Build those barriers
It may be that New York City will have to suffer hundreds drowned as London did in 1953, or more than a thousand as New Orleans did last year before the “basic philosophy” changes from evacuating the city to protecting it with storm surge barriers (3 June, p 8). In the meantime, wild exaggerations of their likely cost are not helpful.
The Thames barrier, about as wide as the Arthur Kill in New York City, cost about $2.4 billion in today’s dollars. The Eastern Scheldt barrier in the Netherlands, which is 80 per cent wider than The Narrows 鈥� the largest barrier span needed in New York 鈥� cost about $1.8 billion. A similar structure for the East river was estimated at $1.6 billion by an engineering firm. The ballpark figure to protect the inner city is thus $6 billion, in contrast to the statement that “estimates of the possible cost start at tens of billions of dollars”.
As your article noted, decades passed after the disaster before a storm surge barrier was in place to protect London, and the same was true in the Netherlands and in Venice, Italy. What are needed now for New York are the engineering feasibility and environmental studies to move the development of barriers along, at least to minimise the subsequent exposure time and incidentally to provide a genuine estimate of their cost.
Forced to watch ads
It is interesting that Philips is saying it has no intention of using the technology it is attempting to patent that forces TV viewers to watch adverts (Feedback, 3 June). I see the company is keeping the filing alive by requesting examination of its European patent filing EP1574057. It could have simply published the papers somewhere to stop anyone else patenting, and so protect its own freedom to operate. Perhaps it intends to be public-spirited, and use any patent it is granted to prevent others forcing viewers to watch ads.
Right-wing gene
The article on neophilia, “the love of the new”, raises the question of whether political affinities are inherited (10 June, p 52).
Surely a predilection for newness equates with radicalism and a resistance to novelty with conservatism. This is not a new concept. It dates back at least to W. S. Gilbert’s Iolanthe: “Every boy and every gal that’s born into the world alive is either a little liberal or else a little conservative.”
However, the suggestion that enthusiasm for novelty depends partly on variations in the gene for monoamine oxidase A holds out the hope, one day, of a cure for right-wing conservatism.
For the record
鈥� Disney and Philips do not, as Feedback appeared to suggest (3 June), share the same patent numbers. The Disney patent described was correctly numbered as US20050232612. The correct number for the Philips patent is US20060070095.
鈥� In the item on testing for illnesses, we gave the impression that in England women over 70 are no longer entitled to free routine breast screening (3 June, p 44). This is not the case. Over-70s no longer receive invitations but are still able to make their own appointment.
Enhancing humans 鈥� who decides?
Mark Bruce points out that we do not regret that Homo erectus evolved into Homo sapiens, so we should not worry about mourning the passing of H. sapiens for an enhanced version of humanity (10 June, p 26). This prompted me to consider what H. sapiens would have been like, had it been constructed according to a H. erectus “wish list” of desirable characteristics. Who knows, but one dreads to think.
One of the problems with attempts at human enhancement is not the idea of “bettering” humanity, per se, but with choosing what counts as enhancement according to a set of values derived from the rich and powerful members of a certain culture at a certain time in history. Our views of what is desirable may be dubious.
One indication that humanity today does not have sufficient wisdom to decide on these matters comes from noticing that there is a vast reservoir of wasted human potential: growing brains denied adequate nutrition, hungry minds denied adequate education, social groups denied full access to society. If you are truly interested in enhancing humanity, we already “have the technology” to make a vast difference to our lot in life without even venturing into transhumanism. Sadly, we seem to lack the social and economic will power.
Dump waste at sea
P. G. Whittaker points out that by discarding organic waste in either landfills or the marine environment we might be missing opportunities to increase the rate of plant growth under scenarios of higher atmospheric CO2 levels (20 May, p 27). While this sentiment is commendable, the proposed solution of concentrating this potential productivity boon on land is misplaced.
First, the author correctly asserts that much of humanity’s organic waste is pumped into the sea and that this is largely “not available to plant growth”. However, the latter part of this statement is misleading because plants are not the only photosynthetic organisms capable of transforming “waste” into usable organic matter. In fact, photosynthetic marine protists, known collectively as algae and comprising not only seaweeds but also phytoplankton, are extremely efficient at doing just this. In the process, these organisms contribute substantially to the global carbon cycle, possibly more so than terrestrial plants. In this sense, nutrients disposed of at sea are not wasted, although they may well be misdirected.
Second, the deserts and forests identified as possible receptacles for excess nutrients are natural ecosystems in their own right. Deliberately enhancing organic growth in either system is therefore not ecologically desirable, unless all of the consequences are fully understood and accepted.
Although we clearly need more creative methods of waste disposal, ecosystems are being and always will be affected by excess nutrients regardless of where they are dumped. Without careful thought, these “discarded” nutrients could ultimately pose as much of an environmental problem as greenhouse gases.
We need polymaths
Physicists trying to hunt down the ultimate laws of physics will not be “there” for a long time, if ever (27 May, p 52). We will never understand the nature of the universe or have a complete picture of how it functions while our academic system is oriented toward specialised incremental research and shuts out students interested in broad-minded multidisciplinary research.
Our academic system is geared to training researchers to become specialists in very narrow fields, while remaining ignorant of the broader scope of science. The need to get young researchers to the frontiers of science as soon as possible causes students to specialise early in their careers and rush through the basics of science to get to their chosen field, without questioning the foundations it all stands on.
