Skepticism about the value of manned space exploration is never far away, and just when NASA starts to firm up a little on a lunar colony, the nay-saying doubters get into print. See this article in Slate, and here at the New York Times. Both sound like re-runs from the early 70's, when the thrill of Apollo 11 was over with pretty quickly.
In the Slate article, when it comes to the question why build a moon base:
NASA itself can't really offer an answer, though it does offer a free, downloadable "Why the Moon?" poster. According to the poster, a moon base would "enable eventual settlement" of Earth's satellite—which might happen someday, but represents an absurd waste of tax money in the current generation. (No one has any interest in settling Antarctica, which is much more amenable to life than the moon and can be reached at far less than 1 percent of the cost.)
The New York Times writes:
Mars has water, apparently, and an atmosphere that greater minds than mine contend could be transformed and thickened enough to breathe, and maybe even past or future life forms. Someday, a few dreamers say, our descendants could walk to a pool of water in the red sand, like the settlers in Ray Bradbury’s “Martian Chronicles,” look at their reflections and see Martians.
I haven't read about terraforming information for some time, but I am sure that even the most optimistic time scales for creating a breathable Martian atmosphere is in the order of hundreds or thousands of years. Even by the standards of someone (like me) who wants humanity to expand beyond earth, it's a very long term proposition.
Basically, for a long time, living on Mars is going to be like living on the Moon, with the added benefit of more water. (Assuming the moon has some somewhere.) The disadvantage is that help is a year or two away, compared to a few days for the Moon.
But my main point is that these articles do not address the obvious potential function that a Moon colony can provide, and that's a lifeboat for planet Earth. It's close, it's old, seems relatively stable, and provides a smallish target for passing asteroids. The decentralisation of information by virtue of its digital format perhaps makes its off-planet storage less important than previously, but still it is hard to say what the human and political effects of a truly global catastrophe would be. (For example, an asteroid strike large enough to darken the skies for a few years, leading to starvation and massive loss of life.) Recently, the idea of using the Moon as "gene bank" was mooted too, and maybe this is a more important reason, if you assume that digital information is unlikely to be lost completely.
I don't understand why science writers can't see that this "big picture" idea, which is familiar to all science fiction readers, is something worth taking seriously if it is within technical reach.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Modern robotics not quite there yet
You must watch this video over at Japundit if you find robot mistakes funny.
(Actually, it is sort of sad too, but the way the screen comes out as if it is a horse about to be put down is what really makes me laugh.)
(Actually, it is sort of sad too, but the way the screen comes out as if it is a horse about to be put down is what really makes me laugh.)
About Pauline Hanson
An excellent post by Andrew Norton about the silly argument that Howard has implemented all of the Hanson agenda. Read and memorise for the next time that argument comes up at a dinner party.
Silly names
This article in the Times about how the British chose the names for their kids is pretty funny, and quite accurate for Australia too, I think:
By and large, of course, it’s wise to try to avoid making decisions that will last the rest of your life when you’re 14. One of the primary arguments against teenage pregnancy — but one that the Government has, as yet, been too scared to address — is that 13-year-old girls tend to bestow awful names. Names which commit to an implacable destiny. Indeed, Destiny is one of them. Destineee is even more one of them. It’s hard to imagine a Governor of the Bank of England called Chantelle. Not least because the headline the next day would be “Oh my God!”, and the Bank of England would have to be renamed the Bank of Blingland. ....
By and large, of course, it’s wise to try to avoid making decisions that will last the rest of your life when you’re 14. One of the primary arguments against teenage pregnancy — but one that the Government has, as yet, been too scared to address — is that 13-year-old girls tend to bestow awful names. Names which commit to an implacable destiny. Indeed, Destiny is one of them. Destineee is even more one of them. It’s hard to imagine a Governor of the Bank of England called Chantelle. Not least because the headline the next day would be “Oh my God!”, and the Bank of England would have to be renamed the Bank of Blingland. ....
