For some reason I have been distracted from the ongoing catastrophe in the Gulf so I have been frustrated that BP has refused to stop the oil leak with a little explosion to destroy the oil pipe's access to the surface. Today. I am pleased to see that a guest on Ira Flatow's Science Friday suggests crimping the leaking oil pipe with explosives, duhhhhh! I agree that explosive charges could stop this leak rather quickly and that this could be achieved within a few days.
This "no brainer" and obvious solution is not being pursued because it would cost BP and its stockholders, something Ira Playdough doesn't discuss.
So Ira gets an A for seeing the obvious solution but he gets an F for not insisting on this environmentally friendly solution. He also gets an F for not seeing that politics and economics control the technology and science used for this situation. Ira Flatow has mainly, however, hosted a discussion about how technology can stop the oil by saving the BP investment, by saving the pipes they have installed.
Just think about it. The United States blows up everything every day for fun and profit, war and more thrills. Why is the US suddenly unable to blow up a blow out? Profits! Profits of BP shareholders. They are willing to sacrifice the fish, the worms, the plankton, the turtles and fish, everything for their unholy profit.
That is why capitalism really is no good and has to be replaced by a noncapitalist system of ownership and production that is friendly to our Common Mother, Earth. We don't really need big oil if we switch to other forms of energy. Big oil is trying to keep us dependent on oil and blocks alternative energy development.
Showing posts with label ira flatow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ira flatow. Show all posts
Friday, May 7, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
IRA PLAYDOUGH LIKES HIGH TECH, HISTORY AND GEE WHIZ SCIENCE
I want to express a partial gratitude to Ira Flatow and NPR for having any sort of science programming and, once again, you don't see this sort of programming on the radio anywhere else.
I learn a lot from the program but I have noticed in focuses a lot on technology and often Ira seems to have a lack of interest in the actual science of the technology. Fortunately he is not as much into "dumbing down" the science as he was a couple decades ago. Like some other popularizers of
science he started out a little like a clownish buffoon and almost seemed apologetic for talking about science. Now he is much better.
Still, I notice in his discussion of lasers today he seemed to get bored with the actual discussion of some science when speaking to one of the creators of the laser. I think they just confused two completely different phenomena with lasers and the way the light looks spotty. Ira was probably talking about one thing and the scientist was talking about the floaters in the eye. Am I wrong? Ira was unable to tease this out even though he may be right about what he was saying, that only some cones are activated leaving the others somehow transmitting spots. Of course it may have another explanation or not.
Ira could have gone into how a laser actually works, how atoms emit the light in quanta of different frequencies as electrons go from one energy state to a lower one. He keeps it too simple and fails to explore even the basic science that he could otherwise address.
I was glad to hear from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists too. I think Ira could have been a little more skeptical about moving the clock back sixty seconds. That seems like wishful thinking. His guest seemed to realize that Obama may be just talking about getting rid of nuclear weapons, if you don't have them yet! Obama has never confronted any nuclear weapon holder with a demand for reduction, certainly Israel remains under his protection in terms of even recognizing they have nukes.
I learn a lot from the program but I have noticed in focuses a lot on technology and often Ira seems to have a lack of interest in the actual science of the technology. Fortunately he is not as much into "dumbing down" the science as he was a couple decades ago. Like some other popularizers of
science he started out a little like a clownish buffoon and almost seemed apologetic for talking about science. Now he is much better.
Still, I notice in his discussion of lasers today he seemed to get bored with the actual discussion of some science when speaking to one of the creators of the laser. I think they just confused two completely different phenomena with lasers and the way the light looks spotty. Ira was probably talking about one thing and the scientist was talking about the floaters in the eye. Am I wrong? Ira was unable to tease this out even though he may be right about what he was saying, that only some cones are activated leaving the others somehow transmitting spots. Of course it may have another explanation or not.
Ira could have gone into how a laser actually works, how atoms emit the light in quanta of different frequencies as electrons go from one energy state to a lower one. He keeps it too simple and fails to explore even the basic science that he could otherwise address.
I was glad to hear from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists too. I think Ira could have been a little more skeptical about moving the clock back sixty seconds. That seems like wishful thinking. His guest seemed to realize that Obama may be just talking about getting rid of nuclear weapons, if you don't have them yet! Obama has never confronted any nuclear weapon holder with a demand for reduction, certainly Israel remains under his protection in terms of even recognizing they have nukes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
