Category Archives: thoughts

science, thoughts

Nasty Niffs

None of us like nasty, putrid, smells. I’m thinking of the things we actually find disgusting like shit, vomit and decaying corpses. Nor is it a subject we normally wish to dwell on.
However the other evening I was set thinking by a particularly pungent and foul pile of turd produced by one of our kittens …
Have you ever noticed how these odours are particularly good at lingering in the nostrils long after their source has been removed? Why is that?
We know that disgust is a universal human trait, and that there is a fairly common set of trigger odours — things like putrescine and cadaverine — found in all human societies and cultures. And this is for good reason. Evolution has programmed us to react to these odours to ensure we stay away from their source as these are substances which are likely to be harmful to us.
These odour molecules are mostly either organic sulphur or nitrogen compounds — think hydrogen sulphide (rotten eggs) and ammonia. And it isn’t just bodily decay or excrement that lingers. Another scent I’ve noticed lingering is the acrid (sulphurous) smoke from burning rubber, lino etc. It generally does seem to be the smells one hates which seem to last.
But why? What is the mechanism whereby these odours appear to linger?
Is it a trait which evolution has fixed because it is useful? Or is it a random effect of the chemistry involved which just hasn’t been evolved out? One assumes the former. But how?
Cadaverine and putrescene are relatively small diamines (ammonia derivatives) which result from the breakdown of amino acids. Other pungent and lasting odour molecules are sulphur based and can bond especially tightly to other organic molecules (ie. they’re “sticky”).
That seems to lead us to a number of possible mechanisms by which the effect, whether positively evolved in, or not evolved out, could work:

  1. The molecules concerned could be more soluble in, or more adherent to, the mucus which lines our nasal passages compared with other odour molecules. Thus they would be available longer to the odour receptors. (As the molecules are likely quite polar, both mechanisms are possible.)
  2. It could be that the mucus itself protects the molecules (whether dissolved or adhered) from whatever enzymes would naturally break them down.
  3. Then there is the question of their binding to the olfactory receptor itself. Do they bind so tightly that they cannot be freed to be degraded by the body’s chemistry?
  4. Or does their binding with the olfactory receptor change the molecule’s conformation, or hide it, from the degrading enzymes?
  5. Or again, it may not be chemical at all. The effect may be in the brain, with the nerve messages themselves being retained for a protracted period, even after the odour molecule has been broken down.

And there may well be other mechanisms. The mechanism maybe different for different molecules. And the above mechanisms are not mutually exclusive; particular odourants may be subject to multiple mechanisms.
Which in itself tells us nothing about the possible evolutionary mechanism.
I can’t believe that no-one has done any work on this. Some scientist, somewhere, has surely investigated the longevity of nasty niffs. A quick search hasn’t turned up anything very useful, so does anyone know? I’m curious!

beliefs, personal, thoughts

Five Questions, Series 8 #5

And so we crawl our way to the last of my current series of Five Questions.

★★★★★

Question 5: If you could write a note to your younger self, what would you say in only two words?
Wow! Two words is actually quite hard. Almost everything one can think of is at least four words.
So one is tempted to go with the advice forum Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy: DON’T PANIC!
But I think instead the advice I could best have used and learnt to implement when younger was:

QUIT WORRYING!

Just learn to let everything flow over you, although that does mean I no longer do “excited”, “panic” or “real anger” any more. I’ll happily forego the “excited” in return from the relief from “panic” and “anger”.

★★★★★

OK, so that’s the end of this series of Five Questions. I hope you’ve enjoyed it, maybe learnt something (if only about the oddness of my mind) and possibly even had a think yourself.
If I can find enough good questions I may do another series later in the year. So if you have a good question, or something you want to ask, then do please get in touch.
Meanwhile, be good!

beliefs, personal, thoughts

Five Questions, Series 8 #4

Ah, so we’re getting towards the end with this the fourth of the current round of Five Questions.

