Fukushima Vs Chernobyl - A Fair Comparison? Some Resources To Learn More

There's been a lot of fearmongering about the Fukushima incident, comparing it to (or its being "worse" than) the Chernobyl incident. Make no mistake, it is a very serious situation, and warrants careful attention. But with words like catastrophe, radiation & radioactivity being bandied about with reckless abandon, there's a lot of unnecessary anxiety out there. These words have a lot of emotional baggage attached to them, and tend to cause irrational overreaction.Time for some reason. For starters, look at this:

Sources and distribution of average radiation exposure to the world population

(Source: WHO: http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/en/)

That's a lot of natural radiation! What is radiation though? And how does it relate to radioactivity? Further below are some resources I found useful in trying to get a grip on all this. In a nutshell:

• radiation is and always has been around us;
• the danger is all about the dose received over time;
• comparisons to Chernobyl are not helpful, and even that event, the worst nuclear accident in history, doesn't appear to have had the health impact we have been led to believe it had;

The links below are a good starting point to help you learn about the differences between the Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents; hopefully you'll also find out what the following mean:

• Radiation, the different kinds and their effects on health; 
• Radioactivity, how it's measured and what is meant by "half-life".
• Radiation dose

These concepts aren't beyond anyone of average intelligence. You don't need a physics degree to get an understanding of the basics (I certainly don't have one!) but once you have a grasp of these ideas, the situation seems less frightening. And that can only be a good thing.

Links:

http://iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html - IAEA's daily updates on the Fukushima situation:

http://resources.nei.org/documents/japan/FactSheet_Chernobyl_Fukushima_4-12-11.pdf - Comparison of Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents

http://mitnse.com/2011/04/12/new-provisional-ines-rating-a-chernobyl-primer/ - Overview of the Chernobyl incident.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs303/en/index.html - WHO followup of Chernobyl health impact

https://xkcd.com/radiation/ - a very useful diagram charting relative doses from almost none (bananas!) to fatal, short term massive doses.

http://www.mitnse.com - MIT's Nuclear Science Engineering website, chock full of useful information on nuclear physics and technology.

http://mitnse.com/2011/03/16/radiation-introduction-and-radiation-status-for-fukushima -What is radiation? A good introduction.

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/en/ - WHO on ionizing radiation

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/en/ - WHO on natural and manmade radiation

Various articles:

http://www.lvrj.com/health/experts-nuclear-fears-overblown-119678799.html?ref=799

 http://topicfire.com/share/Fukushima-Chernobyl-Rating-But-Not-Chernobyl-Bad-17236188.html

http://www.ans.org/pi/resources/myths/

 

Posted via email from John's posterous

A Thought Experiment - The Case For A Cheap, Dumb-Terminal Google Tablet

Gmail. Google Calendar. Google Documents. Google Chrome. In terms of functionality, do these sound familiar? These are the basic requirements for most modern office (home or otherwise) workers: email, calendar, word processor\spreadsheet\slideshow apps, and internet browser. What's missing? An operating system.

Of course in these days of cloud computing, an OS on a local hard disk is somewhat passé. So right now we we have our Google Accounts to keep all of the above in one place. But it's a little cumbersome. You still need a local computer with its own OS. Or do you?

Imagine a dumb terminal, a Google netbook or a future, Google tablet if you will, that connects securely to a virtual Google desktop environment. All you need is a boot process that runs a citrix-type client from a small flash drive. Kick it up, log into your Google account and you're online, in a virtual Google environment. You surf the internet using Chrome and instead of your office suite of applications you have Gmail, Google Documents, Google Calendar. You don't need to backup your device: if it gets stolen, lost or otherwise destroyed, your data is still safe online. On the downside, you need a reliable internet connection, and you don't have much control over the local device, but that hasn't stopped the iPad from selling. Maybe allow for an offline mode in more expensive models?

These could be cheap, $100 laptop-type devices that we've heard about, or they could be flashy status symbol devices like the ipad. I think trying to compete with the iPad would be a foolish move even for Google, so I'll go with the low end, low maintenance device.

