Ruffled Rupert
Prince Rupert of Bavaria? Who he?
Prince Rupert’s Drops (“Why do teardrops explode?”, 11 February) are named after Rupert of the Rhine, a cousin of Charles II who spent most of his life in England. He was the son of an Elector Palatine, also transiently King of Bohemia.
Although both Bavaria and the Palatinate were ruled by Wittelsbach, by Rupert’s time several centuries of geography, then religion, had made the two branches of the family opponents and finally enemies in war.
Oh 鈥� and tell your artists that ruffs were by then very old-fashioned.
Marine experts
Crispin Tickell asks that “UNESCO should get together with other UN agencies, such as the UN Environment Programme and the Food and Agricultural Organisation, to create an international panel on the oceans with the same scientific authority as the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]” (Comment, 28 January).
Such an organisation already exists, although it must be said that it does not have the authority of the IPCC due to lack of sufficient funding. The Group of Scientific Experts on Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) is sponsored by no fewer than eight UN agencies. This alone is unique within the UN system.
GESAMP has as its primary function to prepare periodic reviews of the state of the marine environment. The last (GESAMP Report No 115, 1990) was widely disseminated and has been widely quoted. GESAMP was also heavily involved in preparing information for the UN Conference on Environment and Development, in particular on the impact of land-based sources of pollution.
GESAMP suffers, however, from a chronic lack of support from its sponsor agencies and thus has difficulty in doing the tasks asked of it. Should Tickell’s efforts raise the profile of GESAMP so that it was as well funded as the IPCC, then we could with ease provide the reports of the type he wants. The mechanism is there, the funding is not.
Rhubarb runs
I am sorry to read that Halvard Bauger酶d thinks that the anthraquinone content of rhubarb leaves could cause cases of poisoning (Letters, 14 January), when in fact there is hardly enough to budge a biology professor from his bench 鈥� let alone run to the toilet.
The fact of the matter is that rhubarb leaves are chock full of soluble oxalates in amounts that can cause severe haemolysis and death following the ingestion of a few grarnmes of the leaf.
Even the edible portion of the plant contains respectable amounts of soluble oxalate. I could not recommend it as a staple article of diet.
Burning issue
On the matter of fighting fires in space (“Houston, we have a fire on board”, 4 February), the best policy is not to have fires on spacecraft. While this may seem a trite observation, it is actually possible to produce an atmosphere that will sustain life, yet be incapable of supporting combustion.
The normal atmosphere contains about 20 per cent oxygen, corresponding to a partial pressure of 0.2 bar, or 20.3 kilopascals at sea level. If the oxygen concentration is reduced to about 12 per cent (for example, in a 12/88 mixture of oxygen/nitrogen), neither combustion nor life can be sustained: the oxygen pressure will be only 12.2 kPa. However, if such a mixture is pressurised to 1.66 bar (168.2 kPa), the partial pressure of oxygen will be back to 20.3 kPa, which will sustain life, but combustion will not be possible.
This may seem surprising, but the thermal capacity of this atmosphere per mole of oxygen has been increased to a point where a flame cannot sustain itself, at least at “normal” temperatures.
There are clearly a number of penalties associated with this particular fire safety strategy if it were to be adopted for spacecraft 鈥� for example, a greater mass of nitrogen would have to be carried, and there may be problems in maintaining a higher pressure in the spacecraft itself. These may put this approach out of court, but I wonder if it has ever been considered seriously for this application?
Big bang borrowing
The idea that by tying galaxies together with string one will find a discrepancy in the energy accounts of the Universe fills me with amazement (New 杏吧原创, Science, 4 February). Cosmologists insist on the big bang; so they have to start with a given amount of matter/energy at the beginning of time. (The conservation of matter/energy can’t operate outside time.) The same amount of matter/energy 鈥� perhaps in a form less useful to humans, but more useful to hobgoblins 鈥� will be there at the end of time.
Arthur Eddington has a parable of an old college bursar, who suddenly discovers that every entry on the credit side in his ledgers is balanced by an equivalent amount on the debit side. Eureka! He derives the law of conservation of 拢sd (拢p). That, Eddington points out, is all that conservation laws really are.
Just because one holds up a bit of the expanding universe with string for an eon or two and, in letting go, generates enough energy to run London for a few weeks, doesn’t mean one’s got something for nothing. A bit has been borrowed from the big bang 鈥� but everything is borrowed from the big bang anyway 鈥� and it will all be found to have been paid back when the Great Auditor in the Sky comes to close the books.
Ultimately, it’s the big bang itself that is conserved.
I would like to suggest where the energy extracted from these two spheres might come from.
If one looks at the power that can be extracted from tidal waters by using barriers across a river estuary, the energy comes from the movement of the tidal waters. The water is slowed down by the barrier. As the movement derives from the movement of the Earth and the Moon, the rotation of the Earth is actually slowed down 鈥� if by only a very small amount.
Similarly, I would suggest that the energy from the two spheres comes from the slowing down of the expansion of the Universe. Every reaction has an opposite and equal reaction, and the forces that cause the spheres to move apart would try to cause other objects to move together.
