A few things arising from Fukushima

Here's a few things I have learnt from the coverage of the Fukushima accident:

1. Criticality accidents: well, I'm not Homer Simpson, and haven't ever read that much about dangers of operating nuclear plants, but the uncertainty over whether Fukushima has had some criticality incidents led to this explanation of what they are at the Time Ecocentric blog:

To nuclear workers, there are few events more fearful than a criticality accident. In such a scenario, the fissile material in a reactor core--be it enriched uranium or plutonium--undergoes a spontaneous chain reaction, releasing a flash of aurora-blue light and a surge of neutron radiation; the gamma rays, neutrons and radioactive fission products emitted during criticality are highly dangerous to humans. Criticality occurs so rapidly--within a few fractions of a second--and so unpredictably that it can suddenly kill workers without warning. There have been 60 criticality incidents worldwide since 1945. The most recent occurred in Japan in 1999, at an experimental reactor in Tokai, when a beam of neutrons killed two workers, hospitalized dozens of emergency workers and nearby residents, and forced hundreds of thousands to remain indoors for 24 hours.

Nature has a post detailing the controversy as to whether small scale criticality accidents have been happening at Fukushima.

2. Jimmy Carter took part in a dangerous reactor rescue in 1952:

The reactor in Chalk River, Canada, about 180 kilometres (110 miles) from Ottawa, was used to enrich plutonium for America's atomic bombs. On December 12th 1952 it exploded, flooding the reactor building’s basement with millions of litres of radioactive water. Lieutenant Carter, a nuclear specialist on the Seawolf submarine programme, and his men were among the few people with the security clearance to enter a reactor. From Schenectady, New York, they rode the train up and got straight to work.

"The radiation intensity meant that each person could spend only about ninety seconds at the hot core location," wrote Mr Carter in "Why Not the Best?", an autobiography published in 1975 when he was campaigning for the presidency.

The team built an exact replica of the reactor on a nearby tennis court, and had cameras monitor the actual damage in the reactor's core. "When it was our time to work, a team of three of us practised several times on the mock-up, to be sure we had the correct tools and knew exactly how to use them. Finally, outfitted with white protective clothes, we descended into the reactor and worked frantically for our allotted time," he wrote. "Each time our men managed to remove a bolt or fitting from the core, the equivalent piece was removed on the mock-up."

Impressive.

3. A commentary piece in Nature News today shares my view that the rush of some nuclear proponents to downplay the extent of the problems from this accident has not been helpful. It notes three lessons with wide implications for the nuclear industry around the world:

a. co-siting of nuclear reactors is (apparently) common in Western countries "because the only communities that will accept new nuclear plants are those that already have them." Yet the problem is, as we can see, have one go seriously wrong, and it can badly hamper the safe operation of the rest on the same site.

b. light water reactors melt if the water isn't there:

These designs are compact and relatively inexpensive, but their potential for meltdown was once obvious enough that Britain spent 30 years trying to develop gas-cooled alternatives. But, now that PWRs are the only viable design for new nuclear build, that extensive search for a safer design seems to have been forgotten by many of those who promote a nuclear future.

c. spent fuel rods have no where to go in Britain and the US.

The commentary then notes:

These legitimate technical criticisms of Fukushima, and of planned nuclear build, have been largely drowned out by the flood of technical reassurance offered by nuclear scientists and engineers in the wake of the disaster. For example, reassuring soundbites offered to journalists by the London-based Science Media Centre (which is funded by a variety of scientific bodies and industries, including Nature Publishing Group) in the days immediately after the earthquake contained barely a cautionary note on how serious the situation at Fukushima was set to become. Instead, the scientific establishment and those whose careers are invested in nuclear power have sought to convince the public that 'science' supports nuclear power. Too many specialists have assured us of the general safety of nuclear power without adequately addressing specific concerns.

Pretty much what I said.

For my benefit (and yours?)

Often, when helping the kids with something for school being prepared on the computer, I want to find a free bit of relevant clipart. Unfortunately, mere Googling often takes me to clipart sites that are not actually entirely free, and it can take a while to again find collections that are.

The always fun to read Red Ferret Journal (I still say its the wittiest gadget blog around) has had a few links to completely free clipart over the years, and I usually go and search that site. But it's probably simpler to list them all here, for faster searching:

WP Clipart

Open Clip Art Library

Public Domain Clipart

Free Graphics.com

FreeFoto.com (not clipart per se, but useful)

Stockvault (photos)

On a different topic, Red Ferret also had a recent post entitled:

15 Best Websites for Free E-Books

I haven't checked any of them yet, but I will one day. The only free book download place I have used before is ebook3000.com, but now it seems to be mainly full of illegal scans and copies; although if you into old esoteric copies of Playboy (Playboy Latvia, March 2011 is already there, for example), it would seem to be the place to go.

The Return

Well, that was remiss of me, not noticing the return of Bryan Appleyard to regular blogging after a significant break.

And he's in fine, cheery form. Here, for example, is his short take on Ayn Rand:

Now I have just been watching a film by a friend of mine which includes some startling material about Rand, all of which confirmed my dismal judgment of this ‘thinker’ as a dud novelist, a terrible philosopher and a political theorist of staggering and dangerous naivete. Hearing about her life with her circle of infatuated admirers, it suddenly came to me who she is. Ayn Rand, a Russian, is the reincarnation of another Russian – Madame Helena Blavatsky, the theosophical prophetess who wowed polite but gullible London society until her death in 1891. Blavatsky did, in fact, promise reincarnation, her last words were, ‘Keep the link unbroken! Do not let my last incarnation be a failure.’ The reincarnation was a roaring success: Rand was a chain smoker, like Blavatsky, and a total bozo, like Blavatsky.

A very good comparison, I think. And Rand gets a mention in passing later, when talking about Alan Greenspan's apparent recant of his recant, which I'll copy in full:

Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve and one of Ayn Rand’s innermost circle, writes a curious piece in the FT. The piece is curious, first, because Greenspan writes a little like F.R.Leavis – incredibly badly, clotted, pompous, circumlocutory in away that is designed simultaneously to advertise and conceal high intelligence. It is, secondly, curious because, it seems, Greenspan, having created the over-financialised system that made the crash inevitable, then having recanted, is now recanting his recantation. Leaving aside the details of the Dodd-Frank Act, Greenspan points out that nobody forecast the crash, quite the contrary, that there is no hard science of markets, and that, on the whole, global financial markets are good for growth. He points out that finance has seized a much larger share of all major economies and, finally, wonders whether this larger share ‘has been a necessary condition of growth in the past half century‘ and whether there is a necessary link between greater financial complexity and higher standards of living. This is obfuscation, as is the suave justification of bankers’ bonuses. In power, Greenspan got it wrong because of his Randian market superstition and, as many of the commenters say, that fact alone is enough to destroy his authority in these matters. Recent evidence suggests strongly that excessive financialisation of our economy increases risk and, in the long term, reduces growth. Doesn’t everybody know that?

So good to have him back.

Makes me feel better

Gee, when the very reasonable Ken Parish at Club Troppo does a post that talks at length about aboriginal problems being intractable until traditional aboriginal cultural ideas change (such as the belief in sorcery and curses, which lead to protracted payback violence between clans, and "sorry business" that means aboriginal businesses close for a long period to mourn a death), it makes me feel better about having suggested years ago that maybe it's currently pointless trying to built permanent, vandal proof housing in all remote localities. Really nice tents, or yurt-y type things, sited around shared ablution blocks was my suggestion. Just give then a new one every year or two. They can pack up and move away from the clan they're fighting with, too.

I'll keep repeating this idea once a year until someone notices and mentions it to the Minister.

Told you they were evil...

BBC - Earth News - Males make pregnant horses abort

Horse breeders, including thoroughbred breeders in the UK, often send mares to stables to be mated with stallions.

But a study reveals that, when they return, the pregnant mares engage in "promiscuous sex" with males in their home stables, in an attempt to disguise the paternity of the foal.

When this is not possible, the mares often abort the pregnancy.

So, they look dumb and are depraved. I miss the days when animals were put on trial...

