Your Interesting Links

Science & Medicine
The medical profession has come to the conclusion that there are at least 40 common treatments which are not necessary (or don’t do any good).
In an interesting study, researchers conclude that there might be a relationship between migraines and gut bacterial species.
AIDS was brought to the USA by one promiscuous homosexual in 1980-81, right? Wrong; it had been there undetected for years!
So that’s how thy mummified the Egyptians.


Yes, cats obviously do get high on catnip, but not for long.
When is a monkey like a human? When it make stone tools. Yes, monkeys have been discovered making sharp stone tools, but do they know what they’re doing?
Lads, eat your heart out! This newly discovered millipede has four penises — but also 414 legs to get in the way.
OK, so from the animal to the mineral … Scientists have accidentally discovered how to turn CO2 into fuel.
As if we hadn’t guessed it, an ancient book confirms that the whole of the Himalayas is an earthquake zone.
Environment
The River Severn looks set to see Henry III’s favourite fish, the Shad, return after a project to install fish passes at a number of weirs gets funding.
History
A Stone Age dog’s tooth provides evidence of the UK’s earliest known journey.
The Museum of London has acquired a rare and unusual document: verbatim minutes of a report to Parliament on the Great Fire of 1666.
William Hogarth, entrepreneurial Londoner.
­
It seems no-one knew there were some huge holes underneath the Clifton Suspension Bridge.
London
What Is London’s Oldest Church? Define “oldest”. Define “church” even.
It seems that procrastination and fudge are not the preserve of modern major civil engineering wroks. Here’s a brief history of the Regent’s Canal.
And the same again for the Underground’s Northern Line.
London has a new museum. It’s out at Pinner and celebrates the illustrator William Heath Robinson. Diamond Geezer when to investigate. [PS. The chiropractor mentioned is my osteopath.]

A Heath Robinson landscape painting

Westminster Bridge holds some secrets; here are 11 of them.
And another well kept secret is St Paul Cathedral’s triforium. Yet again, IanVisits went to see.
There are many facts about London, and indeed many about the Underground. Here are some Underground facts that aren’t.
Somewhere near Perivale there’s a fighter plane on a rooftop. except tat it isn’t always there.
Finally for this section, a happy 10th birthday to one of our favourite London blogs, IanVisits.
Lifestyle
How to confuse yourself about nothing and also about emptiness. Well that’s Zen for you!
Food & Drink
You mean you didn’t know that you shouldn’t put tomatoes in the fridge? Tut, tut!
Shock, Horror, Humour
Following on from our first item, here are 40 worthless everyday things you can stop doing right now.
More next month.

Pussy Porn

Winter is coming, the cats are getting keener to be in rather than out — not that this stops them going out for a little light mouse-foraging! All afternoon I’ve had two of our three cats with me in the study, very asleep and both determinedly trying to make it rain.
Wiz has found the warm spot in front of the airing cupboard …

wiz_warm_spot_s

Meanwhile Tilly has a little cave amongst the piles of stuff and toot …
tilly_cave_s

Where number three is I have no idea, but doubtless in much the same state!

Oh what a surprise!

So, as usual it seems, we’re now being told that the bill for Heathrow Runway Three is going to be much higher than is being said. Worse, that extra cost is going to fall on the taxpayer and not on the private enterprise (the airport). Yesterday’s Guardian reported former Transport Secretary as the person raising the concern:

“There will be a number of specific things we will be doing for Heathrow. The government and Heathrow need to come clean on what the cost to the taxpayer is going to be.” … While the [Davies] commission report estimated a £5bn bill for new roads and rail links, Transport for London put the potential cost as being as high as £18.4bn.
Heathrow said it had earmarked just £1bn, and that it only accepted direct responsibility for works to the M25, which the third runway would cross, and a few minor roads. The airport contends that it will be cutting traffic, despite adding up to 55 million passengers a year, and that revenues could offset the bill.

Oh? Pray tell me how adding 55 million passengers a year will reduce traffic.
Moreover:

Heathrow confirmed on Wednesday that executives would be paid bonuses, for securing a new runway, that would be expected to run into several million pounds.

