Author: David Bradley

Earlier today there were concerns aired regarding harm to eagles and other birds caused by rotating wind turbine blades. However, a new study in the journal ES&T suggests that bigger wind turbines are “greener” in terms of materials used and the electricity generated. So, if there is an issue with collisions, then perhaps bigger turbines rather than greater numbers might be the answer.

Marloes Caduff and colleagues at ETH Zurich, Switzerland, point out that wind power is an increasingly popular source of electricity, providing about 2% of global electricity production worldwide with that figure anticipated as heading for 10% by 2020. Commercial turbines are now ten times bigger than they were 30 years ago. In 1980 blade diameters were about 15m today they’re often 150m. 300m, super-giant turbines are on the horizon…as it were.

The team has now determined that bigger turbines generate greener electricity for two reasons: first, manufacturers now have the technology to build big wind turbines that are fundamentally more efficient. Second, advanced materials and designs allow these turbines to harness more wind without proportional increases in their mass or the masses of the tower and the nacelle that houses the generator.

Environ. Sci. Technol., 2012, 46 (9), pp 4725—4733 DOI: 10.1021/es204108n

If you are a working scientist, a recovering scientist, a revolutionary, or simply a geek looking for new innovations, take a look at Marblar. They’re creating a community to open up the process of invention and finding the right home for those inventions.

They call themselves “a democratic playground for creativity”, which sounds like fun and suggest that the community will bring together great ideas and great inventions. Apparently, it’s a three-step process: Scientists post their discoveries, you join other “marblars” to find creative ways to use those discoveries, finally you earn points, meet inventors and join startups. It sounds like a game, but as long as you don’t lose your marbles, it could be a game-changing game…

I asked Gabriel Mecklenburg from Marblar to explain a bit further:

“We work with universities to find dormant IP (i.e. the >90%) that isn’t being licensed or spun out and write it up in a challenge format – can you come up with a novel and commercially viable application for this? (A bit like Innocentive in reverse).” He adds that the challenges are always associated with points and trophies in the form of marbles (for e.g. top-voted ideas, offering helpful advice on other people’s ideas, winning competitions etc.) and some will have prize money associated with them. “It’s all about making the experience really fun for the users and creating a community where they can be proud of their “in-game” achievements,” he told me. “The inventor may then choose what to do with the winning entry (no IP is signed over to us). With our pilot challenge, they are in talks with the winner about starting a company based on his idea – not too bad for our first go.”

Marblar is run by three grad students from Oxford, Kings College London and Imperial College London who say they know only too well the pain of research just ending up in some drawer!

Greg Aharonian has said for many years that the patent system is bust. If it weren’t how could there possibly be tens of thousands of software patents given that so many of them are simply variations on the spreadsheet, word processor, file compression, and image editing? I followed Aharonian’s patent news service from around 1994-5 for several years and several times gave him a mention in the Feedback section of New Scientist when he published a particularly poignant item. I’ve not really kept anything more than a weather eye on patents and the broader area of intellectual property, although I have covered specific aspects during my almost quarter century in science communication.

Patents and IP expert Robert Pitkethly of Oxford University, UK, argues how IP systems depend on awareness of intellectual property but has found through a large-scale survey of UK industry that while larger companies are more IP aware, SMEs (small to medium-sized enterprises) and the vast numbers of “micro” enterprises are often wholly unaware of the IP system. He suggests that the IP system is the driver of innovation and that it underpins the growth of those micro and SMEs. An understanding and awareness of patents, copyright, trademarks, registered designs, the need for confidentiality, and other factors are thus vital particular at the start-up phase.

“Enabling SMEs and micro-enterprises to use their IP to grow into larger companies which are successful not just locally but internationally, is thus an essential role of IP awareness promotion,” Pitkethly explains in the journal IJTM. He adds that it is not only important that small firms are made aware of the various IP systems, but that improving awareness feeds back into the system itself underpinning its relevance. Of course, the “open” movement whether in science, innovation, or any other area might argue that IP concerns actually stifle innovation. It is nevertheless difficult to see what incentive there would be for a smaller company to develop its inventions, whether pharmaceuticals or vacuum cleaners if there were no protection of their designs to allow them to recoup their costs, make a profit and re-invest in their business to come up with the next invention.

Robert H. Pitkethly (2012). Intellectual property awareness Int. J. Technology Management, 59 (3/4), 163-179

Charity Engine was created to enable millions of home PCs to raise millions of dollars for the best possible causes, all thanks to spare computing power that nobody is using anyway. “Together, our PCs really can change the world — one bit at a time.”

