Jottings:
Short comments on many subjects

Index to Jottings On this page...
Aquifers as tanks ABC Civilisation Chavez and the Devil Coal and slavery Copper-Chrome-Arsenate Cost of energy Cost of fuel Defence spending Dying languages Easy image? Eye glasses – good value? Golden Age	Google in China Gun control Head scarf for Muslim women? Howard ally of terrorists Howard gets Freedom Medal Iraq and Cronulla Iraq war, why? Is there a purpose? Jobs Kerry Packer Litigation paranoia Mind-numbing work Machiavellian politics The new opium of the masses	Obesity and greenhouse One of the very few Open letter to the PM Peak oil Photograph resolution Pickling olives Sport, the opium of the masses Ultimate in self-indulgence Thought on water Three types of people What has the Iraq war achieved? Whom should we fear? Wind farms and Grey electorate Wood fuelled vehicles

Home Top Index

Pickling olives 2009/09/24 My wife and I have tried many recipes for pickling olives. Sometimes we've had good results, sometimes disappointing. Conventional methods Most recipes use one of two methods to remove the bitterness characteristic of fresh olives: Flushing every day or every two days with either water or brine for as long as it takes (probably 30 or 40 days) to get rid of the bitterness; Soaking in caustic soda (lie, sodium hydroxide) for half a day or so to remove the bitterness. The first method has the disadvantage that there is a long period in which undesirable bacteria have a chance to get established and result in either the olives going soft or in unpleasant tastes, or both. The second method has the disadvantage of taking all the colour from the olives and introducing a taste of its own. I'm sure I've read of flushing in water with wood ash as an alternative, but it seems to be uncommon. Wood ash contains variable, but generally high, quantities of calcium oxide (quicklime). Lime is quite alkaline, but not such a strong alkali as caustic soda. An alternative Try adding about 20g of builder's lime (slaked lime, calcium hydroxide) to each litre of water and soaking the olives in this. Lime is not highly soluble in water, you will not get it all to dissolve; for this reason the exact quantity of lime you use doesn't much matter. Give the mix a stir every day, and at a bit more lime every three or four days. This method seems to remove the bitterness from the olives in around ten days. It doesn't remove the colour from the olives, and it provides an environment unattractive to bacteria. After the bitterness has gone, store the olives in capped jars in a 6% brine solution (60g of salt in each litre of water) with a little edible oil on top. I'd be interested in feedback, my email address is at the top of this page.

Home Top Index

Cost of energy 2009/09/12 Recently I visited the local recycling depot, where I occasionally get wine bottles for resuse. Although on this occasion I wasn't looking for wine bottles I happened to ask whether the manager was still getting them in good numbers. He told me that he had just had some unused ones delivered. A local winery had a problem in that several thousand of its unused wine bottles were dusty. They didn't have the facilities to easily clean them, so they sent them off to be broken up, melted down, and turned back into (clean, sterile) bottles. Obviously, the melting and recasting of several thousand bottles required the use of a lot of fossil fuel; transport over the round trip of several hundred kilometres to the bottle factory would add to the total. The resultant release into the atmosphere of greenhouse carbon dioxide would be considerable. I wonder how many bottles are smashed up and the glass recycled simply because wineries don't have bottle washing facilities? In the Clare Valley (one of Australia's most famous quality wine-growing regions), where this happened, there are several dozen small wineries. In the whole of Australia there are hundreds of wineries. I suspect that few, if any, are set up to wash, or even rinse, bottles. New wine bottle bought in large numbers cost around Aus$0.35 each. Only substantial rises in the cost of energy will provide the incentive needed to stop such damaging and needless production of greenhouse gasses.

Home Top Index

Some thoughts on jobs 2009/04/25 Before the rise of towns and civilisation people would not had any concept of a job; they all would have been occupied in making a living by hunting/gathering or small-scale agriculture. With the rise of towns, some people would have been employed as scribes, priests, soldiers, sailers, etc.; but still the great majority would have lived and worked on the land. The concept of jobs for the majority came with the industrial revolution when cottage industry ceased to be able to compete with the textiles and clothing that were being produced cheaply in factories. With the coming collapse of global civilisation perhaps there will be a return to many people working on the land producing their own food and fibre? With the end of oil, climate change and big rises in the cost of energy it is certain that many jobs will be lost. Farming will have to be done with much less energy. Will this result in more people going back to the land, and more self-sufficiency?

Home Top Index

Golden Age 2009/03/27 Greece had a Golden Age, a flowering of learning, democracy and free speech, especially in Athens, around 400BC. The Islamic world had its Golden Age from about the eighth to the thirteenth centuries AD. There was even a short Golden Age near the end of the Dark Ages in Ireland around 1000AD. The present Golden Age – which you'd have to call the Great Golden Age – had its beginnings in the Italian Renaissance of the fifteenth century and spread first to Europe and more recently across much of the world. It was no coincidence that the rise in freedoms and science came as the power of the Church declined. The Dutch had a Golden Age within the Great Golden Age; it spanned the 17th century when science and art blossomed there more than elsewhere. There has never been so nearly universal freedom of speech, free thinking, development of science and philosophy, freedom from enforced religious conformity, freedom of movement and association, equal rights for all (especially including women), and open democratic government, as there has been in the last several hundred years. Unfortunately, events in the past few decades have suggested that we may be facing a threat to that Golden Age of freedom. Wealth and power have progressively been concentrated more into the hands of a few and taken from the many. A number of Western Governments (those of the USA, Australia and the UK included) have passed laws limiting freedoms and traditional rights; generally they have used the threat of terrorism as an excuse for their actions. Some of the laws recently enacted come close to denying rights granted in the Magna Carta of 1215, and habeas corpus has been, to some extent, denied in the USA and Australia, and no doubt other countries. In Australia a person can be prosecuted without the right to know the source of the evidence against him. The rise of an intolerant form of Islam has had two effects in relation to the Great Golden Age: it has constricted free thinking, the arts, education, and the rights of women in some Islamic nations, and it has forced further limitations on the freedom of speech in the rest of the world (it is impossible to publicly and openly criticise Mohammed, for example, without risking rioting, assassination and embassy burning). Are we seeing the first of the declining years of The Great Golden Age? Climate change and the end of the petroleum age will also impact the GGA; in what ways is impossible to imagine.

