Roger L. Simon: I did the Prius thing
Conservative climate change agnostic Roger Simon got himself a Prius recently. When you read the comments, you'll see that the car seems to have quite a following amongst his conservative-ish readers.
I'm a little surprised: more than one says that they have found best fuel efficiency on long highway drives. I thought that was were they were known to be at their worst, but these are actual drivers who have the experience.
I see that the Toyota Australian website claims a Prius gets 4.4L/100km.
Tim Blair recently was talking up the diesel sipping Hyundai he took for a spin, but you would have to take into account that diesel is more expensive here than unleaded. In terms of cost, I suspect the Prius may still come out on top for a similar trip.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Nice one, Phil
Two women found guilty over euthanasia | NEWS.com.au
So, a couple of women who supplied a fatal dose of Nembutal to a man who had moderate-to-advanced Alzheimer's disease have been found guilty of manslaughter.
(How could it be manslaughter instead of murder, I wonder. The jury found that it was an unintended death?)
Anyhow, the main point of the post is the hysterical and irresponsible comments of Dr Philip Nitschke, who as usual (seems you just can't keep him away from someone who wants to die,) was involved in this:
His enthusiasm for euthansia trumps best medical practice, clearly.
So, a couple of women who supplied a fatal dose of Nembutal to a man who had moderate-to-advanced Alzheimer's disease have been found guilty of manslaughter.
(How could it be manslaughter instead of murder, I wonder. The jury found that it was an unintended death?)
Anyhow, the main point of the post is the hysterical and irresponsible comments of Dr Philip Nitschke, who as usual (seems you just can't keep him away from someone who wants to die,) was involved in this:
Dr Nitschke said his organisation, Exit International, would now change the way it advises people with Alzheimer's.Just how irresponsible can you get? He's a doctor, telling people not to see a doctor if they are worried that they might have early signs of Alzheimer's. No mediation for those who might benefit from it, then. All because they want to reserve their ability to top themselves later with less risk of legal complications.
"Any sign of Alzheimer's disease and you're going to lose any option for anyone to help you, and anyone who does dare to help you had better look carefully behind their shoulders because they could be facing a murder charge," he said.
"Many people said this person knew what he was doing. I thought he knew what he was doing. Yet they base it on the medical evidence that he had lost his ability to make a decision, that he had lost his ability to say whether he could die or not.
"We'll be advising people not to (declare they have Alzheimer's).
"Don't go to your doctor. Don't have the tests done. And if you do have the tests done that show that you're starting to lose mental capacity, make sure it is not recorded."
His enthusiasm for euthansia trumps best medical practice, clearly.
Mile high club
Mile-high tower wars: How tall is too tall? - Features, Art & Architecture - The Independent
An interesting article here about a 1.6 km high skyscraper to be built at Jeddah in Saudi Arabia.
According to the article, it will cost $5 billion. I would have thought it could be more than that.
Such projects raise mixed emotions in me. I like anything high tech, and this building is so far ahead of anything else, it'll be fascinating just to see if they can make it work.
On the other hand, it's hard to believe anyone wants to live that high above the ground, especially in Saudi Arabia, which is not exactly on most people's "must see" list of destinations.
It seems to have "white elephant" written all over it.
An interesting article here about a 1.6 km high skyscraper to be built at Jeddah in Saudi Arabia.
According to the article, it will cost $5 billion. I would have thought it could be more than that.
Such projects raise mixed emotions in me. I like anything high tech, and this building is so far ahead of anything else, it'll be fascinating just to see if they can make it work.
On the other hand, it's hard to believe anyone wants to live that high above the ground, especially in Saudi Arabia, which is not exactly on most people's "must see" list of destinations.
It seems to have "white elephant" written all over it.
A promising Pixar
Introducing WALL-E, a silent movie star - Times Online
Early impressions of the latest Pixar are very positive, according to this article.
Not a bad summer season of films it seems, especially for those who like entertainment you can take the whole family to.
Early impressions of the latest Pixar are very positive, according to this article.
Not a bad summer season of films it seems, especially for those who like entertainment you can take the whole family to.
Attack of the cutes
Just so that this blog can't be accused of being too depressing lately, here's an attack of the cutes (and I don't even like cats):
(The second half is funnier than the first half.)
(The second half is funnier than the first half.)
Deep sea CO2
There have been a few articles in The Guardian about sending CO2 to the deep ocean. It has certain advantages over pumping it underground, and the fate of such CO2 is more complicated than I realised:
Just go back to nuclear sounds a much better option.
But how much can you fit in the Pacific Ocean?:First, in order to ensure that the injected CO2 has adequate time to mix throughout the deep sea, injection should be at depths greater than 3,500 metres - that is, the depth below which "liquid" CO2 becomes more dense than sea water.
Experiments conducted by Peter Brewer, of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, not only confirm that this is the case but also demonstrate that the CO2 injected rapidly reacts with sea water to form a solid clathrate, which is more dense than both liquid CO2 and sea water. Hence, the injected CO2 would end up on the sea floor as a slush. This would gradually dissolve, releasing the CO2 to the surrounding sea water, where it would react with the dissolved carbonate and borate ions to become chemically bound in the form of bicarbonate ion. As the concentration of carbonate and borate ions is small, the neutralisation would take place gradually as the CO2-rich sea water mixed into the surroundings.
