Solar power is only available during the day, and people need power at night too. As a result, the people of a town will either need a lot of storage, or a back-up electric generator for use at night and on cloudy days. These are expensive, and use gasoline (generally) and they are hard to maintain for an individual. Central generated alternate power is cheaper, but the wires have to be maintained. As a result, solar power is duck curve, or canon curve power. It never frees you from hydrocarbons and power companies, and it usually saves no money or energy.
People need power at twilight and dawn too, and sunlight barely generates any power during these hours, and sometimes clouds appear and disappear suddenly while folks expect uniform power to their lights. The mismatch between supply and demand means that your backup generator, must run on and off suddenly. It’s difficult for small, home generators, but impossible for big central generators. In order to have full power by evening, the big generators need to run through the day. The result is that, for most situations, there is no value to solar power.
Installed solar power has not decreased the amount of generation needed, just changed when it is needed.
Power leveling through storage will address this problem, but it’s hardly done. Elon Musk has suggested that the city should pay people to use a home battery power leveler, a “power wall” or an unused electric car to provide electricity at night, twilight, and on cloudy days. It’s a legitimate idea, but no city has agreed, to date. In Europe, some locations have proposed having a central station that generates hydrogen from solar power during the day using electrolysis. This hydrogen can drive trucks or boats, especially if it is used to make hythane. One can also store massive power by water pumping or air compression.
Scottsbluff Neb. solar farm damaged by hail, 6/23.
In most locations, storage is not available, so solar power has virtually no value. I suspect that, at the very least, in these locations, the price per kWh should be significantly lower at noon on a sunny day (1/2 as expensive or less). The will cause people to charge their eVs at noon, and not at midnight. Adjusted prices will cause folks to do heavy manufacturing at noon and not at midnight. We have the technology for this, but not the political will, so far. Politicians find it easier to demand solar, overcharge people (and industry) and pretend to save the environment.
One of the most famous paradoxes of physics is explained wrong — always. It makes people feel good to think they understand it, but the explanation is wrong and confusing, and it drives young physicists in a wrong direction. The basic paradox is an outgrowth of the special relativity prediction that time moves slower if you move faster.
Thus, if you entered a spaceship and were to travel to a distant star at 99% the speed of light, turn around and get here 30 years, you would have aged far less than 30 years. You and everyone else on the space ship would have aged three years, 1/10 as much as someone on earth.
The paradox part, not that the above isn’t weird enough by itself, is that the person in the spaceship will imagine that he (or she) is standing still, and that everyone on earth is moving away at 99% the speed of light. Thus, the person on the spaceship should expect to find that the people on earth will age slower. That is, the person on the space ship should return from his (or her) three year journey, expecting to find that the people on earth have only aged 0.3 years. Obviously, only one of these expectations can be right, but it’s not clear which (It’s the first one), nor is it clear why.
The wrong explanation appears in an early popular book, “Mr Tompkins in Wonderland”, by Physicist, George Gamow. The book was written shortly after Relativity was proposed, and involves a Mr Tompkins who falls asleep in a physics lecture. Mr. Tompkins dreams he’s riding on a train going near the speed of light, finds things are shorter and time is going slower. He then asks the paradox question to the conductor, who admits he doesn’t quite know how it works (perhaps Gamow didn’t), but that “it has something do do with the brakeman.” That sounds like Gamow is saying the explanation has to do with deceleration at the turn around, or general relativity in general, implying gravity could have a similarly large effect. It doesn’t work that way, and the effect of 1G gravity is small, but everyone seems content to explain the paradox this way. This is particularly unfortunate because these include physicists clouding an already cloudy issue.
In the early days of physics, physicists tried to explain things with a little legitimate math to the lay audience. Gamow did this, as did Einstein, Planck, Feynman, and most others. I try to do this too. Nowadays, physicists have removed the math, and added gobbledygook. The one exception here are the cinematographers of Star Wars. They alone show the explanation correctly.
The explanation does not have to do general relativity or the acceleration at the end of the journey (the brakeman). Instead of working through some acceleration, general relativity effect, the twin paradox works with simple, special relativity: all space contracts for the duration of the trip, and everything in it gets shorter. The person in this spaceship will see the distance to the star shrink by 90%. Traveling there thus takes 1/10th the time because the distance is 1/10th. There and back at 99% the speed of light, takes exactly 3 years.