Home Top Index

Three types of people 2009/03/01 That there are two types of people in the world is a fallacy, there are actually three! The first type (perhaps 50% of people) includes all those who think it is OK to dump their rubbish wherever is convenient to them. The second type (perhaps 45%) is the group who are responsible in how they dispose of their rubbish. The last 5% are those who not only do not dump rubbish irresponsibly, but also pick up other people's rubbish.

Home Top Index

Prime Minister Howard gets Presidential Freedom Medal from GWB 2009/01/14 How sick is George W. Bush? I wonder if there is a law against Bush giving himself a Freedom Medal, he might as well have done; Howard was his very willing puppet and favourite yes-man. It's only to be regretted that Howard is no longer in power, he could have returned the favour, with equal (blatant lack of) justification. I am 63 years old and I believe I can confidently say that John Howard is the most unethical Australian prime minister in my life time. He, like Bush, was not interested in freedom; they were both interested in glorifying themselves and looking after their wealthy mates.

Home Top Index

Eye glasses – good value? 2008/03/22   Which is the best value for money? In Australia, if you buy prescription eye-glasses you have to expect to pay through the nose. The foreground pair, #1, in the photo cost me more than Aus$500 (~US$450). #2 were off-the-shelf from a pharmaceutical chemist's shop and cost $23, #3 I bought in Vietnam for about $13 (case thrown in), and #4 & #5, were $3 each at Cheap-as-chips; their cases were $2 each. I have to say that #1 is multi-focus, so I can use them for reading, intermediate and long distance work; there is the work and time of the optometrist to consider, the time of whoever sets up the machinery to produce the lenses, and the no doubt considerable cost of that machinery. But as I recall I had to pay around $150 just for the frames, and a screw came out causing a lens to fall out within 3 months of receiving the glasses – fortunately I was able to retrieve the lens and get the glasses repaired. (Pair #3 seem to have a very good quality frame, which must have been manufactured and retailed for, what, $6.) If a person does not really need prescription lenses, that is, he or she does not have significant astigmatism, paying fifty times as much as you need to pay, $500 against $10 (2x$3=$6 for two pairs of glasses and 2x$2=$4 for the cases), is difficult to justify. And I can't help wondering, if off-the-shelf glasses can be manufactured for $3 a pair should prescription glasses cost $500? It would seem that either someone is making a lot of money or there are some pretty considerable inefficiencies in the system. $40 prescription bifocal glasses in one hour In July 2008, after writing the stuff above, I visited an optician's shop in Vietnam (the shop was called Italy, on Phan Dinh Phung street, Dalat), had my eyes tested, and bought a prescription pair of bifocal glasses. They were made in an hour(!) and cost me US$40. In mid January 2009 I'm still wearing them most of the time.

Home Top Index

Is there a purpose for everything? 2008/02/11 This segment is pure speculation; yet I hope it is rational speculation. Traditional religions are nonsense and there is no evidence for the existence of gods, yet it sometimes seems at some deep level that there must be some purpose to the Universe. All those stars that our technology and science have shown us are similar to our Sun – and now we are learning that many of them, perhaps most of them, have planets. There is life, and intelligent life on this planet (with mad men like George Bush and John Howard running the world there are obvious limits to that intelligence). There may be some form of life somewhere else in this solar system and it seems almost inevitable that there must be intelligent life somewhere else in the Universe. What would be the point of it all if we can never reach out and make contact with that extra-terrestrial intelligence? Of course there doesn't have to be a point in it. If one does not believe in a grand plan – and who would there be to make a grand plan if there is no creator? – then why should there be any point in the 'design' of the Universe? Our scientists have discovered that the Universe is susceptible to rational understanding. This is a wonderful thing. We can work out what makes a star that we can barely see in our biggest telescope produce the exact amount of heat and light that it does; why it produces just so much light of a particular wavelength, how much longer it is going to 'live', and how long ago it formed. We can use science and reasoning to see the 'beginning' and 'end' of the Universe. Biological sciences have shown us the marvelous variety of life on our planet, yet there is reason to think that that we have a huge distance to go in this direction; why is it that we cannot culture in our laboratories the great majority of the life forms that we see under our microscopes? Medical science has shown us how our bodies work, it is moving toward showing us how our minds work. Yet there is apparently no purpose to it all? Counterintuitive, don't you think? (Don't suggest to me that the answer is God. The wonders of the Universe have been uncovered by science. None of them, not a single one, was revealed first by 'divine revelation' in some 'holy book' like the Bible, the Koran or the Veda. Religion, God, and the immortal soul are all delusions; that has been thoroughly proven.) One must conclude, as I did many years ago, that there is no purpose to it all. Still, one doesn't have to be entirely happy with that conclusion.

Home Top Index

Australian Broadcasting Commission 2007/06/29 The people of Australia would be much more poorly informed without the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Various governments, especially including the Howard government, have tried to reduce the power of the ABC to give information to Australian citizens. They diminish themselves by doing so, fortunately they seem to have failed to stop the Australian Broadcasting Commission from giving us the truth. Thanks Aunty!!

