Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Fluorescent Whitening Agent ยต-conference

I have some good news. I counted 64 authors that will be representedat the 2015 TAGA Annual Technical Conference. We are still making adjustments to the program, but once things settle out I expect there will be 35 papers presented at our conference in Albuquerque. As vice president of papers for the Technical Association of the Graphic Arts, it has been my awesome privilege not only to decide which papers to accept for the conference, but I also got to read the abstracts.


TAGA Annual Conference, March 22 to 25 in Albuquerque

As I reviewed the abstracts over a couple of bottles of Shiraz, I noticed something odd. I mean something other than the fact that I was drooling. There were six abstracts submitted on different aspects of the same topic: Fluorescent Whitening Agents (FWAs). Imagine that! So as VP in charge of papers, I made an executive decision. I declared that TAGA 2015 will have a Secret Agent Micro-Conference on Fluorescent Whitening Agent Metamerism. That's pronounced "SAM-ka-FWAM", in case your wondering. And yes, I am in secret negotiations with a certain well known comic book company about licensing the super hero.

Note: FWAs are also known as Optical Brightening Agents (OBAs), and Secret Agents, but FWA is the more better term cuz it’s more scientifical and all that. 

Just in case you are wondering about FWAs and the new M1 condition, I have done a bit of writing on the subject.

A megacool UV flashlight on three paper stocks (left) and a white LED flashlight (right)

Here is a fabulous preview of the six fabulous papers on FWAs…

In 2014, Bruce Leigh Myers presented at TAGA, telling us that the handful of spectros that he could get his hands on (at RIT) didn't agree with each other as well as one would hope. No flat out shouting matches, but he was disappointed that they formed little cliques.

Later in 2014, he took his FWA test samples on the road to GraphExpo and wandered around, forlornly asking anyone who would listen to measure his samples. His new results will be presented. Will there be close agreement? I have my guess, but I’m not going to share.

Veronika Lovell (from Sun Chemical, with the help of Robert Marcus and Danny C. Rich) took up a similar challenge and looked very closely at three instruments that came from three different manufacturers. She, too, found significant disagreement. She had a hunch about what might be causing the difference and got out her slide rule to test this hypothesis. I can hardly wait to hear her results!!

David Wyble (of Avian Rochester, LLC) heard some people talking about all this “instruments don’t agree very well” stuff. He decided to dig a little deeper, asking some probing and fundamental questions. “Are the requirements specified in ISO 3664 and ISO 13655 adequate for the evaluation of instrument sources? Can the acrylic standards adequately simulate the behavior of the fluorescent compounds in commercial papers? How might physical standards be applied to the instrument profiling process? Can two instruments be adequately aligned either spectrally or colorimetrically?”

The even deeper question that will be answered is whether his co-author (John Seymour) will hold up his end of the deal and actually help out! Of course, we all know that John will take credit for the whole idea regardless.

Of course, measuring color is not the only issue when it comes to FWAs. We must also be able to assess color by eyeball in a standardized way. To do that, you need a standardized lighting with a standardized UV content in a standardized viewing booth. And you also need a way to make sure that your viewing booth really does have the spectral output that is claimed on the wrapper.

Every year, the Printing Industries of America gives out InterTech Technology Awards to recognize new products that are expected to make a difference in the printing industry. Just Normlicht was one of the 2014 recipients, and as such, they get a shot at giving a technical presentation of their technology at TAGA. Eric Dalton, who just happens to work for Just Normlicht, will give us a rousing overview of this instrument that is just another piece of the puzzle when it comes to taming this FWA monster.

How big is this monster, anyway? It’s about time somebody did a study on that! Luckily, somebody did. Changlong Yu did his Master’s Thesis on that topic. Not monsters in general, but one particular monster. Lemme ‘splain.

You print a proof, likely on an inkjet printer onto inkjet proofer paper. You take that proof out to press and try to match it. But you’ve already got one arm tied behind you back. The paper will be different. It’s likely that the FWA content is different. Changlong did a lot of psychometric testing and will report on how much difference is perceptible. You gotta love research that includes psychometric testing.

I dunno… some folks actually want to get paid for print jobs. That’s a concept a little beyond me, but Bob Chung is interested in the practical aspect – the application of Changlong’s research. Bob took the perceptibility difference a step further, and looked at how much of a change in color (due to FWAs) is acceptable. The cool thing is that he comes to a recommendation that is quite simple.

