Stomach expander
The warning “Do not eat” is usually found on the small packet of silica gel
put in packaging (including shoe boxes) to absorb excess moisture and thus keep
the contents dry.
Whether what Andrew Palmer found
(Feedback, 19 June)
is a packet of silica gel or simply a label that got detached from such a packet, I do not know. I do
know that such gels can absorb many times their weight in water. The danger of
swallowing them is, I believe, not linked to toxicity but to the possible
plugging effect it could have in the gastrointestinal tract.
Tank top
Your description of the metal grid antitank system, recently declassified, is
interesting
(This Week, 22 May, p 7).
Something similar was used on Soviet tanks in 1944, only this was inert,
consisting of bedsprings hung around the tank to detonate an incoming round
before it touched the armour. You don’t see it in Soviet photographs or war
films, as old beds don’t look very glamorous.
You must be choking
I was intrigued by the short item about the development of a mask that is
placed over the mouth of a choking person to remove the offending obstacle by suction
(This Week, 12 June, p 7).
How, I wondered, was this new mask tested out? The chances of actually
finding a choking volunteer must be very slim. And surely the last thing a
person who is choking would want is to have an experimental mask put over their
mouth.
More costs less
Your correspondent quotes an extract from Through the Looking Glass
in which Alice is surprised to find she can buy two eggs for less than one
(Letters, 22 May, p 59).
If Alice ever travels from England to France, I suggest
she takes her car through the Channel Tunnel.
I have had very similar conversations with the ticketing staff. A ticket
entitling me to travel once only through the tunnel costs more than many of the
bewildering choice of tickets that allow me to make the return journey as
well.
By analogy, if you buy two apples, you will be “breaking the terms and
conditions” to eat only one. I once asked Eurotunnel the consequences of not
taking the return journey, and was told: “Don’t worry, we won’t send the police after you.”
Tin man
Keith Appleyard refers to the eccentric classification of books in his local bookshop
(Letters, 29 May, p 55).
I was perusing the children’s crafts section recently, here in the main
library of Tuscaloosa, when I couldn’t help but chuckle out loud. Tucked away in
the section on metalwork was a complete set of Herg茅’s Adventures of
Tintin.
Eggs aplenty
Check out the following websites for more Easter egg goodies and how to
expose them. A friend sent me these URLs after I sent him the Feedback item
about the Excel 97 Easter egg
(12 June).
They contain instructions for getting at lots of Easter eggs.
www.halcyon.com/cerelli/easter.htm;
http://idt.net/~jusric19/easter.html;
www.dummies.com/eggs/default.htm
Radio jingoism
The scientific jingoism that George Lafferty wrote about
(Forum, 5 June, p 54)
has a name: “Popovism”.
This term refers to Aleksandr Stepanovich Popov (1859-1906), the Russian
physicist and electrical engineer who, according to the Russians, invented radio
before Guglielmo Marconi. Outside Russia, Marconi’s priority is
conceded鈥攗nless, of course, you happen to be in Britain, in which case the
inventor of radio was, no doubt, the British physicist Oliver Joseph Lodge.
Siphon solution
With no more knowledge about the Sarez Lake in Tajikistan than was given in
Fred Pearce’s article
(This Week, 19 June, p 4),
the following thought occurred
to me: why not begin draining the lake into the valley below using lots of
siphons of moderate bore that pass over the top of the dam wall?
The tubing for the siphons could be made from a lightweight material such as
PVC that could be flown to the site by helicopter and could be constructed in
situ with limited need for heavy machinery. They may not move much water in a
short time but may move enough to attenuate the damage that a dam burst might
inflict, depending on how soon one might come.
Intersex support
Gordon Hewitt’s call that we should forget about giving robots gender and
concentrate instead on a better understanding of human gender issues
(Letters, 19 June, p 60)
is very welcome since we share his concern about public ignorance
of intersex people.
We are an international support group committed to reducing the secrecy and
taboo that surrounds androgen insensitivity (AIS) and other intersex conditions.
We offer information and support to individuals and families, and work closely
with the increasing number of health professionals who share our goals. Readers
can find us at www.medhelp.org/www/ais or write to AISSG,
PO Box 269, Banbury, OX15 6YT.
Children first?
Joe Kraska suggests that the question which ought to be asked of anyone
opposed to the use of animals in experiments is: “If your child was dying from a
fatal disease, and you had a medicine available to cure your child, would you
use this medicine even if it had been tested on animals, or would you allow your
child to die?”
(Letters, 19 June, p 58).
His conclusion鈥攖hat a willingness by such people to make use of a
medicine which has been tested on animals is hypocritical鈥攊s not a logical one. After all, what has
been done has been done, and using a medicine which has already been researched and approved will not
cause further harm, while a refusal to use an existing remedy will not deliver
any laboratory animal from suffering. It could be argued that one has a duty to
make use of such a medicine so that no animal would have suffered or died in
vain.
A better, more pertinent question would be: “If your child was dying from an
incurable disease would you support a line of research which, though likely to
lead to a remedy, would cause suffering to animals used in that research?”
I have no idea whether anyone who said yes to Kraska’s question would say no
to mine, but my question is at least a clear presentation of the ethical dilemma.
Admissible evidence
Michael Cross’s article on the use of computers to supply
doctors with evidence about the success of different treatments鈥攌nown
as evidence-based medicine (EBM)鈥攔aises some important issues
(Forum, 12 June, p 50).
The assertion that “much of what doctors do today is not based on science”
may well be true, but the profession is attempting to base clinical practice on
the very best evidence. Until recently, this has not been readily available.
The information age has allowed doctors unprecedented access to a variety of evidence,
from anecdote to well-designed randomised controlled trials.
To state that the push for EBM is coming from the IT industry may be a little cynical.
Doctors making decisions about treating patients are far better equipped to make those
decisions with a combination of experience and good scientific evidence.
Most clinicians do not have time to decide which evidence is admissible and
must rely on others in the profession to decide this for them. This role is
being performed admirably by those doing rigorous systematic reviews of
available evidence鈥攕uch as the Cochrane Collaboration and its army of
reviewers and review groups.
Letter
Evidence-based health (EBH) is concerned with evidence of effectiveness.
Traditionally, clinical practice has been guided by individual opinions,
experience and interpretations of research. Research studies on a single
clinical issue could and did give rise to conflicting results, with the
consequence that ineffective treatments were promulgated and effective ones
shunned.
Until recently, little attention was given to helping the individual
clinician resolve the conflicts in research over what was or was not effective
therapy. Enormous variations in clinical practice arose, because one could find
research to support one’s position either way.
This shows the value of EBH.