Letters: No global warming
a chapter of misunderstandings and omissions by those concerned with
the greenhouse effect. Why is it that one obvious factor is never mentioned,
namely: the next ice age?
Without the greenhouse effect, it is an ice-cold certainty with equal,
or even greater, catastrophic effects. Can we have some comments from the
experts please? Science: F. G. Grisley Barry, Glamorgan, Wales
Letters: Protecting pilots
With reference to John Lindop’s letter ‘Pilot in peril’ (16 May), I
designed the Concorde windscreen and I was in the office when the in-service
failure of the BAC 1-11 windscreen occurred and still feel the relief that
no lives were lost.
Yes, of course internal pressure can be prevented from blowing out by
filling the hole with a plug. We managed to think of that. In fact we thought
perhaps a curved screen would carry pressure like a membrane, but pilots,
quite rightly, insist on being able to see out very well; so for that sort
of aircraft it had to be optically flat to quite a high order.
Then we read the airworthiness requirements and saw that we also had
to stop a 4-pound bird coming into the aircraft rapidly (at cruise speeds
up to 8000 feet altitude). There aren’t many ways of doing that so we chose
the lightest and most effective way and fitted the hole with a panel again
supported at its edges.
So we had to judge whether to mount the windscreen from the inside or
outside, but the airline maintenance people said that they would rather
remove the windscreen from the outside because, should the electrical de-Icing
(another requirement) fail, they didn’t want the aircraft delayed for hours
and hours while they dismantled the glare shield and the insulation blankets
and the instrument panel and the wiring and some of the controls and some
other stuff we shove in for all sorts of good reasons, to get it out. In
fact removing the windscreen is a very handy way into the cockpit for some
work. And the customer is often right.
We did our best to meet a bewildering variety of conflicting requirements.
We thought, honestly, we deserved some marks for our designs. After all
they meet their specifications daily and in the case of the BAC 1-11, have
done this for over 25 years. We have taken note and will try to do even
better.
R. S. King Pucklechurch, Bristol
Letters: Varying variables
How depressing to read the assertion by G. G. Scott (Letters, 9 May)
that to investigate the effects of more than one variable in experiments
‘one should vary one variable whilst holding all the others constant’.
There have been thousands of publications on the design and analysis
of experiments including several hundred textbooks. So far as I know, not
one would advocate such a practice. It is inefficient in effort and fails
to provide information about interactions.
Tony Greenfield Little Hucklow, Derbyshire
Letters: Keen on maize
While welcoming the article by Jeremy Cherfas (Focus, 9 May) I would
like to challenge some of the points made concerning Zimbabwe.
Maize may be a continuing obsession of the Zimbabwean government but
small-scale farmers in the poorer lands are pretty keen on it too. Since
independence they have increased the area of maize planted to a little over
one million hectares, while the area of sorghum planted by the small-scale
farmers is only about one-fifth of this (data from Zimbabwe’s Statistical
Yearbook, 1989). One of the reasons why maize is preferred is because women
have much greater problems with the processing of sorghum than with maize.
It is important that the trials comparing traditional practices with
modern methods are not carried out simply to make the point that the ‘local
system works much better’. There is a danger that if the researchers’ minds
are already made up then the resulting empirical data will be suspect. I
hope these trials include an assessment on the impact on women.
Finally, the Zimbabwe government’s respect for empirical data is to
be welcomed, not lamented.
Robert Lambert University of East Anglia Norwich, Norfolk
Letters: Practical geology
Book reviewers have the privilege of giving their own opinion. Rob Butler
(Review, 9 May) gives an opinion seemingly that of a specialist academic.
Nothing wrong with that, but perhaps I could offer a different opinion,
that of a general practitioner, industrial geologist.
Some geologists may have moved from archive into the laboratory in recent
years, but I would contend that real geologists do not abandon field observations
and data as the basis of their work. A clear view of geological processes
is the key to understanding, but this is impossible without a firm database
of practical knowledge.
The Geological Society’s two books on The Geology of England and Wales
and The Geology of Scotland do not contain trivia. Whatever Rob Butler may
believe, the information in these two books is critical to understanding
the geology of the UK both for students and for professional geologists
working in this country.
Clive Nicholas ECC Quarries Ltd Exeter, Devon
Letters: Slower tennis
Once again the boffins have lost the plot.
Charles Arthur’s article, ‘Anyone for slower tennis?’ (2 May), although
amusing, fails to see the wood for the trees. If you really want to slow
down the game of tennis by countering the trend to faster service games,
you wouldn’t bother regulating the size or composition of the racket or
the ball, you’d eliminate the second serve.
I don’t know of any current first class player who’d risk attempting
to power serve their way to victory if each point was always played on a
single serve. The power serve is only an alternative because the server
has a second bite of the cherry.
Milton Catelin Canberra, Australia
Letters: Male chicken
I fear M. A. Crooks’s sex change hen (Letters, 16 May) really is changing
into a cockerel.
Hens have a single functional ovary and a small vestigial gonad. If
the ovary ceases to function the vestigial organ develops – but as a testis.
This produces testosterone which triggers the innate male behaviour observed.
The bird will probably develop other male characteristics, including
enlarged comb and wattles and, after moulting, male feathering. As it will
have stopped laying months ago, could I suggest chicken curry?
Jean Allen Windlesham, Surrey
Letters: Adverbially
The cartoon illustrating Ian Gordon’s article on adverbial disjunctivitis
(Forum, 16 May) led me to think of an adverb which has become increasingly
disjointed, and in so doing has changed its meaning. Hopefully, you will
know which I refer to.
