Back on board–kinda

So, what did I miss while touring Australia’s South Island (a.k.a. Tasmania.  Photo post to come.)

Labor in more than a spot of bother with refugees; Labor and Gillard’s popularity still down.  Ho hum: there is obviously not going to be any change for Labor until they have some sort of circuit breakers of success; we all know the government is going to look ineffectual until something starts to appear to be a decent policy well implemented.    Could Gillard be the opposite of Rudd:  too reliant on her Ministers working out the details when the country really wants to know what they are?  Time will tell, I guess.

The PM’s de facto having a chat with the Empress of Japan:  I bet he never saw this future role for himself 5 years ago.   I do wish they would marry – Tim and Julia, I mean, not Tim and the Empress.  While some would bemoan this as a cynical move to reverse the popularity slide, all conservatives should rightly welcome it as a good example for the institution of marriage, and visited Asian royalty and leaders would no doubt be much relieved.   But while ever they continue to do things like attend a royal wedding, they keep inadvertently bolstering the image of opportunism if they were to marry soon afterwards.   Who cares – just do it, I say.

Andrew Bolt still banging on about Fukushima not being such a bad thing because no one has (yet) died of radiation.  Meanwhile, in Japan, where the 80,000 odd people who had to leave the 20 km evacuation zone have been given 5 hours to collect stuff from home before the enforced exclusion from the zone, and people in the band of higher contamination to the north west well outside of the evacuation zone have been told to leave their towns within the month, they might feel somewhat less sanguine about nuclear power.

(OK, let’s assume the Japanese government is being overly cautious.  Yet they are acting on scientific advice, and hey, would Andrew Bolt or Gavin Atkins move back into the area with his own children if that was the advice being given?   Look – Atkins is right to bemoan anti nuclear drama students that even want to shut down the small, medical isotope providing facility at Lucas Heights; but fair’s fair.   Stop acting as if the indefinite abandonment of huge swathes of land and townships – a 20 km radius is a lot of area, and there are towns 30 or more km away about to be largely abandoned too – is just worth a shrug of the shoulders.   Your much proclaimed low number of radiation deaths comes at a very, very high human and economic price – in both Chernobyl and now Fukushima.) 

As for other areas of the world which might have some major human issues if there is a nuclear accident – Nature ran an interesting article pointing out that many plants are much closer to large population areas:

An analysis carried out by Nature and Columbia University, New York, shows that two-thirds of the world's 211 power plants have more people living within a 30-kilometre radius than the 172,000 people living within 30 kilometres of the Fukushima Daiichi plant, who have been forced or advised to leave. Some 21 plants have populations larger than 1 million within that radius, and six have populations larger than 3 million.

Yet working out the risk position of such areas is complicated, as the rest of the article argues.  Well worth a read.  I would say it largely supports my hunch:  smaller nuclear is better; passive safety should now be the over-riding feature of future design.  (And keep them away from large population centres anyway.)

Speaking of Andrew Bolt – remember him pooh-poohing the European flight bans last years during the Icelandic volcanic eruptions?  Because computer modelling was used to try to track the ash?   (As someone else already noted, this was a ridiculous comparison of climate models with computer forecasts for a few day’s of wind; but Andrew is very opportunistic with his anti-modelling line.)   Well, a couple of scientists have published a paper begging to differ.   The ash stayed dangerous for a long time.  (And I am betting there was no easy way to track its precise path in the sky.)  

It seems it doesn’t matter what safety issue it is – radiation, volcano ash, climate change – the right of politics has taken such an ideological position against AGW that it distorts their attitude to all other issues of public safety too.  

Conservative politics hasn’t always been like this – they used to like and trust science, I think.  One day it will swing back that way, but it seems a long, long way off in the future.

Heading off for a while

See you soon. Don't forget to come back...

Good points, Tim

Clubs Launch Pokies Campaign Against Restrictions

Tim Costello makes many good, sensible points on the issue of regulation of poker machines.

