Category Archives: science

amusements, science

Picture Imps

Another zany moment from the “Feedback” column of this week’s issue of New Scientist:

[Feedback reader X] tells us that her mother says her new camera works much better “because it has many more pixies than her old one”. Meanwhile, X’s daughter is apparently excited at the discovery that “there are millions of haemogoblins capering round the circulatory system, delivering parcels of oxygen”.

As for X herself, she says she gets along fine in life so long as she’s got her elf (try saying that with a cockney accent). She wonders if other Feedback readers have noticed the presence of similar “differently real” companions in their lives.

amusements, books, science

Crocheting Robot Mice

I must share the following; it’s from the “Feedback” column of last week’s (17 April) issue of New Scientist.

We are pleased to see that science is well represented among the contenders for the Diagram prize for the oddest book title of the year. The top titles for 2009 were announced last month by UK magazine The Bookseller, which organises the prize.

Overall winner, with 42 per cent of the 4500 public votes cast, was Crocheting Adventures with Hyperbolic Planes by Diana Taimina. This beat off competition from Afterthoughts of a Worm Hunter by David Crompton, Governing Lethal Behaviour in Autonomous Robots by Ronald Arkin and The Changing World of Inflammatory Bowel Disease by Ellen Scherl and Maria Dubinski.

The less obviously scientific What Kind of Bean is this Chihuahua? by Tara Jensen-Meyer and Collectible Spoons of the Third Reich by James Yannes came second and third, respectively.

Horace Bent, custodian of the prize at The Bookseller, admitted that his personal favourite had been the spoons book, but went on to acknowledge that: “The public proclivity towards non-Euclidian needlework proved too great for the Third Reich to overcome.”

Philip Stone, the prize administrator, said he thought that “what won it for Crocheting Adventures with Hyperbolic Planes is that, very simply, the title is completely bonkers.”

The Diagram prize has been running since 1978. Its inaugural winner also had a scientific theme: it was Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Nude Mice.

The mind boggles at the mere thought of reading almost any of those titles!

current affairs, environment, science, thoughts

A Question of Sandblasting

4 Comments

There’s a lot of fuss around at the moment about the inconvenience being caused by a bit of Icelandic ash causing disruption to air travel.  There are, naturally two major schools of thought.

First.  Volcanic ash cases major problems with jet engines (see at least two near-miss major disasters in the 1980s).  Given that the ash is being blown across northern Europe, one of the most densely used pieces of air space in the world, we have to exercise real caution and ground flights.  We must not take the risk of anythinggoing wrong; after all we don’t want another Locherbie-style disaster (different cause, of course, but similar effect) and inconveniencing a few (hundred thousand) people.is better than the repercussions of killing a couple of plane loads.

Second.  The naysayers are of the belief that this is health and safety gone barmy.  They contend (seemingly on little evidence) that a disaster is unlikely and that the world economy cannot be held to ransom in this way by disruption that could last weeks (at best) by a load of risk-averse numpties.  In their favour there are reoprts that KLM have flown a plane through the ash cloud in Dutch air space without any damage (Lufthansa have also reportedly flown test flights); KLM are now pressing for the restrictions to be lifted.

As always there is a degree of logic on both sides.  How does one weigh the cost (monetary or otherwise) of the potential for a major disaster against the inconvenience of not flying?  This is hard and depends entirely on one’s underlying philosophical approach to life (see the last section of this).  I feel sure when the original “no fly” order was given the expectation was that the ash cloud would clear in a day or so.  Now it seems the disruption may last weeks, even months or years, depending on the course of the eruption.

