- Email: [email protected]
Light is vanity
SEE OUR WEBSITE FOR LETTERS ON: ● Light is vanity ● Marxist-Lennonist measures ● Evolution and invention
built at third-world wage rates but has to be repaired at firstworld rates, which are at least 10 times greater. In other words, this is a downside of globalisation – though not one that necessarily outweighs globalisation’s benefits. Cardiff, UK
Pee for problem From Barbara Lai You explain the benefits of recycling urine, but do not mention whether synthetic oestrogens and other pharmaceuticals were filtered from the urine before it was thoughtfully sprinkled onto organic vegetable gardens in Sweden (23 December 2006, p 45). At the moment urine cannot be made clean enough to flush into a river or ocean until we deal with these synthetic oestrogens and other unknown harmful pharmaceuticals. Are the Swedes aware of the impact these chemicals have had on male alligators in the Florida swamps, where reptiles born male develop female sexual organs? Men having to sit on a toilet to pee is the least of our worries. Perth, Western Australia The editor writes: ● The researchers are well aware of these problems and are examining how to remove hormones and pharmaceuticals from separated urine. It is not clear whether spraying untreated urine directly onto fields causes problems in this respect but as it is only practised on a very small scale, the impact is likely to be minimal.
Earth saves the planet? From Robert Hartley So soil sequesters significant amounts of carbon (2 December 2006, p 13). Perhaps those developing carbon sequestration as a technology should look at the Amazonian terra preta – the dark www.newscientist.com
070127_R_Letters.indd 21
soils created by jungle agriculture. We could farm trees, turn them into charcoal, grind it into dust, and give it to the farmers to plough into their fields. It would sequester CO2 and enrich farmlands at the same time. Rockledge, Florida, US
Does hunting help? From Chris Huxley There are a variety of mechanisms already in operation in many countries to ensure a significant proportion of the income from trophy hunting is used to benefit conservation (6 January, p 6). These may operate directly, through the funds going to the appropriate state agency or NGOs working in conservation; or they may be indirect, with funds going to local communities and thus providing an incentive for them to support conservation. To say “when hunting revenue does trickle down to conservation projects” creates an overly negative impression. There are of course cases where little of the income goes to support conservation, but there are also many cases where almost all the funds generated are used for conservation purposes. Castlebar, County Mayo, Ireland From Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Europe Many of us in animal protection have come to regard the word “conservation” with scepticism, as it is often used to describe politically correct-sounding ways to sustain populations of hunters’
favoured species. Despite all the articles you have printed showing animals’ often staggeringly impressive abilities and social repertoire – including their desire to form relationships with others of their own kind and to love and protect them – how can you now fail to recognise that seeing one’s mother, friend or lover blown to smithereens might not be “beneficial”? Species come and go, with our intervention or without, but like the bearskin hats worn by Buckingham Palace guardsmen, hunting for pleasure has no place in the 21st century. London, UK From Dominic Wormell I agree with Sanjay Gubbi that conservation should be treated like education or public health, bringing long-term benefits to all (16 December 2006, p 20). Solutions should be pragmatic but also socially and culturally acceptable and based on longterm impacts. Certainly there is money to be made from hunting. People have to make a living from the land, and allowing them to make money from the wildlife around them provides some incentive to sustain it. This does not, however, mean that trophy hunting for rich westerners is the right way to go. In the long term I believe it will do more harm than good. Basing conservation practice and strategy on an ethically flawed pastime of the rich is wrong on many levels. It is elitist, smacking of a colonial past. It sends a mixed message to those who support conservation projects from afar. And it is hard to see how it can ever be said to be a part of the culture of an area. Teaching children that biodiversity should be maintained so that the rich can shoot animals is not what is needed. The aim should be to educate young people to respect the land and its wildlife and be stewards of it for future generations. Jersey, Channel Islands
Concrete evidence From Stan Wild You claim that the discovery in Khufu’s pyramid of material containing amorphous silicon sandwiched between stone blocks “pushes back the first use of concrete by 2500 years” (9 December, p 6). Concrete is known to be much older than this. One of the earliest known examples is a hut floor dating from 5600 BC in what is now Serbia. It consisted of a mixture of red lime, sand and gravel. Humankind has burned limestone to produce quicklime for many millennia, probably starting not long after the first use of fire. Quicklime mixed with clay soil, volcanic ash or burnt brick reacts slowly to produce cementitious compounds very similar to those found in hydrated Portland cement. This is known as a pozzolanic reaction, after Pozzuoli in Italy, the source of a pink sand that the Romans mixed with lime and water to make exceptionally strong concrete. The combination of lime and pozzolanic material such as clay or volcanic ash was used in the construction of the pyramids of Shaaxi province in China. These pyramids are larger than those in Egypt and are believed to have been constructed about 5000 years ago, making them older too. Craven Arms, Shropshire, UK
For the record ● Richard Bentall is professor of clinical psychology (at the University of Manchester, UK), not professor of psychological medicine as we stated on 20 January, p 46.