★★★★☆

Question 4: Would you ever admit to being racist?
Yes, of course …
Hello. My name is Keith and I am a racist.
I wish I wasn’t thus, but I am.
In fact whether we like it or not we are all racists, although some are better at hiding it than others.
Yes, that’s right, we are all racists. It is a tribal thing.
We have sports teams, religions, political parties and socioeconomic classes. And yes, people of different colours, ethnicities and languages. We go through life knowing and interacting with people like “us”, lodging contentious feelings towards “them”. We do it now, and we always have.
Like all animals we all identify with, and thus instinctively prefer, our own tribe and our own territory. And thus by implication we dislike — in extreme cases even hate — the next tribe. The tribe that lives the other side of the river or mountain. Or the one up the valley who are a different colour. I’m green, I’m right, I’m good; you’re red, you’re wrong, nasty, diseased etc.
Neighbouring groups of chimpanzees will fight with each other. As will meerkats and many other species. Yes, this is partly territorial; but to me that is all part of racism. Many animals will ostracise, even kill, a comrade who is a different colour (say, albino).
We do this naturally; at least it is not something most of us are overtly taught. If anything we have to be taught not to do this.
Some of us learn better than others. And some of us can apply the lessons better than others. It’s a bit like learning woodwork or French at school — some can, easily; others never can. I like to think I am one of the better amongst us, but I’m probably not the best person to judge that.
But underneath I am still a racist. We are all racists. All we can ever do is learn to subdue it.

current affairs, ramblings, thoughts

I want my country back

I want my country back
This is the constant refrain of the collection of spivs and barrow-boys who are hectoring us to vote to leave the EU.
And which of us wouldn’t agree?
I certainly would like my country back. But not the country of the “good old days” — formerly known as “these trying times” — as so well hammed up by AA Gill in last weekend’s Sunday Times [no link to the original as it’s paywalled, but the text has been posted on Facebook].
What I want is a country of sanity.
A country without gratuitous violence and sexual abuse.
A country where we all treat everyone as an equal …
… and other people as we would wish to be treated ourselves.
A country which is not run by self-serving, sleazy, megalomaniacs.
A country where there is a right to privacy, but also transparent & honest government …
… a right to free education up to and including university first degree level …
… a right to properly funded, excellent healthcare, free at the point of use, for all.
A society without corporate greed and unnecessary obsolescence.
A country which cares more for the environment than it does for corporate profit.
A country without a “me, me, me” “now, now, now” culture of instant gratification and ever mounting personal debt.
A country where sexuality, nudity and “soft drug” use are normalised, not marginalised and criminalised.
A country where (like Bhutan) Gross National Happiness is more important than Gross National Product as the measure of success.
I don’t care about the golden days of the Hovis bread adverts, when all men wore hats and ties, beer was 2p a pint, and we all lived in hovels with a privvy at the bottom of the yard. I’m not asking for them to return. And I’m not asking for Utopia.
I’m quite content to take a modern society with modern conveniences. I just believe we have the balance completely wrong.
And it is this lack of balance which is basically screwing us.
Unfortunately we are not going to even think about this, let alone get anywhere near it, with the present set of political lizards, whether they’re in parliament & local government or whether they’re journalists, commentators or other media hangers-on. There are just too many entrenched attitudes and vested interests. Turkeys vote neither for Christmas nor Thanksgiving.
We aren’t going to get it either by voting to leave the EU or remain in the EU. In this sense the EU referendum is as pointless and meaningless as it is tedious and divisive.
No, the only way we are going to achieve this is by a complete paradigm shift. A paradigm shift that happens to the whole country, not just a few intelligent idiots like me. It has to be a vision of the majority. A vision which the majority can find a way to implement in our governance structures. A vision which we, the people, can make stick.
I don’t know how we do this. I don’t even know how we start to do this. I really don’t.
But I do know that this is what we desperately need.

beliefs, personal, thoughts

Five Questions, Series 8 #3

And so question three of the latest round of Five Questions.