The main difference between chav names and ponce ones is that the working classes deploy names that reflect success in the present — Ashanti, Britney, Justin. This is because, for the working classes, there is no rose-spectacled nostalgia for the past. The further you go back in time, the more incrementally awful it was to be poor. For the working classes, there’s no time like the present — or, indeed, the future.
The middle classes, on the other hand, have no fear of the past — when, as far as they’re concerned, all food was organic and free-range, and children played in streams all day while wearing lovely smocks. To reflect this longing for a simple, earthy, “real” childhood, they give their children the names that the working classes in their grandparents’ era would have favoured: Ruby, Charlie, Mabel, Fred.
Bad car news
From the Japan Times:
A top Nissan Motor Co. executive in North America said the hybrid market remains an unprofitable proposition in the auto industry despite the interest in alternative vehicles.
As for the US automotive industry generally, this does not sound good:
"Fifty percent of cars sold in America are sold by companies that lose money selling cars, and that's not sustainable," Thormann said.
A top Nissan Motor Co. executive in North America said the hybrid market remains an unprofitable proposition in the auto industry despite the interest in alternative vehicles.
"Hybrids today are not a very viable economic proposition. It's still a loss-making proposition," said Dominique Thormann, Nissan North America's senior vice president for administration and finance, on Thursday...
Hybrids currently comprise more than 1 percent of the auto market. Federal legislation approved last year provides up to $ 3,600 in tax credits to U.S. consumers who buy hybrids, but automakers are subject to a production limit of 60,000 vehicles eligible for the entire credit.As for the US automotive industry generally, this does not sound good:
"Fifty percent of cars sold in America are sold by companies that lose money selling cars, and that's not sustainable," Thormann said.
What are they doing there?
A surprise from the Aljazeera report on the Iranian Holocaust conference. Here's a photo of some of the attendees:
The article indicates that they are anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews, who don't deny the Holocaust. What strange bedfellows they make.
Iranian Jews are not very impressed with the whole conference idea:
Seems to me the whole idea is backfiring anyway.
The article indicates that they are anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews, who don't deny the Holocaust. What strange bedfellows they make.
Iranian Jews are not very impressed with the whole conference idea:
The conference has upset
"Denying it [the Holocaust] is a huge insult," he said. "By holding this conference, they [the government] are continuing to insult the Jewish community."
Many ordinary Iranians admitted to embarrassment about the event, which follows
Seems to me the whole idea is backfiring anyway.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Penguin film cops a blast
The Independent's Jonathan Romney really, really, took a dislike to Happy Feet (which has generally received good press). The highlights of his review:
But the nadir of digital animation - absolutely the most joyless, imaginatively bankrupt spectacle it has produced - is the penguin extravaganza Happy Feet. I'd rather have spent seven days and nights on an ice floe than have watched this. This tender-hearted eco-minded musical by George Miller (yes, Mad Max George Miller) scores an own goal: you go in favourably disposed to penguins, and you come out wishing you could personally nuke every last one of the wretched creatures out of the Antarctic. Happy Feet is as hideous as its title suggests.....
Happy Feet is so mendaciously dewy-eyed about the wildlife it feigns to respect that it makes Bambi look like a Werner Herzog documentary....
But in terms of humour, or humanity, or real imagination, the film is crass, ugly, wasteful and an impasse for an art form that has, in a mere decade, transformed the way we see screen images. Is this what digital animation has come to - a multi-million-dollar screensaver?
For those who share my love of the art of aggressively negative movie reviews, this one is pretty damn good.
But the nadir of digital animation - absolutely the most joyless, imaginatively bankrupt spectacle it has produced - is the penguin extravaganza Happy Feet. I'd rather have spent seven days and nights on an ice floe than have watched this. This tender-hearted eco-minded musical by George Miller (yes, Mad Max George Miller) scores an own goal: you go in favourably disposed to penguins, and you come out wishing you could personally nuke every last one of the wretched creatures out of the Antarctic. Happy Feet is as hideous as its title suggests.....