Broecker says 480bn tonnes of carbon dioxide could be safely dumped directly into the waters of the deep Pacific, equivalent to the carbon pollution from about 16 years of the world's current fossil fuel use.Not that much, really. And some say that it would increase the acidity of the deep ocean, which as we all know, may not be a great idea.
Just go back to nuclear sounds a much better option.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
You should read this
Regular readers know that I keep referring to the worrying theory that the great mass extinctions in earth's pre-history are connected with high atmospheric CO2, and its effect on ocean chemistry. The Scientific American article which first brought this to my attention said that the great extinctions seemed to be associated with CO2 levels of just under 1000 ppm. That's a fair way from where we are now, but still within sight of a century or so of current CO2 increases.
However, there's now a paper here, found via the Ocean Acidification blog, which suggests that maybe the "unifying theory" for mass extinctions is a CO2 level that specifically interferes with the operation of a particular enzyme. The biology is a little complicated, but the big concern with this theory is that severe trouble for the ocean environment may actually start at only 560ppm CO2. That could easily be reached by the middle of this century.
It's not too hard to read the full paper (in .pdf format), and it is well worth the effort. The implications for the future are set out towards the end. I'll put it here in full, and break it up a bit to make it easier to read:
It is consistent with my position that arguing about whether the earth is currently warming or cooling is irrelevant to the issue of whether keeping CO2 levels down is a good idea.
What's more, the climate change sceptics are still largely silent on the issue of ocean changes as a result of high CO2. (Pointing out that corals have re-established in nuclear test lagoons is hardly relevant.) I don't think they can find any credible scientist who has compelling arguments as to why such concerns are not worthy of being taken seriously. Correct me if I am wrong, Jennifer Marohasy. (I note that she ran with suggestions earlier this year that the cooling temperature would see the alarmists start to run with ocean acidification instead. This is not an answer to the actual concerns, however.)
However, there's now a paper here, found via the Ocean Acidification blog, which suggests that maybe the "unifying theory" for mass extinctions is a CO2 level that specifically interferes with the operation of a particular enzyme. The biology is a little complicated, but the big concern with this theory is that severe trouble for the ocean environment may actually start at only 560ppm CO2. That could easily be reached by the middle of this century.
It's not too hard to read the full paper (in .pdf format), and it is well worth the effort. The implications for the future are set out towards the end. I'll put it here in full, and break it up a bit to make it easier to read:
Over the next century, if anthropogenic CO2 emissions proceed at the rates predicted by the IPCC scenarios (IPCC, 2001), then the identified pCO2 threshold concentration of 560 ppmv may be exceeded as early as 2050 (Fig. 3). Whilst the direct climatic impacts of this overshoot remain difficult to quantify with certainty, simple extrapolation of the central tenets of the urease hypothesis suggests that there is little doubt regarding the disruption and mass mortality that it will initiate within organisms that are heavily reliant upon the urease enzyme.Now, this is clearly presented by the author as a hypothesis, and it is called a "discussion paper". The author is a researcher from the Australian Institute of Marine Science in Townsville, but his exact qualifications are not clear. However, it certainly sounds like an idea worthy of some pretty intense investigation.
Previous mass extinction events appear to have guided the evolutionary process away from urease-dependence in higher vertebrate animals, but the threat remains for the lower invertebrates and plant communities. Importantly, these at-risk ecosystem elements are fundamental to: (i) the productive food chains, (ii) the essential habitat, and (iii) the stable climate cycles, upon which the higher vertebrate animals (including humans) rely for their survival.
Of particular note is the potential for a collapse in ocean productivity to initiate rapid greenhouse warming (Rampino and Caldeira, 2005). In this case, the cessation of marine biological export of 25 organic carbon from the surface would cause an increase in surface-ocean dissolved inorganic carbon, some of which would leak into the atmosphere to increase atmospheric pCO2. Modelling results suggest that a cessation of productivity today would result in a rapid doubling of pCO2 (Rampino and Caldiera, 2005). It is therefore a plausible scenario that a collapse of ocean productivity occurring at 560 ppm could trigger a rapid “post-apocalyptic” rise in pCO2 levels beyond 1000 ppm – leading to rapid global warming of 3–6C.
Recovery of atmospheric pCO2 from such a perturbation would be governed by the time scale of equilibrium of the ocean chemistry 5 with the carbonate system (c 104 years) (Archer et al., 1997). Post-apocalyptic greenhouse spikes of similar duration have been associated with previous mass extinctions (Retallack, 2005), and may be responsible for triggering additional climate change dependent kill responses (Elewa, 2008).
Clearly, the urease hypothesis forewarns of the global imperative that atmospheric pCO2 levels are stabilised well below 560 ppmv. This will require the development of technologies and solutions that are presently unavailable – thus demanding our immediate attention and resources.
It is consistent with my position that arguing about whether the earth is currently warming or cooling is irrelevant to the issue of whether keeping CO2 levels down is a good idea.
What's more, the climate change sceptics are still largely silent on the issue of ocean changes as a result of high CO2. (Pointing out that corals have re-established in nuclear test lagoons is hardly relevant.) I don't think they can find any credible scientist who has compelling arguments as to why such concerns are not worthy of being taken seriously. Correct me if I am wrong, Jennifer Marohasy. (I note that she ran with suggestions earlier this year that the cooling temperature would see the alarmists start to run with ocean acidification instead. This is not an answer to the actual concerns, however.)
