The European chemists organisation – EuChemS – has just added to the torrent of environmental drivel with their new periodic table. They’re trying to tell us which elements are going to run out when and thus tell us all that we’ve got to recycle. The entire process is bunkum because they’ve not understood the first thing about the supply of minerals. They simply do not know the meaning of mineral reserve that is.
Just for the edification of anyone who does drool when contemplating their own nasal effluvia – you know, a member of Greenpeace, that sort of person – a mineral reserve is something we’ve proven, yes proven, that we can extract from using today’s technology, at today’s prices, and make a profit. It costs a lot of money to prove these facts. Thus we only prove for what we’re likely to use in the next few decades. Mineral reserves are, to a reasonable level of accuracy, just the working stock of current mines.
There is no relationship, no relationship at all, between our mineral reserves and how much of that element or mineral is available to us to use. Really do grasp this point. It’s not that the amount is larger. It’s not that the multiple is high. It’s that there is no relationship at all. There are, for example, absolutely no mineral reserves of hafnium anywhere on the planet. Nothing, absolutely nada. At current rates of usage we might run out some few billion years after the Sun goes Red Giant. The European Chemical Society tries to tell us that there’s a serious risk of running short of Hafnium in the next 100 years. This is so gibberingly stupid that it would get a laugh from German geologists – I know because I told some this once and they giggled. Seriously, German – German – geologists, giggling.
Tim Worstall, “More Environmental Drivel With New Periodic Table – We’re Going To Run Out Of Helium”, Continental Telegraph, 2019-01-23.
February 25, 2019
QotD: Defining mineral reserves
October 28, 2018
The actual science behind the “leaves on the line” excuse for late trains
While it doesn’t explain the “wrong type of snow” excuse also deployed by announcers when Britain’s trains run inexplicably slow in winter, here’s the scientific facts about the “leaves on the line” excuse:
Autumn is here, and for most of us, it’s a time of beauty as the leaves cascade through an array of hues before pirouetting down from the trees. If you have to travel by train, however, you might tire of ‘leaves on the line’ being the supposed cause of train delays. It turns out to be more than just a flimsy excuse – and particular chemical reactions are partly to blame.
We’ve previously looked at the chemical cause of the colours of autumn leaves. By the time they make their descent from trees to the ground, most of these colours have passed. What remains is a brown husk, mainly made up of cellulose. Cellulose is the biological polymer that is the main component of plant cell walls.
Once leaves have fallen from trees, they simply decompose over time. Their presence isn’t usually a problem until it comes to the train network. When leaves fall on train lines, they can reduce the grip between the train wheels and the track. This, in turn, can lead to longer braking distances for trains. By disrupting the contact between the train wheels and the track, the leaves also prevent signalling equipment detecting trains. This can then cause train delays.
What makes leaves affect train tracks in this way? Scientists have a few suggestions, and it’s likely that they all contribute to the problem to some extent.
May 29, 2018
“[T]here’s just no way that we’re going to get to fentanyl harm reduction without [legalization]”
Tim Worstall reports on a recent Nebraska drug bust involving enough fentanyl “to kill 26 million people” (that is, about 120 lbs of the stuff) and explains why the current enforcement regime is going to have to change:
Now, I’m in favour of all of these drugs being legalised anyway. It’s the idiot’s body, up to them what they ingest in whatever manner. If it kills them, well, their choice. The argument that they shouldn’t therefore we must prevent them doesn’t cut much ice with me.
But put that aside and think in a utilitarian manner. If we can prevent overdoses and wasted lives then we should. But only if how we’re going to do it is better than the results of either not doing so or even using some other manner of dealing with the problem.
It’s arguable that clamping down on certain illegal drugs does at least limit their penetration of the market. I don’t think this is true of heroin but perhaps it is potentially true. It’s absolutely not true of fentanyl. For that’s a synthetic opioid. A decent chemist can synthesise it – a good one can make the precursors as well. There is no need to get opium, morphine or any other poppy related product that we already control.
