In tech news best kept away from paranoid schizophrenics...

Lasers have been used to send targeted, quiet messages to someone from several meters away, in a way that no one nearby would be able to hear.

How it works: To send the messages, researchers from MIT relied upon the photoacoustic effect, in which water vapor in the air absorbs light and forms sound waves. The researchers used a laser beam to transmit a sound at 60 decibels (roughly the volume of background music or conversation in a restaurant) to a target person who was standing 2.5 meters away. 

A second technique modulated the power of the laser beam to encode a message, which produced a quieter but clearer result. The team used it to beam music, recorded speech, and various tones, all at conversational volume. “This can work even in relatively dry conditions because there is almost always a little water in the air, especially around people,” team leader Charles M. Wynn said in a press release. Details of the research were published in Optics Letters. 

Next steps: In theory, the technique could be used to direct a message to a single person at range, without any receiving equipment. The team plans to get the technique to work outdoors, at longer ranges. It isn’t too much of a stretch to see it being used for military or spying purposes, and of course there’s always the ever-present specter of super-targeted advertising.

The Link.

The 1TB phone will soon be here

Samsung announces it has a new 1TB chip for use in mobiles and tablets.   It is, quite frankly, incredible what is being fit on a chip this size:

On its new drive, despite having the same 13 x 11.5mm dimensions as smaller flash drives, Samsung says its new 1TB module boasts sequential read speeds of up to 1,000 Mbps, twice that of a typical SATA-based laptop SSD. Additionally, random read speeds are allegedly 38 per cent faster than on an equivalent 512GB flash drive, with random writes speeds as much as 500 times higher than a high-performance microSD card.

"Fatherhood" is rarer in nature than I realised

From an AEON essay, by an anthropologist who got into studying fatherhood:

In the first instance, as someone who began her graduate career as a primatologist, I knew that fathers who stick around, rather than hot-footing it as soon as copulation is complete, are vanishingly rare in the primate world, limited to a few South American monkey species and completely absent from the apes, with the exception of ourselves. Indeed, we are among the only 5 per cent of mammals who have investing fathers. I knew that, given the parsimonious nature of evolution, human fatherhood – with its complex anatomical, neural, physiological and behavioural changes – would not have emerged unless the investment that fathers make in their children is vital for the survival of our species.

The whole essay is interesting.  Go read.

Nothing like a good chart, part 2

Nothing like a good chart

Sounds interesting

NPR talks about a film looking at the stories of (some) Jews who chose to "hide in plain sight" from the Nazis in WW2:

Hanni Weissenberg, now Hanni Lévy, survived as a Jew in Nazi Germany.

Today, the petite and lively 94-year-old lives in Paris. Earlier this month, she returned to Berlin, her home during the war years, to attend the screening of a film about her and other Jews who survived while hiding under the noses of the Nazis.

The Invisibles, a German documentary-drama based on the accounts of four survivors, opened Friday in the U.S....

Schieb says about 1,900 Jews survived the war while hiding in and around Berlin.

Comedy and animals

Gee, I'm finding I get a ridiculous amount of pleasure from watching Rosehaven on the ABC now.

It's just the best comedy writing and acting in an Australian series since, I dunno, Frontline maybe?   Everyone seems so comfortable in their roles, and you have to imagine they take pleasure in making it.   Who writes it?  I must look it up.

Anyway, last night's return episode featured a pig which they decided to "rescue" from what they presumed was a fatal return to the local butcher.   And oddly, there is a story in The Guardian today about real farmers who have had even larger scale sudden conversions:

A farmer was recently on the road to the abattoir when he changed direction and drove his trailer full of lambs 200 miles to an animal sanctuary instead. Sivalingam Vasanthakumar, 60, from Devon, now plans to grow vegetables.

Vasanthakumar is not the only farmer to perform this kind of reversal. In 2017, Jay Wilde, of Bradley Nook farm in Derbyshire, took his cattle to a sanctuary and decided to become a vegan farmer (the film telling this story, 73 Cows, has been nominated for a Bafta). In the US, the Illinois-based charity Free From Harm has gathered tales of many farmers who have had epiphanies and switched to veganism.

 Why veganism though?   Isn't vegetarianism enough?

Heh

In "vegetarianism is looking a little better" news...

