Health Warnings and Alcohol etc.

I have always been sceptical about the health warnings that the food research institutes are increasingly making. These health warnings find their way as cheap copy into the newspapers and morning radio shows and breakfast television. During broadcasts the interviewers never question the science related to the assertions. No-one ever questions how the data was collected and interpreted and what empirical evidence supports the claims. We are constantly being told that eating more than 6 grams of salt per day is dangerous to our health but where did that figure come from? What experiments have been conducted to ascertain the affect of salt on human health? I suggest that no empirical evidence has been gathered from experimentation; as to perform such an experiment would be immoral. Most of the evidence is probably an interpretation of statistics. The 6 gram warning is the result of an estimation made by a committee. What happens if I consume 6.01 grams per day would my health be seriously compromised? If I consume 5.9 grams per day will I live longer? The amount of salt that one should consume must be dependent upon your size. Could 6 grams per day be safe for a 13 stone adult male but dangerous for an eight stone female teenager? One thing is certain, if you consume no sodium chloride at all you will die. Many men who work under hard and arduous conditions lose their taste for salt and often crave salted butter and other salted products in their diet. If you spend some time under hot desert conditions you will see what I mean. The body makes adjustments to the salt required to maintain the homeostasis of the blood and it excretes excess salt. The 6 gram recommended figure is thus an arbitrary one. We are also constantly advised about how much red meat to eat. The recommendation is now 90 grams per day, but once again what happens if I eat 91 grams per day will my life expectancy be reduced? No-one can answer this question. Now there is a hotting up of the campaign for all of us to drink less alcohol. One of the research institutes claims that alcohol consumption causes 13,000 cancers per year. Where does this figure come from? Why is it 13,000 the figure may be more precise than accurate? If none of us consumed alcohol would bowel cancer, throat cancer and cancer of the oesophagus disappear entirely or would the 13,000 figure be reduced by two hundred if at all? No one knows for certain. I am equally sceptical about the blandishments to eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day what happens if I eat six a day will I live longer? Will this counteract the risks of my drinking on average two glasses of wine a day and eating red meat? There are too many complexities and variables related to diet for hard and fast claims to be made. How do we know that the claim that you should drink a glass of red wine a day to protect your heart is true? For some people who have liver disease one glass a day is too much. It is obvious, in Britain and other countries,that we have health problems realted to excessive consumption of alcohol. But do the assertions of research institutes make any difference? Nobody listens to it because thay are not really credible. It is obvious that drinking one glass of wine per day will not really damage a healthy adult but drinking a bottle of scotch or its equivalent will . We have all known this for centuries if not thousands of years. There is a happy medium somewhere along the lower end of the scale but it is different for everybody. It is up to the choice of the individual to find their own happy medium. During the the first 80 years of the twentieth century there was an incredible improvement in the health of the rich nations of the world. During that time the advice was " eat and drink in moderation". Everyone knew this including the health authorities and the general population. I suspect that the real improvement to health was caused by a combination of improved diet , sanitation, the discovery of antibiotics and general vaccination programmes. Practical measures not blandishments were used to improve our health. As far as alcohol is concerned, actual measures to reduce the consumption of should be undertaken. Some such measures could include: reducing the number of off-sales outlets by withdrawing the licences of some supermarkets to sell alcohol , ban two for one promotions in pubs, off-sales outlets and clubs, deny licenses to pubs where there is a lot of problem drinking. The latter might help to improve the quality of life in many town centres. With regard to salt, if it is such a problem there is nothing to stop the government to draw up legislation to reduce the quantity of salt in processed foods. Stilton cheese being an exception. The idea that salt should be banned from fish and chip shops is stupid beyond belief. With regard to the so called excessive consumption of red meat, don't worry market forces will soon take care of this. The best advice I ever got about diet was from my mother - "EAT UP ALL YOUR VEGETABLES". The best advice I got from about my general health was "DO NOT SMOKE". She did not need a research institute to tell her that.

