Better than Sunshine Units

Posted by Danny on Monday, March 21, 2011 at 5:54 pm

In response to the partial meltdown of the Fukushima nuclear power plant following the earthquake on March 11, 2011, there’s been an understandable but unfortunate rise in opposition to nuclear power in Canada (and elsewhere, of course) by folks like me with limited and patchy knowledge of the physics behind radiation, and cynically advanced by stakeholders in public fear and, probably, providers of competing energy sources like fossil fuels.  This is unfortunate if you feel that

1. nuclear power is a contending alternative to fossil fuels for sustaining our energy needs while we seek to transition to cleaner, more sustainable technologies and lifestyles, or that
2. public fear is, on balance, bad.

I wanted to post about this because there are a few public scientists and science-literate public figures who are trying to make the available data digestible (even appetizing, considering the circumstances) for folks whose dominant sources of information may be less than disinterested in public ignorance.  If you have nine minutes, consider watching Martyn Poliakoff covering the workings of a nuclear reactor, the meltdown process, why the sea-water pumped into the plant as an emergency measure will compromise its future viability, and why potassium-iodide pills are being used as a precaution against radiation sickness.  I found this to be a valuable and concise primer.  (Direct link here.)

If “radiation” is equated uncritically with “badness,” it becomes impossible to judge the gravity of situations involving it, or to make decisions about its use as compared with, say, a coal-burning power plant, the byproducts of which seem to be more readily quantified in public discourse.  The enterprise of usefully quantifying radiation (that is, the harmful form of radiation pertinent to living near nuclear reactors or eating bananas) has been recently undertaken by XKCD’s Randall Munroe to provide a sense of context and scale.  The blog post featuring the chart in question is over here, but consider also reading Phil Plait’s brief discussion of it, here at Bad Astronomy.

P.S.: Carlin (or Yermus) fans: remember Sunshine Units?

Gems and Ink

Posted by Danny on Friday, November 26, 2010 at 3:27 pm

There’s an increasingly rare type of fountain pen ink that was discontinued in 2001 called Parker Penman.  The problem seems to have been that the ink was unusually saturated and included a suspension of metallic particles, achieving vibrant colours and fun reflective effects (as Diamine Majestic Blue is known to, today) but also clogging the pens used with a greater frequency than Parker wanted to be liable for.  Naturally, these inks have become sought after for their now unique properties and historic cache by aficionados who are prepared to maintain their pens more fastidiously, so the price and mythos of the ink have grown.  Penman sapphire is the most expensive ink I know of, selling often for more than $50 a bottle (current in-production inks tend to peak at $30 and most can be had for less than $12); Penman Ruby and Penman Emerald follow closely behind.  Gemstone names are fairly common in inks and there are huge differences between the “ruby” of one brand and another.  However, because of the enduring allure of the Penman inks, new inks that share their names are often decried for being the “wrong” colour—“that’s not sapphire, it’s too light, etc.”

What’s the best way to resolve disputes around emotionally-charged, contending aesthetics and nostalgia-induced disappointment?  Science.  The tremendous success of the Periodic Table of Videos (direct link here, or go here to read my ancient post) has encouraged further chemistry-based videos with the ever-beloved Dr. Martyn Poliakoff, including a recent one on the chemistry of gemstones.  If you’re interested, you’ll get to learn about diamonds, sapphires, and rubies; more importantly, you’ll see Martyn’s wedding photos.