On the gay front
Widespread reporting today of one study indicating similarities between gay brains and those of the opposite sex. One part that surprised me:
As other people have argued before, it's not even certain that it is helpful for the gay lobby to encourage a belief that it is innate. On the one hand, they can argue against discrimination because it is not something they can choose (a cultural idea that has widespread currency already in the West;) on the other hand, it can still be taken that they are, in a sense, a biological mistake. If it is clear that babies are born that way, would a course of the right hormones be able to "cure" them?
And how would such studies also make sense of the (apparent) widespread bisexuality of Ancient Greece? The question of what exactly was going on in Greece, and a couple of other ancient civilisations, is perhaps a little difficult to be sure of from this point in time; but still, given that their neighbours at the time even thought they were strange indicates that they probably were.
On a related matter, the New York Times last week ran an article on how gay marriage is panning out in Massachusetts. I think it has been found in all places allowing it that there is an initial rush to the registry by couples who have been together for years anyway, followed by rapidly dwindling numbers. In Massachusetts:
As for the view of the meaning of marriage that some gay males have:
It also makes a bit of a joke of the "conservative case" for gay marriage, which I have heard Justice Michael Kirby (amongst others) argue. Let them marry, they say, and it will encourage monogamous relationships and stable families and that is a good thing as far as conservatives are concerned.
Sounds nice in principle, but really, it doesn't realistically take into account nature. As a rule, men (both gay and straight) find sex without commitment easy, and evolutionary biology plausibly explains why. Even with modern young women willing to have purely recreational sex, it still carries more risk of emotional or procreative complications compared to 2 men who meet purely for sex. Making gay marriage available is not somehow going to suddenly make the great majority of them think that they would be better off getting into monogamous relationships any time soon.
Gay women, on the other hand, still seem to have the nesting instinct even when their partner is another woman. Not much of a surprise there. They didn't need any encouragement to "settle down".
But worse than all of this, as far as I am concerned, is the procreative interests of gay couples. That lesbians use artificial insemination to have babies seems to me far more offensive to the conservative viewpoint than the nature of the relationship between the adults. That argument, however, seems to be lost in the West, at least for now.
UPDATE: a reasonably well argued conservative commentary on the topic is at American Spectator.
The researchers said that the study cannot say whether the differences in brain shape are inherited or due to to exposure to hormones such as testosterone in the womb and if they are responsible for sexual orientation.But this is something they plan to look at in a further study of newborn babies to see if it can help predict future sexual orientation.
Would such a study be ethical? Are PET scans completely without risk, and just how important is it for science to pin down when such brain changes (if this study is correct) are formed?
As other people have argued before, it's not even certain that it is helpful for the gay lobby to encourage a belief that it is innate. On the one hand, they can argue against discrimination because it is not something they can choose (a cultural idea that has widespread currency already in the West;) on the other hand, it can still be taken that they are, in a sense, a biological mistake. If it is clear that babies are born that way, would a course of the right hormones be able to "cure" them?
And how would such studies also make sense of the (apparent) widespread bisexuality of Ancient Greece? The question of what exactly was going on in Greece, and a couple of other ancient civilisations, is perhaps a little difficult to be sure of from this point in time; but still, given that their neighbours at the time even thought they were strange indicates that they probably were.
On a related matter, the New York Times last week ran an article on how gay marriage is panning out in Massachusetts. I think it has been found in all places allowing it that there is an initial rush to the registry by couples who have been together for years anyway, followed by rapidly dwindling numbers. In Massachusetts:
Of the more than 10,500 same-sex couples married here since May 17, 2004, 6,121 wed in the first six months. There were 2,060 weddings in 2005; 1,442 in 2006; and 867 in the first eight months of 2007, the most recent data show.More figures of interest:
So it sounds like about half of gay couples living together there are married now, but with the diminishing numbers who are getting married annually, will that really continue to be the case?The Census Bureau recorded 23,655 same-sex households in Massachusetts in 2006.
Nearly two-thirds of the weddings have been lesbian marriages, including one between two women named Melissa McCarthy. And while nearly half of straight people marrying are under 30, more same-sex married couples of both sexes are older — nearly a third are in their 40s.
As for the view of the meaning of marriage that some gay males have:
Well, I'm glad we overturned millennia of humanity's understanding of marriage so that some gay men who want to continue to openly play the field can still get the financial benefits of having a favourite boyfriend. (Yes, I know, we don't criticise heterosexual marriage as an institution because some - very, very, few I suspect- enter into "open" marriages. But if such attitudes are widespread amongst married gay men, I think it does mean they don't treat marriage seriously, and it weakens the case as to why they should be accommodated.)Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck, both 44, see each other only every other weekend because Mr. Peck works in Pittsburgh. So, Mr. Erbelding said, “Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.”
Mr. Erbelding, a decorative painter in Boston, said: “I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn’t mean anything.”
Still, Mr. Erbelding said, most married gay couples he knows are “for the most part monogamous, but for maybe a casual three-way.”
It also makes a bit of a joke of the "conservative case" for gay marriage, which I have heard Justice Michael Kirby (amongst others) argue. Let them marry, they say, and it will encourage monogamous relationships and stable families and that is a good thing as far as conservatives are concerned.