The equation for time contraction is: t’ = v/x° √(1-(v/c)2) = t° √(1-(v/c)2) where t’ is the time in the spaceship, v is the speed, x° is the distance traveled (as measured from earth), and c is the speed of light. For v/c = .99, we find that √1-(v/c)2 is 0.1. We thus find that t’ = 0.1 t°. When dealing with the twin paradox, it’s better to say that x’ = 0.1x° where x’ is the distance to the star as seen from the spaceship. In either case, when the people on the space ship accelerate, they see the distance in front of them shrink, as shown in Star Wars, below.
Star Wars. The millennium falcon jumps to light speed, and beyond.
That time was at right angles to space was a comment in one of Einstein’s popular articles and books; he wrote several, all with some minimal mathematics Current science has no math, and a lot of politics, IMHO, and thus is not science.
He showed that time and space are at right angles by analogy from Pythagoras. Pythagoras showed that distance on a diagonal, d between two points at right angles, x and y is d = √(x2 + y2). Another way of saying this is d2 =x2 + y2. The relationship is similar for relativistic distances. To explain the twin paradox, we find that the square of the effective distance, x’2 = x°2 (1 – (v/c)2) = x°2 – (x°v)2/c2 = x°2 – (x°v/c)2 = x°2 – (t°2/c2). Here, x°2 is the square of the original distance, and it comes out that the term, – (t°2/c2) behaves like the square of an imaginary distance that is at right angles to it. It comes out that co-frame time, t° behaves as if it were a distance with a scale factor of i/c.
For some reason people today read books on science by non-scientist ‘explainers.’ I These books have no math, and I guess they sell. Publishers think they are helping democratize science, perhaps. You are better off reading the original thinkers, IMHO.
Robert Buxbaum, July 16, 2023. In his autobiography, Einstein claimed to be a fan of scientist -philosopher, Ernst Mach. Mach derived the speed of sound from a mathematical analysis of thermodynamics. Einstein followed, considering that it must be equally true to consider an empty box traveling in space to be one that carries its emptiness with it, as to assume that fresh emptiness comes in at one end and leaves by the other. If you set the two to be equal mathematically, you conclude that both time and space vary with velocity. Similar analysis will show that atoms are real, and that energy must travel in packets, quanta. Einstein also did fun work on the curvature of rivers, and was a fan of this sail ship design. Here is some more on the scientific method.
If you visit most any European port city, you’ll see a lot more shipping than in the Midwestern US. In Detroit, where I am, your’ll see an occasional ore boat from Wisconsin, and an occasional tourist cruise, but nothing to compare to German, Belgian, or Turkish ports. The reason for the difference is “The Jones act.”
The port of Istanbul with many ships
The Jones act , also known as “The Merchant Marine Act of 1920”, requires that all ships depositing cargo or people between US ports must be US owned, US built, US captained, US flagged, and at least 70% US manned. This raises costs and reduces options. The result is that few ships can move people or cargo between US cities, and these ships are older and less efficient than you’ll see elsewhere. World wide water traffic costs about 1/8 that of rail traffic per ton-mile, but in the US, the prices are more comparable. The original justification was to make sure the US would always have a merchant marine. The Jones act does that, sort of, but mostly, it just makes goods more expensive and travel more restrictive.
The port of Detroit — we rarely see more than one ship at a time.
Because it does some good, I don’t want to get rid of the Jones act entirely, but I’d like to see US shipping options expanded. Almost any expansion would do, e.g. allowing 50% US manned ships delivering along US rivers, or expanding to allow Canadian built ships or flagged, and ships that are more than 50% US owned, or expanding to any NAFTA vessel that meets safety standards. Any expansion of the number of ships available and would help.
The jones act increase the price of oil transport by a factor of five, about.
Currently, the only exceptions to the Jones act are for emergencies (Trump voided the act during several storms) and for ships that visit a foreign port along the route. This exception is how every cruise ship between California and Hawaii works. They’re all foreign, but they stop in Mexico along the way. Similarly, cruises between Florida and Puerto Rico will stop in Bermuda typically, because the ships are foreign owned. Generally, passengers are not allowed to get off in Puerto Rico, but must sleep on board. This is another aspect of the Maritime act that I’d like to see go away.
