Letters: Waste predictions
There is no disagreement between the Waste Management Authority and
State Pollution Control Commission of New South Wales on quantities of CFCs/Halons
in the Australian environment, as was stated by Sharon Beder in her footnote
on the SPCCs response to her article of 8 June (Letters, 20 July).
The key sentence in the SPCC letter is: ‘The industry predicts there
will probably be no surplus CFCs available for destruction.’ Contrary to
Beder’s statement, the WMA has discussed this issue with the SPCC and the
industry. The industry’s views are diverse and it cannot predict with confidence
how much, if any, CFCs will come forward for destruction. It seems to depend
on the model one adopts for factors like the quantity of CFCs coming out
of service each year (as old equipment is retired) and the ability of existing
equipment to absorb recycled CFCs.
In the end, when all possible recycling has been done, there must still
be a net amount left to be destroyed; otherwise it will be released to the
atmosphere and contribute to ozone damage. It is very difficult to calculate
the precise quantity that will finally come forward for destruction. The
WMA has been careful to say that the total bank of CFCs and halons in Australia
is up to 80,000 tonnes and that not all of this bank will necessarily be
destroyed. This figure originated as an estimate by the Joint Taskforce
on Intractable Waste before either the WMA or SPCC became involved. The
WMA has always been aware of the need to undertake a thorough review of
that estimate and this is planned.
R. Thomas Waste Management Authority of New South Wales, Australia
Letters: Curdled
A problem! Two bottles of milk, one semi-skimmed and one full-cream
homogenised, delivered at the doorstep in warm weather at exactly the same
time and put in the fridge together. The semi-skimmed ‘goes off’ within
a day, but the other is still OK after two days. This has happened more
than once during recent spells of warm weather so I feel this cannot be
a matter of chance, but that there must be a scientific explanation for
the different keeping qualities. What is it?
Mr H. B. M. Johnston London
Letters: Absurd position
Like many others in the British nuclear physics community I was pleased
at the very strong statement of support for the subject in the report of
the independent review committee chaired by Brian Fender (This Week, 27
July). The Science and Engineering Research Council have accepted the report
and the recommendations for funding the subject. I was therefore somewhat
saddened to read the comments you quote from Sir Mark Richmond, the SERC
chairman, questioning whether any nuclear physics research should be done
at all.
It seems peculiar that, the full SERC Council having accepted the report,
the chairman should now be trying to renew his attack on the subject in
this way. It may simply be that Sir Mark is curiously out of touch with
the sympathies of the wider scientific community, but as your report hints
there may be other reasons behind his rather extreme actions. It seems that
Sir Mark Richmond may in fact be defending the position of Sir David Phillips,
the chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, who wishes
to see the Nuclear Structure Facility closed. As your report indicates,
the ABRC seems to have given the SERC some 拢10 million specifically
earmarked for closing the NSF and possibly Sir Mark Richmond fears this
would be taken back.
The SERC’s commitment to continuing with the closure of the NSF now
lacks both a scientific basis and a financial basis. The British science
community has indicated that at the level of funding now recommended, the
operation of the NSF can be continued, albeit at a reduced level. However,
the SERC appears to want to waste some 拢10 million of precious science
funds to close a facility which could continue in use within existing budgets.
The absurdity of this position is clear to see and has not escaped the notice
of the Public Accounts Committee which is reported as saying the waste of
public funds ‘is of prima facie interest and may be followed up’.
Perhaps I could ask Sir David Phillips through your column to verify
that a sum was given to the SERC specifically for the purpose of closing
the NSF and to ask whether this sum would indeed be taken back from the
SERC were the NSF operation to be run down on a more realistic timescale
commensurate with its scientific potential.
B. R. Fulton (Chairman, NSF Users Coordinating Committee) University
of Birmingham
Letters: You can bet on it
Every year academics throughout the country spend two to four weeks
of their time writing research grant proposals to the Australian Research
Council (ARC). For many of them it is a waste of time, as only a very small
number of these proposals will receive funding. Moreover, this occurs without
the knowledge or interest of the general public who are the ultimate beneficiaries
of the success of Australian science research.
