Crime on camera
I was amazed to read the account (This Week, 23/30 December) of the results of independent research commissioned by the Scottish Office into a closed circuit television scheme in Airdrie, Strathclyde 鈥� because your article completely misrepresented the outcome.
In brief, it noted that the research showed a 21 per cent drop in crime following the introduction of the cameras 鈥� but qualified this by saying that it was uncertain that the fall in crime stemmed from the CCTV scheme and by saying that there was little reliable evidence.
The Airdrie scheme was the first significant CCTV scheme in Scotland. The Scottish Office sponsored research on its impact (and the effect of a later and larger scheme in Glasgow) precisely in order to check whether CCTV’s reputation for preventing crime held good in Scotland. We could not get reliable information earlier, because of the lack of a suitable Scottish test bed.
The Airdrie study compared the 24 months after installation with the 24 months before. The results were impressive: 21 per cent fewer crimes and offences, 48 per cent fewer crimes of dishonesty, 19 per cent fewer crimes of vandalism and a 16 per cent improvement in the number of crimes cleared up by the police. These figures were adjusted to remove the effects of seasonality and other underlying trends.
Of course, the research report was properly cautious when it said that it was not possible to state with absolute certainty that these impressive results flowed from the CCTV scheme. That is inevitable: I cannot see how it is possible to prove why an uncommitted crime did not take place. But it would be a remarkable coincidence if the much steeper fall in crime in the CCTV area was not the result of the CCTV scheme. That was why the independent researcher concluded: “It can be stated with some confidence, therefore, that the presence of CCTV cameras in Airdrie Town Centre has led to a real reduction in the level of crime and to an improvement in the detection of crime. Statistical evidence also leads to the view that this reduction has not been exported to immediately adjacent or nearby areas.”
These favourable results 鈥� and similar results which are emerging from the Glasgow research 鈥� led the Scottish Office to introduce a 4 million grant scheme for CCTV schemes in Scotland. I am very surprised that New 杏吧原创 seeks to rubbish a carefully executed piece of research by such selective and misleading quotation.
鈥� 鈥� 鈥�
Mark Ward’s article misrepresents the findings of our survey into the effects of CCTV. The article says: “The study reveals that CCTV had little impact on many types of crime.” What in fact the survey revealed was that CCTV has had a significant impact on some crimes but not on others. The study shows that in the year following installation of the cameras crime fell by 13 per cent in the area under surveillance, which is three times the national average. In this area vehicle crime fell by 57 per cent, burglary by 47 per cent and vandalism by 42 per cent. We would only expect CCTV to have an effect on crimes such as those which are in the view of the cameras 鈥� we would not expect them to have an effect on crimes which are outside their range, for example drug possession, theft from the person inside shops, domestic violence or residential burglary.
Of the three crimes shown as an increase in your graph, two are numerically small 鈥� drug possession (29 in the year) and robbery (20), compared for example with vehicle crime (149). The third, theft (excluding shoplifting), can be broken down into those thefts in the range of the cameras (on the street) which showed a 7 per cent reduction and those thefts outside the range (eg in shops) which increased by 30 per cent.
These figures suggest that the headline of the article and your conclusion are incorrect 鈥� the cameras have had an effect on street crime 鈥� although we would still like to stress that it is early days and we are wary of drawing any firm conclusions after just one year of CCTV.
Further, Ward says: “To avoid being seen by the cameras, many criminals started stealing from people when they were inside a shop.” Our report does not say that crime is being displaced in this way and there is no firm evidence available to show that this is the case.
Methane solution
Is some “joined-up thinking” required to tackle the threat to the ozone layer (“Ozone’s future is up in the air”, 16 December 1995)? The Third World obviously needs refrigeration. This does not necessarily mean using the electrically powered white boxes we all know. Beneath Colchester Castle is a large ice cavern, possibly originally constructed by the Romans. Insulation is an important starting point.
The vast majority of Third World villages will not be linked to mains electricity in the foreseeable future. So why not use existing appropriate technologies that are not dependent on electricity and questionable chemicals such as CFCs?
The resource immediately available is “farm gas”. Community methane digesters could produce gas to power refrigerators and heat pumps. In the first instance, this plant would be part of the community health and education centre. Meanwhile, solar-generated electricity could be used for lighting and running the community computers and satellite links, which require high-grade energy.
This way, small communities could grow by sharing skills and solve problems by looking for relationships rather than tackling one problem at a time 鈥� in this case CFCs.
Driving force
Alison Motluk’s article on the proposed privatisation of the Transport Research Laboratory misrepresents the position of the RAC in its involvement with the AA in a consortium seeking to purchase the laboratory (This Week, 6 January). The issue is no longer whether the TRL should be privatised, but how to ensure, in a competitive and commercial world, that it survives and continues to provide the public with the top-quality research for which it has for so long been famous.
We judge the surest way of achieving this is by bringing experienced commercial management skills to bear on the task, while at the same time ensuring that the research is ultimately in the interests not so much of government, as of the eventual end user 鈥� the consumer of transport services.
