For a brief moment...

You sit on the beach and grasp a handful of sand. Peering closely, you focus on one tiny grain. It is small, white and smooth. Bringing it closer to the eye, you notice tiny worn ridges and grooves, with even smaller silty grains in between. It's quite unremarkable, this miniscule grain with its infinitesimal debris. There must be a million million just like it that you have ignored. Yet you examine more closely. Soon you see the variations in colour, remnants of its glorious sovereign existence before being lost in the morass. You inspect the variation in form, the undulations in its structure. Fraction by fraction, this cubic millimetre of Earth reveals itself to you, and begins to tell you a story.

It is a very long story. It is an account no campfire could contain. Where it begins is only part of the tale; a part shrouded in the error bars of science, clumsily approximated by crude machines. To start at the finish is the only option on hand. How did it arrive at you feet? You look at the sea, the surf lapping at your feet; the sand in constant flux; insight creeps in, the dawn of new understanding. There are many grains twirling around. Some of those scratches and striations are now explained – it has been a rough ride for this crystal of quartz, knocked around by a thousand waves.

Looking further afield, you notice the froth of a longshore current, battered by the surf, interrupted by rips. There is movement there, and it comes along the beach. You and your grain of sand walk against the flow, constantly aware of the opposing flow only meters offshore. Suspended sand swirls in the breaking waves and the turbulent water heaves. As the surf gets choppier, you find yourself at an entrance where muddy water surges out into the deep. It is a river, and it is flowing. The water is not clear, clays and silts cloud the current and obscure the ripples of sand beneath. You look upstream; it stretches out into a vast estuary, the hills and the headwaters in the distance. You cannot follow this grain's prior journey any further; already you are far from your car, far from the comfort of civilization. Whence did this miniature grain originate?

Having walked the length of the coast to the river, you have reversed perhaps the most recent decades of the grain's history. The span of time reaches back far, far further than that. You have merely glimpsed a small episode on a diminutive stage. Were you to travel upstream, you would begin to grasp the forces at work. Look again at that grain. It is translucent in the light, a shimmering signal of its illustrious past. Underneath the craggy exterior lies a former glory.

Travelling upstream, you would find larger grains with the telltale reflectance of partially worn crystal faces. These are your grain's younger cousins. Quartz is very tough; a great deal of abuse is required to wear down a noble crystal face. There would be other grains too, of different parentage. Feldspars, birefringent, coloured with earthen hues; flakes of mica, sparkling in the sunlight, flittering away in the flow. You have travelled back in time, seeing your grain in younger days, perhaps a thousand years ago.

Climbing the shores, boarding an all-terrain vehicle, you traverse the steep slopes of an increasingly incised valley. Returning to the bank, you see not sand, but pebbles, and boulders, huge, lumbering hunks of rock. Immovable for man, toys to the forces of nature. Focusing closely at a rounded stone, you are struck with the diversity. All the cast is there, but in varying states of disrepair. The feldspars are softening, the micas peeling off. But there, there like glass, is your quartz. Steadfast in adversity. Rubbing your finger over the specimen, crystals of quartz fall into your hand, splendid crystal faces twinkle in the rays. You are close to the source. Ten thousand years.

Gazing further up, you can see the granite dressed hills of the headwaters. You are drawn inexorably towards the majestic vista. Hiking boots on, you tramp up the slopes. Here, in the furthest reaches of this guiding stream, you find a large rock face. It shows its age, the skin peeling like an old onion. The crumbling face reveals beautiful perfection beneath. A batholith, older than the very hills it supports. Drilling in, you retrieve a core of sparkling granite. There, there in that smooth exposed surface, you see the players in their heyday, ready to act out the next scene, anticipating an audience. Yet there has been a pause. Time frozen in the act of crystallization. The quartz crystals are perfect, the feldspars lustrous pink, dark mafic minerals teasing for identification. You are at the chrono-crossroads, where time has stood still. This rock has been like this for six hundred million years, waiting unwearyingly for the next act. Pushed and heaved through the Earth, your grain's distant cousins have remained firm, with only the slow decay of atoms for company.