★★★☆☆

Question 3: Is masturbation a homosexual act?
There’s a body of very right wing, conservative Christianity (maybe other theisms too) which maintains that solo male masturbation (after all women would never do such a thing) is a homosexual act (the man is touching a penis) and therefore must indeed lead to the horrors of homosexuality.
I see the logic, in as far as it goes, but I don’t agree. For me homosexuality is defined as involving two (or more) persons of the same gender; one just doesn’t hack it. Whatever one might think about Onanism (and I view it as beneficial) homosexual it isn’t.
Thus I reject the idea. Not just because it is wrong, but also because it is believed by some set of wacky nut-jobs, who I neither like nor trust.
And anyway so what if masturbation is a homosexual act? Do all of us (male and female) not have at least a tiny percentage of homosexual leanings? And why does it matter anyway?
Get a life, guys!

current affairs, ramblings, thoughts

Despair, or not?

I’m beginning to get despondent — no, let’s have this right, I’m now getting ever more deeply despondent — about the EU Referendum on 23 June.
I’m worried that the great British public will vote to LEAVE the EU. They certainly will if the current opinion polls are anything to go by as most seem to be showing LEAVE several points ahead with relatively few undecided voters. Typically the polls I’ve seen in the last week seem to be showing roughly REMAIN on 42% and LEAVE on 44%.
What deepened my worries is the state of mind of the “unthinking masses”. There’s a group on Facebook for the town where I grew up — a town now predominantly populated by people I can only best describe as “Essex chavs” (although that does do an injustice to many). Someone bravely put a poll on the Facebook group asking what people would vote. When I looked a few minutes ago the figures were REMAIN 28, LEAVE 158.
WHAT! Yes, that’s right, almost 6:1 in favour of LEAVE. I find that really scary because it implies that the LEAVE campaign’s fear-mongering, mostly on immigration, has got through to the minds of the less critical masses.
I fear that Joe Public is going to vote according to his tribal and xenophobic, Daily Mail, mindset — just as in many other things he (and she) will always vote with their wallet. Even many immigrants, and children of immigrants, are saying they’ll vote LEAVE because of immigration.
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m OK with a LEAVE vote as long as it is based on some concrete foundations. However I know that Joe Public doesn’t work that way; he votes according to his fears and predilections, not because of good logic. Remember the old research which says that 5% of people can think and do; 5% of people cannot think; the other 90% can thing but just can’t be bothered — and that is partly because they have never been properly taught to do so.
It is going to take an awful lot of thinking citizens to overcome odds like that.
Part of the problem is that people cannot grasp that this whole thing is a big gamble; but a gamble where no-one knows what any of the odds are! This was summed up a couple of days ago by Martin Lewis of moneysavingexpert.com under the title How to vote in the EU referendum. His article is quite nicely balanced; Lewis points out the good and the bad with the EU. Here are a few key snippets:

It’s the biggest consumer decision any of us will ever make. It affects our economy, foreign policy, immigration policy, security and sovereignty. Our vote on whether the UK should leave the EU will reverberate through our lifetimes, and those of our children and grandchildren.
… … …
My mailbag’s been drowning with questions and concerns. The biggest being: “Please just tell us the facts, what’ll happen if we leave?” I’m sorry, but the most important thing to understand is: there are no facts about what happens next.
Anyone who tells you they KNOW what’ll happen if we leave the EU is a liar. Predicting exact numbers for economic, immigration or house price change is nonsense. What’s proposed is unprecedented. All the studies, models and hypotheses are based on assumptions — that’s guesstimate and hope.

Oh, and that applies equally to both sides of the debate! There are no facts; just guesses.
Lewis goes on to recommend that we “do some reading on useful independent sites that run through the issues” and suggests we start with The UK in a Changing Europe which is run by King’s College, London and pools balanced articles from all sides.
He then, quite rightly, points out …

… for most people this comes down to a risk assessment.
A vote for Brexit is unquestionably economically riskier than a vote to remain. Yet don’t automatically read risk as a bad thing. It simply means there’s more uncertainty …
Leaving the EU risks us being left on the sidelines …
Or we could in the long run become a nimble low-tax, low-regulation, tiger economy …
The likely truth is of course somewhere between the two. But most independent analysis suggests Brexit will be detrimental to the economy.
… … …
The volume of uncertainty means the only way to make the right decision is based on your political attitude to the EU, your gut instinct, and how risk-averse you are on each area that matters to you.

