Alan Robinson

I think so many years later it is acceptable for me to mention a project I was once involved in. My task was to study the feasibility of converting a very large tank ship into a launch and recovery vessel for an experimental space vehicle, which can be found on Wikipedia, namely the Rotary Rocket. Because of commercial secrecy few people knew about Rotary Rocket, and yet the thing took numerous test flights in the USA. I am sure many people must have seen it buzzing about and asked what on earth it was. I just wonder how many other clandestine projects take place, but being clandestine, perhaps we'll never know.

I just thought I'd put forward a few alternative considerations about the space age. For example, though space-related technology has undoubted benefits, it doesn't seem to me that the broad swathe of humanity benefits so much from it. Sure, we have spectrometry, new weather systems and some spectacular photography, but drought and deforestation can be established without going into space! How much fuel has the space program burned up? How many scarce resources have been mined and refined, only to be left littering space or burned up in the atmosphere? It seems to me that the USSR led the early space race - for political reasons - and as if it were some kind of techno beauty pageant, the USA took up the competition. Going to the moon is no longer of interest to us - been there, done that, got the tee shirt. No, the USSR and USA were primarily interested in military domination, not civil affairs. Take GPS for example. Okay, GPS is now used by civilians, but I would question that too. Years ago, mariners would keep a very good lookout at sea while navigating by observing their surroundings. Today many ships have a one man bridge, and the watchkeeper sits in a pilot chair staring at screens. The fact that some navigators never look out of the window is the cause of groundings - with marine pollution to follow - and collisions. I've even seen people using GPS to find their way across the moors rather than using a map and compass. My missus bought one so she could find her way around in the car. It was used twice maybe, and now rests in a drawer somewhere, the novelty worn off, common sense having returned. Regarding the Gulf Stream, those who rely only on space technology are excused for their concerns over the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Drift. Mariners have known for centuries however that those currents are very inconstant, and at any one location, the set goes in all directions and at different rates at some time or other. Seamen must be shaking their heads at scaremongering stories about the Gulf Stream shutting down and a new ice age approaching for Europe. The USA intends that henceforth, the space shuttle's role will be taken over by private enterprise. I'd say that if space projects were as valuable to a nation as we might hope, then the USA would intensify its public involvement, but it seems the emphasis is now on commercial ventures, such as telecommunications. Didn't I read of Richard Branson planning space tourism? I find that in really poor taste. Maybe the commercially interested missed an opportunity here. They should have ended the shuttle era a little more spectacularly..........fired the thing back up with a huge firework display and the Ukelele Orchestra of Great Britain playing "twinkle, twinkle little star". The video footage would have sold for a small fortune in today's fiduciary money. Boldly going where no one has been before. Yep, I see certain benefits from the space-age, but a balanced view involves some negative reflections too.

I cannot comprehend that the BBC intends to stifle scientific debate. They must cut significant costs, and it seems fairly obvious to me that they will put forward all manner of explanation in order to justify spending less. The fact is that science is not such a crowd-puller as Eastenders, so the costs of producing science coverage are more likely to be cut. If the public wanted more science on the BBC it would be in the BBC's own interests to deliver it. In any case, the BBC's proposed non-coverage of controversial views does not constitute censorship and does not stifle debate. We still have Speaker's Corner. This simply indicates that the Corporation is not the ultimate source of reliable information that some previously held it to be.

We have lingering twilight here until 4th August. It is not nice to consider that in just five months time, the sun rises here about 0830 and sets again before 4 PM. By the way, in the bleak mid-winter, if there is snow on the ground, full moon and clear skies, you can also read a newspaper in the garden without artificial illumination

Maybe what we all need is expert instruction on how things really are, rather than acting like petty logical positivists. Like Rudolf Steiner said, our distant ancestors had far better eyesight than we, what anyone will realize if they stop for a moment to consider that if our ancestors' eyesight was as poor as ours, then spectacles would have been invented much earlier in history than they actually were....... Here is a link to a Rudolf Steiner lecture, in which he points out that the abundance of silica in the Earth's crust has far greater significance on our affairs than we realize. Perhaps silica causes some corn circles? http://wn.rsarchive....9240607p01.html Unfortunately, as far as I can see Steiner never discussed corn circles. Perhaps that is because corn circles are a local phenomenon rather than world-wide, and even Steiner, despite his fantasies, was unable to imagine them. :unsure:

As being semantic seems acceptable, I should have thought that there are numerous well-established theories concerning global warming and the way certain "laws of physics" manifest themselves in the world at large. The problem seems to me finding open-minded scientists that are prepared to confess the difficulty in conducting experiments to prove or disprove the various hypotheses that arise out of their combinations.