Before even that ancient crystallizing moment, those grains had another story to tell. Granite to migmatite, migmatite to metamorphosis; metamorphosis to diagenesis, and then on to sedimentation before one day, on a beach, near a river … it is a story for another day. We have reached back some half a billion years, and yet there is another four billion to go. Cycle upon cycle, these minerals have seen it all. They will see it again. How privileged we are to comprehend the journey for but an imperceptible stretch of time.

Censorship and political leadership

The recent story whipped up by the Australian Sex Party regarding restrictions on, amongst other things, small breasts appearing in pornography in Australia (on grounds of them appearing child-like) highlights some of the subtle problems that exist in Australian political life. Whilst it concerns the independent classification board, this story has stirred commentary from politicians. Most Australians would find the censorship ridiculous and a little abhorrent. We do not like censorship per se, believing that freedom of expression, properly used, is a cornerstone of democracy. On the other hand, we have a strong underlying discourse on "family values", much of which is born out of a Christian heritage. Pornography has a tendency to upset these family values, and so no one is too fussed about its censorship. However, in this instance, the difficulties in interpreting the new position without actually banning a whole raft of products does in fact, on a first pass, look like the kind of moralistic, sweeping censorship of which we should be most wary.

Realistically, the vast majority of Australians would probably not agree with or fail to understand the rationale behind the new rules. At least that is, not until a politician takes a strong moral stance. Then, because of their "leadership" status, some more susceptible types go along with it. The politicians know this, and so once upon their soapbox on an issue, they can drive the nail home knowing that there is, to quote and oft-stated phrase "growing condemnation", or "growing support".

Politicians in Australia have more influence on public opinion than any would like to give them credit for. There is a "public conversation" that goes on between the public and the politicians. The crafty pollies drive the agenda. Look at what John Howard did in his years as Prime Minister - the country's attitude is in a different place since. Now look at the death by a thousand cuts of rhetoric that we are getting from Kevin Rudd. Charisma is a dirty word nowadays. Really, Australian politics has lost its soul.

There seems to be a belief amongst politicians that the people do not want charismatic leadership, instead, they want good management. I am not convinced that this is true - one only has to look at the (slight) increase in popularity Tony Abbott has achieved by being a "straight talker". Whilst no one is about to accuse Abbott of excessive charm, this does show a hankering for charismatic leadership amongst the people. We want to be lead. We want our national leaders to reach down and help us through adversity and with us to celebrate good times. Good leadership is soul food for the masses. Sure, we distrust the salesman with his snake oil; but a few well chosen words, delivered with the passion of conviction, spoken in common language, can transform people's belief in their leaders.

We look across the pond and see Barack Obama rouse his people from a kind of slumber; we want the Australian version here. That version would not have the same sermon-like qualities. We would not be hearing any "one nation under god" type speeches, and we couldn't expect to be asked "not what our country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". Australian political life has never been like that. If only our leaders could cut through the management babble, reach for the point of the conversation and deliver a passionate call for developing our wonderful country, I think the people would listen.

Australia Day again...

Ahh, the national day. A time to have a day off, relax, have a barbie, do whatever. Maybe enjoy how lucky you are to be living in a prosperous country on a warm summers day. The cricket on telly, a few beers, great stuff. Back to work the next day feeling a little seedy, but ready finally for another year.

Well, that's how I remember it, "back in the day". I don't remember cars festooned with the flag and stickers with "Love it or leave" written on them. That wasn't part of Australia Day. In fact, it has always been a rather awkward public holiday - one that you just enjoy without having to think hard about anything. Which makes it different from ANZAC day, which commemorates a tragic episode in our history where to some extent, the nation called Australia was "born".