Happy Feet is so mendaciously dewy-eyed about the wildlife it feigns to respect that it makes Bambi look like a Werner Herzog documentary....
But in terms of humour, or humanity, or real imagination, the film is crass, ugly, wasteful and an impasse for an art form that has, in a mere decade, transformed the way we see screen images. Is this what digital animation has come to - a multi-million-dollar screensaver?
For those who share my love of the art of aggressively negative movie reviews, this one is pretty damn good.
Sucking up to Huffington
The Observer Magazine had a story on the weekend about Arianna Huffington that went into hyperbole mode when it comes to describing the Huffington Post:
The Post is now the fifth most popular site in the world. It shapes the debate of American politics and gives Arianna real power and prestige. This year she made Time magazine's list of the 100 most important people in the world, and next year she looks likely to climb the list...
The Post has already broken major news stories, changed perceptions and challenged the old way of doing things. Arianna is a media magnate for a new age and uses her position to hammer away for liberal causes: the Iraq war, environmentalism, corporate greed.
How nauseating.
Huffington Post has always struck me as having the most lightweight and bile-filled analysis of any "serious" commentary blog, as if it were run by a whole school yard full of Maureen Dowds. I think it annoys me more than Daily Kos, for example, because the Kos crowd are kids, and can be half forgiven for some of their posing and misplaced idealism.
As for HP, if you value the opinion of has-been Hollywood stars, screenwriters and general hangers-on who want their invitations to Arianna's next cocktail party but backing up Arianna's scathing assessments of everything Bush, visit it by all means.
But don't go there if you want to see any evidence of independence of thought.
(At least for readers who are not from the USA, the Observer article fills in some details of Arianna's background, and is worth a look for that.)
The Post is now the fifth most popular site in the world. It shapes the debate of American politics and gives Arianna real power and prestige. This year she made Time magazine's list of the 100 most important people in the world, and next year she looks likely to climb the list...
The Post has already broken major news stories, changed perceptions and challenged the old way of doing things. Arianna is a media magnate for a new age and uses her position to hammer away for liberal causes: the Iraq war, environmentalism, corporate greed.
How nauseating.
Huffington Post has always struck me as having the most lightweight and bile-filled analysis of any "serious" commentary blog, as if it were run by a whole school yard full of Maureen Dowds. I think it annoys me more than Daily Kos, for example, because the Kos crowd are kids, and can be half forgiven for some of their posing and misplaced idealism.
As for HP, if you value the opinion of has-been Hollywood stars, screenwriters and general hangers-on who want their invitations to Arianna's next cocktail party but backing up Arianna's scathing assessments of everything Bush, visit it by all means.
But don't go there if you want to see any evidence of independence of thought.
(At least for readers who are not from the USA, the Observer article fills in some details of Arianna's background, and is worth a look for that.)
Drunk pilot humour
In the news this weekend:
Maybe video of the incident looked like this:
A DRUNKEN Australian pilot who tried to fly a packed plane to Dubai when he was seven times over the alcohol limit has been jailed in London.
John Cronly-Dillon, 51, was sentenced to four months' jail last Friday by a judge who told him he had brought an unblemished 25-year career to a stupid and ignominious end.
He was arrested after stumbling around during a routine search at Heathrow, making incoherent jokes about "not blowing up my plane" with his breath smelling strongly of drink.Maybe video of the incident looked like this:
Random trivial thoughts for pre-Christmas rush
This is a busy time of year for me, so posting rate may be a little more intermittent than usual.
Here's some random information discovered this weekend:
1. Lego Bionicles have some of the worst assembly instructions I have ever seen. Being able to assemble one within 2 minutes should qualify the assembler for entry into Mensa.
2. To my surprise, the English dictionary that comes with Firefox 2 recognises the word "Bionicles" but only when preceded by "Lego".
