The developing world occupies an often- misunderstood and scary place in the grand scheme of global progress. It harbours connotations of rampant disease, economic stagnation, even death. If we strip this term of its comparative fabric and Western bias, however, we can see that “developing countries” aren’t that different from developed ones. For instance, in a developing country people have the same basic human needs as in a developed country, needs like access to clean water and a consistent supply of food. Despite the combined efforts of many organizations to promote education and technological development in these underrepresented places, progress has been slow. Millions of children still die every year from diarrhea induced by contaminated drinking water. To anyone who has ever had filtered tap water from their kitchen sink, this is—and should be—quite an absurd statistic.

Open source sustainability is a philosophy that relies on promoting organic growth in regions with insufficient resources. The idea here is that if a community is given a system that affordably increases its standard of living, support for that system will grow internally and ultimately spark widespread proliferation.. Many engineers across the world have taken this concept and given it new life, especially in the realm of water clarification. And while it isn’t mass scale, every major ideology germinates from proud and successful examples.

The Abundant Water project planted its roots back in 2007, when an Australian engineer named Sunny Forsyth realized the water clarity crisis while touring Laos. He eventually came up with the brilliant idea of working with local potters to create low-cost clay pot filters that eliminate up to 95 percent of pathogenic microorganisms from clean drinking water. By teaching local potters in Laos how to create these filters, the Abundant Water project simultaneously improves the region’s quality of life while also giving that region the ability to sustain the concept.

AguaClara blossomed from a professor’s passion for the Global South into a crusade that has swept through the region. This multi-disciplinary team at Cornell University designs affordable water treatment plants that rely only on gravity to produce clean water. One of the most interesting components of this program is their scalable AguaCalara Design Tool, which they have rigorously developed over the course of many years.

This design tool allows engineers to automatically generate AutoCAD designs of a water treatment plant given a set of input parameters like plant size and output flow rate. The tool has been constructed to essentially minimize the cost of these designs, promoting cost crunches wherever possible. In addition to fundraising and kick starting this global campaign by building more than three of these plants in Honduras, AugaClara also trains engineers in other countries in how to build and maintain these plants. The driving hope is that the open-source design tool will be picked up and developed by other engineers who are interested in the same end goals.

These projects are shining examples of what it means to take a hands-on approach to solving a global problem. Instead of volleying in politics and pointing fingers, these programs—and many, many others like them across the world—are finding unique and innovative ways bolster organic development in countries where people die unnecessarily every day.

Open source technology like this isn’t just limited to water clarification. Computer technology and software development initiatives continue to permeate the globe, making their own mark by promoting curiosity and accessibility to information. Ultimately, it will be work like this that equalizes not just standards of living, but an ability to reach those standards as well.

***

Jeremy is an engineer and advocate of process optimization and renewable energy.

Academics have carried out a detailed analysis of the 700 head injuries suffered by characters in the Asterix comic books, in a paper published by a respected medical journal…

The researchers, led by Marcel Kamp at Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf, conclude: “The favourable outcome is astonishing, since outcome of traumatic brain injury in the ancient world is believed to have been worse than today and also since no diagnostic or therapeutic procedures were performed.”

Their paper, published in the official journal of the European Association of Neurosurgical Socities, known as Acta Neurochirurgica, sets out with no apparent irony their aim to “analyse the epidemiology and specific risk factors of traumatic brain injury in the Asterix illustrated comic books”.

These positions are unlikely to change, but there is a way to please both sides, and that is reducing demand for abortion. To do this you first have to work out why women have abortions. Though there can be a number of reasons, two of the most common are not using contraception and women being pressured into sex. Therefore the way to deal with this, as Cath Elliot pointed out a while ago, is to increase contraceptive use amongst men and help women escape domestically violent situations. Thus you have less unwanted pregnancies and so less demand for abortions.

Who could object to this? Campaigners for liberalising access to abortion don’t actually enjoying the thought of abortions, so a reduction in demand wouldn’t be seen as a bad thing, as well as rescuing more women from abusive relationships. For those who genuinely think it murder, they should also support a plan that would see a reduction in the number of abortions. The only people who would object are the misogynists, who see abortion as a way to control women, and view sex education and promoting contraceptive use amongst men as immoral, but they wouldn’t be able to hide behind the excuse of protecting the unborn anymore.

‘There may be some evidence that cousins marrying one another can be harmful,’ he told an audience at the Hay Festival.