Home Top Index

Dying languages 2007/06/23 One periodically hears or reads in the media stories about small languages that are becoming less and less used or are dying-out. All the commentators that I have heard discussing this subject say how sad it is to loose these languages and that it is a loss to one or another cultural heritage. I don't think I have ever heard anyone point out that the loss of minority languages directly implies that we are more and more tending to all speak the majority languages. The ultimate end of the process would be that everyone in the world would speak the same language. Surely this would be a wonderful thing! Consider how much less misunderstanding and distrust there would be between peoples if everyone spoke the same language. Consider how many wars are fought between people who speak different languages. The great majority of wars are between people with different religions or different langauges. People fight wars with people they recognise as 'other': other political persuasion, other priorities, other religion, other language. If we all spoke the same language that would be one important point of discrimination between groups that would no longer exist. Language is an even more important point of difference than the others; not being able to communicate with your neighbours tends to make you mistrust them. Of course if all but one languages were neglected much would be lost, but how much more would be gained?

Home Top Index

Defence spending 2007/04/14 The Australian Government is planning on spending around $20 billion dollars on 100 new Joint Strike Fighter planes. Let's see, there would be about 15 million tax payers in Australia, so that's about $1300 for each of us. Do we need 100 new fighter planes? Who are we going to use them against? What nation is likely to want to invade Australia in the next 20 years? Or is it that the Government want them in case there is another country like Iraq that they might want to help the US invade? Doesn't the term 'defence spending' in the way it is usually used, really mean 'offence spending'? Would Indonesia see us spending $20b on war planes as defensive or offensive? I suggest the latter; they would want to increase their 'defence' spending to try to maintain some sort of balance. What could Australia do with $20b if it was spent on reducing our greenhouse impact, on education, on health, or on fixing our water problems? That's twice as much as PM Howard is talking about spending on fixing the problems of the Murray Darling. Howard is keen on talking about tax cuts; what about no new war planes and $1300 less tax for each tax payer?

Home Top Index

Head scarf for Muslim women? 2007/04/09 I just want to make a comment on one aspect of the 'Muslim' head covering and other dress rules that are, or have become, popular for Muslim women in Western Countries. Non-Muslim Westerners, such as me, are inclined to think that the dress standard expected of Muslim women is excessively strict, sexist, demeaning, and quite unnecessary. Before we are too critical of Muslims we need to consider our own hang-ups about body covering. A hundred years ago our culture did not allow people to swim in public except while covered in 'neck to knee' swim-suits. Perhaps you might be thinking, "Yes, but that was a hundred years ago, we don't have hang-ups about clothing any more. Our dress standards now are purely for rational reasons." Are they? We still expect people, men and women, to cover those bits of their bodies that are distinctly male or female. Is this practical? Is it rational? Or is it just a custom? People at nude beaches seem to be able to behave perfectly normally with both sexes completely uncovered. While one might argue with some consistency that Muslim dress codes are discriminatory against women, can we really argue that our dress codes are more rational than theirs?

Home Top Index

Wind farms and Grey electorate 2007/04/06 Letter to local papers There have been about $2 billion (I am not exaggerating) worth of wind farms proposed in the Federal electoral Division of Grey. $2b is about $20 000 for every man woman and child in the electorate. If these were built there would be about $4 million/yr spent on lease payments to land holders, and $33 million/yr in operation and maintenance spending – all in Grey. Most of these wind farms have not been built because of Federal government policies. (More can be read at Wind SA.) In spite of ample information about the seriousness of climate change, our Federal Government has said nothing about increasing the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) from its present pathetic 2%. If MRET was to be increased to, say 10%, it is likely that most of these wind farms would be built, with a consequent financial boost to the Division of Grey; and the world would be a better place for the reduction in greenhouse gasses that would result. Barry Wakelin, present Member for Grey will retire at the coming election. I suspect that without his personal following the electorate could go either way. Is either of the major parties willing to promise more favourable conditions for renewable energy so that we in Grey might see these wind farms built?

Home Top Index

Coal and slavery 2007/03/28 Britain passed laws against British people taking part in the slave trade two hundred years ago. Today we are faced with another moral question; should we do something about greenhouse gasses and climate change or should continue making as much money as possible from coal? There are similarities. Stopping the slave trade meant getting out of a highly profitable business, reducing the national income, for purely ethical reasons. Stopping, or at least greatly reducing, the burning of fossil fuels will cause financial pain to some big and profitable Australian industries for the sake of the global environment. Two hundred years ago people were pointing out that if the British did not profit from the slave trade all that would happen would be that other nations would take up the slack and make all the profits. Today we have Prime Minister John Howard saying that if Australia stops mining coal or reduces its greenhouse gas production rates all that will be achieved is that our competitors will be advantaged. I'd bet that there were those in Britain who claimed that abolishing slavery would mean the loss of lots of jobs and that it was not in the national interest. Two hundred years ago the British were able to put principal before profit, and to do it on their own, before the rest of the world. Are we able to do that in 21st century Australia? Unfortunately I can't imagine either the Coalition or the Labor Party doing it.

Home Top Index

Gun control 2007/02/23 After the Port Arthur (Tasmania) massacre of about 1997 John Howard decided that Australian citizens could not be trusted to own all the guns they might like and enacted gun-control legislation. This may have been a good thing – although I suspect most people still have the guns that they want, but it costs them much more in license fees and they have to do more paper work. But what reason do we have to believe that the Howard Government (and even more so, the George W. Bush USA administration) can be trusted to buy all the weapons that they want and need, and to use them responsibly? What could be a more irresponsible use of weapons than the Iraq war? Can you imagine PM Howard or President Bush wanting to enact legislation to limit the power of Governments to own weapons? I can't – not without a lot of pushing from a very strong and highly organised lobby. Unfortunately such a lobby does not exist yet – one can hope that it might develop one day. It is strange, isn't it, that our leaders can see that we are not to be trusted with dangerous toys, but they cannot see their own shortcomings? Just another proof that power corrupts; those in power do not want to do anything to limit their power.