Japan Earthquake

When I travelled to Tokyo on business, many years ago, I knew a Japanese colleague who never went on the underground railway. It was his belief that it would not survive a really strong earth tremor whose epicentre was under or near the great city. The recent earthquake (Richter 9) had an epicentre over a hundred kilometers away; even so it gave Tokyo a substantial shaking for many minutes. An earthquake is a very frightening experience. The first time I felt even a small one I was in a traditional Japanese restaurant and decided to run away much to the amusement of my hosts and the waiting staff : it was about 4 on the Richter scale but the epicentre was not far from Tokyo. The local people seemed to be able to tell the difference in the strengths of the tremors. After this first experience I decided to go to the earthquake museum and learn a little more. Most of the buildings in Tokyo are built to withstand a substantial earthquake. This was proven to me when I woke up one night in my Hotel room to feel the whole building swaying, it was uncanny and frightening. There was no warning and you could hear the building creaking. I had learnt from my work colleagues and the museum not to run out of the building and not to stand near the window for fear of being thrown out but to shelter in a corner or under a table. After about ten seconds the shaking stopped but there was no way I could sleep again despite the jet lag. The next time, I felt an earthquake, I was on the upper floor of our office block and once again I could hear the building creaking, but this time I could see the the other office blocks swaying in the distance. Some of my Japanese colleagues got out their helmets and there was some sense of nervousness. This earthquake was about 5.2 on the Richter scale and the epicentre was not too far away. The last time, I felt an earthquake, it was 5.9 on the Richter scale and once again it was nearby. It was much more frightening. We were in the computer room in the basement of the office block. This time I could feel through my feet that the earth was actually moving and I felt as if I was going to lose my balance. I could hear the building moving and feel it shaking. This was more frightening even for my colleagues. It lasted for about 20 seconds but it felt like an eternity. The lifts in the building automatically stopped. Afterwards, we learnt that there had been some minor damage and the local trains had automatically stopped. This last time my Japanese colleague was able to convince me that Tokyo would be substantially damaged by an earthquake above 8 on the Richter scale - if the epicentre was underneath or nearby. That was why he never used the underground railway as it would not survive. I decided to still use the underground as I estimated that the risk was worth the benefit for a three month trip. But like him, if I lived and worked in Tokyo permanently, I do not think I would use the underground. In fact a medium strength earthquake was enough for me . I shall never take up permanent residence in an earthquake zone. The earthquakes are bad enough for me never mind the risks of a Tsunami. My experience is imprinted in my memory and I can still remember the strength of the tremors more than twenty years later. And reports of the New Zealand and Japan events have made me dream about the earth shaking all those years ago. Earthquakes are perfectly natural phenomena; they are not dangerous in themselves and there is nothing we can do to prevent them. We put ourselves in danger either by living in earthquake prone regions or building houses , factories and office blocks which are unable to withstand the shock. We are of course taking a risk by living in an earthquake zone but this risk can be mitigated by good construction standards. It would be possible to make concrete buildings which are completely earthquake proof but this would probably be prohibitively expensive. So there is always some risk so, therefore, each individual most assess that risk and take responsibility for any decision that he makes about where he chooses to live. This is not to say that we should not have sympathy for anyone killed or injured by an earthquake - even if they have taken that risk. The same would apply for mountaineers who are killed in accidents or soldiers who are killed in battle. We all take risks in our lives, I decided that the risk of using the underground railway in Tokyo was worth taking. Some people are forced to live in earthquake zones and have no choice about where they live for economic reasons; this is why the international community should help them.

Tsunami are a different matter they are more unpredictable and often cause much more damage than the earthquakes which initially drive them. They also cause damage at a much greater distance. We can protect ourselves from danger by living on higher ground and further from the coast and even more strenuous building standards. Once again people in poorer countries may not have the choice to relocate so this is why Tsunami warning centres must be maintained in all areas at risk.

We should be more realistic when making risks assessments , how many times have we been told by the authorities and scientists that a particular disaster is one in a thousand year event or is of unprecedented strength. The scientists, engineers and government of Japan got it wrong. Was it wise to build nuclear power stations so near to the coast? Were the defences against an earthquake and Tsunami sufficient? Should a major city and financial centre be built on an actual fault line? If a really major earthquake were to hit Tokyo directly the casualties resulting from a Tsunami could be colossal. The financial implications for the whole planet could be dire. It is time to act now to improve the protection for the megalopolis surrounding Tokyo. There is scientific evidence that one major earthquake can spark off major earthquakes within the vicinity in short order.

