See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/302632920

From Ockham's razor to Rube Goldberg: Don't rely on forensic age-dating

miracles

Article  in  Environmental Forensics · April 2016

DOI: 10.1080/15275922.2016.1163754

CITATIONS READS
0 7,317

1 author:

Michael J Wade
Wade Research, Inc.
14 PUBLICATIONS   67 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Hydrocarbon fingerprinting of dioxins View project

Forensic Geochemistry View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael J Wade on 25 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ENVIRONMENTAL FORENSICS
2016, VOL. 17, NO. 2, 131–135
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15275922.2016.1163754
EDITORIAL OPINION
From Ockham’s razor to Rube Goldberg: Don’t rely on forensic age-dating
miracles
Michael J. Wade
Wade Research, Inc., Marshfield, Massachusetts, USA
KEYWORDS Age-dating; petroleum releases; Ockham’s razor; Rube Goldberg
From the sublime to the ridiculous, there’s likely to be
more than one lesson learned from almost every scien-
tific situation. Take Ockham’s razor, which is basically
the law of parsimony, attributed to William of Ockham,
a 14th-century English philosopher who became known
Downloaded by [Dr Michael J Wade] at 07:51 02 June 2016
for the observation pluralitas non est ponenda sine neces-
sitate, which means plurality should not be posited with-
out necessity or, put another way, don’t construct a more
elaborate explanation than necessary for something;
unless, it seems, you can make a career out of it, as the
creator of the Rube Goldberg cartoons did. Equating the
two concepts may seem wrong and even a way of taking
the easiest of outs. However, quick acceptance and pro-
motion of one principle or concept to examine a process
or concept is very much like seizing on one single salient
principle in the technical literature and then not bother-
ing to check if that principle applies in your specific cir-
cumstance. Such a quick approach may not always be
the best approach.
But even if you think these two concepts are the oppo-
site ends of the spectrum, think again. Both are illustra-
tions of approaches to investigation, albeit with apparent
differences that, when it comes right down to it, are not
really all that different. Ockham’s razor is a philosophy
concept, although it has been defined in a variety of ways
and even spelled a number of different ways (e.g.,
Occam’s razor). The basic intent of Ockham’s razor is to
facilitate an approach into the investigation of a concept
or principle. Put yet another way, it’s an admonition not
to look for the complex when the simple may be just as
good. The principle leans to simplicity, saying when
there are two competing theories, the simpler explana-
tion of an entity is to be preferred. The principle has also
been expressed as “Entities are not to be multiplied
beyond necessity.” Ockham’s razor has been around for
a while. It is important, however, to note that invoking it
does not mean that a scientist should not be thorough
CONTACT Michael J. Wade mjwade@waderesearch.com
© 2016 Taylor & Francis
and evaluate all possibilities. It is possible that the sim-
pler theory, selected only for the sake of simplicity, may
not account for important evidence and, thus, be
completely wrong.
In reality, the Reuben “Rube” Goldberg approach of
creating overly complex approaches to examine basic
processes teaches the same valuable lesson, although
from a humor based approach (e.g., Figure 1). Reuben
Goldberg was an American author, cartoonist, engineer,
inventor, and sculptor. In July 1947 his editorial cartoon,
“Peace Today,” was published in the New York Sun. It
conveyed a warning against atomic weapons and earned
him the Pulitzer Prize in 1948. While active, Rube Gold-
berg was immensely popular. For three decades he pub-
lished a series of cartoons depicting complicated gadgets
that perform simple tasks in indirect, convoluted ways,
similar to others (e.g., W. Heath Robinson) who were
doing the same types of things in Europe. However,
Goldberg’s work was special, entertaining and lasting. By
making his point the hard (i.e., overly complicated) way,
he taught lasting lessons about the investigating process.
In environmental forensic investigations, it is critical
to use the technical literature. Publishing results of scien-
tific studies is an integral part of the scientific method.
The legal process requires that the trial judge be a gate-
keeper, admitting testimony into the court only from sci-
entific experts and ensuring that the basis of the opinion
is widely accepted by the relevant wider scientific com-
