- Email: [email protected]
I dreamed a dream?
To join the debate, visit newscientist.com/letters
not least because the details of the fabrication process are at odds. However, there is clearly overlap in the idea that somehow an imperceptible raised image appears on the mirrored side.
Division of labour From Thomas McCauley Jared Diamond states that “in our complex society, 2 per cent of the people can produce all the food” and that traditional tribes, in which every member has to help obtain food, would regard the rest of us as “freeloaders” and “parasites” (12 January, p 26). Thankfully, in our complex society we have highly productive farmers that keep all of us from having to eke out a subsistence existence, so we are free to pursue other varied, productive activities. Geneva, Switzerland
I dreamed a dream? From John F. Davenport Your special report on sleep looked at dreams (2 February, p 31). To what extent does describing dreams to a researcher modify your dreaming on subsequent nights? Kenley, Surrey, UK
Cushioned impact From Gwydion M. Williams Nigel Henbest’s feature “Close call” looked at averting the threat to Earth from asteroid strikes
(26 January, p 42). I wonder if deploying a large number of balloons might work, in the manner of a bouncy castle. Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, UK
Uncanny idea From David Taub I would like to suggest a few follow-up experiments that might shed more light on the “uncanny valley” – the feeling of unease when faced with a humanoid robot (12 January, p 35). If part of the reason for the discomfort is that it is impossible to pin down the emotional state of such robots, then it is possible that people with autism might not experience as much discomfort. Alternatively, some of them may experience similar levels of discomfort with humans and androids. It may thus be of interest to test how people with varying degrees of autism react. Besides providing more information about the uncanny valley, the experiment might also increase our understanding of that condition. Karlstad, Sweden
Subsidised pollution From David R. Allen Fred Pearce wrote about the upcoming decision on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline to bring tar sands oil from Canada to the US (26 January, p 26). One has to ask: why are we mining tar sands? We don’t need to. The problem is that carbon burners pay nothing for their pollution. Yet if I ran a factory belching out, say, lead arsenate, I would be required to clean up every atom of this harmful material. I would pass on the cost to the consumers of my products. Now apply this model to fossil fuel. If oil companies had to pay for the clean-up of every molecule of carbon dioxide their product created, the cost of fuel would
soar. Overnight, renewable energy would become the cheaper option. We taxpayers subsidise the fossil fuel mega corporations as we pay for the climate costs of CO2 emissions. Put a real price on carbon and close down fossil fuel. We’re an inventive lot. We’ll come up with alternatives. Fulham, South Australia
Sparing chimps From John Pippin, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine I am pleased that the National Institutes of Health is leading the way towards the phasing out of US medical research using chimpanzees (2 February, p 4). However, I don’t accept the suggestion in your report that the move will slow research on a hepatitis C vaccine. Our emphasis should be on existing research methods using human subjects, and the development of more such methods. Washington DC, US
You did watt? From Niall Oswald The commissioning of the Notrees battery facility in Texas to store surplus electricity from wind is interesting, but your story confuses energy and power (2 February, p 20). It makes no sense to speak of storing megawatts of power: it is energy, denoted in joules or (mega)watthours, which is stored. Bristol, UK
Heated issue From Cedric Griffiths, Darlington Volunteer Bushfire Brigade The recommendation by the royal commission in Victoria, Australia, for a “retreat and resettlement” strategy for homeowners in areas of “unacceptable” bushfire risk
was a knee-jerk reaction (19 January, p 12). Many factors behind increased vulnerability to bushfires remain to be properly addressed. These include reluctance to replace native fireprone vegetation with more resistant species, and poor planning of towns and homes with regard to fire risk. It is not necessary to retreat from areas of “unacceptable” risk. What we need is an integrated, scientific approach to fire vulnerability in terms of roads, vegetation and architecture. Swan View, Western Australia
Poor compensation
From Colin Watters Letter writer Brian Farrington is mistaken if he thinks free electricity will persuade people to accept a wind farm near their house (2 February, p 28). I know of people unable to sell property at any price because of a nearby wind farm. So the idea of offering a few hundred pounds of free electricity is insulting. Molesworth, Cambridgeshire, UK
Letters should be sent to: Letters to the Editor, New Scientist, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS Fax: +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Email: [email protected] Include your full postal address and telephone number, and a reference (issue, page number, title) to articles. We reserve the right to edit letters. Reed Business Information reserves the right to use any submissions sent to the letters column of New Scientist magazine, in any other format.
