Today, I was reading through the Guardian as I do regularly, perusing the news. As I'm scrolling over the articles one catches my eye, "Rip-off Britain: why is everything so expensive?" You can incidentally read the article here for yourself at your own leisure:
It is essentially 4 interviews; one with Ian Peters, chief operating officer at British Gas, another with a sommelier (wine connaisseur) at Le Gavroche (restaurant chain), a third on face cream at La Prairie (without a doubt the most ridiculous) and a final one with the head of communications for Cross Country trains. Needless to say words cannot express my rage at reading the article. This is in no small way due to the answers given by the interviewees who dodge questions, lie, mislead and can't be credited with anything more than charlatanism. As such I had many moments like this [right] while reading.
Here are a few juicy ones to get your blood boiling.
Ian Peters, Chief operating officer, British Gas
Besides their CEOs being massively overpayed (like all CEOs) - £2M salary with 250K pension fund - and forcing ~2M elderly to live in a single room to keep warm in winter, there was nothing else glaring about this in the interview.
David Galetti, Head Sommelier, Le Gavroche - Bottled Water
This interview looked into the pricing of bottled water at restaurants, the interviewer starts by stating that the bottle of water on offer for £3 can be found for £1 at Ocado. The interviewee than gives a halting, jerky reply as to why the price is so high. This suggest that his brain is struggling to find an adequate answer, when it comes to a conclusion it decides on, "It's quite delicate to give a specific reason as to why it is that price."
When pressed on profit for a £5 bottle of water, he explains they buy them for £1.50, thus making them a delicious mark up of £3.50. Not bad for something that you can basically get out of your tap. And no, bottled water is not necessarily more mineral rich, it depends how it's made, some companies remove all the ions and minerals then re-add them after or cheaper still, as in the case of Coca Cola's branded water, just stick a label on Thames Water after adding a few ions to it.
My suggestion would be to get a distiller if you don't like your tap water. Or you could turn to a good ale.
Rahcel Simmonds, Skin care training manager, Face cream - Cellular Platinum Cream COSTING £656 for 50mL - YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS UP
Now for the interview that really took the biscuit and was by far the most ignominious. Hands down. First of all the price which for some products would be justifiable, but for such a small volume and for what is basically a sham as you will see.
The product is made up of a 'platinum colloidal water' (which means that there are particles of platinum suspended in water), this is all well and fine. When pressed on the high cost of the product, Rachel Simmonds the training manager states her rehearsed speech pertaining to a subject she has no knowledge of:
"It is magnetically charged particles of platinum, so it has an impact on the electrical balance of the skin. It helps to realign the water molecules so you have a better receptivity to nutrients. But it also stops vital hydration from being lost."
Her diction aside, her science is completely unfounded and bogus. Her first error here is to confuse magnetism with electrical charge, if you read the wiki article it clearly states "platinum ions [are] reduced to neutral platinum atoms", meaning they are no longer charged. Secondly water molecules are not aligned in any one way on your skin. If that were the case then that individual would have mastered nanotechnology to a staggering degree and would be sitting on a small fortune, such a technology DOES NOT exist.
Furthermore, you don't receive nutrients through the skin - I can't remember seeing people eating through their skin EVER - with the exception of vitamin D (for the record sunlight does not carry Vitamin D, it induces chemical reactions resulting in its synthesis) - something that you get from the SUN, NOT a cream, as such it is completely unrelated to your pores. The final claim on the other hand is true, but then you can get a cream that will do that for £5.
"GW: Does the cost reflect the research that has gone into that? Or the cost of producing it?
RS: A bit of both. Every ounce of platinum has a higher cost than every other metal."
Well, this might have been the case in 2009, but post-2010 Rhodium became the most expensive metal due to its low abundance and lack of large mining sites.
Asked on the long term effects of the product, she replied:
RS: Yes. You've got better hydration, it also stops the environment getting into the skin.
While the first statement is true, the second one shows such a profound ignorance of the functionings of the human body that I cannot help but add further vitriol to her sorry existence. A fundamental point to be made here is that the skin functions naturally as a barrier to the environment. Your body doesn't want things entering it, you know why? Because they lead to sickness and ill health, afflictions induced by bacteria, fungi and viruses. Were the skin to do anything but be a barrier, everytime you went swimming in a river or the sea, or got rained on or walked barefoot on soil you would be subjected to a systematic assault on your body as all of these nasties would vye for a home in your warm, cosy body. So to suggest that a cream has such a function is absurd.
The icing on the cake has to be this line though:
"GW: Has it been scientifically tested?
RS: Yes, in the laboratory in Switzerland and on human volunteers. We don't publish the results."
If she had any remaining credibility up to this point, this last one just blew it out of the water, what she is essentially saying is, "Well it might have an effect, and that is because I say it does." Absolutely marvellous use of the scientific technique. There are more quotes that are equally as nauseating, but I shall not bore you with further commentary and explanation as there is still one interview left over! Oh yes, I'm sure it will make up for the misdeeds of the previous ones...
But before we start that, I'd like to share this gem of a comment,
"If you know anyone whos forked out £650 for platinum face cream, could you point them in my direction? I'd like to sell them shares in my idea for a perpetual motion machine."
