With “synthetic life” being all over the headlines these days the discussion usually includes the possibilty of ’something’ escaping in a Frankenstein type way and causing “more” harm than good.

But what if something escaped and wiped out a continent’s entire population? Should the world accept a simple “Oops, where sorry and we promise we won’t let it happen again” from the scientists involved or should they be charged with unleashing ‘wepaons of mass destruction’ and ‘crimes against humanity’ charges?

in my own family tree I have a grandmother that I never met that died from the flu in 1918. It may or may not have been the same strain that had wiped out millions a few years earlier, I don’t know, but the possibility is certainly there. A few years ago, Canadian scientists discovered a corpse in the permanently frozen areas of that country that had died from what has become known as the deadliest flu virus ever to rage through the planet. The scientist began to culture that virus AGAIN, supposedly in order to help us.

The basic question I am asking is whether science is truly worthy to receive carte blance to gamble with millions of lives (that would be the cost of their failure to keep the deadly agent contained) and not face consequences if they fail.

I believe they should face dire consequences if they fail. After all, if a person murders another they will get life in prison and/or the death penalty. What would a fitting penalty be for scientists that killed millions or more? In such a scenario it almost seems life in prison and even death does not serve as enough punishment.

It basically comes down to statistics and probability. The ‘chance’ or ‘odds’ of their work escaping is minuscule they will tell us. And the cure? Well, we can depend on them for that too, they will say, so again the ‘odds’ and ‘probability’ are minuscule that the escape could lead to catastrophe. But just like a gambler at a roulette table, the losing roll will come up. That is also odds and probability. So what do we do when that happens?

While dealing with the punishment when it happens or shortly after would be an emotionally charged time where reason would probably be put to the wayside, we can deliberate and discuss the possibility rationnally now so that, heaven forbid, the unlikely happens we have at done at least some preparation.

At the root of such a deliberation is the problem, I think, of coming up with a punishment fitting the crime.As stated earlier, a murder of one gets a sizeable penalty so a murderer of millions should get an even greater penalty. So could/should a punishment “worst than death” be devised for any scientists that let such a catastrophe happen?

No tags

In this BBC article they report on a study done and they use the headline “Obesity ‘often set before age of two’ “.

Later in the article they say

“Although the reason for rapid weight gain in early life is not well understood, contributing factors are likely to be poor diet, early introduction of solid food, and not getting enough exercise, the researchers said.”

Perhaps the reason for the researchers lack of understanding is that they haven’t figured out how the infants are raiding the refrigerators when the adults aren’t looking and stuffing their faces. That must be the key so if they can figure out how to keep the toddlers out of the fridge (and the cupboards of course) then they will have the answer. Keep the little tikes from the feed bag and their weight will remain in the prescribed range.

Well of course it is non-sensical to think that children under two are helping themselves to the fridge. No, rather it is the adults that are stuffing their kids and encouraging their over-eating. That, and that alone, is what makes kids obese. No one, not one single person, gets obese on breathing air and water. It takes calories to put on weight… period. More specifically, it takes more calories than what one burns with their metabolism in order to add weight.

So these researchers are at a loss as to the “reason for rapid weight gain in early life” and to them the reasons are ” not well understood”.

Well, it’s not really any of my business, but if I had paid for that research and gotten back that kind of rubbish I would ask for my money back.

No tags

The headline reads … Laser fusion test results raise energy hopes and its about them (i.e. the nuclear science community) getting closer to harnessing fusion generated energy. I hadn’t given any thought to fusion energy for quite some time, what with the economy, the wars et al but while reading the article a thought occurred to me, causing me to wonder if anyone has considered the ramifications of unlimited energy production in light of global warming?

Granted, while “ClimateGate” has taken a lot of the wind from the sails of the ChickenLittles I have always remained skeptical of the pooh-poohers who say NONE of the warming is man-made and here is why… physics. Yes, one of the laws of physics is that energy can not be created or destroyed. So when we add to the BTUs coming into our global envelope through the burning of fossil fuels and through the splitting of atoms we are, in fact, adding BTUs to that envelope above and beyond what the sun and any other natural causes would have. That is a guaranteed result. Artificial BTUs plus natural BTUs equals more than just natural BTUs… always.

So here we have the fusion scientists slobbering over the prospects of creating limitless BTUs from fusion. Have they given any thought about how they can possibly vent some of that heat to outer space once they create it? Or does the possibility of turning the whole planet into a Sahara desert not matter to them?

Now I have plenty of room for the pooh-pooher’s arguments that the artificial BTUs are so few in comparison to the natural BTUs to have any influence on the global environment. But I also know that, since energy cannot be created nor destroyed that the effect would be accumulative. We have been adding “heat pollution” for decades now and, until that heat does finally radiate into space, it will just hang around inside the envelope and raise the temp ever so slightly. Fusion, though, has a much bigger potential for “heat pollution”. So, have they thought of that? And studied that issue? Pardon me for asking… I’m just curious?

No tags