Editor's pick: Sorry, but 'sorry' has more meanings than making an apology
Moya Sarner discusses the upsides of saying “sorry” – but seems to equate the phrase “I'm sorry” with an apology (17 June, p 38). It can also be an expression of regret. “I'm sorry, but you are being an idiot” is not my apology; it is an expression of my regret that the person is being an idiot. When people bump into each other and say “sorry”, it's the concise way to say “I wish that hadn't happened”. And don't we all say “I'm sorry…” when learning someone has lost a loved one? Surely we aren't saying that we are at fault.
Editor's pick: Sorry, but 'sorry' has more meanings than making an apology
Sorry, but when I almost bump into somebody, what am I supposed to do? Tell them to get out of the way or push them aside? Perhaps a ubiquitous “sorry” is a way to defuse the inevitable frictions when surrounded by crowds of strangers in our cities.
Editor's pick: Sorry, but 'sorry' has more meanings than making an apology
A regrettable omission from Sarner's piece is the use of “sorry” to convey empathy, as in “My mother died on Sunday” – “I'm sorry, you poor thing”. I might also suggest that its use when recovering from unintended contact is not an apology but more a statement of empathy without assigning responsibility to either party.
Editor's pick: Sorry, but 'sorry' has more meanings than making an apology
As a child I was constantly punished for refusing to say I was sorry for something I did or didn't do. If I refused, I felt I had won; if I did say I was sorry, it meant I had lost and was being obedient. Then I married into a family that constantly apologised to each other. I was amazed. I copied them and said sorry constantly. I was surprised at how easy it made my life.
Social differences must affect all research in what it means to say sorry.
More ways we could tackle climate change
The simplest retort to climate change sceptics is that many actions that are vital if global warming is occurring make sense anyway (24 June, p 28). Restoring fish stocks, habitat conservation with careful exploitation, and alternatives to fossil fuels make sense regardless of the extent, nature and origin of climate change. Reducing waste may be the simplest approach of all.
The UK's Institute of Mechanical Engineers that at least 30 per cent of global production fails to reach markets or shops; and it is wasteful to use human food for livestock feed or biofuels. Can dealing with these obvious concerns really be seen as anti-business or even irreligious, even though the inability of conventional free markets to cope sensibly with gluts still has to be addressed?
A few years ago, a colleague queried whether human activities could really be so significant. I mentioned the points above and he replied “But that's a win-win; I'm happy to support that.”
More ways we could tackle climate change
Bob Holmes correctly says that reducing air travel can have a big effect on climate change. An equally big effect can be achieved if people who currently fly premium switch to economy. For long-haul flights, first class seats occupy about five times more space than economy, and business class seats about three times more. Configuring a plane to have more seats greatly reduces the carbon emissions per passenger.
More ways we could tackle climate change
Alice Klein mentions risks of geoengineering. There is another reason it is a really bad idea. Fossil fuel companies will use the possibility to say that climate change is no longer a problem; and governments are already dragging their feet. If they get any sense that geoengineering could “fix” the problem, they will use this as an excuse to not bother with further efforts to switch to renewable energy.
First class post
What are they articulating to whom? Otherwise it's just a piece of wallpaper
Jac Hughes it's a stretch to call the images that artificially intelligent painters invent “art” (8 July, p 14)
Self-reporting surveys of smell's effect
Clare Pain reports research on exposure to fragrances (10 June, p 34). She quotes Peder Wolkoff of the saying that my work “involves talking to people in short interviews”. The surveys were conducted through a web-based questionnaire, without any researcher interference, to reduce or eliminate potential bias. Respondents reported what products they were exposed to, and what they experienced.
Knock, knocking on the atmosphere's door
Fred Pearce's article on Thomas Midgley, the inventor of both lead additives in petrol and CFCs, is a timely reminder that blind enthusiasm for technology can have terrible consequences (10 June, p 42). There are parallels with the situation facing us today.