Risk and certainty
It seems David Healy justifies abuse of statistics simply because he feels the case he advances is important (27 May, p 25). “Establishing a safety risk with 95 per cent certainty is an incredibly high standard to demand,” he says. His preferred 65 per cent level means that one in every three studies he conducts will come up with a significant result when there is no underlying relationship at all. He will then use this to advocate public policy changes, or the abandonment of medications 鈥� in this case mood stabilisers 鈥� that have brought relief from suffering to millions. Politicians may get away with moving the goalposts when their balls don’t go in, but I hope the scientific community will continue to insist on higher standards.
Hydrogen as back-up
Larry Hughes says in his letter that “energy security with intermittent renewables…requires some form of rapid-response back-up energy source” (3 June, p 22).
We already have such an energy source, which is produced in bulk for use in the manufacture of fertiliser. It is ideal for smoothing variable renewable output. It is hydrogen.
True, the common and cheapest method of production is a process called steam reformation, which also produces CO2, but if electricity produced by renewables were used to split water, hydrogen could be produced without any CO2.
Hydrogen is very versatile. You can use it on-site to produce heat and power, or you can send the gas down a pipeline (there is already one in the UK). You can cool it and store it as a liquid in caverns similar to those used for liquid petroleum gas, or you can adsorb it onto solid metal hydrides 鈥� this is still an expensive option, but improving.
Hydrogen is not pie in the sky, it is a known technology. BMW and other German car makers have already made prototypes that run on hydrogen. They are involved in constructing a net of filling stations, and expect to see the start of the hydrogen economy within 10 years.
More fish than monkeys
Your report on the use of monkeys in medical research contains a statement that might mislead readers (10 June, p 6). You say that “a biomedical laboratory [is] being built by the University of Oxford to investigate neurological diseases through experiments on monkeys”. This gives a false idea of the primary purpose of the new laboratory.
In fact, the new laboratory is intended to replace several existing animal research facilities scattered around Oxford with one central state-of-the-art facility. Procedures involving primates will account for only a very small proportion (less than 2 per cent) of the research undertaken there, while the overwhelming majority of procedures (over 95 per cent) will involve rodents and fish. All this information is available on the University of Oxford website ().
Innocent additive
In your article on aspartame you cite the Ramazzini study on the petrol additive MTBE as showing that it caused cancer, and you say that this led to “changes in the rules on petrol” (6 May, p 40). While acknowledging that the Ramazzini study did feature in the decision of California to ban MTBE, the European Fuel Oxygenates Association (EFOA) is of the view that this general statement creates an erroneous view of this useful product.
MTBE has never been classified as toxic or carcinogenic by any regulatory body anywhere in the world. For example, the World Health Organization’s International Programme on Chemical Safety says that “based on collective evidence, it appears unlikely that MTBE alone induces adverse acute health effects in the general population under common exposure conditions”.
EFOA is proud of the contribution that MTBE has made to improving air quality in Europe and believes that provided it is handled responsibly there is no reason for it not to continue to do so.
Who needs aspartame?
For years, the products in which aspartame has been included have been marketed as a healthy way to cut sugar intake, yet we do not accept there is any nutritional benefit (6 May, p 40).
There is a more nutritious way to reduce sugar intake: simply eat more fresh, unprocessed food. The Soil Association is calling for an immediate withdrawal of approval for aspartame in food.
We question case-by-case scientific assessment as a suitable basis for protecting public health when it comes to artificial chemicals in food. The limitations of scientific testing, such as sample size and difficulty in testing “cocktail effects”, mean there can be inadequate information on which to base a responsible decision. We believe our principles of generally prohibiting artificial compounds in favour of natural unadulterated foods, and basing decisions on common sense, intuition and observation, as well as on controlled experimental evidence, are a much more reliable approach for protecting human health.
Aspartame is one of more than 300 artificial food additives that are prohibited in organic food.
From Richard Laming, British Soft Drinks Association
Contrary to what your correspondent Catherine Jones appears to believe (3 June, p 22), soft drinks containing aspartame are no sweeter than those containing sugar or other forms of nutritive sweetener. The fact that aspartame is so much sweeter means that very much less of it can be used.
Intense sweeteners allow consumers to enjoy soft drinks while restricting their calorie intake if they wish to do so. They are always listed on the label so that consumers can have the choice.
It is better to enable people to make their own decisions about diet and lifestyle than for public authorities to attempt to take control. Prohibition works less well than education and information.
London, UK
Power on the doorstep
Alan Shaw dismisses local power generation in favour of nuclear in his letter because he says we lack the skills required for it and because electricity is a “mere by-product” of co-generation, in which heat and electricity produced by one process are both put to use (20 May, p 26). Neither of these assertions stands up to examination.
First, tremendous changes in the deployment and support of a particular technology can happen quickly if the incentives are right. What if people in the early 1990s had said that we could never have a fully functioning internet as a major business communication tool by the middle of the next decade? One can imagine them saying: “We could never do it 鈥� we haven’t got the skills. We need to invest in tried-and-tested methods like faxes.” Yet that seems to be the mindset of energy planners.
Secondly, the use of power as a “by-product” of heat provision in co-generation has not been a barrier to the stability of the system in Woking, in south-east England. There the local authority initiated a scheme in which a considerable number of public facilities, as well as some homes, are supplied with both heat and power by local generation points. They are self-sufficient 99.85 per cent of the time.
Importantly, the energy programme in Woking has delivered a cut of 77 per cent in carbon dioxide emissions from heat and power usage. Even if one were to double the contribution of nuclear power from its current level 鈥� a massively ambitious scenario 鈥� the contribution it would make to reductions in these combined sectors is a modest 10 per cent of emissions.
Policy-makers in industry and government seem impervious to solutions sitting on their doorsteps, being apparently obsessed with the manly business of using vast quantities of fuel in deeply inefficient ways. Most of the energy in thermal and nuclear power stations goes up cooling towers and into cooling water.