3. Lego appears to have re-introduced more general, non-themed sets of blocks, which is a good thing for children's imaginations.
4. I met someone who works for Coca Cola and was told that "Coke Zero" was meant to get away from the feminine image that "Diet Coke" has by virtue of the word "diet". (It is also meant to compete with the success of Pepsi Max in terms of having a stronger flavour.)
However, I reckon if you want a name that will appeal to men as much as women, "Zero" is hardly the way to go. If you put a bunch of men in a focus group and asked them what they associate with the word "Zero", isn't it more than likely going be negative ? "Zero chance" is the first thing I reckon would come to mind for many.
Just how much money on creative types did Coke spend to come up with a dud name like that?
Pepsi Max still tastes better anyway.
Here's some random information discovered this weekend:
1. Lego Bionicles have some of the worst assembly instructions I have ever seen. Being able to assemble one within 2 minutes should qualify the assembler for entry into Mensa.
2. To my surprise, the English dictionary that comes with Firefox 2 recognises the word "Bionicles" but only when preceded by "Lego".
3. Lego appears to have re-introduced more general, non-themed sets of blocks, which is a good thing for children's imaginations.
4. I met someone who works for Coca Cola and was told that "Coke Zero" was meant to get away from the feminine image that "Diet Coke" has by virtue of the word "diet". (It is also meant to compete with the success of Pepsi Max in terms of having a stronger flavour.)
However, I reckon if you want a name that will appeal to men as much as women, "Zero" is hardly the way to go. If you put a bunch of men in a focus group and asked them what they associate with the word "Zero", isn't it more than likely going be negative ? "Zero chance" is the first thing I reckon would come to mind for many.
Just how much money on creative types did Coke spend to come up with a dud name like that?
Pepsi Max still tastes better anyway.
Friday, December 08, 2006
Target Mars
An interesting post over at Bad Astronomy notes that it looks like Mars is still getting a regular pounding from small meteors:
The MGS team also mentioned that if you lived on Mars for about 20 years, on average you’d be close enough to one impact to actually hear it. Given that NASA plans on sending humans to Mars, this is a matter of real concern! It’s a tough problem– these are rocks that are maybe a few meters across, and so there is almost way to detect them. I have no idea how you could reliably find a large enough number of these potential impactors to do anything about them, and you really don’t want one touching down near a settlement.
I think that radiation on the surface is likely to be a problem too, given the thin atmosphere and (I think) not much of a magnetic field. It all sounds like living half underground is probably the only choice for long term settlements there. (At least until they or smash in a few comets and get a real atmosphere going.)
As I have said before, if there is some water ice on the Moon, the only big benefit of living on Mars is going to be a higher gravity, which (for permanent settlement) is probably mainly an issue for any babies conceived and raised there. We need to know the biological effect of animal gestation on the Moon before really worrying about whether Mars is worth the effort.
The MGS team also mentioned that if you lived on Mars for about 20 years, on average you’d be close enough to one impact to actually hear it. Given that NASA plans on sending humans to Mars, this is a matter of real concern! It’s a tough problem– these are rocks that are maybe a few meters across, and so there is almost way to detect them. I have no idea how you could reliably find a large enough number of these potential impactors to do anything about them, and you really don’t want one touching down near a settlement.
I think that radiation on the surface is likely to be a problem too, given the thin atmosphere and (I think) not much of a magnetic field. It all sounds like living half underground is probably the only choice for long term settlements there. (At least until they or smash in a few comets and get a real atmosphere going.)
As I have said before, if there is some water ice on the Moon, the only big benefit of living on Mars is going to be a higher gravity, which (for permanent settlement) is probably mainly an issue for any babies conceived and raised there. We need to know the biological effect of animal gestation on the Moon before really worrying about whether Mars is worth the effort.
Julia doesn't love Kevin?
Labor insider Michael Costello says this about Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard:
I'm not sure, however, that things will quieten down this time. Gillard has disliked Rudd for years. Crean hates him. Crean's ambition, like hers, was first to do in Beazley and a close second was to get Gillard up as leader.