The Illinois State University,  of all places, has developed a high protein rice cultivar:

Utomo and his team developed a high-protein line of rice cultivar, 'Frontière,' which was released in 2017. The rice was developed through a traditional breeding process. It's the first long grain high-protein rice developed for use anywhere in the world, he says. On average, it has a protein content of 10.6%, a 53% increase from its original protein content. It also needs less heat, time, and usually less water to cook. This high-protein cultivar is currently marketed as "Cahokia" rice. It is grown commercially in Illinois.

The article is about how they are not trying to improve yield.

So, how much protein is in food by weight percent, anyway? 

According to this short-ish list from the British Nutrition Foundation, most meats are around 30%;  fish in the low 20's, and beans and other higher protein vegetables around 10% or under.  I'll just copy the whole list:

Meat	Chicken breast (grilled without skin) Beef steak (lean grilled) Lamb chop (lean grilled) Pork chop (lean grilled)	32.0 31.0 29.2 31.6
Fish	Tuna (canned in brine) Mackerel (grilled) Salmon (grilled) Cod (grilled)	23.5 20.8 24.2 20.8
Seafood	Prawns Mussels Crabsticks	22.6 16.7 10.0
Eggs	Chicken eggs	12.5
Dairy	Whole milk Semi-skimmed milk Skimmed milk Cheddar cheese Half-fat cheddar Cottage cheese Whole milk yogurt Low fat yogurt (plain)	3.3 3.4 3.4 25.4 32.7 12.6 5.7 4.8

Plant protein
Pulses	Red lentils Chickpeas	7.6 8.4
Beans	Kidney beans Baked beans Tofu (soya bean steamed)	6.9 5.2 8.1
Grains	Wheat flour (brown) Bread (brown) Bread (white) Rice (easy cook boiled) Oatmeal Pasta (fresh cooked)	12.6 7.9 7.9 2.6 11.2 6.6
Nuts	Almonds Walnuts Hazelnuts	21.1 14.7 14.1

So this new rice is now up above chickpeas and kidney beans.  And tofu.   Look at almonds though!  Eat a friand and it's getting close to eating a piece of mackerel, protein by weight wise.

And peanuts!  Seems that they are 25% protein by weight.  

Learn something new every day.

The alt.right will love this theory...

The title to an article in The Atlantic:

A Bold New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

A leading anthropologist suggests that protohumans became domesticated by killing off violent males.

A few key paragraphs from it:

In fact, Wrangham’s notion of human evolution powered by self-domestication has an ancient lineage: The basic idea was first proposed by a disciple of Aristotle’s named Theophrastus and has been debated several times since the 18th century. This latest version, too, is bound to provoke controversy, but that’s what bold theorizing is supposed to do. And Wrangham is nothing if not bold as he puts the paradox in his title to use. In his telling, the dark side of protohuman nature was enlisted in the evolution of communal harmony.

Central to his argument is the idea that cooperative killing of incurably violent individuals played a central role in our self-domestication. Much as the Russian scientists eliminated the fierce fox pups from the breeding pool, our ancestors killed men who were guilty of repeated acts of violence. Certainly all-male raiding parties have operated in some groups of humans, seeking out and killing victims in neighboring villages (which recalls the patrolling chimps that Wrangham reported on earlier in his career). The twist in his current theory is that such ambushes are turned inward, to protect the group from one of its own: They serve as a form of capital punishment. Wrangham cites a number of examples of anthropologists witnessing a group of men collaborating to kill a violent man in their midst.

The idea is intriguing, and it is indeed true that human hunter-gatherers, whose societies exist without governments, sometimes collectively eliminate bad actors. But such actions are rare, as the Canadian anthropologist Richard Lee emphasized in his extensive studies of the !Kung, which include the report of an unusual case: After a certain man killed at least two people, several other men ambushed and killed him. My own two years with the !Kung point to a more robust possible selection process for winnowing out aggression: female choice. Women in most hunter-gatherer groups, as I learned in the course of my experience in the field, are closer to equality with men than are women in many other societies. Evolutionary logic suggests that young women and their parents, in choosing less violent mates through the generations, could provide steady selection pressure toward lower reactive aggression—steadier pressure than infrequent dramas of capital punishment could. (Female bonobo coalitions would seem primed to serve a similar taming function.)

Modern humans due to the luck of plate tectonics?

