Turn the big yellow giant green!

It's big. It's yellow (or orange, depending on your political persuasion). It's not beautiful, but it's there. And the south side catches a LOT of sun. It's Belfast City Hospital, and I have a proposal.

I work here, and it's a lot of fun. It takes a lot of energy to keep the Belfast Trust running. but look at the sides of this building. Those yellow stripes up the sides are purely protective facing units of painted yellow aluminium. They are a waste of architectural space in this day and age.

I propose replacing them, lock, stock & barrel on the sun-facing aspects of the building with an array of solar panels. They would be cheap to install, modular, better looking than the current stripes, and provide a large part of the energy needed by the Belfast Trust.

 

Most would probably be photovoltaic, but we could try water heating pipes as well as thermal risers (the building is pretty tall!) with turbines at the top - admittedly a bit more of an engineering challenge. But this could all be done without making the building look any more hideous, and as one of the most iconic elements of Belfast's gorgeous skyline, it would send out a strong renewable energy message.

So, Belfast Health & Social Care Trust, please give it some thought.

What's this? A scientist supporting the ARTS?

 Yes, yes, I know I'm supposed to be a hard-nosed left-brain analytical type, but I have my arty side too. Indeed, if anyone has been following my little blog, you'll know that I write the occasional song, and sometimes it's not about genetics or science. Part of the business of healing (and that's what being a doctor is all about) is catering for that side of the human psyche that might be called the "soul" (whether you're religious or not - run with me on this).

To that effect, Dr Robert Cuthbert and some colleagues have put together a fantastic selection of goodies in an arts festival at Belfast City Hospital, with a concert on 16 May at May Street Church "Urban Soul Cafe" at 19:30. This is dedicated to our patients.

All proceeds will go towards arts activities at Belfast City Hospital, where I also work. Click on the poster (left) for more info, as well as how to get tickets (email Robert - see the poster for the address). Come on - it'll be a great night, and it's for a very good cause.

I'll be performing "Canyons of Mars" and a wee surprise number. This is a WORLD PREMIERE! Plus, if you're in the City Hospital around lunch time, you might even get the opportunity to come up for a wee jam.


View Larger Map
See? We scientists and doctors have a creative artsy side too. And it's "Arts Care" not "Art Scare", although you may be forgiven for thinking the latter if you watch my video...

Terra Perma - Permaculture to terraform Mars

Image: permaculture.org.uk

Mars is the Red Planet. Earth is significantly greener, and there is one factor above all that makes the difference - LIFE. If we are to send explorers and ultimately colonists (or maybe even just colonists) to Mars, we need to build systems to allow them to survive in that hostile environment.

The traditional approach to this is to build machines to scrub carbon dioxide from the enclosed atmosphere within the habitats, to recycle and purify the water, to provide heat etc. Of course provision is made for plants and even small animals to provide food, but the effort is designed to set up and maintain a system that will require continual substantial energetic and maintenance effort to keep it running. The problem with this of course is that it maintains a shackle to Earth - the colonists would find it extremely difficult to run and maintain basic life support, never mind expansion and extension, without constant resupply from the home planet. And that is astonishingly expensive, never mind very fragile and dependent on Earth being willing or able to foot the continual bill for the sake of a few colonists.

What we really need to do is to build systems on Mars that are able to be maintained locally, that can be extended substantially without need for import from Earth, and that are robust and fault tolerant. On Mars that is a very tall order indeed. What Mars (or at least habitats on Mars) needs is not a mere life support system - it needs an ecology.

Now perhaps ecologies of some form already exist on Mars. Deep below the surface there may be indigenous microbial communities happily prokaryoting away and munching each other. Personally I doubt it, but in the case of Mars we simply don't know. In any case, it'll not support human life, so as a life support system for our colonists it's no good. What we need to do is build ecologies on Earth - interacting systems of biological organisms and geophysical processes that are effectively self-sustaining and propagating - and packaging and exporting these to Mars for reassembly, boot-up and growth. And we need these ecologies to provide for the needs of the first human Martians.

The concept of Permaculture is working with nature to create systems that are self-sustaining, or at least require a minimum of effort & expense to maintain, which can provide for our needs to a greater or lesser extent. Attempt to reduce intervention, enhance robustness, use as few complex chemicals and "artefacts" as possible, allow the system to "grow" or be extended with minimal external intervention. These principles are ideal for colonisation of planetary surfaces, but can they actually work on Mars?

There are a number of remarkable permaculture initiatives on Earth, and indeed "light touch" gardening (which is itself a form of permaculture) is one of the most popular hobbies here on Earth. Yes, we do have air and rain and warmth, as well as soils that have been worked over by organisms for millions of years, so on Earth it's relatively easy. Can we boot up such an enclosed, but expandable, ecological system on Mars?

Well, we know that the soil is favourable, at least if the results from the Mars Science Laboratory on the Curiosity Rover are anything to go by . We know there is at least the prospect of getting water ice that (again if MSL results can be applied more widely) may be pure enough, with enough trace minerals, to support plant growth in enclosed pressurised greenhouses. There is light from the sun. There is carbon dioxide in the very sparse atmosphere, that can be concentrated as required. As plants grow, they generate oxygen and organic matter for food and composting to further improve the soil. They can generate materials that can be used to extend the greenhouses further, and so the cycle can be maintained and extended.

There are significant complexities that this simple scenario does not address, but if we are going to colonise Mars and other off-Earth locations, we need to find ways of generating and supporting ecosystems that are stable, robust, and largely sustain themselves, as well as a space-faring human population that will be busy doing what we have sent them to Mars to do.

And eventually, if we can make these systems grow enough, we may be able to turn Mars green, as well as protect ecosystems here on Earth.