Australia was not even "Australia" on January 26, 1788; the day it commemorates. No, it was a land inhabited by, at some estimates, nearly a million people. A people organised into their own nations, proudly managing the land and their lives. It is hard to capture the extent and suddenness of the change that would follow the arrival of the First Fleet. Beginning with the declaration of Terra Nullius (now abandoned), the indigenous population was treated as if they were primitive animals to be eradicated or at least moved aside. A new colony was to be made, and the four corners of the country were to be explored, claimed and exploited. The legacy of these exploits lives on simultaneously in the folklore of explorers and bushrangers, as well as in the collective memory of a decimated indigenous people.

Almost 113 years later, by a very peaceful referendum in which only a portion of people voted, Australia became a federation of states. To this day, we have spent more time as a wild bunch of colonies than as a federated nation. Only once have the shores of our land been threatened, and that was defended successfully with the help of foreign troops. Never did civil war result in a unification, although we have had our uprisings, such as at the Eureka Stockade, the closest we've come.

Today, the Eureka Flag, with its Southern Cross emblem, has become a symbolic undercurrent in a new wave of patriotism. A patriotism that does no justice to what it means to be a patriot. The Eureka Flag, and the National Flag, are important symbols in our nationhood. They should be respected as such. One marks a turbulent but nation-building episode, the other the formation of one nation out of several colonies - an independent break from colonial status.

We should be able to wear the flag if we want, but then, we should consider what our behaviour under that flag means. White Australians plastered in national flags, drunk to the eyeballs and screaming slogans like "Australia: If you don't like it, leave" do nothing for this country. That, therefore, is not a patriotic act. The riots in Cronulla a few years ago have signed off on a period where the flag could be worn in pride. Now it is just an association with the ugliest side of our society. More's the pity. Most of the true patriotic acts require no flag at all. Australia Day may use the flag as a symbol (it hardly has a choice) but, unfortunately the day's meaning is scared by the awful behaviour of a few under that flag. I wish I could say, "Australia's not like that", but then I am made a liar every year, at least once. All I can hope is that it is a shrinking minority that is getting the attention. I fear it is growing.

Insignificance

Human history is blessed with many great thinkers who have enlightened us with their observations and theories about the world. Darwin and Wallace discovered for us our place in geological time, Copernicus our place in the solar system, Einstein our place in the universe. One theme that emerges from what we now know is the smallness of our existence. We really do occupy but a molecule of water in a vast, never ending ocean. But what we do with our time can be brilliant, as great artists and scientists have demonstrated. The video below is moving because it represents our place in the cosmos, taking you away and then back again. You feel the nostalgia as you explore, and the elation upon return. Well done to the American Museum of Natural History.

How green is your lawn?

We have a lawn at home, and we only water it on our water-restricted watering days (except very occasionally by hand if its a 40+ degree day). It keeps the garden cooler, and we assumed it was also a good carbon sink. Well, it is a good carbon sink, but it seems that all the grooming efforts eliminate that or worse: http://www.physorg.com/news183129874.html

I know that ours is only a garden lawn, and this study focussed on public parks, but some of the results must be transferrable - we mow our lawn and only a month or so ago we applied some fertiliser for the summer. We use an electric mower, so that probably helps as it is only drawing baseload from the power station (which is of the super-green, brown-coal-fired type!) - arguably better than an inefficient 2-stroke mower. But it calls into question the "greenness" of the backyard lawn, which does after all take up a considerable portion of the garden.

So, what do you do?

You could replace it with synthetic turf, but that would have all sorts of issues relating to its manufacture. Or you could replace it with gravel and the odd plant, but that would not have the cooling effect and would have even less carbon storage capacity. Perhaps its best to keep the lawn and not fertilise and mow less. Its a tricky area in a climate where everyone wants to do their bit.

