The pollution of the Gulf of Mexico by crude oil, of course, has many undesirable consequences. But, oil mining companies are not the only "villains of the pollution piece". The tourism industry cannot be immune from criticism: how many miles of pristine coastline have been ruined by hotel complexes? How many mountain environments have been ruined by ski resorts and pistes? All this development has been made possible by the provision of cheap fossil fuels and most western people , including myself, have used these tourist developments.
All mining operations carry some risk and it is impossible to drill for oil without there being some leaks and damaging spillages. There is only one way for the tourism and fishing industries etc. to be protected from the damaging effects of crude oil and that is for all of us to stop burning the stuff. At the moment, of course, this is not possible as it would result in the collapse of more than than fishing or tourism; our whole way of life depends on cheap oil. We all have to accept that the benefits of the good life incur many costs as well. We are all responsible; capitalists, green protesters and all, for the crude oil pollution which is blighting many areas of the world, so don't just blame the oil men.
Monday, 14 June 2010
Sea Eagles in Suffolk
The decision by English Nature not to re-introduce Sea Eagles into the wetlands of Suffolk has been welcomed by some farmers, one of whom described the idea of re-establishing a colony of these beautiful birds of prey as madness. This would be no such thing. The original decision to destroy these and other predators was the real madness. Why should indigenous birds of prey have been eliminated to make way for introduced species such as pheasants which were then shot for sporting pleasure?
There is no evidence that re-introduction schemes have really damaged the economic interests of farming. I am all in favour of supporting our farmers but not at the expense of our wildlife. We as a nation can easily afford the small financial losses when a small number of predators take some chickens or weak lambs. Any economic loss is more than easily counterbalanced by the improved environment which must result from the re-introduction of previously eliminated species.
There is no evidence that re-introduction schemes have really damaged the economic interests of farming. I am all in favour of supporting our farmers but not at the expense of our wildlife. We as a nation can easily afford the small financial losses when a small number of predators take some chickens or weak lambs. Any economic loss is more than easily counterbalanced by the improved environment which must result from the re-introduction of previously eliminated species.
Tuesday, 8 June 2010
High Fidelity Sound
My wife listens to French Radio a lot, on the Long Wave . The reception in South East England is acceptable for voice transmissions but when France Inter transmits music it does not sound so good. I decided to try Internet Radio connected to the HiFi system and there was a marked improvement in the quality of the sound. So we put our anoraks on and compared the quality of Internet radio, DAB radio and FM broadcasting. A five minute test was easy, and all we had to do was connect up the laptop and all the equipment and press a few buttons. We tried a test on BBC Radio 3: Fm radio came out as the winner, second came the Internet radio and third came DAB.
I did a little bit of research, on the Internet, to discover that the authorities are trying to phase out FM radio by 2015. This means that we shall all have to listen to the Radio either on the Internet or DAB, but will there be an improvement to the quality of the sound reproduction? Further investigation revealed that DAB is to be replaced by DAB+, which means that my current DAB radio will become obsolete. What happens to car radio? Will there be complete coverage of the country via DAB+ when FM is phased out?
The quality of the reproduction of the music is vitally important to some listeners especially those who listen to classical music and opera. The performance of DAB, Internet radio and "Freeview" radio is nowhere near as good as FM. FM radio is also better for jazz and folk music and even most types of pop. Radio is a typical example of modern technology not being being able to deliver the same performance as older technology. But this is probably for economic and logistical rather than technological reasons.
There are still some, the audiophiles, who believe that long playing records reproduce music better than Compact Discs, but I am not one of them. This argument has gone on for years and I still have friends who believe that LP's sound better; but of course they need to be played through very expensive equipment.
I once had a work colleague who spent many thousands of dollars on the most advanced LP turntables and CD players etc. He swore that LP's sounded better than CD's and tried to demonstrate this by comparing the same music using both media. Both of them sounded great but the very expensive equipment picked up the static electricity on the LP which spoilt the music for me. I also had to question whether his HiFi set up sounded 20 or 30 times better than my more humble equipment which cost 20 or 30 times less.
In theory,the analogue music reproduction of an LP should sound better than the digital reproduction of a CD. But neither medium can exactly capture sound waves. Playing records on turntables, also means that any imperfection in the design or production of the record itself, the diamond needle and cartridge, the pick up arm or the turntable will be reproduced as rumble, changes to the frequency of the sound or hissing and popping noises from dust, static electricity or scratches. This extraneous noise seems to be unavoidable. For this reason alone, a well recorded CD played through reasonable quality equipment sounds much better.