Is the disruption of air travel over much of northern Europe viable (even justified) for a protracted period?  The powers that be seem to be working on the assumption that they have no option and that they have to be risk-averse.  The naysayers contend that such disruption is not justified.  Let’s look at some aspects of the disruption:

  1. There are large numbers of people, who are through no fault of their own, are in the wrong place.  They’re either on holiday or away from home on business and unable to return.  Or they are at home when they should be away on holiday, business or attending to family emergencies.  Some are managing to travel, and anyone on mainland Europe has a chance of travelling over land or sea – capacity permitting.  But anyone across the sea, eg. in the Canary Islands (as is at least one friend), in the Far East, the Americas or Africa is basically stuffed until air travel is resumed.  Clearly anyone who is away and cannot get home may have issues with employment, studies, animal welfare, supply of essential medicines etc.
  2. This naturally has a knock-on effect on business.  Business people can’t travel to/from where they (think they) need to be.  Is this a really justified concern?  I suggest that in these days of efficient audio- and video-confereceing this should not be a concern for a large number of businesses.  For the last several years before I retired I did almost no business travel despite running geographically spread teams – and I don’t just mean people spread across the UK; I regulalry worked with, managed or worked for people right across Europe, in South Africa, the USA, India and Australia without once leaving the UK!  What it does demand though is (a) more thought about organising teams and tasks, (b) reasonable telecomms and IT facilities, (c) most importantly a “can do” attitude on the part of those involved.  By reducing travel in this way organisations can save millions of (select currency of your choice); that’s millions a month for large companies (in 2005-ish just one sector of the company I used to work saved over $1m a month in travel).  Clearly there are jobs which cannot be done remotely: anything which requires specifically my bodily presence, for instance anything medical or where I (and not anyone else) have to handle a specific object; but the range is increasingly small.
  3. The third aspect is the disruption of trade – or at least that part of it which has to be done by air-freighting stuff around the globe. This of course includes food supplies and the postal service.  People are beginning to worry that we are going to run out of food.  While my feeling is that this is unlikely, I concede that our choice of food may be restricted somewhat with anything being air-freighted around the globe dropping off the market – prices will get too inflated to be viable or it won’t be possible to get the commodity from source to shop quickly enough. Indeed all prices may rise as a consequence of supply and demand.  Is this a bad thing?  Well clearly price rises are a bad thing, but beyond that it depends how one views food miles.  For my part I suggest the reduction of food miles is a good thing.

It’s a tough call, and one I’m very glad I don’t have to make.  Who would want to be the person responsible for either closing air space and risking such massive disruption or (perhaps worse) saying it’s OK to fly and then watching 100, 10, even just one, 747 fall out of the sky?  Undoubtedly there is no right answer, but I can’t help feeling I too would err on the side of caution.

So what of the long-term effects of all this?  Well the following seems at least plausible:

  1. There will be a permenant downturn in business travel, as businesses discover they can save lots of cash for a small investment in remote working.  Bad for the airlines; good for business generally and probably good for the work-life balance of many professionals.
  2. There will also be a further downturn in foreign holidays – at least where air travel is required.  Again bad for the airlines and the holiday companies; good for trail/ferry companies, the indigenous holiday sector and maybe even, longer-term, for heavy engineering like shipbuilding.
  3. Also there might, with luck, be a downturn in the amount of food we ship (specifically air-freight) around the world; either because we get used to doing without it, because it can’t be shipped fast enough or because Joe Public won’t pay the inflated prices.  Undoubtedly this will be bad for the producers and the airlines.  But it should be good for local farmers who might be encouraged to put land to better use and it could lead towards the much needed restructuring of world-wide agriculture (which I’ve written about before, see for example here and here).
  4. All of this leads to a long-term downturn in aviation with (if ones believes in it) a positive effect on climate change and probably several airlines going out of business.  

As one of my friends on Facebook has observed: “perhaps we need to get used to the fact that the modern ease of transporting ourselves [and our stuff – K] across continents is not something that should be taken for granted”.