Mike, it wouldn't surprise me if some politician reading that comment suggest we dredge the canals......... .......... :unsure:......... we could then have a fleet of inland waterway cargo-carrying submarines......... . The dredged aggregates would come in useful for building new dykes in low-lying coastal areas vulnerable to rising sea levels. Is that permaculture I wonder? Here's an idea.............how about watertight containers that could be towed through the canals? The ones full of winter jackets - and thus with a large freeboard - could be ballasted down to reduce airdraft.

I thought you might like these photos...... http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/flere_lysende_natskyer_2011

It seems it is an international phenomenon. Here in Denmark - despite my 5 Buddleias - we have this year just a very small number of butterflies about. All the common species are affected, but most notably the whites. My cabbages seem to welcome the development

Did you have any specific green projects in mind? Where I live (Denmark), politicians are very keen to promote the idea that they are the environment's best friends, and they certainly tax us until we squeal using the green tax argument. Yet despite peak everything - not least oil - the same politicians are mulling over where to build new motorways, and indeed, a Danish-funded tunnel or bridge project connecting Lolland to north Germany will soon get underway. Anyone would think that motorcars are here to stay. Would you, for example, consider high-capacity data links a green project? It could be argued that such investments would make video conferencing more effective thus reducing the need to travel so much. How about the re-introduction of short-sea shipping? The very smallest cargo ships carry the equivalent of ten to fifteen lorries for ten to fifteen times less fuel consumption. This would of course require that we re-establish a shipbuilding and repair industry to some extent. Really, apart from protecting natural habitat from Homo sapiens' dogged encroachment, I struggle to see green projects that might significantly re-direct us towards a sustainable lifestyle. On the other hand, I am following with interest the Transition Movement, which is in fact a reaction to developments that are now way beyond our control........such as peak everything, debt as money, massive over-population. Hey, there's a thought..........a campaign for one-child families throughout the world would certainly be a green cause, though I doubt it would get much backing.

Really Jethro, you might be incensed by my views, but this particular comment of yours is simply wrong. Or perhaps you'd like to enlighten us just where the awful pre-industrial revolution pollution came from? As a simple example of how wrong your observation is, I can bring the example of Beverley Beck - which is in fact a canal connecting Beverley with the River Hull. I grant you it is reasonably clean now, but in the 1970s it had been a stinking hole for decades due to effluent from Hodgson's tannery in the town.

I am always astounded when people speak of the Coriolis Force as though it actually exists. It doesn't. The Coriolis Effect certainly exists, and is a consequence of coordinate reference systems moving relative to each other. Imagine a missile fired due north from the equator, remembering that north / south simply means the alignment of a great circle passing through the poles. Now relative to solar system coordinates - however they are defined - the velocity of a missile fired from the equator towards the north pole has also a considerable west-to east component because of the Earth's rotation - which is greatest at the equator and zero at the poles - and this equatorial west to east component becomes increasingly evident as the missile approaches higher latitudes. Put another way, people on the equator are moving through the solar system faster than those in Greenland. For an observer on Earth, it appears that the missile's path assumes an eastward curvature. This is the Coriolis effect. Engineers dealing with the Coriolis effect must correct for the apparent drift if they want to hit the pole, and this correcting force corresponds to what is called the Coriolis force. The Coriolis force in fact is a theoretical force used to build mathematical models for correcting courses. There is no real-life Coriolis force, and it astounds me to read explanations of physical phenomena that refer to the Coriolis force. I even heard a load of rubbish being spoken about large tank ships having to correct for the Coriolis force as they cross the oceans. What a load of tosh; if their course is unsteady it is because of directional instability (wrong trim), propeller forces, rudder slightly misaligned, or unequal marine growth on the hull. Or have I misunderstood?

