Ideally fat
The evolutionary psychology explanation for a discriminatory tendency in
humans towards obese people
(5 August, p 3) is not worth its salt鈥攐r
fat鈥攁t least as far as females are concerned.
Look at the Paleolithic Venus figurines, ubiquitous throughout western and
central Europe. They tell of an ideal of opulence, fertility and abundant
nurturing resources, transcending the boundaries of local
culture鈥攁ttributes no doubt desirable when choosing a mate.
Letter
A simple look at this article and the truth struck me: viruses have nothing
to do with obesity. It is the language that is the common link. Look at the
charts you published: obesity only affects English-speaking nations.
Cool euouae
In his piece on queues for loos, Robert Matthews notes that the word
“queueing” has five consecutive vowels
(29 July, p 40). He states that this is
the longest unbroken run of vowels in any word in the English language.
My dictionary (Chambers 20th Century) lists the word “euouae” which,
as well as having a run of six vowels, also contains no consonants. The word is
a collective noun meaning “names for a Gregorian cadence”.
Contemplating the euouae of your favourite Gregorian chant could be another
way to pass the time while waiting for the toilet, once you’ve exhausted the
possibilities of Matthews’s queueing theory.
Hearwitnesses
I was interested to read the “earwitness” discussion (
Feedback, 8 July, and
Letters, 29 July, p 66). A similar problem has plagued birdwatchers when
describing the identification of a bird only by its song or call (think European
cuckoo). One can’t describe it as a “sighting”. So what is it, a “hearing”?
Odour eaters
Your correspondent Georgina Godby mentions how useful coffee grounds are for
removing the smell of elephant urine
(5 August, p 55).
In addition, chewing coffee beans neutralises the smell of garlic on the
breath.
Correction
Our news item on prion disease
(29 July, p 20) referred to Nobel
laureate Stanley Prusiner of the University of San Francisco. This should have
been the University of California, San Francisco.
English first
Hands up anyone using deer antler picks and stone axes to build CERN’s Large
Hadron Collider. No response? Then try this: how many scientific papers from the
US National Cancer Institute, reporting the dendritic cell immune response and
aimed at a world audience, are written in Navajo?
The fact is that, in today’s world, Navajo is a less efficient tool than
English, just as the antler pick has been superseded by the excavator.
Linguistic imperialism
(12 August, p 16) does not come into it.
Of course ancient languages and dying modern ones should be researched and
documented鈥擨 find the origin and derivation of languages
fascinating鈥攂ut to teach and actively preserve them widely, which is often
done for parochial political reasons, should be discouraged.
If a boy or girl is learning Navajo or Basque, Swahili or Welsh, then they
are not learning medicine or horticulture or engineering and they and their
people will suffer in the long run. The sooner English is renamed Worldish, is
taught worldwide as people’s first and only language tool and is not used for
narrow political ends, the better.
Essential freeze
John Krebs betrays ominous prejudice in his view that a worldwide moratorium
on genetically modified food lacks moral or practical credibility
(5 August, p 48).
And this only days after South Africans launched their campaign for a
five-year GM freeze.
He calls for a global panel of experts on GM foods. However, apart from the
fact that the public’s faith in scientists is known to be low, he fails to
mention that over 300 scientists from 38 nations have signed an open letter to
all governments demanding a moratorium.
The scientists cite reports that show adverse effects on beneficial wildlife
and question claims that GM produces better harvests and needs fewer chemicals.
These scientists are instead urging ministers to use available resources for
sustainable farming, which has doubled and tripled yields in many countries.
A moratorium on the growing of GM crops for any commercial purpose, the
importing of GM foods and farm crops and the patenting of genetic resources for
food and farming would offer twin advantages. It would allow time for systematic
research on the social, economic and environmental impact of GM, with respite
from the race for profits.
Suspension would also enable a fair comparison between genetic engineering,
“the conventional agricultural technologies that it is designed to replace”
(from a report by the Royal Society,Transgenic Plants and World
Agriculture) and proven sustainable methods. It is vital that we make these
comparisons now, away from prejudice, company PR and government obfuscation.
Letter
Krebs suggests that a small, geographically inclusive and all-encompassing
panel be set up to move the GM debate forward.
