Packaging Directive - WHAT "Packaging Directive"?

Hmm. Yesterday we visited a well-known high-street retailer (which shall remain nameless), in order to stock up on bits and pieces that have finally - after many years - worn out: in particular, handkerchiefs. (No, strangley I didn't receive any as a Christmas present!)

Well - I was under the impression that there's been a bit of fuss recently over the excessive packaging of goods. Is it just my imagination, or was there something called the "Packaging Directive"?

Anyway - we picked up a 10-pack of cotton hankies. The outer package was a clear-plastic/cardboard case. Fair enough. However, it then transpired that each INDIVIDUAL hanky had been wrapped around its very own cardboard tube and cellotaped into place.

Now I ask you - is that really necessary? Would it not have been sufficient merely to fold the hankies and stack them neatly inside the box? I mean, it's not as though they're exactly fragile. They aren't going to shatter into a thousand tiny pieces if the pack gets accidentally dropped are they?

Well OK - cardboard is recyclable I suppose; but what's the point of producing something solely for it to be re-processed? Even this "laudable" activity has a significant additional energy cost attached to it, for instance. And think about the extra weight of a product due to its packaging, and the fact that it's probably been transported halfway around the globe.

And the example I gave above is only the tip of a huge iceberg.

Recycling should be the next best solution - not the preferred one!

It fair makes my blood boil, I can tell you.
Humph!

M

Cataloguing Galaxies on Galaxyzoo

Photo Credit: NASA
Linked mp3 file: "Mesmerised" by Mike Wilding

Thanks to the Christmas-Day posting on Brian's Soapbox, I've just been cataloguing galaxies on Galaxyzoo.org. It's fascinating "work".

With recent advances in digital imaging technology, astronomers are now being swamped with data from every part of the sky, resulting in countless galaxies that have yet to be identified; and most of them have never been seen before. They came up with the "bright" idea of enlisting the help of the general public in cataloguing these beautiful objects - each one of which is many thousands of light-years across and almost certainly many millions of light-years away from us. It's absolutely awe-inspiring.

You first register as a user, and then you take a little test in order to "qualify" to analyse the images. These are then presented to you one at a time, and you must decide on the type of galaxy you are viewing. You can choose between the main two types: spiral and elliptical, and can also give additional details.

Why not give it a go? I bet you'll get hooked if you do! And - just by sheer coincidence (honest!) - a couple of years back I composed this little ditty which, for no particular reason at the time, I named "Spiral Galaxy". I guess I just felt it evoked that kind of image.

Anyway, do have fun.

Mike

Climate Change - some nagging questions

Photo Credit: NASA

Those who know me well will also know that one of my long-running "hobby-horses" is Climate Change. This dates back to the old days when it tended to be referred to simply as the "Greenhouse Effect". In fact, I have a claim-to-fame in having asked a question on the subject in a BBC Gardeners' Question Time edition way back in 1990 - and here's my trophy to prove it:

Hee-hee! (The question, by the way, was to do with whether or not it would be possible in the future to grow "exotic" plants, such as grapevines, in Cheshire. I can vouch for the fact that it is!)

I became increasingly curious about what would later be known as "Global Warming" (a bizarre term, suggesting that thus far the Earth had been a frozen lump of rock!). That interest, alongside my life-long fascination with contraptions of all kinds - and the idea of getting something for nothing - very quickly led me to build a "Micky-Mouse" wind turbine from bits and pieces as long ago as the early 90s. Here's the present-day model:


Still pretty tatty, what! The generator is an old bicycle hub alternator, and the blades are made from plastic guttering (thanks to an article I found on the internet). It produces about 5W in a howling gale - IF the wind catches it right. But, as you no doubt have observed, it is somewhat sheltered! More recently I've added a ramshackle collection of small solar panels.

Now I fully appreciate the fact that - in common with such measures as switching to low-energy light bulbs - the direct impact of this is effectively zero, given the enormous scale of the problem being faced; but there are essentially two principles at stake here. Firstly: if we are not prepared to do our bit, then we have no moral authority to "preach" to the rest of the world. Second: if you believe in something then tell people about it. By myself I can do very little, but with luck others will see what I have done, and maybe some of them will think about it and ... you get the picture. But I digress: that was not to have been my main focus for today. What I had intended to write about was some nagging questions I've had in my mind for a while about the likely severity of climate change and - more importantly - some of the measures that are being explored to cope with it. Now I don't doubt for one moment that the problem is real, and happening now, and that urgent action is needed to tackle it. Quite the contrary, in fact. However, there are three areas I'd like to explore.