As always with these issues, there is more than one aspect. Here we balance CO2 emissions against water security. Where we live, water is scarce and resources are stretched. Electricity generation produces tonnes of CO2. But it will be water that gets us first. Increasing population demands greater water supply. In an area at least 50% supplied by groundwater, much of which is "fossil water", it is obvious that a limit will be reached. What is worse, increasing water demand forces government to install desalination plants, further increasing electricity demand. A vicious cycle is established. SO, ultimately water demand reduction could have a double benefit - reduce the need to enhance supply and reduce expanding electricity demands.

Where does this leave the lawn? Well I guess it means replace it with a garden bed full of drought friendly plants that require little water. Either way, it reminds us that reducing water use is one of the best things you can do for the environment. Still, that lawn is a nice thing to have...

Grab More Science News Graph | LabGrab

This is a cool little app that gathers science news into categories. Worth a look...

Grab More Science News Graph | LabGrab

Posted using ShareThis

Small victories

Some time ago a late friend of mine was very sick with cancer. He was struggling with treatment and suffering greatly. As is common at that stage in severe illness, one will try anything that offers hope of a positive outcome.

So in the course of his search, he found a product called a Multi-Wave Oscillator that was reputed to "make people better" (I can't do better than that - it really was the cruxof their claim at the time). It cost thousands of dollars. Their website had a whole lot of well-crafted claims that looked suspiciously like well-founded science. Typical pseudoscience. My friend clearly fell for that, and he was not a silly man. Amongst other organisations, the American Cancer Society notes that there is no peer-reviewed support in medical literature for this treatment.

Anyway, my friend bought one at great cost (some, I guess, will say that he had little else to lose). I was horrified that he had been duped of his money by this quackery, but said nothing to him at the time (it seemed it would merely add insult to injury). Instead, I reported the company to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. They cannot guarantee a reply, but over the phone after my email complaint, they assured me they would take this very seriously indeed. They take a dim view of the exploitation of the sick, and this seemed precisely to fit the profile. So I left it at that.

So, trawling through old emails, I came across this episode and decided to have another look at the offending company's website. The old claims are no longer there (and unfortunately I no longer have the originals - and am not net-savvy enough to find them - it was well over a year ago). Replacing the old claims is a lovely big disclaimer, at the bottom of the front page, and scattered throughout the site. It makes the entire product line look strange and quite removes the main selling points. I'm not going to link to their site as I don't want Google or anything else to direct traffic to them, but the web site is www.i4cau.com.

I quote now from the disclaimer:

"i4cmwo products are sold for learning, self-improvement and simple relaxation. No statement contained in this catalogue, and no information provided by any i4cmwo employee, should be construed as a claim or representation that these products are intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease or any other medical condition..." [www.i4cau.com 7-jan-2010]


Why an AUD$2,600 electricity filled coil will help with your education is beyond me (unless you're in a physics class perhaps). Seeing that bill would hardly be relaxing. Nevertheless, there must be a reason for the sudden appearance of a disclaimer (and it is LONG - have a read!), and I like to think that the ACCC had a part in forcing them to do it.

There may yet be Round-2 though - they seem to be making a new product to go with the MWO and a bunch of supplements - the flash new "Violet Ray Kit". Again I quote from the site:

"Coming soon a frequency mat that connects to the MWO new and old, very good for prostate and back problems" [sic](as at 7-Jan-2010)


Now, tell me, how is that not "intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease or any other medical condition."? What do they intend with this device (other than to make money)? And if you read on in their page on the Violet Ray Kit, you'll find a whole lot of new pseudoscience.

"Violet Ray Kit" - spare me. People like this should be shut-down, fined and publicly shamed. It arguable that they don't do too much emotional damage to people who are very sick anyway, but that doesn't make this any less despicable. They are taking money from people who have been convinced that they will benefit, when there is no scientific evidence for those benefits. Sometimes, "buyer beware" is taken too literally. We are not all equiped with failsafe quackery detection devices; I know I am not. So there have to be standards, laws and above all, ethics. The crowd at i4cau appear to have none.

I think a small victory over pseudoscience can be chalked up now in my friend's name. RIP mate.