Category Archives: science

Aliens, but not as we know them

This is the title of an interesting article by Ian Bogost in the 7 April 2012 issue of New Scientist. In it Bogost posits the question: Are everyday objects, such as apple pies or microchips, aliens?

Answer: It depends how you think about what it’s like to be a thing.

I can’t link the article as it’s behind a paywall, but here are a few salient snippets.

[E]verything is an alien to everything else. And second, the experience of “being” something else can never be verified or validated …

[W]hy should we be so self-centred as to think that aliens are beings whose intelligence we might recognise as intelligence? … a true alien might well have an intelligence that is, well, alien to ours …

[L]et’s assume they are all around us, and at all scales – everything from dogs, penguins and trees to cornbread, polyester and neutrons. If we do this, we can ask a different question: what do objects experience? What is it like to be a thing? …

[W]hy is it so strange to ponder the experience of objects, even while knowing objects don’t really have “experiences” as you or I do? …

This kind of engagement will necessitate a new alliance between science and philosophy … From a common Enlightenment origin, studies of human culture split. Science broke down the biological, physical and cosmological world into smaller and smaller bits in order to understand it. But philosophy concluded that reason could not explain the objects of experience but only describe experience itself …

Despite this split, science and philosophy agreed on one fundamental: humanity is the ruler of being. Science embraced Copernicus’s removal of humans from the centre of the universe, but still assumed the world exists for the benefit of humankind … Occasionally animals and plants may be allowed membership in our collective, but toasters or [electronic components] certainly aren’t …

[W]hat if we decide that all things are equal – not equal in nature or use or value, but equal in existence? … then we need a flat ontology, an account of existence that holds nothing to be intrinsically more or less extant than anything else …

Thomas Nagel … famously asked what it was like to be a bat, concluding the experience could not be reduced to a scientific description of its method of echolocation. Science attempts to answer questions through observation and verification. Even so, the “experience” of all objects, from bats to Atari computers, resists explanation through experimentation …

The world is not just ours, nor is it just for us: “being” concerns microchips or drilling rigs as much as it does kittens or bamboo.

So perhaps the people who apologise to things when they throw them away aren’t quite so mad after all!?

In Case You Missed …

The usual links to things which have amused me and which you may have missed …

First of all … politics. Never short of an Idiot, and interesting cynical take on James Murdoch vs David Cameron.

And secondly … politics. The politicians are about to remove some of the interest in our lives by having “a bonfire of dead wood statutes” and abolishing some 800 outdated and obsolete laws. Have they really nothing better to do? Oh, sorry, it’s their job to make our lives boring.

So to alleviate that boredom here are a few seriously amazing items …

How long would it take to travel to the moon at the speed of whale? One Minute Physics has the answer.

[Not safe for the faint-hearted!] Turning to biology, entomologists have recently found and described an enormous Warrior Wasp, aka. Waspzilla. Talk about awesome! Yes, I really would love to meet one.

Still on the biological, I discovered The Tiny Aviary, the website of illustrator Diana Sudyka. Gorgeous drawings like the one above.

And finally more stunning art, this time from Dalton Ghetti who carves sculptures in pencil lead. How you even start doing that makes my head hurt!

Enjoy!

Fukushima Reprise

There’s so much going on at the moment that I should be writing about that I’m having a hard time keeping up! Anyway here’s the next piece.

There was an interesting, and I suggest important, “Opinion” article in last week’s New Scientist (dated 17 March 2012). In it Don Higson, a fellow of the Australasian Radiation Protection Society, argues for the total revision scale on which nuclear accidents are measured and points up the lack of true comparison between Fukushima and Chernobyl. Along the way he highlights the major differences between the two in health effects, adding some further important perspective on the situation.

The article itself is behind a paywall, so I hope I’ll be forgiven for reproducing some factual highlights here.

Everybody who gets cancer in Japan over the next 40 years will no doubt blame their misfortune on radiation from Fukushima Daiichi […] This would be entirely understandable but will have no basis in science […]

[T]here is no possibility that the physical health consequences of Fukushima Daiichi will be anywhere near as bad as those of Chernobyl.

As far as anyone knows, no member of the public received a significant dose of radiation attributable to the Fukushima Daiichi reactor emergency […]

Chernobyl was the worst that could happen. Safety and protection systems failed and there was a full core meltdown in a reactor that had no containment […]

237 Chernobyl workers were taken to hospital with suspected acute radiation sickness; 134 of these cases were confirmed; 28 were fatal; about 20 other workers have since died from illnesses considered to have been caused or aggravated by radiation exposure […]

On top of that, it has been estimated that about 4000 people will die […] from radiation-induced cancer […]

At Fukushima Daiichi, the reactors shut down safely when struck by the magnitude-9 Tohoku earthquake […] problems arose after they were inundated by a much larger tsunami than had been anticipated when the nuclear plant was designed […] The reactor containments were partially effective […]

There were no deaths attributable to radiation. Two workers received burns from beta radiation. They were discharged from hospital after two days. Two workers incurred high internal radiation exposure from inhaling iodine-131, which gives them a significant risk of developing thyroid cancer.