Because of the Jones act, there is some US freight-ship building, and a supply of sailors and captains. A new, US ore-ship for the Great Lakes was launched last year, so far it’s been used to carry salt. There is also a US built and operated cruise ship in Hawaii, the “Pride of America,” that makes no stop in Mexico. I’d like to see these numbers expanded, and the suggestions above seem like they’d do more good than harm, lowering prices, and allowing modern container ships plus roll-on-roll-off car transports. Our rivers and lakes are super highways; I’d like to see them used more.
The port of Antwerp – far busier than Detroit.
Another way to expand the Jones act while perhaps increasing the number of US-built and operated ship would be through a deal with Canada so that ships from either country could ply trade on either countries rivers. As things stand, Canada has its own version of the Jones act, called the Coastal Trade Act where Canadian vessels must be used for domestic transport (cabotage) unless no such vessel is available. Maybe we can strike a deal with Canada so that the crew can be Canadian or US, and where built ships in either country are chosen on routes in either country, providing they meet the safety and environmental requirements of both.
Among TV psychiatrists, the universal opinion of Trump, Putin, and Musk, that these individuals are narcissists, a psychological disease related to “toxic masculinity.” Musk, for his part claims the excuse of Asperger’s disease, high-functioning Autism. I half agree with the Narcissist diagnosis, and I’m confused by the Asperger’s claim because I don’t believe these folks are diseased. My sense is they have a leadership personality trait, common in all visionary leaders including Disney, Martin Luther King, and Genghis Khan. I’ve argued that it is important for a president to be a narcissist, and have explained Trump’s vision, “Make America great again” as independence.
Psychological narcissism, short for Narcissistic Personality Disorder, is a disease when it hurts the narcissists life. It is defined as a pattern of exaggerated feelings of self-importance, along with an excessive need for admiration. If it just annoys people it/s a disease, but it’s found among leaders, suggesting it’s not all bad. To get you to follow them, leaders present themselves as mini-messiahs, and try to get you to see them that way. They have a plan, a vision. If it’s successful, they’re visionaries. They fight to bring the vision into reality, which is very annoying to anyone who doesn’t see it or want it. But that’s leadership. Without it nothing big gets done.
Disney’s vision. Not everyone was pleased; quite a few considered him a tyrant.
For the narcissist to succeed, he or she must sell the vision, and his ability to get it done. The plan to get there is often vague and unattractive. These details are shared with only a few. You must see the leader there and yourself too, if you’re to fight for it. Disney was particularly visual, see photo. He got folks to buy into a building a magical kingdom with a private police force, where everyone is happy and cartoon characters glide among the paying visitors.
The majority of those who run into a narcissist reject both the vision and the narcissist. They fear any change, and fear that the success of the visionary will diminish them. For that reason, they run to no-bodies. But some see it, and follow, others throw stones. Disney got state officials to exempt him from state laws, and extend normal copyrights. Others smirked, and worked to stop him, but with less energy: it’s hard to be enthusiastic about no Disneyland. The conflict between doers and the smirkers is the subject of several Ayn Rand books, including The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. She calls the opposing smirkers, “parasites”, “looters”, “moochers,” and my favorite: “do gooders.” It’s for the common good that the narcissist should fail, they claim.
Often these opponents have good reasons to oppose. The Ayatollah Khomeini had a vision similar to Disney: an Islamic Republic in Iran where everyone is happy being a devout Muslim of his stripe. The opponents feared, correctly, that everyone who was not happy would be flogged, hanged, or beheaded. I think it’s legitimate to not want to be forced to be devout. Similarly, with Genghis Khan, or Vladimir Putin. Putin compares himself to Peter the Great who expanded Russia and conquered Crimea. The opponents have legitimate fears of WWII and claim that Ukrainian independence is semi legit. Regarding Musk’s plans to colonize Mars, I note that Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan have come out against it. There is no right or wrong here, but I have a soft spot for the visionaries, and a suspicion of the “smirkers” and “do gooders.”
Genghis Khan. He saw himself as a world changer. Some followed, some didn’t. Those who followed didn’t think he was crazy.