Home Top Index

Whom should we fear? 2007/02/16 Our governments – particularly in the USA and Australia, probably some others as well – have found it convenient to have us, their citizens, fear terrorist attack. I believe we have much more to fear from our governments than from terrorists. In both Australia and the USA more people are killed crossing the road every year than were killed in the worst years of terrorist attack. How much effort do our governments make to reduce pedestrian deaths compared to the amount of time they spend telling us about how they are protecting us from the terrorist threat? Road deaths are far greater than pedestrian deaths, hugely greater than deaths from terrorism; how much work do our governments put into reducing the road toll? It would be interesting to know how many times Bush and Howard have mentioned the road toll compared to how many times they have referred to the terrorist threat in the last five years. If they chose, the governments of the bigger nations could cooperate to stop the production of, not only nuclear weapons, but also all weapons larger than rifles. They could set up a small international force with a few major weapons, answerable to the UN, to keep the peace between nations. Then they could ensure that the world's armies were gradually dismantled. They don't do this because the top nations (USA first among them) make obscene amounts of money from selling weapons. They would rather keep the money rolling in from arms trading than have a peaceful world. Our governments are our worst enemies, far more of a risk to us than are the mysterious terrorists.

Home Top Index

The new opium of the masses 2007/01/31 On 2005/06/28 I wrote that sport was the opium of the masses in Australia. Computer games have become another drug that takes the minds of the young away from the problems of the real world. When I was young (forty years or more ago) university students were politically very active. Now they never get into the media except for the rare occasion when they are effected immediately and personally by some proposed legislation; eg. the Australian federal government's outlawing of compulsory student unionism, and even that was pretty muted. I suspect that when the young are not working, eating, sleeping or thinking about sport most of them are killing monsters on computer screens. This, of course, gives corrupt politicians free reign to pursue their selfish ends.

Home Top Index

Aquifers as tanks 2006/12/10 This bit is a bit technical and will require a little bit of knowledge of groundwater to understand. On the other hand it will appear simplistic to a specialist (a hydrogeologist). Farmers, orchardist, vignerons, etc. often obtain water from wells which tap into geological formations called aquifers. In the short term a well may yield a little water or it may yield a lot of water (in litres per second, gallons per hour, etc). An aquifer may contain a little water or a lot of water (in terms of litres per hectare etc.) In the short term an aquifer, to some extent irrespective of how much water it contains, may be able to deliver a lot of water to a well, or only a little (in litres per second). These properties of wells and aquifers are, to some extent, interdependent. However, there is one very simple, but useful analogy. An aquifer can be thought of as like a tank; a container of water. A well is like a tap that can be used to take water from the tank. If you put a big tap into a small tank you will be able to drain the tank very quickly. This is like a high yielding well in an aquifer that stores little water. If you put a small tap into a big tank you will be able to run water out of the tap for a long time before draining the tank. This is like a low yielding well in a big aquifer. Do not suppose that because a well has a high yield (lots of litres per second) there will be lots of water in the aquifer. Neither should you assume that a low yielding well is necessarily tapping into an aquifer with little water in it. There is a little correspondence between the yield of a well and the amount of water available from and aquifer, but not much.

Home Top Index

Some thoughts on the necessary resolution of photographs 2006/12/08 One of my main hobbies is photography. I have read several places that a photographic print should have a resolution of '300dpi' (300 dots per inch = 12 dots per millimetre [dpmm]). Apparently commercial publishers and printers of high quality images demand this resolution. Using a microscope to look at a number of photos printed in several coloured magazines I saw that there were 6 printed dots of each colour in each linear mm. If the published print is actually 6dpmm, why does the original have to be 12dpmm? This question is not trivial because it relates closely to how much one should feel obliged to spend on a camera. My camera has a resolution of 5 megapixels (MP). Photos that I take are effectively a rectangular matrix of coloured dots (picture elements, pixels) with 2592 dots along the long axis and 1944 dots along the short axis. (2592 x 1944 = 5 038 848, approximately 5 million, hence 5MP). If I print a photo at A4 size (297mm x 210mm) a simple calculation will show that there will be a resolution of 9dpmm. If I have a photo printed at A3 size (420mm x 297mm) there will be a resolution of 6dpmm. According to those who demand 12dpmm neither of these will be acceptably sharp. On the contrary, I find A3 sized enlargements of my photos to be quite acceptable. Larger prints are usually viewed from greater distances. For example, when you look at a 15cm x 10cm (6 x 4 inch) print, you will probably hold it at about your normal reading distance, ie. around 400mm. By comparison most people will look at an A3 print from a distance of about 900mm. This suggests to me that the needed resolution for an A3 sized print is less than half that needed for 15cm x 10cm. 5MP enlarged to A2 (594mm x 420mm) would have a resolution of 4dpmm, quite acceptable from the likely viewing distance. So, if you want to enlarge your photos to A3 should you buy a camera with around 5 or 6MP, or spend twice as much and buy a 10 or 12MP camera? I'd suggest that 5 or 6MP should be quite enough resolution for A3 or even A2 sized prints. I should say, before finishing, that a camera's resolution in megapixels is not the whole story. The quality of the lens is just as important.

Home Top Index

Civilisation 2006/10/04 When Kenneth Clarke introduced the classic early colour television series, Civilisation, he said of civilisation something like, "I can't define it, but I think I can show you what it is". Perhaps I can more easily say what it is not. War must be the antithesis of civilisation. War is being used by the USA as a way of progressing its causes. This is to the detriment of civilisation. Civilisation is to do with building and creating: creating works of art, legal systems, fair and just governments; building societies, cities, libraries, museums, power stations, wind turbines; constructing water wells, roads, bridges... War is capable of destroying all that civilised humans build and create. In the early twentieth century are we seeing the beginning of the decay of Western civilisation? Most of the great movers of the world seem not to be interested in building anything except their own wealth and power. The only great power in the world, the USA, seems interested only in increasing its empire by bombing and destruction. Western civilisation will not be destroyed by the end of the petroleum age, or by climate change, but it might be destroyed by the wars that nations and societies start in order to hold onto the wealth and power that they see as endangered by these things.