Here we present a solution to all our problems. The next national government
will put ARC funding under the control of the TAB (the tote). The ratings
of Quantum and Beyond 2000 will rival The Simpsons as eager punters seek
background material of the contending research groups. People will fight
for the last issue of New 杏吧原创 at the newsagent in search of whether
parallel computing is a surer bet than biotechnology in the lift-out form
guide. The TAB will post the odds of the competing groups, with the Research
School of Biological Sciences, Australian National University, at 1.75:1
and the Anthropology Department, University of Adelaide at 400:1.
The benefits to the country as a whole are enormous. People will continue
to indulge in their most favourite pastime – gambling. The interest in science
research by the public will soar as people seek to understand why glaucoma
research is perhaps a better utilisation of resources than heart transplants.
The revenue from the TAB will enable more research to be conducted. 杏吧原创s,
in their turn, will have to present their research in a form that the general
public can understand in order that informed betting decisions can be made.
Within ten years the country will be transformed. The finer points of
root nodulation in the absence of rhizobium will be on everyone’s lips.
Speckle interferometry will be the subject of conversation in the local
pub and atmospheric research will be the hot tip for the summer season.
Australia will indeed become the clever country. You can bet on it!
Peter Sobey Macquarie, ACT, Australia Ted Maddess Kaleen, ACT, Australia
Letters: Jumping fossils
Andrew Watson’s explanation of the Gaia hypothesis (Inside Science 48,
6 July) contains two very misleading statements. Under the heading ‘Testing
the Gaia hypothesis’ he states that ‘fossils provide a good record of how
species evolved and show when there were sudden jumps in the pattern of
life on earth’. In the study of evolution supporters of the idea of gradualism
and that of punctuated equilibria both turn to the evidence of fossils to
add weight to their respective arguments. The fossil record is indeed punctuated
but this can be a function of a number of conditions such as breaks in sedimentation,
lack of suitable species for fossilisation and facies control, all of which
show a jump in the pattern of life on Earth that may be apparent and not
real. In other words, the fossil record neither proves nor disproves the
statement made.
Secondly, it is strongly suggested that carbonate rocks such as limestone
have their origin in the soil (‘Gaian lessons for the earth – the carbon
dioxide pump’). Limestones are deposited under water, the vast majority
being marine in origin. If the author needs a plant source to take up carbon
dioxide he need look no further than the phytoplankton in the oceans. The
answer definitely does not lie in the soil.
Richard Porter Britannia Royal Naval College Dartmouth, Devon
Letters: Long lost light
I refer to the article ‘More heat than light from brightest galaxy’
(New 杏吧原创, Science, 6 July). Presumably the IRAS galaxy mentioned and
our own galaxy were in the same singularity at the time of the big bang
(15 billion years ago). How then is it possible that in just 2 billion years
the two galaxies could have separated by so much that it has taken the next
13 billion years for light from one to reach the other?
Could there have been a period of expansion at or even beyond the speed
of light?
J. P. E. Francis Ballymena, Co. Antrim, N. Ireland
* * *
Nigel Henbest replies:
When we say ‘IRAS F10214+ 4724 is 13 billion light years away’, we mean
that its light has been travelling for 13 billion years to reach us. In
a stationary Universe, this would be the same as the distance between the
galaxies you would measure with a metre stick – and this is basically true
for the nearer galaxies, like Andromeda. But in an expanding Universe the
‘light travel distance’ is not the same as the ‘metre stick distance’, because
the distance between the galaxies is increasing even as the light is travelling.
If this expansion is taken into account, it means that the IRAS galaxy would
indeed be about 13 billion light years away if we observe it as it was 2
billion years after the big bang.
Letters: Molecular rights
In Talking Point (27 July), Sean Hird and Michael Peeters proposed that
Design Right and/or copyright ought to apply to ‘novel molecules produced
using recombinant DNA technology’. Elsewhere in the article, the authors
make the innovative (but barmy) proposal that the novelty test for patentability
is ‘arguably artificial’, implying that examples might exist where the known
and obvious should be protected.