The smirkers and do-gooders include the most respectable people of today. They are thought leaders, who lose status if someone else exceeds them. They are surprised and offended by Martin Luther King’s dream, and Musk’s, Khomeini’s, Trump’s, and Lenin’s. Trump became president against formidable odds, and the smirkers said it was a fluke, he then lost, and they claimed it showed they were right. He may get a second term, though, and Musk may yet build a community on Mars. To the extent that the visionary succeeds, the smirkers claim it was easy; that they could have done the same, but faster and better. They then laud some fellow smirker, and point out aspects of the vision that failed. In any case, while the narcissist is definitely abnormal, it’s not a disease, IMHO. It’s what makes the world go round.
In 26 states you can work in a unionized industry without joining a union. You can even cross a union strike line if you like. It’s called “right to work.” Michigan allowed it up till last month, but no longer. Immediately following the Democrats’ taking majority of the MI legislature, they voted to make non-union membership illegal. The claim was that those who do not want to be represented by the state-acknowledged union is misguided, or worse.
The argument for making union membership mandatory is presented in the poster at right. It notes that states that banned right to work are richer, with workers getting higher pay and benefits. These include California, New York, NJ, Washington, Alaska,.. See the map below. Although these states, on average have higher yearly wages, they also have higher taxes, higher costs of living, and more high-tech jobs. The cause and effect implied by this poster is erroneous, I think: The claim is that if you are forced to join a union you will be paid more with more benefits. I strongly suspect that the reality is that these states have high wages and high benefits and a lot of people working in safe fields, programming for example. They then force workers to work for one union so they’ll be easier managed, not because they want a strong opposition.
Another thing, even if you could guarantee higher wages by forced union membership, and you could avoid the high taxes and high cost of living that you find in NY and California, no person should be forced to accept representation by a group that they don’t get to choose, or who supports social goals that the worker doesn’t support. I don’t believe this is fair, or moral, but that’s how it is. It’s the law in most every state with a Democrat as governor and where Democrats control the legislature.
Right to work as of last month, before Michigan forced unionism.
Union membership had been declining in Michigan for years, but it took a particular nose dive in 2016 when the unions spent heavily for Clinton while blue collar workers supported Trump. It was 14% or workers before the law changed. Workers claimed that their unions were working against them, and complained about how their dues were spent. It also came out that some of the Michigan union bosses had stolen money from their funds to build fancy private houses — using non-union labor to do it. When the union bosses tried to show their muscle by calling strikes, the strikes accomplished little, or went on for months. The results were two-tier salaries, layoffs, and business failures. The working for the local newspapers teamsters struck, and one newspaper collapsed. The other chose non-union drivers. The teamsters are still on strike, 10 years later. I’d think a worker should be able to leave a union like this.
I’m a fan of unions, but think the worker should be able to choose. I’m a particular fan of craft unions that work to improve the quality of their work along with the quality of their workers lives. This helps everyone. I suspect that unions should not be able to support political parties too. See my thoughts on unions, here.
Michigan has a particularly strong history of crooked union bosses. When Jimmy Hoffa challenged the Teamster bosses over how the retirement fund was spent, he vanished. The union’s bosses seem to have had him killed. The last place where he was seen alive is an Andiamo Restaurant near my home. He was picked up by someone he knew, perhaps his nephew. No one’s talking and his remains were never found. In Michigan you used to be able to choose your union just as you chose your political club and your own lawyer, or you could choose none at all. Nowadays, the law says otherwise. Maybe you don’t like this law. Maybe you don’t like the union boss or how he’s spending. Maybe you’d like to visit with Jimmy Hoffa.
The hydrogen economy is generally thought to come in some distant future, where your car (and perhaps your home) runs on hydrogen, and the hydrogen, presumably, is made by clean nuclear or renewable solar or wind power. This is understood to be better than the current state of things where your car runs on dirty gasoline, and your home runs on coal or gas, except when the sun is shining bright and the wind is blowing hard. Our homes and cars can not run on solar or wind alone, although solar cells have become quite cheap, because solar power is only available in the daytime, basically for 6 hours, from about 9AM to 3PM. Hydrogen has been proposed as a good way to store solar and wind energy that you can’t use, but it’s not easy to store hydrogen — or is it? I’d like to suggest that, to a decent extent, we already store green hydrogen and use it to run our trucks. We store this hydrogen in the form of Diesel fuel, so you don’t realize it’s hydrogen.