Sounds nice in principle, but really, it doesn't realistically take into account nature. As a rule, men (both gay and straight) find sex without commitment easy, and evolutionary biology plausibly explains why. Even with modern young women willing to have purely recreational sex, it still carries more risk of emotional or procreative complications compared to 2 men who meet purely for sex. Making gay marriage available is not somehow going to suddenly make the great majority of them think that they would be better off getting into monogamous relationships any time soon.
Gay women, on the other hand, still seem to have the nesting instinct even when their partner is another woman. Not much of a surprise there. They didn't need any encouragement to "settle down".
But worse than all of this, as far as I am concerned, is the procreative interests of gay couples. That lesbians use artificial insemination to have babies seems to me far more offensive to the conservative viewpoint than the nature of the relationship between the adults. That argument, however, seems to be lost in the West, at least for now.
UPDATE: a reasonably well argued conservative commentary on the topic is at American Spectator.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Something to wonder about
Sewage disaster leaves over 700 gallons of human feces in Kingston woman’s home
I only post about this because of this part of the report:
I only post about this because of this part of the report:
"This was completely flooded with feces and water and pee, and of course I smelled it. When I came in and I called the city guys and it’s estimated at 786.24 gallons of human feces got backed up into my house," Riley says.Well, just lucky it wasn't 786.45 gallons. (Why on earth is that figure so precise?)
More religion
Bush 'may convert to Catholicism' - The Independent
Tony Blair and now George W? How interesting.
Meanwhile, Liberal Anglicans are doing their best to stop their church resembling anything even vaguely unified by holding a prominent "marriage" of two gay priests. Despite the priest who led the ceremony denying that it was provocative, it was liturgically as close as a marriage service as possible. According to The Times:
What fun the Lambeth conference will be this year. Rowan Williams may as well be looking at how to formally end the worldwide communion right now.
Tony Blair and now George W? How interesting.
Meanwhile, Liberal Anglicans are doing their best to stop their church resembling anything even vaguely unified by holding a prominent "marriage" of two gay priests. Despite the priest who led the ceremony denying that it was provocative, it was liturgically as close as a marriage service as possible. According to The Times:
Had it not been two men standing at the altar, any observer would have taken the service for a traditional wedding. The service – at the Church of St Bartholomew the Great in the City of London – began: “Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God . . . to join together these men in a holy covenant of love and fidelity.” After a confession of sin “through our own deliberate fault”, the congregation heard a lesson from 1 Samuel 18, a Bible passage about the love between David and Jonathan.Oh no, that's not provocative at all!Dr Lord was asked: “David, wilt thou take this man as thy partner, in the sight of God? Wilt thou love him, comfort him, honour, and keep him in sickness and in health, and, forsaking all others, keep thee only unto him, so long as ye both shall live?’” to which he responded: “I will.”
They also pledged to love each other physically, as in the traditional Anglican marriage service, stating: “With this ring I thee bind, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow.”
What fun the Lambeth conference will be this year. Rowan Williams may as well be looking at how to formally end the worldwide communion right now.
Prince Caspian
For those readers who have been dying to know what I thought of Prince Caspian (cue crickets chirping), here it is.
Reviews for Prince Caspian fall into 3 broad categories:
1. The irreligious who can't stand CS Lewis' use of fantasy as an allegory for Christianity, and therefore cannot bear any of the Narnia films due to their quasi-proselytising nature.
2. The irreligious who feel that Prince Caspian works as adventure and is more enjoyable than The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe because it's allegorical content is considerably diminished compared to the first movie. A lot of Australian reviews I have read fall into this category.
3. Those who who admire CS Lewis and his aims, and are therefore a little disappointed that the movie does seem to soft peddle the serious side.
I'm not entirely sure that I have read any review that clearly falls into category 3, but that was my reaction. I suspect that (apart from the appalling timing of releasing it a week before Indiana Jones in the States) there are probably significant numbers of American Christians who share the view, and this is a partial explanation for why it seems destined to make barely half of what the first movie made. (Still, as far as I can tell, it won't lose money.)
On the positive side: it looks fantastic, and the use of computer effects is kept to a level where it is not making you think "look at those 50,000 combatants who are obviously all CGI". (I'm looking at you, "Lord of the Rings".)
The story also has the benefit of real humans playing real characters (contrast, again, LOTR) and the acting is fine. Also, Andrew Adamson is really a talented director.
On the downside, Aslan comes and dispenses wisdom and assistance only a couple of times. It's been so long since I read the book (if I did at all; I can't even recall clearly which I have read beyond three titles,) that I am not entirely sure if it is the same there. Certainly many reviewers have noted that the book is perhaps the least interesting of the Narnia series.
I certainly don't want to put anyone off seeing it: it is a fine movie; just one that feels a little lacking if, like me, you loved the first one. (By the way, you can always tell a movie has impressed people when a fair few stay in the cinema watching the credits. That did happen at the screening I went to.)
Of course, one of the most disgraceful things is that Sex and the City beat it at the Australia box office on opening weekend. Can't the Pope issue some sort of condemnation of that film? If we lived in Old Testament times, I would expect God to demand the human sacrifice of Sarah Jessica Parker (on an altar erected in front of some fashion house in New York, the contents of which would form the funeral pyre for her body) as a condition of letting the rest of humanity survive. And that would sound perfectly reasonable to me.