The recent earthquake which has sparked off the Fukushima nuclear power station crisis has once again raised the "green" issue of nuclear power stations. I still believe that nuclear power should be consider as an option to solve the possible crisis related to global warming by the use of fossil fuels. But we need a complete review of construction standards and the risks and contingency for the safe operation of Nuclear power stations. Above all we should re-consider where we have situated these stations and consider decommissioning those plants we have been built in zones which have a high risk of flooding from Tsunamis or damage from earthquakes.

All of us should be aware of the risks and I am amazed that unprotected houses are still being built on flood plains and that meteorologists still tell us that a flood or storm is a once in a thousand year event only to be followed by a similar natural disaster one year later. All of us should be sceptical.

I can remember the fear of the fallout from atmospheric nuclear bomb tests, we were assured by governments that this was not dangerous. Wisely, our governments then decided to negotiate nuclear test ban treaties and for once they assessed the risks correctly and decided that the risks were not worth the consequences.

We need to do the same today, when we conduct our daily lives, are the risks worth the consequences?

Cloud technology

I read a newspaper article the other day where the author was contemplating uploading his entire music collection onto a "cloud" server which would enable him to download and play his music anywhere. The "cloud" would store his uploaded Mp3 files and allow him to play back the music on a PC or 'phone anywhere in the world provided he could obtain a broadband or telecoms link. He was a self confessed technophobe and believed that the 35 GB of stored music on his PC hard disk slowed down his computer. He did not even know how to find the music. He believed that the "cloud" would enable him to back up his music files. He had dispatched his Cd collection to the attic. I presume that he had ripped the Cd's himself onto MP3 files. The "cloud" provider was going to give the first 5 GB of storage free and charge for the rest. I am sceptical about a number of points related to storing and playing music in this way and the quality of the playback. Whenever I travel for business I always carry a PC with me. I have 8 GB of music stored on the hard disk on MP3 files ripped from the original Cd's which I have bought in the traditional manner. I have also bought some MP3 files of music from Amazon. 8 GB of storage hardly uses up any space on my PC and I see no need to pay for back up space on a "cloud". All the MP3 music is sampled at 256 KB per second and sounds good good when played through my HiFi at home but on a PC or "IPlayer" it does not sound so good, owing to the lower quality of the sound cards, PC speakers or headphones. In many hotels you have to pay for the privilege of using their WiFi and there is often substantial cost when you use a portable telephone to connect to the Internet when you are abroad. I can't stand to listen to music for long over a PC or through an "IPlayer" type device so why pay for the privilege? For me it is better to store the music on my own device. If you are determined to listen to music over the Internet while at home or abroad , then why not use a service such as "Spotify" you can play music stored on its servers for free if you are prepared to accept the odd advert. If you subscribe, it is advert free and the cost of the subscription is offset by the cost of not having to pay for the "cloud". "Spotify" has an enormous selection of music and you can create your own play lists. It is a really good commercial idea although I do not take advantage of it myself. What is wrong with a CD; the quality of the music is better than MP3 recordings which compress the music? MP3 recordings lose a lot of information and you need to use very good ripping software to achieve good quality results. Home ripped MP3 files do not sound so good when played through good HiFi equipment compared to CDs. If you luse lower bit rates than 192 KB per second you can notice the difference even with simple pop music. The same principle applies to music played over Digital radio or Internet radio; the same music does not sound as good as an FM broadcast. If you want to listen to HiFi quality music at home then a CD, a Vinyl LP or FM broadcast is the best way to do it. You will not be able to do this via MP3 files, Digital radio or Internet radio. We are in danger of losing the physical media to reproduce HiFi quality music. MP3 files and Digital radio etc are unable to do this because of the limitations of bandwidth and storage restrictions. Not everything from the past is bad and not everything from the present or future is better regarding technology. I am not a Luddite as I gave up taking film photographs years ago. And my vinyl LP's have been dispatched to the attic, I could not stand the crackle and pop and the need to constantly clean the records. If you want to enjoy HiFi then listen to a CD or FM broadcast and put your feet up equidistant between a good pair of speakers. If you travel a lot you will have to put up with something less but at least technology will allow you to take an important part of your life on the road with you.

Confirmation of my scepticism of Facebook and Twitter

The recent developments in Libya only confirm my view that you cannot organise a revolution, solely, using Facebook, Twitter and portable 'phones etc. The existing regime is becoming very difficult to dislodge despite Nato air raids, armed insurrection, trade and economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure. A well armed and determined regime is able to resist enormous pressure and it is completely naive to suggest that Facebook and Twitter software can be used to overthrow a government. The Television and Press should know better to give the impression that a popular movement only needs to use these modern tools to overthrow dictators. It will be interesting to see what the outcome will be for Libya but one is certain, if the regime is overthrown it will not be because of Facebook or Twitter.