1. The latent heat of fusion (of ice) in respect of moderating temerature rise.

Photo Credit: US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

One aspect which is discussed in the climate-change debate is the moderating influence of polar- and other ice. What is generally being referred to here, it seems to me, is the fact that snow and ice are very good at reflecting solar radiation back out into space, thus limiting the warming effect on the ecosphere. This means that while there is still plenty of ice around, the temperature rise is pegged back relative to what it will eventually be, once most of the ice has disappeared. In actual fact, the melting process is driven mostly by the warming influence of the surrounding ocean - or underlying rock in the case of land-based ice - rather than by the sun's radiation directly. Be that as it may, I do agree with this point of view by and large; but there is, surely, yet a further factor: ie the latent heat of fusion of ice which, as every school child used to know, is about 80 calories per g.

Now having lectured to undergraduates on the subject of thermodynamics for many years, I'm keenly aware of just how mind-bogglingly complicated these things are - particularly when it comes to questions of heat-transfer under non-equilibrium conditions (which certainly apply in this case). Nevertheless, I reckon I do have a little knowledge of the subject. Now I may simply have missed it, but I don't seem to recall seeing this aspect mentioned. Am I being naïve in suggesting that once all the ice has gone the situation will be even worse than predicted, for the additional reason that the proportion of solar energy which would otherwise have gone into melting ice (thus merely increasing the overall entropy) will instead contribute directly to temperature rise?

Of course, in a hypothetical "steady-state", where the total amount of planetary ice is constant, there would be no net latent-heat effect. This is because while heat would be absorbed in the melting of ice in one place, the exact same amount would be released as new ice forms elsewhere (eg melting in the northern hemisphere - during its summer - would be balanced by freezing in the southern hemisphere). This might well cause local variations, but no global effect.

However, the fact is that the ice is gradually disappearing. Thus, more heat is currently being secreted away in melting ice than is being evloved in the freezing process. So, are we currently being protected to some extent? And will the rate of rise in temperature increase markedly at some point in the not-too-distant future?

2. Carbon-capture ... or oxygen-depletion?
Here's another one that bothers me a bit - carbon-capture ('sequestration'). The idea sounds simple enough: when coal, oil, gas and other fuels are burned, they release carbon dioxide. (Actually, they also produce compounds based on nitrogen, sulphur and other elements which are equally, if not more, damaging than carbon dioxide; but that's another story.) If one can remove this greenhouse gas at source, and store it permanently in, for example, the subterranean rock, then it cannot contribute to the greenhouse effect. Problem solved. But is it? As far as I recall from my school chemistry lessons, combustion requires two components: the fuel itself ... and oxygen. When carbon dioxide is produced from combustion, the carbon part does indeed come from the coal, oil, or whatever, but the oxygen does not. Ironically, it is produced mainly as a byproduct of photosynthesis, in which a certain gas going by the name of carbon dioxide is imbibed by plants and tranformed into sugars etc. In the absence of carbon-capture, atmospheric oxygen is cycled and recycled indefinitely; but what about with it?

Now OK, oxygen is clearly abundant in the atmosphere, for now. But will it always be if we keep storing it underground?

3. The "neutral" influence of nuclear power on global warming.

Photo Credit: US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Now for my third niggle: it seems to me that those who are opposed to the expansion of nuclear power may have overlooked a rather basic factor which could potentially strengthen their argument further - at least, I have not so far seen this point made: a recurring claim by the pro-nuclear lobby is that it is not a net contributor to global warming. As far as I can discern, what is generally meant by this is that nuclear power has a neutral carbon footprint. For the moment let's leave aside the contribution made by mining (of the ore), transportation and the other myriad operations surrounding the nuclear industry, and suppose that there is indeed no net emission of carbon dioxide.