Reviews for Prince Caspian fall into 3 broad categories:
1. The irreligious who can't stand CS Lewis' use of fantasy as an allegory for Christianity, and therefore cannot bear any of the Narnia films due to their quasi-proselytising nature.
2. The irreligious who feel that Prince Caspian works as adventure and is more enjoyable than The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe because it's allegorical content is considerably diminished compared to the first movie. A lot of Australian reviews I have read fall into this category.
3. Those who who admire CS Lewis and his aims, and are therefore a little disappointed that the movie does seem to soft peddle the serious side.
I'm not entirely sure that I have read any review that clearly falls into category 3, but that was my reaction. I suspect that (apart from the appalling timing of releasing it a week before Indiana Jones in the States) there are probably significant numbers of American Christians who share the view, and this is a partial explanation for why it seems destined to make barely half of what the first movie made. (Still, as far as I can tell, it won't lose money.)
On the positive side: it looks fantastic, and the use of computer effects is kept to a level where it is not making you think "look at those 50,000 combatants who are obviously all CGI". (I'm looking at you, "Lord of the Rings".)
The story also has the benefit of real humans playing real characters (contrast, again, LOTR) and the acting is fine. Also, Andrew Adamson is really a talented director.
On the downside, Aslan comes and dispenses wisdom and assistance only a couple of times. It's been so long since I read the book (if I did at all; I can't even recall clearly which I have read beyond three titles,) that I am not entirely sure if it is the same there. Certainly many reviewers have noted that the book is perhaps the least interesting of the Narnia series.
I certainly don't want to put anyone off seeing it: it is a fine movie; just one that feels a little lacking if, like me, you loved the first one. (By the way, you can always tell a movie has impressed people when a fair few stay in the cinema watching the credits. That did happen at the screening I went to.)
Of course, one of the most disgraceful things is that Sex and the City beat it at the Australia box office on opening weekend. Can't the Pope issue some sort of condemnation of that film? If we lived in Old Testament times, I would expect God to demand the human sacrifice of Sarah Jessica Parker (on an altar erected in front of some fashion house in New York, the contents of which would form the funeral pyre for her body) as a condition of letting the rest of humanity survive. And that would sound perfectly reasonable to me.
Aussie fuel cells
I've mentioned before that in Japan they are using natural gas fuel cells for household electricity.
On Saturday Extra on Radio National this weekend, they were talking about an Austalian company which is developing them too. There is no transcript available, but you can listen to it on streaming audio here. (It starts about half way through that segment.)
The link to the company itself is here. I don't think it is not mentioned on their site, but was in the interview, that it is CSIRO research which the company is trying to commercialise.
We won't be seeing them anytime soon in Australia, however. According to the interview, they are being commercialised for the European, Japanese and North American markets. This is because the cost of electricity here is such that they are not yet cost effective.
On Saturday Extra on Radio National this weekend, they were talking about an Austalian company which is developing them too. There is no transcript available, but you can listen to it on streaming audio here. (It starts about half way through that segment.)
The link to the company itself is here. I don't think it is not mentioned on their site, but was in the interview, that it is CSIRO research which the company is trying to commercialise.
We won't be seeing them anytime soon in Australia, however. According to the interview, they are being commercialised for the European, Japanese and North American markets. This is because the cost of electricity here is such that they are not yet cost effective.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Just what the world has been waiting for...
...robots that make smells:
Pomi (Penguin Robot for Multimodal Interaction) can see, hear, touch and emit smells as well as making faces, Friday's Korea Times reported. It was developed by the state-run Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) which plans to put Pomi to commercial use. The institute said Pomi's software, which imitates human expressions of emotion, will be available on the market by the end of next month. The robot can move its lips, eyebrows and even pupils freely to make faces and can emit two kinds of fragrances to match its emotions.Let's all pray that the Korean's never design a kimchi eating penguin robot that can "emit" smells.
Friday, June 13, 2008
The strength of a weed
Health - Life & Style Home - theage.com.au
The link is to a story about very thorough sounding research in the US which shows that marijuana is indeed much stronger than it used to be in its THC levels:
Last year, The Guardian reported that tests in the UK indicated the average there was 14% (with a small number of samples at 20%).
I'm not sure if similar research is done in Australia. Will have to look around some other time.
The link is to a story about very thorough sounding research in the US which shows that marijuana is indeed much stronger than it used to be in its THC levels:
I note that it is talking averages too, so presumably a significant amount in use is above that level.The latest analysis from the University of Mississippi's Potency Monitoring Project tracked the average amount of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, in samples seized by law enforcement agencies from 1975 through 2007.
It found that the average amount of THC reached 9.6 per cent in 2007, compared with 8.75 per cent the previous year.
The 9.6 per cent level represents more than a doubling of marijuana potency since 1983, when it averaged just under four per cent.
Last year, The Guardian reported that tests in the UK indicated the average there was 14% (with a small number of samples at 20%).
I'm not sure if similar research is done in Australia. Will have to look around some other time.
Analysing Japan
Pajamas Media : What’s the Matter with Japan?
This commentary on the social problems within Japan (viewed in light of the recent Akihabara killings) is spot on.
A key thing that they have to change is the cultural attitude to mental illness and depression. I may have mentioned before, but an Australian friend who lives in Japan (and until recently worked in an administrative position in an english language school) told me that they always did whatever they could to avoid their foreign teachers being taken by police to a psychiatric hospital, because once in there was no telling when they would ever get out. Involuntary admission to a Japan psych ward is something to really fear, apparently.
