Author Archives: alistair

Nuclear power is good – it has an unfair reputation

Humans need a lot of energy. We consume energy for light, heat, transport, food… Basically everything we do requires energy. The problem is that using energy in it’s popular forms is doing some serious damage to our environment.

Currently most of the energy we use comes from fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal) which we burn to create energy. Unfortunately burning those fossil fuels also pollutes the air and drives global warming. Global warming = bad.

So we need to change our habits (waste less energy) and we could change our energy sources (to those less damaging). There are renewable sources like solar and wind power which basically make use of the copious amounts of energy the sun beams down to earth every day. However, these sources are expensive, inconsistent, and chew up large amounts of space.

Nothing is ideal, but you should be rational and not emotional in your decisions.

There is another great option, also not ideal, but the best (in my opinion) currently available. Nuclear power has an unfairly bad reputation. When used properly it is an excellent energy source – and it produces no air pollution! As the Economist says:

Nuclear power offers the possibility of large quantities of electricity that is cleaner than coal, more secure than gas and more reliable than wind. And if cars switch from oil to electricity, the demand for power generated from carbon-free sources will increase still further. The industry’s image is thus turning from black to green.

The Economist has articles here, here, here and here describing that:

Nuclear power is very clean as the graph below shows.
Nuclear power can be safely generated. Even taking into account Chernobyl (4,000 dead) and Three Mile Island (0 dead) nuclear power is extremely safe – and getting safer.
Nuclear power can be generated cheaply. Initial costs are extremely high, but over time it makes economic sense. This would be especially true were the negative environmental costs of fossil fuels built into their already high cost.
There are pretty good ways of storing the radioactive waste generated.
Many previous nuclear protesters and “greens” are changing their minds and advocating nuclear power.

Why there is often no Row I in movie theatres

Leave a reply

I have often wondered why there is often no row I in movie theaters. I wondered if this was tradition, superstition (like skipping the 13th floor in a building), or something else. My theory was that it is because the letter ‘I’ resembles the number ‘1’. I suppose that could lead to confusion and may warrant skipping row I.

I didn’t think that confusion was very likely so I Googled for a better explanation. There isn’t one. After quite a lot of scratching around it seems that possible confusion with ‘1’ is the reason for skipping row I. Apparently many theatres also skip row O and/or row Q because they resemble each other and the number 0.

Richard Dawkins explains reasons to believe things

Leave a reply

Richard Dawkins - excellent author and scientist Richard Dawkins is a great author and evolutionary biologist – I have several of his books at home. Dawkins is also well known as a vociferous atheist which means many people blindly reject what he says. I recently read a letter that he apparently wrote to his 10 year old daughter back in 1995 about belief. It makes for excellent reading – very easy to understand which is important.

Basically, he is writing about why she (and people in general) should believe things. The GOOD reason for believing in things is evidence:

Direct evidence. For instance astronauts have been out into space and seen that the earth is really round. That is a good reason to believe that it really is round.
Indirect evidence. Where direct observation is not possible we can still find evidence that an idea is right. Dawkins gives the example of a detective at a murder scene. He can still work out who did it, even though nobody actually saw the crime.

Dawkins then goes on to describe BAD reasons for believing something:

Tradition. Beliefs are often passed down through generations. Just because they are old beliefs doesn’t make them true. As Dawkins says “No matter how long ago a story was made up, it is still exactly as true or untrue as the original story was”. Tradition is a bad reason to believe something.
Authority. Just because somebody tells you to believe something doesn’t make it true. Sometimes I do take somebody’s word on something – like the speed of sound. The difference is that there is evidence that I can look at if I wanted. I have taken a shortcut, but I can do that because there is evidence available.
Revelation. Dawkins defines revelation as when people have a “feeling inside themselves that something must be true, even though there is no evidence that it is true”. Unless there is actually evidence (a good reason) which agrees with your gut feeling then it is a bad reason to believe something.

The last bit of the letter is what I am increasingly finding crucial. People need to learn to think a little:

Next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: “What kind of evidence is there for that?” And if they can’t give you a good answer, I hope you’ll think very carefully before you believe a word they say.