‘We should be concerned about that as there can be a lot of hidden genetic damage. Children are much more likely to get two copies of a damaged gene. ‘Bradford is very inbred. There is a huge amount of cousins marrying each other there.’

The problem occurs not as a result of a one off marriage between cousins, but rather through persistent inbreeding.

He was criticised by Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation:

‘I know many Muslims who have married their cousins and none of them have had a problem with their children. ‘Obviously, we don’t want any children to be born disabled who don’t need to be born disabled, so I would advise genetic screening before first cousins marry.

‘But I find Steve Jones’s comments unworthy of a professor. Using language like “inbreeding” to describe cousins marrying is completely inappropriate and further demonises Muslims.’

Mr. Shafiq has often condemned practices such as forced marriages and ‘honour’ killings, so is no Anjem-Choudary-rent-a-quote, and he advocates screenings, but I think he is wrong about this. Not all cousin marriages lead to children with disabilities. Nor are the children somehow lesser as a result. Yet nobody wants children to be born with serious health conditions, and British Pakistanis were between nine and thirteen times more likely on average to have a children with recessive disorders than the rest of the populace. Given that 55% marry their cousins, it is not unreasonable to call that inbreeding, especially as people who marry their cousins tend to who have children who are more likely to do the same, thus perpetuating the problem.

Raising a serious public health issue is not demonising a community. Anyone who watched the Disptaches programme on this last year would have been struck by the refusal of many interviewed to even concede that there might have been a genetic issue, whilst others spoke of a culture of fear the last time this was subject to a big campaign in the 1990s.

Nor did Professor Jones just look at Pakistanis, talking about how there is more inbreeding throughout the country then in generally realised:

“We are all more incestuous than we realise.

“In Northern Ireland lots of people share the same surname which suggests a high level of inbreeding.

“There’s a lot of surname diversity in London but if you look at the Outer Herbrides there are rather fewer surnames in relation to the number of people.”

Tazeen Ahmad, the presenter, was of British Pakistani stock and has a history of genetic disorder in her family; her grandparents were first cousins, three of her uncles were born deaf and five of her aunties died in their first few years. Ms. Ahmad focused on attitudes to first cousin marriage, why it was happening and what could be done about it.

There are a number of reasons for first cousin marriages continuing, despite the research into the genetic impact. Standard cultural ones include keeping property within the family, familiarity with one’s intended spouse and strengthening bonds between different branches. Younger British Pakistanis confessed to pressure and emotional blackmail when it came to cousin marriage, with the izzat (‘honour’) of the family being stressed.

Yet the interviews also revealed a high level of denial and ignorance. First cousins who married (somewhat understandably) refused to accept that this could have been the reason for their children’s disability, blaming instead fate or Western medicine. Others pointed to non-disabled children as the result of cousin marriages as evidence that there was no link, and kept insisting that there was no information available on the subject. One religious ‘scholar’ refused point blank to consider any medical evidence, then repeatedly claimed he was not aware of any evidence. One man said simply: “why wouldn’t you want to marry your cousin?”

Ms Ahmad asked (as did others), why this issue wasn’t discussed enough, and why there isn’t a public campaign for it, especially as the last campaign was in the 1990s. The main reasons were a fear of offence and an ad hoc approach. The person who led the campaign in 1997 spoke of people tearing up the leaflets or writing counter messages on them. No MP whose constituency is significantly affected by this would speak out, with former MP Ann Cryer, one of the few politicians to make a stand on the matter, pointing out that those MPs did not wish to alienate a powerful voting block.

What then can be done, and is being done, about the problem? In many areas the health focus has shifted to advising individual families. A GPs’ surgery in Birmingham (where the doctors are British Pakistanis) is actively discouraging cousin marriages, and working with religious leaders to amplify the message. Other religious figures (such as an imam in Forest Gate) preach to their congregations on the dangers. What other barriers are there though?

Salma Yaqoob condemned the practice and warned that the fight against cousin marriages has become politicised. Others picked up on this, saying that campaigning against things like terrorism and forced marriage in the British Pakistani community has led to a siege mentality, with criticism of first cousin marriage being seen as an attack on the community. This seemed a somewhat weak argument, given the hostility to the last campaign, which occurred before the focus on terrorism or forced marriage (in 1997).

Where should the focus be now? Doctors and health professionals should talk about the risks more, but as the programme showed, medical evidence is not enough, as plenty of people will just ignore the evidence even when it is presented to them. Religious leaders should be co-opted in, and politicians need to be more willing to speak out on it, even if they risk upsetting some voters.