Even non-psychiatric medicine can expect patients to be stoic to an extent that we haven't seen in the West for many years. A few years ago I was told by a Japanese specialist who performed stomach endoscopies that they were done without any anaesthesia, and as a result were very unpleasant for the patient. (He said he would take a lot of convincing to ever undergo one himself, as he knew how awful they were. I don't know that your gag reflex ever properly stops while you've got a tube down your throat into your stomach.)
As it happens, I had a stomach endoscopy once in Australia in the early 1990's, and knew nothing about it until I woke up. He could not really explain why Japan did not believe in anaesthesia for this procedure. I am sure that he knew that this was not just a peculiarity of the hospital he worked in.
One thing I did not know is that, according to the article, Japan's relatively generous medical insurance schemes do not cover psychiatric treatment.
Amazing, hey?
This commentary on the social problems within Japan (viewed in light of the recent Akihabara killings) is spot on.
A key thing that they have to change is the cultural attitude to mental illness and depression. I may have mentioned before, but an Australian friend who lives in Japan (and until recently worked in an administrative position in an english language school) told me that they always did whatever they could to avoid their foreign teachers being taken by police to a psychiatric hospital, because once in there was no telling when they would ever get out. Involuntary admission to a Japan psych ward is something to really fear, apparently.
Even non-psychiatric medicine can expect patients to be stoic to an extent that we haven't seen in the West for many years. A few years ago I was told by a Japanese specialist who performed stomach endoscopies that they were done without any anaesthesia, and as a result were very unpleasant for the patient. (He said he would take a lot of convincing to ever undergo one himself, as he knew how awful they were. I don't know that your gag reflex ever properly stops while you've got a tube down your throat into your stomach.)
As it happens, I had a stomach endoscopy once in Australia in the early 1990's, and knew nothing about it until I woke up. He could not really explain why Japan did not believe in anaesthesia for this procedure. I am sure that he knew that this was not just a peculiarity of the hospital he worked in.
One thing I did not know is that, according to the article, Japan's relatively generous medical insurance schemes do not cover psychiatric treatment.
Amazing, hey?
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Real life ocean acidification
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Natural lab shows sea's acid path
Here's a very interesting recent report on some science being done in ocean areas near Italy that already are more acidic due to volcanic CO2 bubbling through the sea.
As expected, the news does not look good for corals, sea urchins, sea snails, and mussels. (I assume that oysters, although they don't get a mention, would also not fare well .) One thing that does well appear to do well is seagrass. I suppose that might mean that one winner out of ocean acidification might be dugong/manatees. I don't know whether they taste any good, though.
Here's the abstract in Nature, but the article itself is behind a paywall. Grrr.
It's also interesting to note the recent stories about the surprising number of bacteria found to be living in the earth's crust under the oceans. The exact role of these in carbon cycling is unknown, but would seem to be potentially very significant. Kind of hard to study bacteria that live best under great pressure, though.
I assume that bottom living bacteria would be very significant to the feared production of poisonous gas if the ocean becomes warm and acidic enough. All a worry.
UPDATE: I hope the tone of my post didn't sound too dismissive of concerns about this.
The Nature paper attracted attention in The Times and The Telegraph. Here's what one of the scientists said in the latter:
Here's a very interesting recent report on some science being done in ocean areas near Italy that already are more acidic due to volcanic CO2 bubbling through the sea.
As expected, the news does not look good for corals, sea urchins, sea snails, and mussels. (I assume that oysters, although they don't get a mention, would also not fare well .) One thing that does well appear to do well is seagrass. I suppose that might mean that one winner out of ocean acidification might be dugong/manatees. I don't know whether they taste any good, though.
Here's the abstract in Nature, but the article itself is behind a paywall. Grrr.
It's also interesting to note the recent stories about the surprising number of bacteria found to be living in the earth's crust under the oceans. The exact role of these in carbon cycling is unknown, but would seem to be potentially very significant. Kind of hard to study bacteria that live best under great pressure, though.
I assume that bottom living bacteria would be very significant to the feared production of poisonous gas if the ocean becomes warm and acidic enough. All a worry.
UPDATE: I hope the tone of my post didn't sound too dismissive of concerns about this.
The Nature paper attracted attention in The Times and The Telegraph. Here's what one of the scientists said in the latter:
Also, I note that, although there was a lengthy Sydney Morning Herald story on ocean acidification on 7 June, it did not mention this paper. In fact, I can't see from Google that it has been reported anywhere in the Australian media. Sort of odd, isn't it, given the implications for the Great Barrier Reef?Dr Hall-Spencer said: "What we saw was very dramatic and shocking.
"All the predictions made in lab experiments about acidity causing the disappearance of species is coming true.
"When we looked in the field it was already happening.
I must admit I though a lot of the claims being made about species disappearing amounted to scaremongering but now I have seen it with my own eyes.
"Our field studies provide a window on the future of the oceans in a high CO2 world. We show the dramatic ecological consequences of ocean acidification including the removal of corals, snails and sea urchins and the proliferation of invasive alien algae."
"Our observations verify concerns, based on laboratory experiments and model predictions, that marine food webs will be severely disrupted and major ecological tipping points are likely if human CO2 emissions continue unabated."
Why Israel must survive...
Because it seems to be the only Middle East nation with a sense of humour.
