We are in the middle of fall and that means plenty of leaves everywhere. Although leaves are a natural product and many people profess to be nature lovers, fallen leaves are not welcome in most neighborhoods. The more upscale the neighborhood, the less welcome those pesky leaves are. Unfortunately, well-off neighborhoods have plenty of leaves. Not only do folks in suburbia love trees, they love deciduous trees even if such trees are somewhat misplaced as is the case in much of California. Rich people, it seems love leaves. As long as those leaves hang on trees.
Come fall though, the nature lovers engage in a myriad of destructive habits to get rid of fallen leaves. Many prefer the highly polluting and noisy leaf-blowers, a "high-tech" solution to a non problem. Honestly raking leaves give many people some much needed exercise. But leaving the leaves where they are would be best of all.
Much of suburbia is too lazy and too obese to rake or even to handle something as bulky as a leaf-blower. So in come hundreds of immigrants driving old polluting trucks that are overloaded with junk, to blow away and scoop up those leaves. Will they take the leaves? Of course not, that is what the garbage company does. Another truck to clear the air.
Another method that is often used, especially on patios and driveways is to spray gallons of water. Yesterday we had a horrible storm that dumped more water on San Francisco in a 24hr period than any other storm in the last 47 years. Yet everyone let the water run off, overflow the drains, and flood the streets. And today many were happily spraying the debris and leaves off their driveways using fresh clean water from the tap. And I bet they thought nothing of it. They probably thought they were doing the planet a favor. Cleanliness above all else my friends!
After the leaves have been blown or sprayed onto a heap, they are quickly deposited in those big yard waste bins that Waste Management is so eager to provide. Then they will be hauled out with big polluting trucks driving through the neighborhoods. A third collection cycle with its own truck just to suit our needs. Garden debris makes up almost half of the garbage collected in the US. That is why your garden bin is the largest one you got.
I doubt many people realize that they have just hauled away (or let others haul away) valuable biomass; biomass that when left on the ground will form quality topsoil and replenish the lost nutrients. In any case, it is not the American way to re-use things. We need to get rid of what we have and buy new stuff. So to finish the cycle, our suburban homeowners will now go to the store and purchase petroleum-based fertilizers for their lawns. Fertilizer to provide nitrogen and other ingredients the plants need to grow new leaves. But when those leaves get too long (as in grass), or fall off (as in trees) they get cut and carted away. There goes the fertilizer. At least the part that did not run off and pollute the waterways. Because like all good citizens we dump plenty of fertilizer to grow our environmentally destructive lawns.
Instead of letting the soil reabsorb these nutrients, we blow them around, put them on big trucks and ship them away. Then we go out and buy new fertilizer. Does that make sense to you?
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
voyeurism
Both Britain and the US are very sexually uptight. While TV overflows with images of carnage and violence, even a hint of wardrobe malfunction evokes a storm of protest, government intervention and high fines. A friend of mine once said, "it's OK to shoot hundreds of people, but god forbid one is naked. That would be horrible!"
In the US it is perfectly acceptable for kids to watch people being butchered or blown to pieces, but revealing a breast is believed to corrupt them in unacceptable ways. Although superbowl games have tons of commercials with violence, Janet's wardrobe malfunction provoked an outcry from concerned citizens warning that "young kids watch these games."
Britain and the US are amongst the most voyeuristic countries. Telescope sales are very high in the US, but most buyers are not amateur astronomers. Most live in cities where stargazing is not an option given the high levels of light pollution. Both countries are also in love with so-called reality TV and internet streaming video that documents every move subjects take. People simply can't get enough of watching what others are doing. Especially when spiced up with a bit of conflict, strife, or mishap. A bit of hyper-realism that is all too familiar for the producers of such shows. They make sure the well watched subjects are sufficiently stressed to make the show appetizing. Esp. since it is forbidden to show what everyone really wants to see: a bit of flesh.
