Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

On Food Choices, part 1: the right road lost

January 14, 2019

Midway on our life’s journey, I found myself in dark woods, the right road lost. (Dante)

Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. (Christopher Hitchens)

I agree with Hitch’s sentiment but the happiness part doesn’t necessarily follow from thinking for yourself. It’s not guaranteed to make relationships with those around you any smoother either. My transition away from a religious worldview in the 90s didn’t lead to an increase in happiness, just to a more healthy relationship with reality.

It’s hard to change the habits of a lifetime and navigating the maze of food choices is not simple.

I’ve been trying to write about this for months, mostly unsuccessfully, because it’s so big and because what I’ve been working through is disruptive to those I care about.

I know I can be annoying once I start going down rabbit holes, worse when a topic is not free of controversy. Those close to me and in the workplace could vouch for that. Karen relates to commentary about the “species” that is the subject of this short amusing video:

Rather than trying to say everything all at once, I eventually realised that it made sense to write a sequence of more digestible (pun not intended) parts. This one will serve as an introduction.

As far as I can see, there are four main aspects to consider when it comes to food choices:

  1. The desires and health of a human individual.
  2. The food producer’s livelihood.
  3. The impact upon the environment.
  4. The welfare of animals.

The desires and health of a human individual

Without individual health nothing much else matters to us, so the first item on the list is clearly of crucial importance.

I’ll return to this in part 2.

I’ve generally been the kind of person who is happy to have a meal without, well, making a meal out of it. I try not to spend much time preparing or eating food.

But the thing is, I like the taste of beef, bacon, ham, fish, turkey, chicken, cheese, milk, and other foods I’ve spent half a century eating.

Of course, it’s important to distinguish between wants or likes, and needs.

Desires have a subjective importance that should be weighed against other factors rather than being accepted without question. They include purely personal preferences as well as cultural and religious traditions.

The food producer’s livelihood

Fair Trade coffee is an example of the second aspect, e.g. poor farmers receiving fair compensation for the coffee beans they’ve grown.

Karen and I used to buy instant coffee in large bags from Oxfam shops. We still try to buy Fair Trade instant coffee although it’s less common in supermarkets than would be hoped. But Fair Trade is about more than income, such as freeing people from slavery (unbelievably still a thing in the 21st century), allowing freedom of association to form unions, and providing income for education to improve the lot of future generations.

Two more examples are: dairy farmers getting a fair price for the milk their cows produce and fishermen getting enough of a share of fish stock quota to make a living.

It’s worth noting that securing a food producer’s livelihood is a different matter from the long-term sustainability of the produce.

The impact upon the environment

The third and fourth aspects go beyond the world of people though, of what we need, want or like.

Motivated by environmental concerns, as a family we have have reduced our consumption of meat over the last few years. On resource usage and emissions grounds, beef and lamb are less sustainable than pigs, chicken, or fish (see less meat less heat). Beef and lamb are obvious first targets, low hanging fruit, so to speak.

The Australian Climate Council had this to say in 2017 (my italics):

The livestock sector is responsible for a massive 15% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions globally. This makes global greenhouse gas emissions from livestock higher than all emissions from road, rail, air and marine transport combined.

Cattle, raised for beef, milk and other outputs such as manure, make up 65% of greenhouse gas emissions from the livestock sector. One of the primary reasons for this statistic is cow ‘burps’, which contain methane produced during digestion … These ‘burps’ are particularly problematic in the fight against climate change, as methane is about 28 times more powerful in terms of its potential to cause global warming than carbon dioxide.

The infographic in this Climate Council report shows that a whopping 51% of Australian land use is for livestock grazing:

Australian Livestock Infographic (source: Climate Council)

I came across this video of Bill Nye recently musing over a question from a young caller on the theme of climate change and emissions from cattle, in his usual straightforward way:

We tend to hear less about the impact of methane as a greenhouse gas and more about carbon dioxide. Is that perhaps because of the livestock link? Profit and tradition? As a comparable aside, I’ve often thought that fixing the hole in the ozone layer was less socially challenging because unlike minimising the effects of climate change, it didn’t require us to give up as much profit or tradition, just find a replacement for CFCs in a manageably small number of products.

Speaking of tradition (coffee in the morning!), several months ago I switched to soy cappuccinos, again for sustainability reasons, because dairy milk requires cattle, presenting similar resource usage (land, water, food) and emissions problems as for beef production.

Later, I started using soy milk in cereal and drinking soy on its own. At first I thought I would never like (that word again) the taste. I had spent decades drinking cow’s milk. It didn’t take long to adapt though and now I actually prefer it.

Seriously.

I didn’t like beer much to begin with either! Both violated the principle of least surprise: they didn’t taste like I expected them to.