Perhaps I can also use the analogy in the article regarding a branch falling into a flowing river. The branch will initially have no velocity in the direction of the river flow and therefore any water going around it will be slowed down. This will happen until the branch moves with the same velocity as the river.
I hope that this makes sense and helps preserve one cornerstone of modern physics: namely the principle of conservation of energy.
Smuggling slate
Bob Holmes’ story (This Week, 14 January) about museums “smuggling” taxonomic specimens through the mail suggests that the lunacy lies solely with the Americans. This is not quite the case.
In April 1993, I collected two Devonian fish while I was passing through Edinburgh. These were properly requested by the Australian Museum, then my employer, and properly loaned by the Royal Museums of Scotland. One was a type specimen, the other was a curious variant that might help one of our researchers to resolve a problem. One, I might add, was originally a donation to Edinburgh from the person now borrowing them.
Now keep in mind that I am a rank amateur where fishes, live, dead or fossil are concerned. I was merely acting as the courier to ensure that these venerable fish were carried gently and safely to the Antipodes, rather than risking them to the mail. The Australian Post Office requires all mail to be able to withstand a 2-metre fall onto a concrete floor 鈥� not that they do it every time, mind, but they might!
I carried the fossils in bubble-wrap and cardboard around Britain for some weeks. Then at Heathrow, I did the right thing, and “declared” the objects, knowing that I had all of the required documentation.
The next half-hour showed me I was leaving Europe, not Britain. The necessary EU documentation was not there, I could be fined 拢10,000, I could be stopped from boarding my plane, I was most certainly stealing Britain’s heritage, I might have forged the loan papers from Edinburgh 鈥� the tirade went on and on. This pompous official then told me he would have to confiscate the fossils, even though I said that this would put the specimens at risk.
At this point, he asked what category these things would come under from a printed list. I looked puzzled, for I thought the answer was obvious. Would it be archaeology or zoology, he demanded impatiently, pointing a chewed fingernail at his list. I scrutinised the list and pointed to “palaeontology”. What did that mean, he asked suspiciously. Clearly he was used to dealing with slippery customers who tried to blind him with science, or words. It had to do with fossils, I said.
About then I recalled two slate samples from a quarry in North Wales which were in the same bag. As I argued to be allowed to take the fish with me, I drew the slate parcels to the top of my cabin bag. He reached out to take the items, but I held up my hand. “Please, let me,” I said.
I carefully unwrapped the slate specimens. He viewed them carefully from several angles, asked me to turn them over so he could scrutinise the other side, and then grudgingly said that perhaps I could take them with me, but never to do it again without the right bit of paper. I wrapped them again, thanked him nicely, and went to board my plane.
It was only after I was on Australian soil that I came to the appalling realisation that I had, albeit unwittingly, led a British Customs officer astray. It was never my intention to deceive him, but I had. If an innocent abroad can so mislead these guardians of Britain’s heritage, think what a professional could do.
At least if the specimens are sent through the mail, there is a good chance that the villains will end up with nothing better than a handful of rubble.
Patent potency
So Feedback thinks that engineers make better lovers than Christians because they know about the “bits and pieces” (4 February).
Knowledge is simply not enough. It needs to be applied with originality and inventiveness. Also, a good lover will always ensure that his or her partner is relaxed and carefree; so complete familiarity with all methods of protection is essential.
Given these factors, it surely cannot be doubted that patent attorneys are lovers nonpareil. And if that were not enough, they are, as professional people, often in practice.
Letters to the Editor
Write to: Letters to the Editor; New 杏吧原创, King’s Reach Tower; Stamford Street, London SE1 9LS, or fax to 0171 261 6464. Please include a daytime telephone number; and cite the date of the articles mentioned. We reserve the right to edit longer letters. Your letters may also be published in New 杏吧原创 newsletters.
Virulent vapour
Phil Colquitt’s letter (11 February) raises an important matter. The situation of nurses being exposed to high levels of mercury vapour is not unique to Australia. In Britain, the aneroid sphygmanometer is also something of a rarity.
Over recent years I have spoken to a good number of nurses in several London hospitals. None of them was at all aware of the dangers of exposure to mercury vapour, or of what to do in the case of a spillage from a dropped sphygmanometer.
There is absolutely no need for the mercury sphygmanometer. In clinical use, doctors tell me that it actually has no advantage at all. Blood pressures are normally only rounded to the nearest 10 millimetres of mercury, well within the accuracy of aneroid devices. Given the hazardous nature of mercury how long will it be before we can get rid of this antiquated instrument.
Code chaos
Feedback refers to BT, and the recent printing of certain Yellow Pages telephone directories with the old dialling codes (28 January). The article mentions that the new codes come into operation on 16 April 1995.
This is yet another example of BT’s ineptitude in promoting information. In fact, the new codes came into operation in August 1994. On April 16 the old codes cease to be valid; they will no longer work. BT’s publicity has been so poorly thought out that Feedback is not the only one to get the wrong message.
In my view, the message which should have been promoted since August is: “Start to use the new codes now whilst the system can still accept both (and is therefore tolerant of mistakes). The existing/old codes will cease on April 16, so you have only a few months to convert, revise stationery, advise colleagues, customers, friends, etc.”
