Dangerous (?) particle colliders re-considered

What are the chances that a particle collider's strangelets will destroy the Earth?

Well, this is surprising.  Given that it has been years since I have noticed any advance on the issue of whether micro black holds from CERN could be dangerous, some are suggesting that its time to look at RHIC's risk assessment again.

Curiously, the claim is:

Johnson and Baram are calling for the new commission to look into the risks of RHIC destroying the Earth in addition to evaluating the financial aspects. A large part
of the motivation for their appeal is because of the ongoing upgrades
to RHIC. The collider is preparing for its 14th run,
where it will be operating at 18 times the luminosity for which it was
originally designed. The high luminosity will enable scientists to
conduct more detailed studies of the quark-gluon plasma's properties and
investigate how it transitions into the normal matter that we see in
the universe today.

Another area that Johnson and Baram argue begs some scrutiny is that RHIC is now running at lower energies than in the past. Somewhat counterintuitively, lower energies may pose a higher risk than higher energies. In the original risk assessment report in 1999, the scientists stated that "Elementary theoretical considerations suggest that the most dangerous type of collision is that at considerably lower energy than RHIC." That assessment referenced RHIC's original design energy of 100 GeV. Over the years, lower-energy experiments were performed, and the 2014 run will include three weeks at 7.3 GeV.

Silly old Americans

Report: U.S. failing to protect kids from HPV

We were filling in consent forms for vaccinations which will be given to our son, free of charge, at his high school this March.  (He's just started year 8.)  There were 3 forms, one of them for HPV.  I mentioned to my wife that maybe some very conservative parents object to this one.  We have no objection whatsoever.

I see that the vaccination rate in Australia for girls is pretty high:

Notified vaccination coverage for girls aged 12–17 years nationally was 83% for dose 1, 78% for dose 2 and 70% for dose 3.

So, how's it going in America?:

Although a safe and effective HPV vaccine has been available for
eight years, only one-third of girls have been fully immunized with all
three recommended doses, according to a report from the President's
Cancer Panel, which has advised the White House on cancer since 1971.
HPV, or human papillomavirus, is a family of viruses that causes cancer
throughout the body, including cancers that predominantly affect men,
such as a type of throat cancer. Only 7% of boys are fully vaccinated,
although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended
the shots for them since 2011.

Raising vaccination rates to atleast 80% of teen girls could prevent 53,000 future cases of cervicalcancer in girls alive today, according to the CDC.

 The reason appears to be partly the cost, and squeamishness amongst doctors (as well as parents, I bet):

And at a total cost of $400 for three shots, the HPV vaccine is also
more expensive than other vaccinations, although it's often covered by
insurance, Jackson says.

The real problem, research shows, is that doctors are treating HPV vaccinations differently than other shotsrecommended for kids at that age, such as meningitis and whooping coughboosters, Jackson says.

All too often, doctors offer HPV shots,giving parents the option to vaccinate, without strongly recommendingthem, says Debbie Saslow of the American Cancer Society, who served asan adviser on the report. That could be because doctors are leery of
initiating a discussion about sexual activity, which is how HPV spreads,
Saslow says. Doctors recommend giving HPV shots to kids at a young age,
when they're most effective.

 I find it hard to believe that parents could really feel that their kid will be led into early sexual debauchery because they now have a vaccine that will prevent an older age disease that has never stopped any teenager in history from having sex.

I would also bet that a huge number of boys and girls in the 12 to 14 year range would not even know or care which disease the jab is for.  As for the cost, thank heavens for our "socialised" medicine.  The Tea Party would prefer cervical cancer to that.

Americans have their quaint, and deadly, quirks.   (Pistols in cinemas, anyone.) 

Olympic sized openings

On Saturday night, I watched some of the replay of the Sochi Winter Olympic opening, although I did take the opportunity to doze through the athletes entry part.  (Always the most tedious part, isn't it?)

It was all on a very spectacular scale; in fact, these host country promoting spectacles have become so elaborate they're becoming almost unattractively elephantine and wasteful.

As for specific elements of it, I have to say that, not having read War and Peace, I was not assisted in my understanding of the story by watching an arty quasi re-enactment of it by hundreds of ballet dancers.   My main thought while watching this was that one of male leads in a key sequence with a heroine (she's torn between a few different men, is she?) had quite a "Robert Helpmann" look about him.  (But are Russian ballet dancers allowed to be gay?)   Yes, if ever there was an art form that is highly unsuited to a realistic depiction of romantic, heterosexual love, it's ballet.  (Women who go watch it will probably disagree - I suspect I have 95% of the male population on my side.)