Many of my audiophile friends seem to spend more time comparing the merits of different forms of equipment and their technical specifications rather than listening to the music.
How can we make comparisons anyway? It is not often that any of us listens to music which has not been electronically reproduced in some shape or form. I have even been to an opera where the production company used a PA system. The only time I have truly listened to live music was at a classical concert, the opera , at a folk club or at home with friends. Most of the music that we listen to has been adjusted to the tastes of a recording engineer, even if we are listening to Radio 3. It is not possible, therefore, for any HiFi equipment to exactly reproduce the conditions of an original live performance. Where the original music is produced electronically we are in a more difficult position for we cannot know what the performance was supposed to sound like.
I have heard John Renbourn a jazz and folk guitarist perform acoustically at a club. His CDs sound almost exactly the same, when I play them at home, even with my humble and aging equipment. This is good enough for me: I have never heard Maria Callas performing live, but I am reasonably confident that I am hearing a very good reproduction of her voice on the CD. Equally, I am reasonably confident that the electronic music of the Pink Floyd is being reproduced as intended by the musicians. I urge all young people to go to hear some acoustically produced live music, such as by an orchestra, to experience for themselves the comparison between live and electronically reproduced music - in this way they can test how good their MP3 players really are.
Any idea, that I had, to prove whether LPs are better than CDs was squashed once and for all on Saturday night whilst I was listening to Classic FM. They had billed the classical pianist Dinu Lipatti to play Grieg's piano concerto in A minor. At the start of the recording, I heard the familiar clunk and rumble of an LP starting up and then I heard the usual crackle and pop which is always present even with the best equipment . All of this was being faithfully reproduced in high fidelity, so I was distracted from the music. The LPs are going to be left in the attic.
Modern technology could be used to much better effect, provided broadcasters like the BBC concentrate on the quality of both the music and the reproduction technology. More choice either in terms of content or technical performance is not so desirable if the budget is spread too thinly. Perhaps, it would be better to drop DAB altogether and retain FM. Virtually everyone has an FM radio which provides good reproduction for all forms of music. Digital services could then be improved to provide a higher quality service via the Internet. The budget could be spent more effectively.
All of us deserve to hear our music being broadcast at the highest possible quality, lets use the technology to really make an improvement at a reasonable cost.
I did a little bit of research, on the Internet, to discover that the authorities are trying to phase out FM radio by 2015. This means that we shall all have to listen to the Radio either on the Internet or DAB, but will there be an improvement to the quality of the sound reproduction? Further investigation revealed that DAB is to be replaced by DAB+, which means that my current DAB radio will become obsolete. What happens to car radio? Will there be complete coverage of the country via DAB+ when FM is phased out?
The quality of the reproduction of the music is vitally important to some listeners especially those who listen to classical music and opera. The performance of DAB, Internet radio and "Freeview" radio is nowhere near as good as FM. FM radio is also better for jazz and folk music and even most types of pop. Radio is a typical example of modern technology not being being able to deliver the same performance as older technology. But this is probably for economic and logistical rather than technological reasons.
There are still some, the audiophiles, who believe that long playing records reproduce music better than Compact Discs, but I am not one of them. This argument has gone on for years and I still have friends who believe that LP's sound better; but of course they need to be played through very expensive equipment.
I once had a work colleague who spent many thousands of dollars on the most advanced LP turntables and CD players etc. He swore that LP's sounded better than CD's and tried to demonstrate this by comparing the same music using both media. Both of them sounded great but the very expensive equipment picked up the static electricity on the LP which spoilt the music for me. I also had to question whether his HiFi set up sounded 20 or 30 times better than my more humble equipment which cost 20 or 30 times less.
In theory,the analogue music reproduction of an LP should sound better than the digital reproduction of a CD. But neither medium can exactly capture sound waves. Playing records on turntables, also means that any imperfection in the design or production of the record itself, the diamond needle and cartridge, the pick up arm or the turntable will be reproduced as rumble, changes to the frequency of the sound or hissing and popping noises from dust, static electricity or scratches. This extraneous noise seems to be unavoidable. For this reason alone, a well recorded CD played through reasonable quality equipment sounds much better.
Many of my audiophile friends seem to spend more time comparing the merits of different forms of equipment and their technical specifications rather than listening to the music.