Crean hasn't given up on this second ambition and neither has Gillard. Those seeking support for Beazley found that a common reaction from known Gillard supporters and Rudd haters was that their support for Rudd was to get rid of Beazley, but that would not be the end of the matter. When Rudd stumbles, as all leaders do at some point, he will need to watch his back very carefully.
Given what we know of Mark Latham's personality now, it seems hard to believe that Julia ever genuinely liked him much either. (In fact, it is hard to imagine why any woman liked him.) I take it that her ambition can overcome such reservations, though.Thursday, December 07, 2006
Back to Adams
Maybe I am referring to The Dilbert Blog too often lately, but here's a link to another post that struck me as particularly funny. (By rights, I shouldn't like him, but he proves the point that liberal atheists who have a pretty low opinion of most of humanity can still be very funny as humorists. Not that many of them are, however.)
Speaking of humour and the Left, in the last few months the Comedy Channel here has started showing The Daily Show with Jon Stewart every weeknight. Previously, I had only seen the once a week "Global Edition", and thought the show looked pretty good, despite its politics. On seeing it regularly, though, I have been disappointed. Generally, I reckon they could cut it down to about a one hour weekly show, and every segment might be good. There are an awful lot of misses over the 2 1/2 hours of a full week. A consistent weakness I notice is when he interviews someone that he knows very well. They just spend a lot of time congratulating each other and giggling.
Speaking of humour and the Left, in the last few months the Comedy Channel here has started showing The Daily Show with Jon Stewart every weeknight. Previously, I had only seen the once a week "Global Edition", and thought the show looked pretty good, despite its politics. On seeing it regularly, though, I have been disappointed. Generally, I reckon they could cut it down to about a one hour weekly show, and every segment might be good. There are an awful lot of misses over the 2 1/2 hours of a full week. A consistent weakness I notice is when he interviews someone that he knows very well. They just spend a lot of time congratulating each other and giggling.
The madness of cats
It is now believed that old cats can get pretty much the exact equivalent of Alzheimer's Disease. Not being a cat person, I am curious to know how anyone could tell that a mostly inanimate object (we are talking old cats, after all) had dementia.
The article notes that's what's good for cats is good for humans (or perhaps it's the other way around):
Experts suggest that good diet, mental stimulation and companionship can reduce the risk of dementia in both humans and cats. Dr Gunn Moore explained: "If humans and their cats live in a poor environment with little company and stimulation, they are both at higher risk of dementia. However, if the owner plays with the cat, it is good for both human and cat. A good diet enriched with antioxidants is also helpful in warding off dementia, so a cat owner sharing healthy meals like chicken and fish with their pet will benefit them both."
Sounds just a little too close to his cat, for my liking.
The article notes that's what's good for cats is good for humans (or perhaps it's the other way around):
Experts suggest that good diet, mental stimulation and companionship can reduce the risk of dementia in both humans and cats. Dr Gunn Moore explained: "If humans and their cats live in a poor environment with little company and stimulation, they are both at higher risk of dementia. However, if the owner plays with the cat, it is good for both human and cat. A good diet enriched with antioxidants is also helpful in warding off dementia, so a cat owner sharing healthy meals like chicken and fish with their pet will benefit them both."
Sounds just a little too close to his cat, for my liking.
The killer is in the detail
This is a list of the "diplomacy" recommendations of the Iraq Study Group:
The United States should:
Iran should:
Syria should:
International efforts:
The most interesting part is what "incentives and disincentives" could be used with Iran and Syria? I am assuming the Study Group would not consider Bush threatening military strikes a good idea, even though you get the feeling that such threats are the only kind that might make Iran and Syria act more cautiously.
Many, many commentators will make a similar point, I am sure. See this article in Slate for one.