This Time blog link explains all:
Iranian Prez stars in Israeli TV Ad - The Middle East Blog - TIME
But oddly, one of the comments about the post thinks that the fact that Israel TV carries a parody about Ahmadinejad threatening nuclear destruction means that "it shows how the "threat" from Iran has been so indoctrinated into Israeli culture that it is accepted as common and undisputed fact."
I would have thought the opposite is more likely; if the population really fears immediate destruction, they presumably wouldn't find the ad funny. (That's not to say they don't fear a nuclear threat in the future.)
Anyway, as I am sure I have said before, can those who make excuses for Iran having nuclear weapons ever point to any Israeli leader talking about the imminent disappearance of one of their neighbours?
As for the ad itself, here's the Youtube link.
This Time blog link explains all:
Iranian Prez stars in Israeli TV Ad - The Middle East Blog - TIME
But oddly, one of the comments about the post thinks that the fact that Israel TV carries a parody about Ahmadinejad threatening nuclear destruction means that "it shows how the "threat" from Iran has been so indoctrinated into Israeli culture that it is accepted as common and undisputed fact."
I would have thought the opposite is more likely; if the population really fears immediate destruction, they presumably wouldn't find the ad funny. (That's not to say they don't fear a nuclear threat in the future.)
Anyway, as I am sure I have said before, can those who make excuses for Iran having nuclear weapons ever point to any Israeli leader talking about the imminent disappearance of one of their neighbours?
As for the ad itself, here's the Youtube link.
Stand on the scales, please
To Save Fuel, Airlines Find No Speck Too Small - NYTimes.com
This article explains what steps the airlines are taking to try and economise on fuel. Some of it I find hard to believe:
UPDATE: at the risk of referring to the Colbert Report just a little too much, he covered this possibility in last night's show (which I saw after my post):
Also on that episode, he had an interview with a guy who has a book out on the 1950's "comic panic" in America. I had referred to this recently when talking about the Dean Martin/Jerry Lewis movie "Artists and Models". If the topic interests you, the interview is both interesting and funny. (You can find it at Colbert Report website yourself.)
This article explains what steps the airlines are taking to try and economise on fuel. Some of it I find hard to believe:
Up in the cockpit, Delta is studying whether it is feasible to divide the heavy pilot manuals required on each flight between the captain and first officer, so pilots are not toting duplicate sets of five or six books that each weigh about a pound and a half.On the other hand if this is true:
“Every 25 pounds we remove, we save $440,000 a year,” Mr. McGraw said...airlines in countries with significant populations of the obese must be really suffering! Why shouldn't airlines be offering cash back offers for passengers under the national average weight if they are willing to stand on the luggage scales before boarding?
UPDATE: at the risk of referring to the Colbert Report just a little too much, he covered this possibility in last night's show (which I saw after my post):
Also on that episode, he had an interview with a guy who has a book out on the 1950's "comic panic" in America. I had referred to this recently when talking about the Dean Martin/Jerry Lewis movie "Artists and Models". If the topic interests you, the interview is both interesting and funny. (You can find it at Colbert Report website yourself.)
A Wednesday compilation
* The amazing adventures of Kevin Rudd: Last week, Labor figures were saying "no, no, no, the Japanese don't think we have snubbed them." This week, the PM being questioned at length about this in Japan (by Japanese journalists) makes that argument just a little hard to sustain. And is it really a good idea to come across as a smart arse by saying "well, you didn't visit us either."?
Andrew Bolt has covered well the silliness of giving money to Toyota to do what they were going to anyway. I expect the next question time in Parliament will go on about this at length, and rightly so.
* Crab scam: Also in Japan, the fraud is of a fairly esoteric nature. Read about the great Japanese crab scammers here.
* A new way of saying "when Hell freezes over": "when Tim Blair becomes a hypermiler": Wired has an article about "hypermilers" (being people who have become obsessed with driving in such a way as to get maximum fuel economy from their cars.) Some of the methods are just nuts:
* Indiana Jones and the Green Left Weekly: Just what you were waiting for: a socialist left critique of Indiana Jones! The reviewer complains:
Andrew Bolt has covered well the silliness of giving money to Toyota to do what they were going to anyway. I expect the next question time in Parliament will go on about this at length, and rightly so.
* Crab scam: Also in Japan, the fraud is of a fairly esoteric nature. Read about the great Japanese crab scammers here.
* A new way of saying "when Hell freezes over": "when Tim Blair becomes a hypermiler": Wired has an article about "hypermilers" (being people who have become obsessed with driving in such a way as to get maximum fuel economy from their cars.) Some of the methods are just nuts:
Fulton routinely gets 55 mpg from his 1997 Toyota Paseo, a car the EPA rates at 29 mpg. He started hypermiling about 18 months ago when he landed a new job 37 miles from home and got tired of burning so much gas. He mastered "pulse and glide" -- turning off the engine and coasting while driving. "This technique alone dramatically increased my mileage from 38 mpg to 47 mpg on my first tank," he says. "I was blown away."Well, let's just sit back and wait for the first manslaughter conviction for a hypermiler who couldn't use his power steering to help avoid a deadly collision.