So, between the two previous papers, we got the hard copy proof thing nailed. How about softproofing? Peng Cheng wanted to address this part of the puzzle for his thesis. Peng used substrate corrected colorimetric aims to build profiles, and then did psychometric testing. There it is again… psychometric testing! Yes!



Did anyone notice that I said there were six papers, and then I talked about seven? You can't trust a math guy to count correctly.

All in all, I think we got us here the makings for the best Secret Agent Micro-Conference on Fluorescent Whitening Agent Metamerism since God said "Let there be light". Meet me in the bar afterward and I will teach you the SAM-K-FWAM secret handshake.

Oh I almost forgot. We have 29 other great papers that will be presented!

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Red mammals

I am soooo embarrassed. I passed along factoid, and it was untrue.

Here's how it all went down. I made a simple statement in my blog post What color are your blue jeans?  The statement was an inconspicuous factoid, shared with my readers at no extra charge:

"By the way, the pigment responsible for gingers is only found in humans. No kidding. I red that on the internet, so it must be true."

Let me tell you, John the Math Guy fans everywhere. There ain't nothing like an egregious lie to bring down the wrath of ... well, I don't want to play into stereotypes of people based on hair color, but there was a fiery furor, I tell you. 

Redheads react to the error in my blog

The first hint of the upcoming storm came as a post on the blog itself. Janneke Duoma had this to say:

"The red haired cannot be anything else but a Human? Eh...and the fox is.....? Not a human that's for sure but I would swear I saw a red glow on that fur. Tssss... Science prooves me wrong?"

Hmmm... she has a point there. Now, my eyes ain't no speck-trow-foe-tomater, but the red hair of a red fox does kinda look like the red hair of some other "foxes" I know. I had to go back to my source. Where did I learn this dubious factoid?

Actually, I lied about that as well. I said that I "red" it on the internet. Clever misspelling, but a lie. I read it in a book by Hazel Rossotti entitled "Colour: Why the World Isn't Grey". Here is where I got the factoid (on page 93): 

"Red human hair, unlike the red hair of any other mammal, is produced by an unusual pigment which contains iron."

Maybe the world isn't gray, but what about my beard?

(Actually, according to the internet, you can see that I quite enjoyed the book.)

The pigment in red hair

So... I need to play fact checker. Is Rossotti's comment correct?

I start with Wikipedia, to identify the pigment in red hair. The Wikipedia entry on red hair says:

"The pigment pheomelanin gives red hair its distinctive color. Red hair has far more of the pigment pheomelanin than it has of the dark pigment eumelanin."

Wikipedia could be wrong, so let's look a little further. The Causes of Color website agrees with Wikipedia, in that pheomelanin is the pigment that is active in human red hair. 

(BTW: When you are done reading my previous 111 blog posts, have a look at the Causes of Color website. Interesting stuff. But in the mean time, it kinda sounds like pheomelanin is the operative agent.)

The best laid pigments of mice and men

So, we have established that the pigment that Ms. Rossotti is referring to is pheomelanin. But clearly she can't be wrong, since John the Math Guy wrote a glowing review of her book, and I read on the internet that he is a sharp guy. So, obviously, that pigment won't be found in any other mammal.

Well, not quite... 

Pheomelanin can be found in mice and in men, as these two scholarly articles will attest.

"It appears that rodents adaptively modulate eumelanin and pheomelanin contents to achieve cryptic coloration in contrasting habitats even at a microscale."


"The color of hair, skin, and eyes in animals mainly depends on the quantity, quality, and distribution of the pigment melanin, which occurs in two types: black to brown eumelanin and yellow to reddish pheomelanin. ... High levels of pheomelanin are found only in yellow to red hairs of mammals and in red feathers of birds."

How about the red foxes that Janneke mentioned?

"In red foxes, the contribution of pheomelanin to the total hair melanin content was twice as large as in the hybrids."

Red fox in my backyard, in 2009

Red foxes, yup. It seems even dogs make use of pheomelanin.

"Labrador Retrievers are a popular breed of dog in many countries. There are three recognised colours, black, chocolate, and yellow, that result from the interplay among genes that direct production and expression of two pigments, eumelanin and pheomelanin, in the fur and skin of the dog."

