Letters : Rhyme and unreason
Warrington
In your interesting feature arguing that the Black Death was not caused by
bubonic plague, you repeated the myth that Ring-a-ring o’ roses has
something to do with these diseases
(24 November, p 34).
Rather than produce a long list of reasons why the myth is nonsense, here are
some hints. Start by comparing the list of actual symptoms given in the article
with those putatively described by the rhyme. Consider whether “ring of roses”
is more likely to describe a harbinger of certain, horrible death, or a group of
girls dancing in a circle.
Then read the variant forms of the rhyme given in Iona and Peter Opie’s books
The Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes and The Singing Game.
Few of these variants mention sneezing, and many refer to kneeling, curtseying
or kissing rather than falling. The obvious theme is that they’re all about
dancing.
In their discussion of the rhyme, the Opies jibed that “men of science are
notoriously incautious when pronouncing on material in other disciplines than
their own”. Especially, it seems, things that “everyone knows”.
Letters : Adverts in the air?
Orpington, Kent
I read the article on messages “in the air” with mounting horror
(1 December, p 38).
I can envisage the outcome of this technology鈥攁dvertisements galore
and plenty of the personal, mindless rubbish that clogs up the Internet. Thanks
for the warning.
Letters : Left? Right!
Salisbury
Eugenie Samuel quotes a scientist describing two people approaching each other
on the street who “both step from left to right at the same time and can’t get past”
(8 December, p 22).
Personally, I have always found this to be the safest way to avoid a collision.
Letters : Why "Islamic" science?
Stevenage, Hertfordshire
Surely I am not the only reader without the faintest idea of what “Islamic
science” is or was
(15 December, p 50).
If there is one certainty in science, it is that in any discipline, from
astronomy to zoology, there will be a broad consensus among those in every
field, whether they be Australian or Scandinavian. We don’t hear of “German
science”, nor do we hear of Buddhist or Hindu science. Christian Science is
acknowledged鈥攂ut as a religion. So why “Islamic science”?
Any well-read scientist will be familiar with the great contributions from
Arab scientists in medieval times in medicine, algebra and astronomy, to name
but a few fields. But most of us are also well aware that periodically, science
has been hijacked by politicians such as the Nazis or, more recently, Trofim
Lysenko in the USSR.
Does a patently artificial construct such as “Islamic science” serve the
interests of either Islam or science?
Letters : . . . . .
Arundel, Sussex
There is an important omission in this article. The Islamic countries and
cultures all depreciate their abilities, natural resources and future well-being
by declining to utilise up to half of their resources of brain power.
Islam largely ignores the intellectual contributions which women can and
should make to their countries and the world in general. As long as this
continues, Islam will flounder along behind the “West”.
Letters : Coals to Newcastle
John Etherington’s letter perpetuates the confusion over whether bacteria in
an insect’s gut can pick up and spread plant genes
(15 December, p 56).
Even if this did happen, would it matter? Etherington tells us that transfer
of herbicide-resistance genes from genetically modified oilseed rape to charlock
is dangerous, but he doesn’t explain why. Outside the farm, is resistance to a
herbicide any use to a plant?
There are weeds resistant to at least 16 herbicides worldwide. But apart from
large chemicals companies, who loses out?
And why isn’t Etherington alarmed by the possibility that resistance could be
spread by commercially available resistant oilseed rape produced through
conventional breeding rather than GM?
Consider the likelihood that this kind of gene transfer happens at all.
Caterpillars have been chewing plants for some 300 million years, presumably
always with native gut bacteria. Bacteria exchange genes promiscuously between
themselves, yet in none of the bacterial genome sequences currently published do
we see the plant gene sequences that Etherington implies should be there.
What’s more, insect guts produce acid, which rapidly degrades DNA, plus
hydrolytic enzymes which rapidly dispose of intact genes. Even if a bacterium
did pick up a gene, it would only flourish if the gene enabled it to out-compete
bacteria without the gene. Since the resistance genes in GM rape came from
bacteria in the first place, this is akin to shipping coals to Newcastle.