Some of the long-term effects of lead are only now becoming evident, including the very strong correlation between the amount of lead added to petrol and violent crime rates in the US two decades later. What may the long-term effects of diesel emissions turn out to be?
In 1989, the UK government proposed a tax break in favour of diesel. As the then Chair of the Campaign for Lead Free Air I wrote to its chief scientific advisor, John Fairclough, warning of the carcinogenic impact of diesel emissions. Diesels were nevertheless . The ability of governments to remain in denial in the face of scientific certainty itself deserves serious study.
Knock, knocking on the atmosphere's door
Fred Pearce says that engine knock prevents the use of higher-octane fuel. In fact, knock is caused by part of the fuel-air charge in the engine cylinder exploding before the flame front spreading from the sparking plug reaches it. It may be caused by the use of fuel with too low an octane rating.
Tetraethyl lead does something else that made it very attractive to vehicle manufacturers: it forms deposits on hotspots that may be caused by pitting of a valve or seat. This makes the valves effectively self-healing and allows them to be formed directly in the cast-iron cylinder block or head of an engine, reducing the engine's cost.
A free vote on hunting was a sensible step
You introduce an online comment piece by Stephen Harris by saying that a Conservative Party manifesto commitment was an “unscientific vow to resume fox-hunting” (1 July, p 24). What was being offered was a vote on the future of the Hunting Act – surely a sensible step, providing an opportunity to debate what effect this law has had on wildlife.
Quoting public opinion polls on the subject of hunting, especially when most people have little or no first-hand experience of the activity, and with some of the wording designed to achieve the desired results, can hardly be regarded as scientific. Harris's contention that the control of foxes is unnecessary is disputed by other scientists. He ignores the obvious change the Hunting Act has brought about, which is an increase in shooting (both good and bad) that has filled the vacuum in hunting's absence.
Why do broccoli pills need regulation?
You report online that Anders Rosengren and his colleagues are applying to regulatory authorities for approval of sulphoraphane powder to reduce diabetes complications, allowing a dose equivalent to eating 5 kilograms of broccoli a day, which “could take as little as two years” (24 June, p 19). Why? Sulphoraphane tablets have been widely available in over-the-counter markets in the UK and elsewhere for years.
The editor writes:
• Generally you can sell anything as a “food supplement” if it's not prohibited or poisonous. Claims of medical efficacy need more thorough backing.
Measuring metabolites is no help with health
I agree that Anthony Warner's distaste for food trends, particularly #JERF, is completely founded – as is that for the deadly marketing that has encouraged us to consume the foods we do (17 June, p 24). But the focus on a randomised trial of only 20 people isn't a good foundation for a critique of sourdough, or anything else for that matter.
The study has no reference to the long-term benefits of not shovelling down tasteless white pap. A spot-check on metabolic markers completely misses the point. If we eat loads of sourdough we will get fat, as we will if we eat loads of white, mass-produced bread. We do know that sourdough tastes better and has an almost personalised ingredient make-up.
Can scanning brains help validate witnesses?
Andy Coghlan's report of brain signals from monkeys being used to recreate photos of faces is potentially important for many reasons (10 June, p 14). One not mentioned is law enforcement.
Witnesses to a crime often have great trouble identifying suspects or helping police artists sketch a recognisable face. I hope this research will eventually be applicable to the human brain.
For the record
• Every last drop. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics jet fuel consumption by US scheduled airlines as 42 billion litres per year; and burning this or other hydrocarbons releases little methane (24 June, p 28).
• Over there! Eoin Travers and colleagues found that subliminal cues made people slower at pressing the right button. Even when cues were wrong half the time, they could not help looking in the direction of an unconsciously perceived arrow, so taking longer to respond (1 July, p 8).
• Hellfire! Other drones capable of firing anti-tank missiles are available, at rather higher prices than the Ukrainian proposal we mentioned (1 July, p 22).
• Only the rocket that SpaceX launched on 23 June was pre-loved (1 July, p 7).