These labs are happily oblivious to the interplay among genes
that direct production and expression of eumelanin and pheomelanin

Dare I stop now?  Nay!  Pheomelanin is even found in reptiles!!

"Reptiles, supposedly, do not produce pheomelanin pigments. Because this claim is based on rather weak evidence, we measured the shell pheomelanin content in the Hermann’s Tortoise (Eurotestudo boettgeri). In contrast to expectation, we detected a substantial amount of this pigment. Given the recent interest in the adaptive function of melanin-based color traits, our study opens new avenues of research in reptiles."


I hope that you are also excited about these new avenues of research! In case you were wondering (I'm sure you were) ... "the existence of fungal pheomelanin is still under discussion." Well, I guess that gives organic chemists something to talk about while watching reruns of  Chopped.

One more lie exposed

Guess what?  Remember how Ms Rossotti told me that the pigment in red hair contains iron? I found an article on the chemistry of melanins. Now I don't claim to have much knowledge of organic chemistry - other than the tiny amount that I memorized for an organic chem class in high school and promptly forgot. But, I don't see any big "Fe" symbols in the picture below. I think even that was sadly untrue. 

So...

So, so, so many lies. First, I lied about reading that factoid on the internet. Then the factoid turned out to be another lie, since the same pigment is used for red hair in humans, mice, red foxes, and in Hermann's tortoise. And finally, there is the whole claim that the pigment for red hair contains iron.

The tooth fairy, Mighty Mouse, trickle-down economics, and now the whole "people with red hair have a unique pigment" story... The fox has been caught red-handed in a statement lacking truthiness. So many lies that I have been told. Sigh... I am not going to obsess about it. It would only shake my faith in the whole house of cards that is science.


I want to apologize for my participation in the promulgation of that nasty lie about the pigment in red hair. My only defense is that I was just repeating what someone else told me. This gives me but meager comfort. We should all feel just a tiny bit guilty when we pass along stuff that just ain't true. 





Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Whaddya mean 68%? I want 95%!

I opened up an individual serving container of yogurt the other day. You know, the kind of yogurt container that gives yuppies a bad name? Not only was it the fancy "Greek" yogurt, but the kind that uses 5.4 ounces of packaging to give you 5.3 ounces of yogurt? Honestly, I only eat it because my wife buys it at the grocery store.

But I didn't mean for this blog to be about me. The contents of the yogurt container reminded me of a blog post that I have been meaning to write. You see, that yogurt container had only 2.6 ounces of yogurt. Yes, it was half full.

Picture of me, ordering a yuppiegurt

Now, I'm a yogurt-container-half-full kinda guy, but if my wife had opened that container, I am sure she would have immediately been on the phone to the customer service department at Chobani. She would wait on hold for an hour just to give them a piece of her mind. Oh... and she would get a bunch of coupons. What did I do? I smiled, shook my head, and said "sampling and manufacturing tolerances!" Yes, I got the short tail of the Gaussian curve when it came to manufacturing tolerances.

--- Now I'm going to change the subject from the stuff in the package to the package itself ---

This all reminded me of a discussion that I had with my good buddy, Steve Smiley. We were talking about one of our favorite topics - ISO 12647-2. Yes, we can be a couple of wild and crazy guys when you get us wound up. A little beer and a little hot Mexican food, and we're quoting stuff like this: 

The variability of the process colour solids in production is restricted by the following condition. For
at least 68 % of the prints, the colour differences between a production copy and the OK print shall not exceed the pertinent variation tolerances specified in Table 7.

(Table 7, you will recall, has a lot of 4 DE and 5 DE stuff in it.)

Steve has taught me to always check the halftone dot structure before partaking

The last time Steve and I chatted, he told me that the brand owners that he consulted with weren't happy with 68% of the product being within a certain tolerance. They want 90% or even 95% within some tolerance. They know that my wife will be inspecting the labels on the Chobani packages. If just one of them is just a slight bit pale in color, they know that they will be sending yet another packet of free coupons to Milwaukee.

Seriously... while my wife is on a first name basis with the customer support people for almost all the consumer product companies, the real reason that the color of a package is so important is that if a package is a bit off color, then people will pick over it in favor of the brightly colored box. Eventually that off-color package is going back to the factory with its handy fold out pouch between its clam shell blister pack. Just like I found out when I tried stand-up comedy at the Baptist's convention, off-color doesn't sell.