And as a final thought: who can now justify the expansion of Heathrow, or indeed any other airport?

environment, natural history, science

Ancient Woodland

2 Comments
Original image “Magic in the Woods” by H2O Alchemist

One of the organisations to which I belong is the Woodland Trust, a charity devoted to the protection of  Britain’s ancient woodlands and the creation of new woodland.  The latest issue of their newsletter Broadleaf has an article on the importance of biodiversity especially as related to woodland.  It contains quotes from zoologist and wildlife presenter Chris Packham, who will be familiar to many in the UK from his TV appearances.  Here are some very edited snippets:

In December 2008, Natural England, the Government’s conservation agency, issued a stark warning […] “Large parts of England remain in biodiversity freefall and we are still witnessing alarming declines in species and habitats” […]

[This is not] news to […] Chris Packham […] “It doesn’t just mean rare species, like giant pandas, red squirrels or dormice; areas of high species diversity, such as rainforests or ancient woods; iconic creatures like lions and badgers; or economically important species, like cod. Biodiversity encompasses the diversity of all living things, from human beings to micro-organisms, the diversity of all the habitats in which they live and the genetic diversity of individuals within a species”.

Packham, who is excited by everything that slithers, slimes, scratches and stings, and thus counts hornets among his favourite animals, has a particular axe to grind about what some people call ‘pest species’. “If they exist in your community they do so because there’s a role for them to play […] And if you consider yourself someone who wants to promote biodiversity that has to include everything: pigeons, wasps, rats, the lot”.

He has no time either for those who complain loudly about sparrowhawks preying on garden songbirds. “Having sparrowhawks snatching blue tits from your feeder is a good thing […] sparrowhawks are at the top of the food chain and don’t exist unless there’s enough food around” […]

Biodiversity is a fundamental part of the Earth’s life-support system. It provides many basic natural services for humans, such as fresh water, fertile soil and clean air. It helps pollinate our flowers and crops, clean up our waste and put food [and drugs] on the table […]

“We need to think more broadly about biodiversity, and the simplest way is via healthy habitats […] Ancient woodland […] has more diversity than any other terrestrial habitat, and we should never forget that a third of all species that live on our native trees live on them when the trees are dead or dying”.

This largely reflects my own thoughts and beliefs.

I especially like the comment about sparrowhawks catching songbirds. As Noreen observes: “What are they supposed to do?  It’s not as if they can go to Sainsbury’s to buy a cheese sandwich for their lunch!”

I love too the comment on hornets. I meet this horror of buzzy, stingy things all too often: “We’ve got a lot of wasps. How do we get rid of them?” Unless you are life-threateningly allergic to wasp stings (as I know some, like my late mother-in-law, are) the answer is: “You don’t. Leave them alone and they’ll leave you alone. They are wonderful predators and without them we would be knee deep in caterpillars etc.”  I’ve actually seen a wasp catch a bumblebee on the wing; bring it down; snip off it’s wings, legs and head; and carry away the body as food for its larvae. That was worth seeing just for the sheer skill and frightening ruthlessness.  Wasps (and all this applies equally to hornets) are also brilliant at destroying dead wood: we have some 12 inch-ish diameter cedar logs by our pond; in a couple of years the local wasps have totally destroyed a couple of them; they use the chewed up wood as paper for nest-building.  It’s wonderful engineering and recycling!

Nature is red in tooth and claw, and we should cherish and celebrate that.  It’s what keeps us alive!

beliefs, medical, nudism, science, thoughts

Air Baths

Thinking yesterday about nudism, I recalled some connection with the great American statesman, scientist, diplomat and thinker Benjamin Franklin.  And indeed it is so for Franklin was in the habit of taking a daily “air bath”, as he called it.  Almost 250 years ago on 28 July 1768, when in London, Franklin writes to the French physician, Jacques Barbeu-Dubourg:

I greatly approve the epithet which you give, in your letter of the 8th of June, to the new method of treating the small-pox, which you call the tonic or bracing. method; I will take occasion from it to mention a practice to which I have accustomed myself. You know the cold bath has long been in vogue here as a tonic; but the shock of the cold water has always appeared to me, generally speaking, as too violent, and I have found it much more agreeable to my constitution to bathe in another element, I mean cold air. With this view I rise almost every morning, and sit in my chamber without any clothes whatever, half an hour or an hour, according to the season, either reading or writing. This practice is not in the least painful, but, on the contrary, agreeable; and, if I return to bed afterwards, before I dress myself, as sometimes happens, I make a supplement to my night’s rest of one or two hours of the most pleasing sleep that can be imagined. I find no ill consequences whatever resulting from it, and that at least it does not injure my health, if it does not in fact contribute much to its preservation. I shall therefore call it for the future a bracing or tonic bath.

