Letter: Stuff and nonsense
I share the concern of Ian Bishop and Colin Harrison because, like many
museums, we rely on the interest and generosity of the public for donations
of birds and mammals (This Week, 20 October). These animals are the victims
of road accidents and obstructions made by people, or are washed up dead
on the beach, often from human action. Many of the resulting taxidermy preparations
go to the schools’ loans service where replacement is needed due to fading
and inevitable wear and tear.
It would be a pity if school children in urban areas, who see little
enough wildlife at close quarters, were further deprived by an interpretation
of the law which discouraged the public from helping museums. It is indeed
ironic that, in a green age, it is perfectly legal for animals to die on
our car bumpers, new patio windows or speed-boat propellers, but it may
become illegal to recycle some of this slaughter so the animals did not
die in vain.
E A Jarzembowski The Booth Museum Brighton
Letter: Tyre retreads
I share Andy Crump’s concern about the environmental problems of used
tyres (‘A mounting mountain’, Forum, 20 October). He might like to add one
more use for old tyres to his list: in many African countries, they form
the raw material for sandals. Not particularly stylish, perhaps, but they
are hard-wearing and great for muddy conditions. There is something appealing
about a problem created by cars providing a solution for those who travel
by foot.
Sue Birchmore Birmingham
Letter: Tyre retreads
Your article on possible uses for old tyres reminds me of the time I
spent in Uganda, in the 1960s, when polio was unhappily rife, and callipers
prohibitively expensive. Professor Huckstep, of Mulago Hospital, devised
a way of making callipers from the two materials always to be found in profusion
in a developing country: old tyres and bits of steel reinforcing rod left
over from building sites. As a result, thousand of Ugandans were enabled
to walk.
D A Latter Farnham
Letter: Sea change
Dieter Helm’s excellent article was spoilt by insertion of illustration
which implied risk of severe floods due to global warming (Who should pay
for global warming?’, 3 November). Much concern exist at the possiblility
of such floods. The same issue (In Brief) also contained a report that the
Dutch government is considering use of nuclear power to avoid them.
Recent information does not suggest significant risk of sea level rise
with resulting flood. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report
concludes that the sea level will rise between 10 and 30 centimetres during
the next four decades. However, this estimate includes assessments of between
about 0 and 20 centimetres rise in the sea level due to thinning of the
Southern Greenland ice sheet.
New data has become available since the IPCC ended its work. The Scott
Polar Research Institute has now completed its studies and concludes that
the ice sheet is thickening at the rate of 20 centimetres per year, which
is equivalent to a fall in the sea level of 0.5 millimetres per year. Substituting
this new and best available data into the IPCC calculation indicates that
change to the sea level will be in the range -10 to +10 centimetres from
its present height during the next four decades. The maximum indicated rise
of 10 centimetres is less than the sea level rise which the IPCC estimates
has occurred during the past 100 years.
Richard Courtney Cheltenham Gloucestershire
Letter: Pinch of salt
In Eric Laithwaite’s review of my book Beyond 2001: How One Man Revolutionised
Laws of Physics he appears to be much less enthusiastic about my gyroscopic
inertial drive machine than he was when he first saw it perform at Imperial
College in April 1985 (Review, 20 October). He now describes its output
as having the ‘merest pinch’ of what he terms the ‘magic ingredient’.
He has, however, failed to mention the extensive traisls conducted by
specialist engineers at an independent laboratory in Melbourne in March
1988 during which my later prototype produced a positive result in every
one of 20 consecutive runs, the force measurement ranging from just under
half an ounce up to four ounces. The full report of these trials is published
in the book as a technical appendix, verifying results which I submit are
well beyond the ‘pinch’ variety and certainly not justifying his dismissive
description of me as a ‘would be’ inventor.
Laithwaite also states that I have neither broken nor rewritten any
of the known laws of physics. In asking him how he is then able to reconcile
my laboratory results with existing doctrine can I remind him of the words
of Alfred North Whitehead: ‘If you have had your attention directed to the
novelties of thought in your own lifetime, you will have observed that almost
all really new ideas have a certain aspect of foolishness when they are
first produced.’
Sandy Kidd Barnhill Dundee
Letter: Rabies protection
Harris and Smith’s discussion of the problems of vaccinating foxes against
rabies using bait seems pessimistic even by their own account: if indeed
70 per cent of the food of urban foxes is provided deliberately by surburban
householders how can only 40 per cent of individuals be taking bait? (‘If
rabies comes to Britain’, 20 October). Would not people be interested in
cooperating to ensure that ‘their’ foxes each received vaccine?
The authors see the most likely source of infection being a smuggled
pet. There would be no reason to smuggle pets if there were no quarantine
regulations. As Britain moves into the European Community, should it not
also join the rest of world in protecting from rabies by routine inoculations
of pets rather than by quarantine? There would be no incentive to smuggle
pets if they could be moved with a valid inoculation certificate. Pet owners
interested enough in their animals to want to carry them across frontiers
normally keep inoculations for several diseases up to date; in this country
a valid rabies inoculation certificate is required with the fee for a city
dog licence.
Eventually, rabies will make it across the Channel in a wild animal.
A largely inoculated pet population would provide resistance to its spread.
Certainly, Victorian disease prevention methods were effective, but in most
cases we have abandoned them in favour of less Draconian modern alternatives.
T E Rowell University of California Berkeley, US
Letter: In the drink
When I read a book review in New 杏吧原创, I expect a reasonable critique
of the merit and value of the book, not soapbox preaching as in the case
of John Elsley’s review of Name Your Poison! A Guide to Additives in Drinks
(Review, 20 October).
