Lavengro in Spain

Power, logic and truthfulness

The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the Fukushima disaster is that if you want to build a nuclear power station on a coastal site that is at risk of tsunamis, you have to make sure that your generators are properly protected and supplied. Even George Monbiot can see that.

As I have mentioned before, the Green lobby is not immune to what one might delicately refer to as manipulation of information.

 

Dubious Science

In his Guardian Bad Science column today Ben Goldacre climbs aboard the bandwagon of hysterical anti-Papism that is rolling around Britain in anticipation of the Pope’s state visit.

Before I go any further, I will quote the United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS:

Conclusive evidence from extensive research shows that correct use of condoms every time one has sex significantly reduces the risk of HIV transmission.

Let there be no doubt. Condoms prevent AIDS and the bishops who say that the virus can get through the holes in the latex don’t know what they are talking about. But there are some awkward facts that get in the way of the theory that the Catholic Church’s teaching on condoms is responsible for the scale of the AIDS epidemic in Africa. The following reports are from the same UN web site. Follow the links to read the full report on each region. There are also separate country reports

Sub-Saharan Africa

In 2008, an estimated 1.9 million people living in sub-Saharan Africa became newly infected with HIV, bringing the total number of people living with HIV to 22.4 million. While the rate of new HIV infections in sub-Saharan Africa has slowly declined—with the number of new infections in 2008 approximately 25% lower than at the epidemic’s peak in the region in 1995—the number of people living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa slightly increased in 2008, in part due to increased longevity stemming from improved access to HIV treatment. Adult (15–49) HIV prevalence declined from 5.8% in 2001 to 5.2% in 2008. In 2008, an estimated 1.4 million AIDS-related deaths occurred in sub-Saharan Africa. This number represents an 18% decline in annual HIV-related mortality in the region since 2004.

Latin America

In 2008, an estimated 170 000 new HIV infections occurred in the region, bringing the number of people living with HIV to an estimated 2 million.

The Catholic Church has a presence in Africa, but the scale of that presence, and the effectiveness of its teaching there, are far less than is the case in Latin America. Nevertheless, I have never seen any British anti-Papist attempt to reconcile these figures. Why should it be that the scale of HIV infection in Africa is more than ten times higher than in Latin America? How can this disparity be attributed to the influence of the Catholic Church? Moreover, I have been told (though I have no data) that the rate of HIV infection in Africa is roughly the same in areas under Anglican influence as in Catholic areas.

Until I see an argued response to this point, I will assume that this great concern for Catholic teaching responds more to British religious preoccupations and prejudice than to reality. There is, after all, no reason to suppose that the UN is part of a worldwide Catholic conspiracy, yet I find no mention of the Catholic Church’s attitude there.

Finally, to avoid any confusion, I repeat:

Conclusive evidence from extensive research shows that correct use of condoms every time one has sex significantly reduces the risk of HIV transmission.

Notes

The UN specifically mentions some countries in the above regional reports as having serious HIV/AIDS problems. The proportions of Roman Catholics in the populations of those countries are as follows:

Swaziland – 25%

Côte d’Ivoire – 17%

Lesotho – 45%

Peru – 89%

Links to Wikipedia.

And because what I tell you three times is true:

Conclusive evidence from extensive research shows that correct use of condoms every time one has sex significantly reduces the risk of HIV transmission.

Bad Ads by Google

It is obvious that publishers of web pages have no control over the advertisements that accompany them, but it is rather unfortunate that my FeedDemon presentation of Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science article is followed by an ad from Google asking: ‘Who were you in your previous life?’

One in the eye

The General Medical Council has ruled that Dr Andrew Wakefield acted "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in doing his research in which he claimed to have proved a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. (BBC)

Much of the British media have made fools of themselves over this issue, but some of Wakefield’s most strident support has come from Private Eye.What will Lord Gnome say now?

Hot air

The Independent likes to preen its Green feathers as The Paper That Understands The Environment. Today it uses this picture

A worker is dwarfed by cooling towers at a power plant in Jiangxi province, China, last month

to illustrate an article about ‘the upper and lower limits of the world’s ambitions to cut the emissions of carbon dioxide which are causing climate change’ (and there should be a comma between dioxide and which!)

Such pictures are always impressive in themselves, but what the arty types who write British newspapers fail to understand is that what comes out of cooling towers is, err, steam. The implication, of course, is that it is nasty polluting smoke. One might expect even the artiest type to know that smoke is caused by burning things, not by cooling them, but even so I hope that I am dealing here with ignorance rather than malevolence.

All thermal power stations work in the same basic fashion. Fuel, of whatever kind, is burnt to heat water. The boiling water creates steam. The steam drives a turbine, which is the machine that drives the generator that produces the electricity. This process produces excess heat. The steam goes to the atmosphere. Steam is not a greenhouse gas. The relevance of this picture to the article is zero.

