A display of conviction

 

This topic came to mind while following the recent Glasgow conference on climate change.  This was a meeting of experts and government representatives from around the world within a secretariat of the United Nations set up in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro that provides the framework for a convention on climate change (UNFCCC - United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change).

 

There are 197 country signatories on this framework, from which were derived the Kyoto Agreement of 1997 and the Paris Agreement in 2015.1  Now this year’s Glasgow Agreement is being added.

 

I’m using the singular (agreement) although in reality the conference delegates discuss and issue decisions divided into tens of documents2, the most well known being the Glasgow Climate Pact.3

 

The signatories of the convention, who proceed by consensus, recognised (paragraph I(3)) that global temperatures have already increased by 1.1C above pre-industrial times due to mankind’s activities, and that their impact are being felt everywhere.  They also decided (paragraph IV(16)) to do their utmost so that the increase in temperature stops at 1.5C to minimse the risks and impacts.

 

The signatories continued by recognising (paragraph IV(17)) that for this aim to be achieved, carbon pollution needs to be reduced by 45% up to 2030 relative to 2010 levels, that is within the next 9 years, and that this reduction needs to be deep, rapid and sustained.

 

One of the signatories of all the decisions, including the ones I’ve quoted above, was Australia, and the day after the closure of negotiations, quickly issued a clarification that Australia will not be adopting this aim, not now nor in the future4, but will keep aiming for a 26-28% decrease in emissions, and to blunt the impact somewhat stated that it expects an additional reduction of another 9% by that time by 2030.

 

You could just imagine the conviction with which the Australian representatives signed the Glasgow Pact.  It’s a conviction of not giving a damn to what they were inking, and that they would be going their own way, regardless.  Remember that while the Prime Minister was in Glasgow to lead the Australian delegation there, the head of the partner National Party in the Coalition, Barnaby Joyce, who was the acting Prime Minister, was declaring that his party had not signed anything in Glasgow!5

 

The world can have great confidence in the intentions by the Australians for the agreement papers in Glasgow, i.e. that the many pages would find immediate use in the ablutions in Canberra.

 

There was disappointment by those who wished for more concrete action, like for example an increase in finance for poorer nations to a level of $100 billion per year (not achieved), and a promise to phase out the use of coal (what was agreed was phasing down) and others.  On the other hand, there were those in Australia who celebrated that these aims were not achieved, especially members of parliament whose seat is found in regions containing coal mines or coal-fired power plants.

 

I don’t see the conference as having been a failure.  It is true  that not all necessary aims were agreed.  But consider:

• •it is now clear that the time of fossil fuels like coal, oil and methane is drawing to a close; 

• •alternatives to these are being developed rapidly, and as soon as their costs are cheaper than the fossil fuels, the economy will itself ensure that the latter will dwindle. 

 

From the Australian side, despite the merry-go-round, the government is no longer in its rhetoric associating photovoltaic energy with an increase in prices, but with reduced prices, and is realising that there are huge opportunities to be at the forefront of the industrial development of clean energy technology, and is ready to throw a lot of money in that direction.

 

Finally, I expect there will be some economic imposts by the European Union given that Australia does not seem to be ready to commit to do the heavy lifting for the changes necessary this decade until 2030, as did the other developed countries.  I wouldn’t be surprised if the government’s line gradually changes in the months to come (if they are returned to government next year that is), as it already changed when it was finally accepted that carbon emissions should not be higher than their abatement (i.e. net zero) by the year 2050, a decision that was only achieved after much deep-chest coughing.

 

Money talks.

 

 

 

1https://unfccc.int/about-us/about-the-secretariat, retrieved 17/11/2021

2https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/conferences/glasgow-climate-change-conference-october-november-2021/outcomes-of-the-glasgow-climate-change-conference, retrieved 17/11/2021

3https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cop26_auv_2f_cover_decision.pdf, retrieved 17/11/2021

4https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/election-battleground-morrison-government-insists-2030-target-is-fixed-despite-glasgow-20211114-p598qr.html, retrieved 18/11/2021

5https://eminetra.co.nz/barnaby-joyce-states-that-the-national-party-has-not-signed-the-cop26-agreement-and-australia-is-satisfied-with-its-goals-cop26/420728/, retrieved 18/11/2021

The Antikythera Mechanism

 

At the start of the 20th century, in 1900, some remains were found on a Roman merchandise ship at the bottom of the sea off the island of Antikythera, in Greece.  Amongst these remains, there was a piece of bronze and fossilised timber that no one really paid attention to.