The UK has more "security" cameras than any other country in the world. The average British citizen, going about their everyday business in the city, gets captured more than 5 times a day by public security cameras. The US is rapidly following suit. Cities everywhere are installing cameras, listening devices and other spy equipment. The rationale is always the same: to improve security. It is a good excuse. Research in cities like San Francisco has shown that street cameras do little to deter crime, and given how understaffed the police departments are, do next to nothing to lead to convictions. It is much better to have a few police officers walk the neighborhood. But that too is not allowed in a country where cars are king. Driving through is so much more high tech and so much easier, both for the police and for the criminals.
What happens with all those cameras? A few studies have shown what we all suspect: the images either go unwatched or officers use cameras to spy on attractive sexy young people, especially women. Such study results are always vehemently challenged by authorities. Just like in the infamous Abu Graib case, these are "isolated incidents" and the "perpetrators will face swift justice." Do you really believe this nonsense?
Hold on, because today is a great day for high tech voyeurs. The BBC reports that Manchester Airport just installed a new generation of "naked" scanners. These machines will speed up security checks by quickly revealing concealed weapons or explosives. They will also expose you to "safe" levels of radiation. All of that to clearly show breast enlargements, body (read nipple) piercings, and a clear black and white outline of people's genitals. But wait a minute. It is all for a good cause.
Besides the airport spokeperson was quick to point out that these images are "not erotic or pornographic." Right!
I strongly suspect some people will take a bit longer to scan and some may even be required to submit to a second pass. You can probably guess why. We need to make sure these dangerous individuals with their enlarged breasts are not hiding explosives on their bodies.
One can never be too sure and when it comes to safety. I am sure we all understand what is at stake here.
In the US it is perfectly acceptable for kids to watch people being butchered or blown to pieces, but revealing a breast is believed to corrupt them in unacceptable ways. Although superbowl games have tons of commercials with violence, Janet's wardrobe malfunction provoked an outcry from concerned citizens warning that "young kids watch these games."
Britain and the US are amongst the most voyeuristic countries. Telescope sales are very high in the US, but most buyers are not amateur astronomers. Most live in cities where stargazing is not an option given the high levels of light pollution. Both countries are also in love with so-called reality TV and internet streaming video that documents every move subjects take. People simply can't get enough of watching what others are doing. Especially when spiced up with a bit of conflict, strife, or mishap. A bit of hyper-realism that is all too familiar for the producers of such shows. They make sure the well watched subjects are sufficiently stressed to make the show appetizing. Esp. since it is forbidden to show what everyone really wants to see: a bit of flesh.
The UK has more "security" cameras than any other country in the world. The average British citizen, going about their everyday business in the city, gets captured more than 5 times a day by public security cameras. The US is rapidly following suit. Cities everywhere are installing cameras, listening devices and other spy equipment. The rationale is always the same: to improve security. It is a good excuse. Research in cities like San Francisco has shown that street cameras do little to deter crime, and given how understaffed the police departments are, do next to nothing to lead to convictions. It is much better to have a few police officers walk the neighborhood. But that too is not allowed in a country where cars are king. Driving through is so much more high tech and so much easier, both for the police and for the criminals.
What happens with all those cameras? A few studies have shown what we all suspect: the images either go unwatched or officers use cameras to spy on attractive sexy young people, especially women. Such study results are always vehemently challenged by authorities. Just like in the infamous Abu Graib case, these are "isolated incidents" and the "perpetrators will face swift justice." Do you really believe this nonsense?
Hold on, because today is a great day for high tech voyeurs. The BBC reports that Manchester Airport just installed a new generation of "naked" scanners. These machines will speed up security checks by quickly revealing concealed weapons or explosives. They will also expose you to "safe" levels of radiation. All of that to clearly show breast enlargements, body (read nipple) piercings, and a clear black and white outline of people's genitals. But wait a minute. It is all for a good cause.
Besides the airport spokeperson was quick to point out that these images are "not erotic or pornographic." Right!
I strongly suspect some people will take a bit longer to scan and some may even be required to submit to a second pass. You can probably guess why. We need to make sure these dangerous individuals with their enlarged breasts are not hiding explosives on their bodies.
One can never be too sure and when it comes to safety. I am sure we all understand what is at stake here.