Home Top Index

Chavez and the Devil 2006/09/25 President Hugo Chavez should be congratulated for calling President George W. Bush the Devil in the General Assembly of the United Nations. It's a great pity that more world leaders don't have the guts to so honestly tell Bush what they think of him.

Home Top Index

Machiavellian politics 2006/06/26 Machiavelli did not, as many people seem to believe, advocate immoral political methods, he advocated amoral political methods. He didn't suggest that princes use 'evil' methods to increase their hold on their people and to expand their power, he promoted pragmatism and advised that leaders should not concern themselves with whether a method was ethically right or wrong, only whether it was likely to help them achieve their goals. This is exactly the method the two major Australian political parties are using today. Apart from the religious preconceptions of many members or Parliament and Government, all their efforts are aimed at either getting into power, or holding onto power when in Government. They don't generally care whether the methods they use are ethical, just whether they are likely to improve the party's political position. Similarly, they don't much mind whether their policies are going to be good for the people of Australia, but whether they are likely to lead to more votes at the next election (or more political donations that will help get votes for the next election). This will continue so long as a large majority of voters always vote for one or the other of the main parties. If sufficient voters become disgusted with the Machiavellian politics of the major parties, vote for political candidates who are willing to stand up for what is right rather than just what is politically expedient, then it might change.

Home Top Index

Thought on water 2006/03/26 How much water do we have? How important is 'saving water'? Here is a thought on one of a great many aspects of these questions. I collect water from the roof of a shack. I only have space for storing about 800L of this rainwater. It does not take very many days of washing dishes, showering, washing hands, etc. to use up the 800L. On the other hand 10mm of rain is enough to completely refill the system. The local annual average rainfall is 600mm. Therefore this water supply works on a time cycle of a month or so. I do not consume this water, I use it an release it back into my environment. On the same property is a dam (more accurately, an earth tank) that I use mainly for a gardening supply. It fills most years. If it did not at least half fill in any year I would run out of dam water. So you could say that this has a time cycle of one year. Also on the property is a well. The groundwater supply that is tapped by the well receives some recharge most years and a major recharge every ten or twenty years when there is an exceptionally wet period. If there was not the occasional major recharge year the groundwater in my area would become seriously depleted. This groundwater has a time cycle of a decade or two. My point here? Water is not something that is used once and is gone; it is a renewable resource. The size of water resources vary greatly, even on one small property. If I am careless with the water in my shack it makes no difference to any larger scale water resource – it only effects me. If I am careless in the use of my well water there would be some effect on my neighbours and everyone downstream of me, but there will be no less water in the world. All water is recycled water; any time you drink a glass of water or beer, or a cup of tea, you can be sure that some of the water molecules in your drink have been through the bladder of Julius Caesar – and others through his anus. There are different scales of water economy.

Home Top Index

Kerry Packer 2006/02/17 Kerry Packer gets a big send-off at tax-payers' expense I can't help thinking that the reason for all the attention to Kerry Packer's demise is the fact that he was the wealthiest person in Australia. Suppose Mr Packer had one thousandth of all the wealth in Australia. If another man, sometime in the future, gets one hundredth of all the wealth in Australia, would you say he is an even greater man than Mr Packer. What of someone who got one tenth, or even someone who got control of absolutely all the wealth in Australia? Would you say that this man was great, or just plain greedy? I have trouble with measuring a man by the quantity of his wealth. While there is a record of impulsive acts of charity from Mr Packer, he did not leave behind him any philanthropic foundations, such as that set up by the Myer family; no universities like that established by Alan Bond; no great public buildings like those in the Adelaide University funded by Elder and Bonython. He made a lot of his money from a casino, hardly an ethical business. And he was infamous for the lengths that he was willing to go in order to avoid paying taxation. One of the main aims of taxation, is after all, to take money from the wealthy and provide assistance to the poor. I suppose that Prime Minister John Howard giving Kerry Packer a state funeral could be called mateship in action. Mr Howard loves socialising with the very wealthy. January 2008 Sir Edmond Hillary has died. In my mind here is a much greater man than Kerry Packer ever was. Hillary devoted much of his life to making life better for the Sherpers of Nepal, and seems to have not been interested in personal wealth at all.

Home Top Index

Google in China 2006/02/12 Readers have probably heard that Google has bowed to pressure from China, and Google-China helps the repressive Chinese government to censor the Internet. See Students for a free Tibet. That site gives you a way of protesting to Google. It has always concerned me that Google seems to have something like a monopoly on searching the Internet. Therefore I was pleased to find that there seems to be one or more acceptable alternatives to Google. A list is given on No Luv 4 Google. After a few trials I found Clusty is particular good.

Home Top Index

What has the Iraq war achieved? 2006/01/19 An assessment of the quality of life for 193 countries has recently been published by International Living. Iraq is rated at 193rd. PM John Howard involved Australia in the invasion of Iraq, against the wishes of the Australian people, to destroy non-existent weapons of mass destruction. President GW Bush has always implied a link between Iraq and the war against terror, but we have never been shown any acceptable evidence for Iraqi involvement in international terrorism. More recently we have been lead to believe that the justification for the invasion was to depose Saddam Hussein and give the Iraqi people better lives. Yet, three yeas after the invasion, the Iraqi people have the lowest quality of life on the planet! I suggest that PM Howard owes the Australian people an explanation of what good the invasion of Iraq has achieved. We know what the costs were: the lives of more than 30 000 people, most of them Iraqi civilians; cultural damages; a great increase in mistrust of, and hatred for, the West; and many millions of tax dollars that would have been much better spent on education, health and combating global warming. While he was about it, PM Howard could explain why his government ignored a warning from the UN that The Australian Wheat Board was paying hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes to the Hussein regime, just before the invasion. It is reasonable to assume that much of this money would have gone into buying weapons to use against the Coalition.