And there’s even more …

Campaigners have highlighted an apparent admission that pollution is likely to rise in parts of London with a third runway, which they say potentially makes the scheme illegal.
The report, produced by Parsons Brinckerhoff for the DfT, said that Heathrow was “at risk of worsening exceedances of limit values alongside some roads within greater London, but this would be unlikely to affect the overall zone compliance”.
However, this is likely to be contested. Legal opinion obtained by the Clean Air in London campaign, from Robert McCracken QC, states that worsening pollution in any areas that already exceed legal limits would break the law.

That’s alright then, bugger the law. Oh we’ve already done that.
And don’t you just love “at risk of worsening exceedances of limit values”. WTF language do they think they’re writing? Can’t be Vogon; we’d stand a chance of understanding that.
So as usual it seems we’re not being told the whole story; there are hidden vested interests and conflicts of interest. And the whole funding situation is being fudged so that in years to come it will be too expensive (financially and politically) to scrap the project so it is completed with money we don’t have, provided by central government and filched from the pockets of the already screwed taxpayers — or worse borrowed on the never-never. (See HS2 and London’s proposed Garden Bridge for similar current likely examples.)
It’s another plane crash (in so many ways) waiting to happen. And government don’t get it. In spades. FFS!
PS. I know I live near Heathrow (though not under the main flightpaths) but I don’t care where this runway is going to be built. We shouldn’t be doing it. And we certainly shouldn’t be doing it — like most major projects — in such an underhand way.

Heath-NO!

So yesterday, quite predictably and after years of dithering, the government decided that it is going to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport.
They still don’t get it, do they? See a number of earlier posts hereabouts.
So why do they do it? I suspect it is a combination of (A) vested interests (ie. the business lobby and politicians share portfolios), (B) the fact that governments (like senior managers) have to be seen to do something and almost anything will do especially if it distracts from the real problems they should be fixing, and (C) vanity. And that, of course, is all that matters. Bugger the environment etc. etc.
Not that any work is likely to be done for 4 or 5 years. There is still to be (another?) public consultation followed by parliamentary approval. Add to that all the planning decisions, every one of which you can be sure will be appealed by someone, causing even further delay. Meanwhile the whole of west London — already a disaster jungle of concrete — has another Sword of Damocles (in addition to that of HS2) hanging over it.
So there is still plenty of chance the third runway will never happen, and even by the time it can happen some people will have got the message that (a) it will be an environmental disaster (wherever it is sited) and (b) we really should not need to be flying people around the world the way they do.
As someone commented yesterday, we suddenly seem to be building big things — most of which we really don’t need (eg. runway three, HS2). Moreover we cannot afford them — we have no money, at least so we’re always being told. Nor do we have the labour to either build or operate these facilities as unemployment is at historic low levels. So where do we find the cash and the workers? Oh yes, of course: inward investment and immigrants, neither of which will happen after Brexit.
There is still time for common sense to prevail, but don’t hold your breath.
Gawdelpus!

Why?

No, OK, I do understand why. But it is a real pain …
Yesterday morning I had my ‘flu jab. I do this every year as (a) I’m now over 65 and (b) I have diabetes so I’m considered to be at “high risk”.
By mid-afternoon yesterday I was feeling rough. Last night I might as well have had ‘flu, I felt so awful — and I was so hot you could have fried an egg on me. (What a nasty idea!) I felt marginally better this morning and luckily I’ve gradually been improving as today has gone on.
Every year follows a similar pattern. 10+ years ago when I first started having ‘flu jabs they would make me feel rough for maybe half a day; on one classic occasion I felt awful for just one hour.
However a few years ago, when the vaccine contained “bird ‘flu” it knocked me out for over a week. Each year since then the vaccination has affected me for at least two full days, usually starting about24 hours after the injection. Consequently I scheduled this year’s shot when I knew I had three four days clear afterwards. It’s just as well I did, although if it has knocked me down for little more than 24 hours this year that’s definitely progress.
Yes, I do understand why this happens. Although the vaccine cannot give you ‘flu (the constituent strains are either live but attenuated or are totally inactive) like all vaccines they stimulate the immune system into producing antibodies — that’s what they’re supposed to do. And it is this reaction of the immune system, which thinks the body is being attacked, which causes the “illness” side-effects. What’s curious is that not everyone get these side-effects; and of course there are a small number of people (eg. those who are allergic to eggs) who cannot have the vaccine (or have to have an expensively produced alternative).
While the side effects are not pleasant they generally only last a day or two, and for my money they are far better than having real ‘flu which could last 2 weeks even without complications.
It’s just a nuisance to have to go through this every year. However until a way is found to produce a reliable “one shot forever” ‘flu vaccine we are stuck with annual injections. The ‘flu viruses are so variable, and they mutate so quickly, that the vaccine has to be changed every year. The game is to pre-guess which strains are most likely to be active during ‘flu season — for the northern hemisphere this guess has to be taken in February for the following winter; that’s because of the time required to produce the vaccine. When the experts guess right the vaccine is maybe 75-80% effective; guess wrong (as happened last year because of a late mutation) and effectiveness may be down at around 10%.
So while having a ‘flu jab is an annual PITA, it is one which for me is worth it. Until we get a universal vaccination, that is.