How can we make comparisons anyway? It is not often that any of us listens to music which has not been electronically reproduced in some shape or form. I have even been to an opera where the production company used a PA system. The only time I have truly listened to live music was at a classical concert, the opera , at a folk club or at home with friends. Most of the music that we listen to has been adjusted to the tastes of a recording engineer, even if we are listening to Radio 3. It is not possible, therefore, for any HiFi equipment to exactly reproduce the conditions of an original live performance. Where the original music is produced electronically we are in a more difficult position for we cannot know what the performance was supposed to sound like.
I have heard John Renbourn a jazz and folk guitarist perform acoustically at a club. His CDs sound almost exactly the same, when I play them at home, even with my humble and aging equipment. This is good enough for me: I have never heard Maria Callas performing live, but I am reasonably confident that I am hearing a very good reproduction of her voice on the CD. Equally, I am reasonably confident that the electronic music of the Pink Floyd is being reproduced as intended by the musicians. I urge all young people to go to hear some acoustically produced live music, such as by an orchestra, to experience for themselves the comparison between live and electronically reproduced music - in this way they can test how good their MP3 players really are.
Any idea, that I had, to prove whether LPs are better than CDs was squashed once and for all on Saturday night whilst I was listening to Classic FM. They had billed the classical pianist Dinu Lipatti to play Grieg's piano concerto in A minor. At the start of the recording, I heard the familiar clunk and rumble of an LP starting up and then I heard the usual crackle and pop which is always present even with the best equipment . All of this was being faithfully reproduced in high fidelity, so I was distracted from the music. The LPs are going to be left in the attic.
Modern technology could be used to much better effect, provided broadcasters like the BBC concentrate on the quality of both the music and the reproduction technology. More choice either in terms of content or technical performance is not so desirable if the budget is spread too thinly. Perhaps, it would be better to drop DAB altogether and retain FM. Virtually everyone has an FM radio which provides good reproduction for all forms of music. Digital services could then be improved to provide a higher quality service via the Internet. The budget could be spent more effectively.
All of us deserve to hear our music being broadcast at the highest possible quality, lets use the technology to really make an improvement at a reasonable cost.
Badger Cull North Pembrokeshire, Wales
The badger cull is about to start in North Pembrokeshire in an attempt to eliminate bovine tuberculosis in a limited area. Any protest about this is futile and will not succeed in preventing the cull. It would be better to sit and wait and watch the experiment fail. As I have said before the reason why the disease is called bovine tuberculosis is because it is mainly a disease of cattle who spread it to one another; the infection of mammals including badgers and human beings is accidental. The real reasons for the spread of the disease are increased cattle movements and poor animal husbandry. Some of the dairy farms in North Pembrokeshire are practicing very intensified farming , the stressed cattle simply have reduced resistance to disease.
There is no need for a badger cull; the incidence of this disease can be greatly reduced by use of vaccines and improved animal husbandry.
It is obvious that mankind needs to live in some kind of harmony with nature. If we continue to have the attitude that any possible animal or plant competitor should be eliminated,we might go too far and eliminate some of the species which are essential to our own survival. The world may then be left to survive with bacteria, cockroaches,and "weeds" but without us.
There is no need for a badger cull; the incidence of this disease can be greatly reduced by use of vaccines and improved animal husbandry.
It is obvious that mankind needs to live in some kind of harmony with nature. If we continue to have the attitude that any possible animal or plant competitor should be eliminated,we might go too far and eliminate some of the species which are essential to our own survival. The world may then be left to survive with bacteria, cockroaches,and "weeds" but without us.
Friday, 4 June 2010
520 day Mars Project
Recently, six "cosmonauts" locked themselves away into four steel containers at a Russian research institute to simulate a return journey to Mars. The six researchers, working in cooperation with the European Space Agency, will be locked away for 520 days without windows and direct communication with the outside world. There will be a time delay between text and radio messages which will simulate the time delays of a real space flight. Even though they will be closely monitored, they will be expected to resolve any engineering or medical problems without help from the outside world other than via radio communication. Presumably, they will not be let out unless there is a real emergency.
The people agreeing to this experiment must be very special indeed. A 105 day pilot scheme has already been carried out without the crew suffering obvious ill effects. Submariners, also, often spend many months submerged at sea without problems. But 520 days; I would not last for a weekend. The thought of doing something like this appals me and fills me with awe.
Above all, I would not be able to accept the isolation from family and friends and I would not attempt to work on a project such as this from this point of view alone.
I feel slightly claustrophobic in confined spaces, and I am reluctant to to go down mines or caves, so this would also mitigate against sealing myself up in capsules which have a total volume of 550 cubic metres with 5 other people.