I had a simple answer to Steve's question. I'm sure that I didn't articulate it well, since we were on our third bottle of sriracha sauce by then. It was an application of a blog post I did called "Assessing Color Difference Data". The whole point of this blog is that for distributions of color difference data, there is a simple conversion between the 68th percentile and any of the other percentiles. I copy the table from this remarkably insightful blog post:

P-tile
Multiplier
r-squared
10
0.467
0.939
20
0.631
0.974
30
0.762
0.988
40
0.883
0.997
50
1.000
1.000
60
1.121
0.997
68
1.224
0.993
70
1.251
0.991
80
1.410
0.979
90
1.643
0.947
95
1.840
0.903
99
2.226
0.752
Max
2.816
0.378

It's not obvious from the table, but the conversion is pretty simple. If a color tolerance is stated like this: "68% of production shall be within 5 DE of the target color", then you can convert this to a 95% statement with the following calculation:  (5 DE / 1.224) X 1.840 = 7.52 DE. The first part, dividing by 1.224, converts from a 68th percentile to a 50th percentile. The second part, multiplying by 1.840, converts the 50th percentile DE to a 95th percentile. To put it simply... you multiply by 1.5.

So by my careful and erudite analysis, the following two specifications are equivalent:

"68% of production shall be within 5 DE of the target color"
"95% of production shall be within 7.5 DE of the target color"

If a press run meets the first criteria, then it will pretty well meet the second, and vice-versa. Unless of course, the press has decided to not follow the laws of statistics.

I have intentionally left a topic un-discussed: How do you tell what percentage of the press run was in tolerance? I'm gonna save that thrilling question for my next blog post. 

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Of psychics and volcanoes

As I write this blogpost, I am at the foothills of New Year’s, that time of year when all good soothsayers are called upon to say some sooth about the upcoming year. But, should we pay any attention to the sooth that they say?


In this post, I am not considering those pundits who predict stuff based on some sort of discernible trend. I am not thinking along the lines of predictions about sports, politics, or economics. I just want to consider psychics who predict events that don't lend themselves to prediction by careful analysis.

So, I started by setting the rules for the experiment. I first would decide on a topic where a lot of psychics might be making predictions. The topic should be considered by scientists to be “tough to make precise predictions about”. The topic should be verifiable by a trusted source. I would then look for predictions that prognosticators made about the year 2014, and limit my experiment to the first 20 psychics that Google found for me.

Note that I decided on the rules of the test before I went to research what psychics had to say. In this way, I avoided cherry picking the results.

I decided ahead of time that I should not worry about predictions that are made about likely events. Finding one a psychic out of 20 who correctly predicted a single coin toss is not very impressive. Ten of the 20 psychics should be able to guess that correctly. I’m looking for predictions that are tough enough that you would expect that none of the 20 guessers would be correct by chance.


After a little pondering, I decided I would look for predictions about volcanic eruptions. I found a reliable source for information: the Smithsonian Institution Global Volcanism Project. They seem to have done a pretty thorough job of documenting all the volcanic eruptions. There database has just over 3,200 eruptions from the past century alone.

One note… I should define the term VEI (Volcanic Explositity Index). This is a measure of the amount of material that is ejected from a volcano during an eruption. The numbers go logarithmically from 0 to 8. The rank 0 means “effusive”, 1 means “gentle”, 2 means “explosive”, 3 means “catastrophic”, and so on. In the past century, the largest volcanic eruption was Mount Pinatubo in 1991, with a VEI of 6. There were 8 eruptions with a VEI of 5, and 61 with a VEI of 4.

I went googling on variations of the search “psychic predictions 2014 volcano”.

The results were pretty conclusive. I found 31 predictions that the 20 psychics made about volcanic events for the year 2014. I did not find a single prediction that was both correct and unlikely to have been stumbled on by chance.

My firm conclusion: psychics that Google says are popular have a perfectly lousy track record when it comes to predictions about volcanoes in 2014. This has been fairly well demonstrated.

Since I picked the topic more or less "at random", and since the results were completely unequivocal, it is my expectation that similar topics for predictions would reveal similar results. Until proven otherwise, I will make the bold statement that psychics do poorly at predictions that lack some sort of trending information that could serve as a basis for intelligent guessing.

Here are the details...

