Category: Miscellaneous

Not fitting into other categories

Executions (per 100 000 people)

I was inspired by a Google+ conversation about this figure. So I took numbers of executions from here and population from here (28 January 2013). Execution numbers are from 2011 and population, I think from 2008 to 2011. Malaysia and Syria were not included as no number was given in the source for the number of executions. For China I rounded the number to 1000 even though the source gives an estimate from about 1000 to 4000. The original spreadsheet can be found here

Executions per 100kFigure 1. Number of executions per 100 000 people in 2011

 

log executions per 100 kFigure 2. Log(number of executions per 100 000 people)*(-1). Same as figure 1 but emphasizes differently.

Executions histogram

Figure 3. Histogram of execution densities.

Table 1. Data the images are based on.

Execution data

Edit: Added Figure 3.

“But it’s freedom of speech”

“Do I really want the racist ogres of this country to learn to spread their (to me repugnant) ideas more glibly and effectively than they are doing now? Well: yes. If their communication continues to be as brutal as it is now, it will not take long before I myself am afraid to use some forbidden words in any context (pedohopilia, Islam, Somalis).”

[See original in Finnish. This is fairly Finland-specific, but there might be general ideas here that irritate my American friends, so I translated it.]

As someone who thinks a lot about freedom of speech, and debates about it with people from all ends of spectrum, I recently read an article that really stuck in my mind (Zeynep Tufekci, Technosociology 14.10.2012). It’s a motherlode of ideas, but I will focus on one only.

Among other things, Tufekci analyzes Reddit. The service is famous in the US but less so outside, so I will summarize. Reddit is a discussion forum with multiple subreddits. A core value of Reddit is absolute freedom of speech (only restricting clearly illegal material). This has led to perfectly legal subreddits like “jailbait” and “creepshot”. Here’s Tufekci’s description:

“Children focused “jailbait” forums typically include photos of minors on a beach in splashing around in bathing suits, a youngster practicing gymnastics, students in school with the picture taken from a low-angle, from-the-behind etc. and are peppered with comments about genitals, looks and rape. The more adult-oriented “creepshot” forum typically include non-consensual “upskirt” photos of women’s crotches, breasts, as well private photographs that were shared with boyfriends, exes, being circulated for commentary and leering.”


On the face of it, Tufekci is using a very primitive debate technique: “Think of the children”. Children are being abused, and the “jailbat” reddit must be closed, and everyone who disagrees is a pedophile, end of question.

Actually, she is being far more subtle. She doesn’t call for “jailbait” to be shut down. She asks instead why Reddit specifically feels it needs to host it. Reddit is a large commercial enterprise, and it does not have to tolerate “jailbait” even though it is legally allowed to do so. It is Reddit itself that has decided to make absolute freedom of speech an issue on which it will stand or fall. Why not just close “jailbait” and be rid of it? “But it’s free speech”. Why give perverts an open playground for imagery that they will use for whatever they use it for? “But it’s free speech.”

Tufkeci strongly supports free speech, but has a pragmatic approach. “But it’s free speech” will turn on itself in the end. Freedom of speech is not a gift from above. It is a right that society has given its members, and as such is a right which society can restrict or remove at will. Freedom of speech has to be constantly defended and fought for. But the fight should be intelligent. If the only strategy, when cornered, is to yell “but it’s free speech”, eventually the community will stop listening and will act.

Here in Finland the community has already acted, against “hate speech”. The best-known example is Jussi Halla-aho, a member of Parliament and former chair of the Parliament’s Administration Committee (which deals with immigration issues). The Supreme Court recently gave him a hefty fine for “hate speech” (against immigrants) and  “defaming religion” (specifically Islam). For information in English, see e.g. Yle 8.6.2012.

Halla-Aho is a controversial figure with controversial anti-immigration opinions, to say the least. In response to how he frames his opinions, the Finnish state, usually soft and mild-mannered, has acted. And acted strongly (though not harshly by any international standards).

Finland consistently scores near the top spot for freedom of speech (see e.g. RSF), but there are de facto limits here. Only one opinion on pedophilia is “allowed”: any and all censorship must be accepted if there is even a theoretical chance that it could limit the spread of child pronography (there is in fact a secret Internet blocking list).

Little by little, immigration and especially Islam is becoming equally off-limits: all critical speech is hate speech. Personally, I believe that if one does not like Somalis or Islam, one must be allowed to say it. I do not agree with the position, but it must be possible for anyone to state it publicly, even a political figure, even a member of parliament, even the chair of the Administration Committee.

However. There is no particular reason why that person should be allowed to say it in the harshest possible way, with maximum intent to hurt and insult people. We now have a Supreme Court decision on this, for the case of Halla-Aho. That is the reality.