Not good indeed Gray Wolf, in fact I'd say that sort of dumping ought to be severely punished. There should be a system in place that ensures such things are responsibly disposed of, for while individuals may have legal ownership of a piece of land, they ought to display good stewardship. The environment is everyone's in common. It cannot be fenced in and the excluded locals sent packing to a factory somewhere instead. The environment is not somebody's private disposal ground. If practices such as those both you and I describe continue, I should think it is only a matter of time before the North Sea becomes as dead as the Baltic Sea - as if it isn't bad enough already. Behind the above exchanges however was the various views of GM plants, two individuals apparently undisturbed about them, and one of them seemingly in favour. On the other hand, I am suggesting that big industry puts new ideas and new products forward, while it turns out years later that very objectionable features of their use were either not known, concealed, or ignored by the public authorities whose duty it was to safeguard our health and the environment. I have presented the fairly clear case of persistent herbicides and pesticides in evidence. Independent scientists warn that GM should only be introduced case-by-case following rigorous investigation. I only hope the authorities have learned their lesson, for otherwise, where does it all end? Hardly any drinkable water left, bloated populations that cannot feed themselves, superweeds growing everywhere , oil depletion, unemployment, and debt. You never know, maybe the Tunisia / Egypt effect will spread north.

Could be I've taken it from the Danish literature. They do often spell things a bit differently, and even call things something completely different. Take potassium for example. They call it kalium, which corresponds to the chemical symbol for it. I might also have made a persistent and simple spelling mistake. Never mind, you got the gist of it. The man in question was Danish, and worked in Denmark all his life. He visited farmers and advised them on - among other things - when and what to spray with. By the way, I am not suggesting gly phosphate was the cause of his disfigurement for he was in contact with numerous products, but his doctor apparently suggested the condition of the skin on his legs was directly related to his work, as he had seen nothing quite like it before that could be attributed to reasonably well-known complaints. He died of cancer aged about 80, the details of which I didn't ask, but his sister-in-law, a retired nurse, is fairly blunt in saying the whole business was related to argricultural chemicals. I think however you miss my point. The manufacturers of numerous pesticides informed the Danish authorities over decades, that first this product, then that, do not persist more than a short while, and there was therefore no threat to groundwater (Denmark, except Copenhagen, is largely dependent on groundwater rather than surface water). We knew however about 20 years ago this was not the case, because our groundwater here in Bjerreby became contaminated, and the local water company were compelled to install exceptional purification equipment. Since then, agriculture has suggested not spraying within 2 metres of watercourses, yet they still do; they promised to reduce the volumes of pesticides being spread, and yet last year saw the biggest volume since records began; the government has promised year after year to do something yet have done nothing, and now, 40% of all Danish wells are contaminated, some so seriously they cannot supply water any longer. In consequence, the influential Danish Society for Protection of the Natural Environment is now demanding a complete ban of pesticide use in agriculture, for they feel their previous soft approach has completely failed. In light of this, I think you will see your comments metaphorically speaking amount to what sailors call a luffing contest. By the way, there was recently a scandal in the UK, where allotment tenants received manure from farmers, which turned out to be contaminated with aminopyralid, or whatever it was called - I'll look it up if you insist - which was a herbicide that was used in hay fields. The horses ate it, it passed through their system, and reached a considerable number of allotments, where it killed off a lot of plants. There followed a big hoohah about it, and yet all that has happened is "greater control will be used to assure the product's proper use". Now oddly enough aminopyralid is not approved for use in Denmark where I live, but guess what, the Danish gardener's groups warn of gly phosphate finding its way through horses to compost, where it can do considerable damage in the kitchen garden. before this I had considered asking the farmer down the road if I could have a bit of rape to make liquid fertiliser with - it is normally a good green manure - but knowing the persistence of gly phosphate, I think I'll give rape a miss and stick to nettles from the wood instead. As someone commenting on aminopyralid mentioned, "anyone for DDT while we consider this stuff, or asbestos, or a fag? They were all considered safe in their time". Edit; aminopyrAlid, not aminopyrOlid.