 

After a couple of years, someone noticed that the object seemed to contain some gears, and this sparked off some studies that led to some extraordinary conclusions.

 

It is thought that this mechnism was used to forecast the movement of the sun and moon decades in advance, forecast eclipses of the sun and the moon, provide the dates for several games that used to be held at the times when it was constructed, and all this more than two thousand years ago, before Christ!1

 

It is estimated to have been constructed between 87 and 205 B.C.  It has a number of arms similar to that of a clock (both in front and the back) each of which giving a particular forecast, inscriptions in the Greek alphabet, doors with instructions and other information.

 

The person or persons who contstructed this mechanism had information as precise as taking into consideration the fact that the moon’s orbit around the earth is not a circle but elliptical getting close on one side and further away on the other during its orbit!

 

This mechanism was hand-operated, with the operator turning a circle representing the date according to an Egyption calendar (it is still debated whether this consisted of 365 days and a quarter or of 354 days).

 

It is also speculated that it also forecasted the movement of five planets then known, that is Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.  Although there is no inscription or gears found that refer to them, there is a whole description of how these planets orbit our star.  Apart from this, there is some empty space that indicates there may have been some other gears.

 

Its sophistication and complexity are extraordinary, and are on a level generally equivalent to others that appeared around 15 centuries A.C.  Just consider that that the remains found to date do not weigh more than a kilogram, which includes 30 gears.

 

The gear teeth are just 1.6mm in size, with the space between gears just 1.2mm.  Just imagine this work in miniature and precision was carried out more than two thousand years ago with hand tools!

 

This object attracted my attention as once again reminded me firstly how much mankind was able to observe nature, the world and the cosmos around him, and secondly the ability to develop technologies to measure their observations, doubtlessly to be able to regulate its society’s activities, for example farming, and others of a cultural or even sporting nature.

 

We are used to the megalithic temples in Malta that came before, which in Ħaġar Qim and Imnajdra measure the solstices and equinoxes, and others around the world do the same, such as Stonehenge in the UK and Nabta Playa in Africa.  These all used enormous stones to make their observations.

 

The Antikythera Mechanism makes its forecasts in miniature and a breathtaking sophistication and up till now, a hundred years after being discovered, is still not fully understood.

 

What other sophistication remains concealed and is still waiting to see the light of day?  We in this age of the internet and so much knowledge, what are we still to discover that has so far been forgotten?  Do you feel like I do some humility that so many generations ago so many advances had been made in astronomy, mathematics, miniaturisation?

 

Do you fear like I do that a day might come in which our species might destroy our own society to an extend that all the wisdom and knowledge we think we have, becomes lost and forgotten, and disappears with us as so many other societies have disappeared in the past?

 

 

1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism#Mechanics, retrieved 3/11/2021

Reality TV

 

There is currently a new series of Bachelorette on Australian Tv.  This is a program where the female protagonist looks for love, when a number of partecipants try to attract her attention and develop a relationship with her, while living together for a period of time.  This year the program has a little higher interest, as for the first time the protagonist is bisexual, and so there are both male and female participants.

 

Throughout the episodes, one by one the protagonist selects those who will be sent home, until finally the winner is chosen.

 

A similar series exists, Bachelor, where the protagonist is male.

 

These programs, and many many others around the world, fall part of the program genre of reality TV.  These have the characteristic of a group of participants, generally but not necessarily unknown to each other, who live together for a period of time, with cameras and microphones in virtually every corner of the location they are in.

 

The aim of the participants is generally that of winning some prize, such a sum of money or in the case of Bachelorette or Bachelor of finding a partner.  Little by little the participants, or contestants, get eliminated, either by voting amongst themselves, or by voting by the public, or some judge.

 

The program usually consists of parts of their daily life, what they would be doing, saying, discussing, playing, fighting etc. etc. together with a commentary, either by the producers of the program or of selected participants.