16 February 2013 | NewScientist | 33
not least because the details of the fabrication process are at odds. However, there is clearly overlap in the idea that somehow an imperceptible raised image appears on the mirrored side.
Division of labour From Thomas McCauley Jared Diamond states that “in our complex society, 2 per cent of the people can produce all the food” and that traditional tribes, in which every member has to help obtain food, would regard the rest of us as “freeloaders” and “parasites” (12 January, p 26). Thankfully, in our complex society we have highly productive farmers that keep all of us from having to eke out a subsistence existence, so we are free to pursue other varied, productive activities. Geneva, Switzerland
I dreamed a dream? From John F. Davenport Your special report on sleep looked at dreams (2 February, p 31). To what extent does describing dreams to a researcher modify your dreaming on subsequent nights? Kenley, Surrey, UK
Cushioned impact From Gwydion M. Williams Nigel Henbest’s feature “Close call” looked at averting the threat to Earth from asteroid strikes
(26 January, p 42). I wonder if deploying a large number of balloons might work, in the manner of a bouncy castle. Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, UK
Uncanny idea From David Taub I would like to suggest a few follow-up experiments that might shed more light on the “uncanny valley” – the feeling of unease when faced with a humanoid robot (12 January, p 35). If part of the reason for the discomfort is that it is impossible to pin down the emotional state of such robots, then it is possible that people with autism might not experience as much discomfort. Alternatively, some of them may experience similar levels of discomfort with humans and androids. It may thus be of interest to test how people with varying degrees of autism react. Besides providing more information about the uncanny valley, the experiment might also increase our understanding of that condition. Karlstad, Sweden
Subsidised pollution From David R. Allen Fred Pearce wrote about the upcoming decision on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline to bring tar sands oil from Canada to the US (26 January, p 26). One has to ask: why are we mining tar sands? We don’t need to. The problem is that carbon burners pay nothing for their pollution. Yet if I ran a factory belching out, say, lead arsenate, I would be required to clean up every atom of this harmful material. I would pass on the cost to the consumers of my products. Now apply this model to fossil fuel. If oil companies had to pay for the clean-up of every molecule of carbon dioxide their product created, the cost of fuel would
soar. Overnight, renewable energy would become the cheaper option. We taxpayers subsidise the fossil fuel mega corporations as we pay for the climate costs of CO2 emissions. Put a real price on carbon and close down fossil fuel. We’re an inventive lot. We’ll come up with alternatives. Fulham, South Australia
Sparing chimps From John Pippin, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine I am pleased that the National Institutes of Health is leading the way towards the phasing out of US medical research using chimpanzees (2 February, p 4). However, I don’t accept the suggestion in your report that the move will slow research on a hepatitis C vaccine. Our emphasis should be on existing research methods using human subjects, and the development of more such methods. Washington DC, US
You did watt? From Niall Oswald The commissioning of the Notrees battery facility in Texas to store surplus electricity from wind is interesting, but your story confuses energy and power (2 February, p 20). It makes no sense to speak of storing megawatts of power: it is energy, denoted in joules or (mega)watthours, which is stored. Bristol, UK
Heated issue From Cedric Griffiths, Darlington Volunteer Bushfire Brigade The recommendation by the royal commission in Victoria, Australia, for a “retreat and resettlement” strategy for homeowners in areas of “unacceptable” bushfire risk
was a knee-jerk reaction (19 January, p 12). Many factors behind increased vulnerability to bushfires remain to be properly addressed. These include reluctance to replace native fireprone vegetation with more resistant species, and poor planning of towns and homes with regard to fire risk. It is not necessary to retreat from areas of “unacceptable” risk. What we need is an integrated, scientific approach to fire vulnerability in terms of roads, vegetation and architecture. Swan View, Western Australia
Poor compensation
From Colin Watters Letter writer Brian Farrington is mistaken if he thinks free electricity will persuade people to accept a wind farm near their house (2 February, p 28). I know of people unable to sell property at any price because of a nearby wind farm. So the idea of offering a few hundred pounds of free electricity is insulting. Molesworth, Cambridgeshire, UK
Letters should be sent to: Letters to the Editor, New Scientist, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS Fax: +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Email: [email protected] Include your full postal address and telephone number, and a reference (issue, page number, title) to articles. We reserve the right to edit letters. Reed Business Information reserves the right to use any submissions sent to the letters column of New Scientist magazine, in any other format.
16 February 2013 | NewScientist | 33