Autism is an overwhelmingly male diagnosis – it has been described as the “extreme male brain”. Boys with the diagnosis outnumber girls by between 10 and 15 to one…

But in the developing story of autism – interest in which has increased hugely in the last decade – girls have been neglected. That omission will be remedied this week with the first conference on autistic spectrum disorders in women and girls. One aim will be to examine whether the condition has been underdiagnosed in females – and what links there may be with eating disorders.

According to Janet Treasure, professor of psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College, London, around a fifth of girls diagnosed with anorexia have autistic spectrum features and 20 to 30 per cent may have exhibited rigidity and perfectionism in childhood. Anorexia has been called the female Asperger’s (the mild version of autism).

A one year old baby boy, who can be known only as Baby RB for legal reasons, was born with a rare genetic condition called congenital myasthenic syndrome and has been in hospital since birth.

Now, the hospital wants to withdraw Baby RB’s life support, because they claim that his quality of life is so low that it would not be in his best interests to try to save him. So his parents are going to the High Court- with his mother reported to be supporting the hospital’s bid. The parents are ‘amicably separated’ but both are reported to have spent long periods of time at their son’s bedside.

The father’s lawyers argue that Baby RB’s brain is not affected. He can see, hear and interact, and enjoys listening to music and being read to. They are submitting footage to the court, which they say show’s Baby RB playing with his toys. Christopher Cuddihee, a solicitor acting for the father, told The Sunday Telegraph: “This is a tragic case. The father feels very strongly that Baby RB has a quality of life that demands the trust should continue to provide life-sustaining treatment. “The father clearly adores his son and hopes to demonstrate to the court that the trust’s application should be rejected.”

Now for my reactions to this case. I just can’t believe that the hospital would even consider withdrawing the life support, especially when you consider that people with Baby RB’s condition ‘can expect to live a relatively normal life with medication,’ according to BBC News. Yes, Baby RB appears to be severely affected by his condition, but the most important thing to remember is that this is not his fault. He did not ask to be born with his condition, and I certainly don’t think he deserves to die as a result of it.

As a disabled person, I know several people who are severely affected by disability. They cannot walk and don’t have verbal communication, but they are all extremely intelligent. Thanks to the support of their families, they have all led good lives, of which, I am sure, they would change very little. That’s why I have only good wishes for the baby, and I agree with and support his father’s efforts to keep him alive.

However, I understand and accept that this is a subject on which you may not agree with my opinion. So I’m asking you to share yours with us. Should Baby RB be allowed to live a life of the best possible quality for as long as possible, or should he die too soon, simply because a hospital is not prepared to provide him with the support he requires?

So are these differences significant and, more to the point, are they significant enough so that when they are brought together, there might be tangible benefits for people who are mixed-race? The answer from some scientists who still do what could be called “racial science” appears to be yes on both counts. Dr Mark Shriver, who studies human origins at Penn State University, is interested in ancestry, variations in skin and hair colour, facial features and height….

Shriver’s work has uncovered something else that is very interesting. He finds that mixed-race people are more symmetrical than the rest of us, and being more symmetrical translates into being more attractive, having less infection, being less stressed, and having greater genetic diversity. Professor Bill Amos at Cambridge University has also been studying the genetic basis of human disease. He finds that in humans, an individual’s level of genetic diversity can predict with astonishing accuracy how likely they are to survive parasites and infectious disease. In a recent study in Kenya, he found that low levels of diversity were strongly associated with death before the age of five.

It’s always useful to know more about the science of anything. And such work provides a powerful counter to those who oppose mixed-race marriages because the children will be ‘wrong’, as the children will be genetically stronger. As Dr. Prasad puts it:

When someone like me chooses a partner of another race, some family member is guaranteed to ask the same question as that Louisiana Justice of the Peace: “But what will the children be?”

Yet I am also uncomfortable with the talk about mixed-race children being more attractive. Different people find different people attractive. Some people have more admirers than others, and that is fine. But to talk about attractiveness in terms of race (even mixed-race) is worrying. It might be the case that on average mixed-race people are considered more attractive by more people, but it is such a generalisation as to be pointless. Any discussion that seeks to grade races on the basis of looks is dangerous.

“Shisha is an Arabic water-pipe in which fruit-scented tobacco is burnt using coal, passed through an ornate water vessel and inhaled through a hose.

The Centre for Tobacco Control Research said it was difficult to know exactly how much carbon monoxide one cigarette produced, due to the differences in smokers’ inhalations.