Home Top Index

Iraq and Cronulla 2005/12/22 Mobs of youths – Lebanese on one side, Australian racists on the other – recently tried to sort out who had the right to use Cronulla Beach in the Sydney suburbs. Nations have made laws and have established police departments to do away with justice by mob rule. Was there much difference between the mob aggression in Cronulla and the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US-UK-Oz coalition? In both cases it was one group deciding to sort-out another on very slim grounds of justification, legal and ethical. The only real difference I see is that in the former it was emotional, testosterone-related, ignorant aggression. In the latter it was unemotional, power-related, ignorant aggression. The Iraq fiasco, which as I write seems to have achieved nothing good for anybody at the cost of tens of thousands of lives, surely shows the need for some sort of world government.

Home Top Index

Ultimate in self-indulgence 2005/12/14 Richard Branson's proposed tourist space flights would have to be the greatest example of self-indulgence at the expense of the rest of the world to now. Consider the good that these tourists could do with the $100 000 that they are spending on a few minutes in space. That amount of money could change the lives of many people in some Third World country. Perhaps more importantly, consider how much greenhouse gas is going to be dumped in the atmosphere, to the detriment of everyone and all life on Earth, by each of these space flights; all for a few minutes pleasure for one man.

Home Top Index

Wood fuelled vehicles 2005/12/08 We are approaching 'peak oil' and petroleum prices are likely to more or less continually rise from now on. There is no longer any doubt that climate change is largely man-made and will have dire consequences. What, then, should we consider to fuel our cars in the future? I suggest that firewood is a partial answer. So long as trees are planted to replace those cut down it leads to no net increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and it is a cheap $160 per tonne (in Adelaide, South Australia). How do you run a car on firewood? A flammable gas can be produced from wood and fed straight into a car engine; it was done during the petrol shortages of World War 2 and has recently run at least one car around Australia. (See Woodfired.) This method has the disadvantage of requiring quite a bit of hardware that you must carry around with you, perhaps on a trailer, although if the process was optimised for a fuel such as wood pellets and made as compact as possible it might become a practicality. An alternative is to produce a liquid fuel from the wood and then burn that in a car. The Fins are researching a process called fast pyrolysis to produce a substitute for diesel from wood. (See Fast pyrolysis). Another alternative is to produce alcohol from the wood and use that as the vehicle fuel. South Australian trials have shown that five to six tonnes of firewood can be grown on each hectare of land in a 500mm rainfall area per year; much more can be grown with higher rainfall. Some arithmetic will show that there is not enough land in Australia to replace all our transport fuel with wood, but shouldn't our governments be funding research in this direction?

Home Top Index

Is there a link between obesity and greenhouse? 2005/12/05 Australia and the USA are, per-capita, the worst greenhouse polluters on Earth. Australia and the USA have the greatest proportion of overweight people on Earth. Could there be a causal link between the proportion of overweight and obese people in a country and that country's level of greenhouse gas production? There is some linkage. Australians and USians use private cars more than the people of most other nations. This both produces large amounts of carbon dioxide and results in the people getting a minimal amount of exercise. If you use public transport you at least have to walk to the bus stop or the train station. Obviously, if you cycle or walk to work, or to do your shopping, or to escort the kids to school, you are going to get quite a bit of exercise; very few Australians and USians do these things. If you use your car to get around then you minimise your exercise and maximise your personal greenhouse gas production. Are there other linkages?

Home Top Index

Is PM Howard an ally of the terrorists? 2005/10/17 PM Howard and President Bush tell us that the terrorists hate us because of our democracy and freedom. (I would have thought that it was more that they hated the US for its oil imperialism and continual meddling in Middle Eastern affairs, and they hate Australia because it supports the USA in almost all its unethical endevours, but will put that aside for now.) If the terrorists want to destroy our democracy and freedom, then they have an enthusiastic ally in PM Howard. The so-called anti-terrorist legislation that is already in place erodes the freedom of the press. It, and the proposed new legislation, weaken our democratic rights, limit our freedom of speech and assembly, and could be used by corrupt officials as a way of controlling political opposition. And is the legislation needed? Far more Australians are killed and injured in vehicle crashes and work-place accidents than by terrorists; more people are killed crossing the road than by terrorists. Is handling the terrorism threat a convenient distraction from more important issues, like climate change?

Home Top Index

Cost of fuel 2005/10/07 The price of fuel for vehicles in Australia has substantially increased in the last year – typically from around Aus$0.80/L to Aus$1.35/L. The media inform us that this is impacting on people's life styles; many are finding that they are having to cut back on some areas of their budgets in order to pay for the fuel that they "must have in order to get to work". This is rubbish! One need only observe for a few minutes on any major road in any main Australian city to see the terribly inefficient use being made of transport. Most cars, while having space for four or five people, contain only the driver on most trips; Most cars are bigger than needed; Few people ride bicycles as a way of getting to and from work; Few people walk as a way of getting to and from work; Public transport is available for many trips around Australian cities, but is little used by most people; The majority of Australians choose to use transport very wastefully; they find the convenience of using their own cars outweighs the economies that could be achieved by using other means of transport. In so doing they also ignore the damage that their cars are doing to the environment. It is not only in the city that people waste energy. I have had a small farm for eleven years and have spent a great many hours in my paddocks on various jobs. In those eleven years I can hardly recall ever seeing my neighbours in their paddocks on foot. They, and I suspect most farmers, drive everywhere on and off their farms. This may be a necessity on large cereal farms, but on the small holdings in my area walking is quite a practical way of getting around. A survey of traffic I did from my place might also be of interest. I wonder how high the fuel prices will have to go before people change their habits?