The BBC had a similar photo on Thursday, hyperbolic cooling towers belching forth steam, to illustrate an article about the environment. It has been changed. Now we see this:

The study asks whether emissions are being underestimated

'Ten years remain' to cut carbon

Emissions of some greenhouse gases are substantially higher than companies and countries report, say scientists.

I do not know where this photo was taken and the BBC doesn’t say. I do however, see a hyperbolic cooling tower in it and I wonder whether it is a power station with a variety of cooling systems. To be honest, what is coming out of those chimneys looks to me more like steam than nasty smoke. I don’t know of course, but let’s have a look at Wikipedia:

All thermal power plants produce waste heat as a by-product of the useful electrical energy produced. Natural draft wet cooling towers at nuclear power plants and at some large thermal power plants are large hyperbolic chimney-like structures (as seen in the image at the left – Cooling  towers evaporating water at Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station, United Kingdom) that release the waste heat to the ambient atmosphere by the evaporation of water. However, the mechanical induced-draft or forced-draft wet cooling towers (as seen in the image to the right – Coal Power Station in Tampa, United States) in many large thermal power plants, petroleum refineries, petrochemical plants, geothermal, biomass and waste to energy plants use fans to provide air movement upward through downcoming water and are not hyperbolic chimney-like structures. The induced or forced-draft cooling towers are rectangular, box-like structures filled with a material that enhances the contacting of the upflowing air and the downflowing water.

Wikipedia also provides a picture of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, a nuclear boiling water reactor power plant, showing that even nuclear plants, which produce no smoke at all, can have these cooling towers.

All power stations that use fossil fuels produce greenhouse gases of course, and there are ways, actual and potential, of dealing with the emissions that they produce. But pictures, however impressive, of steam going into the atmosphere, with the implication that it is causing environmental pollution, are not going to help people to understand what is happening.

English libel law need reform

I have received this email and am very happy to post it here.

Dear Friends

A message from Simon Singh:

"It has been 18 months since I was sued for libel after publishing my article on chiropractic. I am continuing to fight my case and am prepared to defend my article for another 18 months or more if necessary. The ongoing libel case has been distracting, draining and frustrating, but it has always been heartening to receive so much support, particularly from people who realise that English libel laws need to be reformed in order to allow robust discussion of matters of public interest. Over twenty thousand people signed the statement to Keep Libel Laws out of Science, but now we need you to sign up again and add your name to the new statement.

The new statement is necessary because the campaign for libel reform is stepping up a gear and will be working on much broader base. Sense About Science has joined forces with Index on Censorship and English PEN and their goal is to reach 100,000 or more signatories in order to help politicians appreciate the level of public support for libel reform. We have already met several leading figures from all three main parties and they have all showed signs of interest. Now, however, we need a final push in order to persuade them to commit to libel reform.

Finally, I would like to make three points. First, I will stress again - please take the time to reinforce your support for libel reform by signing up at www.libelreform.org. Second, please spread the word by blogging, twittering, Facebooking and emailing in order to encourage friends, family and colleagues to sign up. Third, for those supporters who live overseas, please also add your name to the petition and encourage others to do the same; unfortunately and embarrassingly, English libel laws impact writers in the rest of the world, but now you can help change those laws by showing your support for libel reform. While I fight in my own libel battle, I hope that you will fight the bigger battle of libel reform."

And from me, Síle:

The campaign for libel reform was launched by Sense About Science, Index on Censorship and English PEN on Wednesday 9th December. You can read about it in the following articles:

BBC NEWS Comic Dara O Briain says libel laws 'quash dissent'

The Times Scientists urge reform of 'lethal' libel law

The Independent Comic Dara O Briain lambasts 'bully' libel law

The Mirror Dara O Briain wants libel reform

THE UCL provost: libel law is stifling academic freedoms

New Scientist blog Campaign to reform English libel law launched

Press Gazette'Libel can kill - reform it now'

The Press AssociationDara O Briain wants libel reform

To read the background of this campaign see www.senseaboutscience.org/freedebate. We still need your support. Add your voice at www.libelreform.org and help us reach our fundraising target at www.justgiving.com/bookfund.

Best
Síle

Síle Lane

Public Liaison

Sense About Science

25 Shaftesbury Avenue

London W1D 7EG

Reg. Charity No. 1101114

Tel: +44 (0)20 7478 4380

www.senseaboutscience.org

Sense About Science is a small charity that equips people to make sense of science and evidence. We depend on donations, large and small, from people who support our work. You can donate, or find out more, at www.senseaboutscience.org/donate

AIDS and the Church

It is an article of faith among British atheists and other rationalists (and anti-Catholics in general) that the Roman Catholic Church is single-handedly responsible for the AIDS epidemic in Africa. I have no particular reason to defend the Church (of which I am not and never have been a member), but when things just don't stand up it is worth mentioning them. Yes, the ban on the use of condoms is stupid, though it is not literally dogmatic: it is not a matter of dogma and could be changed quite easily. Especially, there seems to be no reason why they shouldn't accept the use of condoms for medical purposes as the lesser evil, and still the Church's policy unquestionably leads to deaths of people who would otherwise live. But, to what extent is it in fact the cause of AIDS in Africa?