But measuring carbon monoxide in exhaled breath showed a normal non-smoker’s level to be three parts CO per million parts of air (ppm) (3% of blood not working properly), a light smoker to have 10-20% of blood not working properly, and a heavy smoker 30-40%.”

I suppose it will give the anti-smoking people something to do. Designing new posters, calling for film scenes with shisha to be rated 18+, and walking around the streets badgering people about their habits.

“Up until this year, the world was making remarkable progress in whittling down this disease. Since the year 2000, seven of the worst-afflicted countries in sub-Saharan Africa have slashed malaria-deaths by 50 percent. It has a great knock0on effect too: for every £1 spent on malaria prevention, Africa gains £12 in economic growth, because people can work instead of lying sick and dying. It was a sign that aid, matched by good African government, can produce inspirational results.

But then something began to change – at first imperceptibly – in the forgotten forests of Western Cambodia, where the Khmer Rouge held their last stand-off. The drug that is most effective at treating malaria is called artemisinin: it shocks the parasite out of your system and saves your life. But in South-East Asia, horrified doctors have discovered that the malaria parasite is becoming resistant to it. In a Darwinian arms race, it has begun to evolve a way to beat the treatment. It is taking twice as long to work – and soon it will have defeated the medicine altogether.”

“GIVE Richard Dawkins a child for a week’s summer camp and he will try to give you an atheist for life…

The five-day camp in Somerset (motto: “It’s beyond belief”) is for children aged eight to 17 and will rival traditional faith-based breaks run by the Scouts and church groups.

Budding atheists will be given lessons to arm themselves in the ways of rational scepticism. There will be sessions in moral philosophy and evolutionary biology along with more conventional pursuits such as trekking and tug-of-war.”

This doesn’t seem particularly problematic to me. We already have camps with religious themes, while the children are just there to have fun and marshmallows, so won’t really care what they are being told. However, it will give more ammunition to those who accuse Richard Dawkins (and others) of turning atheism into a religion.

In a recent blog entry I alluded to the prospect of utilizing science diplomacy to help promote world peace. Following President Barack Obama’s ground-breaking speech in Cairo, it now seems that dormant rhetoric will soon be put into imminent action.

Intentions to support scientific initiatives in the Islamic world as part of Obama’s vision for promoting peaceful relations between the United States and countries with a Muslim majority were revealed, as highlighted in David Bruggeman’s recent blog entry on Science Diplomacy and the Cairo Address.

It seemed too good to be true a couple of months ago when Dr. Vaughan Turekian, Chief International Officer for AAAS and Director for the Center for Science Diplomacy, foretold in his talk at Harvard how a new era of science diplomacy might be afoot.

Turekian had defined science diplomacy as:

the use of international science cooperation with the goal of building or establishing relationships between and among societies.

Just prior to that, The Times reported that Dr Harold Varmus, Noble Laureate and co-chair of the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology had asserted that American diplomacy had previously undervalued the role of medicine and science in fostering friendly relations with developing nations. Varmus argued that US investment in fighting tropical infections and chronic conditions like heart disease and diabetes in poor countries would transform international perceptions of the US.

When U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year, no one was sure how much of what she promised would really transpire when she claimed that the new vanguard of foreign policy rests in the deployment of diplomacy as encapsulated in the phrase she helped to coin: ‘smart power’.

Smart power is a balance of hard military power with the soft power of diplomacy, development, cultural exchanges, education and science. One of the most promising of the smart power tools is science diplomacy, the practice of supporting and promoting scientific exchanges, cooperation and research between the United States and other nations, sometimes nations that have no other diplomatic relations with the United States.

A U.S. delegation was recently sent to Damascus to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, where the implementation of science diplomacy has successfully proved to yield agreements to Seek Collaboration in Water, Energy, Agriculture and other Fields.

But what is most unique is Obama’s shrewd tactic to reference historical contributions made by other civilizations in order to give the present full context. This approach is both courageous and eye opening:

it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation.

Obama has now given a new edge to science diplomacy – combining it with a sort of ‘heritage diplomacy’, he knows he can take things much further. Since then, John Esposito amongst others has also observed that by focusing on our interdependence, shared values and common interests, Obama has generated a new mindset and paradigm for U.S.-Muslim World relations. In the mean time, administration officials are working to elucidate the fuzzy spots in Obama’s science diplomacy as summarised in a recent State Department factsheet ‘A NEW BEGINNING: THE U.S. AND MUSLIM COMMUNITIES AROUND THE WORLD‘.