Tw: @shanemuk

Atheism on the defensive

I admit it - I actually quite enjoy a good debate in the classical formal style. Opening arguments, rebuttals, counter-rebuttals and closing arguments - it's all good fun, and the Christianity (for Christianity it usually is) vs Atheism debates do, when well done, make for a laugh. It is true that Cosmological and Moral arguments for the existence of God are almost as ridiculous as the ball-bouncingly daft Ontological arguments, but we do love 'em anyway.

However, framed like this, I do sometimes worry a bit. Atheists who get involved in these debates are often forced into a position of being almost cruel towards religion, and religion being what it is, it starts looking like they are cruel to the adherents of religion, as well as kittens and All That Is Good. I think this is a sad state of affairs, and it is certainly milked for all it is worth by theists who care more about winning "the argument" than about Truth or Fairness.

As novelist and philosopher (I prefer the former designation, really) Alain de Botton puts it, of course God doesn't exist. There's no point in arguing the toss over it. It's a silly idea, end of. We therefore need to move on to how we ought to behave (and no, pedantic theologians, "ought" does not assume a god) towards each other, and leave the arguing behind.

It's tricky though. For many years I tried arguing with atheists (and even myself) that God existed, and that (implausibly) he should be connected with the God of Traditional Christianity, which is a sort of pastiche gleaned from carefully selected biblical proof texts and Ancient Greek notions, retro-fitted clumsily to the remainder of the bible. It was only when I looked more into the bible itself that I was able to recognise it as a purely human creation with no input from any divine source.

And the funny thing is that many people who describe themselves as "Christian", regardless of whether or not they actually go to church or what they profess in their meetings, don't actually believe it is True. They don't believe Jesus is the Son of God or that he was raised from the dead (unsurprisingly to anyone who actually reads the gospels), don't want atheistic arguments, because they don't want to give up what they find nourishing and useful.

So why argue this relatively boring point? Instead I think atheists should concentrate on showing how gods are unnecessary to science, to morality, to civilisation - to anything.  To do so in a caring and open way is the best way to get the message across, because in many many cases we are dealing with people who are expressing a humanistic worldview through a Christian (or Muslim or Jewish etc) theistic framework. Let's help, rather than hinder.

My Scientific Valentine

On the amorous emotional state projected towards a beloved by an ardent admirer.

U. R. Mydestiny (1)

(1) Department of Lurve, University of Ichliebedich.

Background: Several authors have commented on the observation that blossoms of the common rose (Rosea berberifolia) are frequently perceived in hues towards the red end of the visual spectrum, whereas those of the violet (Viola spp.) tend towards the blue end. Although this in and of itself does not at first sight appear to have consequences for romantic interactions between members of the species Homo sapiens, an association has often been assumed.

Objective: To explore the relationship between the perceived colours of these blossoms and the depth of desire of a mystery lover for the recipient of a small decorated folded piece of card.

Methods: All available geographical obstacles and challenges were met - mountains were climbed, seas were swum, valleys were walked. Furthermore, fires were crossed, wild beasts faced, and songs and poems were listened to as well as composed.

Conclusion: The honourable and fervent erotic desire of the author for the intended recipient of the cellulose-based missive is asserted, and preliminary data appear to confirm this view. However, further research, focusing on physical proximity and close interactional analysis is urgently required.

Glenoe

view full image

"Glenoe"

This lovely babbling brook runs through the tiny Co Antrim village of Glenoe in the hills above Larne. It leads on to a beautiful waterfall. These are the things you really only find if you're on your bike, and there's no better place to bike than these hills.

Causeway Calamity for Caleb!

Victory for the forces of reason.

Oh no! The National Trust has reviewed the wording of a controversial (if tiny) section of it explanatory guide to the Giant's Causeway. Following worldwide protests at the apparent appeasement of biblical hyperliteralists, the NT has done the decent thing and altered the section to make it more accurate. It is significant in a number of ways. Firstly, it acknowledges that some people don't accept science. That's fine. Secondly, it does not use the word "creationist" - that's better. Thirdly, it states that people who claim a "young" date for the Causeway do so "often for religious reasons". Again this is correct, although I might have altered that to "exclusively for religious reasons".

This is another major fiasco for creationist groups such as "Answers in Genesis" and the "Caleb Foundation". It joins a list of prominent failures by this small, if enthusiastic, band of pseudoscientific crackpots:

1. In 2010, Minister Nelson McCausland failed in his efforts to get the Ulster Museum to "reflect a creationist viewpoint". The museum simply ignored him.
2. The Intelligent Design Creationist pressure group "Truth in Science" sent copies of their highly misleading and error-strewn text "Explore Evolution" to schools throughout the UK in 2009, including Northern Ireland. This was treated with derision by schools, and the Departments of Education in the devolved regions of the UK all emphasised that the curriculum was based on science, not on misrepresentation and religiously inspired pseudoscientific nonsense. Even schools affiliated with churches took the same view. The creationists were left with serious facial egg.
3. Lisburn City Council in 2007, at the instigation of Councillor Paul Givan of the DUP, wrote to all schools in the Lisburn area demanding they state what provisions they were making for teaching creationism. The schools wrote back, often including clergy members of the Boards of Governors, telling the Council that their schools taught the curriculum, and in science classes, science would be taught, not creationism.

So things are not looking good for the creationists. Despite several members of the notorious Caleb Foundation being in powerful positions in the government of Northern Ireland, people power has held them to account, and prevented the rot from getting too far.

Not that we should be complacent - if our chirpy little creationist pals have taught us anything, it is that they are persistent. Constant vigilance and ridicule are necessary, because, sadly, they have proven time and time again that they are completely immune to scientific reasoning, and the only thing that counts is a naive, rigid, and historically and scientifically absurd adherence to their very narrow and specific interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1.