Mission delayed
David Getling wonders issue why it is that with 35 years of experience and vastly improved technology, George W. Bush picked a target date 16 years out to return to the moon, when it only took eight years to get there in the first place (3 September, p 19).
The answer, I think, is very simple: Bush intentionally picked a date far enough out that even if he was somehow permitted a third term, there would still be practically zero chance that he would ever have to make good on it.
I will go out on a limb and make a prediction that a commercial, private-sector spaceflight company will land a man on the moon long before a US government programme manages to do so again.
Theoretically, the replacement for the Shuttle is supposed to fly by 2011. I will be surprised if it’s even off the drawing boards by then, unless NASA just buys commercial, off-the-shelf hardware — which might well actually be its best bet.
For the record
In “Space billiards to head off asteroid collisions” (17 September, p 10), the figures for changes in asteroid speeds were incorrect. Deep Impact changed comet Tempel 1’s speed by about 10-7 metres per second, and deflecting a dangerous asteroid would require a speed change of about 10-6 metres per second.
Noisy evangelists
I was interested in your recent article on the problems facing science in the US, but I fear that the situation is far worse than Chris Mooney suggests (10 September, p 21). I have regular email contact with people in the US and am dismayed at the current rapid spread of US Christian conservatism. Many apparently intelligent and educated people now support fundamentalist ideas, particularly creationism and intelligent design. It seems that such views are now regarded as almost obligatory among the US political right.
What may have begun as a ploy by the current administration to garner some extra votes is rapidly snowballing into a popular anti-science revolution. What is especially worrying is the fierce and hysterical cyber-evangelism associated with their beliefs. Its existence can easily be verified by doing an internet search for words such as “evolution”. The web is filling up with sites proclaiming Biblical “truth”.
At the same time, sites based on real science are submerging under the noise and slick hype generated by these sites. I know that many scientists refuse to get involved in refuting the absurd views that are being shouted from the rooftops, for fear of lending legitimacy to them, but surely we cannot simply stand to one side and watch this slide back into superstition and dogma without lifting a finger.
Planet formation
I was delighted to see that my comments about planet formation from “dust bunnies” have been of interest to others (17 September, p 17). Thanks to Erik Foxcroft for his interesting suggestion about the possible role of magnetism in the coalescence of proto-planetary dust into clumps.
However, I believe this mechanism to be unlikely, because iron is not very abundant compared with other constituents of proto-planetary dust such as oxygen, carbon and silicon. It is, however, more plentiful in ferrous meteorites and the nucleus of many planets, which could eventually give rise to iron-rich dust particles. But such particles are unlikely to have been present before large asteroids themselves formed, because smaller bodies would cool too quickly, and have insufficient gravity, for heavier elements such as iron to decant to the nucleus. Further, magnetic particles are dipoles, and unlike gravity, which is always an attractive force, dipoles can also repel.
It is important to clarify Foxcroft’s remark about scientists looking for iron spectral lines when searching for dust clouds that might harbour proto-planets. Iron gives rise to particularly strong and distinct spectral lines, making it easier to detect, despite the fact that other elements might be present in larger quantities.
I had not considered magnetic forces when thinking about planet formation from dust, but I did consider electrical ones: dust can became electrically charged due to friction. I am not sure of the role this factor would play, but I assume it would be possible for dust to stick together by a similar process to that which keeps dust stuck to electrically charged TV screens long after the set has been switched off.
This brings me back to my original question: how can dust bunnies form in space from a low-density dust disc and in the absence of filamentous material? Foxcroft’s “magnetic glue” would require the existence of unlikely high-ferrous dust particles. The processes I discussed (electrical charge or “melt glue”) seem to require a high-density dust disc.
10 steps to smugness
Dave Reay makes the oft-repeated assertion that “saving the planet starts at home” (10 September, p 36). But it is illogical to “multiply up” decisions about one’s personal lifestyle to the population as a whole, unless there is evidence that your choices really will influence others. Otherwise, it’s a question of 10 steps to feeling smug.
The vast majority of people are either unaware of or apathetic about the threat posed by climate change. Those seriously concerned represent a small minority. Any small reduction in emissions that this minority may achieve will probably be negated by market feedback and/or used as an excuse for inaction by politicians.