Cora Black Leeds, Yorkshire
Letters: Sitting close
Barry Fox’s detailed look at the next generation of television screens
was thoroughly illuminating, (‘Please do not adjust your screen’, 9 May)
but I was puzzled about one thing. He says that high definition TV lets
viewers sit closer to the screen, and become more involved in the pictures.
When I was young I was always told to sit well back from the TV, and I recall
seeing a chart which showed the minimum viewing distance for the size of
the TV. It was said that sitting too close damaged the eyesight. Is this
still the view of eye experts?
Betty Smith Sheffield, South Yorkshire
Letters: Speciesism
Your series of articles on animal experimentation has been excellent.
As one of those responsible for stirring up the animal rights issue I am
delighted that the younger generation of scientists are prepared to address
it seriously.
So far the articles published have rather underplayed the ethical grounds
for reform and their political implications. Can I try to strengthen these
areas?
First, the ethical argument should, I believe, be founded upon the increasingly
well-evidenced view that many species of animal can experience pain and
distress. Evolutionary theory, too, argues the kinship of the species. To
put the human species on a pedestal is, therefore, entirely emotional. Such
speciesism looks about as rational as sexism or racism.
Secondly, various practical reforms are now required. Our campaigns
of the late 1970s produced, eventually, the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures)
Act. After six years, we can begin to see its merits and demerits in action.
The Medical Research Council’s very good Feldburg Inquiry last year helped
to highlight some of these. We now need:
1) Proper training for licensees in ethics, animal care and the difficult
skills of anaesthesia, analgesia and euthanasia.
2) The licensing under the Act of all killing of laboratory animals
and an enlightened review of euthanasia techniques.
3) The statutory establishment of local care and review committees in
each designated institution.
4) Extending the Act to cover cephalopoda (octopus and squid) and other
creatures where there is evidence suggestive of painience (the capacity
to suffer).
5) Responsibility for the care of animals under the Act should be clarified
and made mandatory (rather than discretionary).
6) No further project licences to be issued for procedures in the Home
Office category of ‘substantial severity’ (very painful or distressing).
7) No further project licences to be issued for the use of species likely
(on neurophysiological or other grounds) to be especially painient, such
as primates, dogs, cats and equines.
8) The immediate stopping of cosmetics tests on animals and the phasing
out of other nonmedical uses.
Richard Ryder Haytor, Devon
Letters: Not so blameless
In the run-up to the Rio summit we have seen a number of articles in
New 杏吧原创 aggressively supporting the idea that the developed countries
are solely responsible for environmental damage. This idea is completely
unfounded. As well as 95 per cent of all deforestation, and 99 per cent
of all species extinction, the Third World is already responsible for 35
to 40 per cent of all greenhouse emissions. (About 1.6 billion tons per
year from deforestation and about 1 billion tons per year from fossil fuel
burning.) On its current performance the Third World will overtake the developed
world around the year 2000, and be producing at least 70 per cent of all
greenhouse pollution a generation from now. Per capita emissions in the
developed world are already stable or falling, but in the Third World, though
at present they are less than a fifth of developed world levels, they are
increasing rapidly.
The Third World has approached the Rio summit in a spirit of complete
non-cooperation. The overwhelmingly important issue of population control
has been rejected out of hand, and Third World politicians loudly insist
on their right to pollute every bit as much per head as the developed world
does now. If the developed world needs to get its emissions down, the Third
World also needs to make sure that its emissions do not rise until they
reach or exceed present developed world levels.
A lot can be done towards this in ways that would directly and quickly
make poor people richer: but these measures won’t be taken while environmental
concerns are seen, as they are now, as a trick to keep the Third World poor,
or as a way of screwing money out of the rich nations.
Andy Robertson Lewes, Sussex
Letters: No global warming
I was surprised that New 杏吧原创 would spare five pages for Jeremy
Leggett’s biased and unscientific article on global warming (‘Running down
to Rio’, 2 May). He says ‘Both scientists and politicians have failed. The
scientists of the IPCC have undersold the worst possibilities of . . . global
warming. And policy makers have misunderstood fundamentals of scientific
method.’
杏吧原创s have not ‘failed’: it is not their job to sell anything.
Their function is to gain understandings of the Universe and its contents
then to share their discoveries.
Leggett is director of science for Greenpeace International’s Atmosphere
and Energy Campaign. He reports that, early this year his organisation polled
400 leading climate scientists on their concern at global warming. Only
113 of these polled thought the matter sufficiently important to respond
despite the fact that they depend on climate research for their livelihoods.
He does not state that only 15 were willing to reply that they thought
man-made global warming was likely. It seems that most scientists have
succeeded in not scaremongering about an issue they think unlikely.
Some people may wonder why many scientists have joined the global warming
bandwagon when so few of them believe in it. Simply, scientists are human
beings who want to keep their jobs and work on subjects which interest them.
Most of their research work depends on funds fully or partly provided by
governments. Global warming is the ‘scientific’ issue of most interest to
governments at present. Hence, a case for funding support will include reference
to global warming whenever possible. Much science in many fields may be
conducted under the guise of a relationship to global warming.
It is a calamity that a substantial proportion of the scientific community
has been distracted to research an hypothesis which is indicated to be wrong
by all available data. The credibility of the scientific community may suffer
when the truth becomes apparent. Similarly, important environmental issues
have been linked with global warming and could suffer. I believe the time
has come for scientists to disown global warming before the damage is done.
Richard Courtney Cheltenham, Gloucestershire