Category Archives: current affairs

Fukushima Revisited

In yesterday’s Daily Telegraph there was a very interesting perspective on the Tōhoku earthquake disaster, almost a year on, from journalist Michael Hanlon in which he argues:

The world has forgotten the real victims of Fukushima
A natural disaster that cost the lives of thousands of people was
ignored in favour of a nuclear ‘disaster’ that never was


In the article Hanlon says, and I quote directly as I cannot say it with such conviction …

Most terrible of all, was the black wave, a tide of death which we saw apparently creeping over the landscape …

Hundreds, thousands of people were being killed before my eyes [and] like all journalists, I began writing about the disaster much as I had written about the 2004 earthquake and tsunamis which had devastated the coasts of the Indian Ocean.

But then something odd happened. When it became clear the waves had struck a nuclear power plant, Fukushima Dai-ichi … it was almost as if the great disaster we had witnessed had been erased from view. Suddenly, all the reports concentrated on the possibility of a reactor meltdown, the overheating fuel rods, and the design flaws in this ancient plant …

[A]round day three … I realised that something had gone seriously wrong with the reporting of the biggest natural disaster to hit a major industrialised nation for a century. We had forgotten the real victims, the 20,000-and-counting Japanese people killed, in favour of a nuclear scare story …

[N]ot only was the global media’s reaction to the Tohoku earthquake skewed in favour of a nuclear “disaster” that never was, but that this reporting had profound economic and even environmental implications …

[A]lthough outdated, riddled with design flaws and struck by geological forces that went way beyond the design brief, the Fukushima plant had survived remarkably intact.

There are bitter ironies in all of this … governments in Europe, including ours, were offering to fly expats home from places where the radiation levels were lower than the natural background count in Aberdeen or Cornwall.

As Wade Allison, emeritus professor of physics at Oxford University, says: “The reporting of Fukushima was guided by the Cold War reflex that matched radiation with fear and mortal danger. Reactors have been destroyed, but the radiation at Fukushima has caused no loss of life and is unlikely to do so, even in the next 50 years. The voices of science and common sense on which the future of mankind depends were drowned out and remain to be heard, even today. The result has been unnecessary suffering and great socio-economic damage.” …

[P]olicymakers should have waited until at least some science was in before cancelling programmes which, in the case of Germany, will lead to some 70 million metric tonnes annually of increased CO2 emissions, because the shortfall will almost certainly be met by coal-fired power. Nobody, to date, has died as a result of radiation leaks at Fukushima Dai-ichi. Zero — a number you will have read even less about than the 20,000 dead.

Yes, OK, I’m guilty as well. But then as a scientist I was at least concerned to try to keep the nuclear problems in perspective — as my posts over the months will testify. Nonetheless there has been a humanitarian disaster which we have all quietly forgotten. Shame on us!

Curing the NHS

Recently I’ve been looking at the NHS as an outsider and a user. This has led me to think about the organisation, it’s shortcomings and whether anything really can be done to improve it.

The Health Service is something that we all want, and for which we all pay taxes. So we expect that when we need it not only will it be there, free at the point of use, but we will get the best possible treatment, speedily, in a good environment, from professional people and a professional organisation.

Sadly one or more of those elements are nearly always lacking, often conspiring to make patient care less than optimal.

Don’t get me wrong. Many parts of the health service are excellent. And in an emergency they generally work brilliantly, at least in the short-term.

Recently Noreen and I attended a Patient Participation Group which our GP practice has started. Everyone there was self-selected and had volunteered; they were not “yes men” hand-picked by the practice. And everyone there had nothing but praise for our excellent GPs, nurses and admin/reception staff — indeed we found it quite difficult to come up with anything major we thought they needed to improve. The only significant thing we homed in on for improvement was some of communicating with the body of patients as a whole. But our doctors are lucky; they have excellent staff throughout the practice and new-ish purpose-built accommodation. Nevertheless they are now short of space to do all the things they want to do.

Many parts of the Health Service are not so lucky. Visit the average NHS hospital and you’ll find a run-down building containing a large number of staff many of whom (especially at the lower levels) appear poorly paid, poorly trained, poorly managed and demotivated, giving off an air of being oppressed and disinterested. One suspects there may also be bullying by both management and unions. They seem ground down and struggling to do a good job against a background of inefficiency, waste and the awfulness of the people (mostly patients!) they have to deal with.