I believe that man and all the other animals and plants on the planet have evolved to have an intimate biological and psychological relationship (at least in the case of mammals) with the earth. It would be very difficult for most humans to be isolated from the sights, sounds, smells and feelings of our natural environment. It would be very difficult to maintain my sanity if I was deprived of the smell of fresh air, the sound of birdsong or the sight of the sun and the feeling of the warmth of sunlight. I certainly would not isolate my self in an Arctic or Antarctic camp during the long winter nights. I would not isolate myself on a spacecraft for a long period.
In my opinion the Apollo astronauts who visited the moon showed not only exceptional bravery but exceptional mental stability. They were able to endure both the isolation and the risks of venturing to a place where there was no hope of rescue. At least on planet earth, it is possible to escape by use of your own resources if you are isolated or marooned in the jungle, the Arctic or the Antarctic - witnessed by Earnest Shackleton's adventures, for instance.
The "520 day cosmonauts" have entombed themselves in the knowledge that they are able to escape if they are in danger of going mad or there is a real emergency. Real astronauts, on the way to Mars, will be almost totally isolated and dependent on their own resources without any chance of escape or real help if something goes wrong; so there is an additional psychological burden to be overcome.
I believe that the isolation from the home planet coupled with the vast distances will be a limiting factor that could prevent inter-stellar travel by mankind. Even at half the speed of light any return journey to a neighbouring star would take many years and the distances are beyond our imagination. The risks are also beyond imagination. Who would attempt such a journey?
If other creatures have evolved on extra solar planets they are probably animals like us, and are equally as committed to their home planet as we are to the Earth. The chances of us meeting extra solar beings are, therefore, remote. No doubt they would send robots to explore alien solar systems but the costs would be enormous and that is another factor which could prevent us from
meeting either our extra solar neighbours or their agents.
The search for alien life should, however, continue, if only out of curiosity and for man to find his true place in the Galaxy and the Universe.
The people agreeing to this experiment must be very special indeed. A 105 day pilot scheme has already been carried out without the crew suffering obvious ill effects. Submariners, also, often spend many months submerged at sea without problems. But 520 days; I would not last for a weekend. The thought of doing something like this appals me and fills me with awe.
Above all, I would not be able to accept the isolation from family and friends and I would not attempt to work on a project such as this from this point of view alone.
I feel slightly claustrophobic in confined spaces, and I am reluctant to to go down mines or caves, so this would also mitigate against sealing myself up in capsules which have a total volume of 550 cubic metres with 5 other people.
I believe that man and all the other animals and plants on the planet have evolved to have an intimate biological and psychological relationship (at least in the case of mammals) with the earth. It would be very difficult for most humans to be isolated from the sights, sounds, smells and feelings of our natural environment. It would be very difficult to maintain my sanity if I was deprived of the smell of fresh air, the sound of birdsong or the sight of the sun and the feeling of the warmth of sunlight. I certainly would not isolate my self in an Arctic or Antarctic camp during the long winter nights. I would not isolate myself on a spacecraft for a long period.
In my opinion the Apollo astronauts who visited the moon showed not only exceptional bravery but exceptional mental stability. They were able to endure both the isolation and the risks of venturing to a place where there was no hope of rescue. At least on planet earth, it is possible to escape by use of your own resources if you are isolated or marooned in the jungle, the Arctic or the Antarctic - witnessed by Earnest Shackleton's adventures, for instance.
The "520 day cosmonauts" have entombed themselves in the knowledge that they are able to escape if they are in danger of going mad or there is a real emergency. Real astronauts, on the way to Mars, will be almost totally isolated and dependent on their own resources without any chance of escape or real help if something goes wrong; so there is an additional psychological burden to be overcome.
I believe that the isolation from the home planet coupled with the vast distances will be a limiting factor that could prevent inter-stellar travel by mankind. Even at half the speed of light any return journey to a neighbouring star would take many years and the distances are beyond our imagination. The risks are also beyond imagination. Who would attempt such a journey?
If other creatures have evolved on extra solar planets they are probably animals like us, and are equally as committed to their home planet as we are to the Earth. The chances of us meeting extra solar beings are, therefore, remote. No doubt they would send robots to explore alien solar systems but the costs would be enormous and that is another factor which could prevent us from
meeting either our extra solar neighbours or their agents.
The search for alien life should, however, continue, if only out of curiosity and for man to find his true place in the Galaxy and the Universe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