In the Great Climate Change Debate, the assumption is always that the sole cause of additional global warming is the emission of greenhouse gases. But is this necessarily the case? Could even nuclear power-generation contribute to global warming? I think so, and in a very direct way. This is because - like coal, gas and oil - nuclear material is non-renewable. Just as with the burning of coal and oil, generating power using nuclear fuels not only puts out huge anounts of water vapour into the atmosphere (and water vapour is acknowledged to be a particularly potent greenhouse polutant - albeit it is at its worst at high altitudes), but also kicks out considerable quantities of something pretty obvious: HEAT.

Now, I accept that nuclear is a better option (if you ignore the rather compelling health- safety- and security issues) than burning fossil fuels in that it entails no significant greenhouse gas-emission, but all of these technologies clearly do produce heat which is additional to that provided by the sun. The only energy-conversion technologies that do not involve extra heat input into the ecosystem are those based on the sun itself - ie the renewables: wind-, tidal-, solar-, biomass-, etc.

Well, I guess you might say compared to the daily solar heat-input, that produced by non-renewable power-sources is insignificant. You could be right. I just don't know what the numbers look like, unfortunately.

Maybe I'm missing something blindingly obvious with these three issues. At any rate, it makes you think, doesn't it? If you have any thoughts or comments on this, I'd be very interested to hear - even if it proves me wildly off-beam!

Enough for today, methinks.

Bye
M

Merry Christmas

Do have a lovely Christmas and New Year.

But please spare a thought (and maybe something more concrete?) for the millions who, for one reason or another, won't be having such a good time.

Cheers
Mike

"Christmas-Eve Eve" in The Park

Something a little less blood-pressure-raising today: a walk in Tatton Park. It's become a bit of a tradition in our family to take a stroll through the gardens on Christmas Eve. Unfortunately, this year that falls on a Monday - when the park is closed. Hence, it has to be today instead. It was lovely and sunny; albeit a trifle nippy - as this pair of mallards would no doubt confirm if they could speak!

On the other hand, the famous Fernery was nice and cosy:

And back outside again - well enough chat. Just enjoy some fine views.

We are indeed priviledged to have all this on our doorstep.

Good news for the hump-backs ... for now

No sooner (it seems) had I finished posting the previous blog, than I heard the rather better news that the hump-back whales have been given a reprieve. I know not whether this is likely to be "permanent", but it's nevertheless welcome. Of course, it's just a coincidence in my case, but it shows what the power of world opinion can do when properly mobilised.

The somewhat more depressing news is that there is as yet no prospect of the killing of other whale species (minke etc) ceasing. This is equally unacceptable. When it is justified as being "for scientific purposes" you have to wonder exactly what those purposes are.

If you're not particularly squeamish, you should take a peek at the abstract of this research paper by H. McLachlan:

The Use of Electricity to Kill Minke Whales: Humane Considerations

Don't let this obscenity continue unopposed

No more slaughter please!

I heard on the news last night that Japan wants to cull up to 50 Hump-back whales in the name of "science". Their excuse is - wait for it - it's the only way they can tell how many there are (!!!)

Well not in my name they don't.

If you have any influence, please use it.

MAKE THEM STOP THE SLAUGHTER

Funding Crisis in Physics & Astronomy

This post is a bit unusual for me, perhaps, but recently there have been very disturbing reports in the media concerning the funding of physics in the UK: in particular, particle physics and astronomy. These are fields in which the UK is world-renowned. They include such prestige facilities as the Diamond Synchrotron Light Source (Oxfordshire) which, quite apart from its importance in relation to fundamental physics per se, has the potential to revolutionise research in other crucial areas like molecular biology and the quest to eradicate hereditary diseases.

It would seem that these research disciplines are facing financial cuts of around 25% - unprecedented in recent HE history; and certainly bizarre, coming at a time when the government has stated its commitment to education in the physical sciences, and claims to want to redress the shortfall in student applications to physics (and related) degrees.

For more details about the government's proposals, you might want to read this "New Scientist" article. Meanwhile, one of my friends (and an astrophyscist) from my old Leeds-University days has contacted me to let me know about this on-line petition: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Physics-Funding/
As I'm a Member of the Institute of Physics I have, naturally, signed it; but any of you who are sympathetic to the cause can add your voice by clicking on the above link - and I sincerely hope you will. (You must be resident in the UK, so unfortunately my international friends will not be able to sign. Sorry about that).