Anyway, just a few thoughts on what I think Google might do in the next year to 18 months. Let's see what happens.

Posted via email from John's posterous

Response to Another Astrologer

Here's a reponse I got from my last post, complete with a reading (!). Again, my reponses are in blue with the original message in black.

***********************************************************************************************

Thanks for your response. Here are my thoughts in blue below. 

I must start out talking about astrology to a skeptic. Astrology is a branch of Metaphysics explained here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics Similar to but different to philosophy and psychology. It has been in existence over 5000 years. Astrology became more refined when Ptolemy AD 90-168 came along. Ptolemy was a Psychologist, Geographer, Mathmetician, Astronomer and finally Astrologer. He was educated in Babylon which is now Iraq/Iran where all the best educated astrologers were along with astronomers.

To summarize his approach to what is now modern day western astrology: Inspiration and insight came to him during his numerous observations as astronomer, pscyhologist,geographer&mathmetician. He correlated cycles of planets & moon to emotional and external events happening to individuals including himself he had observed on a daily basis. He was numbers oriented which lead him to the refining of the everday "transits" (predictions). He took the person's natal chart which described specific personality traits and saw how transits would affect that individual. That's called the Law of Precedence. Basically a person's nature and what they have usually done before is the basis of the Law of Precedence. So personality is based solely on date of birth? And never changes? What about mental illness or brain injury? Or simply life experience? What about twins? We all know twins that have completely different personalities, life experiences and levels of success in life. Indeed there are twins where one  dies at an early age and the other goes on to a ripe old age. 

It is up to the modern day Astrologer to interpret someone's chart accurately. An astrologer first looks at the personality traits decribed in the natal chart to see what they're capable of. Then an astrologer looks at the Progressed Chart to see the progressed moon to see what distinct emotional changes or experiences they're experiencing. Then look to the transits starting with Pluto going inwards to the moon aspects. Pluto aspects take 2 years to experience down to the moon aspect which lasts 2 hours. Interpeting the transits or predictions all depends on the personality of the person. That's how astrology works. So it's predictable? The sun, moon, planets and stars are absolutely, 100% predictable. Does that mean that we can extrapolate into the future to see what's going to happen? Why not just plot out someone's life & say "here you are....this will be your life" ? Has this been done? What were the results?

Now, looking at your chart the part that makes me see the skeptic in you is your Mercury oppose Saturn. That shows you're suspicious by nature since communication wasn't used well in your family growing up. Thus, the skeptic in you grew. I'm not suspicious by nature, in fact I'm quite gullible which is why skepticism is so appealing to me. Otherwise I'd probably believe everything that came my way! I'm not so much  "I don't agree so you're wrong", I'm more "show me your evidence". I was a huge believer in extraterrestrial visitations, area 51, reincarnation etc until I opened Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" in 1996. Those were the roots of my skeptic nature; I always loved science, especially astronomy, but the scientific method wasn't something that was taught very well when I was at school. For the last 15 years

Plus you have 5 planets in Sagittarius. Sagittarius wants truth and honesty and education at all costs. -don't we all (well, except for Sarah Palin ;-P ) ? A very general statement that can apply to a huge number of people. Cast your net wide, you're sure to catch something as people tend to remember the hits & forget the misses. 

1 other aspect seems to pop out at me and that's your moon square Neptune which indicates you don't like others confronting you, but to protect yourself you tend to confront other first before they confront you. -again, a general statement. I'm non-confrontational as a rule. I tend to try to pre-empt situations before they become conflicts, not people. But again, this could be a hit for many, many people. 

Finally your moon conjunct Jupiter loves truth, education and can be optimistic, but given your skeptic/pessimistic nature you tend to fluctuate between the two. -everyone fluctuates between optimism & pessimism, even the most extreme cases of both.....it's normal human nature. 

Another aspect in your chart that doesn't relate to the skeptic part too much is your Venus oppose Saturn. It shows you feel you need to be responsible for everyone and everything which is usually learned by a parent. -again, vague enough to hit home for many people. 