As an aside, around the same time as switching to soy milk, I moved to a “keep cup” at work that Karen had bought for me, because disposable coffee cups are a huge landfill problem. Before that I was throwing away a disposable cup every day! Of course, as a society, we generate all manner of rubbish and support wasteful, inefficient packaging of the goods that we purchase, but coffee cups are very high on the list as it turns out.

In any case, if we just consider resource usage, sustainability and climate change alone, perpetuating a demand for livestock based food is arguably questionable, especially as the human population continues its exponential growth.

This short video from The Economist asks whether there is a case for the future of food to be plant-based on such grounds:

The welfare of animals

Motivated by the fourth aspect, Karen and I have been choosing free range eggs for quite awhile now with the help of apps like CluckAR. Determining what constitutes free range and what doesn’t can be tricky though. As we’ve discovered, the number of birds and the conditions under which they are kept vary wildly under the “free range” banner.

But why stop at the ethical treatment of egg laying hens?

It would also seem to be a reasonable thing to say, if understated and obvious, that in general, any reduction of the demand for meat is a good thing for those animals not consumed.

Further discussion of animal welfare is too much for the current post.

Before going down that particular rabbit hole in part 3, I want to return to the question of the health of a human individual.

Part 2: but is it healthy?

Old photos of the 2001 Leonids from Malalla

January 3, 2019

I was looking through a bunch of old photos and slides today and came across these star-trailed pictures (film-based) I took of the 2001 Leonid meteor shower from Malalla, South Australia:

Star trailed images taken with a tripod-mounted Pentax K100D

Meteors radiate outward from a point in the sky in the constellation Leo (called the radiant) since the Earth is ploughing into left over sublimated material from comet Temple-Tuttle in that direction.

My father and I stayed up until the wee hours watching the meteors come thick and fast. I have good memories of that evening spent with dad. After he’d had enough, I stayed up to watch them until the sun came up.

July 2018 Lunar Eclipse from Adelaide

July 28, 2018

Apart from the “getting up at 4:15am” part, the total lunar eclipse on Saturday morning (July 28) was very enjoyable.

MidTotality

Luna 1 minute after maximum totality (f2.0, ISO 200, 1 sec). For reference, the right-most star is rho Capricorni, a double with a brightest component of magnitude 4.8.

I took a little over 200 images from our backyard starting a few minutes before totality began at 5am ACST until just after the end of totality at around 6:45am.

I also looked at the Moon through 7×50 binoculars from time to time, from which the impression of the Moon as a 3D ball of rock hanging in the sky was evident.

I had initially planned to use my 8″ telescope for imaging as well, but in the end, was happy with to take wide field shots, so left the scope inside.

All images were taken with a tripod-mounted Canon 1100D and 100mm fixed lens controlled using Canon EOS Utilities.

EclipseMontage

A montage showing Luna 5 minutes before the start of totality (f2.0, ISO 400, 1/8 sec), 1 minute after maximum totality (f2.0, ISO 200, 1 sec), and 9 minutes before the end of totality (f2.0, ISO 200, 1 sec).

Along with most images I’ve seen, these present a vividness not evident only by eye. The following images are perhaps closer to what was seen without aid of imaging equipment.

MarsMoonTotality2

Moon and Mars 20 minutes before the end of totality (f2.8, ISO 200, 1 second).

MoonLowOnHorizonJustBeforeEndOfTotality

The Moon and Mars 8 minutes after the end of totality (f2.0, ISO 100, 1/10 sec), just above our SW fence line.

The final image shows an incidental image of the International Space Station passing “near” our lemon tree when I noticed it passing above the Moon.

ISS

ISS trail (f2.0, ISO 100, 1.3 sec)

At least one image of the eclipsed Moon also ended up with a “stray” satellite in the field.

Nova Carina 2018 update #2

March 27, 2018

Shortly after my last post I observed the nova again. Within 24 hours it has dropped by a full magnitude after peaking at 5.7, a little higher than my binocular estimate of 5.8 from last night.

My two observations are in purple, as usual, with the observation an hour ago under the cross-hairs.

ASASSN-18fv-2018-03-27

 

Nova Carina 2018 update

March 27, 2018

A “happy snap” (with iPhone) of the sky over my backyard rooftop, with Luna peeping through cloud. The nova’s location is behind me from this vantage point.

After being away for a week and a cloudy sky on Sunday, I caught my first glimpse of Nova Carinae 2018 (ASASSN-18fv) in 7×50 binoculars minutes before the sky started clouding out.

I estimated it to be 5.8 (purple, at top right) at just after 11pm Adelaide time.

Note also the upward trend-line.