Please let us deal only with probable harm. The search for the endless
possibilities arising from the human imagination merely trivialises the debate.
No one is suggesting that any gene is innocuous, and the case-by-case
approach instituted by the British Advisory Committee on Releases to the
Environment for the safety of any new GM product is the right one. But
herbicide-resistance genes pose no problems that have not already been
experienced or anticipated.
Letters : . . . . .
I would like to correct the misinformation, repeated by Etherington, that
charlock and oilseed rape are close relatives. They are in different genera and,
more importantly, there is no recorded instance of a hybrid being produced
between charlock and any Brassica species.
My PhD supervisor and I have passed many a misspent hour in the glasshouse
trying in vain to produce such between-species crosses. These attempts involved
the manual transfer of large amounts of pollen between the species, so the
likelihood of a cross occurring by chance in the wild is close to zero.
Equally improbable events are postulated, such as plant genes passing to
bacteria in caterpillar guts and then to “foraging finches and chats”. If such
unlikely events are to be considered, the precautionary principle is reduced to
absurdity.
Letters : Still a case for nuclear power
Didcot, Oxfordshire
Rob Edwards’s suggestion of the “death” of nuclear energy may be greatly exaggerated
(15 December, p 5).
Renewable energy has great disadvantages that no
amount of research or development can eradicate: it is intermittent and it is
impossible to store in the enormous quantities necessary.
So if you build a wind-powered station, you also have to build a coal, oil,
gas or nuclear powered station as back-up for still days. This station has to be
paid for and staffed even when it is not in use. In the absence of subsidies,
you start to question whether it is more sensible not to build the wind-powered
station in the first place. The same arguments apply to most other forms of
renewable energy.
Wind-power has another disadvantage: you need to build many separate stations
and these are best sited in the windiest areas. Such places are often areas of
great natural beauty and there is likely to be opposition to building wind
turbines there.
Letters : Big carbon spenders
London
I have examined 14 developed countries for which nearly three dozen key
energy uses can be quantified. The results were surprising: some supported and
others contradicted the work of Eric Neumayer on energy use in cold countries
(1 December 2001, p 19).
The greatest surprises came from the US. Its industry is relatively
carbon-intensive, meaning its energy use per unit of output is high. While the
winter climate in the US is about average among the countries we studied, the
larger homes common there raise emissions significantly relative to other
countries.
Because of large cars and high mileage, the US had by far the greatest
emissions from personal transport. Surprisingly, the average car trip in the US
is 14 to 15 kilometres鈥攁bout the same as most of Europe. It is not the
size of the place that boosts Americans’ carbon emissions, it’s the large number
of trips to the store in carbon-hungry vehicles.
We concluded that roughly half of the differences in emissions per unit of
GDP arose because of technical factors鈥攆uel mix and energy
efficiency鈥攚hile the rest were “structural”, such as climate, house size,
mix of industries.
The challenge to many countries, particularly the US, is to identify the many
subsidies and tax loopholes that encourage large homes in dispersed settlements,
large cars, and the proliferation of carbon-intensive manufacturing practices.
The perception of what is necessary and what is waste remains in the eyes of the
beholder, but the approach I have followed shows where to look for wasted
carbon.
As Schipper points out, a country’s reserves of oil and coal, as well as its
potential to produce hydroelectric or wind power, are important considerations.
Neumayer did take these things into account in his calculations, but he didn’t
include factors such as petrol prices, which are extremely low in the US and may
help to account for the country’s addiction to cars鈥擡d
Letters : Hands-off approach
Hitchin, Hertfordshire
Your article discusses the possibility that incomplete Mayan skeletons are
not the result of sacrifices, but of careless handling of the body after death,
and supports the point by referring to medieval Western European burial
practices
(8 December, p 5).
But the macabre burial practices of medieval Polish kings suggest another
possibility. The kings had their hands buried in one place, their hearts in
another, and so on, to lay posthumous claim to all of their kingdom.