So what next? Obama’s speech was a watershed moment in history that raised expectations and has left us all in anticipation. We have yet to see his all pledges for action fully materialise but as Obama’s incisive words continue to reverberate, the future looks brighter.

———————–
This was first published on Prometheus, a blog run from the Centre for Science and Technology Policy Research in the University of Colorado, USA.

“The heart of this is an argument that scientifically the concept of large races- based on geographical units and imagined cultural communities- make about as much sense as the sun circling the earth does, and it is based on the same kind of data- not scientific proof or experiment but the supposition that an apparant distinction (skin colour in this case) is a real one. What goes on above the skin, as Stephen Jones argues, doesn’t tell you much about what goes on below.”

If the amendment is passed, tissue samples for creating human/animal embroys can be taken from people who are not considered mentally capable of making their own decisions. Now, obviously there are some areas (such as financial ones), in which it is right for carers/relatives to have a degree of control, as that might be the only practical situation. I cannot, however, see any rationale for this. As Sarah points out:

Leading learning disability charities said they knew little about this amendment to the Bill, which has, not surprisingly, received very little publicity… if this amendment to the Bill is passed on Wednesday, it will not only sweep away 25 years of progress in medical ethics. It will also sweep away too many years of hard work by Disability Rights campaigners to convince the mainstream world that we are human, too, and that they should do Nothing About Us, Without Us.

I think that Murray is one of those rare thinkers who put forward these opinions because he was genuinely searching for the truth. For instance Obama argues against welfare reform which Murray also propagated, but which according to a lot of serious people has played a big role in getting black people in the inner cities out of poverty. The fact it hasn’t been accompanied with health care reform is another matter.

Also in Murray’s favour is the fact that he was one of the few right-wing thinkers/pundits who saw the brilliance# in Obama’s post Rev. Wright speech on Race.

My review of John McWhorter’s book, ‘Losing the Race’ is also relevant. Anyways, the speech is after the jump.

NPR
October 28, 1994
SHOW: All Things Considered (NPR 4:30 pm ET)

Charles Murray’s Political Expediency Denounced
BYLINE: BARACK OBAMA
SECTION: News; Domestic
LENGTH: 635 words

HIGHLIGHT: Commentator Barack Obama finds that Charles Murray, author of the controversial “The Bell Curve,” demonstrates not scientific expertise but spurious political motivation in his conclusions about race and IQ.

BARACK OBAMA, Commentator: Charles Murray is inviting American down a dangerous path.

NOAH ADAMS, Host: Civil rights lawyer, Barack Obama.

Mr. OBAMA: The idea that inferior genes account for the problems of the poor in general, and blacks in particular, isn’t new, of course. Racial supremacists have been using IQ tests to support their theories since the turn of the century. The arguments against such dubious science aren’t new either. Scientists have repeatedly told us that genes don’t vary much from one race to another, and psychologists have pointed out the role that language and other cultural barriers can play in depressing minority test scores, and no one disputes that children whose mothers smoke crack when they’re pregnant are going to have developmental problems.

Now, it shouldn’t take a genius to figure out that with early intervention such problems can be prevented. But Mr. Murray isn’t interested in prevention. He’s interested in pushing a very particular policy agenda, specifically, the elimination of affirmative action and welfare programs aimed at the poor. With one finger out to the political wind, Mr. Murray has apparently decided that white America is ready for a return to good old-fashioned racism so long as it’s artfully packaged and can admit for exceptions like Colin Powell. It’s easy to see the basis for Mr. Murray’s calculations. After watching their income stagnate or decline over the past decade, the majority of Americans are in an ugly mood and deeply resent any advantages, realor perceived, that minorities may enjoy.

I happen to think Mr. Murray’s wrong, not just in his estimation of black people, but in his estimation of the broader American public. But I do think Mr. Murray’s right about the growing distance between the races. The violence and despair of the inner city are real. So’s the problem of street crime. The longer we allow these problems to fester, the easier it becomes for white America to see all blacks as menacing and for black America to see all whites as racist. To close that gap, we’re going to have to do more than denounce Mr. Murray’s book. We’re going to have to take concrete and deliberate action. For blacks, that means taking greater responsibility for the state of our own communities. Too many of us use white racism as an excuse for self-defeating behavior. Too many of our young people think education is a white thing and that the values of hard work and discipline andself-respect are somehow outdated.