True, some of the actions suggested 鈥� install low-energy light bulbs, cycle to work, compost food waste 鈥� make good sense anyway. But then it’s superfluous to invoke the environment as a reason for doing them. Others 鈥� turn down the heating in the middle of winter, drive more slowly, make sub-optimal transport choices 鈥� are forms of self-punishment that have no chance of ever being adopted by the unconcerned majority.
To have any significant impact on environmental problems, the concerned minority must take public, not private, action to change attitudes and behaviour. Riding your bike or installing roof-mounted solar panels, for instance, are public acts. They are seen and may even be imitated by others, albeit mainly at a local level.
But in the end, climate change is a global problem resulting from the unchecked growth of the fossil-fuel economy. Effective action against it must mean somehow transforming 鈥� or disrupting 鈥� the global economy.
From Maureen Evershed
What happens when a lot of us do take these steps? Inevitably, we save money. The crucial question, then, is how do we spend this money we have saved? I think it will most probably be on luxuries that emit greenhouse gases in their manufacture or use 鈥� which sort of defeats the object, really.
Dorridge, West Midlands, UK
From Val Stevens, Optimum Population Trust
I would urge Reay to write an 11th step. It would be “Stop at two children”. Even if everyone responded to his call and reduced energy consumption by a few percentage points, the environmental gain would be wiped out by there being more consumers. Based on present growth trends, the UK population alone will swell by 7 million by 2050, requiring up to 4 million new homes with the associated central heating, washing machines, refrigerators and so on. With that in mind, the goal of a 60 per cent reduction on 1990 carbon dioxide levels by that date becomes almost laughable.
Long Whatton, Leicestershire, UK
From William Stanton
Reay may be interested to know that here in Somerset we have two landfill sites where food and garden waste (biomass) is compacted. Methanogen bacteria convert it to methane, which is an extremely valuable biofuel. It is sucked out of the landfills into two power stations that each generate 3 megawatts, day and night, for the national grid. Each unobtrusive power station thus produces as much electricity in an average year as a wind farm of seven turbines rated at 1.8 megawatts each, given wind-power’s known intermittency.
Unfortunately, the local landfill operators now plan to collect the biomass separately and recycle it, expending much energy, to make compost. At a time when energy is becoming scarce and expensive, renewable electricity is surely more valuable than compost to society.
Wells, Somerset, UK
I am me
If my ID card contains an “identity” based on some biometric to do with my body, why do I need to carry an ID card?
I am me. I carry my body around wherever I go. Why do I need an ID card that merely duplicates the information and is so easily lost or stolen?
To be useful the cards have to be compared to a known copy of the data on some central system and then the biometric data has to be measured on my body and compared. The card is a pointless, error-prone additional step.
Duncan Graham-Rowe writes:
鈥� If you have no card and scan just, say, the iris, the only way to identify someone is to search a massive database for an iris that matches. This is a one-to-many match, which is a lot more demanding than simply doing a one-to-one match with a single biometric template of an iris stored on the card, and more prone to error.
Global techno-fix
I appreciate the articles on managing CO2, but am highly troubled by the statement of Ian Fells to the effect that the problems created by the increasing release of the gas into the atmosphere will be “combated by new technology, not by changing hearts and minds” (3 September, p 41).
Many people I know see the greenhouse-gas issue as being only one facet of a much larger problem: the arrogant refusal of governments and industries around the world to recognise the detrimental impact we are having on this planet. If we “dodge the bullet” of CO2 with new technology and refuse to recognise the perils of pollution, nuclear proliferation, racial and religious intolerance, habitat destruction and overpopulation, we will still be on a collision course with global disaster and the potential end of civilisation.
So hooray for new technology, and here’s hoping it all works, but that does not relieve us of the obligation to change our hearts and minds as we consider our future existence on Earth.
Ivan and Katrina
Your article mentions that hurricane Ivan “veered from its original New Orleans-bound course last year”, but it doesn’t mention where it “veered” to (10 September, p 8). In fact it struck Cuba, with at least as much devastating force as Katrina struck Louisiana.