Finally another aspect not related to the skeptic in you is Venus square Pluto. You tend to go for underdogs and do all the work in a relationship. -it's a cliché: everyone loves an underdog! All the work in a relationship? Nope, far from it. I would say my partner does more than I do, to my chagrin......

What I see here is a collection of general statements that, in a face to face meeting, would provide information for further development. If I were a believer, or even if I just wanted to do this for fun, I might be surprised at the "accuracy" of some of these statements.  I could dig around and find ways to make everything fit with even the most tenuous of links. As it happens, if I stand back and apply reason and logic, I see nothing more than a series of questions designed to elicit a response to provide further information for development. 

My views on astrology are based on the following: Science as a process has proven its reliability to demonstrate how the world works. Astrology is completely incompatible with the known, well-tested and well understood fundamental laws of the universe. If an astrologer (or anyone for that matter) were to make a very specific prediction for 2011 - (exact date, time, event, location) with precise unmistakable details, I'd sit up and take notice. That would be VERY interesting. But it hasn't happened yet, and after almost 2000 years in existence, that's not a good sign. 

Astrology is generally benign, except when used as the only resource when making important decisions. It scares me to think that French President Mitterand and Ronald Reagan, amongst others, consulted astrologers during their presidencies. The problem for me is the magical thinking that goes along with pseudoscience in general. "Well, I don't know how it works, but it works" is all well and good, but is anyone looking to find out how it works? Matthew gave the example of aspirin; we used it even though we didn't know how it worked...yes, but now we DO know how it works. It was studied and it had an underlying logic that corresponds with what we know from chemistry and biology. Compare this with homeopathy that, like astrology, has no known mechanism to explain how it works. In fact it DOESN'T work and any perceived effects are, for the most part, a combination of the placebo effect and regression to the mean. For astrology, the perceived effects are principally caused by the Barnum effect, the fallacy of sunken investment, and a willingness to believe. 

So, it was brief in interpretting your chart,but I want to show you how it works.

I've been busy writing alot in the last few days, so haven't kept up with your dialogue with the other astrologers, but I thought I'd give you a to the point explanation of astrology and including your chart to finish it up.

I hope I've been concise and to the point for you. I don't like to ramble on forever and prefer succinct comments. I hope to hear from you soon.

Posted via email from John's posterous

Astrology Discussion on Twitter

I got into a chat on twitter with an astrologer last week. Long story. Anyway, during the following night, one of her aquaintances sent a whole bunch of tweets as a followup to our discussion, so I thought I'd blog my response instead of a tedious twitter back and forth. Feel free to discuss in the comments! Oh, and apologies for the delay in responding, it's been a hectic few days...but then, you already know that :)

First: Check out this video, it's a classic:

Richard Feynman on what science is:

In Black below are the tweets I received overnight, in blue, my responses. I was originally going to post a single piece, but figured it would be interesting to see the original tweets also.

Science is "Flick the switch, light goes on." Faith is "I hope the Power Co. didn't cut me off - ok

I don't have to have "faith" in astrology, because it observably and repeatedly works.... who's observing, and under what conditions? If we're only taking your word for it, then I'm sorry - not good enough. 

And I know there's little "scientific" evidence for it. -like.....magic, then, no?

Of course they used to pack wounds with cow dung before anyone heard of "penecillin"
 ...and not understanding hydrogen fusion never stop the Sun from shining.

Most skeptical arguments seem to boil down to "I haven't seen any proof that fits my worldview." -no, the view is that if there's sound evidence to support the claim, I'll change my mind AND my worldview.

In other words, Sagan's "Extraordinary proof (etc)" statement may be true, but it also mentally sets
the bar pf "proof" as high as you want it to be. -it should be high. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the proof required. If we accept astrology as valid, it means that the fundamental laws of nature as we understand them today are completely wrong. These laws have been challenged again and again, and any predictions made using them have been verified and replicated the world over. 

