Fusarium corrections
I’d like to correct some errors in your article reporting my research on possible links between the weedkiller glyphosate and fusarium head blight (FHB), a fungal disease of wheat and barley (16 August, p 6).
I am the lead Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada scientist on projects related to this research area. The data on the relationship between the use of glyphosate and the development of FHB was part of a large field study conducted in eastern Saskatchewan. The aim of this five-year study was to look at the impact of agronomic practices on the development of plant diseases, including FHB.
The “follow-up study” referred to in the article has not been conducted as stated, nor are there plans for future field studies. South-west Saskatchewan, where our research centre is located, is still relatively free of FHB, and a crucial component of our FHB research is to prevent the further spread of this disease. Thus, any fieldwork on FHB in this region would run a serious risk of introducing the Fusarium pathogens, which is what we are working very hard to prevent.
Even though our preliminary analysis of the fieldwork done in the eastern part of the province has shown that the use of glyphosate in the spring (not the previous year as stated in the article) was correlated with an increase in the levels of FHB in the field, analysis of the four years of data (1999 to 2002) is not completed, so no definite conclusions can yet be reached. The results will be made public once the statistical analysis and peer review process are completed.
Although your reporter Andy Coghlan interviewed the technician working on the lab study on the effect of glyphosate on the growth of Fusarium species, it is unfortunate he overlooked the importance of contacting me as well because I lead and conduct the research projects on FHB. I would have been able to give him a fuller picture that would have avoided the errors I’ve now had to correct.
Visibility good
Your column on the word “chinook” misses the principal characteristics of these winds (2 August, p 47). Their main claim to fame is that they significantly affect people’s temper and health. Having lived in Munich with its f枚hn wind and still living in Toulouse with its equivalent vent d’autan, I have first-hand experience of them.
In Munich I used to wake up feeling very excited, with my heart pounding, and I didn’t need to look out of the window to verify that the f枚hn was blowing. During the week or so that it blows the hospitals fill up there.
The effect here in Toulouse is one of a feeling of immense irritation and impatience. This translates into an even worse standard of driving than usual. At the same time both winds produce stunning atmospheric visibility. In Munich it’s not unusual to be able to see mountains in Switzerland, some 250 kilometres away. From a suitable vantage point in Toulouse one can see the whole chain of the Pyrenees as if they were in the back garden.
For the record
鈥� In the interview with Abdolkarim Soroush, Iran’s supreme leader was wrongly identified as Ayatollah Khomeini (16 august, p 38). He is in fact Ayatollah Khamenei.
Letter
Who has David Chandler been listening to? Clearly not the nuclear power industry, which could have told him that reprocessing does not create pure plutonium. It produces plutonium oxide, useless for making a bomb. It could have also told him that surveys show that as many people want more nuclear power as want less, and that most energy experts are calling for more.
Chandler claims that there is no guarantee that new reactor designs will make nuclear power cheaper, forgetting perhaps that he has already told us that the pebble-bed reactor could “cut the cost of construction”. In fact, the cost of electricity produced from nuclear power is not “twice as much as electricity produced from coal and gas”. The European Union has declared that, when the cost of environmental effects is considered, nuclear power turns out to be a lot cheaper.
Chandler also claims that confidence in the reliability of reactors is at an all-time low, but the US Institute of Nuclear Power Operations says that performance has been improving steadily and now stands at record levels. The unit capability factors have been running at around 90 per cent for the past 4 years.
Letter
You rightly draw attention to the reduction of world reserves of oil expected in the next few decades (2 August, p 8). Renewables such as wind and wave power will alleviate the problem but it is difficult to see how they can substantially replace fossil fuels in the long term.
Nuclear power, in spite of its disadvantages, appears to be the only way of coping with the increasing world demand for energy and reduction in CO2 emissions. A power station can take over 8 years to construct, and a programme for a major shift to nuclear power use might take two or three decades, if we include the time for education, training and reviving a manufacturing industry. This brings us within the time frame for the impact of diminishing oil supplies suggested in your articles.