That being said, it’s time for all of us, and now I’m talking about the larger American community, to acknowledge that we’ve never even come close to providing equal opportunity to the majority of black children. Real opportunity would mean quality prenatal care for all women and well-funded and innovative public schools for all children. Real opportunity would mean a job at a living wage for everyone who was willing to work, jobs that can return some structure and dignity to people’s lives and give inner-city children something more than a basketball rim to shoot for. In the short run, such ladders of opportunity are going to cost more, not less, than either welfare or affirmative action. But, in the long run, our investment should payoff handsomely. That we fail to make this investment is just plain stupid. It’s not the result of an intellectual deficit. It’s theresult of a moral deficit.

ADAMS: Barack Obama is a civil rights lawyer and writer. He lives in Chicago.

Today is the big day people!!! If the scientists in Switzerland at CERN get anything right, we won’t get sucked by a massive black hole. It’s a funny video though… that’s something I suppose.

The most powerful physics experiment ever built, the Large Hadron Collider will re-create the conditions just after the Big Bang in an attempt to answer fundamental questions of science and the universe itself.

Tabloidy headlines aside, the scientists say that nothing big can theoretically be destroyed. But who belives in scientists eh? Certainly not Sarah Palin and she may be the American Vice President soon.
Look out for a flurry of similar headlines in tomorrow’s papers. Let’s hope they know what they’re doing. A good BBC piece on the whole experiment is here.

Physics World has reported that physics in China is booming. Chinese scientists now publish more papers than the UK and Germany. In fact, at the current rate, by 2012 it will be churning out more physics articles than the entire number of science articles published by US researchers.

Werner Marx, an information scientist from the Max Planck Institute in Germany, said, “Usually scientific development in nations does not show such a strong acceleration as we have seen in China, so it will be interesting to see how it responds and develops in the future.”

Well, it won’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what the impact of that strong acceleration will be. By the way, Angela is a friend and a new blogger, writing mostly about science. Go check out her blog.

With nuclear, not a day goes by without a jaw-dropping news item. The industry news is chock full of ‘NO WAY!’ moments. Much of it is darkly, surreally comedic. If you were to write a sitcom that involved some of the nuclear incidents I’ve blogged in the last few weeks, the show would bomb as too far-fetched.

The nuclear power plant that is actively contributing to global warming. The Japanese nuclear recycling plant which will release a collective dose of radiation in the next 40 years equivalent to half of that released during the Chernobyl disaster. The Canadian nuclear plant where they lost a piece of the reactor radioactive enough to give you a year’s worth of radiation exposure in a few minutes.

The American nuclear waste storage facility with the $32 billion cost overrun. The French rivers that had ‘only’ 18,000 litres of uranium solution poured into them this month. The 100 workers at the same plant who were ’slightly’ contaminated this month. The other French nuclear leak this month, from a pipe that had been faulty for ’several years’.

And yet, there are still people who live in the 1950s utopian fantasy that nuclear energy will solve all our problems including global warming. Jesus have mercy on their souls (or something). Why all this money keeps getting spent on nuclear energy rather than on renewable sources continues to mystify me. Anyway – good to see Greenpeace trying to find ways to challenge the myths around nuclear power.

There are two problems with this campaign.

The first is that one wonders whether £10 million of our money has been well spent on telling people to make sure that they actually know what they are drinking. Most people tend to realise when they have had a few, because alcohol has a physical and mental effect on you. People are not obliged to drink a particular amount, so there can be no complaint about glass sizes.

The second reason, and the more pertinent one, is that the information given out by the campaign (at least on the glossy television advertisements), is wrong. We are told that a pint of beer is three units, and that a bottle of wine is ten units. A few are, but most are not. The way to calculate the number of units in a drink is to take the strength percentage and multiply it by the volume of the glass (in millimetres), then divide by a thousand.

To take wine as an example, the strength is usually anywhere from 9.5% to 14.5%. So a 9.5% bottle at 750ml would yield 7.125 units, while a 14.5% bottle at 750ml would yield 10.875 units. For beer, the average pint (at 568ml) usually has a strength of 3.6% to 6.0%. At 3.6% a pint would contain 2.0448 units, while at 6.0% a pint would contain 3.408 units. Therefore there are significant differences in the number of units in a range of drinks one would find in most pubs.

The government’s campaign is at best wrong and at worst counterproductive, as people will believe they know the alcohol content of their drinks without even bothering to check the percentage of the alcohol. All at a cost of ten million pounds. Nor are the recommended limits for men and women based on anything other than guesswork. A woman drinking one pint of Stella two times a week is classed as a binge drinker under these guidelines. Many Britons drink too much, but that is nothing to do with glass sizes, or not knowing the number of units; it is because they want to.