 

The first time I saw a program of this type was Big Brother.  Others that have been broadcast in several countries around the world are Survivor (living in some remote jungle or island), Idol (singing), My Kitchen Rules (cooking) etc.

 

This genre is interesting in principle, however I have several objections to it.

 

Firstly is that that situation is manufactured or artificial.  It is not normal, or common, to be surrounded by cameras and microphones (or be wearing one and have a contract saying that for almost no reason are you allowed to remove it).  When under this type of continuous surveillance, you would probably act differently to what you would in the privacy of your home, even if probably even this surveillance can become normalised and almost get forgotten or ignored somewhat.

 

The second is that the program producers many times dramatise what goes on in the place, by emphasising aspects and overlooking others, giving particular impressions events using music, special effects, lights etc.  Some people are portrayed positively, others disagreeably, one other as manipulative, yet another as the devil incarnate etc.

 

It is not the first time that participants declare after the program is over, that they found themselves having achieved notoriety that negatively affects their lives and even leave them with mental health  issues such that they regret having participated.

 

There are also situations that are created with some particular aim, participants inserted for some undisclosed reason in cahoots with the producers etc.

 

Here are we talking of reality, or artificiality?

 

Speaking for myself, this genre does not convince me at all.  What I see are programs that are aimed at stimulating interest with whatever means possible, to achieve purely commercial objectives, period.

 

I do admit that sometimes curiosity gets the better of me when encountering one of these programs, especially when the wife would be watching some cooking show, or one based on singing like The Voice, but I generally avoid these programs like the plague.

Virtual life

 

Lately a colleague of mine mentioned the subject of virtual life and how the pandemic is affecting it.

 

The way I look at things, the origins of virtual life as experienced today came many centuries, even millenia, ago, when the human race started passing messages from one person to another when these were too far away to be seen or heard.  I’m referring to the means of communication, initially through writing or signals, then with the development of telecommunications such as the telex, phone, fax, radio and others.

 

In this way, individuals, communities or groups could communicate and take actions based on these communications, even if physically they did not meet, with the same outcome as if they did.  I’m talking about developments in personal relationships, commerce, the dissemination of information and the like.

 

With development of the computer, the internet, optical fibres, satellites, cellular telephone, this trend just continued growing.  Today, you don’t just call your mate from your home phone, but also see him or her almost anywhere on earth, at a price that always gets closer to zero.

 

Even before COVID struck, you could meet your mates through writing (email, chat rooms) or audio visual means instead of physically going somewhere.  One can also select a representative called an avatar and move it in a completely fictitious social life that only exists on computer.

 

You can meet virtually with family, friends, people with common interests, and discuss or follow comments that are being made, or play games.

 

You can search for a life partner with the multitude of websites and apps that exist for this purpose, some general purpose and others specific for certain characteristics (such as religion, sexual orientation, age, interests etc).

 

You could carry out courses of any type, including university level, without moving your butt from your favourite chair.

 

These are all important facilities, as they facilitate access to useful services for many, many people, provided, that is, you have the money to buy the technology necessary and be in a location having an adequate communication network.

 

This was all in place prior to COVID.  What has happened now is that with the measures taken by governments the world over to limit the virus spread, especially with economy lockdowns, stay-at-home orders as much as possible and other movement restrictions on regional, state and international levels, the facilities that one might have heard about became not only useful but essential.

 

Now that things have started to get a bit easier with the increase of people vaccinated against COVID, one might perhaps expect that the use of virtual tools might reduce back to what they were prior to the pandemic.  I have my doubts whether this will in fact occur.

 

Just take as an example the use of technology by children, especially the younger ones.  For a long time, it was recommended for young children not to have screen time, including television, tablet or smartphone, in excess of an hour every day.1  Now during the school lockdown, my five-year-old kids were pushed to stay in front of the computer to follow their school lessons for about four hours every day, apart from other home work they needed to do.  Now am I suddenly about to convince them that they cannot have more than one hour screen time as it is not good for their health?

 

Many enterprises were requested to let their employees work from home if possible.  This wasn’t a practice that just started now, but suddenly many more employees started making use of this activity.  When this storm is over, don’t you think some organisations will realise they can do without investing in centralised office space costing an arm and a leg, and that many employees like the idea of avoiding spending hours in buses and trains?

