P for 鈥�
So “pharming” can mean pharmaceuticals farming鈥攗sing genetically
modified crops to make drugs
(23/30 December 2000, p 22).
A more cynical derivation would be “quietly harming” shortened to “p-harming”.
Dirty deeds
Uranium contamination is rightly a cause for public concern
(13 January, p 5),
so isn’t it time that the contamination from coal-fired power stations was
acknowledged?
Every such power station emits about 5 tonnes of uranium each year in a
totally unregulated manner, either as airborne particles or as ash which may or
may not be protected from the effects of wind, rain or groundwater.
Details of the problem can be found in a 1993 Oak Ridge National Laboratory
review at www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html.
Strip off for success
The illustration accompanying the article “Sex helps even if you’re having a
test-tube baby”
(9 December 2000, p 6),
unwittingly showed the root cause of the
problem quite clearly. Perhaps the couple in the picture would not need IVF if
the male removed his nether garments while attempting to father an offspring. In
countries where this “unfiltered” approach has already been tried for a few
years results have been better than expected.
Flap about Venice
Although I am an engineer and have worked on water-control gates for marinas
and rivers, I could not follow the workings of the Modulo Sperimentale
Elettromeccanico (MOSE) system of “flap-gates” designed to protect Venice
against flooding
(25 November 2000, p 48).
Apparently the MOSE system would consist of 79 flap-gates across three
inlets, and during high tide compressed air would be pumped into the gates to
make them buoyant enough to float up and close off the inlets. The use of
compressed air in such a system will be problematic. And the sort of flotation
tank required to raise the gates must be carefully protected, or else it will
corrode over a few years until it is too weak to use. To provide enough force to
resist the pressure of water even 1 metre higher on the sea side, the flotation
tank would also have to be very large鈥攕o where would it go when the gate
is down?
If the gates are not securely fastened in the fully lowered position, and
merely rely on their own weight, they are likely to lift and lower in water
currents and so become a hazard to shipping, particularly in such a shallow
lagoon. The build up of silt is another consideration, but one that could be
more easily solved. The company that I work for fitted a small loose-hinged
secondary flap on such a gate to protect the hinge from silt.
A fully submerged set of gates, including the operating system, would be
difficult and expensive to refurbish. If they were built today, they would
likely need to repair it by 2030, if not before.
Flight 007
In his otherwise excellent article on our inability to think logically
(9 December 2000, p 24)
Michael Brooks perpetuates a myth. He says nobody has ever
been able to work out why Korean Airlines flight 007 strayed so far from its
designated course.
The final report of the investigation by the International Civil Aviation
Organization (June 1993) makes it clear. Summarised by Murray Sayle in the
The New Yorker (13 December 1993, p 90), the report finds that the
pilots failed to successfully engage the plane’s inertial navigation system and
were unaware that the plane was following an earlier, magnetically set
course.
Brooks assures us that “for at least 25 minutes the pilots could see that the
radar was showing the land mass of the Kamchatka Peninsula”. But the transcript
of the black box flight voice recording provides no evidence that the (extremely
tired) pilots ever looked at the ground terrain radar.
One evocative part of the transcript reads: “Ah [yawn]”. “Ah [yawn]”. It is
likely the pilots would still have been in trouble even if they had been able to
think logically.
Give us a smile
Feedback makes fun of a list of “dos and don’ts” telling people to smile when
answering the phone
(23/30 December 2000).
I assume this is because you think that they can’t tell by your voice whether you’re
smiling or not. Actually, evidence shows otherwise.
As long ago as 1980, V. Tartter showed experimentally that listeners can
distinguish sentences pronounced with a smile from the same sentences pronounced
straight-faced (Perception and Psychophysics, vol 27, p 24). In speech,
one of the main functions of the mouth is as a resonator, and obviously if you
smile you affect the properties of the resonator: specifically, you slightly
shorten the distance from the larynx to the lips and therefore raise the
frequency of the vowel formants鈥攖he energy peaks in the spectrum of the
speech that correspond to the resonant frequencies of the vocal tract. The
difference is enough for listeners to detect.