And that’s a two way thing. Staff (and an organisation) that don’t care about patients encourage patients to not care about how they treat the staff.

This has to lead to an attitude of unprofessionalism. As an example I am continually horrified by the awfulness of the communications I receive from all parts of the NHS. They are written in poor English (GOK what their Gujarati translations are like!); poorly typed; poorly designed; poorly printed. One recent letter I received was offset such that the right hand edge of the text was missing, it was faintly printed, poorly worded and covered in printed-on splodges of toner. It looked slapdash and unprofessional; the work of a not very careful 10-year-old. Frankly I would have been ashamed to even put it in my rubbish bin, let alone send it to anyone. And yet this was an important communication.

Go to a private hospital and you generally find exactly the opposite of all this: personable, helpful, interested, caring and motivated staff at all levels and good communication.

Why does the NHS have to be this way?

The simple answer is that it doesn’t.

Whilst bringing the whole of the NHS up to the standards of the best private hospitals may be neither achievable nor affordable, it should be possible to achieve a 500% improvement. (And this doesn’t mean US-style healthcare where one has to pay for everything or go without.) It won’t be easy; but if there’s a will I believe it could be done. In broad terms this is how I see it being done …

  • The NHS always maintains it is short of money. It isn’t; it has shedloads of money to do everything it should (and we want it to) sensibly do. But …
  • It also has too many meaningless, politically imposed, targets.
  • In consequence there are also far too many managers.
  • It probably also has too many (non-productive) admin staff. There always seem to be lots of people walking about carry pieces of paper but apparently doing little else. I’m not saying they are all unnecessary, but does anyone really know?
  • On top of this there appears to be an especially corrosive and pervasive culture; a culture of mistrust and of doing the minimum necessary; a culture which generates unprofessionalism and a couldn’t-care-less attitude.

So what can/should we do about it?

  • Well first of all there has to be a real will to do something and act sensibly, not just out of short-term political expediency or protecting one’s backside.
  • Then the budget has to be maintained at least at current levels, in real terms.
  • In doing that there has to be a vast improvement in cost control (yes, drug spend does need to be monitored, but hopefully not rationed), which means good stock control and the reduction of waste.
  • Scrap all but the most essential of targets and have what targets there are set by the clinicians for it is they who really understand what the patient needs. One target which must remain is to ensure the service is the same across the whole country; there must be no postcode lottery.
  • That should mean a reduction in the number of managers required, which will free large sums of otherwise non-productive money for patient care.
  • Then we need to look very critically at the number of non-clinical, non-managerial staff required. Reductions, where sensible, should be achievable by streamlining much of the (still largely paper-based) admin. That doesn’t mean an all-singing-all-dancing ginormous IT system; it means a large dose of analysing what really happens, what needs to happen and lots of common sense.
  • Much of all of this can be achieved by empowering all NHS staff to make the right decisions for the patients (both individually and collectively), empowering the staff to help improve their environment (why shouldn’t they repaint a wall or fix a door handle? — they’d do it at home!) and take pride in what they do.
  • All of this will only happen with a major change in culture to one which cherishes and values both the employees and the patients; a culture in which the staff treat the patients (and each other) as they would wish to be treated themselves. That has to start at the top: the top of each hospital/practice and the top of the NHS, ie. with the politicians and Civil Servants. Lip service won’t do; management have to demonstrate that they mean what they say. It also needs the staff — and the unions — to engage with, and believe in, the process and have an element of trust in it.

None of this will be easy. I’ve worked in an organisation where it has been done. It is difficult, painful and takes time. It needs a determination from everyone to make it work. Heads will have to be banged together. It almost certainly means shedding staff: if nothing else the non-believers have to be encouraged to change or move elsewhere — for their good and that of the organisation. It needs good, no-nonsense, management at the top; management with a long-term vision, a determination to make the right things happen and the charisma/skills to be able to fully engage with their staff at all levels. It also needs the unions to be willing to embrace the change (or be sidelined).

What is not needed is what we currently have: short-termism, poor management, bullying and continual change driven b
y political expediency.

Someone has to get a grip. Sadly I don’t see who that someone is.