Tiger Wheel & Tyre insurance – not worth it

3 Replies

Tiger Wheel & Tyre offers a tyre insurance that they heavily advertise (details here). I bought some tyres there recently and the salesman told me that it’s an excellent deal and that he “can’t understand how they are making a profit”. I know enough about insurance to be sure that they are making a tidy profit – but I still wondered if it would be worth it.

The short answer was: no it’s not worth it. Lets look at how I came to that conclusion in the shop.

First the details of the insurance policy:

You must insure all 4 tyres. In my case that came to about R80 for R1,600 worth of tyres (after VAT).
Insurance covers only the tread not used up. So if the tyre was 50% used up, then they pay 50% of the replacement cost.
The insurance only covers 50,000km even if the tyres are still good after that.
Obviously they only replace the damaged tyre even though you would almost always need to buy 2 new tyres.

So I ran some scenarios in my head.

Best case scenario
If I drove out of the shop and immediately lost a tyre then I would have paid R80 for insurance and it would have saved me R400 for replacing the tyre = R320 benefit. R400 (benefit) – R80 (cost) = R320 gained

However, what are the chances of that happening? If there is a 20% chance then I would only need the insurance once for every 5 purchases. So the benefit from insuring changes to R400 x 20% = R80!

So if I believe there is a 20% chance of needing the insurance immediately, then the insurance is still pointless! Any lower risk and purchasing the insurance is a waste of money. (I know that there is a chance of losing 2 or more tyres which changes things – still not worth it)

The insurance is only valid for 50,000km. I thought that the chances of losing a tyre in that time is about 5% not 20%. That means that I would definitely lose money if I took out the insurance.
R400 x 5% = R20 (maximum benefit) – R80 (cost) = a R60 loss!

Insurance in general
Remember, the insurance companies are making money. That means that on average the insurance is NOT worth it to us and they are taking the difference as profit. There are a few good reasons to take out insurance:

If you think that you are more at risk that the average person.
If you can’t afford to take the hit. I can’t afford to replace a car so I insure mine even though in the long run I know it will very probably cost me money. I take that cost because I can’t afford to take the risk.

In the case of tyre insurance, neither of the above reasons are relevant (I am less at risk than the average person and I can afford to replace a tyre) so I had a suspicion that the insurance would not be worth it. After doing some simple calculations I could see that it is a rip-off.

I can easily “understand how they are making a profit”.

Tongue-eating lice – seriously

Leave a reply

I recently read this interesting but pretty revolting account describing a type of parasitic crustacean commonly known as the tongue-eating louse. Basically, the little thing gets into the mouth of a certain type of fish (Spotted Rose Snapper) and attaches itself to the base of the fish’s tongue.

There it lives and grows by sucking the blood from the artery feeding the tongue. Eventually, it uses up so much blood that the tongue ‘dies’ and shrivels up to a stub. The amazing thing is:

The louse, which grows to be about the same size and shape as the original tongue, remains connected to the stub of the tongue—in other words, it effectively replaces the fish’s tongue with itself. At this point, having lost its blood supply, it switches to a new food source: bits of whatever the fish happens to be eating. Other than having a lousy tongue, the fish appears to be unaffected by the parasite; it can still, in fact, manipulate the louse just as it would its natural tongue. No other parasite has been found to completely replace an organ in the host.

If you want to see a couple of pictures go here.

Poacher killed in the Kruger National Park

Leave a reply

Earlier this year when I was on a walking tour of Kruger we became very conscious of poaching in Kruger. We encountered more than one heavily armed anti-poaching patrol and our guide had several harrowing stories of encounters with poachers.

I must say that I loath poachers and revile them at every turn. I know that they are poor and often desperate, but I still hate them – there are better ways. So I was pleased to hear that one of those Kruger patrols recently bumped into and killed a poacher recently.

Apparently after midnight an anti-poaching patrol bumped into an unknown number of poachers. “A gun battle ensued between the rangers and the poachers. One of the poachers was killed.”

I admire the brave men and women (I saw several female rangers) who put their lives on the line to protect our wild animals.