* Indiana Jones and the Green Left Weekly: Just what you were waiting for: a socialist left critique of Indiana Jones! The reviewer complains:
The indigenous people who help Indy in his exploits are sympathetically portrayed, but those who resist are seen as ignorant and superstitious. And some really nasty racism rears its ugly head.That's what I like about the po-faced Left: the way they attempt to crush the simple enjoyment out of life. (It is also analysis like this that made the first Austin Powers movie very funny. You know - the part where suddenly the movie veers into looking at the effect on the bad guys' families after they're killed.)
An audience survey of the most popular scenes in Raiders revealed that most people’s favourite scene was when Indy guns down a sword-wielding Egyptian man with a pistol in a crowded square. What if the situation was reversed and a sword-wielding white man was gunned by an Arab? Would it still be the public’s favourite scene? I don’t think so.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Monday compilation
Here are some stories that caught my attention recently:
* How unlucky can you be? To be born albino is pretty unlucky. But to be born albino in certain parts of Africa is taking things to a whole new level. A pretty amazing story in The New York Times explains that albino people s are being killed in sub-Saharan Africa because of magic:
* God gets challenged again: Theodicy gets another discussion in this book review in the New Yorker. Interesting, even if nothing especially new in it.
* I always wanted to live in a dome: It turns out that Buckminster Fuller, famed for coming up with the geodesic dome (and some much sillier designs for all sorts of stuff) was quite the eccentric. Read all about him in a very entertaining article in the New Yorker. Here are some of my favourite sections:
Once you read the article, have a look at the slide show taken from an exhibition that inspired the New Yorker article.
* Justifying affairs: Across the Atlantic, and Zoe Williams in The Guardian takes a sarcastic look at a book entitled "When Good People Have Affairs". Her favourite of the 17 motivations listed therein: breaking out into selfhood.
On Colbert Report tonight, there's a slightly amusing interview with an writer who has also written about why people have affairs. I suspect that (towards the end) Colbert's personal conservative-ish views are on display here (which is fine by me, of course):
* Books for husbands to buy their wives: Back to the New York Times, and there's a review of two books by couples who tried to help their marriages by having sex every day. What's not to like about that idea?
* How unlucky can you be? To be born albino is pretty unlucky. But to be born albino in certain parts of Africa is taking things to a whole new level. A pretty amazing story in The New York Times explains that albino people s are being killed in sub-Saharan Africa because of magic:
....recently in Tanzania...at least 19 albinos, including children, have been killed and mutilated in the past year, victims of what Tanzanian officials say is a growing criminal trade in albino body parts.Darkest Africa indeed.
Many people in Tanzania — and across Africa, for that matter — believe albinos have magical powers. They stand out, often the lone white face in a black crowd, a result of a genetic condition that impairs normal skin pigmentation and strikes about 1 in 3,000 people here. Tanzanian officials say witch doctors are now marketing albino skin, bones and hair as ingredients in potions that are promised to make people rich....
In early May, Vumilia Makoye, 17, was eating dinner with her family in their hut in western Tanzania when two men showed up with long knives....
When Vumilia’s mother, Jeme, saw the men with knives, she tried to barricade the door of their hut. But the men overpowered her and burst in.“They cut my daughter quickly,” she said, making hacking motions with her hands.
The men sawed off Vumilia’s legs above the knee and ran away with the stumps. Vumilia died.
* God gets challenged again: Theodicy gets another discussion in this book review in the New Yorker. Interesting, even if nothing especially new in it.
* I always wanted to live in a dome: It turns out that Buckminster Fuller, famed for coming up with the geodesic dome (and some much sillier designs for all sorts of stuff) was quite the eccentric. Read all about him in a very entertaining article in the New Yorker. Here are some of my favourite sections:
With no job and a new baby to support, Fuller became depressed. One day, he was walking by Lake Michigan, thinking about, in his words, “Buckminster Fuller—life or death,” when he found himself suspended several feet above the ground, surrounded by sparkling light. Time seemed to stand still, and a voice spoke to him. “You do not have the right to eliminate yourself,” it said. “You do not belong to you. You belong to Universe.”...One idea that he came up with was for the "Dymaxion Bathroom—a single unit that came with a built-in tub, toilet, and sink". In fact, I believe this how bathrooms for apartments for Japan are made. Japanese bathing style requires that the entire small bathroom can get wet, so for apartments they are like sealed plastic units that come prefabricated to incorporate into the building.
Castro-like, Fuller could lecture for ten hours at a stretch. (A friend of mine who took an architecture course from Fuller at Yale recalls that classes lasted from nine o’clock in the morning until five in the evening, and that Fuller talked basically the entire time.) Audiences were enraptured and also, it seems, mystified. “It was great! What did he say?” became the standard joke....
Fuller championed, and for many years adhered to, a dietary regimen that consisted exclusively of prunes, tea, steak, and Jell-O. (!!!!!!)
Once you read the article, have a look at the slide show taken from an exhibition that inspired the New Yorker article.
* Justifying affairs: Across the Atlantic, and Zoe Williams in The Guardian takes a sarcastic look at a book entitled "When Good People Have Affairs". Her favourite of the 17 motivations listed therein: breaking out into selfhood.
On Colbert Report tonight, there's a slightly amusing interview with an writer who has also written about why people have affairs. I suspect that (towards the end) Colbert's personal conservative-ish views are on display here (which is fine by me, of course):
* Books for husbands to buy their wives: Back to the New York Times, and there's a review of two books by couples who tried to help their marriages by having sex every day. What's not to like about that idea?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)