All I would say is please do this consciously, after carefully weighing the options, and don’t necessarily go just with your gut feelings (important though they are). In the words of Frank Zappa “a mind is like a parachute — it doesn’t work if it is not open“.
I happen to think that on balance leaving the EU would be the worse option — and heaven knows there’s so much about the EU I don’t like. But I could be wrong. We all could be wrong. As with all things there is no “RIGHT” answer.
And remember, again as Lewis comments, “the future is always a journey” but the path is crazy paving and you lay it yourself as you go along.
Good luck! We’re all going to need it whichever path we take.

beliefs, personal, thoughts

Five Questions, Series 8 #2

And so we come to answering question two of my latest round of Five Questions.

★★☆☆☆

Question 2: Give me an unpopular opinion you have
Oh, my word! There are so many of these. Here have a selection …

  1. Sex work of all kinds should be decriminalised – indeed encouraged.
  2. Every leisure centre and swimming pool (whether publicly or privately run) should be required to hold at least three one-hour mixed-sex nude sessions each week between 8am and 8pm with one of them on a weekday between 9am and 5pm and one at a weekend.
  3. All toilets should be omnisex. And all changing rooms should also be omnisex and without cubicles.
  4. All sports teams should be mixed-sex. (If the armed forces can do mixed sex frontline troops, why can’t sports teams?)
  5. The private motor car should be banned.

Well, no-one said you had to like them or that they had to be practical.

beliefs, personal, thoughts

Five Questions, Series 8 #1

OK, let’s go. Here’s the answer to the first of my latest round of Five Questions.

★☆☆☆☆

Question 1: Can we understand everything?
No. Not a hope in hell. At least I bloody hope we don’t.
One of the defining features of our species is our ability to make connections. From birth, we can’t help but recognise patterns — and hence we begin to understand how the world works. What goes for us individually applies to our species as well. The history of science is the history of seeing ever deeper connections between apparently unrelated phenomena. And there is no reason to suppose that this won’t continue ad infinitum.
However chimps, smart as they are compared with, say, tortoises, will (we assume) never grasp quantum theory, or even recognise the need for such a theory. And although we are smarter than chimps (at least for some measures of “smarter”), why shouldn’t there be concepts that are too big or too complex for our brains to handle? Even too big/complex for us to be aware of?
So isn’t it just arrogance to think that we will, one day, understand everything? And anyway, isn’t being able to understand everything a frightening prospect? Because then we would know what everyone else was thinking; all the time; about everything from apples to zoophilia. That way madness surely lies.

beliefs, personal, thoughts

Five Questions, Series 8

2 Comments

OMG it is over a year since I started the last round of Five Questions. So at long last I bring you another series.
Here in Series 8 we have a slightly more serious group of questions — although I don’t guarantee entirely serious answers. So without more ado …

★★★★★

The five questions for Series 8 are:

  1. Can we understand everything?
  2. Give me an unpopular opinion you have
  3. Is masturbation a homosexual act?
  4. Would you ever admit to being racist?
  5. If you could write a note to your younger self, what would you say in only two words?


Unlike the last series, I will post answers on a regular basis, because I’ve decided to write the answers up front, probably before this post even goes live! Yes, I know it’s cheating. But so what?
As always you’re all invited to sing along — I’d like it if you all joined in! You can either answer the questions, as I answer them, by posting in the comments or by posting your answers on your own blog (in which case just leave a comment here so we can find your words of wisdom).
The answer to Question 1 should appear in a couple of days time and then they’ll be at roughly weekly intervals.
Enjoy!