 

The main problem with virtual life is the lack of physical and personal contact that you can only get from being close or in front of another person.  In front of a screen, or on the phone, one can act differently from being face-to-face with another.  I’ve often heard of people finding it easier to say negative things about or to a person when using technology rather than being in front of the person.

 

When in front of someone, one can observe better his or her reaction to what is being said or happening, things that could be lost if the camera is not in focus, or part of the face is not visible, or the voice drops out.

 

Virtual life has its limits.  It’s good we take advantage of it, but essential nevertheless to live a full life in the flesh - a physical life.

 

1https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.nsf/Content/gug-indig-hb~inactivitiy, retrieved 6/10/2021

Money is not the problem

 

I think many of you know about the surprise decision by the Autralian government in mid September 2021 to join the United States and United Kingdom in a pact called AUKUS for eight submarines to be built for Australia with propulsion coming from nuclear fission, some time between 2030 and 2040.

 

It was surprising for many reasons.  The first that comes to mind is that Australia is a country that for civil purposes does not use nuclear energy for electricity production but for nuclear medicine,1 and until yesterday had no military use for it.  The government declared that the use of nuclear technology will not extend to armaments.2

 

The second is that Australia already had a contract with a French company, Naval Group, to build twelve new submarines.  These were to work with diesel and electricity, and the basis for their design was actually a nuclear submarine, modified to change its propulsion from nuclear energy to diesel.  This contract had been thought to be worth $90 billion, from which $2 billion had already been spent.3

 

Naturally this was a slap in the face for the French state, which was determined to maintain a significant role in the Pacific, and the Australian contract was an important part of their strategy.  It was well known there were serious problems with the French project, with delays and an increase in costs, so much so that it was known the Australian government was looking at what alternatives there were for the Australian submarines.

 

Nevertheless it seems clear that these alternative considerations were made with great secrecy, and the French side were as surprised as the rest of the world with the step taken.

 

I do understand the advantages of a nuclear submarine, being able to remain permanently under the sea surface, on one that is powered by diesel, which has to resurface after some time to take on diesel and oxygen to be able to operate.  I also understand the fears of people about energy from nuclear fission, whose waste products can be used to build nuclear weapons.

 

What I wanted to comment here was about the expenditure, and the hypocrisy of our leaders that it demonstrates.

 

Consider now that the government has decided that instead of simply adopting the French nuclear submarine, adopt the American one, before even knowing how much this will cost.  It is thought that this new project will cost much more than the $90 billion of the French project.4

 

It is estimated that the Australian government will have to pay hundreds of millions of Australian dollars to the French Naval Group for tearing up the original contract.

 

Some time ago, the Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce declared he would not accept to increase the ambition of the country to combat climate change before knowing how much this would cost.5  Has Joyce accepted the AUKUS submarines without knowing the (astronimical) price?

When the government declares that something cannot be done because there is no money, it wasn’t planned, the price is too high or some variation thereof, the truth is that the subject is not a priority.  Period.

 

Take the Centrelink program, labelled Robodebt by its critics, which was trying to recover a few thousands of dollars apiece from those on social benefits, who had allegedly been overpaid.  Some time ago, this program was terminated hastily, after creating so much heartache amongst those who had unjustly been accused, and after many months of criticism.

 

Then consider the Jobkeeper benefit that was paid out until March 2021 as an assistance to organisations that estimated they were going to be worse off, to maintain the employment of hundreds of thousands of workers affected by COVID restrictions.  Lately, it was estimated that $13 billion were given to companies that in fact had not reduced their revenue during the pandemic, yet the government will not ask for the money back.6  Thirteen billion dollars!

 

On the other hand, the government agency Centrelink is attempting to recover $32 million from 11000 individuals, being overpayments related to the pandemic.7

 

Strong with the weak and weak with the strong.

 

1https://www.ansto.gov.au/about/what-we-do/at-ansto, retrieved 21/9/2021

2https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-16/australia-nuclear-submarine-partnership-us-uk/100465814, retrieved 21/9/2021.