Elsewhere Franklin also writes:

In summer-nights, when I court sleep in vain I often get up and sit at the open window or at the foot of my bed, stark-naked for a quarter of an hour. That simple expedient removes the difficulty (whatever its cause), and upon returning to bed I can generally rely upon getting two or three hours of most refreshing sleep.

Let us remember too that Franklin was no mean inventor.  Amongst other things he gave us: bifocals, the flexible urinary catheter, the lightning conductor, an especially efficient design of wood-burning stove, the odometer, America’s first public library as well as hugely increasing our understanding of electricity and mapping the Gulf Stream.  And as if that wasn’t enough he was one of the founding fathers of the United States.

Who would doubt the wisdom of such a man?

beliefs, science, thoughts

Hume's Guillotine

Astrophysicist Sean Carroll, over at Cosmic Variance, wrote an interesting piece on moral philosophy a few days ago. Carroll was reviewing/commenting on a TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) talk by Sam Harris in which, according to Carroll “he [Harris] claims that science can tell us what to value, or how to be moral”.

Now I’m not concerned with the actual content of Harris’s talk, nor the arguments subsequent upon Carroll’s comments, which you can find in the links from here and here.

My concern is to highlight the interesting proposition in moral philosphy that you can’t derive an “ought” from an “is”. This appears to have been first discussed by philosopher David Hume around 1739 and has become known as Hume’s Guillotine. Wikipedia quotes book III, part I, section I of Hume’s A Treatise of Human Nature:

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark’d, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz’d to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, ’tis necessary that it shou’d be observ’d and explain’d; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.

In case you didn’t follow that (yep, I struggled too!), here’s Carroll’s version from the final paragraphs of his Cosmic Variance piece (remember he’s commenting on Harris’s talk):

In the real world, when we disagree with someone else’s moral judgments, we try to persuade them to see things our way; if that fails, we may (as a society) resort to more dramatic measures like throwing them in jail. But our ability to persuade others that they are being immoral is completely unaffected – and indeed, may even be hindered – by pretending that our version of morality is objectively true […]

The unfortunate part of this is that Harris says a lot of true and interesting things, and threatens to undermine the power of his argument by insisting on the objectivity of moral judgments. There are not objective moral truths (where “objective” means “existing independently of human invention”), but there are real human beings with complex sets of preferences. What we call “morality” is an outgrowth of the interplay of those preferences with the world around us, and in particular with other human beings. The project of moral philosophy is to make sense of our preferences, to try to make them logically consistent, to reconcile them with the preferences of others and the realities of our environments, and to discover how to fulfill them most efficiently. Science can be extremely helpful, even crucial, in that task. We live in a universe governed by natural laws, and it makes all the sense in the world to think that a clear understanding of those laws will be useful in helping us live our lives […] When Harris talks about how people can reach different states of happiness, or how societies can become more successful, the relevance of science to these goals is absolutely real and worth stressing.