As a matter of necessity, the panel should include Moslems, Jews and other
groups whose religions require foods to be halal/kosher and who would possibly
have concerns about the introduction of genes from animal sources, such as pigs.
As scientists are all too aware, while a gene might only comprise an
infinitesimal part of a cell, if it codes for a hormone or part of a cell wall,
then it will affect the entire plant.
The same concerns might cause vegetarians to reject GM foods, as well as
those who simply choose not to eat GM foods. And therein lies the crux of the GM
debate: it is really about choice鈥攖he freedom to choose. Those in favour
of GM foods are seeking to take away consumers’ choice, to deny their civil,
religious and human rights. This applies especially to the “billion worldwide”
that Krebs says don’t have the luxury of choosing how their food is produced,
for a large number of these are, for example, Moslems.
Fumes for all
So Ford has recognised that air pollution levels are higher in cars than at
the roadside. But rather than reduce the amount of poisonous gas that their
vehicles emit, they are just proposing to spread it out more evenly with their
patent
(5 August, p 7).
I’m surprised that they’re stopping at that. Surely their boffins could use
the airflow around the vehicle to blow the fumes to the side of the road, to
make sure that pedestrians and cyclists get their fair share too.
Extremists? Not us
Your unnamed correspondent
(5 August, p 54) has clearly missed the point I
made about the stereotyping of antivivisectionists and has compounded the
character assassination that we so often endure.
The 1999 MORI poll showed that a majority of ordinary people are, in
principle, opposed to animal experiments. Thus, most ordinary people are
antivivisectionists.
The letter-writer makes the highly unscientific assumption that all
antivivisectionists are violent extremists. This is simply not so, and it is
incorrect and divisive to try and cast highly principled people in this
light.
Most antivivisectionists are, like me, opposed to violence鈥攚hether to
humans or, as in vivisection, to tens of millions of other animals every
year.
Letter
Your letter quoted antivivisectionist Gill Langley’s claim that “opposition
to animal experiments is now a mainstream, even a majority, view”. Well, she
would say that, wouldn’t she?
In fact, research carried out last year by MORI for the Medical Research
Council showed that over 80 per cent of the public agree with the need for
animal experimentation, as long as the following conditions are met: suffering
is minimised, it is for life-saving medical purposes, it is for life-threatening
diseases, and/or alternatives are fully considered.
Antivivisectionists may claim otherwise, but anyone who is well-informed
about the use of animals in medical research would confirm that the vast
majority of this work does indeed meet the public’s criteria of
acceptability.
Heads down
I have recently analysed cyclist casualties in Britain for the period 1970 to
1998 and may be able to add a few points to Justin Mullins’s article on cycle
helmets
(22 July, p 16).
Research in London, where about 40 per cent of riders wear helmets, actually
shows a deterioration in safety. Does this mean a helmet will not prevent
injury? No. It means that it is unlikely that a helmet will prevent a head
injury serious enough to warrant admission to hospital.
It still makes sense to wear a helmet off-road, where there is a high risk of
falling off and gashing your head. But for road riding, the principal danger is
of concussion or worse following a collision with a motor vehicle. The weight of
evidence is that a helmet will not protect a rider against that kind of impact,
nor does the evidence suggest there is any meaningful amelioration.
The most comprehensive study of the helmet issue was carried out for the
British Medical Association in 1993 by Mayer Hillman of the Policy Studies
Institute in London. This research was published as Cycle Helmets鈥擳he
Case For and Against and it is still available. Hillman reviewed the
research on helmet effectiveness, observing that flawed methodology had produced
grossly exaggerated results in favour of helmets.
He concluded that wearing a helmet would at best only fractionally reduce
head injury in an accident with a motor vehicle, while, thanks to anecdotal
evidence and flawed research, most riders would believe they have far more
protection than that. This degree of false security could lead to “risk
compensation”, that is, riders could put themselves in more danger than if they
had not worn a helmet.
Hillman judged that this risk was too great to be ignored. He advised that
road cyclists should not be encouraged to wear helmets. It is mainly because of
this report that the BMA has consistently been reluctant to endorse helmets, and
opposes people being compelled to wear them.