Much of the oil in the United States these days comes from tar sands and shale. It doesn’t flow well at room temperature, and is too heavy and gooey for normal use. We could distill this crude oil and use only the light parts, but that would involve throwing away a huge majority of the oil. Instead we steam reform it to gasoline, ethylene and other products. The reaction is something like this, presuming an input feed of naphtha, C10H8:
C10H8 + 2 H2O –> C7H8 + C2H4 + CO2.
The C2H4 component is ethylene. We use it to make plastics. The C7H8 is called toluene. It is a component of high octane gasoline (octane rating about 114). The inventor of the process, Eugene Jules Houdry claimed to have won WWII for the allies because his secret process (Houdryflow catalytic cracking) allowed high production of lots of gasoline of very high octane, giving US and British planes and trucks higher mpg than the Germans or Japanese had. It was a great money maker, but companies can make even more by adding hydrogen.
Schematic of the hydrocracking process, from the US energy information agency
Over the last 2-3 decades, refineries have been adding catalytic hydrogenation processes. These convert high octane aromatic products, like toluene to low -octane diesel and jet fuel. These products sell for more. Aromatic toluene is exposed to hydrogen at about 500°C and 300 psi (20 bar) to produce heptane, an excellent diesel fuel with about 7% more energy content than toluene per gallon.
C7H8 + 4H2 –> C7H16.
Diesel fuel sell for about 20% more than gasoline per gallon, in part because of the higher energy content, and because Diesel engines are more efficient than gas engines. What’s more, toluene expands as it’s converted to heptane. One gallon of toluene converts to 1.16 gallons of heptane. As a result hydrogenation adds about 40% to the sales price per molecule. Refineries have found that they can make significant money this way if they can buy cheap hydrogen. Over the last few years, several refineries in Norway and Texas (high sun and wind areas) have added hydrogenators along with electrolysis units to produce the cheap hydrogen when no one needs the unwanted electricity generated when supply exceeds demand. Here is an analysis of the thermodynamics of this type of hydrogen generation.
Canada’s healthcare is free to the user. It’s paid for by taxes, and it includes a benefit you can’t get in the US: free, doctor assisted suicide, euthanasia. This is a controversial benefit, forbidden in the Hippocratic oath because it’s close to murder, and includes the strong possibility of misuse of trust. Assistance by a trusted professional can be a bit likes coercion, and that starts to look like murder — especially since the professional often has a financial incentive to see you off.
From Charlie Hebdot (a French, humor magazine): The medical association refuses to participate in euthanasia — Why? People are already dining quite well on their own waiting in the emergency room.
In 2021, according to Statistics Canada, Canada assisted the suicide of 10,064 people, 3.3% of all Canadian deaths. There were about 4,000 more, non-assisted suicides. In Quebec, the Canadian Provence where Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) is most popular, 5.1% of deaths result from MAID. The Netherlands has a similar program that results in 4.8% of deaths. In Belgium, it’s 2.3%. These countries’ suicide rates are far higher than in the US, and account for far more deaths, per capita than from guns in the US. My guess is that suicide is common because it is free and professional. It’s called “Dignity in Dying,” in Europe, a title that suggests that old folks who don’t die this way are undignified.
In Canada, about 80% of those who requested MAiD were approved. A lot of the remainder were folks who died or changed their mind before receiving the fatal dose. If you attempt suicide on your own, it’s likely you won’t succeed, and you may not try again. With doctor assisted suicide, you’re sure to succeed (even if you change your mind after you get your lethal shot?)
In Canada you don’t have to be terminally ill to get MAiD, you just have to be in pain, and extreme psychological pain counts. Beginning March 17, 2024, depression will be added as a legitimate reason. According to Canadian TV news, depressives are lining up (read some interviews here). Belgium and Netherlands allows elders to be euthanized for dementia, and children to be euthanized on the recommendation of their parents. France passed similar legislation, but the doctors refused to go along, see cartoon. I applaud the French doctors.