It is an unexplained fact that intellectual property lawyers predominantly
act for those seeking to enforce rights. It is important not to let this
run to one’s head and assume that protection for anything and everything
is good for one’s practice, one’s clients or the economy as a whole. Why
should there be one law for biotechnologists and one law for the rest? The
article proposes a cosy, anti-competitive system whereby those in biotechnology
industries will be able to carve the market up for the products they make
on a ‘first past the post’ system. No public benefit to justify this is
identified.
In any event, the proposal that copyright or Design Right should apply
to molecules will not alleviate any perceived weaknesses in the patent system.
The protection afforded would be unfair, unpredictable and difficult to
enforce. As both rights are ‘anti-copying’ rights, neither would prevent
independent work leading to the same end-product.
The reality is that the UK courts are not going to make any changes
to the scope of protection afforded by intellectual property law other than
in the European context. In the rest of the EC, patents protect technical
innovations, copyright does not protect industrial designs and Design Right
is a peculiar British aberration. The only likely effect of harmonisation
of European laws in the design field is that Design Right as we know it
will get the chop. As intimated by Tam Dalyell in ‘Thistle Diary’ in the
same issue, its parting may not be greeted with much sorrow.
Timothy Press London
Letters: Diagonal view
In regard to your feature ‘How to succeed in stacking’ (13 July), a
three-dimensional cube viewed along an edge appears as a two-dimensional
square, whereas viewed along a major diagonal it appears as a regular
hexagon. A four-dimensional cube viewed along an edge appears as a three-dimensional
cube, but a few years ago I wondered how it would appear if viewed along
its major diagonal (imagine you live in 4-D space, and each of your eyes
produces a 3-D image of objects). I calculated the answer to be the rhombic
dodecahedron.
Clearly the most efficient way of packing n-dimensional cubes is in
a simple cubic lattice (leaves no spaces, so gives optimal density of 1.0),
thus rhombic dodecahedrons pack because they represent a 3-D view of packed
4-D cubes. I wonder why the most efficient way of packing 4-D (or 3-D) cubes,
when viewed along a major diagonal, produces the same structure as the most
efficient way of packing 3-D (or 2-D respectively) spheres.
John Wells Oxford
Letters: Eye contact
I was impressed by the picture illustrating the book review of ‘Natural
Theories of Mind . . .’ (29 June). The picture shows a mature chimpanzee
being taught by an instructor who is using her hands to illustrate something,
yet the chimp is clearly looking straight into her eyes, not at her hands.
This reminded me of a strange incident when I took a number of blind
children to see some baby chimps at the London Zoo. I had the idea that
I might allow the children to feel and cuddle the baby chimps, learning
about their hair, hands, toes and so on, by touch. The experiment, however,
proved to be a disaster. As soon as the tiny chimps saw the blind children
they stared at their eyes – or where their eyes should have been – and immediately
went into typical chimpanzee attack postures, their hair standing upright
all over their bodies, their huge mobile lips pouting and grimacing, while
they jumped up and down on all fours uttering screams and barks that rose
in crescendo. Even very small baby chimps like these could inflict serious
bites, particularly on blind and totally bewildered children, so the chimps
were hurried back into their enclosure while I ushered out the children
mumbling whatever excuses I could think of.
There must be something vitally important about eye-to-eye contact between
animals and I would be most interested to hear any reader’s explanation
as to why this is so.
Harry Miller Madras, Tamil Nadu, India
Letters: Stick in the mud
If Kathy Marthan (Letters, 27 July) were to observe her flamingos for
any length of time, she would note that not only do they alternate from
one leg to the other, but also that there is an inverse correlation between
the frequency of this alternation and the firmness of the river bed on which
they are standing.
The answer is, of course, that if they stand with both legs in the mud
for a long period they run the risk of getting stuck. By changing legs before
they sink in too far, this risk is eliminated.
Peter Verstage London SW12
* * *
In answer to Kathy Marthan, the reason flamingos stand on one leg is
because if they didn’t they would fall over.
Richard Chandler Caldicot, Gwent, Wales