It needs to be recognised that our support for technological improvements to vehicles has in the past frequently meant supporting development and innovations emanating from TRL itself. Moreover, that support has in recent years extended to innovations developed by TRL which specifically aim at protecting the more vulnerable road users. These include traffic calming measures to reduce the frequency and severity of injuries to pedestrians and cyclists on residential roads, and vehicle improvements such as “pedestrian friendly” car fronts which mitigate the severity of pedestrian injuries when they occur. No responsible motorist or motoring organisation can be anything other than totally committed to the safety of all road users.
I am also very concerned that you should print remarks suggesting that the RAC has in some way distorted the findings of the independent study of car dependence carried out for us by the Transport Studies Unit of Oxford University.
The correct summary of the conclusions, in terms of percentages, is that there is effectively total dependence for some 20 per cent of current car journeys (actually a range of 10 to 30 per cent); there is no real dependence at all for another 20 per cent of such journeys (a range of 10 to 30 per cent). The middle band of some 60 per cent (or, using the ranges, 40 to 80 per cent) does undoubtedly have a real degree of dependence at present, ranging from very heavy to slight. It is therefore entirely true to say that people are currently dependent on their cars for almost 80 per cent of their journeys.
Judgments will differ as to whether much can be done about the dependence of that 80 per cent: the RAC’s judgment is that at best only a very small element may be ultimately transferable. It is far more positive, in policy terms, to start with the 20 per cent of current car journeys which could already be better made by other means, and to tackle these as a clear priority.
Hot sculpture
The feature on Jim Acord, the artist who dreams “of marrying nuclear technology with art”, makes much of his achievement in gaining a licence to handle radioactive materials (“Artistic licence”, 9 December 1995).
I am a London-based sculptor dealing with science as my subject matter. In 1989 I wanted to make a piece about randomness at the quantum level and about the “natural” quality of radioactivity which was, I felt, quite unjustly condemned as a man-made evil. Obtaining a sample of caesium-137 was simplicity itself: I sent my cheque to a firm in the US and two weeks later it arrived in the post, having crossed the Atlantic by ordinary airmail. No licence seemed to be required.
In the finished piece, the caesium source and an acoustic Geiger counter are sealed within an inscribed, machined aluminium box (a nod to Schr枚dinger) with interactive handles to vary the count rate and an inclined horn (whimsical nod to His Master’s Voice) through which to hear the results. The piece clicks or growls quietly on the wall. I claim this as the first intentionally radioactive sculpture (granite carvings don’t count).
Inherited attraction
“Runaway sexual selection” is unlikely to be of major significance to species such as ours, in which for most of evolutionary history males have invested heavily in nurturing their own offspring. It may be true, as Rosie Mestel states in “Arts of seduction” (23/30 December 1995), that for both sexes the possession of a sexually attractive mate makes it more likely that one’s own children will inherit sexual attractiveness and hence pass on one’s genes to future generations. But there are risks associated with simply selecting the most sexually attractive mate available.
For the female, the risk is that her mate may prove attractive to other females, be lured away, and leave her to bring up the children alone, with the consequent increased danger that they will not survive to reproductive age. For the male, the risk is that his mate may be inseminated by other males, causing him unwittingly to waste valuable resources in propagating genes unrelated to him.
Clearly, these considerations have no relevance to species such as the peacock, in which the male plays no part in nurturing offspring. For humans, however, they suggest that the optimum strategy is to choose the most sexually attractive mate who is unlikely to desert you (if you’re a female) or to cuckold you (if you’re a male). Such a compromise restrains runaway sexual selection and ensures that human populations retain an enormous variation in sexual attractiveness 鈥� a fact easily confirmed by standing on any busy street and watching the passing crowds.
鈥� 鈥� 鈥�
In “Arts of seduction”, Geoffrey Miller opens up a fascinating discussion. But he overlooks the contemporary evidence that fully explains why artists are selected by their mates.
The arts of all kinds are valued by “society”; they are not enjoyed in a solitary way. Jokes are “for the boys”, music is played to moods, and even poets publish. Painters, playwrights and critics 鈥� they all need each other. Notably, great artists have often been supported by heads of state or religion. Artists are “popular”.
We women put much of our energy into constructing and maintaining our societies. We are extremely aware of social status, all the more so when we are valuable and physically dependent, as in the first year or so of motherhood. The starving outcast dying in a freezing doorway is never completely excluded from our imaginations. Women compete, often with each other, for social status, in order to have security for ourselves and our infants.
A mate who is a successful artist provides the security of status, sufficient means and of being in the public eye. Every woman knows she is safest when everyone knows where she is; to be on the arm of a public figure is to be pretty secure.
On the other hand, the artist who has not yet “made it” can be somewhat lonely. If he is male, he may typically be taken up by a woman who sees him as a mate with potential 鈥� if she can make something of him and market him. But he will not be besieged by admirers until she has succeeded.