Rodger Foley says he’s being pressured to ask for medical suicide, picture from the NY Post
There have been persistent claims that Canadian doctors and nurses push assisted suicide on poor patients, telling them how much bother they are and how much resources they are using. There has been an outcry in British and American newspapers, e.g. here in the Guardian, and in the NY Post, but not in Canada, so far. Rodger Foley, a patient interviewed by the NY Post, recorded conversations where his doctors and nurses put financial pressure on him. “They asked if I want an assisted death. I don’t. I was told that I would be charged $1,800 per day [for hospital care]. “I have $2 million worth of bills. Nurses here told me that I should end my life.” He claims they went so far as to send a collection agency to further pressure him. In another case, a disabled Canadian veteran asked for a wheelchair ramp, and was told to apply for MAiD.
Even without outside pressure, many people seeking MAiD often cite financial need as part of the reason. A 40 year old writer interviewed by Canadian television said that he can’t work and lives in poverty on a disability payment of just under $1,200 a month. “You know what your life is worth to you. And mine is worthless.”
The center of the argument is the value of a person in a social healthcare state when their economic value is less than the cost of keeping them alive. Here, Sabine Hossenfelder, an excellent physicist, argues that the best thing one could do for global warm and to preserve resources is to have fewer people. Elon Musk says otherwise, but Ms Hossenfelder claims this only shows he is particularly unworthy. There’s a Germanic logic here that gave us forced euthanasia in the 1940s.
I find euthanasia abhorrent, especially when it’s forced on children, the elderly, and depressed folks. I also reject the scary view of global warming, that it is the death of the earth. I’ve argued that a warm earth is good, and that a cold earth is bad. Also, that people are good, that they are the reason for the world, not its misfortune. It seems to me that, if suicide aid must be provided, state-funded hospitals should not provide it. They have a financial incentive to drop non-paying, annoying patients. That seems to be happening in Canada. A patient must be able to trust his or her doctor, and that requires a belief that the doctor’s advice is for his or her good. Unfortunately, Canadian politicians have decided otherwise. I say hurray for the doctors of France for not going along.
Franklin’s walking stick, willed to General Washington. Now in the Smithsonian.
Many famous people carried walking sticks Washington, Churchill, Moses, Dali. Until quite recently, it was “a thing”. Benjamin Franklin willed one, now in the Smithsonian, to George Washington, to act as a sort of scepter: “My fine crab-tree walking stick, with a gold head curiously wrought in the form of the cap of liberty, I give to my friend, and the friend of mankind, General Washington. If it were a Scepter, he has merited it, and would become it. It was a present to me from that excellent woman, Madame de Forbach, the dowager Duchess of Deux-Ponts”. A peculiarity of this particular stick is that the stick is uncommonly tall, 46 1/2″. This is too tall for casual, walking use, and it’s too fancy to use as a hiking stick. Franklin himself, used a more-normal size walking stick, 36 3/8″ tall, currently in the collection of the NY Historical Society. Washington too seems to have favored a stick of more normal length.
Washington with walking stick
Walking sticks project a sort of elegance, as well as providing personal protection. Shown below is President Andrew Jackson defending himself against an assassin using his walking stick to beat off an assassin. He went on to give souvenir walking sticks to friends and political supporters. Sticks remained a common political gift for 100 years, at least through the election of Calvin Coolidge.
Andrew Jackson defends himself.
I started making walking sticks a few years back, originally for my own use, and then for others when I noticed that many folks who needed canes didn’t carry them. It was vanity, as best I could tell: the normal, “old age” cane is relatively short, about 32″. Walking with it makes you bend over; you look old and decrepit. Some of the folks who needed canes, carried hiking sticks, I noticed, about 48″. These are too tall to provide any significant support, as the only way to grasp one was from the side. Some of my canes are shown below. They are about 36″ tall, typically with a 2″ wooden ball as a head. They look good, you stand straight, and they provides support and balance when going down stairs.
Some of my walking sticks.
I typically make my sticks of American Beech, a wood of light weight, with good strength, and a high elastic modulus of elasticity, about 1.85 x106 psi. Oak, hickory, and ash are good options, but they are denser, and thus more suited to self-defense. Wood is better than metal for many applications, IMHO, as I’ve discussed elsewhere. The mathematician Euler showed the the effective strength of a walking stick does not depend on the compressive strength but rather on elastic constant via “the Euler buckling equation”, one of many tremendously useful equations developed by Leonhard Euler (1707-1783).