Monday, October 12, 2009
food shortage
The FAO thinks food production will have to increase by 70% over the next 40 years. It predicts that unless more land is used for food production, 370 million people will face famine by 2050. 370 million seems like a large number until you hear that the world population is expected to grow by 2.3 billion by then. Maybe we should hit the brakes somewhere? What if we only allowed a growth of 2 billion? That would go a long way to solve the problem it seems.
The FAO, like many other organizations and businesses does not think that way. To them the growth is a given if not a must. To businesses and politicians it always is. How can you grow a business if the population declines or stays the same? Ergo, come what may, we have to find a way to solve this problem.
The FAO thinks we need to increase agricultural investment in developing countries by 50% or $83 billion annually to avoid disaster. I am not sure if the FAO took into account the effects of declining fish stocks, scarcity of land and water, and the effects of increased levels of CO2 (with or without global warming) in the atmosphere. Research has shown that many crops, and especially those that Africans and Asians depend on for staples, dramatically reduce their yields when exposed to higher CO2 concentrations. So even if the world does not warm, rising CO2 concentrations alone will spell disaster.
However, rest assured that the climate is changing. And climate change is predicted to causes losses of up to 30% in Africa and slightly over 20% in Asia. These are also the areas of the most intense population growth. Not surprisingly these are also the areas with the most young adults. And young adults without jobs and without food tend to get very antsy if not outright belligerent.
Something's got to give here, and it isn't going to look pretty.
The FAO, like many other organizations and businesses does not think that way. To them the growth is a given if not a must. To businesses and politicians it always is. How can you grow a business if the population declines or stays the same? Ergo, come what may, we have to find a way to solve this problem.
The FAO thinks we need to increase agricultural investment in developing countries by 50% or $83 billion annually to avoid disaster. I am not sure if the FAO took into account the effects of declining fish stocks, scarcity of land and water, and the effects of increased levels of CO2 (with or without global warming) in the atmosphere. Research has shown that many crops, and especially those that Africans and Asians depend on for staples, dramatically reduce their yields when exposed to higher CO2 concentrations. So even if the world does not warm, rising CO2 concentrations alone will spell disaster.
However, rest assured that the climate is changing. And climate change is predicted to causes losses of up to 30% in Africa and slightly over 20% in Asia. These are also the areas of the most intense population growth. Not surprisingly these are also the areas with the most young adults. And young adults without jobs and without food tend to get very antsy if not outright belligerent.
Something's got to give here, and it isn't going to look pretty.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
health care issues
Today we read in the NY Times, "Mammologists wanted" that delayed diagnosis of breast cancer is the most common and second most costly claim against American doctors. And therein lies a big problem. First of all, I disagree with the consensus that early diagnosis improves survival in breast cancer (or almost any cancer for that matter). Although it sounds plausible enough, this idea is based on a faulty hypothesis about the way cancer develops, spreads and kills. It is also caused by warped statistics and the fact that we do not know the natural history of malignant looking lesions.
So here is the first issue. American doctors, eager to help patients, and esp. militant patients as one finds in breast cancer, have popularized the notion that early detection is key. That it saves lives. Several agencies and scientific bodies have lent credibility to this nonsense and it is now generally accepted that early detection is necessary.
The second issue is even more daunting. And once again it rests on a faulty assumption. And that assumption is that cancer grows locally until it hits a certain size, at which point it will start spreading. But many cancers do not evolve that way. In many cases, finding the early lesion is not trivial. But it is rather easy to go back (hindsight is 20/20 as they say) and "find" the earlier lesion that -now by definition- someone must have "overlooked." I.e. a vague shadow may not be identifiable when you look but when you come back months later and know it is there, well that is a different story. Now that you know the right answer, interpretation is easy.
Can you see where this is going? We treat too many people who then survive, but would have survived anyways. These people add to the statistics and make it more plausible that we should think early detection is key. Now lots of women whose cancers are found "late" start complaining that their lesions were overlooked and go see "legal help." Enter the lawyers, another highly paid profession that has no business in medicine or healthcare. Someone has to pay these lawyers, and the exorbitant fees they charge and the even more ridiculous and exorbitant "settlements" they get.