Polling today indicates quite strong support from the public for tightening their regulation. Support seems stronger from lower income people. So much for one argument from one participant at the blog noted next that regulating pokies was a form of class warfare to punish the working class for enjoying their preferred form of gambling.

Libertarian types at that certain blog continue to show themselves as whiny, hysterical types who exaggerate and use straw man arguments to disavow any government proposal to tighten regulation in virtually any field, no matter what evidence is provided. In fact, their ideological blinkers means that most of them don't need to consider evidence at all - just look at the typical libertarian attitude to climate change.

Libertarians are the mirror image of left wing ideologues who put their ideology ahead of what comprises good government from the view of common sense pragmatism. Both are to be avoided.

Not built like they used to be?

HMAS Adelaide: history made as Navy ship sinks

Is it just me, or does it seem to anyone else that Navy ships just don't seem to used for very long anymore before they're decommissioned and then, nearly as a matter of routine, sunk for an artificial reef? It just seems to happen so often now, and for ships I have a vague recollection of hearing about when they were in service; seemingly not so long ago.

Or is this just a sign of my advancing decrepitude?

Yuri's ghost

Yuri Gagarin and the superstitions of space | Open thread | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

The Guardian has a brief piece on the superstitions of astronauts, particularly Russian ones relating to Yuri Gagarin:

They leave a red carnation at his memorial wall, visit his old office and ask permission from his ghost before launch. More bizarre is the tradition of male cosmonauts urinating on the right rear wheel of the bus used to transfer them to the launch site (women have the option of dashing a cup of their own urine on the wheel too).

Well, I suppose that rules out men with a "shy bladder" ever being an astronaut in Russia, then.

Here's the link to an story with a lot more detail of such superstitions, and it's a fun read.

Where's the Beano?

We went to a French restaurant last night, and very nice it was. Good French eating is still not that common in Brisbane, so it seems. The menu was far from innovative: in fact, it was like a list of the top 8 "classics" from a Margaret Fulton's 1970's cook book, but both the bouillabaisse and cassoulet were very good and of generous size. (Last year we tried a French restaurant at another part of Brisbane and the portion size was stunningly small, as it reputedly was when nouvelle cuisine was all the rage.)

Anyway, I was the one who chose the cassoulet (the hearty bean dish with sausage, duck and pork belly in it), bravely knowing the likely later consequences, which did in fact arrive, but not until about 4 am.

Which got me thinking: whatever happened to Beano. I remember reading about this in Discover magazine in (I think) the 1980's. They used to have a humourous columnist, a woman whose name I forget now, but I remember her column about a forthcoming enzyme based product which (if I recall correctly) was to be sprayed on your beans to reduce later gaseous consequences.

But Beano has never appeared in Australia, and I have never gone looking for it on the internet.

And here it is: you can get it in the US, but to take as a tablet, not put on your bean-y meal. (That was probably never a goer, but I'm sure I remember that being suggested as the way it would be used.)

I am pleased to see that the anti-flatulence product does not take itself too seriously. The videos at the University of Gas are done with an appropriate level of humour.

Maybe you can buy it online in Australia, but I have never noticed it in a pharmacy or supermarket. If it works, this is a product that deserves better marketing here.

Understood up to a point...

How much free will do we have? (Science Alert)

I always start to eventually get lost in the detail when reading about Bell inequality, free will and determinism, but this story about it was not a bad explanation for the most part.

They only want you to think they did

FBI destroyed thousands of UFO reports, 1949 memo reveals | World news | The Guardian

We all know they actually ended up in cardboard boxes in Mulder's basement office. How naive do they think we are?

Living in a hole

What a fun bit of speculation that must be worth a science fiction novel, or ten: Planets Could Orbit Singularities Inside Black Holes.

It doesn't exactly look like Star Wars, but still...

BBC News - Laser gun fired from US navy ship

People a bit smarter than expected?