Wrong again, times two

Watts Up With That from 24 March ran at the top of its blog for a good few days the story of the excruciatingly tedious Steve McIntyre finding that there was “deleted data” at the starting end (so to speak) of a graph of tree ring proxy data by Briffa that appeared in Science in 1999. “Where are the academic cops?” asked Watts in a facetious post heading.

Of course, this then got picked up by Andrew Bolt on 25 March, and Catallaxy, the blog where the centre right and libertarians go to be wrong about climate change, on 28 March. The only surprise in this process is that Tony Abbott didn’t turn up in Parliament flourishing a copy of the graph.

Someone at Watts (after scores of comments claiming this was another outrageous outrage) did suggest that, well, maybe excluding the data that is so obviously not a reliable proxy in the period in question is the right way to go if, you know, you are trying to work out the correct temperature in the period.

Turns out the explanation is even better. Nick Stokes explains:

A file had been discovered which showed data down to 1400, and if you plot it, it goes into oscillations in the years before 1550. Since it is clear that this is in a period of rapidly diminishing data, and very likely caused by that, I thought that would die fairly quickly, but no, as these things go, it was promoted to a grand ethical violation, megaphoned at WUWT, and taken up at the Air Vent, where it was seen as "unbelievable fraud"….

Well, it seemed clear to me that the available data is just getting low as we go back beyond 1550, and the wild swings are just the result of the growing noise, as you'd expect. And I haven't found anyone who seems to seriously think they reflect any kind of reality. So Briffa sensibly stopped at 1550 to avoid misleading the public….

[Referring to graphs of the number of sites plotted to produce the data]: As you can see, the number of sites is dropping rapidly before 1600, and is down to about 40 near 1550. Here is the expanded region between 1400 and 1600

As you can see, the rate of decrease is quite sharp near 1550. There's no absolute rule on where you have to say that a plot has to be stopped. The noise rises relative to the signal in a continuous way, and I don't curently know how to quantify whether 40 sites is likely to be sufficient. But neither do the critics. What is clear is that the observed rapid changes observed in McIntyre's graph are closely associated with the steep reduction in data. In those circumstances, I would be very uncomfortable about presenting them as real. And I don't think referees would let me.

Nick goes on in the next post to show why having fewer sites can easily lead to spurious oscillations.

So, as expected, there is an explanation, and it is not sinister, especially in the context of a Science piece which was also (apparently) only a short commentary.

Will the readers of Andrew Bolt ever know that? Will Andrew ever have read this explanation.

Would Sinclair Davidson ever offer an explanation post at Catallaxy? Does he ever offer anything other than skeptic stories recycled from skeptic sites?

The other “Watts is wrong” story making the news is the “hero to zero” path that Berkley physicist Richard Muller has made in the space of a few months.

Once again, Sinclair Davidson gave this story recent prominence at Catallaxy by posting a Youtube of Muller’s lecture about “hide the decline”. Muller’s take on this always appeared to me to show self-aggrandisement about how it wouldn’t be done like that at Berkley, and he had been criticised at ">Skeptical Science for muddling the details.

But his other claim to fame was to be on the BEST project to independently compile a temperature record set.

As everyone knows by now, Muller has told Congress that the early results show close uniformity with the existing temperature sets: you know, the ones that Anthony Watts has spent years trying to show were defective and misleading.

The Economist has the story, told in relatively dispassionate terms, and many on the “AGW is real” side of the fence are now enjoying enormously the swing against Muller from the climate skeptics side. Of particular amusement is the vehemence with which the professional disinformation site Climate Depot, of Marc Morano fame, has gone for his jugular. As the headlines will change, have a look at this screenshot (complete with Muller with a snake photo, presumably designed to make him look at tad nutty):

Of course, sites like Salon are enjoying the whole turnaround, as well they should.

I said before recently that the climate skeptics have been slowly moving away from their pet idea that temperature increases over the 20th century were all an illusion. This only confirms the move – from now on it’ll be nearly all “lukewarmenist” arguments: yes, the temperature has increased over the 20th century, but not quite as fast as climate science said, and look at the last [insert cherry picked period] has not got significantly hotter at all: it’s probably all stopped now and that just shows what idiots those scientists were! And besides, even when the graphs go up again, maybe it’s all a good thing. etc etc.

Update: I just typed a really long comment in response to the politely worded skepticism of sfw in comments, but Blogger did not want to accept it (Blogger seems to be having some widespread comment issues lately). I did not want to lose the work, so here goes:

Hey, it's nice to have someone on your side of the fence who is moderate in tone, and thanks for the comments on the blog.

I'm not sure if you've been reading me for long time, but I was initially a bit of a fence sitter on the AGW issue. But I decided that ocean acidification was a sufficient enough reason to push for less CO2 urgently anyway. It is a problem with no easy solution other than "stop putting so much CO2 in the air", and initial studies nearly all showed serious problems with the sea critters they were testing.

Over the years, I think it fair to say that the fact of the ocean pH drop at the predicted rate has been confirmed by measurements, but the results of lab tests have become more ambiguous. My initial thoughts were that these tests would be straight forward in identifying which creatures would suffer first and and which wouldn't, but the process of doing this accurately was a lot more complicated than I initially credited. Also, a bit to my surprise, the detailed biochemistry of sea life seemed to have a lot more gaps in it than I would have expected. So, the type of test results that have been coming out in the last year or two have been harder to understand.

I still think it is a serious issue. I have particular concern about the future of pteropods, which appear to be a very important link in the food chain in polar waters. As for reefs, I still have an open mind as to how soon or how badly they will be effected. Some corals do worse than others in lab tests, and generally it seems to me they are hardier than expected, although combining acidification with much higher ocean temperatures just makes predicting their future very hard.

In any event, it now seems to me that the slow moving nature of the process makes it harder to convince people of the need for action on CO2.

At the same time, it seemed to me that the evidence for AGW and associated climate change was firmer than I had understood, and as I was never convinced of the issue by popularisers like Gore and Flannery (in fact, I have always been a tad suspicious of them), it mattered little to me that they had made mistakes in their presentations.

I also realised that the opposition to it is in fact ideologically driven. I genuinely find the climate science sites of Real Climate and Skeptical Science to be measured in tone and reasoned in exactly the way that the likes of WUWT are not. Skeptics just continually ascribe the worst motives to climate scientists, usually from a position of ignorance.

The popularisers of the skeptic side, with their grab bag of arguments, also made me realise there was no genuine attempt to be rationally critical of climate change science; the likes of Monckton and his ilk had clearly decided that it was all rubbish (often alluding to ludicrous conspiracies behind it) and anything would go in advocacy. Mistakes would be repeated and believed, all because it fitted into preconceived ideas in the audience.

Now, I do accept that there are actual scientists on the climate change side who have made careless overstatements, but usually on very particular things like glaciers, droughts, the future of snow etc.

And I can understand why people like you say that it looks like its unfalsifible.

Here's what I think: it's actually really complicated, and not easily communicated with simple messages. Messaging mistakes will happen, and will cynically be exploited by ideological skeptics, but that's no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

It turns out, for example, that a significant number of papers had talked about more drought in the long term for Australia, but broken by more intense periods of rain. This is what we just saw happen. Yet it is so easy to point the finger at Flannery and say "hey, he said cities would be running out of water by now."

I figure: he's not even a climate scientist per se, and big deal, he made an exaggerated comment here and there. M'eh, if papers are there that did predict what would happen, big deal.

The same with heavy snow in the Northern Hemisphere this last couple of winters. Yes, it seems few scientists predicted it before it happened, but some in fact did. The mechanism seems credible (less ice over northern areas such as Hudson Bay), but won't be proven for some time yet. So, one guy said British kids wouldn't see snow again. He was wrong, he exaggerated. But he wasn't speaking for every scientist and simply should have been more cautious.

The Russian heatwave: a really severe event, which (I note) some NOAA scientists say wasn't really caused by AGW. I'm kind of expecting that they have in fact leapt too far to the cautious side on that one. In any event, it (together with the European heat wave of some years ago,) shows how serious (including for food supply) more regular severe heatwaves could be.