Tartter’s experiment also showed that in addition to the formants, the
fundamental frequency鈥攖he basic pitch of the voice鈥攚as slightly
raised in the smiling versions as well. Directors and trainers of choral singers
have known about this for generations. A standard trick to help keep singers
from going flat is to get them to smile as they sing.
Cloning controversy
It is true that cloned embryos could be used to produce cells for research in Britain
(6 January, p 9).
However, it seems that when MPs were voting to allow the use of embryos, they
were not told that blood stem cells are also readily available from placentas
and umbilical cords after birth. This is more ethically acceptable because
placentas are thrown away and burnt anyway. A few British maternity hospitals
already collect umbilical cords.
Anyone wanting further information on this matter should write to the Cord
Blood Charity, Dove House, Arcadia Avenue, Finchley, London, N3 2JU.
Letter
I am disappointed MPs approve of embryonic stem cell research because in my
view it involves creating humans for research and then disposing of them.
While I can see great potential for the cure of neurodegenerative diseases, I
am worried about misuse of the technology. Health minister Yvette Cooper said:
“The power to permit human reproductive cloning lies with this House and not in
the hands of scientists.” But can we be sure of this? How closely will the Human
Fertilisation and Embryology Authority be able to monitor all the research
carried on in this country? We need more assurance about this.
Oh deer
Patrick Bateson is right to say: “When scientific interpretations differ, the
best approach is to get the disputing parties together”
(6 January, p 38).
I have attended two events that brought together the parties disputing his views
on the suffering of hunted deer. And on each occasion, Bateson’s views failed to
stand up to scrutiny.
I was present at a meeting hosted by Bateson in September 1998. Here, a group
of well-qualified critics and supporters, including Bateson himself, formally
agreed that there is no firm evidence that red blood cells are destroyed in
hunted deer. Moreover, even if they were, this doesn’t tell us anything
meaningful about the animals’ welfare.
I also attended the government’s public inquiry into hunting, and heard
Bateson struggle to maintain his position. He asserted that damaged blood cells
in hunted deer have a sickle shape. But he cited a scientific paper published in
1840 as his only reference.
The inquiry did not uphold Bateson’s views about red blood cells, nor his
belief that there is extreme muscle damage at the end of hunting. The inquiry
also disputed his claim that levels of the steroid cortisol in hunted deer
indicate the animal is under psychological distress. Cortisol is a normal
response to any stress.
Bateson compares himself to the early investigators of smoking related
diseases, whom time has vindicated. This comparison just does not work.
Letter
I am always looking for balanced views on the future of hunting with
dogs鈥攊t is already banned here in the Isle of Man鈥攁nd began to read
Patrick Bateson’s recent article with interest, knowing of his previous work in
this field. I was surprised, however, to read in the penultimate paragraph “that
nothing in the course of a deer’s natural life resembles being hunted by
hounds”. This may be true for deer in Britain and much of Western Europe, but
why has Bateson ignored wolves?
Deer evolved to cope with being hunted by predators and, in the Palaearctic,
red deer were primarily hunted by wolves. That, presumably, is why they are able
to cope, up to a point, with the debilitating effects of hunting described in
the article. Indeed, being hunted by dogs could be said by a Darwinian biologist
to be an essential part of being a deer.
Britain and the Space Station
The arrival of the International Space Station’s first crew on 31 October
last year may well mark the dawn of a new era with the permanent human
occupation of space
(23/30 December 2000, p 3).
The station will provide exciting research opportunities for scientists from
the many nations supporting the building of this unique facility. Sadly this
won’t include British scientists. The Conservative government in 1987 declined
to support the European Space Agency’s crewed space programme. The present
Labour government has not changed this, despite repeated and recent appeals from
both ESA and NASA. As a direct consequence Britain’s research community will
find it very difficult, if not impossible, to contribute to “curiosity-driven
research” aboard the station.
Humans will eventually travel, as you say, to Mars and beyond. Space
exploration, crewed and robotic, will surely be one of the greatest “technology
drivers” of the 21st century. But it looks like Britain will simply be a passive
observer.
Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, one of the pioneers of astronautics, once famously
said: “The Earth is the cradle of mankind, but one cannot remain in the cradle
forever.” Unless, that is, you happen to be British.