Good News Day

In its own little way today is a good news day …

First I noticed that yesterday the International Telecommunication Union have been unable to agree the change to abandon leap seconds (see my post here) and a decision has been postponed until at least 2015. Hopefully that will give some time for sense to prevail.

Then today it has been announced that the parliamentary bill to move the UK’s clocks forward an hour permanently (well for a three year trial) has run out of time and is now unlikely to happen. (See my much earlier post about GMT here.)

But perhaps best of all, courtesy of Facebook and YouTube, I learn that one of my “heroes”, the most excellent Dr Alice Roberts has just been appointed as Professor of Public Engagement in Science at the University of Birmingham. While this has to be a loss for the medical profession it is a brilliant appointment which is well deserved. There’s nothing on the news channels yet, but I’m sure there will be. Alice joins an illustrious band of UK scientists including, inter alia, (the much hated by me) Richard Dawkins, mathematician Marcus du Sautoy and physicist Jim Al-Khalili who all hold/have held Chairs in the Public Engagement or Understanding of Science.

Time to crack open … a mug of tea! 🙂

HS2 is Go for Liftoff

Another meaty post. Someone please find out what being put in the tea this month!?

So the government have approved the plans for HS2, the high speed rail link to be built to connect London, Birmingham and (maybe) later Manchester and Leeds. The alleged cost is said to be £33bn with a payback over a 60 year period.

Business want HS2, as do the government, the rail industry and the construction industry. So would you if it safeguarded your salary, stock options and pension, reduced unemployment and potentially increased tax take.

Most of the local communities and the environmental groups don’t want it. They believe the environmental costs are too high and the business case doesn’t stack up. Even the Conservative Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, is only lukewarm. Added to which governments don’t have a good track record of managing such big projects for the public good.

The Stop HS2 campaign have said “It’s a white elephant of monumental proportions and you could deliver more benefits to more people more quickly for less money by investing in the current rail infrastructure.”

Friends of the Earth have made a similar comment, although as one would expect in more strident terms: “We need to revolutionise travel away from roads and planes, but pumping £32bn into high-speed travel for the wealthy few while ordinary commuters suffer is not the answer. High-speed rail has a role to play in developing a greener, faster transport system, but current plans won’t do enough to cut emissions overall — ministers should prioritise spending on improving local train and bus services instead.”

The Department for Transport has said that 22.5 miles of the first phase (to Birmingham) would be enclosed in tunnels or green tunnels [essentially a deep cutting with a tube put in it, over which grass, trees and soil are placed] and another 56.5 miles of cuttings would significantly reduce “visual and noise impact”.
But the environmental impact will be immense. So there will be a tunnel under much of the Chilterns (and so there should be) as well as large swathes of the London section of the route (we can’t clear enough land to do otherwise). But cuttings and green tunnels do nothing for the environment. They may reduce noise and visual impact but that’s all they do. They still destroy the countryside (taking out swathes of land many times wider than the actual track) through which they are built, cutting through woods, fields, etc. and creating huge piles of spoil.

And that leaves aside the huge disruption that will be created. Disruption not just along the route itself, but to existing rail infrastructure like London’s Euston Station which will have to be largely rebuilt.

Wouldn’t it be better for everyone if the government invested the money in sorting out our current rail infrastructure as FoE suggest? Forget all this franchising and get the rail industry back in public hands where it belongs; re-integrate it and invest properly in the infrastructure to get the network running efficiently and to time. If managed independently and properly by someone like Richard Branson who isn’t going to take any old nonsense from anyone, and who has a track-record of managing corporate business, then we should see increased capacity and reduced fares because the whole enterprise is more efficient and provides the service that’s wanted.

I find it hard to believe that this would cost more, create fewer (local) jobs or bring fewer benefits. Network Rail believe that such investment in the existing infrastructure will cost as much as HS2 for little benefit. But they would, wouldn’t they. They need a huge corporate project to help justify their existence against a backdrop of falling rail performance.

There’s more to any society than testosterone-fuelled corporate bullies building their salaries, share options and pensions. It’s time, once again, to listen to the people on the ground who are going to be most affected. But I doubt it’ll happen, if only because those against this hare-brained scheme are split into some 70 groups — they too need to be integrated if they are to be effective at overturning this nonsense.