I didn't make it to the end - the Russian Revolution occurred (portrayed in a kind of neutral way) then industrialisation started happening and Russians started having babies (I was moving in and out of the room by that stage and was having trouble following.)   I assume they didn't get to the modern part where about 40% of Russian working age men die of alcohol related illness:  an enormous bottle of vodka emerging from the stadium floor and hosing liquid from the top over the happy crowd of male ballet dancers falling over pretend-drunk might have been seen to be sending the wrong message.  

Come to think of it, the country might have done better by pouring billions of dollars into Alcoholics Anonymous style programs. 

I'm sure I'm not the only person to suggest it, but can't the Olympics go back to something less elaborate?   A few songs, a bunch of dancers, perhaps a 10 minute re-enactment of the original nude version (with the addition of women for the benefit of the modern viewer) would keep the ratings up games after games.  Then on with the athletes and a quirky lighting ceremony.   Fireworks display.  Done.  No more than 90 minutes all up (athletes should jog on if necessary.)   That's my suggestion.

Bigger chances of El Nino

Researchers suggest controversial approach to forecasting El Nino

This group is predicting a 75% chance of a return to El Nino this year.  We'll see.

We see it in Australia too

The conservative man-crush on Putin.

There's a very similar thing to be seen in threads at Catallaxy, where the mere "manliness" of Tony Abbott has been a matter of admiration for years, and they never recognize the Putin like PR techniques that were deployed by the Liberals during the election campaign and afterwards.  

A good question

Can Spinning Habs Solve the Zero g Health Issues? Can Humans Live in Mars or Lunar g? - So far, Nobody Knows

Mutliverse levels considered

Are Parallel Universes Unscientific Nonsense? Insider Tips for Criticizing the Multiverse | Guest Blog, Scientific American Blog Network

Here's a pretty good column by maths fan Max Tegmark, in which he provides a useful table and short explanation of the different types of multiverse.

Mark Steyn insists on wearing his "So sue me (for lots and lots of money!)" t shirt

It's hard to credit the lack of common sense on display in the Steyn-o-sphere.

A recent post of his is incredible for a couple of reasons:

a.  it makes it sound as if he really has taken but a passing interest in the details of the entire Mann "hockey stick" issue before making his "fraud" claim; even more spectacularly unbelievable - he is making it clear that he is learning more about it from blogger Steve Goddard.   Yes, the blogger with severe credibility issues who no longer appears at Watts up With That. 

b. Steyn deliberately, when involved in a court case in which a judge has commented that it certainly appears Mann has grounds for defamation, takes the opportunity to again make a comment discrediting the bona fides of Mann in his work:

So why not just do a straight tree-ring graph of the last millennium? Ah, well. Because that doesn't tell the story that Mann & Co wanted to sell, and certainly doesn't make a hockey stick.

Wow.   "Make hole; keep digging; attempt bogus justification that freedom to dig holes anywhere is a right" appears to be the Steynian theory here.

c.  Apparently, lots of people are buying "gift certificates" to fund Steyn's self represented attempted defence of the defamation action.  Well, good luck with that folks.   Your hero appreciates your generosity in helping fund the damages to Mann that Steyn appears determined to send his way.

And here I was thinking the Japanese do some pretty odd things...

Can someone explain to me why the killing and butchering of an inbred giraffe in a Copenhagen zoo was a public event?   There are kids in the photo too, which seems a very odd choice of education by their parents.  (OK, so an argument can be made that kids these days are too isolated from the reality of life and death - cutting the head off a chook in the backyard was a family spectator event when I was a kid in suburban Australia.  But still, a giraffe is a big mammal, and this seems just a bit weird to me.)

Two climate notes

*  Here's a good summary of a report from the UK Met Office which thinks climate change really is behind this winter's record English floods (although admits it is currently hard to do attribution studies that confirm it definitively.)

*  Despite the cold weather in (parts of) North America, even the UAH satellite temperatures show that, globally, as with December, January was not exceptionally cool.  (David Appell also does a bit of graphing that puts a different on the UAH record, as well as pointing out that Roy Spencer is making stupid, unhelpful claims in his basically political stance on climate change.) 

