a tongue-incheek style, Curious Science reveals startling truths guaranteed to change your life – or at least make you popular at dinner parties. Fascinating and often hilarious, it will open your eyes to the quirky science behind our everyday lives. Discover the best time of day to be operated on, how kissing is good for hay fever, how to appear more intelligent effortlessly – plus many other tips for work and home, for eating and drinking and for a better love life.
Inside This Book
(Learn More)
Suggested Tags from Similar Products(What's this?)Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product)
|
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
This book is short and sweet, just like a biscuit can be. If you want to take a look at scientific research off the beaten track, this could be a good place, some of it is guaranteed to awake your curiosity and you can always search later for the original scientific article. Funny and interesting in every sense of those words.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
1 review
1 of 3 people found the following review helpful
Entertaining, but with some caveats
10 Jan 2011
Format:Paperback
This is a quite interesting and amusing collection of conclusions from the scientific literature over the last 40 years, bundled together nicely in a short and quick format. Each of the 106 'facts' is written up in a humourous fashion, typically in about 300 words or so. Many are very interesting and some will surely pop up as being useful (at some point) over the breadth of ones' life.
However - I have to take serious issue with Tip #45. The authors parrot the recommendation of circumcision for hampering the spread of HIV infection. The paper they cite this conclusion from can be found here ([...]). Here are the parts that most concern us:
"A total of 3,274 uncircumcised men, aged 18-24 y, were randomized to a control or an intervention group with follow-up visits at months 3, 12, and 21. Male circumcision was offered to the intervention group immediately after randomization and to the control group at the end of the follow-up... The trial was stopped at the interim analysis, and the mean (interquartile range) follow-up was 18.1 mo (13.0-21.0) when the data were analyzed. There were 20 HIV infections (incidence rate = 0.85 per 100 person-years) in the intervention group and 49 (2.1 per 100 person-years) in the control group, corresponding to an RR of 0.40 (95% CI: 0.24%-0.68%; p < 0.001). This RR corresponds to a protection of 60% (95% CI: 32%-76%). When controlling for behavioural factors, including sexual behaviour that increased slightly in the intervention group, condom use, and health-seeking behaviour, the protection was of 61% (95% CI: 34%-77%)."
Their conclusion that circumcision reduces HIV infection by 61% is arrived at upon measuring that of the uncircumcised men in the study (1309 individuals) 49 of them caught the HIV infection and of the circumsised men (1339 individuals) only 20 of them became infected. The trial was brought to an end early on the basis of preliminary findings. This is outstandingly poor scientific work on their part to draw such a bold conclusion from such a small result over a period as short as 12-18 months.
For a more thorough debunking of this poor science, proceed here: [...]
Now I come to the more egregious error on the part of the authors. Here is the quote from page 76 of 'Dunk Your Biscuit Horizontally':
"Both groups had similar ages, societal status, condom use, etc. The men came back to be tested for venereal diseases and to complete questionnaires at regular intevals. The results after 6 months? Of the circumsized men, 20 percent were HIV positive compared to 49 percent of those who had retained their foreskins"
Notice the numbers, 20 and 49. But rather than 20 and 49 INDIVIDUAL HUMAN MALES they cite 20 and 49 PERCENT. That is an example of outstandingly poor fact checking. For if the authors could get simple reading comprehension wrong on a matter as sensitive as infant genital mutilation it calls into question their interpretation of every other study cited in its 176 pages. I can't in good conscience rate this 1 star because there are a lot of genuinely interesting things (that I know are true) within the book, but there are much better sources of 'novelty facts' out there, such as The Book of General Ignorance, written by the writer of Stephen Fry's trivia show, QI.
However - I have to take serious issue with Tip #45. The authors parrot the recommendation of circumcision for hampering the spread of HIV infection. The paper they cite this conclusion from can be found here ([...]). Here are the parts that most concern us:
"A total of 3,274 uncircumcised men, aged 18-24 y, were randomized to a control or an intervention group with follow-up visits at months 3, 12, and 21. Male circumcision was offered to the intervention group immediately after randomization and to the control group at the end of the follow-up... The trial was stopped at the interim analysis, and the mean (interquartile range) follow-up was 18.1 mo (13.0-21.0) when the data were analyzed. There were 20 HIV infections (incidence rate = 0.85 per 100 person-years) in the intervention group and 49 (2.1 per 100 person-years) in the control group, corresponding to an RR of 0.40 (95% CI: 0.24%-0.68%; p < 0.001). This RR corresponds to a protection of 60% (95% CI: 32%-76%). When controlling for behavioural factors, including sexual behaviour that increased slightly in the intervention group, condom use, and health-seeking behaviour, the protection was of 61% (95% CI: 34%-77%)."
Their conclusion that circumcision reduces HIV infection by 61% is arrived at upon measuring that of the uncircumcised men in the study (1309 individuals) 49 of them caught the HIV infection and of the circumsised men (1339 individuals) only 20 of them became infected. The trial was brought to an end early on the basis of preliminary findings. This is outstandingly poor scientific work on their part to draw such a bold conclusion from such a small result over a period as short as 12-18 months.
For a more thorough debunking of this poor science, proceed here: [...]
Now I come to the more egregious error on the part of the authors. Here is the quote from page 76 of 'Dunk Your Biscuit Horizontally':
"Both groups had similar ages, societal status, condom use, etc. The men came back to be tested for venereal diseases and to complete questionnaires at regular intevals. The results after 6 months? Of the circumsized men, 20 percent were HIV positive compared to 49 percent of those who had retained their foreskins"
Notice the numbers, 20 and 49. But rather than 20 and 49 INDIVIDUAL HUMAN MALES they cite 20 and 49 PERCENT. That is an example of outstandingly poor fact checking. For if the authors could get simple reading comprehension wrong on a matter as sensitive as infant genital mutilation it calls into question their interpretation of every other study cited in its 176 pages. I can't in good conscience rate this 1 star because there are a lot of genuinely interesting things (that I know are true) within the book, but there are much better sources of 'novelty facts' out there, such as The Book of General Ignorance, written by the writer of Stephen Fry's trivia show, QI.
Was this review helpful?
Let us know
Listmania!
|
|
Look for similar items by category
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
|