Once the lawyers are in, the docs start practicing more "defensive medicine," doing even more tests and more procedures so as to make sure nobody can come after them later. Before you know it the whole system is dangerously and expensively out of whack. Ironically enough nobody benefits from this, certainly not the patients. Many more of them suffer complications, while others are told they have "cancer" and need expensive treatment and lots of anxiety for lesions that would regress naturally if left alone. These people not only suffer tremendous mental anguish, they also undergo needless chemo -and some die or get very ill- and they no longer qualify for most healthcare after that. Not to mention all the extra economic hardship they suffer.
And who pays for all this? Your healthcare system. Your premiums.
You pay for unnecessary treatment, for longer than necessary treatment, for high malpractice insurance fees, for experts and more experts to read and re-read xrays, etc. etc.
And what does it buy you? Has survival improved? Except for a few cases, it hasn't. If you include the iatrogenic morbidity the end result is probably zero. That is the long and short of it.
So here is the first issue. American doctors, eager to help patients, and esp. militant patients as one finds in breast cancer, have popularized the notion that early detection is key. That it saves lives. Several agencies and scientific bodies have lent credibility to this nonsense and it is now generally accepted that early detection is necessary.
The second issue is even more daunting. And once again it rests on a faulty assumption. And that assumption is that cancer grows locally until it hits a certain size, at which point it will start spreading. But many cancers do not evolve that way. In many cases, finding the early lesion is not trivial. But it is rather easy to go back (hindsight is 20/20 as they say) and "find" the earlier lesion that -now by definition- someone must have "overlooked." I.e. a vague shadow may not be identifiable when you look but when you come back months later and know it is there, well that is a different story. Now that you know the right answer, interpretation is easy.
Can you see where this is going? We treat too many people who then survive, but would have survived anyways. These people add to the statistics and make it more plausible that we should think early detection is key. Now lots of women whose cancers are found "late" start complaining that their lesions were overlooked and go see "legal help." Enter the lawyers, another highly paid profession that has no business in medicine or healthcare. Someone has to pay these lawyers, and the exorbitant fees they charge and the even more ridiculous and exorbitant "settlements" they get.
Once the lawyers are in, the docs start practicing more "defensive medicine," doing even more tests and more procedures so as to make sure nobody can come after them later. Before you know it the whole system is dangerously and expensively out of whack. Ironically enough nobody benefits from this, certainly not the patients. Many more of them suffer complications, while others are told they have "cancer" and need expensive treatment and lots of anxiety for lesions that would regress naturally if left alone. These people not only suffer tremendous mental anguish, they also undergo needless chemo -and some die or get very ill- and they no longer qualify for most healthcare after that. Not to mention all the extra economic hardship they suffer.
And who pays for all this? Your healthcare system. Your premiums.
You pay for unnecessary treatment, for longer than necessary treatment, for high malpractice insurance fees, for experts and more experts to read and re-read xrays, etc. etc.
And what does it buy you? Has survival improved? Except for a few cases, it hasn't. If you include the iatrogenic morbidity the end result is probably zero. That is the long and short of it.
Monday, October 5, 2009
ronnie
As every schoolchild in America knows, Ronald Reagan defeated communism. His innovative policies also caused the current financial crisis but that is another matter. Let's stay positive for now and focus on the good parts of this story. Ronnie is after all one of our most beloved Presidents and he is the one President all Republicans aspire to equal-surely none would dream to surpass him as that is impossible. No doubt many Republican faithful lie awake at night wondering what has happened to their country and hoping for a second coming of their Messiah. Ronnie is as enduring a hero of capitalism as his famous namesake Ronald McDonald. Both stand for everything that is right in this country.
It is hard to sack nice people, no matter how badly they mess up. That is the advice I was once given by a senior executive when faced with having to let go of a person who was universally loved but incompetent. Nice guys just smile at you and make you forget everything else. And that is the problem when dealing with Ronnie. Who could forget his infectious grandfatherly smile? Not even the Berkeley students of the sixties who faced a much more grimacing governor. What better icon to have than a smiling superhero who defeated the most evil of economic systems and showed once and for all that communism is an abject failure.