It’s also, as we can see, alarmingly cheap already. Easy to smuggle in vast quantities of doses.
There’s another problem with it. The difference between a dose that gives a high and one that kills is pretty narrow. And it’s an extremely potent drug as well. Quantities for either are small – smaller than can generally be measured by users with candles and teaspoons.
It’s cheap, easy enough to make, has no precursors we can control, kills easily enough and dosage is alarmingly difficult to get right. So, what do we do?
We’re not going to get rid of it for all of the above reasons. So, we need to do damage limitation. Stopping people from dying from it sounds like a pretty good idea actually. And that means that we need it to be pure and in known dosages. That is, we need it to be legal.
I think all drugs should be legal, hey, your body and all that. But even if you think that harm reduction is a more important goal there’s just no way that we’re going to get to fentanyl harm reduction without legality of it. For that’s the only way we will get it in known doses which don’t kill people. And we’re most assuredly going to keep getting it even if we don’t legalise it. Our choices are people tooting on illegal fentanyl and dying or people tooting on legal fentayl and not dying. Not such a toughie that question, is it?
May 9, 2018
What Makes Spicy Foods Spicy | Earth Lab
BBC Earth Lab
Published on 24 Aug 2017Greg Foot explains why some food is spicy!
April 27, 2018
What is fire? | James May Q&A (Ep36) | Head Squeeze
BBC Earth Lab
Published on 30 Aug 2013Discover the scientific nature of fire with James May in this Head squeeze video Q&A.
Fire, pretty essential really and something we often take for granted, but what exactly is it? Well to create fire you need three things – some fuel, a heat source and oxygen. If we remove any one of these, then the fire will go out. When we apply sufficient heat to the fuel for it to reach its ignition point, the material will combust in the presence of oxygen.
Combustion is actually the process by which the fuel decomposes, its molecules breaking down, releasing and recombining with the oxygen to produce water, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and all sorts of other things.
The flames which we see are composed of incandescent soot, this is not fire, as ethanol for example, can produce fire without visible flames. Incandescence increases with temperature and so we can estimate the heat of the flames moving from red, through orange, to the hottest of all – white heat.
There’s much more to fire than this and James May explains all in this fantastic head squeeze video. If you enjoyed it as much as we did subscribe for more, like, share and give us your thoughts in the lively comments below.
To find out exactly how things burn check out Fran Scott’s Live Experiment: http://youtu.be/PKtfh8aHXQo
February 12, 2018
Is glass really made from sand? – James May’s Q&A (Ep 11) – Head Squeeze
BBC Earth Lab
Published on 14 Mar 2013James May delves into what glass is actually made from. Is it really made from sand?
November 8, 2017
Why Don’t Country Flags Use The Color Purple?
After Skool
Published on 17 Oct 2017For centuries purple dye was worth more than gold. The dye used to produce purple fabric came from a sea snail that only lived off the shores of modern day Lebanon. Because it was so rare, purple became associated with royalty. This is the reason you don’t see purple on country flags. It was just too expensive to produce.
Sometimes the simplest questions have extraordinary answers.
October 24, 2017
Why Women Fainted So Much in the 19th Century
Today I Found Out
Published on 8 Oct 2016In this video:
Dropping like flies (or at least as far as many stories indicate), it seems as if well-bred ladies in the 1800s struggled to maintain consciousness when faced with even the slightest emotional or physical shock. Over the years there have been several theories as to why this seemed to happen, from the women’s garb to simply conforming to societal expectations.
Want the text version?: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2015/05/women-fainted-much-19th-century/
August 23, 2017
Playing with fire – James May Q&A Extras (Ep36) – Head Squeeze
Published on 30 Aug 2013
James May reminisces about his misspent youth playing with matches and debates the merits of using foam to put out flames from petrol.