current affairs, medical, thoughts

Alcoholic Puritans

As Simon Barnes (former Chief Sports Writer of the Times) pointed out long ago, alcohol is the West’s drug of choice. But we live in a puritan country, and one where the government is getting ever more puritan and attempting to curtail anything of which it doesn’t approve.
Hence this week we have seen new government guidelines on the consumption of alcohol which are hyperbolic and puritan [Telegraph, 08/01/2016]. Or in the words of Simon Jenkins in the Guardian [08/01/2016]: These absurd new guidelines on how much alcohol we should drink are patronising and will have negligible effect on people’s health … These limits are about a vague national self-image of puritanism, not health.
At a swoop the alcohol limit for men has been halved to 14 units a week. Yes, halved. They say the previous limit was 21 units, but it wasn’t; the guidelines said 3-4 units a day; that’s up to 28 units a week. Similarly the limit for women has been reduced from 21 units (2-3 units a day) to 14. That, my friends, is the first piece of statistical obfuscation in the announcements — and it is one none of the media seem to have noticed.
As the Telegraph points out, one simple rule in life is that if A tries to tell B not to do something, B will probably want to do it all the more. Especially if A works for the government and is therefore ipso facto not trusted and seen as hectoring.
According to the Chief Medical Officer there is no safe level of alcohol consumption. While technically this may be true, it is disingenuous. The report’s figures show that there is a small but significant increased risk of breast cancer for women who drink; and similarly an increase in some of the rarer cancers (eg. oesophageal cancer) in men.
So what is the data behind this? Well the figures being quoted in the media are:

Cancer 0 Units 1-14 Units >14 units
Breast, female 11% 12.5% 15.5%
Bowel, male 6.5% 6.5% 8.5%
Bowel, female 5% 5% 6.5%
Oesophagal, male 0.5% 1.5% 2.5%

[Note: these numbers have been rounded to the nearest 0.5%; allowing for error bars the statistics cannot possibly be any more accurate than this.]
So if I drink more than 14 units a week I am 2% more likely to get bowel cancer (for which I am already being regularly monitored) or oesophageal cancer (which is pretty rare). And note this is over my lifetime (three-quarters or more of which has already passed), not per year.
Let’s give this some perspective … For comparison, in the UK we have a less than 0.5% lifetime chance of dying in some form of transportation accident (the vast majority of which is down to road travel). [In the USA this risk is over 1%.] Moreover in the UK the risk of dying from coronary heart disease alone is around 14% for men and 10% for women.
To quote the Telegraph again, the hyperbolic claim that there is no safe limit at all — that someone is taking their life into their own hands when they enjoy a glass of sherry — defies common sense. The report even admits the health risks of drinking within its recommended limits are comparable to those from “regular or routine activities, such as driving”. And that is something we all accept for both convenience and enjoyment.
As Christopher Snowdon, Head of Lifestyle Economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs observed [Telegraph, again]: Alcohol consumption has been falling for a decade. The change to the guidelines will turn hundreds of thousands of people into ‘hazardous drinkers’ overnight thereby reviving the moral panic about drinking in Britain and opening the door to yet more nanny state interventions. People deserve to get honest and accurate health advice from the Chief Medical Officer, not scaremongering.
And this from Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk, University of Cambridge: These guidelines define ‘low-risk’ drinking as giving you less than a 1 per cent chance of dying from an alcohol-related condition … An hour of TV watching a day, or a bacon sandwich a couple of times a week, is more dangerous to your long-term health.
Or Simon Jenkins again: Everything we do in life is risky … We would be furious if Whitehall laid down risk and safety limits for riding horses, climbing mountains, eating foreign food and playing rugby. All involve far greater danger than marginal changes in consuming alcohol.
No wonder the government and the Chief Medical Officer have been accused of nanny state scaremongering.
But let’s be clear what the government are doing here. This is puritanism and prohibition by the back-door. Tobacco has already been made socially unacceptable. This is the campaign to do the same for alcohol. And note that they have already started on sugar.
And we all know that prohibition doesn’t work; it drives the problem underground and deprives the government of tax revenue.
As citizens it is our right — indeed our duty — to stand out against such ill-conceived nanny-state control. It is high time that people were empowered to take responsibility for their own lives, the risks they take and their quality of life (something which is all too often overlooked) without hectoring “advice” from on high. Unless we do so we are rapidly sliding down the slippery slope to Orwell’s 1984 and Huxley’s Brave New World.
I, for one, will be treating this new guidance with the contempt it deserves.