3https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-02/defence-contingency-planning-french-submarine-program-germans/100184644, retrieved 21/9/2021

4https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/australian-politics/2021/09/17/aukus-nuclear-submarines-cost/, retrieved 21/9/2021

5https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/we-ve-been-sucked-into-this-before-barnaby-joyce-won-t-back-climate-action-before-seeing-the-cost-20210810-p58hm3.html, retrieved 21/9/2021

6https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/jobkeeper-largesse-tops-13b-20210828-p58mqm, retrieved 21/9/2021

7https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-16/welfare-pandemic-covid-centrelink-debts-jobkeeper/100379072, retrieved 21/9/2021

Suicide?

 

I’ve already commented on Australia’s perception of having contained the transmission of the COVID-19 virus, with the amount of infections and deaths being very low, both in absolute terms as well as a percentage of the population.  This was achieved with a combination of closure of the economy, infetion tracing and, above all, closure of international borders, which for an island/country/continent like Australia was, and still is, quite harsh.

 

With the current wave of infections, especially with the Delta variant, this reputation has taken some of the lustre off.

 

The first problem appeared in the response of NSW to the appearance of Delta, in a driver connected to the quarantine system in June 2021, where Premier Berejiklian and her government took more than a week and a half to order the closure of several parts of Sydney, in the east and centre, but this was not enough.1

 

The NSW State Government kept hoping to use methods that before had been effective to control the spread, but this failed.  Gradually more and more parts of Sydney and eventually the whole state  were caught up in this closure, parts of which even tighter.

 

Even with this, infections have continued to rise, week after week, although now things seem to have plateaued.  It seems to me that the closure took too long to start, and when it did, took too long  to spread out and be enforced.

 

To be clear, I’m sure that even if the closure decisions were taken earlier, they wouldn’t have been enough to contain the spread of the Delta strain of COVID, but we’d have less than the around thousand cases a day we have now.  

 

The second problem is the low number of people who are immunised against COVID in Australia.  It is incomprehensible to me how an advanced country like Australia, when Delta struck, had only 4% of people being double dose immunised, when a developing country like Malta was already almost on 60%,2 with the latter having a high infection and death rate as a proportion of its population.

 

The Australian government had faith in vaccine trials that had been underway by the University of Queensland, but these unravelled as the trial revealed the vaccine was interfering with tests for another virus, HIV.3

 

The government then came to an agreement with two COVID vaccine companies, Pfizer and AstraZeneca (Malta had four), with the latter being manufactured locally and first in being cleared for use, before the whole brouhaha erupted, after it was associated with secondary effects some of which were fatal.

 

It seems to me that Australia did not have enough diversity of supply in its vaccines.  If Europe, the United States and Israel could sprint with their immunisation, why couldn’t Australia?

 

 

Now it’s known that only immunisation can get us out of this nightmare.  Nevertheless it is clear that many people are still not convinced that they need to get a jab, due to effects that can be fatal, and I’ve heard this from Maltese people as well.

 

This fear is exaggerated.  According to statistics, in case of AstraZeneca, the main secondary effect is Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS), a blood clot condition which carries a one in a million risk of being fatal.  The Pfizer vaccine also has a secondary effect, myocarditis, which is a heart inflammation, which is even rarer than that of AstraZeneca.

 

Compare this with the risk of being struck by lightning (2 per million), to die from taking daily Aspirin (100 per million) and of giving birth (67 per million).4

 

If you have ever flown from Australia to Malta, you’ve taken the risk of developing Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) up to 48 hours after the flight.  This condition, which can be fatal, appears in flights of 4 hours or longer, and affects 1-2 per thousand (i.e. 1000-2000 per million).5  If you flew back, you took the same risk, again.

 

It seems to me that the fear of these secondary vaccination effects is exaggerated, and is disregarding the positive effect of the jab.  Being vaccinated is not a guarantee of not being infected by COVID, although it does reduce the risk of getting it, but you have a much reduced chance of being hospitalised or succumbing to it.

 

The experience of countries which had high levels of COVID, like the United States and the United Kingdom, is that people who are unvaccinated have an almost 30 times higher chance of being hospitalised with COVID-19 than people who are fully vaccinated (double dose).

 

If you have a medical reason where it is not recommended for you to get a jab, I do understand and empathise.