If Emsley believes that ‘food scaremongers’ are a ‘discredited’ lot
due to their concern about aluminium, lead, and nitrosamines in food, I
remind him that he is welcome to ingest these chemicals to his heart’s content,
but ask him to leave alone the rest of us who are legitimately concerned
about the purity of our foods.
Also, defending the use of sulphur dioxide simply because it has been
used since Roman times is not only the height of scientific irresponsibility,
but also ignores the fact that this is a dangerous additive that can be
lethal to those allergic to it (having caused at least 20 deaths in the
US in recent years).
After inundating us with his insistence that added chemicals in food
are safe, Emsley then speculates, in a completely nonscientific conclusion,
that the reason the people of Czechoslovakia do not live to be 100 years
old is due to the presence of urethane in their brandy. Are chemical additives
inocuous or not?
Richard Weinstein Slough, Berkshire
Letter: Joint discovery
The short piece titled ‘A new field of carton chemistry is born’ nicely
captures the nearly overwhelming feeling of excitement many of us have,
now that Kratschmer, Huffman and their students have prepared the first
macroscopic samples of C60 (Buckminsterfullerene) (Science, 13
October). However, introduction of our colleague, Harry Kroto, as ‘the discoverer
of the molecule’ sounds rather strange here at Rice University where the
discovery was made in 1985. I believe it is safe to say now that we all
feel that critical contributions were made by each of the authors of the
original paper (Nature, vol 318, p 162), and that there was no preeminent
discoverer.
Richard Smalley Rice University Houston, Texas, US
Letter: Big bang
I am a state of California licensed pyrotechnic operator. In regard
to Ariadne (15 September), you write that the Argonne National Laboratory’s
explanation of the American mystery of attacks on mailboxes is usually carried
out by the use of ‘cherry bombs’ or ‘M-80s’. This may be true, but I would
like to clear up some things about these two types of oversized ‘bangers’.
First, the cherry bomb is a pyrotechnic noisemaker that was invented
and patented in the US in the late 1920s. This device uses about 1 gram
of flashpower as stated in your article. The M-80 is a military device that
is used for training and war games. It contains 3 grams flashpowder. Gunpower
contains saltpetre as the oxidiser (potassium or sodium nitrate varieties),
sulphur and charcoal are the fuel. On the other hand, flashpower composition
primarily comprises potassium perchlorate oxidiser and very fine aluminium
powder as the fuel.
Both devices exceed the US government’s maximum allowable weight of
composition that is permitted in devices that are sold to the public. Banger
with less than 50 milligrams explosive composition are permitted for sale
to the public in approximately 10 out of the 50 States.
Because the cerrry bomb and M-80 have large ‘explosive content’, and
are not available to the public, underground manufacture of these devices
by ‘bootleggers’ is carried out for sale in the black market. Apparently,
mischievous pranksters get a kick out of blowing up mailboxes. Let me note
that at least one US company sells a M-80 resistant mailbox.
Michael Feldman San Carlos California, US
Letter: Deaf approaches
I was very concerned to read the article, ‘Signs of change’ (27 October).
Gail Vines makes several assertions which are demonstrably untrue, for example
that teachers of the deaf cannot communicate with deaf children. She also
appears to be unaware of the remarkable effects which good amplification
can have in helping pre-lingually deaf children to acquire English. Even
profoundly deaf individuals are likely to have some useful residual hearing
which they can exploit by using amplification techniques.
Where is the empirical research which suggest that signing is the best,
or even the only, way that deaf people can communicate in a hearing world?
Surely, commonsense dictates that it is best to select an approach which
is appropriate for each deaf child. Signing may be best for some deaf children,
an aural/oral approach might be better for others.
Thomas Coulter Hungerford Berkshire
Letter: Sparing Power
I wish to respond to two letters about nuclear power in the 6 October
issue. D M Donaldson’s statement exudes optimism. Yet, reduced to its essentials,
it says that the total high-grade uranium reserves are comparable to the
proven world oil reserves, so they are probably lower than the natural gas
reserves.
On British evidence, this highgrade uranium produces electricity which
costs 7-10 pence per kilowatt-hour (including distribution), compared to
1 penny for natural gas and, typically, 0.1-1 penny for improvements in
the efficiency with which we use energy. If uranium from high-grade ores
produces energy which we cannot afford, it is preverse to wonder how long
it would last before we have to move to low-grade ores.
J K Wright and S K Rodcliffe are unaware that equipment sold to poor
countries is more often cast-off from the rich. If they tried to sell a
typical Indian or Chinese refrigerator in the US, before very long they
would probably be prosecuted for violating energy efficiency standards.
Generally, energy efficiency improvements costs 5-10 times less than
British nuclear power. Lavish application of such technologies could reduce
world energy demand to barely 1 kilowatt per person for a Western European
standard of living, not the 4-5 kilowatts which the AEA usually assumes.
If world energy demand is kept down to about 1 kilowatt per person, the
bulk of this energy could be provided by existing renewable sources and
those now at pilot-plant stage.
Wright and Rodcliffe wish to install 1000 to 20000 gigawatts of nuclear
capacity by 2025. On a world scale, this would be equivalent to supplying
5-10 per cent of present delivered energy to final consumers. However, to
do this would simply close a more attractive option, which is to make an
additional investment in energy efficiency and renewables to provide the
same energy services. Even with this extra investment, I estimate that to
save carbon dioxide emissions by efficiency measures and renewables would
cost half as much as nuclear power.
If we implement their suggestion, my estimate of the cost is 2500 Pounds
per kilowatt. Their proposal is, therefore, best summarised as spending
2.5 Pounds to 5 trillion or more on making global warming worse.
David Olivier Energy Advisory Associates Milton Keynes