Climate change scientists are always going to be hobbled to a degree by the complexity of the climate system and the short term blips along the way to seeing the long term trend.

I think it is reasonable in such a system to make allowances for things that may yet happen to the weather that were not predicted in detail or more widely. (In fact, as I say, it can turn out they were predicted, but were just less emphasised in the public arena.)

But here's the key thing: the uncertainty in how exactly the climate change manifests locally (and, in a sense, globally) is no reason to dismiss the seriousness of AGW. The examples of the last couple of years of floods, heat waves and even blizzards have not been (more or less unexpectedly) good events: they have been (more or less unexpectedly) bad events, and there are mechanisms to explain them as a consequence of AGW.

So, while you see non falsifiability, I see danger, and all the more reason to take CO2 reduction seriously.

Quite a length for a comment, hey!

Cowardice and Catallaxy

I used to read left wing blogs to laugh at extremists and get annoyed with their lack of common sense and pragmatism.

Now I just go to "centre right and libertarian" blog Catallaxy instead.

Over the weekend, for example, news of the appalling deaths in Afghanistan prompted by a grandstanding pastor of a trivially unimportant church in America, who the media should know better than give publicity to, was met by Catallaxy's nuttiest commenters (and, man, there's some competition) - CL and Michael Fisk - with calls for more Koran burning.

CL ends one comment with "More power to the Pastor’s right arm."

Fisk: " Burning the Koran will bring these issues to a head. We cannot afford to delay them any longer.

We must burn the Koran at once."

And, funnily enough, given that Yobbo (I forgot - he also likes the Koran burning idea) mentions it as being no worse than burning Mein Kampf, Fisk then goes on to use some distinctly Mein Kampf-ian terminology (you know, the parts that suggest that some people are "sub humans"):

That is the ethical response to the rioting of worthless sub-human animals who hate freedom.

Now, there are people in the thread calling them out (but in very mild terms, especially for that blog). In fact, you really know some at Catallaxy have gone berserk when JC starts sounding like the voice of moderation.

Yet, as far as I can see, there are no regulars there who have said the obvious - Fisk and CL are freaking nuts, and if their argument is so compelling, why weren't they taking the lead in organising Koran burnings in a public park yesterday, with media invitations to boot. (Even if the media wouldn't attend, why not post pictures on the internet?)

I mean, in this day and age, small scale protests are organised in the trivial amount of time it takes to post the time and date on a Facebook page.

I've suggested this to Yobbo some months ago when he first came up with the "burn more" idea: he said he didn't have police protection so it wasn't going to be up to him. (I think he suggested the Army could do it from their bases in Afghanistan, though!)

As for CL and Fisk: I don't know the reason for their craven cowardice in not taking the lead to organise Koran burnings. Fisk talks about the Afghanistan murders in the following context:

The first phases of any war, particularly an ideological one, will always have unfortunate victims who will be the first to fall.

There's ample opportunity to show solidarity with the victims, Fisky: why don't you go to it? Or are personally too valuable to the cause?

And as for the rest of the Catallaxy commenters - including blog controller Sinclair Davidson - no one has called out Fisk for the use of the "sub human" epithet.

And CL has the hide to suggest the fight against fundamentalist Islam is like the fight against 20th century fascism. Hey, CL, I would have thought the absolute worst aspect of some branches of 20th century fascism was not the subjugation of free speech: it was the adoption of a categorisation of some people into "sub human" - like your pal Fisky argues.

Go let us know when the Koran burning starts. It's a very Lenten thing, I'm sure.

PS - I'll delete whatever comment I like here. Offensive language is a guarantee of deletion.

I'm also still busy this week, so posts will probably be light.

PPS - Let's deal with the CL conundrum.

CL used to run his own, well written, blog, and there is no denying that he represents to me a deep psychological puzzle. His comments at Catallaxy are routinely couched in triumphalist, hyped up, quasi-violent terms - arguments or their proponents have always been "destroyed" or "demolished"; "beclowned" themselves, or been "humiliated". He doesn't just want to win arguments (and he is famously noteworthy for that); he wants to belittle opponents. He is always claiming a person has "lied" with no regard to whether a statement was made knowing that it was untrue; and often the very claim that it was an untruth is dependent on accepting his own skewed interpretation of facts.

As far as I can recall, he has indicated that he is in his 30's (late 30's, I think) and never talked of having travelled anywhere, even within Australia. Recently he has described a spartan bathroom suitable for a monk, and seems to have simple taste in beer and food. The impression I've often had is of a man in his (late) 50's in the body of someone younger. Certainly, his Catholicism seems to lean to a fondness for the old Latin mass. He does not claim to be a "good" Catholic, yet has a chip on his shoulder about any Catholic criticism about the same size as his head, as if he had actually experienced the sectarianism that started to fade in Australia in (I would say) the 1970's.

He's not wrong on every issue, yet even those opinions on which I would basically agree are now nearly always couched in terms in which it feels a tad embarrassing to acknowledge agreement. (It's rather the same with Andrew Bolt and his commentary on aboriginal issues.)

Also like Bolt, he is foolhardily certain of his opinion on the science of climate change. (This is another sign of having "older" attitudes than his chronological age.) Appeals to a Catholic sense of justice for future generations, such as those seemingly held by the Pope himself, fall on deaf ears, and in fact are routinely ridiculed. He is right to point out that it is not a matter of Catholic doctrine to believe in AGW; what he (and Cardinal Pell, for that matter) don't address is the question of how moral it is to continually advocate that the current generation do nothing to address what mainstream science expects to be a major problem for the coming generations. To trivialise concern for our children's future is to gamble that the handful of contrarian scientific voices in the field are right, but how is that morally appropriate when the stakes are so high?

Instead, he has been desperately, and laughably, keen to belittle my own engagement with, or understanding of, Catholicism. While I claim no deep involvement in a parish, I have routinely criticised liberal Christianity (and the expelled liberal South Brisbane Catholic priest Peter Kennedy in particular), and thus (I would have thought) have pretty mainstream views that you would think he could acknowledge. (The most I have advocated being the relaxation of celibacy for the priesthood.) But poor CL seems to think that Catholics should never criticise him from a Catholic perspective, otherwise they are not Catholics "in any meaningful sense." (He has claimed to detect lack of Catholic cultural knowledge in the way I have made comments. Corrections of the failings of his own interpretations are usually ignored.) He has set himself as sole arbiter of this; I suppose it is just another aspect of his hubris.

I always feel that his participation at Catallaxy is - literally - bad for his soul. It has allowed for an extremeness of expression, a serious lack of charity, and an obnoxious hubris to flow freely. I know that this makes me sound like a bit of a prig (and it's true I have said things there I shouldn't have at times too) - but it's a sincerely held view, and I have suggested as much to him before in comments, but to no obvious effect. The constant puzzle is whether he knows he is using misrepresentation and truth twisting of other's arguments with full knowledge that it is wrong (but, I am guessing, rationalised as part of a mere "game",) or whether he is psychologically incapable of recognizing wrongdoing in his tactics.

At the very least, his terminology and attitude to opposing views at Catallaxy constantly indicates a degree of combativeness that seems to show a certain bitterness of character, or perhaps frustration. A (possibly fictitious) character at another blog recently suggested he might be a wheelchair-bound invalid. Presumably, this is not true, as he has talked about swimming and jogging for fitness, but the funny thing was, I could understand where this amateur psychoanalysis came from. [Update: I forgot to mention: it recently occurred to me that, despite some at Catallaxy loving to accuse another blog identity of having "short man syndrome", I find it's actually a pretty good description of CL behaviour at Catallaxy.]

As with all attempts at character analysis from such material, there is a huge amount of guesswork involved here. It may also be that he's a regular saint in his private life. Difficult and prickly characters may be dislikeable yet achieve much that is very worthy. Yet it's hard to see why they can't do well without the baggage.

There: I have been meaning to deal with this ongoing puzzle here for some time. It's done.

Must do something else.