For a cylindrical stick, the maximum force supported by a stick is: F = π3Er4/4L2, where F is the force, r is the radius, L is the length, and E is the elastic modulus. I typically pick a diameter of 3/4″ or 7/8″, and fit the length to the customer. For a 36″ beech stick, the buckling strength is calculated to be 221 or 409 pounds respectively. I add a rubber bottom to make it non–scuff and less slip-prone. I sometimes add a rope thong, too. Here is a video of Fred Astaire dancing with this style of stick. It’s called “a pin stick”, in case you are interested because it looks like a giant pin.
Country Irishmen are sometimes depicted with a heavy walking stick called a Shillelagh. It’s used for heavier self-defense than available with a pin-stick, and is generally seen being used as a cudgel. There are Japanese versions of self defense using a lighter, 36″ stick, called a Han-bo, as shown here. There is also the wand, as seen for example in Harry Potter. It focuses magical power. Similar to this is Moses’s staff that he used in front of Pharaoh, a combination wand and hiking stick as it’s typically pictured. It might have been repurposed for the snake-on-a-stick that protects against dark forces. Dancing with a stick, Astaire style, can drive away emotional forces, while the more normal use is elegance, and avoiding slips.
Britain and Germany are the two largest economies in Europe. When Britain voted to leave the EU seven years ago, 23 June 2016, economists, royals, and the richer, smarter set predicted disaster. The unemployment rate at the time was 5.2% in the UK; economists guaranteed it would rise with Brexit due to the loss of access to the common market. Unemployment fell to 3.7% today: Embarrassing for economists, a bonus for British workers. Germany unemployment today is 5.6%, basically slightly higher than the 4.3% of 2016. There has been a large influx of Ukrainians into both countries, and of illegal boat people into the UK. These are people coming to get jobs, seeking a better life than available in the rest of the EU. That boat people don’t go the other way suggests that things are better in the UK.
Fromm Bloomberg, October 2022. See full article here. UK unemployment is down to 2.5% in February 2023.
Britain’s GDP was supposed to suffer from Brexit, too. Instead, GDP has grown by 18% since 2016, about 2.5% per year on average, outpacing Germany’s 10.6% total growth, 1.5% per year. Between 2016 and 2022, the British GDP rose to $3.19T from $2.7 T. Germany’s GDP increased to $3.57T, from $3.14T (data from the world bank). Separating from the EU helped, it seems and helped us too something Trump promoted. Germany chose close ties to Russia instead. That does not seem to be a big plus.
German Inflation has traditionally been low. It has increased in the past few months due to rising food and energy costs.
Inflation is higher in the UK than in Germany, 10.4% as of February 2023 versus 8.7% in Germany, or 9.9% in the European Union and a whole. I don’t think that’s Brexit. The UK typically has seen higher inflation rate than Germany, something seen by the steady drop of the pound. They have a tradition of inefficiency and silliness. Part of the problem today is that Britain gets much of its electricity from natural gas, while the French use nuclear power. Nuclear is cheap and clean, compared to natural gas. Coal is cheap and dirty; China uses it extensively and plans to use more. But the real cause of the UK’s higher inflation is inherent in the British and Germans, IMHO. The Germans hate inflation, the Brits don’t mind.
Population growth (green) or decline (orange) in Europe
For high-power, white collar workers, Britain seems to be as good a spot as Germany, maybe better. Maximum tax rates are slightly lower than in Germany (45% vs 47.45%), and the population is growing (slowly). Apparently, people like it enough to come there and have children; children are a good sign, IMHO. It’s harder to get good workers, but population growth suggests that the problems won’t be catastrophic (as they were in Japan, and likely will be in Germany). If you want a developed economy with yet-lower taxes, plus good workers, the US is the place to be, IMHO. Our maximum tax rate is 37%. You get fewer free services (healthcare), but you can earn enough to afford it. Prince Harry moved to the US recently, joining foot-baller David Beckham, and Pele a few years back. Former Python, John Cleese, came here too… They complain that Americans are cheap when it comes to helping others (but that’s out attraction). They claim that we’re violent and crass (true enough!) but say that the UK isn’t what it was. The fact that refugees seem to prefer the UK to Germany, suggests that Britain is a place to go. Britain, I’d say seems to have come out pretty well from Brexit.
