What, Why & How do we Know ?
Interesting angle from Dave Pollard, debunking the idea of KM2.0 as a return to the basics by dubbing it KM0.0
Basics in Dave’s terms are “context and connectivity” as opposed to content and collection, where connectivity is interpersonal peer-to-peer.
I’d agree.
Part of my own “manifesto” (in the header) but interested to find the same sentiment expressed by Chris Chatham at Developing Intelligence.
In a debate ostensiby about theistic religion vs atheistic humanism over on the Rev Sam’s Elizaphanian blog, the subject has come back round to the pragmatic issues of “values” and the institutions needed for their maintenance in society generally. [Here] [Here] & [Here].
Debates on both MoQ-Discuss and Friends of Wisdom have ended up precisely here before too. Seems inescapable.
Been involved in a number of conversations recently about radiation safety …. nuclear power is on an upswing throughout the world. Fact is at low medical-and-industrial-radiology / nuclear-power-industry public exposure levels very little is really known (proven or even provable) about the risks, so standard health and safety practices are generally recognised as being conservative. Real high-level risks have been simply extrapolated down to lower levels.
Often permitted levels are below commonly occurring background radiation levels, eg in areas with massive granite geologies, and in some such areas of high natural levels, pockets of reduced health risks / better health have been reasonably well demonstrated (example, Iran reference ?). Of course there are different types (different spectra & particles) of radiation as well as energy levels, and there are other high “natural” exposure risks, like flying at commercial cruising altitudes, and so on.
The general received wisdom is that relatively low levels of radiation can still risk causing genetic mutations, and that comes with a “risk” of cancerous mutations. Risk upon risk and we’re into a matter of probabilities. Interesting to hear Steve Jones talking on “In Our Time” yesterday on genetics, as a very young science, and the fact that many common chemical exposures are far more prone to cause more / harmful mutations than common radiation risks. And in either case whatever the cause of mutations, the fault-tolerance / self-repairing properties of DNA / RNA means that “lower” levels of mutation may be either totally insignificant or even beneficial.
The irony is today’s story about a nuclear reactor in Canada, one of whose products is producing radioactive sources and tags for medical procedures. With the reactor down, the source of these positive medical supplies is cut.
Never mind carbon offsets. what about radiation offsets ?
Indeed a strange skewed must-read list for such high status from The Grauniad. [via Sam]
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
The Bible
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy by JRR Tolkien
1984 by George Orwell
A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens
Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
All Quiet on the Western Front by E M Remarque
His Dark Materials Trilogy by Phillip Pullman
Birdsong by Sebastian Faulks
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
The Lord of the Flies by William Golding
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time by Mark Haddon
Tess of the D’urbevilles by Thomas Hardy
Winnie the Pooh by AA Milne
Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte
The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Graham
Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Great Expectations by Charles Dickens
The Time Traveller’s Wife by Audrey Niffenegger
The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold
The Prophet by Khalil Gibran
David Copperfield by Charles Dickens
The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho
The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov
Life of Pi by Yann Martel
Middlemarch by George Eliot
The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzenhitsyn
Compiled by “British Librarians”. Where to start with disagreeing ?
From XKCD.