Consider all the many, many, many studies -

about the effectiveness of antidepressants. Antidepressants are a crap shoot, but since we like

to think of the psyche as being the result of chemistry, we want to use chemistry to change it

Billions in research, and the best antidepressants can do is about 60% effectiveness -not aware of this, but I'm sure it's more complicated than a sweeping general statement like that. At a guess, I'd say efficient marketing by manufacturers, incorrect prescriptions to people that don't actually need antidepressants etc. More of a business ethics problem than a scientific one, IMHO. But then again, I don't have the whole story and I'm sure it's VERY complex. 

 But when I as an astrologer come up with 8 or 9 out of 10 predictions right, a skeptic starts with
"The Forer Effect" or "The Barnum Effect" or the "well, that's not how planets work" argument. - these are well documented phenomena. When you say you're "right" - based on what kind of prediction? Specific like "you'll slip on the stairs at work at 2.30pm on March 23rd, but it'll be only a mild sprain) Or vague like "there'll be big changes in 2011" , ie Barnum-type cold-readings? Who decides you're right, you or the client? Under what conditions? 

We've stopped throwing virgins into volcanoes, yet the "superstition" of astrology persists.
Now that just couldn't be because maybe astrology works or something. Noooooo. :) -correct :) 

Every argument I've heard against astrology can be applied to any branch of psychology. -Confusing pop psychology with clinical psychology and psychotherapy. Work by Skinner, Pavlov, and Milgram are among the best known examples of predictive, peer reviewed studies that stand up to the test of time. Psychotherapy doesn't have a lot of fans in the hard sciences as there are problems regarding falsifiability. 

Do I understand the mechanism by which astrology works? Hell no. -does anyone? So why are there no astrological research university departments to discover how it works? Surely uncovering the mechanism of astrology, if there is one, would be a monumental discovery. Einstein, Newton, Feynman, Dirac, Fermi: so long, farewell. Countless Nobel prizes await the discoverers of such a mechanism. I may not understand how every part of a car works, but I can find someone who does. If I want to, I can go all the way up to the engineers that designed it using the cumulative results of centuries of scientific research. 

But peasants packing wounds with cow dung weren't microbiologists either
 ...they just saved lives. Is that "scientific"? Well, they observed results...
 ...and (surprise!) found they were repeatable. No lab involved, but still "scientific." -not sure about the facts of cowdung, but the process is sound. Hypothesis, experiment, replicate. Science is not a body of knowledge, it's a process. The knowledge changes, and in fact does when new evidence contradicts previous observation. The process is to get past the human factor. Ego, error, sloppiness, and fraud can all slip in. Peer review is designed to catch this. It's not perfect (nothing involving humans is!), but in the long run it works. The fact that I'm typing this on a computer that could've run the entire Apollo Program is testament to that, as is the Apollo Program itself. 

Meanwhile, billions of $ pouring into "String Theory," and many careers built on it
So where are all the correct predictions made by String Theory"? Anyone...? Anyone...? -String theory is controversial even in the scientific community. It makes plausible claims but at this moment in time, they are untestable experimentally. Because of this, some physicists claim it's more like philosophy than science. I have no opinion; it's completely over my head, although I did enjoy the Elegant Universe! In the meantime, in mainstream science, astronomers have discovered planets outside our solar system (any incidence for astrology, by the way?) we've rendezvous'd with comets (how do they figure into horoscopes?), the Cassini mission has spent years studying the Saturn system, New Horizons will get to Pluto in a few years, and Messenger will get to Mercurian orbit in March of this year. In the 20th century we discovered that we live in a galaxy, one of billions, in a universe far bigger and older than any of our ancient ancestors could possibly have fathomed. We discovered that the anomalies in Mercury's orbit (precession of perihelion) was due to relativistic effects and can be explained by General Relativity. What advances has astrology made in the last century? Where are the predictions made by Astrology?