 

If you are refusing the vaccine due to a fear of the rare secondary effects mentioned, or because you don’t like the idea of being vaccinated, be aware that you are effectively risking your own suicide.

 

 

1https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/from-limousine-to-lockdown-how-sydney-s-outbreak-got-out-of-control-20210625-p5848u.html, retrieved 7/9/2021

2https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations?country=OWID_WRL~AUS~MLT, retrieved 7/9/2021

3https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2020/12/update-uq-covid-19-vaccine, retrieved 7/9/2021

4https://www.science.org.au/curious/people-medicine/astrazeneca-vaccine-risk-death-1-million-what-does-mean, retrieved 8/9/2021

5https://www.mydr.com.au/dvt-and-flying/, retrieved 8/9/2021

The enemy's press freedom

 

Some days ago, the United States of America took action against 33 internet news sites affiliated to the Iranians, such that these were offline for several hours.  In practice, these sites were accessible after they changed their domain names, through which they are found with a search.

 

The stoppage could easily be done as their original name was controlled by an American company, and therefore falls under American laws.  The US authorities stated that these sites were aimed at sending misinformation to the US and had a malicious intent. Moreover, it was said they were obliged to ask for a license before starting operations, which they hadn’t done.1

 

The action had a limited impact, as the sites concerned simply obtained another name through a company outside the US, and continued their work, although naturally it will take some time until their followers would notice the name change.

 

To be clear, Iran is a theocratic Islamic country, with a democracy tightly controlled by the religious establishment.  For example, recently there were elections for the President of Iran, where prospective candidates all had to be vetted by the Guardian Council, and most were not allowed to become candidates for reasons that were not published.

 

Freedom of the press is guaranteed by the constitution as long as it is not detrimental to Islamic principles,2 and in a theocratic country dominated by religious considerations, what freedom is this?

 

Iran is also one of the countries that still has capital punishment, and in 2020 is thought to have had 250 executions.3

 

I say all this as for a Maltese-Australian like me, these and similar characteristics are likely to feel out of tune.

 

Nevertheless, if a country like this wants to publish its ideas and propaganda, why should it be stopped?  Can’t one read the parts that are of interest, and then decide with which to agree or disagree?

 

I find it strange that a country that styles itself as an example of freedom and democracy, takes widespread action such as this, even when I’m sure it knows it wouldn’t last long.

 

When mentioning democracy, I really need to add a bit of qualifier, given that the US is involved.  This is a country that at the start of this same year, had a President that did his utmost to deceive with much hot air, to convince the erstwhile gullible that being buried by an electoral landslide was actually a ‘bigly’ victory;  which has states ruled by his side of politics up to this minute doing everything in their power to make it difficult for marginal groups, like blacks and immigrants, from being able to vote in elections and participate in their democracy; and having some states also still having capital punishments on their criminal statutes.

 

And this democratic country, does it not spread misinformation?  What was that about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

 

It seems to me that the United States of America has lost a lot of its moral authority obtained when it entered the Second World War and was instrumental in changing, with its other allies, the fortunes of the war against Nazism.

 

The action taken against Iranian web sites leaves this question in my mind, what exactly was the point?

 

1https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-seizes-websites-used-iranian-islamic-radio-and-television-union-and-kata-ib, retrieved 23/6/2021

2https://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/iran/Iran99o-03.htm, retrieved 23/6/2021

3https://iranintl.com/en/iran/iran-human-rights-least-267-executions-2020, retrieved 23/6/2020

Fresh from sea-water ... and hydrogen too

 

Malta always had a water problem.  Every living being needs water to survive, and man is no exception.  The country is not endowed with consistent natural rivers, and along the times gathered water from wells, looked for streams out of rocks and dug holes in the ground, to be able to drink along with his animals, cook, irrigate.

 

With a growing population, usage grew commensurately, and the amount of holes in the ground increased, became deeper and so much water was extracted that some streams dried up, and the water raised started being salty such that it was hardly potable any longer.

 

Desalination entered into the picture, that is the production of fresh water from sea water.  The first type was distillation, where sea water is heated until boiling, steam rises leaving behind the salt that remains in water more and more concentrated.  The steam rises until it meets a cool surface, condenses and is gathered as fresh water.  The first such plant started in 1966.  This is a very expensive plant to run, as all the water that needs to be so procesed has to be boiled, which is very energy intensive.