But this went largely unreported in our media, possibly because the much-maligned government of Cuba had taken the trouble to prepare for this predictable event, rather than relying on luck and charity. Nearly 2 million people were evacuated from the path of the storm, in a systematic and orderly fashion, and not one Cuban was killed. It’s not exactly rocket science.
Twin fingerprints
In your article on fingerprints, Stephen Meagher is quoted as saying: “individual fingerprints are effectively unique” (17 September, p 6). Can this be true? Wouldn’t identical twins also have identical fingerprints?
The editor writes:
鈥� Although identical twins share the same genes they do not have identical fingerprints. That’s because the shape of the whorls and arches on our fingers are determined both by genes and the local environment around the dividing skin cells. So a twin’s individual position in the womb will cause slight differences.
Keep that lip stiff
While keeping a stiff upper lip may be bad for your memory and bad for your long-term mental health, in the short term it might have some advantages (17 September, p 13).
Ethological psychology would suggest that not exhibiting a dramatic response prevented our ancestors from being spotted and eaten by predators. Even today, a stiff upper lip may have advantages when dealing with a trauma, and not remembering the exact details might help to deal with an event as it unfolds.
However, keeping a stiff upper lip in the long term is not a good idea and does appear to result in post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety.
Practical miles
Feedback seems to have forgotten that the nautical mile is still the standard measure of length used in both nautical and aircraft navigation (10 September). The nautical mile is the average length of 1 minute of latitude, which makes taking distances off a chart simple, especially if the scale varies with latitude as happens with conical and transverse Mercator projections. It also simplifies astro-navigation.
Today, with the use of satellite navigation, it would be possible to convert everything to metric, but, given that the current unit works, the effort and cost of a wholesale conversion would be totally uneconomic. While Airbus might be considered at fault for not converting distances to metric, most people in the airline world are perfectly happy to think in nautical miles and knots.
Time traveller
Clearly the experimental, web-advertised time-travel meeting mentioned in Feedback (14 May) attracted at least one delegate: Stuart Clark. His article on comets states “Giotto flew by Halley’s comet in 1986…Twenty-five years later, NASA’s Deep Space One flew past comet Borrelly…” (10 September, p 32)
So go on, spill the beans 鈥� how did the manned trip to Mars go?
The autism industry
I am provoked by the timely article on autism (13 August, p 36) to repeat what I wrote some years ago in a letter you published (7 April 2001, p 53). I said then that autism expands with the number of people making a living from this neurological condition 鈥� researchers, statisticians, doctors, teachers, journalists, TV and film-makers, novelists, poets, alternative-medicine charlatans, administrators, staff of charities and private-healthcare providers.
The widened parameters of diagnosis of the disease to engulf larger and larger numbers of people have enabled Simon Baron-Cohen to reveal recently, “At least 40 people with Asperger syndrome are studying at Cambridge University today.” When I was there, 55 years ago, I am fairly sure the number was about the same. They were just eccentric chaps, that’s all.
Benefits of war
It may have seemed clever to you to have an ethicist review a book that attempted to show that some benefits come from war, but the reasoning was as fallacious as Robert A. Hinde’s arguments in his review (10 September, p 52).
Having admitted that Michael White never claimed that the ends justified the means, Hinde proceeded to attack him as if he had, turning a review into an emotional polemic against war that seems to assume there is still someone who thinks it is a great and good thing.
Genius, teach thyself
It is a great idea for young people to have access to professionals who can answer their questions (3 September, p 44). However, as Gerard ‘t Hooft so expertly points out, many of the high achievers of the past were in fact self-taught. It is good for young people to have an opportunity to study what scientists already understand and can explain to them, but these things alone will not produce another Einstein.
We have at our disposal an abundance of highly intelligent individuals who are not scientists and whose ideas are ignored by those who consider themselves to be in the elite club we call experts. If those experts would look back, they would see that many of the major advances have been accomplished by this very group of individuals.
The next achiever will be quite unconventional and may have been trying to gain access for some time. In fact, they are likely to blow the minds of most who study their ideas. They will not set out to challenge accepted ideas and ways of doing things, but will do so anyway.
Following standard methods and approaches will not provide the breaks which are necessary for the next level of our progress. Following the unconventional approach will.