Libya

Further to my previous post, the Libyan people were not able to to make use of technology to the same extent as the Egyptians. It is apparent thay they were still able to stage a revolution and an uprising. This is testament to their courage and ability to organise themselves on the street. The willingness of the outgoing regime to use force against its own people is making the task that much more difficult. Hopefully the Libyan people who are tired of being repressed by dictatorship will succeed to create a freer and fairer society. I wish them success with or without social network sites.

Internet Revolution -Cairo

Having spent a considerable amount of time in Cairo working with the Egyptian people, I feel confident that they will be able to to work together to achieve a plural and secular democracy which takes into account the wishes of all the people whether they are religious or not , whether they are Muslim or Christian.

The news media have once again emphasised the role that the Internet and social network sites
have played in organising the revolution or uprising. In my view they have exaggerated this role.
Obviously, social network media have improved communication between the protestors but the role of the Internet should not be overstated. One million people meeting on a social network site does not constitute a revolution: a revolution cannot be achieved within virtual reality.

If the news media are to be believed the Egyptian uprising could not have succeeded without the Internet. This is nonsense.

The success of the uprising was mainly the result of two factors. The first was the fact that the Egyptian people were able to overcome their fear and mobilise physical demonstrations of hundreds of thousands of people. The second factor was the unwillingness of a well organised Army to act violently against its own people.

When counter revolutionary forces attacked the demonstrators with actual weapons the demonstrators had to protect themselves with barricades and stones and warning signs of attack were drummed out by sticks against iron railings. In this situation social network sites, Ipods , SMS texts and portable 'phones were useless; good old fashioned human confrontation was the order of the day.

We should learn from history that most revolutions were organised by word of mouth and pamphleteers and above all by the bravery of the dissidents. Even the American Revolution or struggle for independence was organised along these lines. Another lesson we should learn from history is that one despot can be replaced easily by another;but in the case of Egypt I believe that they will be able organise a free society which will benefit their country and their region.

A strong independent and democratic Egypt may well lead to a solution of many of the problems of the Middle East including eventual rapprochement between the Israelis and Palestinians - time will tell.

We should not exaggerate the influence of technology on social change; it is face to face contact and communication and above all courage in the real world that effects change. The Internet is no more important as an agent of change than a stone, a barricade or a gun.

Dark skies

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is campaigning to reduce light pollution. Last week my wife and I went out after dark to see how many stars we could observe within the constellation of Orion - but not counting the major stars which make up the corner of the box. On a very clear night we could count just seven. This is shameful. We are located right at the edge of London in the borough of Bromley. We are not avid astronomers and do not get up in the early hours of the morning to peer through a telescope but we do love to see the stars and the constellations.

The CPRE and Astronomical organisations have come up with a number of reasons why we should have dark skies citing the waste of energy as one of them. For me, however, there is only one compelling reason - which is the sheer beauty of the night sky when seen from a very dark location.

During the Christmas period of 1999, whilst on a trip to France, there was a major power cut which turned off the lights over a vast area of the North. The view of the night sky was incredible; we found it difficult to identify the constellations as there were too many stars. There were thousands. From our location in London we can probably only see a couple of hundred stars.

You may well ask what difference does it make whether you can see the stars or not. The stars are our connexion with the rest of the galaxy. The more that you can appreciate the night sky the more you can appreciate the astronomical forces which dictate our life on earth.

There are more than two hundred billion stars in our own galaxy, the Milky Way, and only the most bright are visible and identifiable from earth. It is possible, however, to see the faint luminous band which comprises the rest of the Milky Way from a dark location. This is impossible from a light polluted location such as Bromley.

Our solar system is the only one in the whole galaxy which is proven to support life. Our planet is the only planet which is known to support intelligent life. It will be extremely difficult to for us to travel to another planet let alone the nearest neighbouring star which is trillions of kilometres away.

We should look after our planet it may not be possible to get to another one that can support life.

That is why we need dark skies to appreciate our galaxy and our place in it.


http://www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns/landscape/light-pollution/start-count-week-2011?gclid=CKa6n4a39qYCFQZO4QodjjZmGg