Reputation confirmed

What a smart aleck way to start his commentary in the Conversation on the Toyota closure.  Sinclair Davidson opens:

Immediately after the Toyota announcement that it will be ceasing its Australian manufacturing in 2017 isn’t the time to be saying, “I told you so”. Rather we should consider the hurt and confusion of the employees. To a large extent the investment they have made in their careers, their human capital, has just depreciated. This is a cost that we don’t fully consider when advocating industry policy.

Shorter version: " it would be inappropriate for me to say 'I told you so' so I'll just link to where I said "I told you" before."

As for industry policy:  have the economists at Catallaxy (a blog with intellectual credentials that continue in freefall) ever had one at all?  I don't think "tax businesses less, cut red tape, and the market will fix it" actually counts as industry policy.

Poor judgement noted

I see this in a post by John Quiggin, regarding the Abbott government:

... in political terms, the Abbott government’s toughminded attitude on the end of manufacturing represents a striking contrast with its eagerness to help favored groups like the financial sector (including the salary packaging industry) and primary industry. This produces bizarre contradictions. For example, as Peter Touhey of the Victorian Farmers Federation recently noted, the Coalition government is spending more than $1 billion to upgrade privately owned irrigation infrastructure in the Goulburn valley region, but is then unwilling to come up with $25 million to keep the processing end of the industry open.

What the Abbott government is interested in

As far as I can tell, on this afternoon when the end of the Australian car manufacturing industry has been announced, the Abbott government has a very limited range of interests:

a.  counting its money, and keeping it; except in the case of -

b.  politically motivated inquiries into political enemies, for which there is always a pile of spare cash to be found to pay for these expensive exercises that they plan on lasting up to the next election;

c.  treating the military as if it is a part of government which it is treasonous to question;

d.  claiming secrecy for military tasks even when it is clearly not needed;

e.   towing people in boats around the ocean and forcing them into other boats - an action of highly questionable legality which, one suspects, is bound to end up with a lethal accident;

f.  trying to re-start culture wars which most people have already moved past.

It is certainly completely uninterested in:

1.  science (not even a Science minister, for crying out loud);

2.  climate science (lining up a climate denialist into a top advisory position, for example)

3.  industry policy that is more nuanced than "let the market work it out".

This combination in its own way is a perfect storm of government uselessness.   Sure, manufacturing of cars has been problematic for years due to a variety of reasons, but one sector (energy) where you might have thought Australian manufacturing might try to find a niche market is more than likely going to be hit by change in government policy soon too.

This is a really appalling government led by a Prime Minister with poor, poor judgement.

It is hard to find a Minister who is not equally embarrassing and currently compromising their better sense by having to stick with the team.  Yes, I'm looking at you, Turnbull.

I actually didn't expect them to be quite this bad, and I hope their polling continues to go down. 

Update:   I see they are in an election losing position still, across all polls I think, although the 3 point swing from Labor to the Greens looks very odd to me.   I think Shorten's loss of points is partly due to his being absent overseas recently.    I wouldn't be in a panic over it.

Abbott's approval rating, while a net negative, is higher than it deserves to be.

I can't emphasise enough how creepy I find the way this government is using the military, not just operationally, but in a PR sense.  (And then going completely over the top in attacking media for reporting possible misbehaviour of members.  That performance by David Johnston was worthy of a full blown totalitarian state.) 

In fact, I am surprised that they seem to have found a current crop of top brass who seem to be happy to be used a part of government PR this way.  During the Howard era, the Navy's unhappiness with its role in dealing with boats was palpable.   This seems not to be the case now, and you have to wonder why.  And has Angus Campbell always been known as a bit of a government suck up?  He sure comes across that way.

I still predict it will all end abruptly and not in a way of the government's choosing.

Service will be resumed, sometime

We've got a technical problem waiting to be fixed on the landline at home, so posting will be light for a little while.

Weight loss, hooray

I find this hard to credit, but I started the 5:2 diet thing with my first "fast" day Tuesday last week.  (I do Tuesdays and Thursdays, so I completed my 4th fast day yesterday.)  Weight loss seems to definitely be over 2 kg, as I started on 89.something (I think it .5 or above, as the rapidly approaching 90 kg line is what finally convinced me I have to stop putting on weight.  But I didn't write it down.)   This morning:  87.1, after breakfast.