Statistical analysis, misused, allows you to prove many things that are not true. This was long a feature of advertising: with our toothpaste you get 38% fewer cavities, etc. In the past such ‘studies’ were not published in respectable journals, and research supported by on such was not funded. Now it is published and it is funded, and no one much cares. For an academic, this is the only game in town. One result, well known, is the “crisis of replicability”– very few studies in medicine, psychology, or environment are replicable (see here for more).
In this post, I look at food health claims– studies that find foods cause cancer, or cure it. The analysis I present comes from two researchers, Schoenfeld and Ioannides, (read the original article here) who looked at the twenty most common ingredients in “The Boston Cooking-School Cook Book”. For each food, they used Pub-Med to look up the ten most recent medical articles that included the phrase, “risk factors”, the word “cancer”, and the name of the food in the title or abstract. For studies finding effect in the range of 10x risk factors to 1/10 risk factors, the results are plotted below for each of the 20 foods. Some studies showed factors beyond the end of the chart, but the chart gives a sense. It seems that most every food causes or cures cancer, often to a fairly extreme extent.
Effect estimates by ingredient. From Schoenfeld and Ioannides. Is everything we eat associated with cancer? Am J. Clin. Nutrition 97 (2013) 127-34. (I was alerted to this by Dr. Jeremy Brown, here)
A risk factor of 2 indicates that you double your chance of getting cancer if you eat this food. Buy contrast, as risk factor of 0.5 suggests that you halve your cancer risk. Some foods, like onion seem to reduce your chance of cancer to 1/10, though another study say 1/100th. This food is essentially a cancer cure, assuming you believe the study (I do not).
Only 19% of the studies found no statistically significant cancer effect of the particular food. The other 81% found that the food was significantly cancer-causing, or cancer preventing, generally of p=0.05 to 0.05. Between the many studies done, most foods did both. Some of these were meta studies (studies that combine other studies). These studies found slightly smaller average risk factors, but claimed more statistical significance in saying that the food caused or cured cancer.
0.1 0.2. 0.5 1. 2 5 10 Relative risk
The most common type of cancer caused is Gastrointestinal. The most common cancer cured is breast. Other cancers feature prominently, though: head, neck, genetilia-urinary, lung. The more cancers a researcher considers the higher the chance of showing significant effects from eating the food. If you look at ten cancers, each at the standard of one-tailed significance, you have a high chance of finding that one of these is cured or caused to the standard of p=0.05.
In each case the comparison was between a high-dose cohort and a low-dose cohort, but there was no consistency in determining the cut-offs for the cohort. Sometimes it was the top and bottom quartile, in others the quintile, in yet others the top 1/3 vs the bottom 1/3. Dose might be times eaten per week, or grams of food total. Having this flexibility increases a researcher’s chance of finding something. All of this is illegitimate, IMHO. I like to see a complete dose-response curve that shows an R2 factor pf 90+% or so. To be believable, you need to combine this R2 with a low p value, and demonstrate the same behaviors in men and woman. I showed this when looking at the curative properties of coffee. None of the food studies above did this.
From Yang, Youyou and Uzzi, 2020. Studies that failed replication are cited as often as those that passed replication. Folks don’t care.
Of course, better statistics will not protect you from outright lying, as with the decades long, faked work on the cause of Alzheimers. But the most remarkable part is how few people seem to care.
People want to see their favorite food or molecule as a poison or cure and will cite anything that says so. Irreplicable studies are cited at the same rate as replicated studies, as shown in this 2020 study by Yang Yang, Wu Youyou, and Brian Uzzi. We don’t stop prescribing bad heart medicines, or praising irreplaceable studies on foods. Does pomegranate juice really help? red wine? there was a study, but I doubt it replicated. We’ve repeatedly shown that aspirin helps your heart, but it isn’t prescribed much. Generally, we prefer more expensive blood thinners that may not help. Concerning the pandemic. It seems our lockdowns made things worse. We knew this two years ago, but kept doing it.
As Schoenfeld and Ioannides state: “Thousands of nutritional epidemiology studies are conducted and published annually in the quest to identify dietary factors that affect major health outcomes, including cancer risk. These studies influence dietary guidelines and at times public health policy… [However] Randomized trials have repeatedly failed to find treatment effects for nutrients in which observational studies had previously proposed strong associations.” My translation: take all these food studies with a grain of salt.