Well it's a theory, and if true, not sure what it means about the prospects of highly intelligent life of our kind on other planets.   From a review in Nature of a book "How the Earth Made Us":

In this age of worldwide climatic deterioration, many authors have documented what we are doing to our planet. Lewis Dartnell turns the tables in his book Origins. He asks how Earth has affected us, through our long evolution to big brains, small jaws and scrawny bodies that somehow cooperate with each other enough to make us the planet’s dominant eukaryotic species. All this began, Dartnell argues, with the tectonic processes that created the East African Rift — the area that today runs from Somalia and Ethiopia down to the coast of Mozambique. The uplift of mountains here caused a rain shadow that dried and warmed East Africa, turned jungle into a park-like savannah, and enticed early hominins to leave the trees and become game hunters, runners, thinkers, cooks and, eventually, empire builders.

More educational TV viewed

That Simon Reeve is a likeable, informative host of travel/social commentary documentaries, isn't he?  I have been watching his 2018 BBC series about journeying around the coast of the Mediterranean (on the ABC), and it was very good.

Last night's episode, in large part about the huge, plastic greenhouse market gardens in one part of Spain was particularly surprising.   First, they look ridiculously ugly and obviously environmentally unsound. Second, it would seem most of the labour is dirt poor African migrants who live in ridiculous rented hovels near the gardens, working in (literally) sweathouse conditions which sometimes kills them.  Thirdly, apparently all the UK big chain stores are happy to source their vegetables from there, and don't give a hoot about the conditions of workers.

It seems surprising that this is the first time I have heard of this as an issue.

The episode is one iView, and it looks like elsewhere on line.

I also learned from it that one, ridiculously popular Spanish beach resort area is ugly as, compared to the Gold Coast of Australia.   (And I prefer the Sunshine Coast anyway, which looks like heaven compared to that Spanish resort area.)

The scooter controversies

I hadn't been into the Brisbane CBD for a while, so I didn't realise until I was near there yesterday that Lime electric scooters had started appearing.  I first noticed them (or was it another app based sharing service, I forget?) actually being used  in Singapore during my recent holiday.

I think they look pretty cool, really, although I can understand how they could be a nuisance in the hands of idiots too.  I presume you have to use them with a helmet here, as I noticed helmets attached to them in Brisbane.

Their safety has been a hot issue.   Mother Jones had an article noting a study about the injuries incurred in using them in Los Angeles, and its tweet about it copped a lot of criticism for seemingly ignoring the injuries caused by cars.  As to the number of injuries, here's a key part:

Digging through records from two Los Angeles-area emergency rooms, the researchers found 249 patients with injuries serious enough to warrant a trip to the ER. In comparison, they found 195 bicyclists with injuries and 181 pedestrians with similar injuries during the same period.

But that alone is potentially misleading:  surely the rate of injuries is more significant?  There are (I would guess) a lot more bicycle riders in LA than scooter riders, and doing a lot more distance too.  

I also see that even in liberal California, there is a move away from legislating helmet use for bicycles and now scooters:

Only 10 of the people brought to the ER were wearing head protection. During three observation sessions, the study’s authors documented that 94 percent of the riders they saw didn’t use a helmet, and 26 percent rode on the sidewalk. Bird and Lime encourage their users to wear helmets, offering to ship free ones upon request. But it’s unclear how many riders follow safety guidelines, like wearing protective gear and staying off the sidewalk to avoid pedestrians.

As of January 1, adult scooter riders are no longer required to wear a helmet in California. Bird lobbied for the legislation, arguing that it would create parity with cyclists, who may ride helmet-free. The company’s chief legal officer told the Sacramento Bee that the goal was to help people “more easily embrace sustainable shared mobility options.” Lerer, who filed a class-action suit against Bird and Lime for negligence, calls removing the helmet requirement a “huge mistake.” She notes the suddenness and severity of the injuries she began seeing as soon as the scooters were introduced. “So many of the people I’ve spoken to have serious brain injuries,” she says.

Surely the US must provide a lot of evidence for researchers about the effects of legislating for things like helmet use?   Because it seems that their obsession with liberty means lots of places keep repealing things which other countries (or at least Australia) think are well worth keeping on public health grounds.  Only a week or so ago, I saw a Reddit post about the motor cyclist death rate increase in Florida when it repealed compulsory helmet use in 2000.   (No surprise - the death rate went up substantially.)   It appears that other American states softened helmet laws in the same period.  From a 2004 study:

Between 1997 and 2001, nationwide motorcycle rider fatalities increased by 50% while motorcycle registrations increased by 31%.1,2 The rise in death rates may be related to the concurrent weakening of motorcycle helmet laws in Arkansas, Texas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Florida. In comparing rates the year before (1996) and the year after (1998) the helmet law change, Preusser et al.3 found a 21% increase in motorcyclist deaths in Arkansas and a 30% increase in Texas. This analysis tries to determine the effect of weakening Florida’s motorcycle helmet law.