July 26, 2017
What Kind of Finish Should You Use? | WOOD FINISHING BASICS
Published on 24 Feb 2017
Don’t be intimidated! Wood finishing is simple and easy. This video will get you started with the basics.
July 20, 2017
July 17, 2017
Debunking some myths about sulfites in wine
By way of Scientific American, here’s a bit of clarity from Monica Reinagel about the issue of sulfites in both red and white wine and what relationship it has to wine headaches:
Myth #1: Organic or bio-dynamic wines are sulfite free.
In order to be certified organic, a wine must not contain added sulfites. However, sulfites are produced naturally during the fermentation process as a by-product of yeast metabolism. Even though no sulfites are added, organic wine may contain between 10-40 ppm sulfites.
You may also see wines labeled as being made from organic grapes, which is not the same as organic wine. Wine made from organic grapes may contain up to 100 ppm sulfites.
If you do get a hold of wine made without sulfites, I don’t suggest keeping it in the cellar very long. Wine made without sulfites—especially white wine — is much more prone to oxidation and spoilage.
Myth #2: Red wine is higher in sulfites than white wine
Ironically, the exact opposite is likely to be true. Red wines tend to be higher in tannins than white wines. Tannins are polyphenols found in the skins, seeds, and stems of the grapes. They also act as antioxidants and preservatives so less sulfite is needed.
In fact, while European regulations allow up to 210 ppm sulfites in white wine, the limit for red wine is only 160 ppm.
Other factors that affect how much sulfite is needed are the residual sugar and the acidity of the wine. Dryer wines with more acid will tend to be lower in sulfites. Sweet wines and dessert wines, on the other hand, tend to be quite high in sulfites.
Myth #3: Sulfites in wine cause headaches
The so-called “red wine headache” is definitely a real thing. But it’s probably not due to sulfites. For one thing, white wine is higher in sulfites than red wine but less likely to cause a headache. That suggests that it’s probably something else in red wine that’s responsible for the notorious red wine headache. Other candidates include histamines, tyramine, tannins, not to mention the alcohol itself!
June 17, 2017
What Happens When You Take Steroids? – Earth Lab
Published on 8 Jun 2017
Have you ever wondered what happens to a human body when it takes anabolic steroids? Well, Greg Foot is here to explain all the science you need to know about steroids and why people use them for muscle growth.
June 2, 2017
How does deodorant work? I James May Q&A I Head Squeeze
Published on 11 Oct 2013
Get a whiff of this! James May delves in to the mechanics of deodorant.
Did you know that our sweat doesn’t smell? Made up of various things like our diet and genetics, it actually does not pong. Rather it’s when your sweat mixes with the bacteria on your skin that it releases an odor that can sometimes clear a room. Your armpits and pubic areas contain thousands of hairs which then hold on to your sweat and bacteria.
Us humans aren’t alone in smelling, many animals have some serious BO too. It’s not such a bad thing for them, it helps them mark out territory, repelling enemies and, most importantly, attracting mates.
Deodorants work by killing the bacteria on your skin and they also work as an anti-perspirant by reducing the amount of sweat. No more BO!
May 25, 2017
How Does Glue Work? (feat. VSauce) – James May’s Q&A (Ep 9) – Head Squeeze
Published on 28 Feb 2013
Michael Stevens from Vsauce makes a guest appearance with James May to discuss how glue actually works.
James May’s Q&A:
With his own unique spin, James May asks and answers the oddball questions we’ve all wondered about from ‘What Exactly Is One Second?’ to ‘Is Invisibility Possible?’A handy site if you’re unsure which glue to use on a particular surface: http://www.thistothat.com/
Glue Strength Test: http://www.honortronics.com/superglueandepoxytest.html
History of Glue: http://inventors.about.com/od/gstartinventions/a/glue.html
How to make homemade glue: http://sustainableecho.com/homemade-natural-glue/
5 Best uses for Superglue: http://www.doityourself.com/stry/5-best-uses-for-super-glue