Astrology should have nothing to fear from science, any more than any other pursuit
Sadly, most of the skeptics I hear seem to use the "scientific worldview" as the club

they use to dismiss anything that doesn't suit their preconceptions. In other words, they
Make Science their Dogma, and (paradoxically) become as benighted as those they like
to feel superior to. No surprise, really: skeptics are humans too. Humans do that.

But if Science is a controlled, logical search for the truth, I like to think it DOES

apply to Astrology. It *should*. It's just that I rarely if ever see it applied.

This "scientific worldview" that you seem to lament created the world we live in today. The computers we work on, the cars we drive, the medicine we take, the clothes we wear, our telephones, food, longevity. It's true that some skeptics get on their high horses about views inconsistent with science. I know, I'm sometimes one of them. But the scientific method has gotten humanity this far. It's improved our lives (at least in first world countries; geopolitics is another matter altogether) immeasurably in the last century. Imagine our great-grandparents hearing of today's world: mother and child will most likely survive childbirth; all of your children will most likely live to adulthood. You'll most likely live to at least your mid-seventies. We can speak with anyone, anywhere in the world instantaneously. We can get anywhere in the world within 2 days. The body of knowledge we call science changes regularly as new discoveries overturn old ones. The "scientific worldview" means that if you present me with evidence for a claim, I'll listen to it and I'll sincerely evaluate it. If it's convincing, then I'll change my mind. Simple as that. 

Here's a previous post of mine on astrology.

Posted via email from John's posterous

2010 in retrospect

2010 is gone. Another year over, a new one just begun (who said that again? :-P )Well, tomorrow :)

What happened this past year? Here are just a few things that stood out to me:

Tech\Internet

The iPad underwhelmed us.....but still went on to sell like hotcakes.

Google Buzz became a fizzle, leaving the way open for Facebook and Twitter. Twitter took off and is soaring. Facebook's Like button is everywhere now. Oauth is everywhere, and you can now sign on to a multitude of services with it, linking them to Facebook and Twitter with just a couple of clicks.

 

Wikileaks blew the whistle on a helicopter gunship crew taking out what appear to be unarmed civilians in Iraq. Assange is accused of rape. That quietens down until wikileaks unveil a huge amount of diplomatic cables between Washington and its embassies around the world. The rape accusations come screaming back. Not saying there's any connection, but it sure is strange timing. I don't know what to make of it all.....

International:

Ireland's economy implodes, bank debt is transferred to the taxpayer, and Ireland is now owned, more or less, by the EU and the IMF. Unemployment is through the roof. But Brian Cowen doesn't accept that it's his fault.

Korea heats up: First a South Korean naval ship explodes mysteriously last March. Artillery exchanges in December with more and more belligerent language from both sides. Scary times.

Times Square attempted bombing: luckily the would-be bomber didn't know what he was doing.

Eyjafjallajökull gently reminded us that we're just tenants here on earth, and that nature can shake us off like fleas at any time.

Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland and threatened with extradition: the "intellectual" artsy crowd throw a collective hissy fit. Sorry, if you admit to committing this kind of crime, you do the time. It doesn't matter if you cure cancer, bring world peace, end poverty, make great movies, and save the earth from a giant comet all at once: justice is blind, and Roman the movie maker should be treated in exactly the same way as, for example, Mick the bricklayer. And if Mick were on the lam, he wouldn't even have had time to get off the plane before being sent back.

Catholic Church child abuse scandal explodes, Pope is sorry :/ He visits Britain in September, and Godwins himself within minutes of opening his mouth.

Simon Singh off the hook in Chiropractor Libel case and the BCA are on the back foot but English Libel reform has not yet been implemented.

Space exploration:

A new spaceflight strategy was announced by the Obama administration to mixed reviews. Return to the moon is out, asteroid mission & Mars orbit in 20 years, with humans on the ground in about 30. Constellation is cancelled, no US heavy lift capability before 2015, meaning NASA will rely on Russian goodwill to get its astronauts into space in the interim.

The WISE mission released its first images back in February:

There was a lunar eclipse during the Winter Solstice, a rare event that won't happen again until 2094. The last such occurence was almost 400 years ago.