Which is why it’s a shame to get the whole thing off on the wrong foot by insisting that values are simply a particular version of empirical facts. When people share values, facts can be very helpful to them in advancing their goals. But when they don’t share values, there’s no way to show that one of the parties is “objectively wrong”. And when you start thinking that there is, a whole set of dangerous mistakes begins to threaten. It’s okay to admit that values can’t be derived from facts […]

All of which seems about right to me; as is the corollary: you can’t derive an “is” from an “ought”, or in words of Flannery O’Connor “the truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it”.

amusements, science

Absurb Scientific Papers

Discoblog over on the science channel Discover has reported today a list of 10 absurd scientific papers of 2009 as highlighted in Wired UK magazine.  I list them here for your delectation:

  1. Optimising the sensory characteristics and acceptance of canned cat food: use of a human taste panel
  2. Effects of cocaine on honeybee dance behaviour
  3. Swearing as a response to pain
  4. Pigeons can discriminate “good” and “bad” paintings by children
  5. The “booty call”: a compromise between men’s and women’s ideal mating strategies
  6. Intermittent access to beer promotes binge-like drinking in adolescent but not adult Wistar rats
  7. Fellatio by fruit bats prolongs copulation time
  8. More information than you ever wanted: does Facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy?
  9. Are full or empty beer bottles sturdier and does their fracture-threshold suffice to break the human skull?
  10. The nature of navel fluff

Can anyone actually explain to me how any one of these papers usefully expands the sum total of human knowledge? No, I thought not.

beliefs, current affairs, freedom of speech, medical, nudism, science, sexuality, thoughts

Nudity, Sex and Sex Education,

2 Comments

I started this post with a dilemma. Do I write it as one long “review” post or split it into several so I can write more in depth about each topic. In the end I decided on the former if only to ensure that the articles I highlight actually get air time and not consigned, by default or laziness, to Bin 101.

In the last week or so there have been a number of items on the intertubes about nudity, sexuality and sex education. Regular readers (What? You mean I have regular readers?) will be aware of my liberal views and my belief that we need to break down society’s taboos in these areas (very much in the Dutch-mode) so my choice of items should come as little surprise.


We Need to Stop Circumcision
Written by Christine Northrup, herself an obstetrician and gynaecologist, this item in the Huffington Post makes a passionate case for not circumcising infant boys, as well as girls. Here are few extracts:

In the weeks ahead, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) are likely to publish a recommendation that all infant boys undergo circumcision. This is a huge mistake. Circumcision is an unnecessary procedure that is painful and can lead to complications, including death. No organization in the world currently recommends this. Why should we routinely remove normal, functioning tissue from the genitals of little boys within days of their birth?

[C]ircumcision was introduced in English-speaking countries in the late 1800s to control or prevent masturbation.

Routine female circumcision, which has been practiced in some cultures, is completely unacceptable … the United Nations has issued a decree against it. Circumcision is a form of sexual abuse whether it’s done to girls or boys.

[M]isleading medical information has begun to surface (yet again) in support of circumcision. This information supports the belief that men with foreskins are more likely to get viral or bacterial infections and pass them on … these are justifications that science has been unable to support. Nor is there any scientific proof that circumcision prevents sexually transmitted diseases.

The United States has high rates of HIV and the highest rate of circumcision in the West. The “experiment” of using circumcision to stem HIV infection [as has been done in Africa] has been running here for decades. It has failed miserably. Why do countries such as New Zealand, where they abandoned infant circumcision 50 years ago, or European countries, where circumcision is rare, have such low rates of HIV?

Circumcision also has profound implications for male sexuality. Studies document that the amount of pleasure a man can receive during intercourse is greater in uncircumcised males. That’s because the male foreskin, like the clitoris, is richly innervated for maximum sexual pleasure. Sexual researchers have determined that men with [their foreskin] are more likely to feel the most pleasure when they make love.

More Sex Education Please, we’re British
This was an article in the Times on 24 February, in which Alice Thomson argued that we (the British) have the highest rate of teenage STDs, abortions and pregnancies in Europe and that the only way this will be reduced is by very open and frank sex education conducted in an adult way. Sniggering behind the bike-sheds, as we British always have done, has gotten us into this mess and won’t get us out of it. Again a telling quote or two:

British children shouldn’t be getting their sex education from Ashley and Cheryl [Cole] but from their parents and teachers. I was once one of those prissy, prudish parents pussyfooting around the question until I was sent to the Netherlands by this newspaper to discuss procreation.