Tobacco industry calls for plain packaging of cigarettes | Cigarettes Flavours

From the link:

A major tobacco-industry funded advertising blitz has backfired, with new research revealing the “It won’t work, so why do it” campaign persuaded more people to support the plain packaging of cigarettes than oppose it. The Cancer Council Victoria survey of 2,101 Victorians who recalled the ad campaign found has found that more than eight out of ten (86.2%) respondents said the ad didn’t affect their view of plain packaging 8.4% of respondents said the ad actually increased their support of plain packaging.

Neat.

Nice view!

What Yuri Gagarin saw: First Orbit film to reveal the view from Vostok 1 | Science | guardian.co.uk

Just click on the link to see a lovely pic of the great view they have in the International Space Station from its big-windowed cupola.

Picturing C

Many are the ways in which I amuse myself. I've been playing with the iPad, while thinking about the identities at a certain bog. I mean blog...

"I just burnt a Koran...in my bedroom."

"Oooh, he's such a talent. "






"Welcome all. So, our policy response to the last 4 Labor initiatives: bullsh*t, bullsh*t, bullsh*t and double bullsh*t. Meeting adjourned. Now to relax with some freedom sticks."

"My gym has a very loose dress code..."


"I moisturise daily, but I don't think anyone notices."

Atlas burned

How amusing. PJ O'Rourke does his best to pan the Atlas Shrugged (Part 1) movie while trying to let down his Rand admiring buddies gently.

Here's his mea culpa paragraph:

Millions of people have read “Atlas Shrugged” and been brought around to common sense, never mind that the author and her characters don’t exhibit much of it. Ayn Rand, perhaps better than anyone in the 20^th century, understood that the individual self-seeking we call an evil actually stands in noble contrast to the real evil of self-seeking collectives. (A rather Randian sentence.) It’s easy to make fun of Rand for being a simplistic philosopher, bombastic writer and—I’m just saying—crazy old bat. But the 20^th century was no joke. A hundred years, from Bolsheviks to Al Qaeda, were spent proving Ayn Rand right.

A rather simplistic take in itself, I would have thought. I mean, O'Rourke himself notes this:

In “Atlas Shrugged” Rand set out to prove that self-interest is vital to mankind. This, of course, is the whole point of free-market classical liberalism and has been since Adam Smith invented free-market classical liberalism by proving the same point. Therefore trying to make a movie of “Atlas Shrugged” is like trying to make a movie of “The Wealth of Nations.” But Adam Smith had the good sense to leave us with no plot, characters or melodramatic clashes of will so that we wouldn’t be tempted to try.

This really gets to what I don't understand: why does anyone need the over-the-top version of Rand's take on self interest and capitalism to believe that capitalism and more-or-less free markets have (in the broad sense) worked well? It seems to me that she took the obvious, inflated it beyond common sense, and then turned it into a cult.

But what really amuses me about the review is that this praise for Rand at the (shall we say) "meta" level clearly does not please the Randheads. One comment simply reads:

Are you reviewing the Movie or just happy to pan the views of Ayn Rand?

And a lengthier one notes:

I find it interesting that a simple truth can be looked upon as so evil a thing byso many; One works hard. One is paid. One’s pay is immediately stolen via a rather shady progressive personal income tax that punishes anyone who actually tries. The more you try, the heavier the punishment. Seems in another age this would be called theft or craven evil by any sane person, but today, to raise objection means castigation.

And on it goes. You get the drift.

There has been controversy about burning the Koran lately. It seems to me if you really want to cause trouble within the American political system, where Randian inspired politicians are on the rise (even though I reckon level of enthusiasm for Rand is inversely proportional to a politician's degree of common sense), have a campaign of Rand book burnings and public denunciations of her philosophy.

It would amuse me, anyway.

Mammals are interesting

Pretty remarkable video in which both cat and dolphin appear to enjoy touching each other:

Reasons not to take them seriously

The Coalition on climate change policy, that is.