Then this other article in Slate (which I only read after starting this post) does give more detail:
Meanwhile, I have said for some time that common sense indicates there is no hope of governing a country split along religious sectarian lines when the government allows either or both sides to maintain their own militia. I would have thought that little progress is going to be made until the government decides to disarm everyone, and in particular the "Mahdi army", either by negotiation or force.
The United States should:
- Begin a new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region. The effort should include every country that has an interest in avoiding a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq’s neighbors.
- Try to engage Iran and Syria constructively, using incentives and disincentives.
- Renew commitment to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace process, including President Bush’s commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.
Iran should:
- Stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq.
- Respect Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
- Use its influence over Iraqi Shiite groups to encourage national reconciliation.
Syria should:
- Control its border with Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents and terrorists in and out of Iraq.
International efforts:
- The issue of Iran’s nuclear arms should be dealt with by the five members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany.
- A possible regional conference on Iraq or broader Middle East peace issues.
The most interesting part is what "incentives and disincentives" could be used with Iran and Syria? I am assuming the Study Group would not consider Bush threatening military strikes a good idea, even though you get the feeling that such threats are the only kind that might make Iran and Syria act more cautiously.
Many, many commentators will make a similar point, I am sure. See this article in Slate for one.
Then this other article in Slate (which I only read after starting this post) does give more detail:
On Page 51, the authors acknowledge that the United States should offer Iran and Syria incentives, "much as it did successfully with Libya." But the Libyans had nothing to lose, and everything to gain, when they agreed to give up their nascent (and still very primitive) nuclear program. The Iranians, by contrast, have great wealth and enormous leverage, not only in the Middle East but with European and Asian countries that depend on their oil.
The authors do take a bold step here. They list a few "possible incentives" that Bush might offer Iran, among them "the prospect of a U.S. policy that emphasizes political and economic reforms instead of … regime change."
Well, I suspect that Iran feels pretty secure that a policy that wants regime chance can be resisted indefinitely. I mean, look at Iraq!Meanwhile, I have said for some time that common sense indicates there is no hope of governing a country split along religious sectarian lines when the government allows either or both sides to maintain their own militia. I would have thought that little progress is going to be made until the government decides to disarm everyone, and in particular the "Mahdi army", either by negotiation or force.
In the (Cheney) family way
Wow. VP Cheney's gay daughter is pregnant. Although not explained, one assumes it is through some donor's sperm. (I wonder if the donor is gay.)
Talk about doing whatever she can to alienate the religious conservatives who support the Republican Party! (Although I guess Cheney is more or less out of politics with the next election anyway.)
Talk about doing whatever she can to alienate the religious conservatives who support the Republican Party! (Although I guess Cheney is more or less out of politics with the next election anyway.)
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
A new form of terror
It would have to be the best flatuence story for a long time:
Flatulence brought 99 passengers on an American Airlines flight to an unscheduled visit to Nashville early Monday morning.
American Flight 1053, from Washington Reagan National Airport and bound for Dallas/Fort Worth, made an emergency landing here after passengers reported smelling struck matches, said Lynne Lowrance, a spokeswoman for the Nashville International Airport Authority....
The passengers and five crew members were brought off the plane, together with all the luggage, to go through security checks again. Bomb-sniffing dogs found spent matches.
The FBI questioned a passenger who admitted she struck the matches in an attempt to conceal body odor, Lowrance said. The woman lives near Dallas and has a medical condition.
Found via Boing Boing.
Flatulence brought 99 passengers on an American Airlines flight to an unscheduled visit to Nashville early Monday morning.
American Flight 1053, from Washington Reagan National Airport and bound for Dallas/Fort Worth, made an emergency landing here after passengers reported smelling struck matches, said Lynne Lowrance, a spokeswoman for the Nashville International Airport Authority....
The passengers and five crew members were brought off the plane, together with all the luggage, to go through security checks again. Bomb-sniffing dogs found spent matches.
The FBI questioned a passenger who admitted she struck the matches in an attempt to conceal body odor, Lowrance said. The woman lives near Dallas and has a medical condition.