Update: noted at Catallaxy already. CL just latches onto the Catholic issue again. I'm starting to suspect he really is a monk.

It seems IT and Dover would like a character assessment. Maybe I should charge for it. Nah, it's free:

IT: a more-or-less harmless goose, who needs to be told every month or two that his gratuitous swearing and irrelevant sex and sexuality related insults to all and sundry that he disagrees with reflect more on his inability to mature past high school humour than his enemies. As with JC, part of his brashness at Catallaxy seems to be to compensate for having to be well behaved at home with a strict wife who knows how to keep him in line. In IT's case, it also seems to be part of a reaction against a conservative Christian upbringing. The fact that he sometimes uses moisturiser, has given up alcohol and (so he says) likes modern animated movies indicates he's not a completely insensitive twit; just primarily an insensitive twit.

dover-beach: relatively polite, shows signs of a reasoned conservatism on some issues, but also frequently the most incredibly, boringly, pedantic-yet-wrong debater since Steve McIntyre first made his tedious entry onto the internet. There's something about a girlfriend that Tal keeps mentioning, but I have absolutely no idea how old he is. I suspect he is another CL in that respect - sounds much older than he actually is.

Back soon (-ish)

Good for a giggle

Argentina gives Hugo Chavez press freedom award

An Argentina University, that is.

The university said it was giving Mr Chavez the Rodolfo Walsh award for "his commitment to defending the liberty of the people, consolidating Latin American unity, and defending human rights, truth and democratic values".

Update: as prompted by Jason, here's my animation of a key passage from the Gandhi letters in the news. (If anyone can suggest what an "eternal toothpick" is, I'm happy to hear it):



Update: I created two versions of this, and it's the first time I have tried using xtra normal. The second version had better timing in the dialogue, and I changed over to it here. But then the "camera angles" were worse. It seems you have no control at all over the angles that are used each time xtra normal "renders" the final product. I've therefore gone back to the first version. Meanwhile, I should be working. Oh well.

Happy place unhappy

All's not well at Tokyo Disneyland after quake

Tokyo Disneyland has not re-opened since the quake, not because of damage, but uncertainty over power supply. It remains unclear when it will be able to start up again.

Futurepundit wrote about Japanese power supply issues a couple of days ago. As he notes, this summer may not be the best one to be visiting the top half of Japan.

Not eBay, I trust

Used aircraft carrier up for sale

Britain has put aircraft carrier Ark Royal, the former flagship of the Royal Navy, up for sale on a military auction website.

Evolving delusions

Psychosis keeps up with the times � Mind Hacks

Well, we all knew this was true, didn't we? Still, it's an interesting enough topic (namely, how the content of delusions of those with psychosis tends to change with the type of technology and social concerns of the day.)

I remember thinking about this years ago when reading Evelyn Waugh's The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold, which was based on his own psychotic episode.

Answer: a definite "maybe"

Can caffeine make us healthy? - Features, Food & Drink - The Independent

The article talks about lots of different possible health effects of caffeine, and is quite interesting.

A good news, bad enough news, story

Radioactivity spreads in Japan : Nature News

This is a really good article at the link on the amount of radiation fallout from the Fukushima nuclear accident.

The good news: as everyone said from the start, it's not another Chernobyl:

Initial estimates suggest that Fukushima's reactors have emitted one-tenth of all the radioactive material released during the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, and prevailing winds have swept most of the radioactivity over the Pacific Ocean.

The bad news, however, is that there does seem to be a band of particularly heavy contamination in a path to the north-west of the reactors, extending well outside the 20 km evacuation zone:

The survey showed that the highest radioactivity doses on the ground (greater than 0.125 millisieverts per hour; mSv h⁻¹) were restricted to a narrow band within 40 km of the plant, stretching to the northwest (see 'Fukushima's fallout'). No values anywhere exceeded 0.3 mSv h⁻¹, a dose likely to cause adverse health effects in anyone continually exposed for a few months. Still, doses at some sites over the course of a year would top 1,000 mSv, enough to cause symptoms of radiation sickness, including nausea, hair loss and reduced white-blood-cell counts.

Much of the 20-km evacuation zone around the plant had far lower dose levels, below 0.012 mSv h⁻¹. Nevertheless, that corresponds to a potential annual dose of more than 100 mSv, more than five times the annual limit permitted for UK nuclear-industry workers. The patchy distribution of fallout reflects the role of wind patterns and rainfall in washing out radio­isotopes to the ground. Overall, Smith says he was "relieved" by the data, as they suggest that contamination around Fukushima will be much lower than that seen around Chernobyl.

But some areas of high contamination seem to lie outside the exclusion zone. Soil samples taken on 20 March from a location 40 km northwest of the plant showed caesium-137 levels of 163,000 becquerels per kilogram (Bq kg⁻¹) and iodine-131 levels of 1,170,000 Bq kg⁻¹, according to Japan's science ministry. Acceptable contamination levels for areas used to grow crops are much lower, typically in the range of a few hundred Bq kg⁻¹. "If there are significant areas of caesium-137 soil concentration of the order of 100,000 Bq kg⁻¹, evacuation of these areas could be effectively permanent," says Smith.

Apart from the still very unclear issue of whether workers on site have received (or will receive) very dangerous doses of radiation, if anyone thinks that the need to permanently evacuate patches of land up to 40 km away is not a serious issue, they want their head read.

Update: an article at Physorg discusses how serious seawater contamination may be. Short answer: well, it shouldn't spread much, but expect some exclusion zone for quite some time:

the contamination from iodine 131 is short-lived because the element has a half life -- the pace at which it loses half of its radioactivity -- of only eight days.

"This means that after a few months, it will be harmless, basically," said Simon Boxall, a lecturer at Britain's National Oceanography Centre at the University of Southampton, southern England, who praised early measures to stop fishing around the plant after the March 11 disaster.

"What worries me more is if caesium and plutonium get into the system," he said, referring to two radioactive heavy metals whose half-lives are around 30 years and potentially thousands of years respectively.

"That's more concerning, because that can build up in the sediments" of the sea bed at Fukushima, said Boxall.

At high levels, this could lead to the imposition of an exclusion zone of catches of fish and seafood, a measure that could last "years and years," he said.

"It's hard to know (how long) until they start taking measurements and determine how extensive the pollution is.

"You would basically not fish in an exclusion zone, period. And beyond the exclusion zone there would be an additional zone where you would come from time to time and see if there's any radioactivity."

Latham on climate change

I would not have picked Mark Latham as a climate change believer, but that seems to be the message from this report in the SMH:

If the ALP is to be rescued, Mr Latham's view is that it needs to improve its "abysmal" understanding of the Greens and to realise that climate change will be the major electoral issue for the next 100 years.

On the same subject, he is disparaging of Ms Gillard's performance and of her ability to tackle climate change with conviction.

"It's too late," he said.

"Conviction comes from believing in something.

"If you believed in action on climate change you wouldn't have advised Kevin Rudd to drop the emissions trading scheme.

"And if she believed in climate change and carbon tax she wouldn't have promised not to introduce it during the election campaign.

"Conviction politics is not something you can invent or find at the bottom of the garden.

"You've actually got to believe it and do it from day one."

I suppose I should be pleased, but with Latham, it's hard to tell if that is the appropriate response.

Great entertainment families

Salon features a review of a new biography of Edith Piaf. I didn't see the movie about her a couple of years ago, but the article notes that, if anything, it underplayed the turmoil of her life.

But my favourite little bit of information is in the middle of this bit about her show biz family origins:

The singer was born Edith Giovanna Gassion, in 1915 -- and not on the city pavement, as she claimed, but in the Tenon Hospital in Belleville, a working-class area in eastern Paris.... Her father, Louis Gassion, was an acrobat (just 5 feet tall, he passed on his diminutive form to his daughter); her mother, Annetta, was a would-be singer whose own mother presided over a flea circus. As if this background wasn't disreputable enough, the feckless Annetta, an alcoholic and drug addict, abandoned the child when she was still a baby and went on to pursue an independent singing career under the name of Line Marsa. As in the vast majority of such cases, Edith never got over this primal rejection.

