Letters: Ponderous males
It’s good to see your editorial team listed and to note the significant
number of women – this is probably the reason for the quality, charm and
enthusiasm of the journal.
Having just retired from academe it was ever depressing to see the preponderance
of ponderous males, old and young, with no clear intentions to allow women
in.
Jack Wood Wollaton, Nottingham
Letters: Glowing report
In recent years, a wide range of products has come on the market which
feature luminous decorations or components. These are mainly aimed at children,
and include pictures on pyjamas, wallpaper, glowing stars and spaceships
to stick on ceilings, and toys.
I recall that earlier luminous products, including watch and instrument
dials, produced concern about radioactivity. This concern was for both the
users and (especially) the workers involved in manufacture. I wonder if
any readers can provide information about the newer products, and whether
they employ different chemistry. Are they safe?
Terry Cannon Thames Polytechnic Woolwich, London
Letters: Fishy facts
While the points you make are largely valid it seems to me to beg the
question about how fish stocks are managed.
Simply saying that less should be caught does not advance the argument
on the issue at all – it merely states the obvious. I would also add that
for many years it has been fisheries scientists who have been in charge
of fisheries management and so it would not be so unreasonable to suggest
that their science and their management techniques have been less than helpful.
And it will not do to say that even as managers they have not been listened
to.
If you really wish to address the issue seriously, I would direct your
attention to the work of economists as fisheries managers, and programmes
related to quota management systems using output controls rather than inefficient
and ineffective input control. Even a cursory look at New Zealand’s quota
management system would be enlightening.
Ian Clark New Zealand Fishing Industry Board Wellington, New Zealand
Letters: Protein problem
In his article ‘Running down to Rio’ (2 May), Jeremy Leggett rightly
focuses on the major climatic effects anticipated from an increasing atmospheric
content of CO2. Another serious consequence is a declining protein
content of leaves, fruits and seeds.
This will come about because the extra CO2 available to the
leaves will go into sugars and their polysaccharide derivatives rather than
into amino acids, the building blocks of polypeptides or proteins.
There is clear evidence of this effect on leaf nitrogen content. The
leaves of most plants (C3 types) growing under higher CO2
regimes will be less nutritious for leaf-eating insects, or domestic animals
like cattle. A lower leaf nitrogen content also means that less serine and
glutamine can be transported to the seeds. This will lower the ceiling for
protein content for important food sources such as the legumes and wheat.
David Murray University of Sydney, Australia
Letters: Too many people
While the editorial ‘Too many people?’, (Comment, 2 May) makes the point
that the overconsumption of the rich countries is at the expense of the
environment and the poor countries, it does so while trying to minimise
the effect of population growth on the environment.
Rather than this North versus South, rich versus poor, developed versus
developing country attitude that is festering in the lead-up to the Earth
Summit, perhaps we should admit that it is the combined issues of overconsumption
and overpopulation which are threatening the future of life on Earth.
We cannot ignore the fact that population growth is a key factor. Here
in Queensland, where we have the fastest rate of population growth of any
state in Australia, future economic growth for anyone may be difficult to
achieve because our ecologically sustainable economic output may have already
been reached. If we do increase the yield from fisheries, forests, farms
and mines to maintain our per-capita incomes, we will further degrade these
resources for future generations.
Sheila Davis Thornlands, Queensland Australia
Letters: Dolphins' friends
Re: Damien Lewis’s article on ‘dolphin-friendly’ tuna (This Week, 9
May). The facts are that British industry has certainly been appallingly
slow to substantiate ‘dolphin-friendly’ claims. The Whale and Dolphin Conservation
Society did not launch a labelling scheme, we introduced a code of conduct
for the industry to conform to. WDCS is an active member and supporter of
Wildlife Link; WDCS has never been secretive about its dealings with the
tuna industry; WDCS is not developing a new scheme.
It is worth mentioning, however, that despite the shortcomings of the
British tuna industry, the present international awareness level of all
concerned is saving at least 50 000 dolphins a year. A European Community
import ban on ‘dolphin-deadly’ tuna would be a huge achievement but putting
legislation into practice is a lengthy process and we cannot afford to let
thousands of dolphins be sacrificed in the mean time.
Sean R. Whyte Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society Bath, Avon
Letters: Be prepared
Barry Fox does British industry a grave disservice in encouraging the
‘What sells today will sell tomorrow’ attitude to product development that
has stifled the competitiveness of our manufacturing base in (Technology,
25 April).
One of the prime objectives of the European Commission’s New Approach
Directives, such as that on Electromagnetic Compatibility, is ‘ . . . to
provide a level playing field on which European companies can compete on
equal terms.’ The result of the amending directive is to put off this happy
day while giving more force to national regulations. In the meantime countries
such as Denmark, who have prepared themselves, will be able to sell throughout
Europe for the next three years while excluding foreign competition; not
a good position for Britain or our long-awaited economic miracle.
Many responsible organisations in this country, including our consultancy,
have been trying to bring home the message that this directive will be implemented
and even three years is little enough time to get products into shape to
meet it. So far this warning has been largely unheeded, yet we know from
our own work that many British products do not meet current British standards
let alone those of, say, Germany.
The article also fails to make clear the very good reasons for bringing
in this legislation. Serious incidents arising from electromagnetic interference
are well documented and anyone interested in computer security should spend
a few minutes near one with a short wave radio. While there may well be
serious shortcomings in the implementation of the directive, it will not
go away and the impact will be felt by exporters from 1 October 1992, not
the end of 1995, so beware.