Found via Boing Boing.
Better title needed
New Roads Act as a Highway for Diarrhea
It's from Scientific American and not all that interesting. Just a funny sort of title, I thought.
It's from Scientific American and not all that interesting. Just a funny sort of title, I thought.
Strange matter indeed
My interest in whether the Large Hadron Collider at Cern will accidentally cause the end of the earth continues, but there hasn't been much new at arxiv for a while that seems relevant to my previous focus (the creation of mini black holes).
However, I have recently found some stuff regarding "strangelets," which might also be created in the LHC and are another possible way disaster could happen. (Its risk has been dismissed because cosmic rays in the atmosphere should already have caused it to happen, and seeing the earth is still here, they can't be dangerous. Maybe, but it has been some time since that paper was written, and the problem is you don't get much of a sense that they review new theoretical scenarios on a risk basis all that often.)
I know little about strangelets, and had not previously realised that some scientists think that they may already occasionally pass through the earth, and be detectable as causing earthquakes! The Wired story from 2003 about this is here. As it says:
Most scientists don't think this really was the explanation, but I think that is to do with the timing of the earthquakes, not due to any loopiness about the general idea.
For a more general paper, see this paper from May 2006 (with the intriguing title "Strangelets: Who is Looking and How".) It turns out that there are lots of ways scientists can look for it, in the atmosphere, as well as in lunar and earth soil.
The issue with creating them in the LHC is that maybe it is possible to have strangelets that just don't sit there inert, but can change other normal matter to strange matter too. (I think this is scenario, I haven't re-read it for a while.) "Normal" stable strange matter being created in the LHC would not be much of a problem, as it would have very small mass. But I must look around on the internet for any recent stuff on the dangerous strange matter scenario.
It's an odd thought that, if you are really, really unlucky, you might be killed by a high speed super- massive thing from space the size of a red blood cell.
However, I have recently found some stuff regarding "strangelets," which might also be created in the LHC and are another possible way disaster could happen. (Its risk has been dismissed because cosmic rays in the atmosphere should already have caused it to happen, and seeing the earth is still here, they can't be dangerous. Maybe, but it has been some time since that paper was written, and the problem is you don't get much of a sense that they review new theoretical scenarios on a risk basis all that often.)
I know little about strangelets, and had not previously realised that some scientists think that they may already occasionally pass through the earth, and be detectable as causing earthquakes! The Wired story from 2003 about this is here. As it says:
It's remarkable that some strange guest should sweep through Earth like a hot wire through wax, and that no one would notice as it did so. But though the visitor was very fast and fairly heavy, it was also extremely small: a mass of as much as
10 tons squeezed into something about the size of a red blood cell. If a 10-ton asteroid fell to Earth at 400 kilometers per second, people would notice; something the size of a small car hitting the unyielding Earth at that speed would give up its kinetic energy in an explosion to rival that of a 200-kiloton nuclear weapon. But condensed to the size of a small amoeba, the same mass wouldn't cause anywhere near as much fuss. The fearsome momentum of the microscopic visitor would shatter the bonds between molecules directly in its path and push the bystanders aside. It would do this vigorously enough to melt a small tunnel as it passed, slicing through the rocky earth almost as easily as it passed through air and water....
So, what would it mean for Earth if the dark matter that astronomers believe envelops our galaxy was made of strange matter? Strange nuggets up to a billion or so times the mass of a normal atom would fall to Earth and just sit there, chemically inert and hard to find. Larger nuggets would penetrate the planet's interior before stopping. And nuggets weighing more than a tenth of a gram would pass right through. A large nugget, elbowing its way through Earth at high speed, might be detectable by seismologists.Most scientists don't think this really was the explanation, but I think that is to do with the timing of the earthquakes, not due to any loopiness about the general idea.
For a more general paper, see this paper from May 2006 (with the intriguing title "Strangelets: Who is Looking and How".) It turns out that there are lots of ways scientists can look for it, in the atmosphere, as well as in lunar and earth soil.