Louis Gassion was slightly more dependable. His own life was not stable enough to include a baby, so he took Edith to live with his parents in the town of Bernay in Normandy. Her grandmother, known as Maman Tine, was the manageress of what was euphemistically known as a maison de tolérance, essentially a whorehouse with legal standing.

Unbalanced?

I was just reading a Pajamas Media article on radiation doses which I didn't find particularly helpful, only to note in comments, following one that says Fox News on politics is generally fair and balanced:

I don’t find FOX fair or balanced. they do have a strong liberal / socialist bias in many of the programs. all in all they are not that conservative.

there are a few that are ..but they are in the minority.

There you go.

Conspiracy corner

I've never bothered reading much of anti climate change activist Jo Nova's blog: she has always struck me as dishonest and simply interested in disinformation.

Lately, however, she has been mentioned more often at Catallaxy, with links to her blog from the (generally gentlemanly in tone) Rafe. She has frequently had a mention at Andrew Bolt's blog too.

What I did not realise til now (or had forgotten?) is that she is married to the other climate change figure David Evans. And, it turns out, both of them are into financial market conspiracies. Evans ends a 2009 article with this (copied from a lengthy post on Watching the Deniers which is well worth reading in full):

“…There are a small number of families who, over the centuries, have amassed wealth through financial rent seeking. They are leading members of the paper aristocracy. For example, the Rothschild’s are the biggest banking family in Europe, and were reputed to own half of all western industry in 1900. That sort of wealth doesn’t just dissipate, because unless the managers are incompetent the wealth tends to concentrate. The banking families don’t work for a living in the normal sense, like the rest of us. They avoid scrutiny and envy by blending in and make themselves invisible. Since they own or influence all sorts of media organizations, it isn’t too hard. There are unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories, but nobody can really credibly say how much wealth and influence they have…

…Perhaps today’s fiat currencies—the US dollar, pound, yen and so on—will go up in smoke in an inflationary crescendo in the next few years, perhaps as planned by the paper aristocracy. Maybe they will reintroduce an asset backed currency. And guess who has all the gold? Those banking families have been salting it away for years. Possibly a global currency, so one cannot escape the predations of the paper aristocracy. This is not just about money, but about power, of course. Anyway, these are only unsubstantiated rumors. We shall see.

Well, there you go. This is the dog whistling that goes on in the Jo Nova household. Does Rafe know about this type of stuff?

I had not understood the League of Rights apparent interest in the No Carbon Tax rally last week. Now I do.

Quite true

How to tweet bile without alienating people. Or making 13-year-old girls cry | Charlie Brooker | Comment is free | The Guardian

I usually only check in on Twitter if there is a breaking big news story to see if anyone close to the scene has anything useful to add, and suspect that, along with Facebook, it is a social communication method that probably causes more harm than good. Brooker is quite correct when he discusses the Twitter attack on that Rebecca Black (the girl with the crook song):

Not so long ago, if you wanted to issue a 13-year-old girl with a blood-curdling death threat, you had to scrawl it on a sheet of paper, wrap it round a brick, hurl it through her bedroom window, and scarper before her dad ran out of the front door to beat you insensible with a dustbuster. Now, thanks to Twitter, hundreds of thousands of people can simultaneously surround her online screaming abuse until she bursts into tears. Hooray for civilisation....

Twitter is great for disseminating news, trivia and practical instructions on when and where to meet up in order to overthrow the government, but it also doubles as a hothouse in which viral outbreaks of witless bullying can be incubated and unleashed before anyone knows what's happening. Partly because it forces users to communicate in terse sentences, but mainly because it's public. Many tweeters end up performing their opinions, theatrically overstating their viewpoint to impress their friends. Just like newspaper columnists – but somehow even worse because there's no editor to keep their excesses in check or demand a basic level of wit or ability.

And unlike columnists, they often aim their comments at an individual by addressing their username directly: the equivalent of texting hate mail straight to their phone.

White haired jerk

There was an interesting interview with journalist Andrew Fowler on Radio National Breakfast about Julian Assange. (Fowler has a book out about him.)

I don't recall reading before that Assange has at least two children by two different mothers, both of which he refuses to talk about (citing "security"), yet it also seems a very good bet that he has nothing to do with them. Fowler believes that although Assange is quite a hit with the ladies, so to speak, Julian does not understand them. More likely he's just too arrogant to believe it's ever worth wearing a condom.

The New York Times last weekend featured a slightly amusing Youtube video built around the story of a couple who had Julian as a house guest who would not leave until he was literally thrown out. Many in the comments pointed out that the video was not really done that well (true), but more interesting were those who saw this as part of a campaign against a hero.

I can't see it that way. Julian loves openness; the openness to understand him as a complete jerk is just collateral damage from his views.

No doubt about it

The reaction by AGW inactionists to Tim Flannery's comments about the Earth not cooling for hundreds of years even if all CO2 production stopped tomorrow shows absolutely, positively, without any doubt at all, that they are contemptibly thoughtless on the topic and doggedly dishonest.

This includes Tony Abbott, quoted in the press as saying in Parliament yesterday:

"It will not make a difference for 1000 years," the Opposition Leader told parliament. "So this is a government which is proposing to put at risk our manufacturing industry, to penalise struggling families, to make a tough situation worse for millions of households right around Australia. And for what? To make not a scrap of difference to the environment any time in the next 1000 years."

If anyone is in any doubt at all how this is a clear misrepresentation of Flannery's words, have a read of the quote from the scientifically ignorant, routinely offensive, misrepresenting and absurd commenter CL* at the blog the "centre right" has when it doesn't want to be taken seriously. He thought the quote supported his earlier claim that Flannery was saying that nothing humans did would influence the temperature at all for 1,000 years. (I give credit to Ken n and Jarrah for attempting to correct him, but really, this thread is like the rolled gold proof that it is entirely useless to engage at that blog in any debate at on climate change.)

Malcolm Turnbull and his supporters must really be grinding their teeth at Abbott's buying into populist misrepresentation.

* I suppose, however, I have to give him credit on another thread for arguing against the death penalty in Australia. I hate it when commentators who are wrong most of the time are right about something!

More to be said later

Jury in Darcey Freeman bridge murder trial struggling for verdict | News.com.au

I find this very surprising, but given my famously widespread influence (ha) I guess I should not talk about it yet.

Update: so he's been found guilty.

Given all the usual cautions that it is hard to judge a trial from media reports, I have to say I found it extraordinarily hard to believe that the jury could have members who would be swayed by the one psychiatrist in six who examined Freeman long after the events and found that he was acting in a "dissociative state" at the time of the offence. Here's one of the longer reports of that evidence:

Earlier, Professor Burrows told the court that when he first met 37-year-old Arthur Freeman at the Melbourne Remand Centre last year he thought "this man may have a defence".

Professor Burrows told the jury that after examining Freeman twice more, he came to the conclusion he was in a "dissociative state" caused by depression.

Arthur Freeman does not dispute he threw his daughter off the bridge, but he has pleaded not guilty to murder by reason of mental impairment.

Professor Burrows told the court "we're talking about a man who was at the severe end of the condition" and that Freeman "didn't know what was going on".

He told the court that Freeman still does not believe he threw his daughter off the bridge, but that other people have told him he did it, so "he accepts that".

As far as I know, Freeman did not give evidence himself.

As against the dissociative state, there was this evidence:

Dr Skinner told the jury Mr Freeman's phone call to his former wife Peta Barnes, in which he said she would never see her kids again, suggested he knew what was happening and showed his intentions.

"There is no evidence to suggest that Mr Freeman was incapable of forming intentions," she read. "He was able to organise packing his car, to drive to Melbourne and to make phone calls."

The method of killing was far from spontaneous, and with the telephone call to his wife to "say goodbye to the kids", how is it that the jury had any member who believed he was not capable of forming intention?

I presume someone on the jury must have been persuaded by his apparent breakdown at the court afterwards. If anything, I think the evidence of that showed he was in no dissociative state at all: he knew what had happened and was already appalled at what he had done.