It therefore seems dangerous to preclude, as some European countries have done, the development of all nuclear power for the foreseeable future.
Desert mangroves
In response to Fred Pearce’s article about my plan to plant desert coastlines with mangroves, I would like to point out that there is no scientific research to support the claim that mangrove plantations have a negative impact on coral reefs (3 May, p 11). There is, in fact, little experience worldwide with planting mangroves where they have not grown before.
In this pilot project, I have gone to great pains to ensure that nutrients are delivered to the mangroves using a brand new method that ensures there is no excess run-off to cause environmental damage. Seawater samples taken from near the Manzanar project and analysed by the Eritrean Ministry of Fisheries show that there is no sign of pollution due to an excess of nutrients.
As a responsible scientist with 50 years’ experience in the field of cell biology, I am of course eager not to damage the environment. At the same time, the Manzanar project is designed to help people on the brink of starvation to develop an agricultural economy that they desperately need in order to survive.
But is it art?
Barry Fox’s report on digital art piracy draws a false analogy between the London National Gallery’s scheme for reproducing its pictures, and the music industry’s problems with Napster (9 August, p 8).
Composers and performers create substantial intellectual property in their music recordings, which they are certainly entitled to protect. By contrast, technicians at the National Gallery and Hewlett-Packard plan to digitise famous paintings. That too is a worthy activity, deserving of reward. But it is preposterous to suggest that in doing so they thereby create intellectual property in anything more than their scanning technology and data compression algorithms.
When the National Gallery’s director and HP’s digital media manager produce an original picture, it will deserve the usual protections. Until then, their job is to conserve and make available works of art that are long out of copyright.
Energy policy
Your report mischaracterises the financial support proposed as part of the comprehensive US energy policy legislation to stimulate investment in new nuclear power plants (9 August, p 10).
Provisions approved by the Senate, but not included in the legislation passed earlier this month, would have provided loan guarantees for up to 50 per cent of the cost of some of the next- generation nuclear power plants.
However, congressional leaders could include similar provisions as they reconcile differences in the Senate and House versions of the policy that seeks to enhance domestic energy security.
Financial incentives are provided to several energy sources, and those proposed by Congress would reduce the business risk involved in building advanced reactors under a new regulatory system and in new competitive electricity markets. Once these first nuclear plants are built, the cost of subsequent plants will be fully competitive with other sources of electricity and will therefore require no financial assistance.
The US is suffering from chronic lack of investment in critical energy infrastructure, including large power plants, electric transmission lines and natural gas transmission. It is entirely appropriate that the energy policy legislation now before Congress provides stimulus for investment in these areas as well as renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Without a balanced, forward-looking energy policy, we’ll fall well short of providing for the 40 per cent increase in electricity demand predicted by 2020.
Catch the wind
Once again we read that the UK’s Ministry of Defence will lead opposition to proposed wind farm developments, on the grounds that the rotating blades will interfere with their radar systems (9 August, p 6).
Leaving aside the arguments of which is more important, energy policy or defence, surely these objections need closer scrutiny. Any device that upsets radar signals could be used as a defence against hostile attack.
Alternatively, our armed forces will be of little value as global police if they are frustrated by a country that invests in wind power.
The best solution is to continue to develop wind power and let our defenders develop strategies to manage the radar problem 鈥� a win-win situation.
Skin deep
In her report about the benefits of sunshine, Celeste Biever seems to have missed an obvious point (9 August, p 30). If people can’t get out in the sunshine, then maybe sunshine can be brought to them 鈥� or at least the ultraviolet component of it that is beneficial.
I remember seeing a photograph taken during the second world war of sunshine-deprived British children gathered around what was probably a UV lamp and wearing nothing but oversized goggles.
UV lamps would sure beat pill-popping, though one might cynically hazard a guess as to who is sponsoring the research.
The editor writes:
鈥� UV lamps are still used as a medical treatment for certain skin conditions, under strict monitoring of administration and dose. However, doctors advise against the use of commercial sunbeds to get a tan. The UV rays they give out are in different proportions to those of sunlight, and the exact cancer risk is unknown.