Richard Gibson, Head of communications, CrossCountry
While tamer than the previous section, this is by no means something you can snort at. The interviewer booked a ticket from St Austell - Macclesfield and was quoted £147.50 8 weeks in advance. When he booked two separate tickets the quoted price was a mere £65, a saving of £80 - a sizable sum during such austere times.
When pressed on why they don't advertise this, RG (Richard Gibson) is reduced to monosyllabic responses and company statements. How can this be tolerated? He even goes so far as to suggest that people do not want to save money - sure, if you're a rich banker or oligarch who has it flowing out their ears!
I am glad I could get that off my chest, I feel like a weight has been lifted off my chest. And to the reader, if you have reached this far, I thank you.
Saturday 14 April 2012
Tuesday 13 March 2012
RCSU Science Challenge
Recently I took part in an essay writing competition, I found out today that I did not win, however I decided to share it to any who are interested in taking the time to read it, it's written in layman's terms so it should be quite easy to follow:
What scientific breakthrough should we focus on to provide sustainable food, energy and water for nine billion people on a planet of apparently finite natural resources, and why?
Science is the backbone of the modern world. Breakthroughs in the gathering of resources have enabled the population of the planet to continue expanding without calamitous collapse as predicted by Malthus in 1798. However, this equilibrium between supply and demand is tenuous and will be even more difficult to maintain with the predicted nine billion humans expected in 2050. One noteworthy breakthrough, in biology, could significantly ease mounting pressure.
This discovery draws from knowledge gleaned in precision genome engineering – improving plants by altering their genetic composition – through breeding and transgenics. In order to successfully do this tools that allow us to make precise changes are deeply needed.
Transcription activator-like effectors (TALEs), are a recent discovery (2009) originating from a plant associated micro-organism, Xanthomonas. TALEs offer to greatly extend our abilities in biology; they are nature’s own tools, not artificial proteins. They can be designed to bind to any specific DNA sequence and therefore can be used to improve any region of a genome, providing a successful approach to repairing faulty DNA inherited from previous generations in any species (2).
TALEs are transcription activators – they turn genes on in a controllable manner. TALEs evolved to function outside of Xanthomonas and inside of plant (or animal) cells. They target to the nucleus, the centre of the cell where the entirety of the DNA is stored. They bind DNA (see Figure 1 below) and then target promoters which activate the transcription or copying of a gene. TALEs can be engineered to transiently or stably activate a system, which makes them dynamic tools that can activate or repress a system, providing a method to control ‘problems’ at a DNA level by improving their genetic configuration.
Figure 1: Tal effectors binding a strand of DNA (2).
If agriculture is to supply the burgeoning population of the world, new crop varieties will have to be bred to supply the increasing demand. Increased demand will undoubtedly occur as both poverty decreases (and thus more people can afford to eat more) and the effects of climate change become more pronounced, decreasing yields.
TALEs can be used to swap damaged or ineffective genes for healthy or functional genes from the same species. Such an approach would likely provoke less controversy because plants produced by such an approach would contain no foreign DNA, they are likely to meet with greater public acceptance.
Addressing sustainable food is a key focal point for the 21st century. It plays the role of a lynchpin in terms of energy production and water use. This is because 70% of water goes to agriculture, more than all other sectors combined and fertilisers consume a third of energy input in crop production (1, 3). If plants requiring less water and less nitrogen fertiliser per yield tonnage were introduced through the use of TALEs, the stress induced by agriculture could be significantly curtailed and free up water for other sectors where it is vitally needed. This means that the environmental impact of our current overconsumption could be mediated in a positive fashion for both man and nature.
Ultimately, breakthroughs in biology will allow for the addition of desirable traits in plants, such as the introduction of successful plant metabolic strategies into current crop plants in order to improve yield and their tolerance toward poor soils. For example traits that increase water efficiency and decrease desiccation for water hungry species would be beneficial in drought wrought regions.
Another benefit: TALEs could be used to address the production of biofuels via synthesis of an alga capable of producing biodiesel in a highly efficient manner. This would fuel the automotive industry and help to wean it off of its addiction to oil and diesel; providing an elegant solution to the current release of CO2 emissions that continue to rise. Furthermore the price of oil fluctuates uncontrollably due to its position in unstable regions of the world. Having the means to produce biodiesel in a tank in one’s own country would provide energy security for many countries from an oil shock.
The patent licensing strategy for TALEs is benevolent; it offers research and application to developing countries for free. For-profit companies operating in countries in the developed world have to pay royalties, however they are much better equipped to pay. The technology is being licensed non-exclusively; the great benefit of this is that large corporations are not able to monopolise the technology and manipulate it to their own will.
The success of the technology is visible already; companies such as Syngenta are licensing the technology for R&D in the search for commercial uses in certain crop plants (2). This is just the beginning; TALEs have the potential to increase production of resources, but they also provide new avenues of treatment in other sectors of biology, such as medicine.
1. http://www.oecd.org/document/55/0,3746,en_2649_37401_44753399_1_1_1_37401,00.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)