Doses incurred by about 100 other workers have been high enough to cause a small risk of developing cancer after 20 or more years […] About 25 per cent of the population dies from cancer whether accidentally exposed to radiation or not. This rate might be increased by an additional one or two per cent among the exposed workers […]

[T]here have been no radiation injuries to children or to other members of the public […]

[T]he amount of iodine-131 escaping from all the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi was less than 10 per cent of the amount released at Chernobyl, and the release of caesium-137, the next most important fission product, was less than 15 per cent of the Chernobyl total […]

As I’ve said before, we need to keep this in perspective.

While there are clearly many, many lessons to be learnt Fukushima should be looked on as a success story in terms of reactor design. Yes there were shortcomings in the design of the resilience, the fall-back ability, the processes and the communications. And there have been massive knock-on effects on the population and the environment — and indeed it has been argued the worst of the health effects will be the devastating mental stresses on the Japanese people (see, inter alia, this Guardian report).

But given that those reactors are 40-ish years old, and that even before March 2011 we knew a lot better how to design safe and secure reactors, this should be viewed as a (limited) success story.

Hic, Haec, Fruit Fly

Following up on my links from the other day which included the one on fungi farming animals I realised belatedly this was the fifth in a series of six Scientific American posts about civilisation, fungus and alcohol by Rob Dunn.

And being by Rob Dunn, author of The Wild Life of Our Bodies: Predators, Parasites, and Partners That Shape Our Evolution, they are interesting, well written, highly readable and perfectly accessible for the non-scientist. They also offer an interesting window into the way in which mad biologists think of and undertake research projects.

The six posts are:

  1. A Sip for the Ancestors: The True Story of Civilization’s Stumbling Debt to Beer and Fungus
  2. Fruit Flies Use Alcohol to Self-Medicate, but Feel Bad about it Afterwards
  3. Strong Medicine: Drinking Wine and Beer Can Help Save You from Cholera, Montezuma’s Revenge, E. Coli and Ulcers
  4. By Looking Carefully, Japanese Scientist Discovers the Secrets of Termite Balls
  5. 5 Kinds of Fungus Discovered to Be Capable of Farming Animals!
  6. Exhausted Writer Discovers First Cave Painting of Yeast

Or you can find them all linked together here.

29 February

Today, 29 February, is a unique day. So unique it happens, to a first approximation, only every four years.

But that, of course, depends upon what value unique has in your philosophy.

Scientifically today is indeed unique, in the formally correct sense. There is no other like it, for it will never occur again, at least as far as we currently understand the laws of physics which govern our universe.

Why? Because time, that ethereal quantity we measure in todays and years, is unidirectional and ever progressing. This time, this very instant, can never occur again. Hence it must be that this, and every other, today must be unique.

Enjoy your once in a lifetime experience!

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.

Word: Bromide

Bromide is interesting in that it has both scientific and non-scientific meanings, although the non-scientific are derived from the scientific.

Bromide.

  1. An anion of the element bromine, element 35. Several metal bromides (most commonly potassium bromide) are used medicinally as sedatives.
  2. A reproduction or proof on bromide paper; a bromide print, or the developer used to create such.
  3. A commonplace saying, trite remark, conventionalism; a soothing statement which has little purpose except to make you feel better; eg. “take things a day at a time”, or “go with the flow”.

[The element bromine (shown above) is nasty stuff. It is just about liquid at room temperature and evaporates easily as a brown vapour. It smells like chlorine (think swimming pools and loo cleaner) only worse as like this you get it in a higher concentration. I had to work with it in my undergraduate research project. I assure you it is not nice; you always use a fume hood. Happy days.]

Did You Know ….

There is a brothel in Prague where the “services” are free, but live video streams of the “activity” in the brothel are shown on their website (for a fee).
[Wikipedia]

Male chimps, bears, dogs — indeed almost all mammals except humans — have a bone in their penis, called the baculum (photo is a raccoon baculum). No-one knows why it was evolved out of humans.

In the US, of those men who take paternity tests some 30% find out they are not the father of the child concerned – although of course these are cases where there is doubt to start with.
[Sheril Kirshenbaum, The Science of Kissing]