The more worrying possibility is that some jury members simply could not credit that any father not in a state of mental illness could kill his child in such a fashion. In fact, this defence by incredulity, as it were, was specifically run by his Counsel:

"Doesn't his act, don't all his actions, scream at us madness? What we say to you is, his impaired mind caused him to do this."

What an amazingly glib and convenient argument this is, yet it looks as if had a chance of working.

Jury trials can be a worry.

Talking iPad

I liked James Lilek's recent post about conversations concerning his iPad.

Radiation confusion

The stoic James Annan in Tokyo, who has not been inclined to worry about Fukushima unduly, is nonetheless sounding irritated with the TEPCO and Japanese government handling of information about radiation leaks around Fukushima. You can also learn a bit about how unclear the issue is by reading his previous post (and comments) about radiation here.

The news this morning does little to encourage faith in how TEPCO is handling it all:

THE company responsible for the Fukushima power station evacuated it again after immense levels of radiation were detected in the cooling system of one reactor.

At one point radiation of 1000 milli-sieverts per hour - a potentially lethal level said to be 10 million times higher than normal - was measured, although the Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) later said that the reading was a mistake, which had not been double-checked because workers had then fled the building.

It was nevertheless clear that the situation remains unstable and that radiation continues to escape from the reactor containers.

There's clearly a need for robust, radiation reading robots.

No name too silly

The BBC has an interesting story up about the extraordinary popularity of odd names in the Philippines.    Funny isn’t it:  when Australians do it, it seems all precious and (often, but not always) rather “bogan”;  somehow, when it’s the Philippines, it just seems wryly amusing.   I was most surprised at this bit:

But the main thing Spain gave to the Philippines was Catholicism, and with it, tens of thousands of newly-christened Marias and Joses.

With the Americans came names like Butch, Buffy and Junior - and the propensity to shorten everything if at all possible.

Perhaps it is the combination of these two influences which has led to names like Jejomar - short for Jesus Joseph Mary.

The current vice president is called Jejomar Binay.

Wow.

Passive safety in the news

I posted very quickly on the importance of passive safety designs for future nuclear after the Fukushima accident, and now I see there is a fair bit of media talk on the subject (including about my old interest – pebble bed reactors.) Here are some articles:

* the New York Times talks about China pressing ahead with pebble bed. Lots of good points in a straight forward explanation. (It notes that the South Africans got stuck on using turbines that were to use the helium coolant directly. China is using the helium to boil water for less sophisticated steam turbines.)

I see that the Chinese program director is quoted as saying that pebble bed is yet to prove itself as cost effective as old style nuclear:

“The safety is no question,” Dr. Xu said, “but the economics are not so clear.”

Um, I think nuclear has to give safety the absolute priority at the moment, if its to go anywhere at all.

* Bloomberg had a longer article looking at passive safety generally. Pebble beds get a good mention too. It notes the passive safety in the new Westinghouse model:

The new Westinghouse AP1000 (the AP stands for Advanced Passive), for example, has a huge emergency water reservoir above the reactor vessel that’s held back by valves.

If the cooling system fails, the valves open and a highly reliable force takes over: gravity. Water pours down to cool the outside of the containment vessel. Then another highly reliable force, convection, kicks in. As the water turns to steam, it rises. Then it cools under the roof, turns back into a liquid, and pours down again.

Westinghouse estimates that the pool contains enough water to last three days, after which pumps operated by diesel generators are supposed to kick in and add water from an on-site lake.

Hmm. Doesn’t sound anywhere near as good as a pebble bed to me: get a crack in the vessel, and there goes your passive safety in a long stream of steam. Still, better than the older models, of course.

* Some in South Africa seem to be regretting that they gave up on pebble bed, just at a time it suddenly looks very attractive again:

Analysts have said the pebble-bed option is one the state and industry should reconsider on safety and other grounds.

"The reactor would not need any external cooling. It would cool itself. It's walk-away safe," said Kelvin Kemm, a Pretoria-based nuclear physicist.

But he said the programme may need to be industry-led, after South Africa invested nearly 10 billion rand in developing it over a decade before putting it on ice as it lacked a clear business case.

"There is lots of merit for the technology, specifically for building power plants away from places where you could potentially have tsunamis," said Cornelis van der Waal, an analyst at consultancy Frost & Sullivan.

Pebble-bed reactors are modular in nature and as they do not need a lot of water can be built away from coastal areas.

This modular nature, and the ability to not site them near major water bodies, seems to me to be a very important feature for Australia, where every bit of coast line any where near population centres is loved and used by someone.

Ah well, I’m feeling some vindication for saying for years that they sound like a good idea. (And cue music for “If I Ruled the World”.)

Back to the Dutch

Over the last couple of years I’ve noted articles in the English press about the very liberal Dutch attitude to sex education and its apparent connection to good things like a low rate of teenage pregnancy, and an older age at which they start having sex (compared to Britain anyway.)

I see that the Guardian is on the topic again, with a Comment is Free column headed “Let’s talk about sex – to four year olds”.

Mind you, the actual kindergarten “sex talk” at that age is relatively mild:

My son won't bring home the leaflet "Sex Yes, Worries No", about the use of contraceptives, until he is at least 10. He wouldn't be able to read it at the moment anyway. But his teachers will be talking about cuddling, friendship, newborn lambs in the fields and the differences between boys and girls. And his class might be visited by pregnant women and nursing mothers with their babies.

But the article, and the commentary following, is more noteworthy for its general discussion of the difference between Dutch attitudes to the role of government generally, and how it seemingly combines (despite its tourist reputation) social conservatism with very liberal inclinations towards government. As the article notes:

The Netherlands has a lurid reputation abroad when it comes to sex. Everyone knows about the red light district in Amsterdam and legalised prostitution. So it might come as a surprise to some to hear that deep down, the Dutch are very conservative people who take sex seriously. Very seriously, in fact. Sex education has traditionally been an important part of the school curriculum here. Lentekriebels is in line with the Dutch tradition of assigning to schoolteachers responsibilities that might elsewhere be handled within the family. As my teacher in primary school in the 1970s told me: "If your parents don't bring you up properly, our school has to do the job for them." The issue then was not sex but prayer (we didn't pray at home), but the principle is the same. Parents are not to be trusted to do a good job and sex is a danger zone, like drugs or smoking.

In comments there is a bit of a theme that it is the fact of their conservatism, in the sense that they take sex seriously, and generally have a much more stable family life, that accounts for the lower teenage pregnancy rate compared to Britain. (This was noted in an article I quoted from in a previous post.) In the current Guardian piece, this comment I found interesting:

If the Dutch are so conservative then that is the answer as to why a Dutch style of sex education won't work over here. The Dutch, like the Scandinavians are disciplined and conservative in the first place. That is how 'socialist' welfare states and low teenage pregnancy rates come about. And even conservatism can extend to helping others regardless, this is not socialism, but more like the Polder model. Polder models (and thus good welfare states) can often be seen where there is a harsh adversity, ie the weather which draws people together and cooperate.

Another comment from someone (from England, I assume) who lives in Holland:

2. "Teenage mothers" Any girl under 21 is considered a teenage mother. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen anyone under 16 on the street with a pram containing their own child. And yes, if a girl under 18 is pregnant, her parents need to prove that they can support their child and grandchild emotionally and financially to stop that child being taken into care. Children have to be in education until they are 18 and after all, if you as a parent have some responsibility towards your child's actions.

3. "Teenagers" Probably have as much sex here as they do anywhere else in western Europe. Fact of life, can't stop it, so embrace it. Firstly, there's almost no single sex education here. This means that girls and boys are always very comfortable around each other. Boys are taught to respect girls and girls are taught to make sure they know what they want for themselves in terms of physical relationships.

You rarely see big gangs of girls or boys out in the town - they go out as mixed groups. They drink, of course, as much as the brits, but you never see hoards of them rolling around drunk, fighting, showing their boobs.

Parents give their children much, much more freedom here (they cycle to school alone from the age of about 8) and there's a mutual respect between many teenagers and parents that you just don't see in the UK. How many 18 year old English teenagers do you know that would want to go on the family summer holiday with their parents? It's quite common here.

