Editor's pick: Reassuring news on hallucinations
I was interested to read about Charles Bonnet syndrome, in which people who are losing their vision experience hallucinations (5 November, p 28).
At 92, my father had been losing his sight due to macular degeneration for some time. Travelling on a train from Andover to visit us in Bristol he became convinced that the other passengers were growing green beards and had green hair and very ugly faces.
On entering our lounge he saw little fires all over the floor and tried to put them out with his walking stick. I too was, he said, sprouting green hair and a beard (and I am his daughter).
We took him to hospital, where the doctor initially thought he had a urinary tract infection: but his mind was clear. She looked up his symptoms and diagnosed Charles Bonnet syndrome, while he saw birds and monkeys flying through the hospital.
Having been assured he was not “mad” he was able to cope with the hallucinations. It is reassuring to know of this research, since the manifestations were frightening.
So what is this 'clean energy' then?
Martin van Raay says wood is not a good fuel source, and that we should use only “clean” energy (Letters, 5 November). I am all for using renewable energy, even if we are still miles away from producing all we need.
The term “clean energy”, however, has no meaning. It is a concept used for political reasons. The writer does not mention which form of energy he is thinking of, but often “clean energy” is taken to be a combination of wind, solar and water power.
All these, while cleaner than coal and oil, have their own problems. Water power changes the aquatic environment, kills fish and pollutes rivers with lubrication oil. Wind power kills birds. Solar power uses a lot of energy in producing the panels. We do not have a recycling system for solar panels, so used solar cells will end up in landfill.
Wood, used responsibly, is not any worse than these. The only clean energy is the energy we don't use. Reducing energy use is the only green option.
First class post
A counter to the assumption that poor health in deprived areas is always due to lifestyle
Anna Baatz from a report that low social status damages rhesus monkeys' immune systems (3 December, p 15)
Report the true scale of the energy mountain
I enjoyed the article by Mark Harris on how batteries might be made much more agile by coupling them to ultracapacitors (12 November, p 28). But in casually equating “energy supply” to electricity power generation he makes a common but large error. In Ireland, as in neighbouring countries, electrical consumption accounts for only about 20 per cent of total energy consumption.
The remaining 80 per cent is split roughly equally between heating and transport fuels. So the claim that “in Ireland, wind power now accounts for almost a quarter of energy supply” is off by a factor of five. Exaggerating the achievements of renewables (wittingly or not) does nobody any favours: it masks the scale of the mountain we have to ascend to thoroughly decarbonise energy.
Cold fusion just isn't happening
I was surprised to read that “cold fusion” research is still attracting considerable funds from private investors (17 September, p 34). Most schemes seem to involve transient heat produced in electrochemical cells using heavy water and palladium electrodes.
All plausible mechanisms for fusion of the heavy water's deuterium nuclei in these experiments suggest that their absorption into the palladium lattice is essential. If cold fusion were possible by this mechanism, then it would also occur in deuterium gas diffusing through a single palladium crystal into a vacuum. Such experiments have never detected fusion. They may detect transient heat until a steady state of adsorption and absorption of deuterium into the palladium lattice is reached.
I conclude that the transient heat is not due to fusion reactions, but to this adsorption and absorption. It will never exceed the work done on the electrochemical cell by the external power source.
Do we really solve puzzles while we sleep?
Over the years I have seen descriptions of problems solved on waking up or after an extended period of thinking about other things, most recently by Peter Robbins (Letters, 22 October). The claim is that the problem was solved, during sleep, for example, by the subconscious.
I have often experienced the phenomenon but have a different interpretation. When faced with a problem or puzzle, it sometimes happens that I fail to solve it because I set out down a path which does not lead to the solution but am unable to let go of these initial thoughts. I get stuck: repeating those unhelpful steps over and over again. After sleep or distraction, it seems to me that the false steps have been deleted from my memory and that starting afresh the solution becomes clear “instantly”.
The subconscious has not solved the problem, the problem was solved by restarting with an unbiased mind.
What makes us conscious?
I write in opposition to the view that consciousness somehow of necessity arises from matter, rather than being intrinsic to it. That view is implied several times in Anil Ananthaswamy's review of Susan Greenfield's book A Day in the Life of the Brain (29 October, p 44). He says, for example, that “objective neural activity turns into the ‘wine’ of subjective conscious experience.” The statement that “we fade into unconsciousness during anaesthesia” reflects the error. In my experience, anaesthesia acts with the immediacy of a switch: the only way I could detect that I had been “under” was that the anaesthetist appeared suddenly to “flip” to the other side of my hospital bed.
It seems to me more likely that the essence of consciousness (albeit in a simplified state) forms part of the primary substance of material reality. The part played by neural activity would then be not to “give rise” to consciousness, but to create a path of connection to an innate subjectivity existing behind all of material reality.
Don't misunderstand me, this is not a call for belief in some kind of “mystical being”. Rather, it is a call to consider the possibility of something intrinsic to reality that takes the form of subjective perception. After all, what would be the substance of a universe with no subjectivity, unable to experience its own existence? How could such a universe ever be shown to exist, and by and to whom?
Show me the interesting jobs, James Dyson
James Dyson has said that automation “increases the number of more interesting jobs for people” (12 November, p 24). I challenge him to produce a list of such jobs and estimates of how many people will be employed in them in the future.
A spin in the simulator for learner drivers
Timothy Revell writes of robots learning to drive using virtual reality (29 October, p 24). I have long thought VR would be an excellent tool for teaching humans to drive.
Learners could encounter many driving scenarios before going onto real roads, experienced drivers could prepare for unusual conditions, and mistakes could be quickly improved upon. The computer could record the driver's strengths and weaknesses.
So when drivers encounter a dog in front of their car on a gravel road for the first time, they will know what to do.
Lives or the planet? You choose wisely…
Which is more important, saving lives or saving the planet? Clearly, reducing the number of humans can only be good for the planet, but most of us are humane enough to want to strike a balance.
But Michael Le Page doesn't seem to be interested in such a balance when he advises us to swap diesel cars for petrol ones (29 October, p 16).
Diesel cars use much less fuel than petrol cars and so produce much less carbon dioxide. They are also more fuel-efficient than hybrids, by a smaller amount.
What is the good of improving London's air quality if London goes under water? Whether electric cars are better depends on where the electricity comes from.
The alternative Le Page doesn't mention is ethanol, a renewable fuel. Cars that can use it are available in many countries: here in Australia it is even used in V8 Supercar racing, countering claims that motor racing is environmentally irresponsible.
The importance of early chefs, or of seafood
Graham Lawton suggests that cooking dates back a million years and explains that the process is highly cognitively demanding and thus very time-consuming (5 November, p 36).
Surely, this would lead to a specialisation of labour, perhaps more than other “professions” such as knapper or nut-gatherer. Perhaps “chef” should be accepted as the new “oldest profession”.
The importance of early chefs, or of seafood
Lawton mentions the thesis that cooking supplied critical nutrients for brain development. Chief among these is a ready supply of fatty acids, particularly omega -3, rather than calories. These are readily supplied by a marine diet that can be eaten raw and without cooking and does not require powerful chewing.
David Attenborough revisited the “Waterside Ape” hypothesis in . He cited recent evidence from the Pinnacle Point caves in Mossel Bay (Mussel Bay in English), South Africa.
From about 160,000 years ago people there enjoyed a diet of seafood, including molluscs, crustacea and algae.