Richard Muller global warming point of view.

Here is an excellent 5 minute explanation of Climategate by Richard Muller, a UC Berkley physicist who is leading a larger project attempting to reconstruct temperature records. Muller believes that global warming is a potentially big problem. So this is someone who mostly supports the IPCC, yet refuses to compromise his ethics on what appeared in those e-mails.

Muller holds no punches for those involved in the Climategate e-mails. The whole presentation is worth watching, he takes a number of swipes at Al Gore and the IPCC, but if you’re in a hurry the explanation of Climategate only lasts 5 minutes (begins at 29m50s). A takeaway quote, “Quite frankly, as a scientist, I know have a list of people whose papers I won’t read anymore. You’re not allowed to do this in science.”

Nuclear notes related to Japan earthquake, tsunami accident

Here's some QA, documents and articles related to the Japan nuclear accident.  Talking to friends, I see that there is a lot of information to digest and article to read to get a good understanding of this event.

This graph from the globe and mail show how the radiation spiked in Japan.  Note the level compared to a full body CT scan.  Those level where recorded very close to the plant, where not one lives and where only worker where exposed to high level radiation. 

First a look at some articles I found interesting:

Putting some perspective on the nuclear question

• Japanese Earthquake Implications Quick Q and A
• Good starting point on how a nuclear power plant operates, radiation level and type and much more.
  
• Banana equivalent dose: A banana equivalent dose (BED) is a measure of the radiation exposure caused by eating one banana. It is a concept that was intended to explain the relative danger of radiation by comparison with everyday life activities. BED is a radiation dose equivalent unit; the corresponding SI unit is the sievert (and rem is also commonly used).
• The dose equivalent of eating a banana is about 0.01 mrem (or 0.1 µSv).

• Less cancer or congenital heart malformations after being exposed to low dose radiation a must read, real life data: http://bit.ly/gbUu2I

• An extraordinary incident occurred 20 years ago in Taiwan.Recycled steel, accidentally contaminated with cobalt-60 (half-life:5.3 y), was formed into construction steel for more than 180 buildings, which 10,000 persons occupied for 9 to 20 years. They unknowingly received radiation doses that averaged 0.4 Sv-a collective dose of 4,000 person-Sv.

• Low-dose radiation is documented to be beneficial for human health but, for political reasons, radiation is assumed to be harmful at any dose. Detail of the study
• Journalist Wall of Shame covering the #Japan #nuclear and #earthquake crisis http://bit.ly/fbyxvg sensationalist, speculation, bad reporting
• Best read so far; William Tucker: Japan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl - http://t.co/S2mzc2D a must read
• Used #nuclear fuel is an energy opportunity, not a threat or a burden to future generations.  
• http://bit.ly/dLa7c9 
• #Nuclear engineer explains why milk poses a greater radioactive threat than groundwater tritium from Vermont Yankee http://bit.ly/hZWHQe

• Nuclear Overreactors: Let's cool the political meltdown over Japan's damaged nuclear power plants.
  http://www.slate.com/id/2288212/
•  Viewpoint: We should stop running away from radiation
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842
• You need to drink 5000 liters of contaminated milk before you reach recommended limit set by the EPA: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576233221749626458.html
• Talk About a Meltdown:  The hysteria over Japan’s nuclear reactors is ridiculous.
  http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/262182/talk-about-meltdown-jonah-goldberg 
 

Now for some good  interviews on the subject of nuclear in general and Japan in particular.

Let start with an interview on Blogginheads.tv between John Horgan Stevens Center for Science Writings, Cross-check and Rod Adams Atomic Insights Blog, The Atomic Show



This one is a bit older and is more a debate on nuclear power in Alberta, but the discussion is interesting. This is from http://skepticallyspeaking.ca/episodes/11-nuclear-power-round-2

Fascinating discussion on nuclear power with Dr. Jeremy Whitlock, reactor physicist and author of the website The Canadian Nuclear FAQ, and Elena Schacherl, founder and Co-chair of Citizens Advocating the Use of Sustainable Energy (CAUSE), which is a member of the Coalition for a Nuclear Free Alberta.




There is not perfect solution like any human endeavors, so having the perfect energy solution does not exist yet.  When you compare different energy source and related deaths, nuclear is one of the best in that regards.
This web site as a good compilation of information on that subject.

Energy Source              Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average               161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China                       278
Coal – USA                         15
Oil                                36  (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas                         4  (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass                    12
Peat                               12
Solar (rooftop)                     0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind                                0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro                               0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao)    1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear                             0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

 
To be continued...

IBM Watson against Jeopardy - the future of expert systems

IBM has developed a computer system called Watson to play the game Jeopardy. The real importance of this feat by the IBM researcher is how this technology and knowledge could be applied to other needs of our society.

This could be the turning point for expert system where learning machine and huge databases could help find solutions to any number of problems in a fraction of a second and help human experts make better decisions.

For example, I see such system play a role some day in those area (examples)

• You are a customer at Bell, you call for a problem with you cell phone.  The system ask you to describe in details to the computer, the nature of your call while you wait for a person.  The system listen all the clues and words of your problem and inside a couple of milliseconds, search through millions of previous documented cases, Q&A and Facts and present the most likely scenario to resolve the issue to the customer representative taking the call.  This could help expedite the time to resolution and the overall satisfaction of both the client and customer representative.
• You go to the hospital for some symptoms, the nurse ask you for the your basic information and symptoms and take different measurements.  All those informations are "automatically" entered in the expert system and again, searching all medical databases, could come up inside milliseconds with a resolutions, analysis and case urgency that would be added automatically to the patient case file.  The nurse would be then able to better dispatch the patient to a doctor according to those results.  Thus saving life and reducing the wait time by providing better diagnostic.  In this case, the system could be called House, not Watson
• The are other example of this, Google could have such a system where any questions could be ask online and a complete answer with references and notes would be provided in this format:

View Watson (artificial intelligence software) and over 3,000,000 other topics on Qwiki.

Here's a playlist of the NOVA intro and show, followed by the Jeopardy challenge. 


Want to know more, the New-York times as a good piece on the subject.