I have taken no exercise of note in the period.

A weight of 83.5 would get me into a BMI a shade under 25.   (I am currently 26).  My wife tells me I was 82kg when we married, although I honestly can't remember.

82 or 83 probably sounds a reasonable goal, and then I might watch what happens if I only do one day a week on 600 cal (as Michael Mosley says he found that was all that was necessary after taking off the weight.) 

This does seem a very impressive way to lose weight...

Just get married and have a kid, George

Look, George Clooney as an actor can be great.   He also, by and large, has his heart in the right place politically.   But surely I can't be the only person in the world who rolls his eyes every time I see another "Clooney pranks his friends - again!" story in the press?   I just don't bother reading them, and don't understand why he apparently does this so much, anyway.

Time to stop and reproduce, George.   That usually puts a stop to "pranks".

The Davidson rules noted...

The link, which I don't recommend be followed.

Talk about a meeting of disparate characters

BBC News - Steve Coogan and Philomena Lee meet Pope Francis

I see there was a good reason for the meeting (the report notes "They are campaigning for the release of 60,000 adoption files held by the Irish state, churches and private agencies.")

That's good, because I could not imagine any social reason Coogan (who I regard as talented in his way, but with a brand of comedy that is psychologically too claustrophobic to watch for long) would be meeting the Pope.

I haven't seen his Philomena film yet, but it has such good reviews I would like to.

I'm glad somebody else has noticed

At the end of a Guardian book review about a killing psychopath in a dystopian future New York (which he quite likes), Adam Roberts makes this observation:

Still, Sternbergh has created a memorable main character here. He is an unvarnished, murderous psychopath, happy to kill for money, no questions asked. On occasion, when the whim takes him, he'll even kill without getting paid. Yet it doesn't take long for us to warm to him, and by the end of the book I was keen to read the second Spademan novel (which Sternbergh is currently writing). A big film deal has already been signed. What's the appeal?

It's a question with larger resonance. Think of some of the biggest TV serials of the last few years: The Sopranos; Breaking Bad; Dexter; Game of Thrones. These are all shows with psychopaths at their centre, not as baddies, but as the heroes. Dracula used to be a straightforward villain; nowadays vampires are our heroes even though their stock-in-trade is still (of course) killing people. When Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock Holmes boasts that he is a "high-functioning sociopath" and executes press barons in cold blood, we are not appalled. On the contrary, we lap it up. So what's with all the lovable murderers? Shovel Ready suggests, in an oblique kind of way, that the issue is one of a broader social disengagement, but I think there's something more designedly amoral going on. Sternbergh's thriller whisks us along so effortlessly we may miss the point at which we start to think: "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if I could just break the bonds of all those petty frustrations of my day-to-day with a little bit of the old ultraviolence?" This may not be an entirely morally healthy thing to be doing.

I have been up front about my distrust and dislike of the "loveable murderer" theme ever since it started to appear in movies (I would say) in the early 1990's.   (Perhaps with Silence of the Lambs, I would guess.  Pulp Fiction didn't help.)   Are other people finally starting to notice there is something "off" about it?

What is going on, Paul

I was talking to my daughter over dinner last night about her school camp experiences while Paul Howes was on 7.30 in the background, so I could only vaguely get the gist of what he was on about, but my main impression was that it was rambling, confusing performance of highly unclear purpose.

Mark Kenny in Fairfax this morning says that Howe's intervention is helpful to Abbott, and I suppose it might be, except that I find it hard to believe that anyone watching Paul will think it anything other than positioning for his own future benefit in politics, somewhere.   As Kenny says, Howes seems to be alluding to some potential for a re-visiting something like the Hawke era wages accord, but the difference is that there is no potential for a "trade off"in higher social wage under the Abbott government.

Howes should just go away for a while.  Like 3 years or so.  Dissent within Labor is that last thing they need. 

Still, I doubt it is going to lead to any improvement to the Abbott government's popularity.  Pollbludger has its poll of polls at 52.6 to 47.4 in favour of Labor, with possibly the first Newspoll for the year being done over the next weekend.  As Newspoll has been lagging a bit in its assessment of the decline of Abbott popularity, if it joins the other polls and shows Labor in front, Coalition members will not be all that happy with the prospect of a West Australian Senate election.