Thus I want to clarify to myself what the “freedom of speech” is that I want to hold on to. Is it an absolute and inflexible right to say anything to anyone anywhere at any time, no matter how rude or hurtful? This would be a simple and consistent position. Unfortunately, it is far more complex than that.

Even explosive issues must be open to debate. But one has to know when one is in a minefield, and move accordingly. The more provocatively one wants to speak, the more skillful one must be.

At the national level, Halla-Aho’s next steps will have a huge bearing on freedom of speech and critique of immigration/Islam equally.
1) Will he continue on his blunt and uncompromising line, which may well result in what he himself has feared: any and all criticism (especially coming from him) will be automatically branded as hate speech?
2) Will he consider it more important to actually achieve something with his anti-immigration and anti-Islam views, even if he has to scale down the rhetoric significantly?

The first path would be a disaster for everyone, including people like myself who find Halla-Aho’s opinions for the most part repulsive. If there is no room for debate on immigration or Islam, it will be a disaster.  Everything must be open to (civilized) debate. We must be able to ask whether Internet censorship is the wrong way to eliminate pedophilia; or whether Somali males statistically are more likely to engage in rape than the general population, and if so, what should be done about it; or whether Islam is a threat to democracy. But there is no particular reason why we should be able to ask this in the crudest and most offensive way possible.

The second path is disquieting in a different way. Do I really want the racist ogres of this country to learn to spread their (to me repugnant) ideas more glibly and effectively than they are doing now? Well: yes. If their communication continues to be as brutal as it is now, it will not take long before I myself am afraid to use some forbidden words in any context (pedohopilia, Islam, Somalis).

In fact I already feel afraid, just seeing those three words together. Would I be this afraid if the ogres had not done everything they can to make them offensive? I don’t think so.

I agree with Tufekci on this. Coarse, deliberately offensive speech will cause problems for everyone. In the end, it is society (the state) that decides how much yapping it is willing to tolerate. If enough people deliberately and consistently go over that limit, freedom of speech will be taken away from all of us.

 

The mathematics of old people

“A little thought shows that the old person can equally be modeled as a system of weights and pulleys.”

[Finnish version: click here]

I recently sprained the ligaments in my knee — cosmically insignificant, but led to an interesting vector analysis, and gave insights into how and why old people exist the way they do.

Walking on a steady surface was easy after just a couple of weeks. However, it took me almost two months to be able to freely walk up and down stairs. At the same time, I started to notice that old people have problems with stairs. Why is this?

All that’s required is some high school physics. An old person can be modeled in a variety of ways. I believe the model in Figure 1 is the simplest. Assume that the old person is a lump attached to two fulcrums (left side). Assume the thigh and leg to be equally long (differences don’t materially change the results).

A little thought shows that the old person can equally be modeled as a system of weights and pulleys, as shown on right side of Figure 1. The old person is a lump hanging from a rope that passes over a pulley (the hip). The rope then passes through another pulley (the knee) to a third pulley (the ankle, which is assumed fixed). Another identical lump hangs from this end of the rope. When the system is static, there is a force F on the knee pulley, which needs to be calculated.


Figure 1. Modeling an old person in two different ways

Calculating F requires some vector analysis and trigonometry (Figure 2). The vertical forces are in opposite directions, Fv=mg*(cosa-cosb) The horizontal forces are added, so Fp=mg*(sina+sinb).


Figure 2. Vector analysis

The magnitude of the force vector is F= sqrt(Fp²+Fv²), which after a few steps gives  F=2*m*g*(1- cos(a+b)). The force is smallest (zero) when a+b=0. This happens for example when standing straight or lying flattened. It is largest (4*m*g) when a+b=180 degrees.

The vector sums are easily drawn graphically. Figure 3 shows three examples. (The forces have been normalized to one, so that a vector length of 1 corresponds to a force 2*m*g). If the feet move around by 30 degrees when walking, the maximum force on the knee is about 0.5, or m*g. Thus the knee needs to support the whole weight of the old person while walking.

Figure 3. Vector analysis

When climbing up a stair, the force abruptly rises up to almost 1.5, or 3*m*g. The force is thus larger than the old person’s weight. This seems countrintuitive, until one remembers that the old person is lifting herself up through a fulcrum of her thigh’s length.

Rising from a deep squat can require a force of up the 4*m*g, but at that point the model may be too simplified.

In other words: in rising up a stair, the old person’s knee needs to support a force that is more than three times her own weight. That’s formidable, for anyone.

The next time you see an old person walking up a staircase, remember F=2*m*g*(1- cos(a+b)). And stop to see if she needs help. Please.