Tara Greene

[1] Major EARTHQUAKES worldwide, very high, 8+ on Richter scale and Volcano explosions- in usual places, In Indonesia, China, India, Central America- Guatemala. In California and up West coast- Washington State.

[2] Another blackout of flying because of Volcanic explosions in mid to late April 2014 in to May.

(The square brackets are mine. I am keeping a running count of specific predictions. Tara had two.)

She predicted that volcanoes will erupt in all the usual places? I hardly think this is much of a prediction. But she did mention some places that she said will have either major earthquakes or eruptions. Here is a list of the number of eruptions that each of these areas had:

Indonesia: 7, China: 0, India: 0, Central America – Guatemala: 0, California and west US coast: 0.

Granted, she said either earthquakes or volcanoes, but I am just looking at volcanic eruptions. I’m gonna call that prediction false.

Blackout in April or May? No. There were three volcanic eruptions in April and May, in Japan, Australia, and Alaska. None caused any issue with travel.

Tara is zero for two.

Betsey Lewis

[3] Major Earth Changes: … Extreme weather will continue worldwide--drought, flash floods, huge waves, volcanic activity, hurricanes, tornadoes, fierce winds. No place will be untouched.

[4] Italy's Mount Etna will see a huge eruption and Rome could shake. I see structures falling in Rome--large earthquake.

Earthquakes and Volcanic Activity: ... Watch for Mt. Etna in Italy and many volcanoes to suddenly erupt.

Extreme number of volcanic eruptions?  There have been 3220 volcanic eruptions since 1914. That’s about 32 per year. There were 34 in 2014, so this was hardly a banner year for volcanoes.

Mount Etna? The most recent eruptions of this volcano were from Jan 2011 to Feb 2012. Nothing in 2014, sorry.

For those keeping track at home, we have zero correct predictions out of four.

Nikki

[5] A huge earthquake and volcano eruption in Peru.

[6] A huge earthquake and volcanic eruption in Hawaii.

[7] Mt. St. Helen's erupting.

Peru had one class 1 eruption, hardly worth calling “huge”.

There were no volcanic events in Hawaii in 2014.

Mount Saint Helens has had no volcanic activity since 2008.

The count is now zero out of seven.

Jeanne Mayell

On Dec. 12, 2014, Jeanne Mayell reflected on her previous predictions, calling out the incredible number of her predictions that came true. The bold type is her indication of a correct prediction, “within a few months”. This was a prediction she made for April of 2014, which according to this webpage, she made “in 2013”:

[8] Volcanic eruption, smoke ash everywhere on an island. (lava flows in Hawaii threatening a town, volcanic eruption in Cape Verde)

She further predicts eruptions for the month of July, stating that this prediction was made January 9 of 2014: 

[9] Volcanic eruption somewhere (lava flows in Hawaii threatening town, Cape Verde volcanic eruption causes evacuations)

Another prediction was for an earthquake. She claims that she nailed this one, except that it wasn't a rural town in Italy, and was a volcanic explosion instead of an earthquake.

[10] Wash tub, Italian rural town, earthquake (Not Italian, but Cape Verde volcanic explosion)

She claims lots of correct predictions, but how did she really do?

She predicted a volcanic eruption on an island?  I would hazard to guess that this happens in pretty much every period of a few months. Not such a daring prediction, if you ask me!

How about those lava flows in Hawaii? Didn't happen.

Eruption on Cape Verde Islands? Close… There was an eruption of a volcano on the Cape Verde Islands on November 23. This is something of an odd event, since there have been only three volcanic events in the Cape Verde Islands in the past century. If she got that prediction correct, then I would be suitably impressed. But, her original prediction was for April. She was six months off. On this page she states: “Note that visions can be off by a few months.” I’m sorry… six is more than a few.

And her claim that the Cape Verde volcano fulfills her prediction about the Italian earthquake? I find this preposterous.

Even if we grant her that the Cape Verde prediction was “close enough”, do we know that this prediction was actually made prior to 2014? I managed to find one independent report of such a prediction. It was posted in the International Business Times in January of 2014. It gives a truncated version of the prediction: Volcanic eruption, smoke ash everywhere on an island. This event was predicted to occur in April of 2014.

I am not trying to imply that she lied about her prediction, just that the timing of her prediction is yet to be verified. There may be some independent evidence of the timing of her prediction of the Cape Verde volcanic eruption, but until that shows up, I’m gonna call her prediction not only false, but also not verified.