Michael Penberth Technology Sources Newmarket, Cambridgeshire
Letters: Limits of exposure
Zenon Sienkiewicz from the National Radiological Protection Board, argues
that it is misleading to propose that there is no basis on which to recommend
limits of exposure to electromagnetic fields (Letters, 2 May). He goes on
to quote the exposure limits recommended by the WHO and the Non-Ionizing
Radiation Committee of the International Radiation Protection Association.
What he fails to bring to the readers’ attention is that the speculation
over harmful biological effects of electromagnetic fields which formed the
bulk of the article on which he comments (‘Are power lines bad for you?’,
11 April) are not seriously considered in these guideline ‘restrictions’.
These guidelines are based on ‘well-understood immediate health effects’
of exposure to intense electromagnetic fields. ‘Frequency window’ effects
such as calcium leaching from cells and the possibility of harm resulting
from chronic exposure to extremely weak fields, as indicated in some epidemiological
studies, are given scant regard in setting the guidelines in question. For
instance, the exposure levels implicated in these studies are between 500
to 1000 times lower than exposure levels considered by IRPA.
In short, it is misleading to suggest that the IRPA/WHO guidelines provide
meaningful exposure limits in relation to the hypothesised biological effects
of low level electromagnetic fields.
David W. Mercer University of Wollongong New South Wales, Australia
Letters: Get stuffed, bignose
I would like, if I may, to have a whinge about the policy of not informing
candidates for jobs who have not been short-listed. This is becoming increasingly
common in university biology departments, and I would imagine in the rest
of the world as well.
The reason normally given is that it saves an enormous amount of paperwork
and postage. Fair enough, when the position is an ordinary staff post, with
a definite closing date for applications, and it can be stated that if the
applicant doesn’t hear within a certain period then he or she can go jump
in the lake.
When the candidate is applying for a PhD studentship, however, it can
be very different, as there is usually no set closing date, and often a
couple of months between the initial inquiry and any decision being made.
This leaves the unfortunate candidate sitting around for ages, wondering
what’s happened to his or her application, until enough courage and frustration
is screwed up, a phone call is made, and the by now desperate candidate
is told by a slightly puzzled voice ‘Oh, that one went a couple of weeks
ago . . . ‘, leaving the now ex-candidate feeling depressed, stupid and
wondering why they ever bothered in the first place.
I have, however, a solution to this dreadful state of affairs. Universities
that pursue this policy should encourage candidates to send in stamped addressed
postcards with their own personalised rejection messages on them, depending
on how bitter and twisted they’re feeling at the time – for example ‘get
stuffed bignose you must be joking’ for the only slightly warped, while
those going really mental could send in blank tapes with stamped addressed
jiffy bags so that they could receive tape recordings of people laughing
as they read their CVs. This kind of thing would enable people to be informed
of their rejection promptly and with hardly any trouble to the department
concerned.
Robert Knell Leamington Spa Warwickshire
Letters: Not the first
The belief that Kekule was the first to publish the structure of benzene
is common (Letters, 14 March and 11 April), but erroneous.
J. J. Loschmidt privately published it in 1861, four years before Kekule.
Unfortunately, his work was not disseminated as widely as Kekule’s. For
more details I recommend reading Aldrichimica Acta, 22 (1), 17-19 1989.
Dr A. Rosler Victoria, Australia
Letters: Not the first
Julyan Cartwright is correct in saying that Kekule had more than one
dream, and that it was the fireside dream that inspired his cyclic structure
for benzene (Letters, 2 May). I can only assume that I was asleep when I
wrote the original letter.
John Daintith Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire
Letters: Huge organisms
I am afraid that your Grimbledon Downers gave a wildly wrong answer
at their pub quiz night (2 May). Armillaria bolbosa is by no stretch of
the facts or the imagination the world’s largest organism. Even if one defines
a single organism by its genetic integrity rather than its physiological
wholeness this honey fungus is minuscule compared to some other clonal organisms.
Armillaria’s record size was 15 hectares, 10 000 kilograms and over 1500
years old. A grass clone, Holcus mollis, has been found with a diameter
of 900 metres and an age of over 1000 years. A clone of box-huckleberry
has been found with a diameter of 2000 metres and an age of 13 000 years.
The big granddaddy is, however, an aspen (Populus fremaloides) covering
81 hectares and over 10 000 years old. I think that the fungus has to do
a lot to catch up with these.
James Bullock Oxford Research Unit The Open University Boars Hill, Oxford
Letters: Fishy facts
I read with interest your editorial (Comment, 11 April) on ‘Fishy business’.
You rightly mention the poor state of the fishery resources. Most of them
are not in any danger of extinction, but the economic waste through over-exploitation
amounts to tens of billions per year. 杏吧原创s have indeed said, repeated
and written about the progressively growing waste since, at least, the International
Conference on Overfishing in 1946. The Food and Agricultural Organization
has played a major role in spreading the scientific methodology and in reviewing
regularly the progression of the disaster. Managers have been informed and
trained. Fishery bodies have been strengthened. Control and surveillance
systems have been established.
The truth is that, beyond insufficient research, unaware fishermen,
helpless managers, economic pressure and corruption, there is a serious
institutional problem related to inadequate resource allocation mechanisms
and property rights. The new Law of the Sea adopted in 1982 helps, but allocation
must proceed inside Economic Exclusion Zones if any progress is to be made.
This is not easy, but the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
(the Earth Summit) may help.
S. M. Garcia Fisheries Department, Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations Rome, Italy