Home Top Index

An open letter to Prime Minister John Howard 2005/09/29 Dear Sir; I believe that generations to come will condemn you and your friend George W. Bush, as the worst Western political leaders of our age. You profess to be an admirer of Robert Menzies. He would despise you for your lack of principles. You have failed in your responsibility to look after the politically weak. Australia's poor have been ignored while you concentrated on helping the rich to become richer. The poor need the help of government, the wealthy have the power to help themselves. You have changed Australia's recognition of the World Court specifically to deny our very poor and very small neighbour, East Timor, justice over the petroleum resources of the Timor Sea. Against the wishes of the Australian people you involved Australia in the unjustified and immoral invasion of Iraq. In normal times there is nothing more serious that a political leader can do than involve his country in war. You have made Australia a target for terrorism by joining in with the USA in its wars for global dominance. In response to the terrorist threat, that you created, you have introduced draconian laws that seriously infringe on the civil liberties of Australian citizens. Worse than these, you have chosen to largely ignore the global threat of climate change. You have supported the short-term interests of the fossil fuel industries rather than moving Australia toward sustainable energy use. Australia and the world will suffer for decades, probably centuries, because of G. W. Bush's and your failure to act on global warming. Yours faithfully, David Clarke.

Home Top Index

Protecting the whale: an easy environmental image for Australia? 2005/07/19 Japan is pressing for sustainable whaling while Australia leads the fight to protect the whales. Both countries are pressuring small states, such as the Solomon Islands, to vote on their side. Any whale species that is endangered should be protected. But the minkie whale was not much hunted until recently, and several other species have greatly recovered in numbers following the excessive hunting of the last few centuries. It is true that the Japanese whalers' method of killing whales inflicts great pain and is slow and cruel, and many people might object to whaling on this ground. The Japanese claim that they are doing it for scientific purposes is, of course, laughable and a lie. But I have little doubt that there are worse examples of animal cruelty that our government could be targeting if they were inclined, the Chinese practice of farming sun bears for their bile is one example. Is killing a whale for food any more unethical than killing a pig, if it could be done humanely? I wonder what the Australian Government's motive is in taking up the fight to protect the whale? As one of the worst greenhouse polluters on the planet, and one of the greatest destroyers of native native vegetation and old-growth forests, what environmental credentials does Australia have? Leading the fight to protect the whales costs very little compared to cleaning up our carbon dioxide emissions. There are no Australian jobs to loose as there would be if we were to stop destroying our old-growth forests. Is leading the fight against the resumption of commercial whaling a cheap way of getting some environmental credibility as far as the Howard Government is concerned? In the resumption of whaling as the Japanese would have it, there is at worst an arguable question about which species are threatened, the degree of that threat, and the animal cruelly point. In greenhouse the extinction of thousands of species and deaths of billions of people is threatened. I believe this is another case of red herring environmentalism.

Home Top Index

Why did Australia become involved in the Iraq war? 2005/07/17 This is a very important question for any Australian. Our government has never properly answered it and yet most of the media and most Australian citizens seem content to allow that situation to stand. Going to war is arguably the most important decision that any government can make, and is certainly one of the most irreversible. In 2003 the Howard Government involved Australia in the Iraq war against the wishes of a large majority of the Australian people. At the time it was stated that Iraq possessed large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that the country posed a threat to regional and world peace. (The USA has bombed more than twenty countries since WW2 and has far more WMDs than Iraq ever had, yet our Government does not consider the USA to be a threat to world peace.) There were also suggestions that Iraq was trying to develop a nuclear weapons capability (later shown to be false) and that Iraq had some connection with international terrorism (never substantiated). While the Hussein regime was undeniably barbaric, regime change was not put forward as a justification for the invasion until it was over and the reasons given as justifications were, one by one, being found to be false. Reasons for not going to war, including the obvious one that war is always destructive of lives and property and should be avoided except as a last resort, include the fact that this war made Australia a target for radicle Islamic terrorists. In addition the war was not sanctioned by the United Nations. The weakness of the Iraqi military was demonstrated in the Gulf War of 1990-91 and was again shown by the fact that military resistance ended only two weeks after the beginning of the 2003 invasion. So Iraq did not have any WMDs, their military was not strong enough to pose a threat to anyone given the retaliation capability of the US or NATO, they were not developing nuclear weapons, and there has never been any convincing evidence linking Iraq to international terrorism. Why did Australia take part in an invasion that killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians? There have been persistent suggestions that the war was all about US control over world oil reserves (Iraq has the second largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia). Not surprisingly these suggestions have always been strongly denied by the US and Australian Governments. My opinion is that the war was about oil and US control, not only over oil reserves, but also as a step toward total world domination. (The USA has stated that it aims to achieve "Full spectrum dominance" over all military forces in the world.) Australia, under the Howard Government, is effectively a puppet of the US. The US will leave Iraq deeply in debt and largely in the hands of huge multinational corporations, most of which are dominated by US ownership. I have covered this subject at greater length in my page on the Iraq war, but felt that it deserved a mention here because Australians still have not been given a satisfactory answer to why we were involved in the US war against Iraq.

Home Top Index

Copper-Chrome-Arsenate treated wood 2005/07/01 CCA treated pine is commonly used for fences, vineyard posts, and outdoor structural timber in Australia. All three, copper, chromium and arsenic, can be toxic. Copper is a necessary element in living organisms in trace amounts, but too much can cause poisoning. Some chromium compounds are toxic to the lungs and can cause lung cancer. Arsenic can be toxic if a moderate amount is ingested in a short time; and it can accumulate in the body over a long period, even if ingested in only very small amounts. What happens to the copper, chromium and arsenic in CCA treated fence posts as those posts weather? The posts don't last for ever, and copper, chromium and arsenic, being elements, are indestructible. Does some fraction of the toxins leach into the soil? Can one or another, or several, then be taken up by plants? If they are taken up by plants and animals eat the plants then those animals may well be poisoned. Some toxins in combination can be more toxic than each is on its own – the 'combination is greater than the sum of the parts'. I doubt that this particular combination has been much researched. What happens to the CCA when the posts burn in a bushfire? When CCA treated wood is new, the fact that it is CCA treated is obvious because of the strong green colour. As CCA treated wood ages it bleaches and becomes less green and more grey. Is there a likelihood that people will unknowingly use old CCA wood as firewood? Burning CCA treated wood must release some of the toxic heavy metals into the atmosphere. Some other fraction will remain in the ash; and will the ash be disposed of responsibly? (What is responsible disposal of CCA contaminated ash?) While it might be difficult to know that bleached old timber is CCA treated by its appearance, once it begins to burn the bright green, copper, flame will be easy to spot; so long as people look for it and know what it means.