 

Sulfur directive and IPR

To be populistic: we pay now, but our industry has a payback time in 2020 and gets the money back from Greek merchant shipping.

[Local subjects for a change. Heavier IPR material moved to www.project-trogolodyte.org. // Paikallisia asioita vaihteeksi. Raskaampi IPR-materiaali siirretty ylläolevaan linkkiin.] 

[Finnish version: here. All the links in the article point to Finnish-language sources, but similar material can be found easily.] 

The sulfur directive has been  accepted in the EU parliament. By 2015, ships in the Baltic sea need to drop their sulfur emissions from the current 1% to 0.1%.
Finland is strongly polarized on this. Environmentalists (of whom I am one) against industry. The environmentalists “won” this round, but this is not the place for anyone to gloat, at least not arrogantly. On the contrary, both sides have valid concerns. The directive is positive for environmental and health reasons; it is negative for the Finnish economy and employment statistics.

How positive or negative? One should be skeptical of everyone and everything since it is such a complicated issue, but approximately:

  • The directive saves lives. Whether or not one believes the exact figures of the environmentalists (50,000 extra deaths a year), it is clear that sulfur and particle emissions do have large-scale health effects.
  • Finland will suffer economically. Whether or not one believes the exact figures given by industry, (600 millions EUR per year or 12,000 jobs), common sense and a look at the map says that Finland will suffer more than most countries. We are effectively an island.
  • This is not just an EU decision. The International Maritime Organization IMO has itself approved the limits already in 2008. The EU directive adds very little. If this directive really came as a surprise, someone has been sleeping soundly.
  • In 2015, the limit only affects the so-called SECA-areas, meaning the Baltic Sea, North Sea, English channel and the coasts of Canada and the USA. In the rest of the world, the limit will not be applied until 2020 at the earliest, possibly as late as 2025. It is easy to find this unfair: the directive hurts those countries the most which have already done a fairly good job reducing emissions in general.

The Finnish government has proposed to give 30 million EUR in subsidies to quickly attach scrubbers to ships, but this most likely cannot happen due to the anti-subsidy laws  of the EU.

If Finland had been prepared for the directive, there could have been a win-win scenario. That 30 million, rather than being used (or not used) for subsidies, could have been used to kick-start a major R&D program to create ultra-cheap ultra-flexible plug-and-play scrubbers that could fit into even the shabbiest ships of the world.

There are fewer limits on R&D subsidies, and the 30 million really would not be a major dent in the national budget.

In fact, the 5-10 years’ extension for the rest of the world is precisely what could have given us an opportunity. In 2020 (or 2025), everyone will be just as “surprised” as Finland is now, for example the Mediterranean countries. In the current economic situation, the Mediterranean countries really cannot afford large public R&D investments, even if they are awake.

The possibility would arise from using the IPR system correctly. To those who don’t know much about IPR, and to those who do but are skeptics (myself included), the word “patent” sounds like a boogieman. But this is exactly the kind of situation which the IPR system is meant for: to enable large investments now, in the hopes of recouping those investments much later via licensing. Patents are valid for 20 years. In these R&D programs, it would make sense to patent everything that moves.

To be populistic: we pay now, but our industry has a payback time in 2020 and gets the money back from Greek merchant shipping.

Ugly and heartless? Yes. IPR is ugly.

Unethical? No. This is what the IPR system is meant for, whether one likes it or not. This is not unfair against small inventors (a common complaint), because no one can build large-scale scrubbers in his garage. This is large machinery, requiring large companies.

The proposal may sound vaguely nauseating to everyone. But this is what I would do. It may be too late for the sulfur directive, which is regrettable. But when the next environmental “surprise” arrives, it would make sense to be prepared.

 

Pissing or flushing: Pharmaceuticals in drinking water

What happens when I flush a pill down the toilet? And why should I care?

[Finnish version: click here]

Trace amounts of medications have been found in drinking water in various places. Are there effects on health? Some media are alarmist, but the most accurate answer basically is that we simply do not know yet (WHO,CWA, CBS, New Scientist).

Although it is only human to be worried about humans, the effects on the wider ecosystem may be much larger. A small amount in purified water means a larger amount in the non-purified source water. Again, there are alarming case studies where large amounts of medicine-related hormones have had biological effects on fish populations. However, on the whole no one really knows how much contamination there is, nor what its overall effects are, nor who is causing it (USGS).

There are relatively few possible sources of contamination. Pharmaceutical manufacturers may cause some very high contamination peaks, but the question is controversial (NBC). Antibiotics in agriculture are also a major source (WCP). However, it is clear that some of the contamination is coming from ordinary consumers.