So, she made an insipid prediction, made a prediction about Hawaii that failed, and missed her own time window on a prediction about Cape Verde.

Joseph Tittel

[11] Again causing many new quakes and the eruption of three big volcanoes in 2014. [12] One causing major complications for people traveling in that area of the globe.

[12] Three ring of fire volcanoes erupt.


Three big volcanoes? I’m not sure what “big” means, but there were four eruptions rated at 3 VEI or larger: Japan, Kamchatka, north of Australia, and Indonesia. Close, but no cigar. Tittel didn’t say “three or four volcanoes”, he said three.

Might this just be an educated guess? Quite possibly. In the prior ten years, there were four years that had 2, 3, or 4 big eruptions. So, you could call his prediction “close, but not very daring”.

There were no volcanic events in 2014 that caused “major complications for people traveling in that area of the globe”. But, I guess if you consider people wanting to travel to the actual volcano, then almost all of the eruptions would constitute a major complication.

How about the claim of “three ring of fire volcanoes”? The “ring of fire” encompasses all the volcanoes at the edge of the Pacific. All four of the big eruptions in 2014 were on the Pacific rim.

Sorry. No valid predictions here, and we are still looking for a correct and significant prediction.

Blair Robertson

[13] I predict considerable volcanic activity around the Pacific Rim in 2014, causing scientific alarm.

This is a vague prediction. Most volcanoes are around the Pacific Rim, and as I said before, the year 2014 was not remarkable for volcanic activity.

Elizabeth Good

[14] Good …. thinks Iceland will be in the news this year (possibly with a big volcano eruption) [15] as will North Korea (which will make a lot of noise but do no damage).

[16] Volcano eruption and a disaster in China. "It feels to me like something involving large numbers of people, possibly a large public disaster, such as a train wreck with a significant release of toxic material, affecting many," according to psychic Elizabeth Good.

Was there an eruption in Iceland? Yes, at Barbarbunga. But this first prediction was hardly gutsy. Iceland has had at least one volcanic eruption in 33 of the last 100 years. She had a 1 in 3 chance of getting this one right.

How about North Korea? Nope. She got that wrong. The prediction of North Korea was very gutsy, though. North Korea has not had a volcanic eruption in recorded history.

She also predicted a Chinese volcanic eruption. Sorry… the most recent eruption in China was in 1951. Another gutsy and incorrect prediction.

So, the only volcanic prediction that Good has gotten correct was a fairly safe bet.

Heather Zais

[17] Earth changes or calamities continue: earthquakes, eruptions, lava, volcanos and floods. Waves and high tides and seas. Ships may need rescue. Build new ones or refurbish.

Once again, 2014 was not abnormal.

Cherie

[18] There could also be volcanic eruptions that would cause the fires to be an issue, so look to volcanic activity this year in a major way.

Major way? No way.

Green Wood Horse

[19] With fire energies running strong this year, we can expect some significant volcanic activity and some devastating fires come summer. International tensions and conflicts will persist, as will events involving fire-related calamities, volcanoes, explosions, air and sea accidents, wind disasters such as Katrina, as well as environmental challenges related to air, oil and water.

Significant volcanic activity? If "significant" means "more than zero", then this is an obvious prediction. If it means "considerably more than usual", then nope.

So far, that brings us up to zero predictions that could be considered correct and significant.

Lisa Caza

[20] And weather-wise – unfortunately we will need to expect much of the same that we saw in 2013. I continue on with my concerns about the volcano eruptions – both 2013 and 2014 we have seen and will see a huge number never seen before.

Huge number? Nope.

Before It’s News

[21] Yet another pope! Anytime between now and January 31st [April 16, 2014], the world could see a new Pope, because of the supposed plot to end corrupt Vatican powers. Also, during this upset and confusion, a volcano in Italy will produce some steam. Psychics expect this to happen in the winter while it is still snowing.

Italian volcano?  Nope. This prediction is notable in that Italy often does have volcanic events. Mount Etna had eruptions during seven of the ten years between 2004 and 2013. Not only was this an incorrect prediction, but he (or she) lost while betting with the odds.

Incidentally, this psychic's time window hasn't elapsed yet, but as of December 29, Pope Francis is still in the Vatican.