According to a recent UN report (pp 39-41) there are 22.5 million adults and children living with HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa; 1.7 million became newly infected during 2007; and 1.6 million died of AIDS. These figures are shocking and I repeat that the Catholic Church has a share of responsibility; after all it has a certain presence in the region.

But hang on. That Church, with the same policy, has a far, far greater and more influential presence in Latin America, where the figures are 1.6m, 100,000, and 58,000 respectively. I am not a statistician or epidemiologist but it looks to me as if there might be other factors that lead to the spread of AIDS in Africa. Or can some British rationalist put me right on this?

Oh, one reason (and there are others) just might be that the President of South Africa Thabo Mbeki is a nutcase who refuses to accept that AIDS is caused by HIV. But it's so much easier to bash a white European Catholic than a black South African Socialist, isn't it?

Quantum physics

Some people find quantum physics a bit puzzling, but I have studied it and I have found that really it is quite simple. What this theory says in its first law is:

• You can never really be sure where anything is.

Does that sound familiar? Then there is the second law, which says:

• If you try to look for something, you can be absolutely certain that it won’t be where it was when you last saw it.

What more sublime expression of the human condition could there ever be?

But there is more. The third law of quantum physics is formulated to ensure that common sense prevails, however clunkingly and surrealistically. It is this:

• If you lock a cat in a steel box for an hour and then open the box, you can’t know whether the cat will a) be dead, or b) jump out and bite you.

Who says science is difficult?

Sludge

This remarkably sensible letter appears in today’s Independent: 

Sir: I can only take so much sanctimonious misanthropic claptrap and today I think I may have reached my limit. If one more person tells me to turn off the lights or eat more organic asparagus I will throttle them. 

The result of all this self-congratulatory secular penance will be to delay climate change by about half an hour. The only way we will face the challenges posed by climate change is through our own ingenuity and that means constantly moving forward, not yearning for some mythical golden age where we lived at one with nature. We didn't, we got horrible diseases or suffered from malnutrition and died young. 

The tragedy is that this is still happening in many areas of the world, and that we have the means, but not the will, to stop it right now. Still, at least it will cut down on their carbon footprints. We used to dream of space travel, of solving hunger and disease, now we feel guilty if we take the kids to school in the car. It's pathetic. 

Jonathan Gill, Leeds

As it happens I am in the middle of a long (13,000-word) translation about the treatment of sludge from wastewater treatment plants in Catalonia. This is not so simple a matter as you might think (the sludge treatment I mean, though the translation’s a bit tricky too). The sludge can’t just be put on the land as fertiliser because it needs pre-treatment to remove toxic chemical substances; there are various competing ways in which this can be done but the commercial interests involved do not necessarily coincide with the country’s best environmental interests. Moreover, there’s too much of the stuff to start with for it all to be used in agriculture, but its very abundance leads farmers to use it inappropriately. I can’t help feeling that the public officials and the scientists who spend their days thinking deeply and seriously about sludge are doing more for the long-term benefit of the planet than all of those smug environmentalist puritans who enjoy going round telling everyone else what to do.

***

Since writing the above I have seen a post on The Select Society with an interesting link that shows that it really is a rather complicated matter deciding how to deal with sludge in the best interest of the environment.

Headbangers and flash

A publicity-hungry Yorkshire MP called Barry Sheerman has got himself in the papers (here) for telling the world that firework night is a ‘cataclysmic disaster’ for the environment. Not an ordinary, common-or-garden disaster you understand but a cataclysmic one. And the word cataclysm is the Greek for deluge and originally referred to the biblical Flood, so that has to be serious.

It so happens that last Sunday I was flying from Liverpool to Barcelona on a flight that took off a few minutes before six o’clock. Looking down from the plane I could see the fireworks in people’s gardens, but what really struck me was just how feeble the occasional flashes of the fireworks were in comparison with the street lights that mark the pattern of British suburbia when seen from above at night, and which are there all night every night of the year and are apparently not shielded so that they cast all their light downwards. It is obvious that in this context the effect of the fireworks on one night is a mere, err, flash in the pan of no great relevance at all to overall energy consumption. And while I make no claim whatsoever to understand the chemistry of it, I did notice this letter in the Guardian (here):

David Sutcliffe [Who he? PH] would like to ban us from letting off fireworks. But not all simple pleasures are bad. In addition to carbon dioxide, fireworks release large quantities of sulphur dioxide, which has the opposite effect in the atmosphere. Let's celebrate while we're still allowed to.

Hugh Aldersey-Williams

Aylsham, Norfolk