How much?  I don’t know. Rather than getting involved in a big-picture controversy on which we don’t have enough data, I decided to hone in on a small concrete detail. We, ordinary consumers, are contaminating the sewer system with our medications. Whether the effect is serious, we cannot know yet. But there is one question that we can try to answer. What is the mechanism that causes it? Or, to put it in a more earthy manner:

Is the contamination caused by pissing, or by flushing?

There are two ways to get a drug into the sewer system. A person can eat the pill and later excrete any excess medicine in his urine or feces. Or he may dispose of old medications by flushing them down the toilet.

I want to know whether the flushing is causing most of the overall contamination. This is an eminently practical question at the grassroots level. People will take the medications they need, whatever the environmental effect. But there are steps that can be taken against flushing, like information campaigns, creating better incentives to return the medications, or good take-back systems.

Finland has a strong take-back system. All aged medications can be returned to pharmacies free of charge, no questions asked. (The waste is then disposed of as hazardous waste). But even in Finland, flushing happens anyways.

I am trying to find a single number that would allow consumers to get an intuitive feel of the damage they cause by flushing. I may have found it in the inverse of the excretion rate. I am calling it the flush rate. This needs a little explanation.

Whenever a medicine is taken, a complex process occurs (ADME).  Some drugs are broken down almost entirely. Sometimes these byproducts are as harmful as the drug itself, but typically they are much less bioactive. Thus, passing a drug through a human is a good way to clean it up.

However, it is not a perfect way, and some of the drug passes unchanged directly into the urine or feces. If the body breaks up 98% of the drug, the person still urinates 2%. The flush ratio is the inverse of this, or 50. This means that if the person throws just one pill into the toilet, he causes as much contamination as he causes by eating 50 of those pills.

Some typical values for some drugs are shown below. These must be treated skeptically, as variations can be huge and closely related drugs may have completely different excretion rates. Also added is an estimate of the cost per pill, since this information has an effect on how the medication is likely to be treated.

  • Paracetamol, Aspirin (painkiller): Less than 2% excreted. Flush ratio is therefore 1/2%, or  about 50. Cost is ~1 cent per pill
  • Atorvastatin (anti-cholesterol): <2%. Flush ratio ~50, ~50 cnt per pill
  • Carbamazepine (epilepsy medication):  2-3%. Flush ratio ~40, ~20 cnt
  • Prozac (antidepressant): ~15%. Flush ratio ~6, ~1 EUR
  • Oxycodone (strong painkiller): ~19%. Flush ratio ~5, ~4 EUR
  • Cetirizin (anti-histamine): 30%. Flush ratio ~3, ~1 EUR
  • Antibiotics: Huge variations. 40-80% of some antibiotics (NIH). Flush ratio ~2, ~1 EUR/pill (for penicillin)
  • Lisinopril: (hypertension): 100% (Not metabolized at all by the body). Flush ratio ~1, ~30 cnt/pill.
  • Birth control pills (COCP): Special case. The metabolites are hormones which have an environmental effect. Flush ratio not known, but probably low. ~1 EUR/pill

The society-level impact of flushing of course requires knowledge of things like the toxicity of the drug, the speed at which it decays, and the number of people taking the drug. However, a list like the one above does give some indication of where to focus.

My hunch (it is no more than that) is that a low-cost high-flush-ratio over-the-counter (OTC)  medicine has the highest contamination risk. People can buy as much medication in reserve as they want, and the low price means they do not have much incentive to make sure the medication does not age (it is much easier to just buy new pills). In addition, people buy these painkillers like candy. Large amounts will go to waste.

My hunch that people are careless with aspirin is supported by one study (LHWMP): aspirin contamination was found in 24% of tested streams. Aspirin can be toxic for example to cats (Manning), although the levels found in the water were in practice far below this toxicity level.

Thus, if I were to prioritize things based on these figures alone, I would target aspirin. The amounts may be tiny, but the point it that there is no reason for them to be there in the first place. Without flushing, the concentration would be close to zero. SInce the aspirin is not passed into the urine, people could take all the aspirin they want, as long as they disposed of the rest correctly.

I can also think of practical things that could follow from the priorization. Why not put extra notifications specifically on aspirin packages to encourage users to dispose of them correctly?  If such warnings are put indiscriminately on all medications, they may lose their effect. Focus them where the impact is the greatest.

I emphasize that the analysis above has too little data and too few parameters to be reliable. Aspirin may be a problem, but given that antibiotics and hormones have more severe biological effects, they may be much more serious problems. Someone should try to calculate this; I do not really have the competence.

I feel that this kind of analysis has psychological value, if nothing else. Arguments on environmental issues tend to become heated and repetitive. Sometimes it is worthwhile to look at things from a completely different perspective.

 

Translate »