Quantcast
Channel: Cadence Blogs
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 6721

How Many Journalists per Square Acre?

$
0
0
It doesn't matter how low your standard is for science journalism, the journalists always seem to manage to go lower. I realize that the sort of people who go to journalism school tend not to be the most scientific. In fact, given the employment situation in journalism, I wonder why anyone goes to journalism school anymore. I ended up in journalism in a very roundabout way. However, I do expect slightly higher standards from people who are given the title "science journalist". Temperature Differences In December, I noticed a report on Reuters about Exxon and global warming. The details of the article are not important. But it contained a sentence that was so scientifically illiterate, I noted it down: Scientists have warned that world temperatures are likely to rise by more than 2 degrees Celsius (35.6°F) this century Err...that's not how temperature differences work. A temperature difference is not a temperature. Not only is the number in parentheses calculated incorrectly, the unit should be degrees Fahrenheit (or deg F) not °F. Square Acres A few days after I read this, I took some friends down to Hearst Castle. Highway 1 is still closed near Big Sur, so you have to go the less photogenic route. One of the signs in the visitor center said that the grounds of the castle were a certain number of square acres. Well, Dr Who might like to fly his Tardis there, since acres are already a unit of area. A square acre is a four-dimensional thing called a tesseract, the four-dimensional equivalent of a square or cube. This same mixing up of units is what underlies a paradox that kids learn: 2 pounds = 32 ounces. 1/2 pound = 8 ounces. If we multiply the two equations we end up with 1 pound = 256 ounces. The paradox comes about because you need to multiply the units too, to get square pounds and square ounces. Since these are not physically real things, it is easier to see with feet and inches. 2 feet = 24 inches and 1/2 foot = 6 inches. Multiply the two equations and you get 1 square foot = 144 square inches. Since this is correct, there is no paradox. Megawatts and Megawatt Hours Then, on Endgadget, who you think would know better, was this: Tesla has completed its 100 megawatt Powerpack battery backup system in South Australia within 100 days (easily), as Elon Musk had promised. I think that this probably means that the battery can store 100 megawatt-hours, but it might mean that it can discharge at 100 megawatts for a period of time (in which case, how long is pretty important). Somehow, journalists have a hard time coping with the fact that kilowatts are a unit of power, energy delivered in a given time, whereas the stuff that our electricity meters count are kilowatt-hours, a total amount of energy. Wikipedia's entry for Kilowatt Hour even has a section on this confusion, and another section on the misuse of Kilowatts per Hour. This is actually a rate of change, like acceleration compared to speed (or velocity). The units can be correctly used to describe the rate of change of the output of a power station. For example, pumped storage power stations use a motor/generator to pump water from a lake (or loch in Scotland) up a mountain to a higher lake. Then, when power is needed, they let the water run back down, and with the same motor/generator, they generate power instead of consuming it. They are designed to make this change fast, when demand changes, and so they have a very high rate at which they can ramp up their power output. The pumped storage system I am most familiar with, Cruachan in Scotland, where Loch Awe is the lower reservoir, has an output of 440MW and can ramp to full power in two minutes, which is a ramp of 13,200 megawatts per hour (13.2GW/h). Below is a picture of the dam that holds the upper reservoir, and a rather younger version of your Breakfast Bytes blogger. NPR Science Editor Earlier this month, as pointed out here by the American Council on Science and Health, NPR is looking for a science editor. As the article points out: Under qualifications the ad says "Education: Bachelor's degree or equivalent work experience." Amazingly, not only is a background in science unnecessary, college itself is optional. Despite such a low bar, whoever gets hired for the job will be responsible for covering "consumer health trends, medicine, public health, biotech and health policy." Similarly, the PBS affiliate in Seattle is also looking for someone, a Science/Environment Producer. Again, a college degree of any kind is not required, never mind one in science. Not even one in environmental science, which is not even a real science following my maxim that only non-science sciences have the word science in the name: political science, social science, computer science (I won't mention how much study seems to go on in courses that have studies in the name). Instead: The ideal candidate will be an experienced field producer with a deep understanding of Northwest environmental issues, including urban sustainability and environmental justice. So the job will probably go to someone with no science (but suitably woke). Just don't expect the candidate to avoid discrediting herself when she makes elementary mistakes like the ones in this blog post. Late News Just today, about the Olympics, I read from Associated Press: When it came to landing the Winter Games, the things that had always isolated the area—heavy snows, long winters, and sharp mountains that rise nearly half a mile above sea level—were a blessing. But when the visitors leave, many of the province's problems will remain. "nearly half a mile" is maybe 2,500' so once again, some journalist isn't really thinking about numbers. For comparison, Lick Observatory, on the top of Mount Hamilton, visible from all over Silicon Valley, is at 4,200 (over 3/4 mile!). I took a look and the Olympic giant slalom starts at 1,408m (4,600 feet), higher than Mount Hamilton but, surprisingly, not by much, but a lot higher than "nearly half a mile", and this isn't even the top, the height that those "sharp mountains rise" to. I just took a look at the highest point in Korea, but it turns out to be on Jeju island, a volcano off the south coast of the main peninsula...but an EDA connection since ASP-DAC was held there at the end of January just a few weeks ago. Sign up for Sunday Brunch, the weekly Breakfast Bytes email.

Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 6721

Latest Images

Trending Articles



Latest Images