[And before anyone accuses me of NIMBYism, it isn’t. I don’t care that the route runs just a mile from my house; the mess and disruption can’t make this bit of west London much worse than it already is. I do, however, care about the impact on Perivale Wood, a piece of ancient preserved woodland which abuts the proposed route; but that’s a relatively minor consideration in the overall scheme of things.]

Whither Obscenity?

In the general fallout from the Michael Peacock Obscenity Trial (if you missed the whole unedifying spectacle see, inter alia, the Guardian) the Hersey Corner highlights some important questions about obscenity and the law.

The questions raised by the trial are important, not so much in terms of jurisprudence, but in terms of developing society’s, as well as our personal, views of obscenity and indeed morality.

As usual I’m going to try to condense the arguments for you. Also as usual others express the ideas better, more succinctly and with greater knowledge than I can. So in this case here are some key extracts in the words of the Heresy Corner, with a minimum of comment.

The material in question depicted acts that are legal to perform, which did not fall within the definition of “extreme pornography” contained in the more recent Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2009 but which nevertheless came within the CPS prosecuting guidelines for obscene publication […]

[T]he majority […] has welcomed the verdict, seeing it as another nail in the coffin of a paternalistic, judgemental and outdated piece of legislation, as a victory for free sexual expression, as a sign that the law may be at last coming to grips with a more liberal society […] [T]he guidelines used by the police, the CPS and the British Board of Film Classification are based on the current “best guess” of what would be judged obscene by a British jury […]

The OPA’s [Obscene Publications Act 1959] true significance doesn’t lie in the small number of prosecutions that are brought under it, but rather in that it sets the standard by which the police and the BBFC judge the shifting boundary of what is or is not to be considered “obscene”. It is unusual […] legislation in that it bans nothing outright but instead employs a notoriously subjective test, that of “tending to deprave and corrupt” anyone likely to see the material in question. Therein lies the law’s uncertainty — and, for many, its inappropriate moralism. On the other hand, the very subjectivity of the test does make allowances for changes in society. It gives it flexibility.

[T]he CJIA […] makes no allowances for taste […] And unlike the OPA it targets the possessor — even an inadvertent downloader — rather than the producer or the distributor. Though apparently narrower in remit, in respect of those activities it proscribes […] it is harsher and more regressive.

What of the concept of “obscenity” itself? Many would consider it outdated and illiberal by definition […] [N]ow that the OPA has had the life almost squeezed out of it — between more liberal social attitudes on the one hand and the new extreme porn laws on the other — it’s worth asking […] whether something of value is being lost.

The crux of obscenity law is that it bans the depiction of acts which, in themselves, are not illegal; it declares to be depraved and corrupting activities which it nevertheless acknowledges that consulting adults might indulge in, and still remain decent members of society […] Yet is this not also a way of saying that the needs of society and the needs of individuals might not always coincide, and that there might be a space between what must be privately allowed and what may be publicly depicted? Not everything that is socially unacceptable ought to be illegal, after all: that way lies totalitarianism. But by the same token, the fact that something is legal does not [necessarily — K] render it socially acceptable [nor necessarily suitable for depiction — K].

[T]he Obscene Publications Act sought to strike a balance between private and public rights. It recognised that citizens might lawfully get up to things that the majority of their fellows might consider depraved and corrupted while asserting that the majority also had the right to have their sensibilities protected. Most importantly, by leaving the final decision to a randomly-selected jury of ordinary citizens, it granted custodianship of the standards of decency to the people […] rather than their being decided unilaterally by politicians and police. These are principles worth clinging on to […]

So in short, let’s not kill the idea of a test of obscenity by jury. Consenting persons have a right to indulge, in private, in pass-times which others may find distasteful or worse. The majority, while upholding that right to indulge privately, may feel that such acts shouldn’t be promulgated publicly. Surely only a jury can make such a decision, reflecting the prevailing morality of the time. Which in turn leaves each of us to make our own decisions as to where the various lines (public and private) should be drawn.

And it is only by each of us developing our own ideas, whether in accord with or contrary to society’s view, that society’s opinions and morality can change. After all society’s collective view is but the consensus (average) of our collected personal opinions.

Isn’t that what democracy and free speech is all about: leaving us, the people, in control of our destiny?

Gawdelpus …

… if this is the logic!