Remember a post I wrote recently about the way the comparative American death toll from traffic accidents had started going up over the last few decades, and the reason given was that other countries followed evidence-based policies shown to have reduced fatalities?   Seems they may have the same problem when it comes to helmets. 

Anyway, this post was partly inspired by watching this pretty interesting video about how Tel Aviv has embraced electric scooters, partly because they don't have public transport on the Sabbath (it seems Shabbat is the preferred word now?)   I thought it pretty interesting:

 

The Aquaman review

Just got back from finally seeing Aquaman.  I feel like a 15 year old for using this description, but it's pretty awesome.  And mainly, I'm talking visually.

It's not just the pretty, trippy luminosity of much of the underwater settings (the semi-alien glowiness in some parts reminded a bit of Avatar, actually), but the incredible amount of creativity in creature, costume and vehicle design.   A lot of it, I thought, had a sort of hallucinatory intensity about it: but I presume you wouldn't want to watch it under the effects of LSD, given some of the creepy creatures.  (Or maybe a hallucinogen cancels it out, and you end up thinking you're watching a black and white episode of Sea Hunt?)  

Anyway, apart from it being just continuously, eye-bogglingly visually impressive, I thought the direction was pretty good too.  I know that all heavy CGI movies let the camera (real or virtual) move around a lot, but I thought this one really embraced the idea that filming an underwater world is equivalent to filming in space - freed of gravity, you can visually zoom around anything in all directions, and it often does.  

The story was fit for purpose, and moved along at considerable pace despite the length of the movie.  It was just witty enough, I think, although given my strong preference for superhero movies to be outright funny, a couple of more good, unexpected jokes wouldn't have hurt.

So, pretty good overall, and led me to have a post viewing conversation with my son about why I prefer this to, say, Batman in any incarnation, or Lord of the Rings.  Because, I said, Aquaman felt more realistic than either of those.

You can imagine what kind of virtual spit-take that got, so I had to rush on to explain:  "realism" has to be taken in the context of what the movie is selling.  So, for Wonder Woman or Aquaman, it's a given, from the start of the film, that the hero comes from a world where some Greek myths, and the superpowers they involve, are real.   So, you just accept that and have to view the "realism" of the rest of the story through that prism.   

Batman, on the other hand, seems intended to be so close to the real world, this becomes part of the problem for me.  by setting it in something too close to reality, the whole troubled, orphaned, ridiculously costumed vigilante who doesn't actually kill and chases villains who dress up just because they can has never felt like a scenario of which I can ignore the silliness.  

OK, what about Spiderman? I hear someone say.   Yeah, well, perhaps it's the lighter touch of this character and his scenario that means I can ignore the stupid physics and find his universe is more real than that of Gotham City.       

As for Lord of the Rings - look, I simply feel no affinity for that style of fantasy.  And visually in the movies, I've always thought it looked blown out of proportion to fit modern sensibilities and that has bothered me too.  And the setting was just not that interesting for me. 

So yeah, that's how I defend talking about "realism" in justifying what superhero movies I like or dislike.

And finally:   Nicole Kidman's gold fish consumption in the film reminded me - I had just read an article in The Atlantic that detailed a college fad for goldfish eating in the USA that started in 1939!:

It started out with one. One live goldfish, swallowed up by a Harvard freshman on a dare. Three weeks later it rose to three, and four days after that it jumped to 24. By the end of April 1939, the record for the number of goldfish swallowed stood at 101. Students at colleges across the country -- the University of Michigan, Boston College, New Mexico State, among others -- had popularized a quest to see how many goldfish a single person could eat in one sitting.

I had no idea that young Americans in that momentous year would be into such an icky, silly stunt.   Read the whole article, it's well worth it.

Two suggestions for dealing with the drug problem at music festivals

1.  Ban all music festivals aiming for the under 30 market, especially the ones with suss names like Hardcore Till I Die, at which 6 men were taken away yesterday in serious or critical condition.