The Martian lander Phoenix was finally declared dead in May. The Odyssey orbiter had been listening for communication from the lander for months to no avail, so the decision was taken to officially end the mission.

SDO First light images released in April.

Messenger images of Mercury released. Messenger timeline: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/timeline/index.html

Cassini continues to enthrall us, in a mission that launched in 1997. Details here: http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/index.cfm and here: http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/products/pdfs/cassini_msn_overview.pdf

LHC goes online and Twitter is briefly taken over by Science. Science was cool for a while there...a joy to behold!

STS-131 & 132 missions added further ISS components.

STS-133 Discovery kept us waiting for a week, and then decided that she didn't want to make her last flight just yet....launch on hold, tentatively scheduled for February 3 at the time of writing, but who knows! Having said that, the tweetup was incredible! I wasn't there, but followed it via twitter and justinTV\hatcam....what a blast!

Sport

Spain won the FIFA World Cup tournament, beating The Netherlands 1-0 in the final. In the meantime, the French team collapsed into a fiasco of infighting, backstabbing, and general unpleasantness that appears to be unprecedented. It was like watching a bunch of spoiled children throwing a tantrum, and management wasn't any better.

The French rugby team however, fared better. They won the 6 Nations Rugby Tournament, Ireland second. Still showing good form, they'll be a formidable presence in next year's rugby world cup in New Zealand.

The feelgood story of the year: 33 Chilean miners were rescued safe and sound after being trapped underground for 69 days following an explosion. An estimated 1 billion people watched the rescue operation live.

Notable deaths this year:

Alexander Haig, US Secretary of State under Reagan; Viktor Chernomyrdin, Russian prime minister under Boris Yeltsin; US diplomat Richard Holbrooke; Former Hussein regime official Ali "Chemical Ali" Hassan al-Majid; mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot; neutron bomb inventor Samuel Cohen; Legendary Apollo Program launchpad boss Guenter Wendt; author J. D. Salinger; singer and civil rights activist Lena Horne; Sex Pistols manager Malcolm McLaren; Popular British comedian Norman Wisdom; Double Tour de France winner Laurent Fignon; Irvin Kershner movie director (The Empire Strikes Back); director Blake Edwards, (Pink Panther, Breakfast at Tiffany's); actors Corey Haim (The Lost Boys), Tony Curtis (Some Like It Hot), Dennis Hopper (too many to list), Gary Coleman (Different Strokes), Peter Graves (mission impossible), Simon McCorkindale (Manimal);

 

And on that note.....

Happy New Year!!!

 

Posted via email from John's posterous

A Bit of Fun Speculation: Why A Zombie Uprising Wouldn't Be An Apocalypse

Yep. I’ve been watching AMC’s The Walking Dead. Creeps you out at all the right places, and makes you think when you’re not jumping.  I like it. 

But honestly: a zombie apocalypse?  

Biological improbabilities aside*, it's simply not plausible to me. But  it is interesting to think that we’re so screwed up as humans that we couldn’t handle a zombie uprising. Sure there are lots of them, but they are dumb (in most incarnations - for now we'll stick with the Romero-type zombie). They don't plan, hide, adapt, co-operate or even use tools. The only weapon they have is numbers. And they’re mortal. On the other hand, you can't get them to surrender or break their morale. But still, any sizeable number of humans with weapons, armoured vehicles, construction equipment and basic engineering skills should have no problem. People would die, certainly, but I don’t think civilisation would crumble if action were taken quickly**

So the dead have risen and are becoming a bit of a problem. Now what? Well, as previously mentioned, they’re pretty stupid. They don’t have a capacity to plan or reason. They can’t climb over significant barricades, and their idea of siege warfare is to stand around moaning at the obstruction. So here's what I think, and it's something we rarely see in the movies - although Max Brook did something vaguely similar in his novel "World War Z".