It seems to be a fair conclusion to say that the effects and success of sex education in any country is highly dependent on the broader social attitudes to be found there.

And one can also conclude that a welfare state works best when the attitude of its citizens is to act responsibly in all aspects of life. Many on the conservative side of politics argue that it is the welfare state that is itself corrupting of a social sense of personal responsibility. But the example of the Netherlands appears to be a pretty strong counter argument to that, and that is why I find these articles and comments on that country so interesting.

I’m also reminded of Theodore Dalrymple’s interesting essay about changes in the British national character which I linked to in 2008. He argues that its conservative “stiff upper lip” came into being under King William IV (the king before Victoria), and that it has eroded away since the Second World War. His claim (not with a lot of detail in this particular essay) is:

The moralization of the British in the first third of the nineteenth century—their transformation from a people lacking self-control into exemplars of restraint—was the product of intellectual and legislative activity. So, too, was the reverse movement.

He argues that relaxed liquor licencing laws in Britain have been quite harmful in this respect, and urges the US to maintain a drinking age of 21. Yet he also seems to be happy with European attitudes to drinking, presumably because he considers they have more of the sense of the importance of responsible drinking than the British, for whatever reason, seem capable of. (This will mean that a bunch of libertarian types will not take him seriously at all.)

But how, today, any country achieves society wide re-conversion to the ideal of self control and taking personal responsibility seriously seems to be a puzzle. I can see the failure from both sides of politics: libertarian relaxation of regulation falls on barren ground if there is not a pre-existing sense of responsibility in place, and libertarians don’t think the government has a role in instructing attitudes; welfare state-ism which fully embraces individualism in lifestyle choices can be seen as rewarding lack of personal restraint and does seem to teach people that they can carry on regardless.

That’s the problem, I guess: if both ends of the political spectrum adopt a “hands off” attitude to trying to influence a society’s sense of personal responsibility, neither of them address the heart of the issue.

Update: I was thinking about what I was said about the different political sides on this, and feel I should acknowledge that the Left generally is inclined to run campaigns that encourage what might be called "better behaviour", be it from a public health perspective (anti-smoking, anti-obesity) or relationships (see the current "Draw the Line" campaign that I only noticed yesterday.) Apart from public health, which both sides of politics generally does support, partly for the pragmatic reason of keeping health costs down, the problem I guess I have with what we see in government social education is the feeling that this is not the appropriate source for moral instruction. Simply because of the source, it's easy to imagine the people who would benefit most from it dismissing it.

But, with the churches weaker than ever as a source of (for want of a better term) life instruction in society, where else can it come from? It's not as if the West has the same cultural background of a place like Japan either, which does so much for maintaining a sense of personal responsibility there.

The power of the gut

There’s a short article at Physorg about research into the relation between gut bacteria and the brain (and thereby personality, mental illness, etc.)

Using germ-free mice, Foster's research shows gut bacteria influences how the brain is wired for learning and memory. The research paper has been published in the March issue of the science journal Neurogastroenterology and Motility.

The study's results show that genes linked to learning and memory are altered in germ-free mice and, in particular, they are altered in one of the key brain regions for learning and memory – the hippocampus.

"The take-home message is that gut bacteria influences anxiety-like behavior through alterations in the way the brain is wired," said Foster.

Foster's laboratory is located in the Brain-Body Institute, a joint research initiative of McMaster University and St. Joseph's Healthcare in Hamilton. The institute was created to advance understanding of the relationship between the brain, nervous system and bodily disorders.

"We have a hypothesis in my lab that the state of your immune system and your gut bacteria – which are in constant communication – influences your personality," Foster said.

I can’t help but think of Hitler, who had serious digestive problems all his life. This is from an interesting review of a book on the topic of his health:

Theo Morell, recorded in his diary that after Hitler downed a typical vegetable platter, "constipation and colossal flatulence occurred on a scale I have seldom encountered before."….

Morell's diaries (which were recovered from Germany and are kept in the National Archives in Washington, DC) make clear that the bouts of "agonizing flatulence" remained a regular occurrence.

Although I have noted in a previous post the cocaine eyedrops and methamphetamine that Hitler’s quack doctor Morell prescribed, I am not sure if I read this before:

Morell plied him with a remedy called "Dr. Küster's Anti-gas pills," which contained significant amounts of strychnine--and Hitler often took as many as 16 of the little black pills a day. The sallow skin, glaucous eyes and attention lapses noted by observers later in the war are consistent with strychnine poisoning; another ingredient in the pills, antropine, causes mood wings from euphoria to violent anger.

I see that someone on Yahoo Answers has asked whether Adolf might have suffered from celiac disease (the intolerance to gluten that seemingly has risen sharply – at least in diagnosis – lately.) This seems a pretty good suggestion, actually, especially if (as one person in the answers notes) he was “notoriously fond of cakes and pastries.” I see a source for that is Mental Floss Magazine ( a journal that has escaped my attention til now) blog which says:

In fact, Hitler’s favorite dessert chef, Gerhardt Shtammer, claims that Hitler asked him to make delectable desserts right up to the very end, when they were trapped in Hitler’s bunker with hard-core Nazi holdouts. According to Shtammer, Hitler’s favorite desserts were eclairs decorated with little swastikas and strudel.

Googling "Gerhardt Shtammer" does not come up with any more detail, though. If he lived today, he would have had appearances on Oprah, at the very least.

So, there you go. We can add “cream puffs” to our list of speculations as to the cause of World War II.

Keep counting them

Further in my series of “famous climate skeptic writers who made bad calls on the seriousness of Fukushima,” you can add the Telegraph’s James Delingpole.

This morning, I see that the Japanese PM has said that the situation remains grave and he cannot be optimistic.  (That’s how the ABC is reporting it.)

What I suspect is going on – but could be wrong of course – is that they have realised they have a very dangerous leak of very radioactive water, probably from the reactor core itself, and no one knows how to get rid of it.

Update:   from Bloomberg:

Radiation levels in sea water inside quake-damaged reactors at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi power plant may be rising, Japan’s nuclear watchdog said.  Levels show signs of climbing, Hidehiko Nishiyama, a spokesman at the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, said in Tokyo today. Readings of between 200-300 millisieverts per hour were found in water at the No. 2 reactor, he said, equivalent to the maximum-permitted exposure for workers during the crisis.

I think (although media reporting on this is often mucking up the figures) the anuual limit for US reactor workers is 50 millisieverts, and Japan has increased it to 250. If I, and Bloomberg, are correct, I assume that a worker can only be near the reactor 2 water for an hour and then not be able to work there again. They are going to run out of workers pretty fast, if they need to be close to the water.

On a lighter note, I was talking to a Japanese friend this morning whose parents live at Chiba in Tokyo.  They have told him that bottled water is sold out, as is toilet paper. 

We both do not know why there would be a run on toilet paper. 

The talented Mr Martin

Steve Martin and the Steep Canyon Rangers were on Colbert Report this week doing this song, but the sound quality was not as good as on this clip:

Uh-oh

I'm going to get accused of being into anti-nuclear disaster porn if I keep posting about this, but this is not good news that has just shown up on the New York Times:

Japan’s effort to contain the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant suffered a setback, an official said on Friday, citing evidence that the reactor vessel of the No. 3 unit may have been damaged.

The development, described at a news conference by Hidehiko Nishiyama, deputy director-general of the Japan Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, raises the possibility that radiation from the mox fuel in the reactor — a combination of uranium and plutonium — could be released.

One sign that a breach may have occurred in the reactor vessel, Mr. Nishiyama said, took place on Thursday when three workers who were trying to connect an electrical cable to a pump in a turbine building next to the reactor were injured when they stepped into water that was found to be significantly more radioactive than normal in a reactor. The No. 3 unit, the only one of the six reactors at the site that uses the mox fuel, was damaged by a hydrogen explosion on March 14. Workers have been seeking to keep it cool by spraying it with seawater along with a more recent effort to restart the reactor’s cooling system.