A woman’s creative efforts in the family home again serve to attract the admiration of others 鈥� notably other women 鈥� and therefore status. Obviously, the greatest security would be gained by attaining the status of an artist in one’s own right, putting by enough to sustain one through lean years. But I am afraid that most of us find it easier to make the best of the status quo, even though we complain about lack of recognition. Still, there’s nothing that cannot be changed, if we really have the will.
High-speed turkeys
I note that one of the winning nominations in your “Christmas turkeys” competition (Feedback, 23/30 December 1995) is the Advanced Passenger Train. The APT may have been a “turkey” in this country, but Fiat among others has developed the idea, and its “Pendolino” trains are now in regular service. Those operated by Deutsche Bahn, the German railway company, have proved very popular, the reduced journey times on conventional track attracting considerable custom.
I believe that Sweden also operates similar trains. Once again a good British idea has been brought to commercial fruition abroad.
鈥� 鈥� 鈥�
Been a bit of a turkey yourselves, haven’t you? I was pleased to see that my nomination of “supersonic transport” (SST) put me among the winners, but strangely you did not print anything of what I wrote and, even more strangely, every point in your summary of why SST was a turkey is incorrect.
There were three SST projects: the Boeing 2707, the Soviet Tu144 and Concorde. My competition entry related to all of them, though it referred mostly to Concorde. Your description, referring to “using new materials instead of the traditional light alloys” and to the intention to travel “at three times the speed of sound”, evidently relates to the 2707, which would have used titanium (though its intended speed was Mach 2.7 not Mach 3). The other SSTs 鈥� Concorde and the Tu144 鈥� were made of traditional alloys and cannot exceed Mach 2.
To suggest that “the only problem” was the cost of new materials is absurd. As was confirmed by US Congressional hearings early in 1971 (to which I contributed) all the SSTs were up against a complex of interrelated technical, environmental and economic problems, which meant that they could not be operated economically, making their purchase by airlines unlikely. Thus they were indeed turkeys, and were described as such at the time. Government finance for the 2707 was therefore terminated, Boeing could not get a cent from the stock market, and would not use its own cash. So the 2707 collapsed. There was no prototype; the 2707 never got beyond a wooden mock-up.
As to the other SSTs, a Tu144 crashed spectacularly at the Paris Air Show in 1973, though Aeroflot did operate the type for a few flights between Moscow and Kazakhstan. Airlines with options on Concordes cancelled them, and after development and production costs of 拢2 billion, not one Concorde was sold; the ones currently operated by BA and Air France were a gift.
Of the supersonic turkeys, how do you judge which was the biggest? The one which has wasted most money and resources is Concorde.
Alien landings
In Roy Herbert’s review of yet another UFO book (2 December 1995) the 1980 Rendlesham Forest incident is cited as “the most reliable 鈥� alleged landing of a space vehicle”. Among all the fanciful explanations of this occurrence, one possibility has never been suggested.
On the Suffolk coast at Orford Ness at about that time, there was an over-the-horizon radar station for the detection of Soviet missiles. These transmitters operate at peak pulse powers of several megawatts, and ships were warned to take “thunderstorm precautions” when within three miles of Orford Ness. Nevertheless trawlermen complained of sparking phenomena on their boats.
Rendlesham Forest is only a few miles from Orford Ness. Back radiation from the station, possibly during an experimental transmission, might have induced some spectacular gas discharges as the beam skimmed the treetops 鈥� perhaps the pulsing flashing lights seen by the American airmen.
Just another theory, but is it any less likely than the others offered so far?
Bus power
I was surprised that Mick Hamer’s excellent piece on the advantages of using electric vehicles to reduce atmospheric pollution (This Week, 23/30 December 1995) did not state that nuclear power stations do not produce any particulates, carbon dioxide or sulphur emissions at all.
His comparisons were based implicitly on the power generation mix available at present in Britain. If he had used Sweden or France, the results would have been far more favourable to electricity. The way to get the biggest benefit from a switch to electric buses and cars is to ensure that the electricity used is clean nuclear electricity.
Welcome gift
The article “In the Moog” (23/30 December 1995) concludes that because of the penetrating note it produces the Theremin must be “the world’s most unwelcome Christmas present”. As someone who was bought a Theremin as a Christmas present this year, I found it most welcome, and point out to the author of the article that as the Theremin is an electric instrument the amateur player can practise using headphones rather than a loudspeaker.
Great annoyance can however be produced by a cat sitting on the volume aerial and sniffing the pitch aerial. So always turn your Theremin off when you are not using it.
Correction: Observant readers of Inside Science 86 on the Earth’s atmosphere (9 December 1995) will have noticed that if the Earth was scaled dawn to the size of a grapefruit (with a diameter of 13 centimetres), its life zone or “thin green smear” would be O.2 millimetres and not 2 mm as stated.
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 or on Planet Science, the New 杏吧原创 Web site at