First secure safe areas behind high walls. Then draw the undead en masse into an ambush zone, for example, chopper in a few guys in APCs, have them step out like cheese in a mouse trap, and when the Zs come to chow down, batten down the hatches and wait for the next phase: a modern version of the chariot charge. Line up a few tank platoons, and then just run the fuckers over. Squish ‘em to mulch, then follow up with armoured infantry to take out what’s left. Lather, rinse, repeat. Same story in cities: APCs up and down the streets to take out the large numbers, then infantry sweep and clear. It’d be much simpler than clearing out, say, Hue or Fallujah. The bad guys aren’t sneaking around taking potshots at you from concealed positions. They’ll come right up to you and let you pop 'em. Piece of piss. 

Military forces the world over ambush and defeat other smart, well-armed humans on a regular basis. Hannibal killed 70,000 Romans at Cannae in a few hours with nothing more than horses, swords and bows***. Beats me why a modern, fictional military can never do anything effective against the mindless hordes of the undead. 

In Brook's story, the military eventually mothballed their hi-tech weapons & went back to basics: phalanx-type infantry units with bite proof body armor. In large engagements, soldiers fired volleys of single headshots from long range in what seems almost Napoleonic-era warfare but with accurate weapons. Once they figured that out, they took back the world. But again, it got out of hand in the first place because of human stupidity. 

So much for the apocalypse. 

And what's with the popularity of zombies? They’re biologically implausible and easily defeated (unless everyone -government, military, all the way down to Joe Soap- consistently makes the wrong decision in no brainer situations, like they do in the movies). I think it’s several things:

• The thought that our civilization is so fragile that an enemy the Romans could have defeated could bring it down;
• That human egos and emotions could overcome our intellect and allow sheer brute force destroy us;
• The sheer terror of relentless, mindless ghouls coming to devour us and our families alive;

Yet zombies are fun. There's no need to feel guilty about killing them, and the movies are generally a commentary on how screwed up we humans are in letting our emotions and egos run the show instead of being rational and doing the obvious.

Personally, I’m more worried about a pandemic taking out 20-30% of us, a bad winter wiping out even more, leaving the survivors in a more or less preindustrial society. 

But having said that, I really enjoyed season 1 of The Walking Dead.

* Dead is dead. Once the heart stops, none of the body's cells get oxygen and begin to die. That includes motor neurons and muscles. So no more movement of any description. And how do their teeth stay intact? Zombies of this kind are clearly impossible. Now, the "28 days later" "I am Legend" type? Not so clear cut. They're not undead, but infected with some kind of "rage" virus. Could this happen? Who knows? :)

**A study on the mathematics of a zombie uprising: http://www.mathstat.uottawa.ca/%7Ersmith/Zombies.pdf by Philip Munz, Ioan Hudea, Joe Imad and Robert J, Smith?. In Infectious Disease Modelling Research Progress, eds. J.M. Tchuenche and C. Chiyaka, Nova Science Publishers, Inc. pp. 133-150, 2009. ISBN 978-1-60741-347-9.

***The Romans seem to have panicked when they realized they were surrounded and trapped, making it easier for Hannibal's forces to wipe them out. Zombies, of course, wouldn't panic, but this would make them even more predictable. And as Sun Tsu said, if you know yourself and your enemy, you won't lose in a hundred battles. 

Posted via email from John's posterous

The Winter Solstice - 21/12/2010 23:38 UTC

So Winter Solstice is upon us again and the usual argument is brewing. Begining, middle or end of winter? As a kid, I was taught that the winter months were November, December and January. As an astronomy buff that makes sense to me. The sun reaches its lowest annual noontime point in the sky, sometime around December 21st, before begining its climb back up again towards the summer solstice. This year's exact solstice will be on December 21, at 23:38 UTC. The noticeable effect of this is that the days begin to gradually get longer again, although this isn't obvious immediately afterwards. Traditionally, December 21st was described as midwinter, June 21st being midsummer.

Some good info here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_solstice

.....and as it happens, on this auspicious occasion, I turn 36.

Posted via email from John's posterous