munity. “Burning solutions” are not to be admitted. And
it is here that Ockham’s razor and Rube Goldberg’s les-
sons can and should be invoked. But when William
Shakespeare said “to thine own self be true” (Hamlet,
Act I, Scene iii; Wilson, 1983), there was more to the
thought. Shakespeare was not saying... help yourself at a
cost to others. He was instead reminding the listener to
remain true to one’s true nature... “And it must follow,
as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any
Wade Research, Inc., 110 Holly Rd., Marshfield, MA 02050.
 132 M. J. WADE
Figure 1. Self Operating Napkin. Artwork Copyright © and TM Rube Goldberg Inc. All Rights Reserved. RUBE GOLDBERG ! is a registered
trademark of Rube Goldberg Inc. All materials used with permission. rubegoldberg.com.
Downloaded by [Dr Michael J Wade] at 07:51 02 June 2016
man” (Hamlet, Act I, Scene iii; Wilson, 1983). Therefore,
one is best served to consider each principle on its own,
within the context of one’s own specific circumstance in
order to come to the best, most reasonable conclusion.
What of this for scientists and specifically to those who
labor in the environmental forensic community? The
same concept of being true to the overall process of the
scientific method applies.
Unfortunately, however, there are other factors at work
in today’s forensic settings that are a misinterpretation or
misapplication, unknowingly or not, of Shakespeare’s
admonition as it pertains to technical publications. Yes,
the technical literature is an integral part of what we study
and what we do in today’s forensic geochemical commu-
nity, and we see that many of our technical publications
are read, referenced, and applied. However, more often
than we would like, we also see either a complete misun-
derstanding of what we have published or a deliberate
latching onto a small part of our work that is in the litera-
ture in order to apply an isolated part of what we have
published to advance someone’s own thoughts (or for-
tunes). It appears, from time to time, that some do not
even read published works accurately. Principles that
have been elucidated within one clearly proscribed set of
circumstances may not be applicable in other circumstan-
ces. It is up to the individual investigator to determine if
published relationships apply at all in such other instan-
ces. Part of the process should be the study of applicable
conditions that are completely different from those in the
technical published works and to then evaluate the evi-
dence, hard scientific evidence, establishing that the pub-
lished results are applicable in a different set of
circumstances. Ockham’s razor and the Rube Goldberg
approaches both should be set as potential governing
boundaries to this process.
Several cases of misinterpretation or misapplication
are evident. Works that come to mind include the
Kaplan et al. (1996, 1997) BTEX ratio for age-dating
groundwater gasoline contamination, the Schmidt et al.
(2002) relationship for age-dating automobile gasolines,
and the Christensen and Larsen (1993) relationship
derived for age-dating diesel fuel releases.
Kaplan et al. (1996, 1997) established a ratio of ben-
zene plus toluene to ethylbenzene plus xylenes [(BCT)/
(ECX)] for groundwater. In their articles data were pre-
sented arguing that the BTEX ratio (Rb) in a dissolved
gasoline plume near the source of release is close to that
in the original gasoline (approximately 0.7–1.2). The
ratio then decreases as a function of time, and values
below 0.5 usually indicate a gasoline residence time lon-
ger than 10 years. It is clear from the publication that
this ratio is applicable only for a single instantaneous
release to a dissolved gasoline plume. There were no data
presented for soils or nonaqueous phase liquid (NAPL)
and use of the Rb approach must be excluded in such cir-
cumstances. Any application of the Rb approach to soils
or NAPL is outside of the method described in the pub-
lished literature. The same exclusion is true for multiple
or continuous (i.e., chronic) releases. Moreover, the
approach was for single releases and not for instances
where multiple sources of gasolines are suspected in the
groundwater. Indeed, if it appears that multiple releases
of different fuels have impacted groundwater at a site,
the Rb approach should not be used. It is also obvious
that this approach should not be applied to mixed petro-
leum product samples such as automobile gasoline mix-
tures from different sources that may have different
release times, nor to automobile gasoline mixed with
middle distillates (such as various jet fuels, kerosene, #2
fuel oils, diesel fuels, or heavier distillate fuels) or