The issue with creating them in the LHC is that maybe it is possible to have strangelets that just don't sit there inert, but can change other normal matter to strange matter too. (I think this is scenario, I haven't re-read it for a while.) "Normal" stable strange matter being created in the LHC would not be much of a problem, as it would have very small mass. But I must look around on the internet for any recent stuff on the dangerous strange matter scenario.
It's an odd thought that, if you are really, really unlucky, you might be killed by a high speed super- massive thing from space the size of a red blood cell.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Bad signs
1. Iran introduces more Internet censorship (from The Guardian, via Tigerhawk):
Iran yesterday shut down access to some of the world's most popular websites. Users were unable to open popular sites including Amazon.com and YouTube following instructions to service providers to filter them.
3. The Jerusalem Post reports that a new security assessment by (I think) its own defence force is that the US will not take any pre-emptive strike against Iran:
I guess we all knew this before, but the bad aspect is that such reports confirm to Iran that they appear to be in the clear, except perhaps if Israel decides to take matters into its own hands. But I think there is still considerable doubt about how Israel could conduct such an attack without America's direct involvement.
A lengthy article in the Jerusalem Post notes all the problems with the various possible approaches, and comes up with this variation on a diplomatic solution:
Iran yesterday shut down access to some of the world's most popular websites. Users were unable to open popular sites including Amazon.com and YouTube following instructions to service providers to filter them.
Similar edicts have been issued against Wikipedia, the internet encyclopaedia, IMDB.com, an online film database, and the New York Times site. Attempts to open the sites are met with a page reading: "The requested page is forbidden."...Some news sites, such as the BBC's Farsi service, are also blocked.
2. John Bolton resigns as US ambassador. Tough straight talk no longer to be heard at the UN.3. The Jerusalem Post reports that a new security assessment by (I think) its own defence force is that the US will not take any pre-emptive strike against Iran:
Predicting Iran will obtain nuclear weapons by the end of the decade, the defense establishment's new and updated assessment for 2007 does not foresee the United States undertaking a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear installations, The Jerusalem Post has learned.
The chances of an American strike are deemed "low," according to assessments by the security establishment. Israel also believes that international diplomatic efforts to stop Iran will fail, security sources said.
The article goes on to explain that there is little hope of very effective sanctions due to Russia's role.I guess we all knew this before, but the bad aspect is that such reports confirm to Iran that they appear to be in the clear, except perhaps if Israel decides to take matters into its own hands. But I think there is still considerable doubt about how Israel could conduct such an attack without America's direct involvement.
A lengthy article in the Jerusalem Post notes all the problems with the various possible approaches, and comes up with this variation on a diplomatic solution:
Nuclear Defusing might help the parties back off from the brink by changing their expectations so as to dispose them to take measures that would be otherwise inconceivable. It includes making Israel - Iran's avowed nuclear target - a member of NATO and the quid pro quo agreement of Israel to move rapidly to a permanent two-state solution, more or less along the Clinton Plan, and to a peace treaty with Syria in return for the Golan Heights.
Placing Israel under NATO's nuclear umbrella would go a long way toward deterring Iran from threatening or attacking Israel with nuclear weapons. But will NATO, in particular its European members, accept Israel?...
With an increasing Muslim population, sounds kind of unlikely, doesn't it? I reckon if France indicated it was taking this proposal seriously, it would be romantic walks by car fire in Paris for a few months at least.
The end game is meant to be this:
Once Israel is embedded in NATO, and Israelis and Palestinians have embarked on a long-term truce and adopted peaceful coexistence, the international community will promote regional arms control involving NATO, Iran, and other Middle East countries.
In one or two generations the Middle East could become a nuclear weapons free zone.
I'm not going to hold my breath hoping for this approach to get off the ground.
(Readers who have not been here before are also referred to my previous musings about attack by Electronic bomb. That's assuming they exist and work..)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)