Very well put. This coincides entirely with my experiences with gardeners / Rudolf Steiner / Demeter. Arcane is a very fine expression. I think I'll start using instead of esoteric.

I like your approach WS. Just out of interest though, when you put red herring, are you implying that all this speculation about low solar activity and these two previous winters, for example, is a deliberate attempt by some people to distract us from something else? If so, might you divulge what?

I am personally skeptical about statistical methods, because probability applied this way often means forecasting the future assuming it will be more or less the same as the past, ignoring that in the meantime, circumstances change. Take the ability of ships to survive damage for example. For many decades we designed passenger vessels so they had a certain number of watertight subdivisions, and said that they must be able to survive flooding of one, two or three of those compartments, depending on the numbers of passengers and other criteria. The bright-sparks at the International Maritime Organisation then decided this wasn't good enough, and recently introduced a probablistic approach to the same safety issues. Now, new ships can have all kinds of higgledy-piggledy compartments - allowing cruise ship designers even more freedom to install bowling alleys and snooker tables - and safety is decided by how likely a vessel is to sustain damage, and then how likely it is the vessel can survive that damage. The probabilities for this assessment are based on - guess what - ships in years gone by where numbers of vessels and their routes differed, weather differed, and to crown it all, they had the number of previously decreed watertight compartments. It is therefore good to see probablistic weather models evolve. Disregarding things such as dice and card games and pulling coloured balls out of bags randomly in various combinations or sequences, probability assumes to a great extent that the future will be like the past. Presumably this explains why predictions can go very wrong, even though it looked fairly certain before the event.

Odds, meaning the probability of it happening divided by the probability of it not happening? I'd personally just like to know the probability of it happening, that makes it easier for me to understand.

Well we'll just have to differ then. I am open to convincing arguments, but haven't really heard any in favour of GM. Furthermore, I am quite surprised that while so many people try to forecast the future based on speculative ideas - much as we read on this forum about the moon and Jupiter and gravity causing sunspots etc - people cannot see a pattern that connects our very serious groundwater pollution, the introduction years ago of persistent pesticides, and the failure of politicians and expensive public institutions to protect the environment. This recent history, together with the advice of independent and disinterested scientists from across Europe that GM should not be introduced other than case-by-case and after extensive investigation, is quite sufficient for me - and many others I might add - to reject GM outright, at least for the moment. Regarding minorities, I think you will discover upon reflection that most majorities, and indeed society in general, are nothing more than associations of minorities. They shift their allegiances ad hoc. I never yet saw a durable majority that didn't involve internal strife. Implying that because a particular view is in the monority in no way strengthens the arguments against that view.

Nice to read that you have integrity. Just out of interest, would you kindly follow your comment up with your view on how the general Danish public and their state representatives should now relate to the manufacturers of the pesticides that have quite literally poisoned the Danish wells that supply our drinking water. The scenarios concerning the manufacturers in this connexion are few; they either didn't fully know what they were talking about when they applied for permission to sell their toxins for spraying all over the place, or, they witheld information that would count against them, or, perhaps they deliberately misled the authorities. Or perhaps it is a bit of all three? What do you think Hiya? You have the details above, so can we have your opinion please? If you are reluctant to comment, then perhaps at least you will advise us how we might avoid this sort of thing in the future, knowing now what we know about pesticides and groundwater. EDIT Sorry to add more, but regarding GM, it seems the University of Arkansas are pretty peeved about the local wild Brassica rapa that has crossed with some GM plant or other, and is now completely resistant to the pesticide Roundup, containing glyophosphate. Nobody knows what to do about these superweeds.............except get out the hoes. Now there's a thought, maybe we can make a few quick quid by selling hoes to the Americans, they probably don't have a single hoe left on a farm. http://www.dn.dk/Default.aspx?ID=22238 Sorry too about this link. It is in Danish and I couldn't find an English translation. Never mind, a bright chap like you will get the drift.