BBC Breakfast is this morning reporting the need to “halve the number of people in the UK with HIV”. And how are we going to do this? But getting people tested earlier, etc. etc.

No, guys!

Even if there were zero new infections, the only way you halve the number of people with an incurable disease is for them to die!

So did you mean you need to halve the number of new cases? Or halve the number of people who have HIV but are undiagnosed? Or what did you mean?

Teenagers and Sex …

… go together like, well, err … rutting animals?

Well maybe not so much.

I’ve written several times before (eg. here and here) although not recently.

Regular readers will know that I’ve long advocated the more liberal Dutch approach rather than the American (and British) proscriptively controlling approach. So I was interested to see yet more expert opinion and research supporting this view under the title “What We Can Learn From the Dutch About Teen Sex“. The article is inevitably American, but in my view it is just as applicable to the the Vatican, the UK or indeed any culture.

I’ll leave it to you to read the complete article and, I suggest, some of the linked items therein. What interesting is that Amy Schalet (author of Not Under My Roof: Parents, Teens and the Culture of Sex) who is being interviewed has experience of both the Dutch and American systems, and based on that experience is firmly of the Dutch persuasion. Here are a few quotes which struck me.

Teen birth rates are eight times higher in the U.S. than in Holland. Abortion rates are twice as high. The American AIDS rate is three times greater than that of the Dutch. What are they doing right …
[What] I’d noticed with my American friends is that there wasn’t a lot of conversation between parents and teens about sexuality and there was a lot of discomfort around the issue …

Coming out of the sexual revolution the Dutch really decoupled sex from marriage, but they didn’t decouple sex from love. If the first piece is that there weren’t these immediate associations of teen sex with danger, the second is that it remained anchored in the concept of steady relationships and young people being in love …

[The Dutch] say ‘We permit so we can control’ and that’s also their attitude toward drugs and prostitution. It’s worth pointing out that US teens are more likely to use drugs than the Dutch, even though there are more liberal policies [in the Netherlands].

That idea of ‘It’s actually a form of control’ is for most people in the US counter-intuitive. But if you expect self-control and give people an opportunity to exercise it, you might get more of it …

Something that did strike me when I came in early ’90s to this country [USA] is that one of the differences in the aftermath of the sexual revolution is that Dutch society became a lot more secular.

What stood out to me was that so often [in the US] people seemed to think you can only have morality and a strong social fabric if you believe in a higher authority, a God that would otherwise punish [people]. There isn’t a belief that people are naturally cooperative, which lots of research suggests they are.

Schalet then goes on to expound her ABCD approach. Here are the one-liners.

A is autonomy. A lot of times people do realize that adolescents are supposed to develop autonomy during that phase of life, but that doesn’t get applied to sex …
B is build good, positive relationships. We need more emphasis on healthy teen relationships …
C is connectedness. It’s possible to really challenge the assumption that teens and parents have to be at loggerheads …
D is diversity. A lot of sex education doesn’t recognize diversity [and] I don’t just mean differences in orientation …

I wish I knew how we could change the prevailing ethos. It would be so much better.

Quantum Economics

This is an old one, but given the current dire situation of a good proportion of the Euro-zone countries, it seems strangely apposite — again!

Quantum Economics

The discussion of the creation of money and debt puts me in mind of the creation of virtual particle/antiparticle pairs in the vacuum. I wonder how many other Quantum Physics concepts can be applied to money.

Cash is not continuous but exists in discreet levels. The smallest quantum of money is called the Plank Penny.

Like energy and matter, money can be converted into things and vice versa. However during the conversion some money is always lost to a form of entropy called VAT.

It is not possible to be absolutely sure of both where your money is and how much it is worth. Finding out how much your money is really worth involves spending it which destroys the money. This is called the Uncertainty Principle.

Large accumulations of money distort the economic space around them producing an effect comparable to gravity. This is called the Million Pound Note effect.

Large accumulations of debt (anti-money) also have the effect of attracting more debt. Eventually the debt can collapse under its own weight forming a black hole. The space near a black hole is characterised by strong economic distortions such as hyperinflation and large amounts of spin.

The three laws of thermodynamics, apply equally to economics:
1. you can’t win
2. you can’t break even
3. you can’t get out of the game.

And the final reason why economics is like quantum physics? If you think you understand it, then you don’t really understand it at all.


Click the image for a larger version