NHS Choices comments on a powerfully argued and controversial paper in the British Medical Journal that claims many people are being diagnosed and treated for mild health problems that left alone might never cause any harm.

The magazine lists the common conditions that the authors claim are being overdiagnosed:

Breast cancer — a systematic review suggests that a third of breast cancers detected by screening might not cause harm or early death.

Thyroid cancer — detecting thyroid abnormalities is common, but risk low.

Gestational diabetes — an expanded definition means one in five pregnant women are diagnosed inappropriately.

Chronic kidney disease — an expanded definition means 10% of Americans are classified as having the disease but fewer than 1 in 1000 will develop end-stage kidney disease.

Asthma — asthma is often underdiagnosed, but a third of those being treated may not have the condition.

Pulmonary embolism — potentially fatal but new, sensitive tests detect smaller clots that may not require treatment.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) — a widened definition of this condition has led to overdiagnosis

Osteoporosis — expanded definitions means many women being treated even if at low risk of fractures.

Prostate cancer — Prostate specific antigen (PSA) may lead to overdiagnosis in more than 60% of men.

High blood pressure — authors suggest “substantial overdiagnosis” of high blood pressure.

High cholesterol — almost 4 in ever 5 people treated for high cholesterol may actually have near-normal cholesterol levels.

You can read the full assessment of the BMJ paper in NHS Choices.

Airport X-ray security body scanners are anything but risky business. Indeed, you will be exposed to the same dose of ionising radiation in just two minutes of your flight once you’re at high altitude. So, an 8-hour flight is equivalent to having 240 full-body scans. They reckon you’re well within safety limits at having 5000 scans a year, but that equates to only about 20 8-hour flights.

Frequent flyers be warned: every time you climb aboard one of those jet-powered metal tubes and take to the air you are being bombarded with cosmic rays. The term cosmic rays is something of a misnomer as there aren’t really any rays present, that’s purely historical, cosmic rays are composed of high-energy sub-atomic particles, mostly protons (89%), 10 are helium nuclei (better known as alpha particles) and the remaining 1% are electrons (beta particles) and other spurious entities such as antimatter particles.

These cosmic particles can have energies 7 or 8 orders of magnitude greater than the energies produced by our particle accelerators here on earth. The earth’s atmosphere and magnetic field does deflect much of the cosmic bombardment so that life can survive, but, as I said frequent flyers (which includes pilots and air crew) can experience double the dose of ionising radiation of those whose feet stay firmly on the ground.

Airport X-ray scanners generate not cosmic particles, but X-rays, but to the atoms and molecules from which we are made it is the energy that they carry not their physical nature that matters. X-rays and cosmic particles will ionize atoms and molecules, once ionized these atoms and molecules are highly unstable and can fall apart or react with other nearby atoms and molecules to generate new ions. If the molecules in question are proteins this can lead to the breakdown and death of the cells using those proteins. Damage the DNA and the cell might die or it might become cancerous, replicating endlessly without the usual constraints.

Of course, we could spend hours debating the relative risk, you might even think about calling me on your mobile phone with worry (they don’t produce nor receive ionising radiation). But, for many people the high-altitude flight and the pointless X-ray body scan at the airport are often followed by two weeks lying almost naked on a hot beach during the daylight hours to expose one’s skin to hour upon hour of ultraviolet radiation and evenings are spent smoking cigarettes and drinking copious amounts of alcohol. There’s undeniable risk and then there’s risk you can deny if it would spoil your holiday to admit it exists…

Interestingly, Samanda Correa of the National Nuclear Energy Commission in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and colleagues have used a statistical method known as a Monte Carlo simulation to calculate the change in risk of developing cancer associated with exposure to X-ray body scanners. The team points out that these scanners while well known for their use in airports as an anti-terrorism measure are also widely used in prisons to combat smuggling. Their research suggests that one would need to have 130 scans to be exposed to 0.25 millisieverts of ionising radiation, which is considered the annual safe limit for members of the public. The increase in cancer risk for just a handful of scans per year is very, very low. They say it only becomes significant for those having dozens of scans annually, but even then it is a small increase.

I still suspect the sunburn, the booze and the cigarettes will do you in before the X-ray scanners get you…

Samanda Cristine Arruda Correa, Josilto Oliveira de Aquino, Edmilson Monteiro de Souza, & Ademir Xavier da Silva (2012). Evaluation of the dose and of the risk of cancer induction associated with the use of transmission X-ray body scanners using the Monte Carlo MCNPX code Int. J. Low Radiation, 8 (5/6), 340-354