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 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.
27 January 2007 | NewScientist | 21
19/1/07 5:44:47 pm
built at third-world wage rates but has to be repaired at firstworld rates, which are at least 10 times greater. In other words, this is a downside of globalisation – though not one that necessarily outweighs globalisation’s benefits. Cardiff, UK
Pee for problem From Barbara Lai You explain the benefits of recycling urine, but do not mention whether synthetic oestrogens and other pharmaceuticals were filtered from the urine before it was thoughtfully sprinkled onto organic vegetable gardens in Sweden (23 December 2006, p 45). At the moment urine cannot be made clean enough to flush into a river or ocean until we deal with these synthetic oestrogens and other unknown harmful pharmaceuticals. Are the Swedes aware of the impact these chemicals have had on male alligators in the Florida swamps, where reptiles born male develop female sexual organs? Men having to sit on a toilet to pee is the least of our worries. Perth, Western Australia The editor writes: ● The researchers are well aware of these problems and are examining how to remove hormones and pharmaceuticals from separated urine. It is not clear whether spraying untreated urine directly onto fields causes problems in this respect but as it is only practised on a very small scale, the impact is likely to be minimal.
Earth saves the planet? From Robert Hartley So soil sequesters significant amounts of carbon (2 December 2006, p 13). Perhaps those developing carbon sequestration as a technology should look at the Amazonian terra preta – the dark www.newscientist.com
070127_R_Letters.indd 21
soils created by jungle agriculture. We could farm trees, turn them into charcoal, grind it into dust, and give it to the farmers to plough into their fields. It would sequester CO2 and enrich farmlands at the same time. Rockledge, Florida, US
Does hunting help? From Chris Huxley There are a variety of mechanisms already in operation in many countries to ensure a significant proportion of the income from trophy hunting is used to benefit conservation (6 January, p 6). These may operate directly, through the funds going to the appropriate state agency or NGOs working in conservation; or they may be indirect, with funds going to local communities and thus providing an incentive for them to support conservation. To say “when hunting revenue does trickle down to conservation projects” creates an overly negative impression. There are of course cases where little of the income goes to support conservation, but there are also many cases where almost all the funds generated are used for conservation purposes. Castlebar, County Mayo, Ireland From Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Europe Many of us in animal protection have come to regard the word “conservation” with scepticism, as it is often used to describe politically correct-sounding ways to sustain populations of hunters’
favoured species. Despite all the articles you have printed showing animals’ often staggeringly impressive abilities and social repertoire – including their desire to form relationships with others of their own kind and to love and protect them – how can you now fail to recognise that seeing one’s mother, friend or lover blown to smithereens might not be “beneficial”? Species come and go, with our intervention or without, but like the bearskin hats worn by Buckingham Palace guardsmen, hunting for pleasure has no place in the 21st century. London, UK From Dominic Wormell I agree with Sanjay Gubbi that conservation should be treated like education or public health, bringing long-term benefits to all (16 December 2006, p 20). Solutions should be pragmatic but also socially and culturally acceptable and based on longterm impacts. Certainly there is money to be made from hunting. People have to make a living from the land, and allowing them to make money from the wildlife around them provides some incentive to sustain it. This does not, however, mean that trophy hunting for rich westerners is the right way to go. In the long term I believe it will do more harm than good. Basing conservation practice and strategy on an ethically flawed pastime of the rich is wrong on many levels. It is elitist, smacking of a colonial past. It sends a mixed message to those who support conservation projects from afar. And it is hard to see how it can ever be said to be a part of the culture of an area. Teaching children that biodiversity should be maintained so that the rich can shoot animals is not what is needed. The aim should be to educate young people to respect the land and its wildlife and be stewards of it for future generations. Jersey, Channel Islands
Concrete evidence From Stan Wild You claim that the discovery in Khufu’s pyramid of material containing amorphous silicon sandwiched between stone blocks “pushes back the first use of concrete by 2500 years” (9 December, p 6). Concrete is known to be much older than this. One of the earliest known examples is a hut floor dating from 5600 BC in what is now Serbia. It consisted of a mixture of red lime, sand and gravel. Humankind has burned limestone to produce quicklime for many millennia, probably starting not long after the first use of fire. Quicklime mixed with clay soil, volcanic ash or burnt brick reacts slowly to produce cementitious compounds very similar to those found in hydrated Portland cement. This is known as a pozzolanic reaction, after Pozzuoli in Italy, the source of a pink sand that the Romans mixed with lime and water to make exceptionally strong concrete. The combination of lime and pozzolanic material such as clay or volcanic ash was used in the construction of the pyramids of Shaaxi province in China. These pyramids are larger than those in Egypt and are believed to have been constructed about 5000 years ago, making them older too. Craven Arms, Shropshire, UK
For the record ● Richard Bentall is professor of clinical psychology (at the University of Manchester, UK), not professor of psychological medicine as we stated on 20 January, p 46.
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 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.
27 January 2007 | NewScientist | 21
19/1/07 5:44:47 pm