The Prius is NOT worse for the environment than the Hummer

Leave a reply

I have often heard that because of the manufacturing process and the batteries involved the Toyota Prius (a hybrid electric car) actually uses more energy over it’s lifetime than a Hummer. I am ashamed to say that I swallowed that one a little too easily and I have even passed on the little anecdote a few times.

Here is an article rounding up most of the available information and showing pretty conclusively that the Toyota Prius is better for the environment than a Hummer. Basically, the original study was based on “faulty methods of analysis, untenable assumptions, selective use and presentation of data, and a complete lack of peer review.”

Prius is the clear winner and I really hope that the Hummer urban legend dies a quick death.

Toygers – cats that look like tiny tigers

Leave a reply

Toygers are cats that have been breed to resemble tiny tigers Here is a National Geographic photo gallery about Toygers. These are cats that have been painstakingly bred to resemble tiny tigers. A woman named Judy Sudgen began the breeding program back in 1980 and has done pretty well. She began with a tomcat in she found on the streets on India and recently introduced genes to produce the “big cat body”.

They are pretty cool, but would set you back up to $3,000.

The Economist weighs in against Mbeki, Zuma and the ANC in general

Leave a reply

Two imperfect candidates - one will decide the future of South Africa The Economist has some interesting articles on ANC leadership election happening this weekend (here is the best one, but also here, and here). Basically they are saying that it is a pity that the ANC are choosing “between two deeply flawed candidates, neither of whom should be running the ANC or the country after next year”.

The article has scathing criticism of both candidates:

“Mr Zuma should have been ruled out on several counts. His dreadful views on sex were revealed during his trial for rape last year. He was acquitted, but claimed that he could tell by the way a woman sat whether she wanted to have sex with him and that his Zulu culture demanded he should oblige her; also that he could avoid contracting HIV by taking a shower. He may soon be charged again with corruption.”
“Mr Mbeki is standing just to stop Mr Zuma. But Mr Mbeki has shown by his own autocratic ways and weird views on AIDS—which he seems to think is not caused by HIV—that he too should no longer be leading the ANC”.

The real problem in South Africa is something that the articles do mention: there is no competition for the ANC.

“14 years of unbroken power have given way to corruption, factionalism, paranoia and arrogance” within the ANC. Although the ANC has “on the whole done a good job” since 1994, it is now no longer the party that should be leading the country. The ANC should spend a term in opposition so that it can “purge or renew itself”.

The problem is that the masses are an unthinking lot who blindly vote along historical lines despite the current problems in the ANC. If only they would see past race and think rationally they would know that there is a better, if imperfect, alternative – just look to Cape Town!

“South Africa deserves a lot better.”

The US are obstructing progress on climate change again

Leave a reply

The UN climate conference is busy wrapping up in Bali at the moment. Once again, the United States are the main obstruction to progress. The Yanks really annoy me when it comes to climate change. They cause more damage than anyone else, yet they refuse to make real progress on reducing that damage.

In short, most of the rest of the world is calling for mandatory reductions in the emission of greenhouse gases (principally Carbon Dioxide – CO2) and the US (with a few cronies) is saying no.

The States are saying that they prefer “voluntary reductions” over specific target reductions because:

“Specific targets would limit the scope of future talks“. They think that having no goal other than some kind of voluntary reduction will be more effective than a specific target… Doesn’t make too much sense to me.
Targets will “harm the U.S. economy”. Of course they will you morons. Everyone else accepts taking a hit now in the interests of reducing global warming. Basically they are saying: “We want to continue ruining the world for everyone so that we can stay rich for the while”.
The same targets are no applied to poorer but fast-developing nations. This sounds like a good point, but it is actually rubbish. For instance per person emissions in India and China are currently less than a quarter of those in the US. And over the last 50 years the vast majority of emissions have come from the Americans. So although there should be targets for India and China, they are already kicking the hell out of the US. See the graph below (click for more detail).

So the US is full of it. Wired has reported on Al Gore having a go at the States while speaking at the Bali conference. He is basically saying that although the US is “principally responsible for obstructing progress” people shouldn’t give up hope. In two years the US will have a new president who is far more likely to be proactive on climate change than the idiot Bush.

Australia recently replaced their prime minister and the new guy ratified the Kyoto agreement almost immediately. Lets hope something like that will happen in the States.