As I walked to De Burght junior school in Amsterdam to talk to the headmaster about his policy, I bumped into eight-year-old Carla carefully balancing a dish. It was a sample of her father’s sperm for “show and tell”. [I bet that had Tunbridge Wells choking on its Shredded Wheat! – Ed.]

In the Netherlands, sex and children aren’t a taboo subject. As pupils play mummies and daddies in the playground they know exactly what they might have been doing last night … a 12-year-old at the senior school showed me how to roll a condom on to a broomstick while her friend asked me if I masturbated.

The British, meanwhile, expect their children to learn about sex and relationships from the playground, internet porn, WAGs and celebrities, and are amazed that we have the highest rate of sexually transmitted diseases and abortions among the under 21s in Europe.

We need to talk about the subject until we can say various anatomical parts without sniggering.

For the first time, I found myself agreeing with Ed Balls [same here – Ed.], the Schools Secretary, on the Today programme yesterday [23 Feb] that sex education should be compulsory in all schools. Of course five-year-olds need to learn about sex, the earlier the better, and from parents as well as teachers.

The Dutch are more religious than the British and still manage to reach consent among Calvinists, Catholics and Muslims that children should be provided with all the facts to make their own informed decisions, not just lectured on morality and the missionary position.

Thoughts on the “hook-up culture,” or what I learned from my high school diary
This appeared on Scarleteen (an excellent site which addresses all sorts of sexuality questions and is aimed at teens and young adults, in a mature and adult way) and elsewhere on 2 March. In it the female writer discusses dating, sex and relationships and how they relate to our current views of feminism and gender roles. A couple of comments particularly struck home with me.

We need to admit as a culture that teens are sexual beings, and that more often than not, sexual maturity has a completely different timeline than emotional maturity. This is, to be sure, skewed by sexism and restrictive gender roles to make sexual coming-of-age worse for girls. But beyond that, maybe discovering what you want sexually and emotionally is just part of growing up – and that’s okay.

Girls deserve to discover themselves sexually at their own pace, to be neither rushed into having sex nor shamed into not having it. They deserve to have their very own “This is bullshit” moments without wearing a chastity belt.

My only comment is something we’re in danger of forgetting: that (despite all the machismo) just the same applies to boys!  If anything it is more important for boys as they first have to slough off that machismo.

Psychology and the Shock of Nudity
This item on the Academic Natuirist weblog addresses the problem of guilt surrounding being discovered naked. For most people the one discovered appears to carry the guilt, which in the view of the writer (and me) is stupid. Again a couple of excepts:

Naturists have a different attitude … You’ve seen me naked? Good! That means I don’t have to get dressed next time you come over …Why should Alice feel bad about seeing Bob naked, if Bob didn’t care at all about it? Alice is not guilty of embarrassing Bob. 
[Equally why should Bob feel guilty at being seen naked if Alice doesn’t care about it? – Ed.]

Getting textiles to not feel guilty about seeing nudity would be a good step for general acceptance [of nudity] … Maybe we’re wrong about how we notify others? The signs … warn “ATTENTION – BEYOND THIS POINT YOU MAY ENCOUNTER NUDE BATHERS” Perhaps the right approach is something like “There’s friendly naked people beyond this sign, and we won’t mind if you stop over and chat with us!”

Naked People – Your Version
Finally a challenge. On 18 February Dairy of a Nudist invited us to take part in a new phase of Sebastian Kempa’s ongoing Naked People project: Naked People Your Version. All you have to do is to submit a pair of identically posed photos of yourself, one clothed the other nude. The idea is, of course, “to help further break down the barrier of clothing which society has imposed to imprison our natural bodies”. I’ve not yet submitted my photos, but I have every intention of doing so in the next week or so. Dare you? – For each one of you who convinces me you’ve submitted your photos (I may ask you for evidence; depends how well I know you!) I’ll make a small donation to charity.  Who’s up for it?