Climate Change and Airport Expansion

In a comment piece entitled Climate change means no airport expansion — at Heathrow or anywhere in yesterday’s Guardian, George Monbiot has got his knife out again.
His thesis is that:

The inexorable logic that should rule out new sources of oil, gas and coal also applies to the expansion of airports. In a world seeking to prevent climate breakdown, there is no remaining scope for extending infrastructure that depends on fossil fuels … While most sectors can replace fossil fuels with other sources, this is not the case for aviation … Aviation means kerosene.

Essentially The UK cannot meet it’s climate change commitments now and building another airport runway (whether at Heathrow, Gatwick or anywhere else) is only going to compound the problem.
We have to fly less — for both business and leisure. Business has to wake up to the fact that it doesn’t have to fly people around the world — or even drive them around the country — to meetings. We all have to wake up to the fact that we cannot afford — environmentally, and probably soon financially — to jet off around the world on holiday several times a year.
I know I keep saying it, but it really is time to wake up and smell the coffee at home!
[And no, Monbiot doesn’t make this stuff up. There’s a fully referenced and linked version of the article at http://www.monbiot.com/2016/10/19/the-flight-of-reason/.]

Brexit Scrutiny

Law and Lawyers reports that the House of Lords EU Select Committee has issued a new report, Brexit: Parliamentary Scrutiny.
There are three key findings:

  • It would be in the interests of Government, Parliament and the public for Parliament to vote on the Government’s Brexit negotiation guidelines before Article 50 is triggered.
  • Too much is at stake — including many key aspects of domestic policy — for Ministers and officials to be allowed to take decisions behind closed doors, without parliamentary and democratic scrutiny.
  • Allowing Parliament to provide timely and constructive commentary throughout the negotiations would increase the likelihood of Parliament and the public accepting the final deal.

But critically, as Law and Lawyers quotes from the report:

The forthcoming negotiations on Brexit will be unprecedented in their complexity and their impact upon domestic policy … it seems … inconceivable that [the executive] should take the many far-reaching policy decisions that will arise in the course of Brexit without active parliamentary scrutiny.
[The government must] recognise a middle ground between the extremes of micromanagement and mere accountability after the fact.
Within this middle ground, Parliament, while respecting the Government’s need to retain room for manoeuvre, should be able both to monitor the Government’s conduct of the negotiations, and to comment on the substance of the Government’s negotiating objectives as they develop. Only if these principles are accepted will Parliament be able to play a constructive part in helping the Government to secure the best outcome for the United Kingdom. Such scrutiny will also contribute to a greater sense of parliamentary ownership of the process, strengthening the Government’s negotiating position and increasing the likelihood that the final agreement will enjoy parliamentary and public support.

Which, in my view, is quite correct. However I perceive two flies in the ointment:

  1. There is an underlying assumption that government will actually listen to, and act upon, the views expressed in Parliament and not just ride roughshod over Parliament’s wishes. Governments (of whatever persuasion) don’t have good track record on this.
  2. Having full and open Parliamentary debate and scrutiny perforce puts the content of that debate in the public domain, and thus exposes, in advance, the likely negotiating strategy to “the enemy”, thus allowing the EU to easily negate the UK’s position. That is unlikely to bring about the best possible outcome for the UK, although it is the only strategy which is likely to provide buy-in from the electorate without accusations of fudge and the protection of the elite’s vested interests.

Honest, open and considered Parliamentary scrutiny is essential.