From: Sam Wormley on
> WHAT�S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 16 Jul 2010 Washington, DC
>
> 1. POPULATION: RE-EMERGENCE OF THE POPULATION ISSUE IN THE UK.
> The world slept through two decades as if forbidden to utter the
> word "population." No American politician would dare speak the dangerous
> word even now. It�s being voiced once again in the UK, however, not only
> by such high-profile intellectuals as Sir David Attenborough, but also by
> Fred Pearce, a prominent science writer, who tells us, presumably with a
> straight face, that "the problem is not population but consumption."
> Dominic Lawson, also with a straight face, writes in the Independent
> that, "Affluence is the answer." The rich, he notes, have fewer offspring;
> all we have to do is make everybody rich. Between Pearce and Lawson, a
> bunch off basic conservation laws must get mangled. Not a moment too soon,
> the UK's Royal Society is launching a comprehensive review of the evidence,
> led by Sir John Sulston, who was awarded the 2002 Nobel Prize in Physiology
> for his contributions to the Human Genome Project. Just the person.
>
> 2. WARMING: IT�S HOTTER THAN THE ARM PIT OF FAHRENHEIT�S MISSUS.
> Only the US and Belize still use this archaic Fahrenheit temperature scale,
> but Washington, DC just hit 100 F (about 38 C). Not to worry. I have an
> ad torn from Parade magazine. Parade has the highest circulation of any
> print news. The ad, configured to look like a news story, is about
> a "miracle air cooler." It's on wheels and you can roll it around anyplace
> you want cool air. If you buy one quick you might get another one free.
> But heck, they're "a real steal at just $298 and shipping." So if it
> doesn't have to be in a window, where does the heat go? They come equipped
> with two reusable ice blocks. Just fill �em up and plug �em in. This is
> what we did back in the 30s. On unbearably hot days you put a block of ice
> in front of a table fan. Taking into account the energy required to make
> ice, it's much less efficient than your air conditioner.
>
> 3. NASA: SENATE AUTHORIZATION CANCELS THE RETURN TO THE MOON.
> The Senate Committee on Commerce Science and Transportation yesterday
> agreed unanimously on a blueprint for NASA that is devoid of any new
> science. The bill does get rid of the pathetic return-to-the-moon program,
> but it is otherwise just a plan to avoid adding to unemployment in the
> space industry. It calls for development of a spacecraft capable of
> carrying a crew beyond low Earth orbit, but there's no place to go
>
> 4. NUCLEAR WEAPONS: WHAT SHOULD WE DO WITH THE STOCKPILE?
> Under the Obama administration's 20-year plan the US nuclear arsenal would
> reduce the 5000 deployed and stored warheads by about 40%. The US has no
> conceivable need for the remaining 3000 nuclear warheads. Additional cuts
> however would be too expensive. As Lisbeth Gronlund of the Union of
> Concerned Scientists is quoted in today's Washington Post, "nuclear weapons
> are now a liability not an asset." We can't get rid of them fast enough.
>
> 5. CELL PHONES: PROXIMITY TO TOWERS DOESN�T RAISE CANCER RISK.
> Of course it doesn't, for the same reason that the phones don't cause
> cancer: the frequency of microwave radiation is far, far below the
> photoelectron threshold.
>
> THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND.
> Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the
> University of Maryland, but they should be.
> ---
> Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.bobpark.org
> What's New is moving to a different listserver and our
> subscription process has changed.