Well I see you know about the HDRS, and I'll be the first one to agree that traditional plant breeders has their troubles too, such a potatoes with too much toxin of some sort in them. The difference here is - and I am sure you are not disputing it - that GM plants are able to breed with species that non-GM plants cannot breed with. I don't know to what extent this could happen, but the idea that a GM cardoon might pass on its licentious characteristics to, say, thistles, and so on and so on is to me ghoulish. Who knows where such things could lead?. Science, as far as I know, is unable to control this unprecedented out-breeding. It is for this reason that responsible scientists say that the introduction of GM technology should be done - if at all - case by case. And Jethro, don't you think it is something of a generalisation to say that gardeners of old etc etc? If someone made that argument in the future they would strictly speaking be wrong, because I for one, and the realseeds guy too, reject the idea of GM technology. I dare say that we are far from being alone in our views about GM.

Well, as this thread is about In the News, presumably the lack of news where there ought to have been some belongs here too. I don't recall seeing headlines advising us that rigorous testing has been carried out on wide-ranging GM applications, and the results welcomed by the relevant authorities. On the contrary, it seems evidence in support of GM foods is dubious, which in light of experience in similar developments these last 60 years or so, is why the EU is far more cagey about GM than the USA. Take that dubious evidence, and couple it to the indisputable groundwater disaster we have here in Denmark - the facts of which are totally and disgracefully contrary to what the chemical industry told the approving authorities - there is overwhelming reason to reject GM food until there is reasonable consensus among suitably knowledgeable and disinterested public officials that GM is completely safe. Regarding conflicts of interest, realseeds.co.uk started their business - which remains very small - out of their belief that ordinary people like me should have available to them the species and varieties that hundreds of generations before us have bred by selection, and that we too can save seed from plants in our garden, without the risk of the wind, bees and other insects carrying into our plants what seems to us Frankenstein pollen. If I have correctly understood what seems to me your implication, then it an unwarranted smear to imply that the proprietor is motivated by financial gain. The realseeds proprietor withdrew in disgust from the lucrative techno-agricultural industry, and as far as I know has given up trying to change things from within.

They don't beat this one though.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies/balamory/stories/weatherstory/

Well not entirely, I am a retired naval architect. But this guy studied the topic at Cambridge, and he convinced me. http://www.realseeds..._is_a_scam.html By the way. His seeds far surpass anything else I have bought. i particularly recommend his beetroot, Sanguina. Oh, and by the way, I live on an intensely farmed island, where about 25 years ago, the local water company was the first in Denmark to be ordered to install exceptional purification facilities because of the excessive levels of pesticides that had accumulated in the groundwater. Today, I read on Danish media a complaint from the water company that supplies Copenhagen, that the Ministry of Agriculture has quite simply not acted on warnings, and now no less than 40% of all Danish wells must be exceptionally treated. A good number of wells have been closed as they are no longer drinkable no matter the treatment, and it is looking worse for the future. Glyophosphate is the new scoundrel, if we do not mention farmers that spray their rape with it, the consultants who recommend it, and the manufacturers. And regarding the consultants who recommend this poison, my best friend's brother, an agricultural consultant, died recently with horrendously scarred and disfigured legs, which the doctors suggested was a result of wandering for year after year through crops sprayed with this stuff. At least, in my profession, all I got was piles from sitting on cold steel plates. Perhaps some will say this has nothing directly to do with GM, but I disagree. The authorities go along with big business, at least until it is time to fine them, as with BP in the Gulf of Mexico. Jeez. When will people wake up Probably not before it is too late.

In fact, I'm from the Yorkshire coast. My missus since 1975 is Danish, and unfortunately I'm stuck over on this mud streak on the other side of the North Sea. Never mind. I don't suppose you recall the 1979 gale that overwhelmed the Fastnet Race too do you? I ask, because I am interested in sailors ignoring reasonable warnings in order to race despite the dangers.............not that I am one of them you understand.............I don't set out unless the forcast is less than force 7.