gasoline mixed with used motor oils or other types of
organic products or solvents. There is no literature sup-
port for the applicability for this method for such com-
plex petroleum mixtures.
Schmidt et al. (2002) present data that established a
general trend between the concentration ratio of toluene
to normal octane (toluene/n-C8) and the age of gasoline
manufacture for single gasoline samples. Their results
maintain that if the ratio is less than 5, the gasoline manu-
facture date lies in the 1973–1983 range; if the ratio is
between 5 and 10, the gasoline falls in the 1984–1993
range; and if the ratio is greater than 10, the gasoline falls
in the 1994–2001 range. However, in describing this
method the authors specify a few critical applicability
conditions that have to be satisfied. For example, the
method is applicable only for regular and mid-grade gaso-
line samples that have not undergone strong water wash-
ing degradation. The relationship did not work for
Downloaded by [Dr Michael J Wade] at 07:51 02 June 2016
premium grade gasolines. Moreover, and most critically,
the toluene/n-C8 relationship is based upon single sam-
ples of pure gasoline of known manufacture and/or sales
dates, not for NAPL, soil, or groundwater samples. Again,
as with Kaplan et al. (1996, 1997) there is no literature
support for the relationship being applied to mixtures of
different gasolines, nor to automobile gasoline mixed
with middle distillates (such as various jet fuels, kerosene,
#2 fuel oils, diesel fuels, or heavier distillate fuels) or gaso-
line mixed with used motor oils or other types of organic
products or solvents. Finally, the general relationship in
the article provides a rough estimate only. There are a
number of cases that fall outside of this relationship.
Christensen and Larsen (1993) published an article
providing an empirical relationship between the n-C17/
IP-19 ratio and years of environmental exposure that
could be used to age-date diesel fuel releases in soils. In
their article, the authors listed a number of conditions
under which soil samples should be collected in order to
ensure applicability to their relationship and the resulting
accuracy of age-dating. Their study was restricted to the
following enumerated conditions: the diesel oil concentra-
tions in the samples had to exceed 100 mg/Kg, the sam-
ples had to be collected at least 1 m below the ground
level, the samples had to be collected from the unsaturated
soil zone underneath a paved area, and the analyses had
to include information on single components such as n-
C17, n-C18, pristine (IP19), and phytane (IP20).
While the Christensen and Larsen’s empirical relation-
ship has been supported from first principles (Galprin
and Kaplan 2008), what was not overtly discussed in the
original article was consideration of the presence of other
fuel types, such as automobile gasolines, being mixed
together with the diesel. Indeed, recent research results
have indicated that the Christensen and Larsen age-dating
ENVIRONMENTAL FORENSICS 133
relationship fails where gasolines are mixed in with mid-
dle distillate fuels such as #2 fuel oils/diesel fuels. Close
reading of the original Christensen and Larsen (1993)
article reveals that the authors carefully selected against
any site-specific sample data that might have included
other petroleum products, focusing their attention only
on diesel fuel contamination. It is clear that any attempt
to expand the age-dating relationship to mixtures of gaso-
line and diesel fuel is not supported in the peer-reviewed
technical literature. Simply assuming that only one source
of petroleum product is present without evaluating all
data for the possible presence of other products is wrong.
Further, simply assuming that a single sample is charac-
teristic of site-wide conditions is not good science, nor
does such an approach comport with Ockham’s razor.
And true to the Rube Goldberg approach of looking at
issues, one should be wary of ignoring the possibilities
that there might be more complicated situations at the
site that might explain data more completely.
There is clear evidence in the peer-reviewed technical
literature for concerns regarding petroleum product mix-
ing and possibilities of multiple product releases. Pruell
and Quinn (1988) discussed the presence of polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in motor oil. The stated
concerns of the authors were evaluating the potential for
PAH contamination arising from the illegal disposal of