I refer to a couple of stories in the media this morning. In the first, Lenore Taylor takes to task a specific example of Abbott scaremongering about the cost of a carbon price, noting that a large increase in a butcher's electricity bill is not quite what it seems, for the customer:

For Greenwood, that [$4000 per year in increased electricity] is undoubtedly a significant extra cost. But he also told us his rough annual turnover, which allowed us to calculate that in order to pass on all that extra cost to his consumers, he would have to raise his prices by about 0.187 per cent.

For Greenwood's customers in Coffs Harbour that would mean T-bone steak at $22 a kilo would now cost … wait for it … . $22.04. Minced meat at $11 a kilo would now cost $11.02.

The indicative Treasury modelling released last week under freedom of information shows the average cost of a household weekly shop would rise by somewhere between 80 cents and $1.70, depending on whether the carbon price was set at the upper or lower end of expectations and whether it was allowed to flow through to the cost of petrol.

And Peter van Onselen in the Australian notes the Coalition figures who are taking hypocritical pleasure in the government's carbon price PR problem:

Climate change spokesman Greg Hunt, manager of opposition business in the House of Representatives Christopher Pyne, deputy leader of the opposition in the Senate George Brandis, shadow immigration minister Scott Morrison and countless other Coalition MPs are getting their media fix gloating about Labor's climate change woes in the here and now.

But they would do well to remember that in late 2009 each of them were arguing till they were blue in the face - with colleagues and through the media - that Turnbull should be backed in his efforts to pass the ETS. "You must price carbon if you want action on climate change" some bellowed. "If we don't pass the ETS we will be comprehensively routed at the polls," others exclaimed.

van Onselen reckons that Hunt has a broader leadership potential, and is being hobbled by having to do the hard sell on a Coalition policy that it he clearly can't genuinely believe is the best option.

Hobbled he may be, but personally, I fail to see his broader public appeal. I don't find his media performances at all convincing, and (although this is admittedly a shallow assessment!) I have trouble getting over his strangely old fashioned hair and strained grimace that passes for a smile. (One has to admit, Howard was not always a natural smiley face either. Politicians can be convincing despite odd looks, but Hunt is far from achieving that yet, in my reckoning.)

It's-up-to- you-New Del-hi, New Dellll-hiii

That title is meant to be sung to the tune of New York, New York, in case you couldn't figure it out, and is inspired by this news: Deadly superbug found in New Delhi water supply:

A deadly superbug was found in about a quarter of water samples taken from drinking supplies and puddles on the streets of New Delhi, according to a new study.

Experts say it's the latest proof that the new drug-resistant bacteria, known as NDM-1, named for New Delhi, is widely circulating in the environment - and could potentially spread to the rest of the world.

The superbug can only be treated with a couple of highly toxic and expensive antibiotics. Since it was first identified in 2008, it has popped up in a number of countries, including the United States, Australia, Britain, Canada and Sweden.

Most of those infections were in people who had recently traveled to or had medical procedures in India, Pakistan or Bangladesh.

Must make a city proud to have a widely feared, drug resistant bacteria named after it!

I forget what TV show I was watching recently that mentioned that many antibiotics in India are not sold under prescription, and hence are widely overused. Presumably, the is part of the problem.

Reasoned analysis

This is a recent photo. The woman in the middle of the three, Federal Health Minister Roxon, is heading up the government's push to enforce plain, ugly olive, cigarette packaging, in the hope that it will help prevent young people taking up smoking. (As I understand it, this is the main goal - if you stop teenagers taking it up, you've pretty much won the war.)

For her efforts, a couple of the intellectuals at Catallaxy note:

A fatty like Roxon is telling me what to do?

That’s the biggest outrage. A fat loathsome troll telling you what you can and can’t do takes the biscuit.

[this just in]:
Has this fat slob (Roxon) gone for a jog today or is she busy scoffing apple turnovers?

RUN FATTY

Such wit. Such connection with reality...

Update: in the time it took me to post that, I see they doubled down on their stupidity. It's a popular thing to do over there.