The fault lies not with BT but with Oftel, the quango which is “organising” the national code change. Oftel is making a pig’s ear of the job 鈥� its guidelines are confused and contradictory, and nobody is sure what to do when. BT is doing its best to interpret the muddled rules sensibly, but it’s a hopeless task.
For such a costly and disruptive change, there should be a clear timetable; but Oftel has dithered and prevaricated about this. So BT’s Directory Enquiry service introduced the new codes in January 鈥� sooner than originally planned; but the printed directories, with a much longer and less flexible production cycle, are still lumbered with Oftel’s earlier idiotic advice to continue using the old codes until 16 April.
The code change is going to be a horrendously expensive operation 鈥� the best estimates put the cost at close to a billion pounds. So, as people begin to grasp the enormity of the blunder, it is important that they should know who is responsible for it: not BT, but Oftel, the “consumers’ watchdog”. If we must lynch someone, let’s lynch the right people.
Ruin of Rum?
The subject of reintroducing wolves to the Island of Rum in the Inner Hebrides keeps rearing its ugly head; yet the main biological issues for consideration before taking such a drastic step seem never to be sensibly aired (“Return to the wild”, 14 January, and Letters, 18 February).
In her article, Laura Spinney seems to write Rum off merely as a “soggy, deer-infested island off the west coast of Scotland”, as though nothing of biological interest exists there apart from appropriate prey for wolves in the form of red deer. No mention is made of the feral goats, the distinctive herd of Highland ponies or the Highland cattle which were introduced by the Nature Conservancy Council for a better balanced grazing regime.
What’s more, there seems to be the suggestion that wolves are exclusively hunters of large mammals. Yet, although they have developed pack hunting techniques, many small mammals and birds figure in their diet, as well as berries and various shrubs.
In addition to its interesting and ancient arctic/alpine vegetation, Rum supports Britain’s largest breeding population of Manx shearwater Puffinus puffinus, a colony of international importance. The birds arrive in March each year. They are rather helpless on land and so come in under cover of darkness. They dig extensive burrows and the same pairs occupy burrows throughout their breeding lives, which can be over twenty years. They remain active on the breeding grounds until October.
Manx shearwaters nest only on isolated offshore islands. They do not breed anywhere where predatory mammals exist. There are over one hundred thousand occupied nest holes scattered over Rum’s highest peaks. A pack of wolves living in the boulder fields of Askiral would make short work of these and having finished them off, the Highland calves in Harris Glen would next fall easy prey.
A lesson should be learned from the 1960 Coronation Island introduction in Alaska. The Sika black-tailed deer is notoriously capable of population recruitment after numbers are depleted. The does regularly produce twins, and triplets are not unusual. If such a successful species cannot support even a small number of wolves what chance would wolves have on Rum? What havoc would be played on ancient and fascinating biological assemblages in the process of messing about with nature under the guise of a so-called scientific experiment?
The introduction of wolves to Rum would almost certainly put at risk a seabird colony of outstanding biological interest and if, in the end, the result was as disastrous as the Coronation Island experiment, starving cannibalistic wolves feeding on marine invertebrates could well be the ultimate result.
Space oddity
The latest space shuttle mission, STS-63, has drawn a great deal of British media interest. There are many reasons for the public to be interested in this mission: the first rendezvous with the Russians since the Apollo-Soyuz link-up; the start of the US-Russia Shuttle-Mir programme, paving the way for international cooperation in building Space Station Alpha; the first woman pilot of the shuttle 鈥� and the “British” astronaut Michael Foale.
The media has jumped on this latter aspect, not realising that, although born British, if Foale were still British and had not taken US citizenship, he would not have flown on the shuttle. Britain has in no way contributed to his becoming an astronaut and it is a flagrant misrepresentation to portray him as a British astronaut.
The British government (through the British National Space Centre) does not support any crewed space programrne through the European Space Agency, nor through NASA, let alone nationally. With all the media coverage, it is surprising that not one person from the BNSC has been interviewed regarding Britain’s space policy. I wonder if this is because the general public will lose a hero when they hear that Foale had to become American to even stand a chance of entering the selection process.
Incidentally, Foale had already flown twice on the shuttle 鈥� on STS-45 in March 1992 and on STS-56 in April 1993 鈥� prior to STS-63.
If Britain would contribute to the ESA in a more responsive manner, then maybe Britain would have its own astronauts (other than Helen Sharman, whose Juno mission was yet another publicity stunt, funded by the Norodny Bank in Moscow). But when the ESA announced a selection process for astronauts, Britain declined even to carry out a national selection 鈥� the only country within the ESA to do so. And when the BNSC eventually felt it necessary to nominate someone for the final selection process, it sent Sharman.
The general public now believes that Britain has a vibrant space community which includes astronauts funded by the government. The reality is quite different. As it stands, space consultancy companies in Britain cannot realistically obtain ESA contracts because of the government’s lack of interest in the ESA. There are many instances where British expertise is pre-eminent, but cannot be supplied as British support of these programmes is vestigial.
I think the BNSC should show the public what is achieved in Britain through British funding and not what it would like to achieve but cannot.