Trying to pin down a planet is pointless
The waste of effort represented by the “struggle to define a planet” is beyond me (2 April, p 16). I could try to argue that there is an absolute qualitative difference between big and very big that everyone on Earth should follow, based on my arbitrary definition of the line between the two. I don’t think anyone would pay much attention 鈥� at least I hope not.
The brouhaha when Pluto was “demoted” to dwarf planet status was ridiculous. It is what it is, based on its measurable properties. It bears similarities to other objects and differences from them too. Let it go, for heaven’s sake.
By the way, I have to take issue with the assertion that the International Astronomical Union’s 2006 definition of planet is “final”. I suspect more exoplanet data makes it likely that this will change.
Poverty may scupper energy efficiency hopes (1)
Adam Vaughan’s article “Time to green your home” is a welcome contribution, but it omits a proverbial elephant in the living room (2 April, p 20). In fuel poverty circles, we often talk about the “heat or eat” dilemma, but in the UK we are rapidly heading towards the point where many people will be struggling to pay mortgages or rent. If this happens, then fuel poverty effectively converges with general poverty 鈥� very bad news.
We know that the more stress people are under, the less they are able to function, and so those who are simply struggling to stay afloat aren’t going to engage with support for improving the energy efficiency of homes, particularly if that support is delivered online or over the phone.
This is the ultimate fallacy of the belief that treating fuel poverty primarily as a problem of energy inefficiency means it can be solved primarily by technical solutions. My work with colleagues shows we need to switch to a holistic person-centric approach that treats households, not just homes.
Poverty may scupper energy efficiency hopes (2)
Vaughan mentions the high cost of insulating solid walls in older homes. What is needed are plastic vacuum insulation panels. These exist, but are costly. It should be possible to mass produce them cheaply in a form that could easily be mounted on an exterior wall.
To overcome this crisis, science must be challenged
The only way for science to overcome its problems with replication is for the “scientific model”, which is overly reductionist and resistant to change, to be more convincingly challenged and fearlessly exposed (9 April, p 45).
Biology needs many points of view to prosper
In his response to the discussion of Victorian distortions of biology, Jonathan Wallace questions the idea that a feminist input is needed, on the grounds it may lead to wrong conclusions (Letters, 9 April). On the contrary, I would say a larger number of perspectives can produce a more complete picture.
With more views available to critical thinkers, and more diverse observations, ideology is less likely to slip through.
Such a shame that clean coal power never got going
The energy crisis takes me back to the time I campaigned for the UK coal industry on behalf of fellow trade union members (26 March, p 18). Part of that was to ensure security of supply as part of a diverse energy mix.
I spent years lobbying on behalf of clean coal 鈥� coal-fired power plants using carbon capture and sequestration. Governments said these were part of their plans for the future. They even expressed intentions of supporting suitable projects. Sadly, none happened.
Surely this takes us back to a 3D universe
I must raise a point regarding “Consciousness in the cosmos” (2 April, p 38). Even in the block universe, to say that “past, present and future all exist at once” is still an oxymoron. “At once” implies being at the same point on the time axis, suggesting this axis has zero length. That reduces the four-dimensional block universe to a three-dimensional space-time.
Could we use carbon dating to find Martian life?
Noting the “Organic mineral bonanza on Mars” found by NASA’s Curiosity rover in Gale crater makes me wonder if there have been any attempts to determine concentrations of the radioactive isotope carbon-14 (19 March, p 14).
If any microbes on Mars are like Earth’s, they will absorb and assimilate carbon, including carbon-14, during their lifetime, but at death the content of this in cells begins decreasing at a known rate. We use this fact on Earth to “carbon date” ancient artefacts and bones. Is it possible the presence of dead or live microbes in the Martian surface could be revealed by a changing fraction of carbon-14 in organic Martian soil?
Just can't put a stake in heart of vampire power
The problem of “vampire power” use by devices on standby may be hard to eradicate (2 April, p 30). In our house, the internet router, telephones, radio clock, boiler, burglar alarm and thermostat stay on. Sometimes, the TV is on standby so it can record. Turning these off, some of which would need resetting each morning, could be time-consuming or counterproductive.
This does mean higher-earning households may trade power costs for time, which is inequitable.
Five reasons why nuclear power just doesn't add up
There is more to the nuclear power debate than economic circularity advantages raised by earlier letters (Letters, 5 March). Energy production should be clean, safe, renewable, secure and as cheap as possible.
Nuclear isn’t clean, given its waste problems. It isn’t safe, as evidenced by major accidents, nor is it secure 鈥� plants are vulnerable to attack. It also isn’t renewable: uranium is a finite resource. No one would call it cheap. Why are we still talking about it?