We need to go a step further to save turtles
Cooling turtle nests with a bit of cold seawater, in order to shift the temperature-dependent sex ratio of the resulting hatchlings, is an intriguingly simple solution to the misalignment of this system due to climate change (29 July, p 16).
However, there is a risk to this strategy that isn’t mentioned: it would make the turtles utterly dependent upon our continuing intervention for their survival. It would be far better to help their sex-determination system evolve in response to climate change, perhaps with assisted breeding or even genetic engineering; they would then be self-sufficient.
Time to consider a lick of climate-friendly paint?
When it comes to climate change, our roofs are considered part of the problem and part of the solution. My house is topped with Welsh slate, which I estimate absorbs more than 80 per cent of incident solar radiation. On a sunny day, it heats up dramatically and, of course, re-radiates the absorbed energy at just the sort of wavelengths that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is waiting to catch. It is a very efficient contributor to global warming (19 August, p 12).
I can take two courses of action: I could put solar panels on my roof, adding to a possible, but very slow, reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by using less fossil-fuel generated electricity. Alternatively, I could paint the roof white, which would immediately reflect most solar radiation back into space in a form that doesn’t really warm the atmosphere. This seems to be the best course, but I have never seen a domestic property with a white roof here. Am I missing something?
Good to hear other side of ultra-processed food story
Bravo for Grace Wade’s analysis on “ultra-processed” foods, which questions the presumption that they are always harmful. I am glad to see 快猫短视频 finally addressing the question of whether we can simply blame these foods for health problems, as though the ultra-processed term is well-defined and they are all bad (19 August, p 16).
Could ageotypes help us fend off some cancers?
Graham Lawton’s article on “ageotypes” was very interesting (12 August, p 32).
The rates at which our organs age could be related to different cellular senescence processes, and perhaps identifying an ageotype could facilitate intervention in the form of drugs such as telomerase inhibitors or senomodulators targeted at those particular bodily systems that are ageing faster than others. Perhaps ageotypes could also pave the way for preventing organ-specific cancers.
When very clever seagulls attack
Georgina Skipper is quite right, herring gulls are the intellectual equals of corvids in many respects. I observed them on Margate beach in the UK dropping crustaceans and molluscs to access the contents well before carrion crows hit the news for similar activity. The persistence of the gulls was remarkable (Letters, 12 August).
They are, of course, notorious for snatching ice creams from blissfully unaware humans, but I was the victim of a more sophisticated tactic in Lyme Regis last summer. Rather than going directly for the “prey” (of which I had a tight hold), it went for the back of my head, drawing blood, and grabbed the relinquished ice cream in mid air in one fell swoop. Very impressive, though my admiration was muted at the time.
Fusion nuclear waste would still be an issue
Your report on the net energy gain from a fusion reaction in the US repeats the fallacy that a nuclear fusion power plant would produce no radioactive waste (12 August, p 13).
The deuterium-tritium fusion reaction, currently the focus of fusion energy experiments, produces high-energy neutrons. These hit the containment vessel, blanket and cooling system, generating radioisotopes. It is true that these radioisotopes generally are much less of a problem than those produced in fission reactors, having much shorter half-lives and being less biologically damaging. It is also the case that they would typically only become an issue when the reactor is closed down, after maybe 50 years.
However, the waste would still be classed as intermediate level radioactive waste, perhaps requiring storage for up to 500 years before being deemed safe.
More reasons to worry about overuse of water
Jason Arunn Murugesu rightly laments that we use too much water. However, there is an elephant in the room to address. Household water consumption is entirely drinking water. Why do we use drinking water for toilets? Used water, for example from showering, would still be perfect for re-using in the toilet (29 July, p 23).
He also correctly says that the figures given are “household use”. On top of that comes industrial water use. In Germany, private water consumption is about the same as in Britain, but industrial consumption amounts to a whopping 7500 litres per person per day (although not all of that is drinking water). So the problem is bigger than he imagined.
There is an easier way to implement a carbon tax
Pete Drake is right to say that we could calculate personal carbon footprints by trawling everyone’s financial transactions, though it is harder than he thinks (Letters, 12 August).
But we could get the same effect by adopting the plan of the Green Party of England and Wales. Its proposed carbon tax would apply to fossil fuels when extracted or imported, as well as to embedded emissions in imported goods. This is easier and cheaper and avoids a wholesale invasion of privacy.
The revenue raised should be used for investment in the low-carbon economy and to protect those with lower incomes from excessive price rises.
For the record
The age of the Perucetus colossus whale fossil was estimated using argon-argon dating (12 August, p 14).