I had hoped to subsequently image the nova to carry out DSLR photometry for better accuracy but that didn’t pan out due to cloud.

At the time of submission to AAVSO the last observation before mine was 6.5, several hours earlier. Since then, others have submitted observations up to 5.9. So, I appear to have caught Nova Car 2018 on the rise and at its peak so far.

Nova in Carina

March 23, 2018

Nova Car 2018 or ASASSN-18fv was discovered by the ASAS Supernova network on March 21st and has so far reached around magnitude 6.5 from a progenitor magnitude of 19.9 within a couple of days.

Below is a Stellarium view of the location of ASASSN-18fv, very close to the 5.1 magnitude comparison star near the Eta Carina nebula and star, a variable whose brightness I often estimate.

A binocular finder chart with a slightly different orientation from the Stellarium screenshot is shown below:

This is a crowded area of the sky, and being so close to the 5.1 star, it may be tricky in a low power binocular field.

Rob Kaufman posted this image of the nova, with yet another different orientation:

asassn-18fv2c202120mar20201820text2030-sec

I have not yet had the opportunity to observe the nova; hopefully in a couple of days.

The AAVSO alert notice has more details.

Nova Cir 2018 Gamma-ray Space Telescope observations

February 3, 2018

AAVSO alert notice 613 for the nova in Circinus requests visual, DSLR, CCD and spectroscopic observations, with multiple observations each night if possible, in support of the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope’s observations that are currently underway:

 

spacecraft

Source: https://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/inc/img/spacecraft.jpg

Target-of-opportunity observations requested by Dr. Mukai are taking place now through February 6 UT with the NASA Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. To support these observations, observers are asked to make several observations per night.

I’m processing DSLR observations of the nova from last night and plan to continue observing over the next few nights. Its visual magnitude is currently at around 7.2.

Here’s a spectrum taken by Rob Kaufman on January 31:

ncir201820spectrum2c203120jan2020182c2012-5420ut20text

Total Lunar Eclipse from Adelaide

February 1, 2018

Adelaide was largely clouded out for the eclipse but the cloud thinned at times well enough to get some reasonable images, especially after midnight. Taking more than 100 images also helped.

I used a Canon 1100D at the prime focus of my 8″ Schmidt-Cassegrain Alt-Az (Meade LX-90) telescope.

Here are some images I thought were interesting enough to show. These are straight off the camera with no processing except RAW to JPEG conversion.

IMG_0013-low

Pre-totality umbral shadow through cloud. ISO 100, 1/10 second.

IMG_0064-low

Totality. ISO 800, 2 seconds.

IMG_0006-low

Not long before end of totality. ISO 800, 2 seconds.

IMG_0027-low

Soon after end of totality. ISO 800, 1 second.

 

What counts as good belief?

January 29, 2018

We watched Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus over the Christmas break. I’d never seen much of it and Karen’s interest in watching it again after a long hiatus encouraged me to sit down and watch it with her. Thanks Karen, it was well worth watching.

exhibits_online_yesvirginia_g14922

source: goo.gl/Xi5CDj

The true story and the TV adaptation we saw are both positive, moving tales. Eight year old Virginia’s friends tell her there is no Santa Claus so she writes a letter to the editor of The New York Sun asking for advice, since as her father tells her: “if you see it in the The Sun, it’s so”.

exhibits_online_yesvirginia_g4031

source: goo.gl/Xi5CDj

The author of the editorial: Francis Church, an atheist and cynic, having seen his share of suffering, writes an enduring letter that has inspired many since the editorial was first published in 1897. Here’s an excerpt (italics are mine):

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence.

There is something beautiful in encouraging kids to imagine.

I admit to some internal conflict when our kids were young regarding what to tell them about Santa, the Easter bunny, the Tooth Fairy and so on. In the end we encouraged such beliefs for as long as the kids were willing to imagine playfully with us.

Interestingly, Virginia’s 1930 PhD thesis was entitled The Importance of Play.

Although as an atheist I generally prefer not to pretend to know things I don’t know, the kind of belief in Santa that was the subject of Virginia O’Hanlon’s letter and the The Sun editorial, is, I think, perfectly okay.

Even in recent times I’ve heard the same sort of “there is no Santa” comment that prompted Virginia’s letter to The Sun, expressed between young children, encouraged by adults, who at the same time profess belief in God.

That brings me to the question in this post’s title: what counts as good belief?

What’s the difference between these two statements?

  • I believe in Santa Claus
  • I believe in God

Other than that the first refers to a particular individual while the second to any one of a number of possible gods, their form is identical. We can remedy this remaining difference by reframing the second statement as:

  • I believe in Jesus (or Yaweh or Jeohvah or …)

Too often, the second form is accompanied by exclusive statements, such as:

Hmm…and here I was thinking that the reason for the season was axial tilt. Not to mention Saturnalia.