 

An innovative version of this process is reverse osmosis.  Imaging having salt water on the left of, and less salty water on the right of a membrane.  In normal conditions of temperature and pressure, there will be a tendency for water to pass from the right to the left, through the pores of the membrane, until the water on both sides have the same salt content.  This process is osmosis.

 

In reverse osmosis, the more salty side is compressed, with the effect that water flow in the membrane is reversed, that is the salty side becomes even more salty as the water has the tendency of seeping to the other side.

 

Malta has several plants of this type, the first built at Għar Lapsi in 1982,1 and for many years was well known in the world as a laboratory for this technology.

 

Recently I was reading about an interesting development for this technology, which could potentially be used also for the production of hydrogen, a simple element, the first produced in the universe, and also a fuel being mentioned as having an important role on this earth in the fight against climate change.

 

Researchers have announced having found a different use for reverse osmosis membranes in electrolysis, that is the production of hydrogen and oxygen from water and electrical current.  Up to now, the production of these gases needed fresh water, as sea water couldn’t be used due to the parallel production of chlorine, with is a toxic gas (salt chemically consists of sodium and chlorine).

 

The researchers found that oxygen is produced on the positive side (anode) and hydrogen on the negative side (cathode) as happens normally during electrolysis, but chlorine can be prevented from passing from one side to the other, which happens during conventional electrolysis, by a reverse osmosis membrane.  This is a huge advantage.2

 

So far, in this research the membrane is only used for electrolysis, not also to produce fresh water at the same time.  Nevertheless, if this research is commercialised, Malta with its experience in the field of reverse osmosis and its limitless resources of sea water, can make use of this technology as a new industry if combined with a renewable source of energy.

I would follow such a development with great interest.

 

1https://www.wsc.com.mt/about-us/our-history/, retrieved 10/6/2021

2https://acapmag.com.au/2020/09/generating-renewable-hydrogen-fuel-from-sea/, retrieved 10/6/2021

Stealing that isn't

 

One of the memorable stories in the land of our forefathers was the coming of the French at the end of the eighteenth century, who took the islands from the Knights of St John at the time of GrandMaster Hompesch.

 

It is memorable as the Maltese themselves rebelled against the French rulers, after they found that positive reforms introduced by the French such as the equality (on paper) of everyone under the law, the establishment of primary schools for the education of Maltese children, the prohibition of bonavolji (a form of voluntary slavery on vessels for those unable to pay their bills)1 etc, was not enough to make up for a general lack of payments such as for damages incurred during the French coming, pensions, an increase in pawning rates etc.2

 

However surely the straw the broke the Maltese camel’s back was the taking of silver and gold from churches and the Order’s auberges.  Perhaps the most famous treasure is the sword of GrandMaster La Valette that ended up, and still is at, the Louvre Museum in Paris, and I still remember this being mentioned clearly in a childhood history lesson.

 

It wasn’t clear what had become of the treasures taken by the French.  Some thought these had been loaded on the Orient galley which from Malta went with Napoleon’s fleet to attack Egypt.  The Orient ended up at the bottom of Aboukir bay so it was thought that the Maltese treasure was there also, although this begs the question why would a treasure of such high value be loaded onto a ship going to war.

 

Recently there was an article by Dr J.F. Grima that concluded that the treasure was not on the Orient, but had been taken to the army’s treasury, parts of which were sold in Malta and Egypt, others melted into ingots or coins etc.  There were some other items of value in another vessel called Sensible which from Malta sailed towards France but was intercepted by the English, and the valuable objects thereon went hither and thither.

 

Nevertheless, the comment that struck me most from this article was that the rights to all property snatched by the French had been lost as the Order had surrendered.  In other words, La Valette’s sword in France now belongs to the French, as the Order had lost its confrontation with the French.

 

What?

 

Just imagine someone breaking into your house, in the dark of night.  You wake up in the middle of the night and find a stranger pointing a knife in your direction, threatening you and you family if you even attempt to stop him sweeping your adobe for any items of value you might have.  You decide not to risk your life and those of your loved ones, and do not resist the implementation of his plans.