used motor oil into coastal marine systems. The authors
followed the buildup of PAHs in automobile motor oil
over time. Combined gas chromatography/mass spec-
trometry (GC/MS) chromatograms from that study
showed the buildup of a continuum of PAHs as the
engine’s motor oil became more and more “used” (i.e.,
dirtier). In evaluating the used oil GC/MS chromatograms
that were collected over time, it can be seen that there
were numerous PAH peaks identified in the used motor
oil that were from lighter alkylbenzenes, which resolved
before naphthalene and the alkylated naphthalenes. Given
that the end cutoff of gasoline range petroleum products
can be viewed as at the 1- and 2-methylnaphthalene dou-
blet, mass calculations using the raw chemical chro-
matographic data show that approximately 20% of the
total PAHs were in the lower (gasoline) molecular weight
range (i.e., alkylbenzenes) and 80% of the PAHs were in
the higher (combustion products) molecular weight range
above the 1- and 2-methylnaphthalenes (i.e., phenan-
threnes, anthracenes, pyrenes, etc.). The gasoline range
peaks were indicative of both unburned and partially
burned gasoline hydrocarbons. Therefore, if used motor
oil were released at a site, approximately 20% of the PAH
material by mass will contain gasoline range hydrocarbons.
It is clearly wrong then to assume that when used
motor oil contamination is present at a site that no other
petroleum products are present. And given multiple
 134 M. J. WADE
Downloaded by [Dr Michael J Wade] at 07:51 02 June 2016
Figure 2. Then a Miracle Occurs. Copyrighted artwork by Sydney Harris Inc. All materials used with permission.
releases of used motor oil over time from a large number
of different vehicles burning completely different brands
of gasolines (and/or diesel fuels) at different engine effi-
ciencies, it is also clear that release of used motor oil
actually constitutes a release of a grand mixture of
numerous gasolines and diesel fuels. Under such circum-
stances, assuming a single-source release of only one
petroleum product such as a dispensed product (e.g.,
Ockham’s razor) is clearly wrong. Moreover, it is just as
wrong to age-date gasoline hydrocarbons coming from
such a diverse collection of releases using the data of
Kaplan et al. (1996, 1997) or Schmidt et al. (2002). There
simply is no support in the peer-reviewed technical liter-
ature for age-dating gasoline release(s) coming from a
mixture of petroleum products.
In conclusion, misapplying age-dating relationships that
have been published brings to mind the classic Sydney
Harris blackboard illustration linking a starting position to
a desired outcome (Figure 2). The lessons are clear. It is not
appropriate to never quite get the initial relationship correct.
Nor is it correct to deliberately steer conclusions through an
intervening and undefined “miracle” assumption, stated or
not. It is the complete effort that matters. Or, more classi-
cally put, as Cassius said to Brutus in Julius Caesar, “The
fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that
we are underlings” (Act I, Scene ii; Wilson, 1983).
References
Christensen, J. B., and Larsen, T. H. 1993. Method for deter-
mining the age of diesel oil spills in the soil. Groundwater
Monitoring and Remediation 13(4): 142–129.
Galperin, Y., and Kaplan, I. R. 2008. Zero-order kinetics model
for the Christensen-Larsen method for fugitive fuel age

estimates. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation 28
(2): 94–97.
Kaplan, I. R., Galperin, Y., Alimi, H., Lee, R. P., and Lu, S.-T.
1996. Patterns of chemical changes during environmental
alteration of hydrocarbon fuels. Ground Water Monitoring
and Remediation 16(4): 113–124.
Kaplan, I. R., Galperin, Y., Lu, S-T., and Lee, R. P. 1997. Foren-
sic environmental geochemistry: Differentiation of fuel-
types, their sources and release time. Organic Geochemistry
27(5–6): 289–317.
Downloaded by [Dr Michael J Wade] at 07:51 02 June 2016
View publication stats
ENVIRONMENTAL FORENSICS 135
Pruell, R. J., and Quinn, J. G. 1988. Accumulation of polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons in crankcase oil. Environmental Pol-
lution 49:89–97.
Schmidt, G., Beckmann, D., and Torkelson, B. A. 2002. Tech-
nique for estimating the age of regular/mid-grade gasolines
released to the subsurface since the early 1970’s. Environ-
mental Forensics 3:145–162.
Wilson, J. D. 1983. The Collected Works of William Shake-
speare, The Cambridge Text. London, UK: Octopus Books
Limited.