1503931_333096903500225_1694979872_n

sourcegoo.gl/1nFcUZ

The worst that can happen, in the child’s mind, for not believing in Santa or for being on the naughty list, is that they will receive no presents. True, there have been other harsher myths associated with Christmas, but I’m thinking broadly about the contemporary situation in the western world.

The worst that can happen, in the believer’s mind, for non-belief in God or being wicked (i.e. not accepting either salvation by faith or works) is eternal separation from God and loved ones or eternal torment in Hell.

So, again, what counts as good belief?

In my view, it’s the kind that doesn’t hold you ransom, that encourages you to imagine things not yet imagined while not making threats or requiring you to be dogmatic or to abandon critical thinking. In short, one that allows you to be creative but still allows you to think for yourself.

Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. Christopher Hitchens

A key difference between encouraging a child to believe in a powerful being who can deliver presents to every house in a single night and childhood indoctrination into belief in a personal god, and the associated demands, is the exclusivity of the second. That and the lack of fun.

Here’s another excerpt (again, my italics):

Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

I have some sympathy with Church’s view that:

They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see.

and especially:

In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him.

We have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater of course. As George Santayana says:

Scepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and it is shameful to surrender it too soon or to the first comer: there is nobility in preserving it coolly and proudly through long youth, until at last, in the ripeness of instinct and discretion, it can be safely exchanged for fidelity and happiness.

There is so much we don’t yet understand and we should approach the gulf between what we do and don’t know with humility. The universe as revealed through evidence by Science so far is stranger than anything we could have imagined:

  • We live in a universe in which everything we can see and touch makes up only a few percent of everything that is, the rest apparently being dark matter or dark energy.
  • On the smallest scales there exists a seething ocean of particle-antiparticle pairs coming into and out of existence. The universe may have almost literally been created from nothing.
  • If we travel fast enough or find ourselves in the presence of a strong gravitational field, local time will appreciably slow down and mass will increase; yet even GPS satellites, that allow us to determine our position on Earth must take this into account since the gravitational force at orbital height is smaller than at the surface.

Alice’s world seems almost normal by comparison.

Science doesn’t claim to have the answer to all questions, yet the Scientific Method is the most successful and powerful form of knowledge acquisition we know. If new evidence comes to light to change our model of the world, then it will change after the dust has settled. That’s an important departure from dogmatic thinking, and skepticism is an important part of the Scientific Method.

There’s room for a child-like view of the world that encourages imagination and optimism, as well as an honest view of the world that requires careful thought and evidence regarding important questions, especially those with life-changing potential.

Kids will ask questions about early beliefs when they’re ready and that’s okay. Adults should encourage the fun aspects of early belief with a twinkle in their eye while accepting that questions will come.

It’s often been said that children are natural born scientists until society discourages them from asking honest, simple questions. I’d like to think that Francis Church the cynic and Virginia the child seeker-of-answers and adult teacher might have agreed.

In all affairs it’s a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted. Bertrand Russell

Nova Cir 2018

January 28, 2018

In my last post on January 20 about Nova Mus 2018, I said that another southern nova had been discovered, this one by John Seach in the early hours of January 19 in the constellation of Circinus, near alpha and beta Centauri. That post also showed a Stellarium context screenshot and pointed to an AAVSO finder chart.

This nova has slowly been on the rise for the last several days from around magnitude 8.5 to 6.3 by January 27.

The following 15 second DSLR images I took on Jan 22, 23, 26 and 27 show the nova brightening over time:

NovaCir2018Panels

If the images seem out of focus, that’s because they are. They were used for photometry rather than with the intention of being pretty; use of defocus is part of the procedure. See this talk I gave about DSLR photometry in 2015 for more detail. There’s some positional differences between frames, reflecting the difference in observation time from night to night.

The light curve below shows visual, Johnson V, and Tri-Color Green (DSLR) observations from January 19 to 28; mine are in purple. I’ve also submitted observations in blue and red bands.

NovaCir2018LCJan28

This light curve doesn’t appear to show a simple linear increase, so it will be interesting to see where the rise stops.

Rob Kaufman (discoverer of Nova Mus 2018) said that a low resolution spectrum he took on January 26 was essentially featureless.

The sky is largely clouded out tonight here in Adelaide at the end of a hot day (42° C), but I just caught a quick glimpse of the nova in 7×50 binoculars, but wasn’t able to check against comparison stars. It’s around the same magnitude as last night though. I’ll carry out more DSLR photometry as soon as I can.

In the meantime I have two more nights of Nova Mus 2018 (currently on the decline) DSLR images to process. I’ll write an update post for that nova too.