2.  Don't ban the festivals, but legislate that the Music Police must attend, at the organiser's cost, and are there next to the stage power supply ready to cut it as soon as an Ambulance worker calls him or her to advise he's taking away a illicit drug victim.   Yes, all attendees will be advised that if it happens, they can listen to the rest of the show done in acoustic style, so to speak.  Don't want that to happen?  Then don't take any of the drugs you either brought in or have brought from the in house criminals.  (Note that this has the advantage of doing away with drug sniffer dogs too.  Let them bring whatever they want in - just that as soon as one person is carted away because of it - off go the amplifiers.  You don't have to leave - they sit around and bang on drums, perhaps.  But presumably, most would leave.)

The whole issue of pill testing at festivals has, I think, met with surprisingly strong push back from the "sends the wrong message" section of the community.   In general, I've always argued that Australia's drug laws did not need major alternations because to a large extent, much more so than the USA and rather like Europe, governments here have treated it as a health issue for users as well as a criminal one.  Hence needle exchange, heroin injection rooms, government run methadone programs, etc.   And I think the public is by and large happy with that.

You know why I think pill testing seems to be a public health line too far for many people?   Because the use of party drugs (especially in association with electronic dance music that is apparently only really enjoyed by altering your brain chemistry)  feels just too hedonistic in a sort of hippy self indulgent way.  Sure, you could say heroin is hedonistic in first use, but people feel sorry for those addicts because of the difficulty they have in stopping.

Alcohol doesn't have that same hedonist ic vibe - for a few thousand years, people have enjoyed its effects in moderation at home, in a bar, at a restaurant, as part of worship even.   People, by and large, don't use it to alter their emotional state to any high degree and get ultra buzzed, or ultra deep and meaningful and huggy:  it is taken for pleasure but not in a highly hedonistic fashion.

And I think it rightly annoys people over 40 to see that kind of self indulgence and the risks it brings.

I can see the arguments for allowing pill testing (paid for the organisers of course) and it may be that it might be a measure that reduces some deaths.  I can even see the counter productivity of drug sniffer dogs, who cause many to unwisely swallow their pills in one hit, apparently.

But, sorry, I'm sticking to the  "wrong message" crowd - I do not want any sense of acceptability of this type of drug use to seep in further than it already has.   I don't want that type of chemical hedonism be the standard outing for so many young people.  Find pleasure in other ways.   A few years in the Army would do them good!   (OK, getting carried away there.)

But seriously, if Singapore, Japan and Sweden can be successful, rich societies in which party drugs are a non existent problem and young people deal with their ennui in other, less brain addling ways, then that's the way more Western countries should aim, if you ask me.

A depressing read

The Guardian has a feature article up, detailing the stories of 5 internet bred conspiracy victims.

As I have said before, the internet is so bad at spreading and helping maintain dangerous conspiracy belief (you're no longer a loner in your room reading a pamphlet a nutter handed you in the street:  you can feel part of a real time, self supporting community of [what they think is] insiders who really know what is going), I am feeling more inclined towards heavy government intervention in content control.

Author uses party drugs?

A piece in The Conversation makes the point that drug use (be it alcohol or "party drugs") can have the social benefit of, well, having fun in groups. 

Hmmm.   No doubt people do talk fondly of parties or nights out aided by alcohol, or (I presume, I have never met a person who told me they used them) party pills.   That it was necessary to do research on that seems a tad odd:

The social benefits of drug use are more complex to quantify. But there are now numerous studies showing people use alcohol or other drugs in social settings such as bars, clubs and parties to enhance their interactions with others through increased confidence, greater sociability and less anxiety. For some people this leads to longer-term benefits such as stronger bonds with friends.

This was shown in recent Australian studies where young people reported cultural gains from drug use, such as strengthening social ties and gaining access to social networks that offered a form of cultural capital.

But here's my real issue with the article: 

At La Trobe University, we recently conducted a study which explored party drug use – including use of crystal meth – among Australian gay and bisexual men who are living with HIV. Consistent with what we know about party-drug use, we found the men in our study almost always used party drugs socially – at nightclubs and dance parties or to facilitate sexual pleasure.

More surprisingly, we also found men who were occasional or regular users of party drugs reported significantly better social outcomes than non-users on a range of measures including a higher level of resilience, less experience of HIV-related stigma, and a greater sense of support from other people living with HIV as well as from their gay and bisexual friends.

This is important because all of these outcomes are strongly associated with greater emotional well-being among people living with HIV.

Just wait a minute.   Isn't one of the well known issues with party drug use in the gay clubbing scene is that it makes men much more likely to have unsafe sex??   Yes, this has been known for many years.