 

Since you offered no resistance and let him leave, then you’ve lost every right to the items he’s pilfered.

 

Does this really make sense?

 

In criminal law, stealing exists, amongst others, when the taking of objects is done without the consent of the owner, and in the case of the example given above, this consent was not there, clearly.

 

In the case of Malta’s treasures taken by the French, one can point to the capitulation signed by the GrandMaster on 12th June 798, as the day when all rights on property held by the Order were ceded.  However is this truly the end of the story?  Is capitulation at knife point valid?

 

In the second World War, the Nazis also stole a vast amount of treasure, in precious metals, arti, cultural objects etc, which after their final defeat there was widespread action for the identification as far as possible of what had been stolen in order to return same to the original private or state owners from whom it was taken.

 

I don’t understand why this principle does not also apply to the French Republic, when Napoleon’s era ended with the battle of Waterloo in 1815 against the allies of Great Britain, Holland, Prussia and others.  It is in Malta’s interest to keep insisting that what has been taken be returned.

 

 

 

 

1L-Ilsiera fi żmien L-ordni f’Malta (5); L-Orizzont; 18/5/2017; p.20

2Ġrajjet Malta - it-tielet ktieb; p185

See you

 

I’ve often commented on how Australian governments, both federal and state, managed to constrain the spread of the COVID pandemic, especially compared to other countries like the Americans, European and Brasil etc.  They have done this by several measures, amongst others contact tracing, a good rate of people undergoing tests when feeling the relative symptoms and, perhaps the harshest one, huge restrictions on international travel.

 

Recently, however, the Australian federal government took a decision which I’ve rarely seen being reversed so quickly.

 

There is an explosion of cases in India, which have reached 400,000 a day, superseding the United States at its worst.  Part of this increase was attributed to the B1617 virus variant which is more invective than others that have been discovered to date.  The Indian situation is so serious that hospitals are full, oxygen supplies are low or non existent, many people are dying at home while running out of time to be allocated a hospital bed or a private oxygen supply.

 

In response to this situation, the Australian government completely closed flights from this country until mid May and also threatened huge fines and jail time to those Australians who might have been toying with the idea of coming back from India to their country while traversing a third.  It justified this decision b noting that positive COVID-19 cases in quarantine had increased, and wanted to give a chance for state quarantine facilities to recover.1

 

The federal government declared that this decision was taken to protect Australia and Australians, but it seems that Austrlians that were in India weren’t so considered.  One could quickly conclude that the Australian government washed its hands of them for a period of time, leaving them to their own devices, when literally the risk to their lives was the highest it has been since the start of the pandemic in December 2019.

 

To me, this indicates that our quarantine facilities in Australia are not equipped and dimensioned adequately, even after so many months with the virus around.  It should be remembered that right at the start of the pandemic, it was decided that quarantine would be the function of state governments, and not that of the federal government as provided for in the constitution, and therefore each state implements its own quarantine system.2  Therefore, national quarantine facilities are not the primary ones being used.  I would add that state facilities cannot be expected to cater for national crises, as is this one.

 

The reaction against this Australian decision was very negative practically from all quarters, including several elements from within the governing coalition and commentators usually sympathetic to the right.  Opposition was so strong and widespread, that the government immediately started looking into how to roll it back, firstly that the indended criminal sanctions of fines and jail would not be applied to those caught breaking the restrictions, and some time later that repatriation flights would be restarted by 15th May, before the date had been reached.

 

There was also a court case alleging the the government decision was even illegal.  So far, the court has denied this interpretation.  I cannot comment on the legal aspect, I can only agree with the many who felt that this decision was immoral.

Probably also as a reaction to this situation, the Australian government said that the federal quarantine facility at Howard Springs and some others would soon be able to house 850 person every fortnight.

 

Today, repatriation flights of Autralians from India have restarted, thank God, and formally all Australians are deemed worthy of protection, whether in their country or not.

 

Today, also, the serious matter of smothering any escapes from quarantine of the virulent Indian variant is in full swing.

 

1https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-28/australia-india-flights-travel-ban-covid-outbreak/100099906, retrieved 12/5/2021

2https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-19/who-is-responsible-for-quarantine-in-australia/13070108, retrieved 12/5/2021