What we call climate change can help fight it
Graham Lawton says 2020 is a pivotal year for the environment and links this to leaders in denial (11 January, p 22). I suggest that denial isn't the main problem in the public perception of climate change – the main problem is misconception.
We see news reports of forest fires, melting ice and weird weather. Some of us talk about it, some of us protest about it, but most of us leave the bicycle in the shed when there is the slightest sign of rain.
In my short lifetime, there have been two major crises that have, at least in my corner of the world, been more or less averted. The first, in the 1970s, was river pollution. As a schoolboy in the UK, I remember going down to the river Tyne and taking samples of water that we could smell back in the classroom. Now, pollution from flushing toilets and industrial processes is cleaned before it enters the environment.
Then, in the 1990s, I played a minuscule part in the design and production of scrubbers to remove sulphur from the discharge of industrial processes, such as steel-making. Reducing this sulphur stopped the acid rain that ravaged the forests of Scandinavia.
Why don't we reclassify the problem of climate change? Don't name it after carbon, a mere element in the periodic table, but call it pollution.
People have seen success stories about removing pollution. The message is then clear: don't pollute the air that we breathe.
Rethinking mental health and functional disorders
Many psychiatric conditions share an underlying cause known as the “p factor”, reports Dan Jones, while neurological conditions have little to nothing genetically in common with each other (25 January, p 34). Nevertheless, the characterisation of the p factor may have implications for rethinking neurology, as well as mental health.
Much neurological practice nowadays concerns functional disorders, which often show an overlap in symptoms with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. Depression, anxiety and obsessive cognitive styles can also predispose people to functional disorders. It would therefore be interesting to see whether the same p factor underlies these conditions, or whether there is a separate, genetically determined network that contributes to them – an “f factor”? If so, treatments aimed at functional symptoms rather than the conditions themselves might be pursued, as advocated for mental health.
Countries must follow the EU in policing huge firms
I appreciated Adam Vaughan's article on the UK Information Commissioner's Office preparing guidance on how to clearly explain how artificial intelligence is used in decision-making (7 December 2019, p 10). As Vaughan says, an organisation that breaches the eventual regulation could, in extreme cases, have to pay a fine of up to 4 per cent of its global turnover, under the EU's data protection law.
Governments around the world should revise their local penalty regimes to mirror the use of global revenues by the EU. Penalties on these multi national operations, such as the in July 2019 for violating users' privacy, are still trivial compared with their global revenues. In the third quarter of that year alone, .
As part of the international discussion around resolving international tax avoidance and fairness issues, the notion that any global tax treaty or regimen needs to include penalties on global revenues is important. Countries should consider revising their existing penalty regimes to take into account global, rather than just local, revenues. Fine the organisation, not the branch.
Cities should make plans for the climate crisis
While discussing climate stress, Fred White observes that though politicians know about icebergs, they are instead discussing the economics of the Titanic and debating the social inequality of passengers forced to travel in steerage (Letters, 23 November 2019).
Toronto has declared a climate emergency, but has no clearly defined, scientifically supported plan with measurable deliverables, times, costs and priorities. I can sympathise with politicians faced with such a complex of issues and many interrelated solutions.
They need a process to identify the climate-damaging activities over which they have a reasonable level of control, and for each, which initiatives could reduce damage and to what extent.
This plan can be put together quickly and cheaply by doing what Greta Thunberg says: ask the scientists. The easiest way to avoid the planning process becoming another endless study is to set a firm date to publish.
Many taxpayers see global warming as today's main issue and say they would pay more taxes if they could see where the money goes. It will be much easier to raise funding when it is directly linked to specific environmental goals, particularly where some of the solutions will save money or generate jobs.
Handwashing: technique more important than time
In your top tips for bathroom basics, you give the advice that we should wash our hands for 20 seconds (11 January, p 38). This was also previously given by Timothy Leighton for combating antibiotic resistance (26 March 2016, p 32).
As a retired nurse, I must point out that technique is more important than time. Harmful bacteria thrive in areas that are dark, moist and warm, such as those between the bases of your fingers.
You should wet and soap all surfaces of your hands, back and front. You should clean between your fingers, right down to the webs, by interlinking your fingers, back and front. Clean each thumb by enclosing it with the opposite hand. Clean the tips of your fingers – clasp the fingers of each hand and rub the finger pads on the palm of the opposite hand.
If done thoroughly, this will take about 20 seconds. Then rinse and dry your hands well.
Where do food's minor elements come from?
Michael Le Page casts doubt on the feasibility of making food from the atmosphere and questions whether it would be more efficient than conventional farming in soil (18 January, p 10).
It is perfectly possible to extract hydrogen from water, and carbon and nitrogen from the air, but surely something is missing here? Our food, whether plant or animal in origin, is made up of complex molecules containing calcium, potassium, magnesium and phosphorus, and a host of minor elements, without which bacteria couldn't survive or make food. In the food-from-air scenario, where would these elements come from? The most readily available source would be soil.
A top tip and a vegetable warning about vegan diet (1)
You suggest fortified plant milk as a source of vegan calcium (4 January, p 32). Earlier in life, I was vegan for 14 years and as far as I remember, there was no calcium-fortified soya milk in those days. I relied on tahini 鈥� sesame seed paste 鈥� as my main calcium source.
I worked as a builder’s labourer for a lot of that time without any obvious symptoms of calcium deficiency. It seems that sesame seeds have more than five times as much calcium per 100 grams as the fortified soya milk I had in my tea this morning.
A top tip and a vegetable warning about vegan diet (2)
Keeping livestock for food is a bad thing. So, I think, is long-distance transportation of the alternatives. I recall the nutritionist being asked in the 1970s whether the UK could be self-sufficient in food. His answer was yes 鈥� provided we learned to live mainly on vegetables such as swedes and beans.