In another development on Friday, the Japanese government said it would help people who wish to leave the area around the crippled plant, a sign that efforts to reassure frightened residents have failed to persuade people to stay.

Can't see it happening

Step 1 in asteroid mission: Pick right space rock

Given the currently unsolved problem of radiation in space, and the complete lack of any planning for a spacecraft big enough to accommodate a crew for the (what, one to two year?) return trip without them going stir crazy, I just can't see that a trip to an asteroid makes a sensible next step in space. At least if you go to the moon or Mars, you can get to stretch your legs in gravity at the half way point.

Makes bed even better

Hands-free iPad stand

You have to lift your hands to touch the screen, though. Can't they do something about that?

The vege burger

The New York Times reports that some chefs are coming up with vegetarian burgers that really are good.

I don't mind trying vegetarian products from the supermarket every now and then. It's sort of interesting to see how good they can make their fake meat products. My wife has started doing a curry with fake chicken from Malaysia or somewhere: it's not bad, and I had the fun the other night of telling my son he had been fooled into thinking it was meat.

I think I have even mentioned in this blog before that, when I was single, I used to sometimes make chilli con carne using chunk style textured vegetable protein. But the after effects were such that married life meant I had to give that up.

This story will horrify at least one reader, hey Jason.

Help me Obi Wan, they took my carrot

Of course, you would have needed more than one R2D2 projecting the image, but it's looking close:

Back to the Future correct

JF Beck links to a bunch of old black and white photos of the (American) frontier life taken around 1890.

Viewing them reminds me that, when watching Back to the Future Part 3, I had thought that the 1885 version of Hill Valley looked a little too old time Western. But this is obviously not the case, when you see photos of the real era.

Fukushima notes

With the news last night that a couple of workers from the reactor are in hospital with radiation burns, it’s clear that the current operations remain very dangerous.   Even modest advances are being greeted as big progress:  for example, yesterday’s news that lights have been turned on in a couple of control rooms. 

Time magazine has an interesting entry about the ongoing issues at the plant.  As the New York Times noted, one concern is the use of seawater as a temporary coolant:

As  seawater evaporates, salt scaling could insulate the reactor fuel and impede heat transfer and thus cooling. In a worst case, as the rods heat up, their zirconium cladding could rupture, and  gaseous radioactive iodine inside could leak out; the uranium core itself could even melt. This, of course, would release event more radioactive material.

The BBC has a sort of retrospective of the last couple of weeks which is well worth reading too.

Meanwhile, I have stumbled across another example (apart from Andrew Bolt) of a climate change skeptic who has been in an unseemly rush to declare that there has barely been a major problem at all.

The Register, as I recall, has long been keen to run anti climate change articles.    If you have a look at the list of article titles by one Lewis Page,  who himself appears to be quite the CO2 skeptic, it makes for mildly comic reading:

14 March:   Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now!

First lines: 

Japan's nuclear powerplants have performed magnificently in the face of a disaster hugely greater than they were designed to withstand, remaining entirely safe throughout and sustaining only minor damage. The unfolding Fukushima story has enormously strengthened the case for advanced nations – including Japan – to build more nuclear powerplants, in the knowledge that no imaginable disaster can result in serious problems.

15 March: Fukushima update: No chance cooling fuel can breach vessels

16 March: Situation worsens - still no cause for alarm

17 March: Fukushima on Thursday: Prospects starting to look good

18 March: Fukushima one week on: Situation 'stable', says IAEA

21 March: Fukushima: Situation improving all the time. Food, water samples OK, Hyper Rescue Super Pump in action

22 March: Fukushima's toxic legacy: Ignorance and fear. Hysteria rages unchecked as minor incident winds down

23 March: Radioactive Tokyo tapwater HARMS BABIES ... if drunk for a year. Iodine isotope will all be gone in weeks, though

The glass is always more than half full for Mr Page.

A new political truism revealed

I have realised lately that, for some reason, male politicians who have too much curl in their hair just can't be taken very seriously. (I'm looking at you, John Paul Langbroek, Christopher Pyne, and Rand Paul.)

Sad for them, but true.

Consume a nut, anytime of day

Glenn Beck Contemplates Starting His Own Channel

Need I say more?

[By the way, this and the last post represent the return of my use of the Blog This doo-dah from Google. I thought it didn't work on current versions of Firefox, but seemingly it does. It is, by far, the easiest way to open a blogging post window. Just click the button while you are looking at a page, and it opens a blog post window with the title of the article as a link at the top. I have found no other blogging add on that does the same, wonderfully simple, thing.

I thought it was a Firefox add on which had gone missing, but I see now that it is a Google tool for use with Blogger. It's very good, anyway.]

Really worth it?

Hand transplant man faces long recovery

It's one thing to have transplanted internal organ, where you're not necessarily reminded daily that part of someone else is now part of you. But it seems to me to be quite another to have a hand transplant. There's quite a lot to any transplant:

There is also a danger Mr Walsh's body could reject the new hand, with the first few months the most dangerous period.

He will require medication for the life of the transplant to slow his immune system and ensure it doesn't attack the transplant.

St Vincent's doctor, Robyn Langham, said that leaves his body less equipped to deal with rogue cells that might appear in the body.

"Those rogue cells do have the potential to turn into cancers," she said.

She said Mr Walsh may also be at greater risk of contracting metabolic conditions such as diabetes and osteoporosis.

Personally, even with no hands, I think I would be much more interested in having the latest and greatest robotic version than a transplant: I have a preference for Luke Skywalker over Dr Strangelove.

A product endorsement

I like it:

To be fair...

I have been meaning to say this in relation to the carbon tax/emissions trading scheme that's heading our way via Labor and the Greens.

While I find Garnaut a very credible figure, and consider in principle (as did the Coalition until Tony Abbott took over) that carbon pricing is an important step to reducing Australia's greenhouse gases, it still has to be said that the full structure of the scheme that the government settles on might prove to be very ineffective and not really worthy of support for a number of reasons.

The problem is, while the Coalition is on its "direct action is really a market scheme (and by the way, half of us believe there is no problem to be addressed at all)" wander in the wilderness, they are cutting themselves out of making credible contribution to getting the carbon pricing scheme right.

This is the tragedy of the current situation.

That went well

Catallaxy, a "centre right" blog which for years has firmly placed itself firmly in the climate change skeptic camp, recently had a post simply showing in large size a poster reading "Axe the tax - Dump the Frump" from the first (small scale) anti carbon tax protest at Werribee.

The blog then had at least one post notifying people of yesterday's larger scale organised protests.

After yesterday's protest in Canberra, quite of few of your rabidly climate change skeptic and vehemently anti-Gillard commenters (basically, apart from a handful, they don't come in any other variety there) decided that the "look" of the protest was not so good for Tony Abbott. (Who, as I have mentioned before, is now receiving criticism from Catallaxy commenters for not doing a good job. Yet the advice he has been offered by some there is to stop trying to straddle the fence and come out more vehemently against climate change as deserving any response.)

Tony Abbott has now said he "regretted" some of the posters yesterday.

It is odd that Catallaxy commenters think that the posters yesterday were bad PR for the right of politics. One might assume then that they must also understand then the bad language and wild hyperbole of their threads is a very bad advertisement for the "centre right".

As I noted yesterday, Julia Bishop complained some in Labor calling Coalition members "climate change deniers" by quoting scientists who don't think there is a problem with climate change.

As I have said ever since Abbott took over the leadership from Turnbull, climate change "scepticism" in the Coalition - which is apparently evenly split on the topic in Parliament - is a poison to its intellectual standing.

And Catallaxy is a joke.

Attention Jason: as should be clear from the low numbers of readers I've had for years, I've always blogged for my own satisfaction, and if others read it, that's fine. You can link to it at Catallaxy if you want, but it does not matter to me whether you do or not.

Update: this counts as a "meltdown"? At fairly regular intervals, I used to tell off many of the regulars at Catallaxy, in much more vehement terms than this, as a result of the absurdly personal (and wildly inaccurate) criticisms hurled towards me for my views on (virtually) any topic. So I am criticising it from here now. Big deal.