Update 2: Libertarians love to talk about adults having the right to live their life as they chose, while not acknowledging the fact that it is extremely likely such adults started "living their life" with respect to tobacco before they were 18. (And that, as a consequence of that childhood decision, may well have difficulty stopping what becomes an unwanted habit as an adult.)

Didn't know that...

Here come the Men in Black - again | News.com.au

I remain quite fond of the first MIB. The second is hard to remember. Maybe the trilogy will be like Back to the Future, and the third will be better?

Stiglitz on Fukushima and risk

One egg; one basket - you weigh the risk

Well, I bet this'll annoy them over at Catallaxy. Joseph Stiglitz draws comparisons between over-confidence in both the nuclear and finance industries, and ends as follows:

For the planet, there is one more risk, which, like the other two, is almost a certainty: global warming. If there were other planets to which we could move at low cost in the event of the almost certain outcome predicted by scientists, one could argue that this is a risk worth taking. But there aren't, so it isn't.

The costs of reducing emissions pale in comparison with the possible risks the world faces. And that is true even if we rule out the nuclear option (the costs of which were always underestimated). To be sure, coal and oil companies would suffer, and big polluting countries - like the US - would obviously pay a higher price than those with a less profligate lifestyle.

In the end, those gambling in Las Vegas lose more than they gain. As a society, we are gambling - with our big banks, with our nuclear power facilities, with our planet. As in Las Vegas, the lucky few - the bankers that put our economy at risk and the owners of energy companies that put our planet at risk - may walk off with a mint. But on average and almost certainly, we as a society, like all gamblers, will lose.

That is a lesson of Japan's disaster that we continue to ignore at our peril.

This is, I might point out, very close to the argument I have been running lately. The climate change skeptics, safe in their beds thousands of kilometres away, have been very aggressively downplaying the seriousness of the Fukushima accident; but really, they are the last people who should be pretending to be able to make reliable calls on the question of risk.

Of course, I have criticised the likes of Barry Brooks too, and many scientists with connections to the nuclear industry, for leaping in too fast with claims of "no need to worry, it's all under control." By doing so, they have also hurt the image of their reliability to assess risk.

The appropriate response, is, as it happens, mine. (Who'd have guessed?):

1. the Fukushima accident is very serious: any accident that requires long term abandonment of land scores of kilometres from the scene is serious, regardless of how many deaths or cancers it is ultimately believed to cause. (Even the shorter term evacuation of about 170,000 people is just being ignored, or treated as a mere inconvenience, by some commentators.)

2. It has shown the lack of adequate foresight in the nuclear industry, and highlighted several issues that need urgent addressing, such as the danger of the current international practice of leaving large amounts of spent fuel at the reactor sites for long periods.

3. the accident shows the importance of maximising passive safety in future design, even if such safety increases the cost somewhat.

4. future reactors should not be closely sited together due to the domino effect of disasters.

These issues are not actually all that hard to work out with common sense. I mean, everyone can tell that it's risky having lots of reactors and spent fuel rods in pools in a high risk earthquake area, such as (unfortunately) all of Japan. (Well, we didn't know how dangerous spent fuel rods still were until this accident, did we? Now that we do know, the question is "what are the industry and government regulators thinking, just leaving huge amounts of this stuff in pools - which must always remain full - for decades?)

I still think there can be an important future for nuclear, but there has to be more common sense applied to some of the very basics here, and I am not sure that this should even increase costs unduly. For example, one of the arguments for pebble bed style reactors is that they may need less rigorous containment due to an inability to melt down. Also, is it really cheaper to store spent fuel rods for years in pools than move them off site into the (obviously needed) permanent geological storage facility? And what about the "mini reactors" that are being developed: although I am not entirely sure how "passively safe" they will be, at least if one goes wrong, the amount of material released is going to smaller and more localised.

The nuclear industry needs a good dose of common sense questioning and change, and downplaying Fukushima is not going to achieve that.