Let's keep physics alive in the UK!

Cheers,
Mike

Is my "fame" spreading?

At the beginning of December I added a handy (and FREE) "ClustrMaps" widget to my blog- and websites. (See above). Thanks Miles, by the way, for giving me the idea. Since then it's been fascinating to see where my "fame" has been spreading to. So far, between the two URLs, I seem to have had hits from the UK (not too surprising, that), north-east China (Beijing?) - south China (looks like Hong Kong), Pakistan, Brazil and central USA. (Now I wonder - could that red blob by any chance be located somewhere not a million miles from Denver?). Up to this evening I've had 65 visits to my blog, and 93 to my website. I'm willing to concede a fair few of those are yours truly himself, but not bad all the same.

Well, a short post again, this; but before I go, a word of congratulations to Knutsford High School, which this week has been presenting We Will Rock You - the Queen/Ben Elton musical. It's difficult to overstate how professional KHS productions always are. Following their Jesus Christ, Superstar a couple of years back, the local paper commented that their shows are worthy of the West End. I tend to agree. And each year they somehow manage to ratchet up the standard by at least another notch. No doubt about it, there's a phenomenal amount of talent at that school. Well done to one and all.

Finally - and a bit more down to earth (or maybe not, given its title) - don't forget Knutsford Little Theatre's pantomime Jack & the Beanstalk; coming soon - well January, to be more specific. And as we always say, tickets are going fast, so if you want some you need to get on the blower very soon. Check the KLT website for details.

Toodle-pip.

Knutsford Knouveau

Cheers!
Just over two months ago these "grapes" were still on the vine: harvested 22nd September, 2007; first racking 25th November, 2007, and first glassful ce soir - Wednesday 5th December, 2007. And not bad it is, either, though I say so myself. This perhaps answers one of the wine FAQs - the one about how long it takes before the wine is ready for drinking.

Well, on 25th November I combined the original four jars'-worth into three:



... plus two half wine-bottles:


These photos were taken today (5th December), which has given time for a little more sediment to be thrown. The wine should ideally be racked another couple of times before it is really ready for bottling. However, this is being a bit perfectionist. Provided it is clear, I reckon it's probably as good as it's likely to get. We'll see, anyway.

A short posting, this, but I though an update might be appreciated.

Back in the UK - A Gig! (Rare event) - and PANTO

Hi all,

Well, it's now just over three weeks since I returned from China. The same period of time for which I was there. It's tempting to say "and it's like I've never been away." Except this time it's not. It was such a remarkable experience, and I'm still remembering odd things about the trip. Also, I continue to communicate by email with my new-found friends there, which is really nice.

I realise I did promise to add some further comments on my trip, and I still intend to do that. But I think it will require a fair amount of thought. In the meantime, here's something from a little nearer home - Booths Supermarket, to be precise! Yes, Jamie (drums), Jim (guitar) and I provided a bit of background music for a special pre-Christmas tasting event held there this afternoon. In fact, I've only just got back from it.

Here are a couple of pics and a short video clip - courtesy of Margaret and Caroline:








But there's no getting away from it: at this time of year, my main "extramuriel" activity is preparing for Knutsford Little Theatre's pantomime. This time around it's "Jack and the Beanstalk", to be performed in January 2008. I hope as many of you as possible will be able to make it. If you're interested, see the KLT website. But be quick. Tickets go extremely fast.

And here are some of the toons wot I writ for it.

Now, some of you may be wondering how me wine's doing. Well, last week-end I racked it. That's the technical term for syphoning off the liquid from the sediment. If you don't do it you get "off" flavours. I started with four demijohns, each about three-quarters full. You always lose some when you rack, so I combined it all into three nicely-full jars. I had enough left over for two half-bottles and a gob-ful - which was very promising. I'd decribe it as a sort of "Knutsford Nouveau". In fact I reckon the wine is pretty-well ready for drinking even now. It's not for keeping, certainly. Well, maybe I'll give it another month or two!

That's all for now.

Al sithee.

Mike