Hence it seems particularly weird that a researcher should be talking about the social benefits of HIV positive men using party drugs, when there is a good chance that use of the drug led to them being HIV positive in the first place!

Now, I suppose you could say I am being unfair - if asked, the author would no doubt acknowledge the link between drug use and unsafe sex in HIV spread.

But my problem is that not mentioning it seems perverse, even if you want to mainly talk about your (hardly necessary) research that seems to put a positive spin on the continued use of even a ridiculously dangerous drug like crystal meth. 

Medical practice can be a funny thing...

I saw this issue discussed on a recent doco on SBS about the contraceptive pill and its benefits and risks:  

Earlier this month, updated guidelines from the Faculty of Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare (FSRH) indicated that the seven-day break commonly recommended in most contraceptive pill regimens has no health benefits. Under the new guidelines, people taking the pill are free to reduce or stop this pause, allowing them to skip their monthly bleeds.

Understandably, these changes were widely reported by the media, with most reports suggesting an unusual explanation for the original recommendation of the hormone-free break. Speaking to the Telegraph, Professor John Guillebaud, of University College London, said: “The gynaecologist John Rock devised [the break] because he hoped that the pope would accept the pill and make it acceptable for Catholics to use. Rock thought if it did imitate the natural cycle then the pope would accept it.”

The author of this article in The Guardian says that this explanation is a bit fanciful, and that the break was really to reassure earlier users that they were not pregnant.   That does sound a bit more plausible.

Still, as she says, it's remarkable that doctors went many decades without questioning whether the break was the ideal way to use the product.

Weather observed

In Brisbane, the summer so far has not been extremely hot, with most maximums in the low to mid 30's, which is bearable especially if minimum gets to low 20's at night.  But it has been unusually dry.  For summer.

That is all.

The Victorian era blamed for people liking meat?

I think someone (perhaps not the author?) got a bit carried away with the headline for this article at The Conversation:

The Victorians caused the meat eating crisis the world faces today – but they might help us solve it

Crisis?   Wouldn't go as far as that, despite my recent guilt twangs about the number of animals being killed and the conditions under which they live.   They are not so bad as to stop me really enjoying a beef rendang last night - I think it's the King of Curries.

But the article itself is interesting enough, noting that Victorian England was able to very substantially increase its consumption of meat when technology allowed it to come from far away:

the root of this problem can be traced to 19th-century Britain, when global meat markets emerged as a revolutionary way of dealing with a mid-Victorian “meat famine”.

The famine was caused by a mismatch between a fast increasing, urbanising population and a levelling out in domestic meat production. What helped stave it off was the groundbreaking development of preservation and transportation technologies that enabled the British to eat livestock that was reared, slaughtered and processed in the Americas and Australasia.

As a result of these innovations, products such as chilled and corned beef, frozen mutton and meat extracts including Bovril and Oxo became staples throughout British homes. Per capita meat consumption increased dramatically, rising from about 87lb per year in the 1850s to 127lb annually by 1914, despite the fact that Britain’s population nearly doubled in this period.

Cost was the major factor driving this change. When one can get a half-price leg of mutton from the other side of the globe, remarked one prominent food writer, one sets aside “all sentimental considerations in favour of the roast beef of Old England”.

Mass marketing campaigns alongside positive media coverage also helped promote these new forms of meat. Victorian commentators celebrated frozen meat’s capacity to feed the “energetic, flesh-fed men” required to sustain British industry and imperialism. Meanwhile “beef tea” was widely advertised as a life enhancing force in Britain’s fights against alcoholism, influenza, European rivals and imperial perils.

I liked this detail which I had not heard of before:

The globalisation of Victorian meat eating was revolutionary, then, but it was also highly controversial. Advocates of the canning and refrigeration industries championed their capacity to deliver healthy, wholesome, inexpensive and sustainable meat supplies from Britain’s colonies and the “new world”. But home-reared meat was seen to be of better quality and safer, especially early on in the development of these industries.

Many potential customers were put off by scandals involving putrefied meat, as well as scare stories surrounding the meat’s origins. Metropolitan meat eaters feared that overseas farmers were feeding them offal or meat from diseased animals. In my archival research, I’ve even discovered concerns that boiled human babies were entering the food chain. 

Anyway, I can imagine the article getting up Jason Soon's nose somewhat.   Are you still here Jason, I never know anymore....