Unfortunately, Ronnie is long dead and buried but communism is alive and well. The People's Republic of China just celebrated its 60th anniversary on October 1. And China is not just any communism. China's brand is seen by many as the quintessential and purest form of communism. The vile economic system that leads to poverty and despair. But we better stop here lest we upset our Chinese friends who now hold so much of our debt. Growing at double digit rates, theirs is an economy that keeps many in the West awake and drooling. China of all places appears to be the only big nation on the planet to have weathered the current economic downturn. A recession so big it evoked memories of the Great Depression. But weathering is putting it mildly. The Chinese economy is still growing.
So it is perhaps appropriate to revisit an old cliche:
Ronnie: Communism is dead
Communism: Ronnie is dead.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
green navy
The Navy is now running ads touting how green it is. Well, there you have it, if the Navy can do it so can you. And I mean that very literally. Because unless you are a multi-national corporation with obvious disregard for the environment -an oil company for example- chances are you already are a few orders of magnitude greener than the Navy. So why not tell everyone about it?
I am sure many will take this message to heart and sign up for the Navy so they can help the environment. People signing up for the military tend to have a weak spot for protecting our natural resources. But they also contribute in other ways.
The Navy kills people, which does help with the overpopulation issues, and hence does contribute to less pollution. Unfortunately, they tend to do so in a very wasteful manner. They also preferentially kill people from third world countries so sadly the net balance is not in their favor. People in third world countries just don't have the means to cause much pollution over their lifetimes. And last but not least, even though the Navy has an impressive kill record, the numbers just don't add up. There are just too many people on the planet for them to have an impact that matters. But perhaps the new sonar will help kill enough wales to make up for it?
It appears the Navy is also trying to support proponents of nuclear energy. Their angel of good tidings is a woman nuclear engineer. That is a sweet touch. The Navy of course has a lot riding -or shall we say sailing- on nuclear energy. Its aircraft carriers, warships and submarines are powered by nuclear reactors. And the Navy is also a proud tester of nuclear weapons. Those of you not born yesterday, probably heard of Bikini Atoll, a true testament to environmental stewardship.
There, under the banner of operation Crossroads, the Navy managed to demonstrate its green thumb in way that was hard to beat. Even if you never heard of it, chances are you saw a picture of the famous Baker shot. It was a test like no other. Here is one radioactive fish, courtesy of Baker, that the Navy may want to use to light up their future green commercials.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
good for your health
A story posted on CNN today confirms what I have been saying all along. Recessions are good for you. You smoke less, eat less, eat out less, and drive less. Add in less shopping and more exercise and you can see why we all need a recession. Given the current wave of obesity, make that a long recession. Nothing will do more for public health than a severe reduction in consumption.
The recession has other beneficial effects as well: it decreases air pollution and the production of greenhouse gases. It slows global warming. There is less traffic and less cargo being shipped around. We decrease ocean pollution. All those things are good for the planet (which really means our habitat on the planet, because the planet itself does not really care) and ourselves. Another good thing is that people rein in their reproduction and that helps with overpopulation.
It appears that even the increased stress from losing one's job, or worries about providing food and shelter for one's family is rather insignificant compared to the gains we make elsewhere. Remember, there is no free lunch, ever. And to stay on theme: suicides do increase during recessions and depressions, but that effect is so small as to be negligible.
If anything, the research confirms how flawed, misguided and unhealthy our economic model really is. Rather than bring good things to us -isn't that the way we think about a thriving economy? That it is good for us?- a thriving economy cuts down on our life-expectancy, both as individuals, and as a species on this planet.
No, you are not better off when you have a bigger house, a bigger SUV, a bigger TV, and a bigger stereo. You are not better off when you can buy all the soda and food you like. You are not better off when you can travel to faraway places. Those things don't make you healthier or happier. All that talk about health and happiness is just false advertising and it is about time that someone cracks down on it.
You will not feel better if you eat out. You will just get fatter and fatter. You will not be better off if have a faster car. Quite to the contrary, you may feel frustrated more often in the inevitable traffic jams. You will not be healthier if you have a bigger house. You will just have a bigger headache to worry about and you will have to yell louder to find your family members. You will not feel better if you take long hot showers, you are drying out your skin and may contract a deadly lung infection. The list goes on and on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