Patricia McLaine

[22] The NEW YEAR promises to start out with a BANG, with a possible MAJOR EARTHQUAKE and/or VOLCANIC ERUPTION as yet another force of destruction on our planet rumbles back to life: [23] ICELAND? MOUNT RAINIER? YELLOWSTONE? The NEW MADRID FAULT?  Prepare to be frightened and amazed.

You gotta love those capital letters! So much excitement!

Did we get a major eruption in the start of the year?  The largest volcanic eruption of the year was on Feb 13th. This was a major eruption, with a VEI of 4. Only 61 of these have occurred in the last century. But I don’t think I would quite call this the start of the year. 

If Patricia had been specific (like "in the first quarter of the year"), then she might have gotten a point for this one. But she left it vague, with "The new year promises to start out..." I take that to mean the first week or two of the year. Sorry. If you want a prediction to pass scientific muster, you can't be vague.

There was an eruption in one of the places that she mentioned. It was in Iceland, but that didn't occur until August 29th. And as I said before, Icelandic volcanic eruptions are not that uncommon. As for the other locations, neither Mt. Ranier or Yellowstone had any volcanic activity.

I'm still looking for that excellent prediction.

Chuck Bezio

[24] Italy Volcano erupts in July

[25] Greece Volcano eruption in Dec.

Unlike Patricia, Chuck provided some great predictions. They are precise, giving both a month and a location. He should be commended, since this makes the predictions actually predictions. Unfortunately both of his great predictions were wrong..

Psychic Science

[26] Jul 17 2014 17:52 PT       A big earthquake in California with volcanic eruption afterwards

Nope. Nothing in California in 2014.

Grassy Knoll Institute

[27] A major U.S. volcanic eruption will occur. It will erupt with almost no warning time. Everything in its eruption path will be incinerated.

In the US, there were two small eruptions during 2014. Both were of Mount Pavlof, off the Alaskan peninsula. But saying that there will be volcanic activity somewhere in the US is a pretty safe bet. Of the last 100 years, 94 of them have had volcanic activity in the US.

I may have lost count somewhere along the line, but I think my count is up to zero now.

Barbara DeLong

[28] 2014 is going to be a year of shifting and change for not only us as individuals but the planet as well. There are going to be above average storms of all types as well as an increase in natural disasters such as earth quakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions.

Above average? Nope.

Stargazer Phillipines

[29] A volcano eruption

OMG! No!!!! 

Come on. Really? This is a pretty worthless prediction.

The score currently stands at zero for the psychics and 29 for the skeptics.

Rebecca

[30] Papua, New Guinea will experience a major volcanic eruption this year.

There was a volcanic eruption of VEI 2 at Manam, off the coast of Papau, New Guinea.  This could hardly be called a major eruption. There was another eruption at Rabaul, with a VEI of 3. I wouldn't really call that major, either. My interpretation of "major" is VEI greater than 4.

But even if VEI of 3 is considered major, this is Papau New Guinea. There are six volcanoes in Papau New Guinea that are more or less active. If my count is correct, there have been 50 eruptions between them in the past century. Six of the past ten years have had eruptions. So, you basically have even odds if you guess that there will be an eruption of a volcano in this country in any year.

So, this prediction fails if “major” is taken to mean “VEI > 3”, or is not significant if a VEI of 3 is considered major.

Nancy Bradley

[31] Either 6 pt. or better earthquakes, flooding, tornadoes, draught, explosions or volcanic earth eruptions will affect the following countries and places: Japan, Mexico (BAHA in particular,) the Philippines, Columbia, Costa Rica, Egypt, Mideast, Nicaragua, Fiji, Peru, No. and So. Korea, Canada, Australia, the Cayman Islands, many of the small islands, Pakistan, Africa, Russia, Taiwan, Turkey, Greece, Guam, England, China, Spain Venezuela, Indonesia, New Zealand, El Salvador, Ecuador, Chili, Iran, Argentina, Panama, and New Guinea for just some. In THE U.S, California heavy hit, Eureka area, near San Francisco, San Simeon, Southern Ca,

Wow. Some sort of major natural disaster will occur in some place that regularly has earthquakes, flooding, tornadoes, and volcanic eruptions? Go figger. I’m not even going to bother with this vague and obvious prediction.


So... that ends the contest. It may take me a while to tally the results, but I think that the folks in the bleachers who were rooting for the psychics might be a bit disappointed.