Home Top Index

Peak oil 2005/07/01 The oil price is US$61/barrel, and the trend is upward. As the price rises, alternative energy sources will become more competitive. Unfortunately, the leading alternative sources of liquid fuels are even more potentially damaging than is conventional petroleum. Oil can be obtained from coal by a process known as liquefaction. Gaseous fuels can be obtained from coal by the process of gasification. Oil can be obtained from oil shales by roasting them and distilling the vapors. Then there are tar sands and heavy oils. While conventional oil has traditionally just been pumped from the ground (although methods of 'enhanced extraction' have been steadily more needed) these alternative sources of liquid fuels require more energy to get the same amount of fuel. Of course that extra energy comes from burning more fossil fuel and producing more greenhouse carbon dioxide.

Home Top Index

Sport, the opium of the masses 2005/06/28 Karl Marx called religion "the opium of the people". In Australia in the early twenty-first century religion has largely been replaced by sport in the apathetic and passive minds of the great majority. While climates change, glaciers retreat, flooding and heat-waves become more common, Antarctic ice sheets break up, corral reefs are bleached, the sea level rises and species become extinct, the plebs don't care as long as they have their sport. While the Australian government engages our country in the illegal and immoral wars of the US empire builders, enacts laws that allow our anti-terrorist police to hold suspects without trial and to go around smashing hard-drives on journalists' computers, the Australian unthinking majority concern themselves about which football team is most likely to win the national premiership. Probably most of them would express amazement and disgust at the way the German people during the 1930s allowed Hitler's Nazis to rise to power. Who was it who said that no-one learns anything from history?

Home Top Index

Mind-numbing work 2005/06/26 One hears repetitive factory work referred to as mind-numbing. In my experience the people who use this term have never done any significant amount of factory work. Is repetitive factory work mind-numbing? I had a year of working in a foundry. The work was repetitive, although people were shifted around from job to job periodically, the longer one worked there the more jobs one learned. Still, the work was so simple that, once learned, it could be done without thought. What other things do we put quite a bit of time into that do not require thought? Walking and driving come to mind. Commuting in public transport for some people. If I don't have any physical work to do I try to average at least 15 000 steps walking each day. Do I find it mind-numbing? No. This must not be taken too far. There is ample evidence from research that intelligence is improved and/or maintained by regular challenge, while intelligence declines when people do not exercise their minds. I found an eight-hour day at the factory an opportunity to let my mind roam. I could just do the job and think about whatever I wanted to. I wonder if a job that requires thought, but repetitive thought, would actually be more mind-numbing than a no-thinking factory job?

Home Top Index

Litigation paranoia 2005/06/23 This country is suffering because of fear of litigation, in many cases the fear is quite unreasonable. This bit discusses one such case. The attitude of the Port Pirie Regional Council toward an initiative by an individual to remove a species of feral tree from a public park is an example of unreasonable fear of litigation. The Port Pirie Council probably does not have a more paranoid attitude than some others, although I will say that the Clare and Gilbert Valley's Council is more open to work by volunteers. The individual concerned is me. I have been killing the feral trees (Peruvian pepper trees, Schinus molle) – by drilling 6mm holes around the base of their trunks and injecting herbicide (Garlon) – for something like 18 months. A council representative agreed that the trees should be removed from the park. He said that they do remove pepper trees on public land whenever they come across them and have the time. However, I was asked to stop my work. Council was concerned that: I was not qualified to do the work; I might poison myself or someone else; I might fall and break a leg. What largely went unsaid was that if someone was hurt, he or she might sue Council for damages. (Council felt that if they gave me permission to do the work, even on a voluntary basis, I might be considered to be a Council employee under law.) This attitude is unreasonable for the following reasons: It is very unlikely that anyone would be harmed by my work because the herbicide I use has very low toxicity to animals, and it is inaccessible to everyone once injected into the tree trunks; If anyone was harmed by my work, the link between my work and Council is pretty tenuous; If I entered the park as a visitor, fell and broke my leg, I might well have just as much ground for litigation as if I was poisoning feral trees. While I am now retired I used to work for a State Government Department (DWLBC). They had something like the same unreasonable fear of litigation, to the point where information was withheld from the public. The justification for withholding information was the chance that someone might base an important decision on it, make a financial loss, and then sue the Department if the information was capable of being misinterpreted.

Home Top Index

One of the very few? 2005/06/22 I believe that greenhouse warming/climate change is the greatest disaster facing the world today. It will result in: Habitat change; An increase in the frequency of extreme weather events such as floods and hurricanes; Long-term rainfall decline in some areas, increase in others; Some areas will become unsuited for their fauna and flora; Spread of some diseases into areas where they have not previously been a problem; Extinction of many species; Possible changing of some of the major oceanic currents (if the Gulf Stream was to fail, as seems possible, much of northern Europe would become uninhabitable); Possible run-away greenhouse due to such things as release of the methane clathrate (hydrate) on the ocean floors; Sea level rise – which will lead to flooding of some very populous river deltas (eg. Nile, Mekong, Ganges) with resultant displacement and probable starvation of millions; Loss of productivity of farm land. Yet I seem to be one of the very few people with the little bit of motivation needed to write letters to South Australian newspapers and blog on the Internet on the subject! Do so many people care so little about such a colossal looming disaster? Is this the age of apathy?

Home Top Index